It's too easy to forget (for some people) but the second most lethal terrorist action on American soil was carried out by an Army-trained white dude with a grudge against the government and a hatred of liberals. A "super patriot," if you will. A "super-patriot" who bombed a preschool.
What is beyond scary is how we seem to have bottomless troughs of lucre to spend on waging a war that I still have yet to hear someone articulate an express and achievable goal for, yet the issue of funding the Secret Service is coming under scrutiny for possible cuts to be made in light of the budget crisis brought on by the federal bailout of Wall Street, the war in Iraq, etc.
Call me crazy here but if I am president, much less the first black president to be elected, any legislation that crosses my desk that even hints of cutting the Secret Service and all it provides gets bounced out of hand. Anything short of that is insanity defined.
@Ogiri W Surie: I think Rahm's preferred weapon is a steak knife, but that might not even be necessary after he finishes breaking their soul armed only with his vocabulary.
Inflammatory comments from right-wing commentators (in all media) don't help much. I'm constantly shocked at the level of extreme hatred and vitriol expressed by the tea bag crowd. Some of their damn signs make me cringe.
@tongue-tied: You know what really doesn't help? That democrats pretend the Constitution doesn't exist. Maybe if they respected the limitations on federal power that our founders put there, instead of pretending they know best, people wouldn't be so furious with them.
But no, you're right. Freedom of expression is the real culprit here.
@Han Valen: In what way do Democrats pretend the Constitution doesn't exist? In the same way the Bush administration pretended it didn't exist when it authorized warrantless wiretaps against citizens? A lot of the mess that's getting fixed by TARP, bailouts, etc. was caused by a complete lack of oversight/enforcement/monitoring of the private sector's greed by the Republicans, you know.
@Han Valen: When you come out of that fugue state you seem so bound to occupy, go back and familiarize yourself with the years 2000-2008, Asshat.
By any standard your jaundiced eye can perceive, Bush, Cheney, et. al., wiped their collective asses with the Constitution, but somehow that escapes you, doesn't it? You don't get to use phrases like "respect the limitations on federal power that our founders put there" because you don't have the faintest idea of what that phrase denotes. That is, until you can grasp the concept of phrases like "separation of church and state," and "checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government."
Take any one issue, like the way that the Bush administration circumvented the FISA courts to justify illegal domestic wiretapping of American citizens, and then declared blanket amnesty for all the multi-national phone companies that were complicit in this travesty of what is supposed to be justice. Or the suspension of habeas corpus, or Guantanamo, or rendition, or the increased use of Predator drones to carry out de facto assassination with ever-decreasing means of oversight...
No, on second thought, don't do any of that. Go back to your bucket of pork rinds, your flat screen TV tuned exclusively to Fox News, and that doormat of the Constitution that you've had made that sits outside your front door with a convenience that borders on the sublime.
Being furious with the Democrats for the bucket of steaming fuck that characterizes our current plight is like being irate with the Iraqis for their contribution to 9/11.
That metallic taste in the back of your mouth? That isn't backwash from that last beer you sucked down, Richard--it's irony.
@ubetterwork: Hmmm... how about extreme federal taxes and spending? How about the entire concept of national healthcare? How about surrendering our sovereignty and granting international bodies the right to directly tax us without any representation through the sham of 'climate change'? How about social and corporate welfare programs that put the federal government directly in control of an unprecedented percentage of our GDP? All of this (for starters) is directly opposed to our Constitution. And the sticky part is that every member of congress and the president swore an oath to uphold the constitution... so when they push through things that deliberately dismantle its core principles, they are in fact considered traitors by a great many people. Hence people with guns wanting to kill them. Cause/effect. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying that's why.
Now as for Bush... without directly defending anything that he did, I will just say that it is much easier to swallow alleged constitutional transgressions when in the name of effective national security during a time of war than a perpetual and permanent limitation on individual freedoms in the name of a socialist power-grab. For most people anyway... particularly the ones with guns. And if history has taught us anything, those are the ones who usually matter most in the end.
