So this is what Master Chief does while on R&R....
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Yeah, It's Our Fault Women Don't Cook Anymore
Feminist nuttiness is a deep well indeed.
New York Times food critic Michael Pollan approvingly notes that one of the authors he is reviewing has criticized feminists for the denigrated eating habits that have become the norm across the United States. On the third page:
In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”—everything involved in putting meals on the family table—we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility—sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending—and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”
This, of course, did not sit well with the sisterhood. One particular harpy bares her fangs:
Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?
Yeah, the fall of the family kitchen is the man's fault because he didn't cook. Why, I'm sure that they can magically conjure up food items at will, just like the 50's housewife....
Once more, the feminists destroy something and blame it on men. Fucking retards.
The answer to Ms. Clark's question is that it was the men who busted their asses to provide the food that the wife will make for the family. They are absent because somebody has to shoot the hog, or harvest the crops, or go through the industrial grind, in order to bring home something to prepare in the kitchen. That was their role. It only so happened that one day, they delivered the goods and there was nobody there to recieve them. That is not the man's fault.
While the feminists tricked women into upending the division of labor and going after men's jobs, men are not going to just roll over and give up what they've spent millenia doing. Furthermore, men have not picked up the slack in house chores because, seriously, a man can be quite happy in a pig sty. The feminists may have tricked women into wanting to become men, but the trick doesn't work the other way around.
So, welcome to processed blah eaten in front of the TV, feminists. That is your handiwork.
New York Times food critic Michael Pollan approvingly notes that one of the authors he is reviewing has criticized feminists for the denigrated eating habits that have become the norm across the United States. On the third page:
In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”—everything involved in putting meals on the family table—we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility—sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending—and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”
This, of course, did not sit well with the sisterhood. One particular harpy bares her fangs:
Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?
Yeah, the fall of the family kitchen is the man's fault because he didn't cook. Why, I'm sure that they can magically conjure up food items at will, just like the 50's housewife....
Once more, the feminists destroy something and blame it on men. Fucking retards.
The answer to Ms. Clark's question is that it was the men who busted their asses to provide the food that the wife will make for the family. They are absent because somebody has to shoot the hog, or harvest the crops, or go through the industrial grind, in order to bring home something to prepare in the kitchen. That was their role. It only so happened that one day, they delivered the goods and there was nobody there to recieve them. That is not the man's fault.
While the feminists tricked women into upending the division of labor and going after men's jobs, men are not going to just roll over and give up what they've spent millenia doing. Furthermore, men have not picked up the slack in house chores because, seriously, a man can be quite happy in a pig sty. The feminists may have tricked women into wanting to become men, but the trick doesn't work the other way around.
So, welcome to processed blah eaten in front of the TV, feminists. That is your handiwork.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Aging Like Fine (Boxed) Wine
The older he gets, the more David Wong proves he is the best writer on Cracked's staff.
His latest article on the immaturity of the self-professed gamer is the sort of mature mind candy (and it is still, as with all things Cracked, candy, with dong jokes and all) that no other Cracked writer can come up with without first undergoing a brain aneurism.
This is probably because he is the only guy on the staff with a wife and his own property. Nothing like growing up to make a man an adult.
His latest article on the immaturity of the self-professed gamer is the sort of mature mind candy (and it is still, as with all things Cracked, candy, with dong jokes and all) that no other Cracked writer can come up with without first undergoing a brain aneurism.
This is probably because he is the only guy on the staff with a wife and his own property. Nothing like growing up to make a man an adult.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I Fell Asleep Last Night And Just Woke Up to A "Brave New World"
The phrase "Man playing God" has been used many times before, in a metaphorical capacity.
But now, it is no longer a metaphor.
Man has created "artificial life". We are now, truly, playing with forces we cannot hope to control. We have siezed Promethean fire. Who will now bind us?
I didn't know last night when I fell asleep that I would be waking up to a much, much more dangerous world. We have just sown the seeds of our own destruction.
God help us all.
But now, it is no longer a metaphor.
Man has created "artificial life". We are now, truly, playing with forces we cannot hope to control. We have siezed Promethean fire. Who will now bind us?
I didn't know last night when I fell asleep that I would be waking up to a much, much more dangerous world. We have just sown the seeds of our own destruction.
