Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats Are Killing the Ants!

The latest criticism from Republicans is that Democrats are killing ants. By ants they mean the huge banks that lost the money of ordinary Americans in casino gambling that brought about the current big depression; the same huge banks that ordinary Americans bailed out.

Rep. John Boehner, the Minority Leader in the House, commenting on the Financial Reform Bill coming out of conference, said:

This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.

Straigtforward Republican ideology. Huge banks are nothing to worry about. They did not cause many of us to lose our homes and many of us to lose our jobs and many of us to lose our businesses. No, huge financial institutions are just like ant hills - no, only one ant. What can a tiny ant do to hurt you? Leave the poor thing alone.

Democrats are awful. They want to kill an almost invisible ant. And with a nuclear weapon, no less! Here are just a few things Democrats threw in to power this nuclear weapon: A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect the consumer from financial fraud, regulations on derivatives and other sophisticated "instruments" to control gambling and an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank so the people know what it did during the crisis. There's lots more like this - all to kill one ant.

Boehner's office explained that he really did not mean what he said. Of course, he meant it. The Republican old standby is laissez faire: leave the free market alone. The magic of capitalism will take care of everything. This is what Reagan preached and this is what Republicans have considered fundamental. President George W. Bush took this laissez faire attitude to ridiculous extremes. He populated regulatory agencies with people who were violently against regulation. The result is the economic mess we see all around us.

The market can do many things but it cannot regulate itself. We need an outside force, the government, to do the regulation.

Democrats are not killing an ant but a predatory monster that is devouring the rest of our economy. The financial structure is making a few people billionaires and and a lot of people paupers. It's not only destroying our economy but our democracy. The Financial Reform Bill is what's needed to heal the market.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 30, 2010 2:36 PM
Comments
Comment #302883

Boehner is an idiot. The Stock Market is the best test of how well the Banks are doing and how well they think they will be doing over the next 6 months. Guess What? The Banking sector is one of the few which are holding up extremely well while the rest of the markets have been sliding on the EU fluctuations regarding Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Investors don’t seem to think the Big Banks are going to be in trouble as a result of this bill. In fact, this bill doesn’t go NEAR FAR ENOUGH, in that it almost entirely ignores the threat of Too Big To Fail. Nope, the markets tell the tale.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 30, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #302888

I just have to wonder at all the things the Republicans have said over the past few years, months and weeks that they didn’t mean.

I remember this moment from Jim Carrey’s 1995 comedy Dumb and Dumber where he seems to be about to tell the female lead how much he loves her and instead blurts out “I desperately want to make love to a school boy!”

Of course, he had to clarify he didn’t mean it like that.

The politicians in the GOP are seeming to have a lot of moments lately. Unfortunately, they don’t have Lloyd Christmas’s excuse: absolute stupidity. These seem to be inartfully timed statements of things they actually mean. I don’t think Joe Barton was lying when he apologized to BP. I don’t think Boehner is lying here when he actually says that the problem that nearly obliterated our economy entirely is just an ant. I think these people have gotten poldered off into their own reality, where statements like this don’t seem controversial.

Or maybe…

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2010 5:16 PM
Comment #302890

Oh, I just thought of something: The new Republican slogan-

First they were trying to kill Granny! Now they’re back to kill the ants!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #302898

The Democrats are being very active in their attempts to manipulate the economy. Usually, recessions end and growth resumes. Let’s see if the Democrats hinder that or help it.

IMO - the recovery will be anemic and we may suffer a double dip recession not in spite of but because of their best efforts. Let’s see.

Posted by: C&J at June 30, 2010 9:50 PM
Comment #302902

C&J,

Well, at least Democrats are not sitting on their hands. They are at least attempting to respond to the economic catastrophe and other problems facing this nation.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been in the business of thwarting any effort at addressing the economic, health, energy and other problems facing the US. Indeed, the Boehner comment reveals a shocking lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the financial crisis visited upon this country,the desperate need for reform and the consequences of the financial collapse for average Americans. Opposing extensions of unemployment insurance for those victimized by speculative finance gone wild is unconscionable.

Bob Bennett’s recent characterization the current Republican party as one of slogans without any ideas is consistent with their behavior.


Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2010 10:27 PM
Comment #302903


If Boehner had been more truthful he would have said, this bill is like trying to use chicken wire to keep Godzilla on the reservation. Obama and the Democrats to.