@Han Valen: None of those things are prohibited by the Constitution. I don't even think they had invented GDP yet, and surely I don't think the founders were worried about actions taken against climate change. Though if you're going to make the "nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government gets to have national healthcare, therefore we are prohibited from doing it" argument, then that means we've got to get rid of the Air Force, among other things.
@msquared: Its about sovereignty, limitation of powers and taxation without representation. Three things that the founders were extraordinarily concerned with. In fact, if you know your history (clearly you don't) those were pretty much the REASONS for our revolution in the first place.
Our constitution is simple and short for a reason; the founders KNEW that they wouldn't be able to predict every new innovation or form of tyranny that men would develop in the future, so they set up a very basic but very strict framework on how to limit and separate powers. The air force is an arm of national defense, which the constitution clearly provides powers to the federal government. Climate change treaties that allow UN bodies to tax and fine private American individuals and businesses without having to answer directly to them is called TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION and was pretty high on the list of things the founders were against. I hope this lesson was helpful.
@Han Valen: So I assume you've joined the fight for D.C. statehood that so many Republicans have opposed? I mean, you have over half a million people getting taxed without representation by our own government, not even some UN body. You must get really steamed about it.
@Cicada: Yup. They should be a state or they should not be taxed. Period.
What republicans opposed was that D.C. was not seeking statehood -- they were seeking some quick and easy cake-and-eat-it-too third way that didn't make any sense.
But if you are not directly electing those who tax you, you should not be taxed.
@Han Valen: "And the sticky part is that every member of congress and the president swore an oath to uphold the constitution... so when they push through things that deliberately dismantle its core principles, they are in fact considered traitors by a great many people. Hence people with guns wanting to kill them. Cause/effect. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying that's why."
Here's just one of many problems with what you're saying: you're drawing a direct line from politicians' alleged failure to "defend the Constitution" - your analysis of which I don't agree - and saying that gives the populace a logical reason to want to kill politicians. NO. It gives them a right to vote them out of office and elect others. It is precisely this notion that any - any - kind of logical line can be drawn between political choices and violent thought or action that scares the bejeezus out of rational Americans like myself. You legitimize the whackjobs - and sound like one yourself - when you say that elected officials' "deliberately dismantl[ing] core" principles of the Constitution "make people with guns want to kill them." How about just calling a spade a spade and saying these people are deranged, perhaps racist, perhaps uneducated, perhaps otherwise mentally ill people who should be stopped from the UNPATRIOTIC act of wanting to assassinate a president? Even in my deepest days of despair over the Bush/Cheney years, I never, ever, ever wanted any harm to come to them - I just wanted them to get out of office and be replaced by someone I thought was better.
@Han Valen: Really? I'm pretty sure what Republicans opposed was another congressional vote for a largely Democratic electorate. They seemed more than happy to compromise by adding a vote for Utah. Then some dippity-do from Nevada tacked on a controversial amendment about D.C. handgun laws and the thing got scuttled.
No principles there, just politics.
Also, I should point out that the main argument against D.C. statehood is a Constitutional one. So it seems your more than willing to disregard the Constitution when it suits you (see the myriad of abuses under Bush). But you're willing to argue that violence (or threats of violence) against the president is justifiable because the "Democrats disregard the Constitution".
"how about extreme federal taxes and spending? How about the entire concept of national healthcare? How about surrendering our sovereignty and granting international bodies the right to directly tax us without any representation through the sham of 'climate change'? How about social and corporate welfare programs that put the federal government directly in control of an unprecedented percentage of our GDP? All of this (for starters) is directly opposed to our Constitution. "
It's OK everyone. No need to feed him anymore. He clearly has no clue what the constitution actually says. (Or what Obama's policies are for that matter.)
@Han Valen: I have no idea what you're talking about. When GW was in office, the federal gov't, in the person of his advisors and attorneys general, expanded the power of the executive continuously for the duration of his reign. Your statement is nonsense on the face of it.
