"...Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.
Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woods’ papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/
Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour.
Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable."
Read more here...
56 comments:
As my 94 year old Gma would say, "That boy is crazier than a pet coon."
The link for his name doesn't work, Shoes... great post, as usual!
So what's going on with your hero over at FoKKKs News, Life?
Posted by ro on September 30th at 2:13pm in ask ro
Scott writes:
Do you think Bill Oreilly seems to be Imploading lately? Just wondered what your thought are.
Ro writes:
i do not watch him
I don't have sat or cable. Too busy and better toys to spend my money on...
I don't have either either. Doesn't FoKKKs just come by regular TV? Shows what I know...
To set the record straight about me having "no TV." It's not like you can't enjoy many TV programs online if you don't have a TV.
For instance, in my recent research into Alec Baldwin (the "big evil child abuser" that yes, I am actually siding with these days because I know how the friggin' family courts in this country, or at least in California, work their magic on families... http://tinyurl.com/yv2u4t), I discovered that the entire first year of his hit series "30 Rock" is available online: http://www.nbc.com/30_Rock/
Don't mean to go off topic here, but I can't remember laughing out loud so much watching a sitcom (I'm still laughing whenever I think about "The Rural Juror") -- and I went through the entire first season in like two and a half days last week.
I think it's mostly Tina Fey (creator, writer, actor, producer of the show) who seems to really get it about how talented women like to work (the Tina Fey character), how talented men like to work (the Alec Baldwin character), and how it all sort of comes together in a funny way when both extremes mix and match and try to make things work.
Your friend BO at FoKKKs News appears to be caught up in some racial remarks controversy...
http://tinyurl.com/2h5ww6
Apparently you don't need cable or TV to see him, either, or at least not to see a segment from his show called talking points...
http://tinyurl.com/23rjqk
It tires me to watch him, though. Does he really represent what a large segment of the population thinks?
Yes, he does. He doesn't play favorites. That's why he's #1 on the boob toob and Rush is #1 on the radidio. Watch the seg with him and Juan Williams talking about eating at the place in Harlem. The whiners took it and twisted what was said just to stir up the shit.
No, it's because he's a racist windbag.
Falafel guy is #1 on tv???? In what galaxy? And as for Lard-Ass Limbaugh, give me a break.
It's the same drivel you and lee spew -- distortion, lies, fallacies to prop up laughable arguments.
They are both absolutely despicable people who do nothing but foment hate and disseminate misinformation. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are far better news sources than those two dickheads. And they're funny -- on purpose!!!
Do you have a link to the segment with Juan Williams? In the segment I saw, BO put up some "proof" that he doesn't put down immigrants, and I think he was trying to be accomodating, but it seemed pretty condescending to me -- or as the guy in the NY Times article put it, "I wouldn’t say offended. I would say that I'm concerned that people are still in that type of mind-set."
Here is comment #211 from the previous news article in the NY Times. Haven't checked these "facts" but they seem pretty accurate...
211.September 27th,
2007
1:02 pm The NYT article refers to O’Reilly as “the talk show host who often touts his working-class Irish American roots.”
However, although O’Reilly constantly pretends to be of ‘humble beginnings’, presumably to enhance his ‘Everyman’pseudo-persona, he actually grew up quite privileged. His dad was an oil company executive. He attended private schools.
In an interview with the Washington Post, O’Reilly’s mother said that her family lived in Westbury. Zip codes were introduced in 1963. After this time the home was located in Westbury. He grew up in a Levittown development in Westbury , not “in Levittown” despite his repeated claims. As with all Levitt-built properties, the initial lease prohibited rental to non-whites.
O’Reilly has also said, “You don’t come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale” and that his father “never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has calculated that adjusted for inflation, $35,000 in 1978 would be worth over $90,000 in 2001 dollars.
On May 2, 2007, researchers from the Indiana University Media Relations Department published the findings of a study that analyzed the “Talking Points Memo”, a commentary piece which opens most O’Reilly Factor broadcasts.