In order to get this weak bill passed, Democrats charged $11 billion of $19 billion in fees on to the taxpayers which should have rightly passed on to the banks customers. The Republicans wanted to put the whole $19 billion tab onto the taxpayers. I guess so they could bitch a little more about taxes.

The Republicans are really good, Democrats to, at passing expenses that should be paid by corporate consumers on to the taxpayers.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2010 10:27 PM
Comment #302904

C&J-
Why, exactly, would it be the fault of the Democrats and the Stimulus package? There’s no inflation to speak of. The concern about the debt is not even about debt in the here an now, but years down the line. Interest rates are at zero.

There’s this little think called unemployment pulling things down, but Obama was successful at keeping that at bay according to most economists surveyed on the matter.

His real sin may indeed have been getting too little stimulus into play. But of course, Republicans are trying to make Reagan-Style hay out of this, despite the fact that there are few parallels to the situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2010 10:38 PM
Comment #302909

Stephen

I only can tell you about what I know and how people I know are reacting. We are uncertain about the tax and fiscal policies Obama will follow. We are worried that many Democrats in Congress seem hostile to business. When in doubt, people avoid risks and don’t invest.

I suspect that many investors and businesses are waiting just as I am in my small way. I am generally optimistic, but I have not been investing new money in the stock market. Like many others, I am considering selling some long held assets before the new, higher taxes kick in on dividends and capital gains. If others do as I might, this will push some economic activity (and tax revenues) into 2010, at the expense of growth later.

I am just a small investor, but when you add up millions of American small investors and businesses, you get this uncertainty which will lead to a slower recovery. Everybody wants to invest and make money, but Obama and the Democrats in Congress have made people cautious and risk averse.

Obama and the Democrats want to pour borrowed public money into the system to take the place of private funds. If they would restore confidence and make the future seem a little more predictable, private money would flow in again.

You probably don’t agree with what I just wrote, but I can tell you that is the way I am betting with my own funds (i.e. cautious). Others should do what they think is best.

This hesitation to take risks is also one reason there is less investment even with low interest rates. I could borrow at a current variable rate of only 2.24%. This is almost free money. But I am afraid to buy assets and then see the rates spike while the assets languish. Again, I feel that there is great uncertainty in our economic policies. I may be wrong and I may kick myself for not taking advantage when I could. But Obama scares me and Biden and guys like Barney Frank scare me even more.

If you disagree, I suggest this is a great time to invest and you should do it. But somehow I suspect that the same people who are telling everybody else that they should invest are sitting on their own cash the same way we are. Talk is cheap, but actual risk concentrates the mind.

Posted by: C&J at June 30, 2010 11:35 PM
Comment #302913


C&J, it appears to me that conservatives have made a mountain out of a mole hill. So what if Democrats talk tough towards business to please their constituents.

That fact is that the health care bill was nowhere near as draconian for business and the public as Republicans try to make out.

That fact is that the financial reform is nowhere near as draconian for the banks as Republicans are trying to make out.

The fact is that Democrats are not draconian towards business as Republicans would like some to believe. If they were, the Republicans would be getting all the corporate dollars. The Democrats are far to timid to even confront the dragon, I hardly think they are going to do harm to it.

The Democrats may stand back and shout obscenities at the dragon but, when they get in close, the dragon showers them with gifts and the Democrats forget all about their animosity.

Posted by: jlw at July 1, 2010 12:30 AM
Comment #302917

jlw

I am only telling you the basis for my own decisions about my own resources in the last year. I also observe others making similar decisions.

I think that you are right that Democrats often act more practically than they talk about business. Bill Clinton was good for business. But the lefties like Pelosi & Frank are running the show. They are not moderates like Clinton. I also know that Obama has no experience in business and his background does not include anything that makes you think he might want to learn about it.

So we have an inexperienced, ostensibly leftist president and a congress in the hands of the left of the party. We have not faced this kind of thing since the 1960s. Why shouldn’t we be afraid?

Posted by: C&J at July 1, 2010 7:26 AM
Comment #302925

C&J-
I think people should have an inherent distrust of any institution that simply says “trust us, don’t get in our way”, while it holds the kind of power it does.

I believe government requires checks and balances, requires constant attention and vigilance from its people, requires civil liberty restraints to keep it from subverting the freedoms of its citizens.

I believe corporation need the same checks and balances, the same attention and vigilance, the same kind of restraints that government requires to keep it from subverting our citizens rights and freedoms.

