Whenever I see a man pushing a stroller or wandering around with a baby in a papoose I wonder if since he does his share of childcare, does his wife mow the lawn? (And before any FRAs start complaining, no I do not have a problem with fathers taking care of their children, I just think the sight of men wandering around carrying babies in papooses looks ridiculous and emasculating.) Feminists, their "pro-feminist" mangina allies, and women in general often whine that men don't do their share of housework, but men do plenty of housework, except that it is outside or if it is inside it involves using strength and/or getting dirty.
Most of the people who I've seen changing tires, fixing cars, mowing lawns, landscaping and exterior decorating, doing fix-it work, cleaning gutters, and painting houses are men. True, this work might not take as much time as women's indoor work, but it is a lot more tiring and in some cases, dangerous. Plus, a lot of women's work is mostly automated. Women don't wash the clothes with a washboard and string them on a clothesline, they just dump them in the washer and dryer and later fold them. Likewise, cooking really isn't very labor intensive for the most part (unless you are preparing ingredients, mixing them, or stirring them), especially since most American women just throw something into the microwave or oven. And in households where the man works and the woman stays at home, he spends 8 hours a day working, so the least she can do is the housework.
To answer my question in the first paragraph, I'm guessing that the wives/girlfriends of men who wander around carrying babies in papooses while their wives work, shop, or visit friends probably don't repay the favor by doing yardwork. The kind of men they are married to are the kind of nice guys that believe that "equality" means women have no responsibilities or are "pro-feminist" manginas who are too meek to stand up to women (because that would be patriarchal and sexist).
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Mass Effect 2
Recently I finished playing Mass Effect 2. It was easily the best computer game I've played. I'll be posting a review sometime in the near future.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Blacks Ruin Everything
"Kansas City Police were busy on Saturday night after massive crowds took over the Plaza. Some people compared the wild scene to rioting in downtown L.A."Whenever large numbers of young blacks gather together, whether it is in South Africa, New Orleans, Congo, Chicago, or Paris, chaos, destruction, and violence are sure to follow due to their low average IQ and different social order. Whether it is a rap "concert," basketball game, track-and-field event, a movie, or just a Saturday night in a shopping district, anything that attracts blacks will attract trouble.
In Kansas City, Missouri, the Country Club Plaza is an upscale outdoor shopping center encompassing a few city blocks. It has a number of restaurants and stores, all of which are relatively pricey and attract large numbers of suburban whites, usually from Johnson County, Kansas. Unfortunately, it is on the northern end of an oasis in a typical urban wasteland. If you go to the west you will find the bar district of Westport (which is relatively safe because it attracts mostly whites), if you go south you will find expensive homes and yuppie neighborhoods. If you go southeast you will find the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Rockhurst University. However, to the north and east are black ghettos.
Due to private security and police, the Plaza had managed to remain relatively safe from black wildings that have plauged so many other locales around the United States. Until now.
On Saturday night, hundreds of Negro "youths" went rampaging like a bachelor herd of wildebeests. Between 500 and 1000 Negroes swarmed the Plaza, damaging property, attacking actual shoppers, harassing motorists by banging on windows and jumping in front of cars, firing off guns or fireworks, breaking store windows, robbing people, seriously injuring at least one person, and fighting amongst themselves. The police had to block of roads and unleash pepper spray on these clowders of chaos. Naturally, the liberal media referred to the Negroes as "youths" without detailing their race, but non-establishment sources revealed that they were black (as most people who read the MSM stories probably suspected).
Many whites in the Kansas City metropolitan area are leary of the Plaza as a result of this and if another wilding occurs, the Plaza will die. It might even die as a result of this one. The fact that it occurred on a prom night when many suburban white kids were eating at the Plaza restaurants will make the damage much worse - many suburban parents will avoid the Plaza and ban their children from going there after this. Suburban whites in general will soon realize that the Plaza is no longer safe and will retreat to their suburban entertainment centers, leaving the Plaza to rot just as Bannister Mall did years ago for the same reason. Naturally, Negro leaders will whine about how racist whites are because they don't want to share the Plaza with blacks, just as they did when Bannister Mall failed. Of course, if the Plaza was saved by allowing the police and security to kick out miscreants or prevent them from entering, the Negroes would object to that as racist, too.