God help us all.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Diagnosing the West's Generation 50's
In contrast to the screaming harpy in my previous post, here is a woman who defies Eve Ensler's silly progressive typecasting by proving capable of having an intellectual conversation.
Her musings were prompted by an American high school student asking what the American 50's must have been like for women. What follows is a powerful insight into the growing malaise that brought about the radicalism of the decade that followed. Her conclusion was particularly haunting:
The fifties housewife was doomed, as was the “dad who knows best.” The housewife’s life wasn’t really about linoleum floors, casseroles or new toasters and refrigerators. People like to say it was but it wasn’t. Her world was held together by non-materialistic values and once those were thoroughly assaulted, she could not defend it. She could no more explain what she did or why she deferred to men in many areas of life than a prayer or a poem could say, “This is what I am.” When people accused her of materialism or vacuity, of weakness, she did not know what to say to counter the complete falsity of this charge. The sacred was no longer defensible. For that reason – not because of economic and technological change - the things she valued most were about to disappear.
What brought about the beginnings of the radicalized 60's were not extraneous circumstances, but a metaphysical black hole that could not be fulfilled because they had done away with metaphysical things. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the materialistic historian who grounds the very fiber of history on physical circumstance. I personally find this sort of thinking a refreshing breeze.
The way she describes the collapse of the American family reminds me of Tolkien's dying Minas Tirith, where there were more tombs than grand houses, and the children are scarce. I fear that we in this country are at that same stage of history as the US in the 50's. After all, we just elected to the presidency with an astounding mandate a man-child who cannot articulate anything about our common values beyond vague platitudes. This, after all, is a man-child who thinks our families are disposable where economically inconvenient.
With this trajectory in mind, I shudder at our prospects for the next decade.
Her musings were prompted by an American high school student asking what the American 50's must have been like for women. What follows is a powerful insight into the growing malaise that brought about the radicalism of the decade that followed. Her conclusion was particularly haunting:
The fifties housewife was doomed, as was the “dad who knows best.” The housewife’s life wasn’t really about linoleum floors, casseroles or new toasters and refrigerators. People like to say it was but it wasn’t. Her world was held together by non-materialistic values and once those were thoroughly assaulted, she could not defend it. She could no more explain what she did or why she deferred to men in many areas of life than a prayer or a poem could say, “This is what I am.” When people accused her of materialism or vacuity, of weakness, she did not know what to say to counter the complete falsity of this charge. The sacred was no longer defensible. For that reason – not because of economic and technological change - the things she valued most were about to disappear.
What brought about the beginnings of the radicalized 60's were not extraneous circumstances, but a metaphysical black hole that could not be fulfilled because they had done away with metaphysical things. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the materialistic historian who grounds the very fiber of history on physical circumstance. I personally find this sort of thinking a refreshing breeze.
The way she describes the collapse of the American family reminds me of Tolkien's dying Minas Tirith, where there were more tombs than grand houses, and the children are scarce. I fear that we in this country are at that same stage of history as the US in the 50's. After all, we just elected to the presidency with an astounding mandate a man-child who cannot articulate anything about our common values beyond vague platitudes. This, after all, is a man-child who thinks our families are disposable where economically inconvenient.
With this trajectory in mind, I shudder at our prospects for the next decade.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Would It Be Better as "Iron Person"?
A feminist professor on Ms. Magazine, further (unintentionally) proving Eve Ensler's theory that women are not cut out for intellectual work, goes on an estrogen-tinged rampage against the Iron Man franchise.
You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.
Politically incorrect and loving it!
The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:
It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.
Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.
Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.
And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.
Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.
You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.
Politically incorrect and loving it!The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:
It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.
Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.
Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.
And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.
Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Taking a Shot at the Zeitgeist
A Missouri state rep who is a mother to seven children decides to fire a salvo out of nowhere upon a pillar of the prevailing Western Zeitgeist: no-fault divorce.
This woman has balls taking on such a Cyclops: no-fault divorce may prove to be one of the most difficult pacts of cultural suicide to turn back. Harder than abortion even.