Not to mention economic interests. I have written extensively, and quoted from sources that indicated that the financial sector has been indulging in the worst kind of excesses, and that those excesses were the causative factor in the collapse of our economy.

You would have us believe that the Republicans were powerless to stop it, though they controlled Congress when all the key legislation passed, Controlled the White House as the warning signs mounted. You would have us believe that the Community Reinvestment Act, despite it’s empirically established low default rate, and its lack of involvement with the lenders involved, destroyed the markets all by itself.

If I had indeed seen information telling me that folks effected by such laws were spendthrifts and ne’er-do-wells, that would be one thing, but when you read things like the fact that the GSE’s market share was declining in the crucial years leading up to the Housing Bubble bursting, you have to question the assertions on simple evidentiary grounds.

I don’t think Republicans went into this intending to destroy the economy- it certainly never helped them politically. But I do think they have excessive faith both in their political stance and in the market’s ability to self regulate. Worse yet, they’ve built the same Democrats they’ve been successfully bullying and pushing around for the last generation up into absolute monsters and fearful opponents.

This, I feel the leadership is doing to prevent folks from doing the sensible thing, and actually knuckling down to the reality of their situation.

It’s not that Republicans need to abandon conservatism, but they need to reinterpret it, at the very least. They’ve taken their preference for smaller government to a phobic level. Even in the face of incredible deficits, they’ve decided that they must stick to the pledge that Bush 41 made, making them not merely tax averse, but radically anti-tax even in situations where it meant a long term debt problem would develop as a result.

Even now, with an oil spill of historic proportions underway, Republicans have become adversarial to many of the measures meant to prudently prevent the next disaster, with no alternatives suggested in their place. They don’t seem to be eager to change the energy policy of this country, either.

But worse than simply being oblivious themselves, the Republicans have decided to do their best with all these nice neat little procedural gimmicks to utterly disable the Democrat’s ability to respond as well, and encourage their conservative colleagues on the Democrat’s side to do the same.

What scares me is seeing a Government paralyzed by this kind of idiocy, while the country suffers one disaster after another. The real problem for your party, at this is point, is that America has to lose on nearly every front for Republicans to win, because when Democrats succeed in passing something, or keeping things like unemployment benefits going, Republicans suffer as Democrats get credit for doing the things they can naturally do without having to worry about the activist base objecting.

In my opinion, Republicans must reformulate their policy agenda so they can be both conservative and helpful. They cannot continue to believe that they will not pay a price for holding back reform and relief for the problems that America faces. Sooner or later, the uniformly unhelpful nature of Republican policy will inflict its harm on the party’s fortunes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2010 11:48 AM
Comment #302963

Stephen

Our conversation here is simpler, more practical and easier to check than usual. All I am telling you is that I am cautious about investing because I think that Obama’s policies will create a period of slower recovery and maybe even a second dip recession. You don’t have to explain to my why I am wrong and I don’t have to explain to you why I am right. If you believe what you say about the recovery, you will double down and invest all you can in the Obama economy. I choose more caution this year.

So many of our discussions are strictly academic. This one has a bottom line. It really comes down to one question. Are you investing right now or not?

Posted by: C&J at July 1, 2010 8:44 PM
Comment #302972


“Why shouldn’t we be afraid.”

I can understand your caution about the economy, but your rhetoric about the Democrats doesn’t even come close to the facts.

Take Pelosi, single payer could have passed in the House but not the Senate. The House Democrats are divided into three camps, the progressives, the liberals and the conservatives. Pelosi and her band of liberals made their deals with the conservatives, not the progressives. This was true on health care and it was true on financial reform. The truth is that Pelosi is in no position to move left even if she wanted to. The Senate is controlled by conservatives and they are not going to roll over for the liberals and certainly not for the progressives.

If the Republicans are successful in preventing the Democrats from spending more on the recovery and the recovery stalls, you will still be blaming the Democrats, now won’t you.

You talk about Obama’s inexperience. I will take inexperience over incompetence any day of the week.

George Bush was a military pilot, a businessman, a governor, and president. In each case, his incompetence was his crowning achievement.

Republicans might be successful with their turn back the clock B.S., temporarily.

Posted by: jlw at July 1, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #302977

C&J-
I take Michael Lewis’ view, as he posed it in the brilliant article on the economic collapse, that the people who ran Wall Street weren’t merely wrong, but were stupid. These aren’t folks who rise by the merit of being wise financial stewards, these are people who rise by being great salesmen, by selling more people on more things, whether or not they are good for them.