Segregation is reviled by most people today, but was segregation really bad compared to the black kleptocracy that we have now? The fact is, segregation existed (and not only in the South) prior to the 1960s because whites understood the fact that crime, chaos, and violence follow blacks. A wilding like this would never have happened in Kansas City in the 1960s and before - during the MLK riots, for example, suburban police blocked off entrances to the suburbs and prevented blacks from entering. Back then it was understood who the troublemakers were and how to stop them.
Businesses should be allowed to ban Negro youths and the police should not be restrained from blocking them from entering white areas to prevent wildings like this from occurring. Some may say that this would be a "police state" and no one can suggest this and still call himself a libertarian. The problem is, libertarianism works if there is a population of people who respect others' rights to life, liberty, and property. Blacks, however, do not. Libertarianism will not work in places with large black populations where the "youths" spend their time ruining everyone else's lives.
(Heh. I bet this post will cause me to be delinked from a few blogs. Also, if anyone objects to me using the word "Negro" in this post, go complain to the United Negro College Fund while you're at it.)
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tea Partiers and the Half of Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes
At Feministe, Jill Filipovic remarks on the fact that nearly half of US households pay no federal income tax, as if taxes really aren't that bad because many people don't even pay them and so maybe "anti-tax conservatives" and Tea Partiers should just shut up and go home.
The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.
Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).
Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.
It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.
The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.
Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).
Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.
It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Women March Topless in Maine & Get Mad When Men Watch Them
A few days ago, in Portland, Maine, two dozen women decided to protest the double standard in America regarding male vs. female toplessness by marching topless along a main street. Predictably, this rather unusual attracted the attention of many men, many of whom took pictures of this public event. The Portland Press Herald provides a picture, although it is a rear view. Judging from their pale skin, short and ragged hair, chunky physiques, and the Mirror of Venus painted on the back of one of them, it's safe to say that they were probably feminists and hipster girls, which makes me wonder why so many men were taking pictures in the first place.
Generally, women who go around topless protesting the toplessness double standard tend to be feminists and lesbians, usually ugly ones. Maybe they would have better luck fighting the double standard if they brought good-looking non-man-hating women to their protests, like PETA does. Until then, toplessness in America will be associated with fat, ugly feminists, lesbians, and goddess-worshipers and the double standard will not vanish because men will associate publicly bare breasts with the flabby one of such women.
The funniest part of this story is the fact that the marchers were mad that they attracted a crowd:
Societal attitudes are not going to be changed by a single march. This is probably the first time nearly two dozen women walked topless through this city - it was an abnormal event. If a jester walked along the sidewalk with a dancing bear, it probably would probably attract a photographing crowd, too (or maybe everyone would have ran away in fear). Even if the double standard is eroded, do they really think no one would notice a bunch of women walking topless along a street? In Europe, it is common for women to go topless on beaches, but if twenty women marched topless along a main street in Barcelona or Bucharest, would the men really ignore them?
"However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."
Note the typical feminist/liberal response. If you don't like what someone is using, shut them down somehow. It worked on Tom Tancredo, Ann Coulter, American Rennaisance, et al. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian conservatives who were upset by this legal (in Maine female public toplessness is not a crime) protest, yet they didn't attempt to interfere.
How exactly is she going to discourage oglers? They are in a public place, so the oglers have as much right to be there as the marchers do. A lot of these oglers were probably men who had legitimate business shopping, eating, or working downtown; they weren't protesters trying to stir up trouble. The "aggressive" part suggests that she intends to use force to stop the oglers, which will result in them getting arrested (and probably praised on feminist blogs). There are instances in which getting arrested at protests is beneficial to the protesters, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for a bunch of topless fat, ugly feminists and lesbians who attack men who watch them as they walk around half-naked in public. If they get "aggressive," it will probably just backfire on them.