Naturally, there has been a massive reaction against the bill. I find the delusion-making funny though. Here's the Missouri Bar Association (pdf warning):
At their meeting on January 21, 2010, the Executive Committee reviewed House Bill 1234,
which changes laws regarding marriage license fees and dissolution of marriage. The Executive Committee found provisions in the bill that reinstate the requirement of a finding of fault in dissolution proceedings and affect judicial administration to be within the legislative scope of The Missouri Bar. Strict "fault divorce" was abandoned in Missouri many years ago because it was found to promote animosity between the parties, have a damaging effect on children of the marriage and increase legal costs of dissolution. The bill's provision requiring court clerks to return the entire filing fee upon withdrawal of a petition for dissolution or legal separation within one year imposes an undue burden on an already financially stressed judicial system. For these reasons, The Missouri Bar opposes House Bill 1234.
I find this absolutely funny because it seems that the Missouri Bar Association lives in the Land of Unicorns, where no-fault divorce results in friendlier divorce parties and absolutely issue-free children.
Personally, I would find increasing the "legal costs of dissolution" to be a wonderful disincentive to leaving your spouse.
This woman has balls taking on such a Cyclops: no-fault divorce may prove to be one of the most difficult pacts of cultural suicide to turn back. Harder than abortion even.
Naturally, there has been a massive reaction against the bill. I find the delusion-making funny though. Here's the Missouri Bar Association (pdf warning):
At their meeting on January 21, 2010, the Executive Committee reviewed House Bill 1234,
which changes laws regarding marriage license fees and dissolution of marriage. The Executive Committee found provisions in the bill that reinstate the requirement of a finding of fault in dissolution proceedings and affect judicial administration to be within the legislative scope of The Missouri Bar. Strict "fault divorce" was abandoned in Missouri many years ago because it was found to promote animosity between the parties, have a damaging effect on children of the marriage and increase legal costs of dissolution. The bill's provision requiring court clerks to return the entire filing fee upon withdrawal of a petition for dissolution or legal separation within one year imposes an undue burden on an already financially stressed judicial system. For these reasons, The Missouri Bar opposes House Bill 1234.
I find this absolutely funny because it seems that the Missouri Bar Association lives in the Land of Unicorns, where no-fault divorce results in friendlier divorce parties and absolutely issue-free children.
Personally, I would find increasing the "legal costs of dissolution" to be a wonderful disincentive to leaving your spouse.
Friday, May 14, 2010
So Much for a "Classy" Aguilera
I once thought that, unlike Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera had matured with marriage and motherhood.
Yeah....
So much for that. The sad part is that when her son is hit by the "I slept with your mama" jokes when he grows up, he'll have good cause to pause and wonder if it isn't, in fact, true. His mom's a slut. Again.
Or at the very least, a very warmed-over 80's Madonna. Blech.
Yeah....
So much for that. The sad part is that when her son is hit by the "I slept with your mama" jokes when he grows up, he'll have good cause to pause and wonder if it isn't, in fact, true. His mom's a slut. Again.
Or at the very least, a very warmed-over 80's Madonna. Blech.
Robin Hood
| Rating: | ★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Action & Adventure |
*spoiler warning*
A good movie always gives the audience an emotion to leave the theater with. However, frustration, anger and ironic mirth are not among the desired ones. Unfortunately, that is all this latest mish mash of the Robin Hood mythos has to offer. Whoever made this boondoggle should fire the research staff, since they were never used as evidenced by the lousy history. Then they should fire the hack writer. After that, they probably should get another director. Or another movie star. Or, hell, just rename this whole stinking turd and repackage it as a movie about a Renaissance Faire. Poorly written, poorly acted and overall, poorly made, this lamb can rise and rise again, but it will never grow a mane and be a lion.
Craftsmanship
Sure, there were some breathtaking shots, but most of them have to do with the subject matter and less with the actual skill of the cinematographer. I would claim that it doesn't take much to make a wide-angle shot of knights in armor riding to battle look dramatic. Awe of the horseman has never left the Western audience.
The whole picture seemed to have been shot with a palette of gray, with the occasional greenish tribute to English hills thrown in for a little variety. Whoever made this movie probably got all of his medieval imagery from Monty Python. I wouldn't be surprised if Blanchett's Marian suddenly pointed out a lovely mound of filth in a corner.
The costumes were standard Renaissance Faire, and making Maid Marian wield a sword sort of highlights the fact that their swords are costume-grade and made of aluminum tinfoil. An authentic broadsword like that would've broken Blanchett's arm if she had tried to swing it around like it were a toy. Best way to allow your audience to suspend disbelief is to not do anything so patently unbelievable by your universe's logic. If Marian had been established as a fembot cyborg, then the Eowyn moment would have been acceptable.