@Gidim: He also knows fuckall about his own precious subject matter. Or even that his own fucking taxes have gone down since Obama was sworn in while no one's taxes have actually gone up. He also doesn't, apparently, know about the largest expansion of Federal entitlement programs in US history, the Medicare Part D legislation that was pushed by Bush through a Republican congress in 2003. In fact, everything this dumbshit writes is a proclamation of his ignorance.
Do the loons that threaten Obama have the basic capability of thinking ahead to realize that if they were to succeed, then Joe Biden becomes president?
President Biden would then be the second coming of LBJ & would get passed all the laws that Obama has been incapable of getting passed, like healthcare reform.
These guys are scary, but really, really stupid. George W. Bush stupid!
@Greasy Thumb Guzik: Not to mention that Biden is far, far to the left of Obama. Despite their calling Obama a socialist, he's a centrist compared to Biden.
@Claire Buoyant: How much do you think it's killing these progeny of slaveowners to recognize that not only weren't Obama's ancestors slaves of their forebears, he doesn't have a slave name, either. Plus, he's a shining argument in favor of miscegenation.
Interestingly enough, Rahm Emmanuel is the one Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano—whose agency has overseen the Secret Service since it was taken over from the Department of Treasury in 2003—with everything accumulated by their Internet Threat Desk.
This is precisely the kind of sentence that the crazies write!
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: Is the one that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano does what with everything accumulated by their Internet Threat Desk? Does she beat him with with everything accumulated by their Internet Threat Desk? Does she erotically stimulate him with everything accumulated by their Internet Threat Desk?
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: I had to take a snack break after wading through that sentence.
I've commented previously on the most disturbing aspect of this situation - the light jail time, if any at all, that's being given to these people. (See the Denver "incident." )And my own paranoid - or not - thoughts about why that is.
So I didn't read it - I hope that Brek guy didn't get his job back. (What a cliche - the impotent-feeling man getting puffed up on his guns and the false power of his security gig.)
America: Full of the Crazy (and their enablers). And the beloved 2nd Amendment.
@NorthernLite: Actually, equally if not more disturbing are the Secret Service deficiencies revealed in Ron Kessler's recent book, including underfunding, inadequate armaments, understaffing, big turnover, training cutbacks, inadequate screening of the audiences at campaign events, and management that airily dismisses all of these issues.
@The Curse of Millhaven: They've done a stellar job. The sentence is so poorly structured, no one would ever believe that it had at some point been worse.
People need to wake the heck up. Nuclear power plants were built in the 70s, so they're pushing 40 years old and require a heck of a lot of maintenance (ever own a 40 year old car? Or a 40 year old water heater?). Plus, they're private commercial operations. Sure, they may be subject to some government regulation, but they're basically in the business to make money. Companies put the least amount of money into the plants as possible because they're not in the business of keeping everyone safe--they're in the business of making a profit. Politicians who say nuclear power is our green future need to first figure out who is going to fund the upkeep, cause right now it's in the hands of "the free market," and the same way there was a meltdown on Wall Street, there's going to be a melt down at our country's aging nuclear power plants.
@misslinda: But the other thing people need to realize is that modern breeder reactor technology, especially using thorium as the primary fuel source, is almost totally different from an ancient reactor like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Reactors like those are simply not made anymore for anything.
In fact, a thorium reactor is incapable of melting down, produces a tiny amount of waste, and actually eats other nuclear waste because it needs a small quantity of uranium to kickstart the thorium reaction. This is working technology in Russia right now and the only reason we don't have it here is that stories like this scare people into fearing all nuclear power. Meanwhile, coal plants spew out significant amounts of radioactivity every single day. Yes, coal is slightly radioactive and when you burn it, all that radioactive material goes up into the atmosphere, carried by the smoke.
I used to be totally against nuclear power because of scary events like these, and they are scary, but then I learned about modern, safe nuclear power and I have definitely changed my tune.
@Unsolicited Advice: At one point in medical history it was thought that leeches could clean the blood.