Also, if the whole point is to draw attention to the double standard, it is pointless to discourage people from watching their protest. Generally, people who march around expressing their point of view want people to notice them.
However, I admit that I am also enraged that men were ogling the marchers. Really, what kind of man enjoys watching a bunch of fat feminists and man-hating lesbians walking around exposing their flabby breasts? There must be a lot of weird fetishists in Maine...
Generally, women who go around topless protesting the toplessness double standard tend to be feminists and lesbians, usually ugly ones. Maybe they would have better luck fighting the double standard if they brought good-looking non-man-hating women to their protests, like PETA does. Until then, toplessness in America will be associated with fat, ugly feminists, lesbians, and goddess-worshipers and the double standard will not vanish because men will associate publicly bare breasts with the flabby one of such women.
The funniest part of this story is the fact that the marchers were mad that they attracted a crowd:
"Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on."
Societal attitudes are not going to be changed by a single march. This is probably the first time nearly two dozen women walked topless through this city - it was an abnormal event. If a jester walked along the sidewalk with a dancing bear, it probably would probably attract a photographing crowd, too (or maybe everyone would have ran away in fear). Even if the double standard is eroded, do they really think no one would notice a bunch of women walking topless along a street? In Europe, it is common for women to go topless on beaches, but if twenty women marched topless along a main street in Barcelona or Bucharest, would the men really ignore them?
"However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."
Note the typical feminist/liberal response. If you don't like what someone is using, shut them down somehow. It worked on Tom Tancredo, Ann Coulter, American Rennaisance, et al. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian conservatives who were upset by this legal (in Maine female public toplessness is not a crime) protest, yet they didn't attempt to interfere.
How exactly is she going to discourage oglers? They are in a public place, so the oglers have as much right to be there as the marchers do. A lot of these oglers were probably men who had legitimate business shopping, eating, or working downtown; they weren't protesters trying to stir up trouble. The "aggressive" part suggests that she intends to use force to stop the oglers, which will result in them getting arrested (and probably praised on feminist blogs). There are instances in which getting arrested at protests is beneficial to the protesters, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for a bunch of topless fat, ugly feminists and lesbians who attack men who watch them as they walk around half-naked in public. If they get "aggressive," it will probably just backfire on them.
Also, if the whole point is to draw attention to the double standard, it is pointless to discourage people from watching their protest. Generally, people who march around expressing their point of view want people to notice them.
However, I admit that I am also enraged that men were ogling the marchers. Really, what kind of man enjoys watching a bunch of fat feminists and man-hating lesbians walking around exposing their flabby breasts? There must be a lot of weird fetishists in Maine...
Friday, April 2, 2010
RapeLay and Ignorant Video Game Bashers
Feminists and the Old Media have rediscovered RapeLay, the Japanese rape simulation game that video game bashers love to use to attack gaming.
Before I discuss that, I wanted to mention an ignorant video game bashing (and male-bashing) article from the Times-Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, which I found via GiantBomb. I am posting the article in its entirety due to the fact that online newspaper articles, especially those from papers with relatively low circulation, have a tendency to link rot.
The article reeks of the chivalrous male-bashing common among conservative nice guy manginas. He writes about how we need to teach boys to respect women and girls, etc., etc. Of course, no mention is made of teaching girls to respect boys and men. I am used to reading that kind of drivel so to me that was not the dumbest part. This was:
It's obvious that this man has never played or even researched much about the GTA series. He's just a lemming who read an article in the newspaper or saw a report on Fox News telling about how players in GTA can commit violence against women.
The truth is, GTA has less violence against women than most modern games. True, you can have sex with prostitutes, then kill them and take the money, but this is not part of the main storyline. Pretty much all of the enemies you fight and kill in GTA, including both police and criminals are male (which is odd considering women make up like 20% of most big city police departments), unlike in many games where there are many female enemies. So I wonder why Tim Moothart didn't say that GTA disrespected men?
Via Feministing, I found a story from CNN regarding a video game called RapeLay. First off, RapeLay has been out for four years and RapeLay has been known among gamers and the Internet subculture for a few years. It is pathetic that CNN is only catching on now. The Old Media is utterly useless when it comes to Internet-related news.