Plot / Story-Telling
As a historian, I am already offended by the blatantly stupid historical pastiche director Ridley Scott attached to this film. In order to satiate his basic instinct for ideological cheap shots (just watch Kingdom of Heaven), he includes an unnecessary and over-long introduction in order to demonize Richard Lionheart and the Third Crusade. Russell Crowe's Robin Longstride*, asked for an honest medieval man's opinion by the Lionheart on the righteousness of his Crusade, unironically delivers the answer of a 21st century liberal hack, complete with Orientalist drivel about the enlightened Muslim.
This massive introductory exposition, which takes up a whole half of a long film (2 hrs 30 mins), does nothing to justify the moving action. If Richard Lionheart was such a heartless asshole, why should I believe that his exchequer managed to raise four years' worth of revenue just to ransom him from the Holy Roman Emperor? And how is King John a worse king than his brother? The massive introduction never fully establishes this, because Scott wanted to demonize Lionheart. On another note, why should I believe that Robin Longstride would fall for such an unwomanly, cold shrew like Blanchett's Marian? Also, how come Marian wants to take back the grain that was freely given to the Church as a tithe offering just because she let the estate's grain get stolen? If you give money to the collection basket, do you storm back and demand a refund from the priest if you get robbed on the way home? This Marian could have stepped onto a bear trap and bled to death, and I wouldn't give a damn about it. This is just poor character development.
Aside from these problem, one gets a sense at the end of the movie that the beginning never really ends in a middle. The movie ends with Oscar Isaac's King John burning the Magna Carta (something that never happened) and denouncing Longstride as an outlaw. This, which should have been the starting point of the film, is placed as the resolution. This renders the entire movie a two and a half hour introduction.
But, one can say that this could be an origin movie. I would retort that even horrible origin movies (Wolverine, for example) have a compact and complete story. Scott's dick move of having King John burn the Magna Carta turned what could have been the ending (and as a bonus, an historical accuracy in a sea of lies) into a prolonging of the absurdly long beginning.
Then, there is character development. I already mentioned the one-dimensional Marian. But almost every character in this movie is a cardboard cutout. A Brechtian production could just put labels on top of each head and the experience would not be altered. King John is a one-note "bad king". King Richard is a one-note "Crusader hypocrite". Godfrey is a one note "bad heavy". Worst of all, Robin Longstride is a one-note "21st century hero medieval stand-in". Anachronism makes for lousy characterization.
Another funny plot moment: where the hell was Godfrey riding to when Longstride hit him with the fatal arrowshot?
Performances
One moment in this film encapsulates the sheer mediocrity of the phoned-in performances for this movie. Crowe's Robin Longstride is preparing to ride away to Dover to meet the French in battle (another bit of historical rape). He looks at Blanchett's Marian, and with a robotic deadpan delivery that would make Keanu Reeves proud, he mumbles "I love you Marian". (Yes, punctuation marks would be a travesty to that delivery.) If young Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher can make "I love you", "I know" into an instant quotable classic, there is simply no excuse for a heavyweight veteran like Crowe. This sort of mediocrity is what you get for two and a half hours. Scott could have saved himself $10 million if he had just gone with Cary Elwes. At least that Robin Hood would have an English accent.
This pedestrian effort ought to tell the movie-going world a lesson: never let Ridley Scott anywhere near anything medieval. He has proven not only incapable of capturing that age and its sentiments on film, but that he also has an utterly debased hatred of anything medieval. In fact, it would be a crime to let Scott attempt to direct historical movies in general. The guy's sense of history, lifted from no later than the last news cycle, interferes with his capacities as a filmmaker and story-teller.
*One more funny observation. Robin Longstride, who never appears in any of the Robin Hood incarnations, is never once called "Robin Hood". The closest is an off-hand remark by some sheriff saying "also known as Robin of the Hood". For a movie called "Robin Hood", you'd think they'd use the name more.
Also, there is no "Longstride" among the Magna Carta's signatories. If ever, "Longstride" seems derivative of the more medieval-sounding "Longshanks" (they mean the same thing), which is the nickname of Braveheart's nemesis King Edward I. So, maybe this can be a prequel to Braveheart?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where Do I Sign the "Fuck Cannes" Petition?
The media is in a self-righteous huff when trying to take down sleazy bishops who move pedophile priests with decade-old cases around.