I think pointing out that 1970's technology is dangerous is a great PSA.
But, hey, it's not like we should care about all those toxins released into Hudson many years ago either?
It's not like radiation has a half life that will outlive our kids, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, great great great grandchildren, great great great great grandchildren - ad nauseum for thousand of years - so why worry at this point?
It's not like cancer is caused by radiation - only cigarettes. I know this because our leaders who care about the next 10,000 years of human life have told me so.
@Arken: Although there are a few things I greatly disagree with this guy on, this former GreenPeace founder gives an ok argument for modern nuclear powerplants.
An ill maintained and corroded oil pipeline burst at the Conoco Phillips’ Kuparuk oil field in Alaska, causing one of the largest spills of oil-laced water on the North Slope in US history.
Dumping nearly 95,000 gallons didn’t hamper production though, and things were business as usual as workers finally finished cleaning up the spill that occurred almost three weeks earlier.
This is the second incident of its kind, and you may remember the BP spill of 2006 where 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilled onto the Prudhoe Bay oil field. That spill was also caused by corrosion.
America’s oil infrastructure is dated. Lets repair what needs to be repaired, but instead of overhauling the system, let move on towards a renewable fuel source. I welcome the day when we don’t have to worry about an algae biofuel spill.
@Arken: But nobody's shutting down the old nuclear power plants and putting in the new, safer technology, they just keep running these dinosaurs which spring leaks, rust, and corrode. And even if they did shut them down, where the heck is all the toxic goo gonna go?
On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.
On 21 May 1946, another Los Alamos scientist, Louis Slotin, accidentally irradiated himself during a similar incident, when a critical mass experiment with the very same sphere of plutonium took a wrong turn. Immediately realizing what had happened he quickly disassembled the device, likely saving the lives of seven fellow scientists nearby. Slotin succumbed to radiation poisoning nine days later.
On 30 December 1958, a Los Alamos chemical operator named Cecil Kelley working on plutonium purification switched on a stirrer on a large mixing tank, which created a vortex in the tank. The plutonium, dissolved in an organic solvent, flowed into the vortex. Due to a measurement error, the mixture contained 3.27 kg of plutonium, which reached criticality for about 200 microseconds. Kelley received 3,600 rads according to later estimates. The other operators reported seeing a flash of light and found Kelley outside, saying "I'm burning up! I'm burning up!" He died 35 hours later.
The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power plant which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators. The direct cause was the improper withdrawal of the main control rod, responsible for 80% of neutron moderation in the poorly designed reactor core. The event is the only fatal reactor accident in the United States.
@OliversArmy: Sorry but experimental power plant doesn't count for me, especially one from almost 50 years ago. We have plenty of nuclear power plants in operation in this country right now and there hasn't been a single death attributed to any of them. A previous job required me to visit two nuke plants in Florida regularly, and aside from a glowing penis, I have seen absolutely no effects.
@fuckingoldman: Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of a screamingly funny joke? It is why conservative comedy shows are never funny, the facts are never on their side.
I've got a good one for you...did you know that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than there are people who still find Chappaquiddick jokes funny or original.
@BaconCat: See my comment at 9:21am. There are a lot of working nuke power plants in the US. Experimental doesn't count, by definition nobody knows what's going to happen, that's why they're experimental.
12/07/09
12/06/09
Call me crazy here but if I am president, much less the first black president to be elected, any legislation that crosses my desk that even hints of cutting the Secret Service and all it provides gets bounced out of hand. Anything short of that is insanity defined.
12/06/09
I take lots and lots of comfort in this.
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
But no, you're right. Freedom of expression is the real culprit here.
12/06/09
12/06/09
By any standard your jaundiced eye can perceive, Bush, Cheney, et. al., wiped their collective asses with the Constitution, but somehow that escapes you, doesn't it? You don't get to use phrases like "respect the limitations on federal power that our founders put there" because you don't have the faintest idea of what that phrase denotes. That is, until you can grasp the concept of phrases like "separation of church and state," and "checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government."