Once, investment banks invested their own money, so they were careful about the risks they took. Then they took the banks public, so investors were on the hook, and the traders could just play games without being afraid of breaking their own finances.

Once, we kept hedge funds and other such financial companies separate, so that one sector’s crash wouldn’t necessarily spread to the other sectors. Once, we allowed less consolidation, so banks did not get too big to fail. Folks in your party can criticize the government for not allowing these banks to collapse, but did they have the political will to break up the banks so that wasn’t the dilemma? No. They ask us to live with an intolerable problem, then.

I don’t think we should have to live with intolerable structural problems in our economy in order to reassure people like yourself of where it’s going. I don’t think that does us a whole lot of good, because those structural problems are more overwhelmingly negative for the economy, both practically and psychologically, than the problem of a few investors like you stoking their own fears of creeping socialism.

I really believe that. I really believe that 9/10ths of the anxiety of folks on your side, whether that’s Republicans, or Wall Street, is self-generated. You’ve become addicted to having government as the handmaiden to Wall Street, and you haven’t considered that America’s economy has done perfectly fine in periods of time where regulations were stricter, consumer protections were stronger, and yes, taxes were higher. You all have bought so deeply into the conservative mythology about business and government that you’re letting it get in the way of profitable adaptation.

I mean, seriously, the economy is not going to stay in the status quo. Americans won’t let it. Even if you succeed in stalling financial reform now, you’re just going to be deferring the pain until something ugly happens, and then people are not going to have anything approaching the patience they have now concerning the issue. They have little to begin with, believe me, so you do not want the political pressures to get to the point where people really do want more socialism, instead of just a more regulated capitalist market.

Republicans are not likely to do much to actually resolve this economic downturn. They’re just too clueless about its nature. They’re treating it like an inflationary downturn, when it’s the exact opposite. They’re worrying about deficits ten years hence that don’t exist yet, even though the assumptions that underly the size of those deficits, reflect current economic trends and their extrapolated results for the future.

Or put another way, this bad economy is always going to be a drag on the fiscal picture. If their austerity simply produces a worse economic picture, as the State’s austerity has been a drag on the Stimulus’ effects, then it’s all for nothing, and even if the Republicans eventually get the power by exploiting this situation, they also get the obligatation from voters to do something about it. When they fail, or, as is likely, make things worse, control will yield back to the Democrats, who will then likely have a more concentrated liberal core, and a mandate from people to take more drastic action.

The Republicans can do nothing but slow walk the economy. A recovery would be a vindication for the Democrats. They may talk about the need for a job bill, but they’ll vote down any stimulus as a waste of government money, and they’ll vote down unemployment extensions, trying to force their political beliefs on the folks in the worst position to actually defend themselves.

I can’t invest right now. I am not in a position, in no small part because of the economy, to invest. Where I work, they can’t even hire people to replace those that retire, because of the economy.

When are you going to realize that the economy is not merely correcting itself, but is broken, reacting dysfunctionally in a way that needs intervention to prevent the conditions from entrenching itself?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2010 9:16 AM
Comment #303006

I have heard the economy was broken many times before. During the early 1980s there was a whole industry of books about the coming collapse. In the late 1980s, the S&L crisis was supposed to finish us all. All during the Bush years we heard that the house was collapsed and the 4.7% unemployment was unacceptably high.

President Obama and his advisors told us that if we stimulated the economy, unemployment would stay below 8% and if we didn’t it might get up to 10%. Well, we stimulated the economy and it did. So clearly nobody knows how to micro-manage the economy.

But consider what happened during the Bush years. You rightfully complain about them but what happened was that the government grew … a lot. The problem was not too little government. It was too much . Government was big and growing and pushing lenders to loan to people who could not pay. The solution to eating too much is not eating more. And the solution to a problem of oversized government is not to make it bigger.

Re investment – if you have a job, you have enough to invest. If you really had confidence in the Obama plan, you would make sure you found the money. After all, a few dollars now could mean many thousands later.

You pointed out that the Reagan recession was worse and it was, at least in terms of unemployment. But if you invested during those dark days of 1982 and just kept the money invested, you would be well off, even with all the recent problems. So if you think Obama will do as well as Reagan, here is your chance.

Finally - I believe that government has an affirmative duty to regulate, protect the money supply and enforce the rule of law. It didn’t do many of those things properly in the recent past and is not doing them right now. Just getting bigger and more intrusive is not being effective.