Anyways, the whole point of RapeLay is to rape women. It seems sick, right? But when you think about it, there are a lot of sicker games out there. In first-person shooters you slaughter hundreds of people, including unarmed civilians in some cases, to complete the game. In games where there is some sort of morality system present, such as alignment in Dungeons and Dragons-based games and the Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect, the player can do horrible things to people. In Mass Effect 2, you can beat information out of a prisoner (there's actually a few parts of the game that involve beating information out of people) and execute unarmed civilians and surrendered enemies if you go for the Renegade path. In Bioshock, you can kill little girls if you play as an evil character. True, you aren't required to do evil acts like you are in RapeLay, but the potential is still there and a lot of players do so.
Predictably feminists are outraged over it. I agree that stores should probably not be selling it, but their public outrage is only going to cause it to spread even further. It is something known as the Streisand effect - things that people try to censor on the Internet end up getting spread around more than they would have if they were just left alone. Indeed, CNN shockingly notes that the game went viral as a result of the feminists' protests and people can download it through tubes of the Internets. Who would've thought?
Of course, a bunch of feminist activists and Old Media reporters - or do I repeat myself? - wouldn't know anything about the Streisand effect or Internet culture in general. Which is probably a good thing. If they dug deeper into Internet culture, they would undoubtedly be horrified by what they would find, and we would get even more articles like this.
Predictably, feminists have a solution and it involves government regulation. For the article, CNN "interviewed" Taina Bien-Aime from Equality Now, one of the people who helped get the game removed from the shelves last year. Bien-Aime wants Japan "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls." The fact is, as distasteful as games like RapeLay are, they do not hurt anyone. 0s and 1s are being "raped," not real women. Also, if governments can ban RapeLay, they will probably try to ban violent games and games with politically incorrect content later on. Yes, that involves a slippery slope, but when discussing government regulations the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is generally a legitimate concern.
Perhaps Taina Bien-Aime and her Equality Now should put more effort into fighting real, tangible oppression towards women, instead of calling for governments to censor video games they don't like in First World countries where women are very well off.
Before I discuss that, I wanted to mention an ignorant video game bashing (and male-bashing) article from the Times-Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, which I found via GiantBomb. I am posting the article in its entirety due to the fact that online newspaper articles, especially those from papers with relatively low circulation, have a tendency to link rot.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Change 'culture of violence'
Teach boys that abusing women and degrading others will not be tolerated.
BY TIM MOOTHART
You and I began life as a being without a propensity to harm others. All of us, yes even the mass murderer on death row, began life as a child who would never think of harming another human being.
However:
* Some 18 percent of women in the United States have been victims of a completed or attempted rape.
* Riverview Center in Dubuque served 1,100 children and adults this year related to violence.
Who is performing this violence?
* Some 64 percent of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date.
* Typical perpetrators are not aliens or misfits. They are your neighbors, your relatives, your co-workers.
What happened?
Jackson Katz, noted expert on gender violence, says, "Most men who assault women are not so much disturbed as disturbingly normal ... they are influenced by broad cultural beliefs about manhood that shape their psyches and identities. And ours. They not only learn to be violent, they learn that violence is manly."
Yes, all of us together have created a "culture of violence" and live with its logical outcome, a society racked with pain and suffering inflicted upon each other by acts of violence. Violence is a learned behavior and all of us have been its teachers.
What can we do?
Like any skill or learned trait, we can learn to approach gender violence from a different perspective. We can all be teachers of a new approach.
First, it requires all of us to believe that WE have the responsibility to change our culture. It's not just the perpetrators or "them" that have to change, it's all of us.
Next, reject the idea that violence is inevitable and that some men abuse women. Hold yourself to a higher standard. Boys learn how to be men from observing other men. In Dubuque, let's make sure they observe that degrading women and abusing others is not part of manhood and will not be tolerated.
Take a look inside yourself. Men, do you believe that men should be in control in a relationship? Do you act as if males are "the stronger gender"? Do you treat and talk about others as if they were objects rather than fellow humans?