Using analysis techniques developed in the 1930’s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, the comments and style of Bill O’Reilly were compared to a 1939 study of Father Charles Coughlin. Among the conclusions were that O’Reilly used propaganda far more often than Coughlin and that he was three times more likely to be a “name caller.”
The report also concluded that “Our results show a consistent pattern of O’Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero.”
O’Reilly incorrectly claimed at a February 10, 2001 speech at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, that Inside Edition, a show he had previously anchored, had won a Peabody Award.
After watching an airing of the speech a couple weeks later on C-SPAN, Al Franken performed a search on LexisNexis and found three previous occasions dating back to August 30, 1999 where O’Reilly had repeated the incorrect claim. On at least one occasion O’Reilly used the first-person pronoun “we” and said the show won “Peabody Awards” (plural).
Franken called O’Reilly for a statement and O’Reilly admitted he had made an error, correcting himself and stating that the show had won a George Polk Award and not a Peabody. Further research that Franken documented in his book ‘Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them’ reveals that the Polk award was given one year after O’Reilly’s tenure at Inside Edition and for work O’Reilly had not been involved with.
So why would anybody be surprised that he’s a barely-concealed racist, a liar, and a hatemonger? It’s old, well documented news.
“The O’Reilly Factor is probably the perfect example of everything that’s wrong with Fox News Channel. They have stories that are selected primarily to upset liberals and Democrats and prop up the Republican Party. You have a hostility towards guests that disagree with the host and you have a host who in service of his conservative politics will distort facts, will misrepresent things, and will in some cases, just fabricate.”
Peter Hart, a media analyst for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
— Posted by Ron C
Top rated talk radio shows:
Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mike Savage
Quinn & Rose (fairly recent in
going nationwide)
Glenn Beck
Nationwide liberal talk radio? Oops, forgot AirAmerica died. No one listens to them.
The Daily Show & Colbert for better news sources? Yeah, I guess they are funny on purpose because that's what their "purpose" is. Comedians yes, News, not so much.
Do you have the source for the statistics on this, Lee? Also, the shows you list are talk shows, i.e., entertainment, not news shows, so I am pretty sure the "comedians" fall into that category. Where does Howard Stern fit into all this?
"Does he really represent what a large segment of the population thinks?"
He represents what a large segment of the population that doesn't think, thinks.
I am amazed at the number of KKK supporters/members BO has defending him in the comments to the NY Times article. It's not helping his cause! Makes you wonder if these people are Trolls or Ops writing in purposely trying to make the "loyal BO fans" look bad, sort of like our very own in-house neo-con here -- Life. I thought you said you did not support the white supremacy views of the KKK, Life?
Maybe the term "racist views" is over-used, and we should just call it "white supremacist views", or more specifically, "white male supremacist views", since I think the distinction between men and women is far more pronounced than the differences between the various races of the world.
As in the debate on differences between women and men (which I agree with, like when somebody says woman and men think differently -- thank goodness -- and there may be a genetic basis for it), I agree that there may be genetic differences between the various races of the world that go beyond just outer appearance.
This may be termed "racist," but as with the women/men debate, I don't think recognizing these differences is such a bad thing, especially since I think they are relatively insignificant and nothing should be viewed as being "inferior" or "superior" -- just different in insignificant ways. Same same with the gay/human sexuality debate.
It does get pretty dicey in an awful hurry though when unfounded negative stereotypes are perpetuated, like BO assuming that black people are somehow not as clean as white people and then pretending black people should take it as a compliment when he finally has an epiphany and realizes that this is not true. He is soooo obviously a white supremacist on this issue, and I am glad he is being called to the mat on it. FoKKKs News (is this the division BO is in at FoKKKs?) has got to get people on air that have more of a clue in this area.
Apparently, McCain was also suffering from a bit of closet-KKK foot-in-mouth disease last weekend, first saying that the Constitution establishes this country as a Christian country, and then later, after criticisms from Jewish groups, he rephrased that to say this country was established as a Judeo-Christian country. Oh, yes, much better there, McCain...
http://tinyurl.com/33g542
Love to see your source, lee. Oh, I forgot, you can't be bothered.