Posted by: C&J at July 2, 2010 9:46 PM
Comment #303016


C&J, I think we could get an agreement on shrinking the government. Conservatives can cut military spending by 25% and liberals can cut entitlements and or discretionary spending by 25%. That’s 3/4 trillion out of a 3 trillion budget. We balance the budget there and the wealthy can pay all the taxes instead of just 90 percent, and get a tax break to boot.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2010 11:37 PM
Comment #303029

C&J-
It’s important to look at U6 unemployment to understand why Bush’s labor situation was unacceptable. The U3 rate can sometimes be deceptive, because you can just be a part-timer, and be counted. U6 tells you more, namely who doesn’t have good jobs. Clinton eventually got that number down to about 7.0 percent, while Bush quickly got those numbers up above, 9.0, keeping it there for the most part.

He eventually pumped it up to 13.4 percent before he left office. That means, Bush left office having put many people out of good paying jobs, into part-time work. The difference between the rate he was inaugurated with, 7.3% and the number he had in December of 2008, which is 13.7, is about 6.4%

The difference between when Obama got into office, and now?

3.4% Two thirds of that rise in real unemployment occured in the first six months of his administration, where you should agree that his Stimulus would have never had a chance to change things.

But let’s try this again with the U3 numbers:
Bush was inaugurated with a 4.2% unemployment rate, according to those measures. He left office with a 7.4% rate. That’s a difference of 3.2% This is actually an almost complete reversal of the trend of President Clinton’s U3 rate, and the same holds true for the U6 data.

A great deal of this job loss accelerated in Bush’s last year in office, and the U6 data reflects the same conclusion. In both cases, the bulk of the job losses occured between a year before and six months after Obama came into office. Obama, in both cases, has actually brought employment numbers back to where they were at about that point.

If the Stimulus program were meant to address the accelerating slide into depression, at the very least, it succeed. The level we’re stabilized at isn’t good, but it’s better than a host of alternatives.

You’re blaming Obama for underestimating the depths of the financial emergency then. I would blame you and yours for underestimating it now, then, and all along. Your people are simply not equipped to understand this, because your playbook is Reagan’s playbook.

But Reagan entered office with 10% inflation. Obama enters it three hundreths of a percent inflation, and sees 8 months of actual deflation in the course of his first year as president. The policies for dealing with double digit inflation are inappropriate to a period where we were actually on the precipice of its opposite.

Looking through the data, there’s only three other periods of time I can find where the markets behaved this way. The first was in the fifties, and was the direct result of an action by the Federal Reserve that restricted money supply in the wake of the end of the Korean War.

The third is in the wake of WWII, and the monstrous inflationary numbers that followed that war

The last example, of course, is the Great Depression, which started out with such rumblings of monetary instability.

Since the two post-war negative inflation numbers were caused by tightening of the money supply after two major wars, we can set those aside, and talk about the deflationary impact of both bank failures, and the collapse of assets.

In terms of effect, there has not been a recession of this magnitude, in terms of percentage of GDP lost, since 1945. Since that GDP loss was caused by the gradual shutdown of the war machine, that one is considered one of a kind in terms of recessions. Before that, though, not even the recession of 1937 was that bad, and the economy didn’t fully recover from that one until 1941, when war production ramped up.

In truth, among economically devastating recessions it is literally the worst since the Great Depression.

But Republicans are treating the causes and magnitude of this disaster as if they were like the more mild, more inflationary disasters of the seventies and eighties.

The Republicans don’t realize that they essentially are trying to bring back the economics that failed in the period between 1929 and 1933.

Finally, you mention the S+L Crisis potentially destroying the economy. Well, it’s outcome could have been a lot worse, had the federal government not created the Resolution Trust Corporation to liquidate the banks properly.

Most of the time, when economic ruin is threatened, government has taken immediate action to unwind the crisis in a less precipitous way. Your people, in 2008, decided to let things fall, and before they came to their senses, they let events unspool that turned what would have been a harsh recession and a bill of a few hundred billion to a multi-trillion dollar collapse in the economy.

When we used to let the natural business cycle take its toll, business cycles used to be much more severe, with speculative crises and bank crises devastating the economy, allowing substantial instability. After the New Deal, we stabilized the economy, creating a system that grew moderately and contracted moderately.

Many folks, spoiled by years of stability, now think, somehow, that such management, such regulation is obsolete. They let economic theory tell them what an examination of economic history would contradict. Republicans are pushing for a return to the policies of the gilded age, to the wealth inequality of it, mistaking what happens naturally when everybody’s left to their own devices, with what’s right and good to happen.