Show our children how to respect others even when you disagree with them or they have hurt you in some way.
Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."
Join us as we work to change the culture of our community and our attitude toward gender violence. Help us educate all community members on its negative impact and what ALL of us can do to prevent it by the way we live.
Together we can learn to eliminate gender and domestic violence! What are you teaching?
The article reeks of the chivalrous male-bashing common among conservative nice guy manginas. He writes about how we need to teach boys to respect women and girls, etc., etc. Of course, no mention is made of teaching girls to respect boys and men. I am used to reading that kind of drivel so to me that was not the dumbest part. This was:
Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."
It's obvious that this man has never played or even researched much about the GTA series. He's just a lemming who read an article in the newspaper or saw a report on Fox News telling about how players in GTA can commit violence against women.
The truth is, GTA has less violence against women than most modern games. True, you can have sex with prostitutes, then kill them and take the money, but this is not part of the main storyline. Pretty much all of the enemies you fight and kill in GTA, including both police and criminals are male (which is odd considering women make up like 20% of most big city police departments), unlike in many games where there are many female enemies. So I wonder why Tim Moothart didn't say that GTA disrespected men?
Via Feministing, I found a story from CNN regarding a video game called RapeLay. First off, RapeLay has been out for four years and RapeLay has been known among gamers and the Internet subculture for a few years. It is pathetic that CNN is only catching on now. The Old Media is utterly useless when it comes to Internet-related news.
Anyways, the whole point of RapeLay is to rape women. It seems sick, right? But when you think about it, there are a lot of sicker games out there. In first-person shooters you slaughter hundreds of people, including unarmed civilians in some cases, to complete the game. In games where there is some sort of morality system present, such as alignment in Dungeons and Dragons-based games and the Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect, the player can do horrible things to people. In Mass Effect 2, you can beat information out of a prisoner (there's actually a few parts of the game that involve beating information out of people) and execute unarmed civilians and surrendered enemies if you go for the Renegade path. In Bioshock, you can kill little girls if you play as an evil character. True, you aren't required to do evil acts like you are in RapeLay, but the potential is still there and a lot of players do so.
Predictably feminists are outraged over it. I agree that stores should probably not be selling it, but their public outrage is only going to cause it to spread even further. It is something known as the Streisand effect - things that people try to censor on the Internet end up getting spread around more than they would have if they were just left alone. Indeed, CNN shockingly notes that the game went viral as a result of the feminists' protests and people can download it through tubes of the Internets. Who would've thought?
Of course, a bunch of feminist activists and Old Media reporters - or do I repeat myself? - wouldn't know anything about the Streisand effect or Internet culture in general. Which is probably a good thing. If they dug deeper into Internet culture, they would undoubtedly be horrified by what they would find, and we would get even more articles like this.
Predictably, feminists have a solution and it involves government regulation. For the article, CNN "interviewed" Taina Bien-Aime from Equality Now, one of the people who helped get the game removed from the shelves last year. Bien-Aime wants Japan "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls." The fact is, as distasteful as games like RapeLay are, they do not hurt anyone. 0s and 1s are being "raped," not real women. Also, if governments can ban RapeLay, they will probably try to ban violent games and games with politically incorrect content later on. Yes, that involves a slippery slope, but when discussing government regulations the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is generally a legitimate concern.
Perhaps Taina Bien-Aime and her Equality Now should put more effort into fighting real, tangible oppression towards women, instead of calling for governments to censor video games they don't like in First World countries where women are very well off.
Guam Might Tip Over into the Ocean
According to Hank Johnson, a black congressman from Georgia, this might happen if the military stations more Marines on the small US island. Fortunately, the admiral he is questioning does "not anticipate that."
It's sickening that people this stupid regulate everything about Americans' lives - from our healthcare down to the lightbulbs we use. At least in Plato's Republic they were ruled by philosopher kings.
It's sickening that people this stupid regulate everything about Americans' lives - from our healthcare down to the lightbulbs we use. At least in Plato's Republic they were ruled by philosopher kings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)