But when its an entertainment figure like Roman Polanski, Cannes filmmakers circle the wagons to protect him and try to get his case dismissed because it was decades old. Of course, this further proves how useless filmmakers are. At least, even sleazy bishops preside over vast works of charity. And sleazy bishops can be confronted. No, its only these self-important filmmakers who are above moral indignation.
And where is the media in all this? Where the fire-breathing hatchet jobs, the thundering op-eds and the call for boycott of these preening auteurs? If the media were as consistent in their treatment of all who abet child abuse as they were in their Catholic scandal coverage, maybe I'd believe their scandal coverage more. As it stands, they'd try to get a doddery old priest tried and hanged, but these assholes would let Polanski walk in a heartbeat.
But when its an entertainment figure like Roman Polanski, Cannes filmmakers circle the wagons to protect him and try to get his case dismissed because it was decades old. Of course, this further proves how useless filmmakers are. At least, even sleazy bishops preside over vast works of charity. And sleazy bishops can be confronted. No, its only these self-important filmmakers who are above moral indignation.
And where is the media in all this? Where the fire-breathing hatchet jobs, the thundering op-eds and the call for boycott of these preening auteurs? If the media were as consistent in their treatment of all who abet child abuse as they were in their Catholic scandal coverage, maybe I'd believe their scandal coverage more. As it stands, they'd try to get a doddery old priest tried and hanged, but these assholes would let Polanski walk in a heartbeat.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
More Street Fighter
Apparently, the resurrected video game series has been getting a lot of fan love.
Here is Street Fighter: Beginning's End:
And here's Street Fighter Legacy:
Both have surprisingly good production values, especially Legacy. But I think Beginning's End has better fighting.
Overall, quite amazing.
Here is Street Fighter: Beginning's End:
And here's Street Fighter Legacy:
Both have surprisingly good production values, especially Legacy. But I think Beginning's End has better fighting.
Overall, quite amazing.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Psyching Myself Up
For the next six years of misrule by the country's most glorified mama's boy man-child.
We're in for the shitter now.
We're in for the shitter now.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Apparently, There is a Saint Ahmed
Saint Ahmed the Calligrapher of the Eastern Orthodox Church...
There are just some names you don't expect to see attached to the title "Saint"...mainly names from a non-Christian culture.
Saint Ahmed was probably as unexpected as someone who'd be Saint Mohammed, or Saint Vishramani, or, Saint Gaga.
If there are ever aliens out there, I'm waiting for St. Kal El. (And no, I do not mean Nicolas Cage's son.)
There are just some names you don't expect to see attached to the title "Saint"...mainly names from a non-Christian culture.
Saint Ahmed was probably as unexpected as someone who'd be Saint Mohammed, or Saint Vishramani, or, Saint Gaga.
If there are ever aliens out there, I'm waiting for St. Kal El. (And no, I do not mean Nicolas Cage's son.)
Saturday, May 8, 2010
An Example of Stupid Political Correctness
Some American publisher decided to slap this warning / disclaimer label:
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
On a reprint copy of the United States Constitution.
Yeah, let's not discuss these ideas as ideas, but rather as a quaint manifestation of more backward times.
No wonder recent American presidents think the US Constitution is more of a suggestion than anything else.
I think that when Green Day decided to sing about the "American Idiot", they didn't realize who the real American idiots were. The rednecks aren't the problem. It's the elitists who fancy themselves book-read who are. After all, no redneck would dare do something as monumentally stupid as slapping a chronologically snobbish warning label on the US Constitution.
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
On a reprint copy of the United States Constitution.
Yeah, let's not discuss these ideas as ideas, but rather as a quaint manifestation of more backward times.
No wonder recent American presidents think the US Constitution is more of a suggestion than anything else.
I think that when Green Day decided to sing about the "American Idiot", they didn't realize who the real American idiots were. The rednecks aren't the problem. It's the elitists who fancy themselves book-read who are. After all, no redneck would dare do something as monumentally stupid as slapping a chronologically snobbish warning label on the US Constitution.
Dumb Politicians
Yesterday, I spent ten minutes inside a hot tricycle waiting for a politician's motorcade of paid supporters to pass by. I don't know where this Anthony Suva got his education, but I do hope somebody somewhere taught him to never piss his potential voters off two days before an election. After all, that gaggle of kool-Aid drinkers he paid to cheer him off won't carry the election for him.
Moron.
Moron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)