Well, according to USA TODAY, here's what an expert says about their ratings:
"Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a radio trade magazine, rejects the notion that only conservatives listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh .... "Liberals sit around and listen to Limbaugh and talk about how much they hate him," Harrison says. "I would say half his audience disagrees with everything he says and gets great pleasure out of yelling at the radio."
"Makes you wonder if these people are Trolls or Ops"
That's your problem dear...you see a boogie man behind every tree regardless of the subject.
As far as being a "conspiracy nut"...you can call me one too. For several reasons.
JFK was not assassinated by a "lone gunman". I'm 150% sure of it.
There are, and/or have been in the past, beings from other "worlds" that have been on this planet. And not freakin' Xenu and those idiots.
But you will NEVER convince me that 9/11 was an "op", or "inside job" perpetrated by the US Government against it's own citizens. Not you, Dr Fruity, Jones, Reynolds, nobody. The ONLY way I will/would ever believe it is when someone comes up with the thousands of people that would have to have been involved signing confessions, passing lie detector tests and the videos of them planting explosives, firing DEWs, whatever.
The KKK, ELF, ALF, Black Panthers, Al Queda, Red Brigades, Hamas, and all the rest of the whack job far right/left nutball terrorist sobs should be hunted down and shot on the spot.
BO, Rush, me and every white man I know are no more KKK members, supporters, or whatever, than Jackson, Sharpton, and the like are members of The Black Panthers, Crips, Bloods or whoever.
And, "Genetic differences"...duh!!...Ya' reckon?
There's white men, black men, yellow men, brown men, red men, ad infinitum. There's probably close to 1,000 different "races" if you broke them all down genetically.
How about the Pygmies, Watusi, Hutu, Hmong, and on and on and on.
So What? People are different and only those who wish to perpetuate those differences, are the ones who continually whine about the "inequality" between them.
I don't give a rat's ass if my neighbor is black, yellow, red, male, female, got green hooters, or a burgundy pecker, as long as they're not criminal, child molesting, pervert, worthless sobs.
Talk shows are just that - talk shows (always about what's in the news). It is not entertainment in the same sense as comedy, dancing, singing, etc. The sad part is people actually getting their "news" from comedy shows and then taking it seriously.
MS: Wow! Everyone you quote just happens to be an "expert". The liberals that listen to those shows do so because they have none of their own to listen to. I wonder why that is since the majority of the people in this country are supposedly liberal.
Since you MS, and Nicole are so hung up on statistics research it yourself. You'd never admit their success anyway, so why should I waste my time proving facts to you.
BOW...WOW...!
Umm, lee, it was USA Today that quoted him. I simply mentioned it here, to point out that about half of Mr Popularity's audience is there to mock him. If you look around, you'll see that Michael Harrison's publication is highly regarded in terms of covering talk radio, so, yes, he is an expert.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are topical, not just funny. They cover the news. They also happen to make fun of it, because so much of it is nonsense. They skewer Repugs AND Dems -- nothing is sacred.
Meanwhile, Limp-bo won't even invite the men he's calling "phony soldiers" on his show to defend themselves. So there's your big, brave hero, lee, in action. Hiding in his studio, calling veterans "phonies." Sounds like a repug to me.
Lee, don't make factual statements here (i.e, like "list of top rated talk shows") that have no source for what the hell "top-rated" means, and then tell me to go find the sources myself when I question you about it.
I have already shown that your sources, whenever you finally provide hints of where you got your information and I have wasted my time hunting them down myself, to be questionable at best, so why should I trust anything you say?
Yes, everybody is allowed to express opinions here as well as facts with links and sources, but there is a difference, obviously. If the shows you listed are "in your opinion" top-rated, then say so and stop spewing statements as fact. Either that or give the friggin' source. It's pretty simple.
http://tinyurl.com/2cq2nw
Looks like #1 to me...
"I would say half his audience disagrees with everything he says and gets great pleasure out of yelling at the radio."
pffttt..ya' oughta' hear me if I walk in room, store, wherever, and hear Judge Judy or Dr. Laura...it's not pretty.