Take any one issue, like the way that the Bush administration circumvented the FISA courts to justify illegal domestic wiretapping of American citizens, and then declared blanket amnesty for all the multi-national phone companies that were complicit in this travesty of what is supposed to be justice. Or the suspension of habeas corpus, or Guantanamo, or rendition, or the increased use of Predator drones to carry out de facto assassination with ever-decreasing means of oversight...
No, on second thought, don't do any of that. Go back to your bucket of pork rinds, your flat screen TV tuned exclusively to Fox News, and that doormat of the Constitution that you've had made that sits outside your front door with a convenience that borders on the sublime.
Being furious with the Democrats for the bucket of steaming fuck that characterizes our current plight is like being irate with the Iraqis for their contribution to 9/11.
That metallic taste in the back of your mouth? That isn't backwash from that last beer you sucked down, Richard--it's irony.
Enjoy.
12/06/09
Now as for Bush... without directly defending anything that he did, I will just say that it is much easier to swallow alleged constitutional transgressions when in the name of effective national security during a time of war than a perpetual and permanent limitation on individual freedoms in the name of a socialist power-grab. For most people anyway... particularly the ones with guns. And if history has taught us anything, those are the ones who usually matter most in the end.
12/06/09
12/06/09
Our constitution is simple and short for a reason; the founders KNEW that they wouldn't be able to predict every new innovation or form of tyranny that men would develop in the future, so they set up a very basic but very strict framework on how to limit and separate powers. The air force is an arm of national defense, which the constitution clearly provides powers to the federal government. Climate change treaties that allow UN bodies to tax and fine private American individuals and businesses without having to answer directly to them is called TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION and was pretty high on the list of things the founders were against. I hope this lesson was helpful.
12/06/09
12/06/09
What republicans opposed was that D.C. was not seeking statehood -- they were seeking some quick and easy cake-and-eat-it-too third way that didn't make any sense.
But if you are not directly electing those who tax you, you should not be taxed.
12/06/09
Here's just one of many problems with what you're saying: you're drawing a direct line from politicians' alleged failure to "defend the Constitution" - your analysis of which I don't agree - and saying that gives the populace a logical reason to want to kill politicians. NO. It gives them a right to vote them out of office and elect others. It is precisely this notion that any - any - kind of logical line can be drawn between political choices and violent thought or action that scares the bejeezus out of rational Americans like myself. You legitimize the whackjobs - and sound like one yourself - when you say that elected officials' "deliberately dismantl[ing] core" principles of the Constitution "make people with guns want to kill them." How about just calling a spade a spade and saying these people are deranged, perhaps racist, perhaps uneducated, perhaps otherwise mentally ill people who should be stopped from the UNPATRIOTIC act of wanting to assassinate a president? Even in my deepest days of despair over the Bush/Cheney years, I never, ever, ever wanted any harm to come to them - I just wanted them to get out of office and be replaced by someone I thought was better.
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick.
12/06/09
No principles there, just politics.
Also, I should point out that the main argument against D.C. statehood is a Constitutional one. So it seems your more than willing to disregard the Constitution when it suits you (see the myriad of abuses under Bush). But you're willing to argue that violence (or threats of violence) against the president is justifiable because the "Democrats disregard the Constitution".
Whatever.
12/06/09
It's OK everyone. No need to feed him anymore. He clearly has no clue what the constitution actually says. (Or what Obama's policies are for that matter.)
12/07/09
OHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny!
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/06/09
You could re-work it to say: "The Nature of the Death Threats Against President Obama...."
I'm just saying.
12/06/09
President Biden would then be the second coming of LBJ & would get passed all the laws that Obama has been incapable of getting passed, like healthcare reform.
These guys are scary, but really, really stupid. George W. Bush stupid!
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
This is precisely the kind of sentence that the crazies write!
12/06/09
12/06/09
Upon closer inspection, I've realized that your quote is missing a chunk.