They make broad statements about supply and demand, about investors being frightened or uncertain, but fail to perceive the larger issues which have much more bearing on our economic development than the sentiments of investors.

We catered to the whims of investors for a long time, letting them do loop-de-loops with accounting, preventing regulation of derivatives, allowing more predatory credit practices, practices deliberately designed to trip up people with good credit practices to justify charging more fees and interest. Worse yet, we deliberately kept wages down and made credit easier, so when that credit market seized up, a lot of our economic muscle and the consumption it powered went with it.

We need to shift more to the demand side, get this country working based on a broad level of earned, rather than borrowed personal consumption.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #303044

Stephen

All that I know is that unemployment went down to less than 5% and Democrats thought it was too high. Now it is almost 10%. How is Obama doing?

You also are playing a fast one. You mention unemployment on the day Bush was inaugurated, but then you continue to blame Bush for what happened AFTER he was out of office.

So a simple question. How long until the blame the sitting president? You are giving Obama a pass until… what? Now? July of the second year.

Let’s apply the same criteria to everybody.

So Reagan came in with 9.8 (July 1982)and left with 5.2
Clinton had 6.1 (July 1994)and left with 5.8
Bush started with 5.8 (July 2002) and left with 9.5
This is not good, but it means that Obama starts (July 2010) in a little better place than Reagan. Let’s see if he does as well.

It looks to me like recessions come and go. It doesn’t seem to matter so much who is president. I think presidents do not have such power to manage the economy, but you do. So you have to be consequent. If Reagan could do it, presumably Obama can too. If not, it means Obama is a failure, right?

BTW - unemployment on election day 2004 was 5.4% and it got as low as 4.4% under Bush. Will Obama do as well? And if he does, will 4.4% be a good number of an unacceptably high one, as liberals said under Bush?

Posted by: C&J at July 3, 2010 11:28 PM
Comment #303045

BTW - You really should stop using terms like “your people” and painting with such a broad brush. It doesn’t make you look very good and nobody really pays much attention to the sentences that follow those words. For me, it is like a signal to skip ahead.

As I have written many times before, the free market requires rule of law, protections of private property, reasonable regulation and competent government. Every conservative thinker says the same things. If you read “very” conservative guys like Hayek or Freidman, you will find a confirmation of the need for good government AND the fear of large corporations working with government to apply coercion instead of market forces.

Generally, what makes us conservative is a distrust of concentrations of power. We don’t like it in big corporations and we like it even less in big government because government - unlike business - has the power of coercion and a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Liberals like to take the rants of radio talk show hosts as conservative thought and even in these cases they take the comments out of context. It is like me quoting the craziest things said by Al Franken or Geraldine Garofalo and calling it mainstream liberal.

Conservatives indeed have it easier. We are surrounded by liberal ideas in the universities and MSM, so we are not as ignorant of liberal ideas as they are of ours. But I would expect smarter liberal to actually get the ideas right.

Posted by: C&J at July 3, 2010 11:42 PM
Comment #380573

If chi hair straighteners you are coach outlet store a very louis vuitton handbags careful nfl jerseys person, you do not need valentino shoes a protective HTC asics running EVO hollister 3d herve leger Cases is north face outlet that bad, marc jacobs choosing longchamp a insanity workout stylish case can also prada handbags be a louis vuitton outlet online great salvatore ferragamo option. karen millen Thin oakley sunglasses rubberized louboutin cases can provide a fun splash converse shoes of color, mcm handbags or eye-catching longchamp outlet design to coach outlet your device. burberry These lululemon outlet items will allow you tory burch outlet to express reebok shoes your personality through your phone and also chanel handbags can be used in keeping your ray ban outlet phone clean mulberry and louboutin free soccer shoes from cosmetic defects. Furthermore, birkin bag in such cases, soccer jerseys an additional amount is longchamp added to coach outlet the device.



This phone bottega veneta is louboutin one of the most versatile options mont blanc when supra shoes it comes to new balance shoes modern coach purses Smartphone. However, this michael kors outlet device toms shoes can true religion be improved by true religion jeans adding true religion outlet appropriate ghd hair accessories. Choosing the right polo ralph accessories is the perfect way ralph lauren to get the coach factory outlet best juicy couture outlet experience with any Smartphone.

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 9:36 PM
Post a comment