Looks like #2 to me. What is CNN presents in the #1 position?
CNN is a 1.4 BO is 1.8
What does that mean and why is CNN in the top position then? It has more of something over in the far right column.
Does BO get more viewers than Jon Stewart? Just curious, even though you guys aren't counting Jon Stewart in the same category. It may just be the different ways the two types of people prefer to get their "light, topical news." Conservatives would rather have confrontation and progressives would rather have humor, maybe.
It's the way ratings work with weighting, age demographics and a bunch of other crap. You'll note the T-W-T-F for CNN as opposed to BO's M-T-W-T-F. The number that matters is the first column.
http://tinyurl.com/3bxluw
Ratings only tell part of the story. The real news is that Olbermann's ratings have been climbing steadily for months while O'Lielly's have been falling.
Bottom line: the race isn't over by a long shot.
Bottom line...Oreilly is a blow-hard dufus, anyone who listens to him for anything other than his comedic value, is also.
You won't see Billo hosting the Academy Awards anytime soon.
http://tinyurl.com/2bq2rt
Guess I musta' slept through 3rd grade math where they taught 900,000 beats 2.5 million.
Can't find The Daily Show ratings anywhere. You must have to pay for those, or I haven't tried hard enough...
I am not drunk posting this, just ticked off even worse about Britney than I am about 9/11, if you can believe it!
Britney Spears "shaving her head" and "not performing well at the MTV Awards" are often listed as good reasons to have her two sons taken away from her.
http://tinyurl.com/2w4zpg
Spears and Federline had a 50/50 joint custody arrangement that they themselves ironed out on their own that was working well for them until Federline realized, probably with the help of the lowest of slime in legal circles called a "family law attorney," that he could increase his child support income by possibly a few hundred thousand a year if he got a bigger percentage of time with the children.
The judge in this case should be hung for child abuse for being the ring leader in this sadly all-too-familiar game played in the family court system. There are about 1000 different ways the problems of this family could have been dealt with and resolved that would have protected the children, and specifically the parent-child bond with both parents, especially at such a critical young age, but none of these other ways milk the entire family of the maximum amount of money possible.
Instead, Federline's attorneys, as well and Britney's attorneys, know the game well -- milk these two for all their worth using the children as pawns. Makes me want to puke all over Judge Gordon's hypocritical robes.
Last week, Britney was ordered to 1) attend therapy once a week, cha-ching
2) undergo random drug testing twice a week, cha-ching
3) higher a "parenting coach" to follow her around, cha-ching, and
4) attend "parenting w/o conflict" classes, cha-ching.
If she misses one of these things or is late by five minutes, the kids are gone. If she does everything successfully, a new level of even greater demands are placed because, as Britney does not realize, it was decided a long time ago that the kids were going to be taken from her.
Once the decision, based mostly on financial issues, is made, it doesn't matter if Britney were Mother Teresa at that point, the kids will eventually be taken from her. She's not going to see those kids, at least not much, for a probably a year or maybe a half a million in attorneys fees, whichever comes first.
It could possibly be two or three years before she has significant time with them if the kids have not been alienated enough from her after a year, because if the kids show any sign of still having a strong bond with their mother, that's not good and they must be kept away longer -- we must create future customers for the psychologists and psychiatrists lining up to feed at the pigs' trough.
I know the game. I lived it and am still living it. I've never done drugs, never smoked, never been abused and in turn, never abused my children physically nor emotionally, I've read every parenting magazine and book there is, I raised my kids lovingly and with patience and tolerance full time from the age of zero to 4 and 5, following the increasingly more and more stringent rules and dodging the bigger and bigger traps and lies and set-ups put in place by the children's father until finally, for taking the children on a court ordered, routine trip to visit their grandparents in Southern California, I was arrested in dramatic fashion by ten police officers in front of the children and my elderly parents, spent three days in jail at $50,000 bail and was reduced to one hour a week of "supervised" visitation at a high security facility for almost four months.