12/06/09
12/06/09
I've commented previously on the most disturbing aspect of this situation - the light jail time, if any at all, that's being given to these people. (See the Denver "incident." )And my own paranoid - or not - thoughts about why that is.
So I didn't read it - I hope that Brek guy didn't get his job back. (What a cliche - the impotent-feeling man getting puffed up on his guns and the false power of his security gig.)
America: Full of the Crazy (and their enablers). And the beloved 2nd Amendment.
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/22/09
Also, when is that thing going to be decommissioned? How long are they supposed to last?
11/23/09
TILL THE END OF TIIIME!!
(imagine my voice as being that of a crotchety but adorable hundred something year old scientist.)
11/23/09
#tips
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
In fact, a thorium reactor is incapable of melting down, produces a tiny amount of waste, and actually eats other nuclear waste because it needs a small quantity of uranium to kickstart the thorium reaction. This is working technology in Russia right now and the only reason we don't have it here is that stories like this scare people into fearing all nuclear power. Meanwhile, coal plants spew out significant amounts of radioactivity every single day. Yes, coal is slightly radioactive and when you burn it, all that radioactive material goes up into the atmosphere, carried by the smoke.
I used to be totally against nuclear power because of scary events like these, and they are scary, but then I learned about modern, safe nuclear power and I have definitely changed my tune.
11/22/09
You're really competing in the bad analogy olympics there. Gold.
Here's my end of the wild, wanton speculation: government workers at Three Mile would have killed everyone in PA by now.
11/22/09
I think pointing out that 1970's technology is dangerous is a great PSA.
But, hey, it's not like we should care about all those toxins released into Hudson many years ago either?
It's not like radiation has a half life that will outlive our kids, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, great great great grandchildren, great great great great grandchildren - ad nauseum for thousand of years - so why worry at this point?
It's not like cancer is caused by radiation - only cigarettes. I know this because our leaders who care about the next 10,000 years of human life have told me so.
11/22/09
[www.washingtonpost.com]
11/22/09
11/22/09
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
[images.google.com]
An ill maintained and corroded oil pipeline burst at the Conoco Phillips’ Kuparuk oil field in Alaska, causing one of the largest spills of oil-laced water on the North Slope in US history.
Dumping nearly 95,000 gallons didn’t hamper production though, and things were business as usual as workers finally finished cleaning up the spill that occurred almost three weeks earlier.
This is the second incident of its kind, and you may remember the BP spill of 2006 where 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilled onto the Prudhoe Bay oil field. That spill was also caused by corrosion.
America’s oil infrastructure is dated. Lets repair what needs to be repaired, but instead of overhauling the system, let move on towards a renewable fuel source. I welcome the day when we don’t have to worry about an algae biofuel spill.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/23/09
On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.
On 21 May 1946, another Los Alamos scientist, Louis Slotin, accidentally irradiated himself during a similar incident, when a critical mass experiment with the very same sphere of plutonium took a wrong turn. Immediately realizing what had happened he quickly disassembled the device, likely saving the lives of seven fellow scientists nearby. Slotin succumbed to radiation poisoning nine days later.
On 30 December 1958, a Los Alamos chemical operator named Cecil Kelley working on plutonium purification switched on a stirrer on a large mixing tank, which created a vortex in the tank. The plutonium, dissolved in an organic solvent, flowed into the vortex. Due to a measurement error, the mixture contained 3.27 kg of plutonium, which reached criticality for about 200 microseconds. Kelley received 3,600 rads according to later estimates. The other operators reported seeing a flash of light and found Kelley outside, saying "I'm burning up! I'm burning up!" He died 35 hours later.
Wrong. Idiot.
11/23/09
11/23/09
The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power plant which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators. The direct cause was the improper withdrawal of the main control rod, responsible for 80% of neutron moderation in the poorly designed reactor core. The event is the only fatal reactor accident in the United States.
11/23/09
11/23/09
I've got a good one for you...did you know that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than there are people who still find Chappaquiddick jokes funny or original.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
#damn