When my two counts of felony child abduction were finally dismissed (with a public defender) for lack of evidence, I went back to the judge who originally had me arrested and originally gave such abusive orders for these poor kids and I asked for custody of the children back, and she turned to the children's father's attorney and said, "Surely there are some contempt charges you can bring up against her now."
Here I am ten months later. I have never broken a court order in my life, never been late to a single "monitored exchange", never even gotten a speeding ticket, and I still have less than 24 hrs/wk with the kids, who beg every time they see me to "spend more time at home with mom."
"Surely there is something you did to cause the judge to act this way," is the usual reaction I get from anybody who has not lived through it. This is exactly what the judges are counting on when they make their slimy little money-grubbing decisions "behind closed doors and with no transcripts."
Exactly what is it that Britney did to deserve to lose her children again? Did she beat them? Shoot them up with drugs? I know the innuendo is that she herself is abusing drugs, but that's a problem that can be dealt with w/o taking kids from their parents in such a dramatic fashion.
I say it should be illegal to do a single transaction or decision involving children that is "behind closed doors and secret." I think we all know what kind of corruption that leads to. Ask yourself this -- who are the judges trying to protect the most by doing this?
MS: For someone who is so into facts, you sure blew this one.
Rush did not call soldier's phony. He was speaking of a "specific phony soldier".
His name is Jessie Macbeth and he was a poster boy for the Dems while he was spreading his lies. But when it was learned that he was a phony spreading phony information it seems he disappeared from the left-wing radar.
Jessie Macbeth:
- Told the world of abuses he witnessed in Iraq
- Said Amer. soldiers killedarmed civilians and hung their bodies from rafter in mosques
- Claimed he won a Purple Heart
-Claimed he was an Army Ranger
BUT
He was sentenced to jail for falsifying a Dept. of Veterans Affairs claim & his Army discharge record.
- He was out of boot camp after only 44 DAYS
- He WAS NOT an Army Ranger
- He WAS NOT a corporal
- He NEVER won a Purple Heart
- He WAS NEVER in combat
So, THAT was the ONE phony soldier Rush was talking about.
And after he spewed all his lies that the Dems. and left-wing embraced and it was all found to be one big lie the Dems. and left-wingers said nothing about it. Because as Rush said -it doesn't fit the template of the DemocRATic party.
IF anyone owes our military an apology how about DEM. Jack Murtha. He was the one that called our soldiers murderers.
And as for Rush's talk show, it sure seems to bug alot of our Dem. politicans, doesn't it? They even tried to blame the defeat of the recent amnesty bill on talk show radio. But no one is listening?
Thanks for saving me the trouble Lee. You are absolutely correct.
Dimocrats remind me of an onery old uncle from when I was a little kid on the farm. His nickname was "Bad Ear". Everybody knew him by that name and he had no problem with it, and, I think he actually enjoyed it.
I asked the old man recently why they always called Uncle Bob "Bad Ear", and he told me it was because he only heard what he wanted to hear.
..sounds like the same affliction has become quite common among "Progressives".
Total BS from the right wing, as usual. Limpo did not name MacBeth, he only claimed to be referring to him later, after the veterans called him out. What he actually said was soldiers who are protesting the Iraq war are phonies. And now he's lying to cover his enormous butt.
http://tinyurl.com/yvafmz
Why are you defending him? Or are all your heroes big, fat, loathsome, drug-addicted, sex pervert losers? (Hey, that pretty much sums up the repug party!)
Excellent Post!!...Aunt "Bad Ear"...
Look who's talking, loserboy. If you LISTEN to the broadcast, you can hear Lardo calling any soldiers who disagrees with him and thinks the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq "phony."
Here: http://tinyurl.com/yplpqv
I heard exactly what he said...of course I actually took the time to listen to the whole thing and didn't intentionally take it out of context from a small snippet.
Media Matters...yeah, there's a fair and balanced source.
After a lot of belligerent blathering, he clearly said the soldiers who want to leave Iraq are "phony soldiers." What context makes that acceptable? What did I miss?
Nicole: The few sources I've put here are always questionable at best according to you and so would any future one I would post. So, if you want friggin sources do it yourself since you seem to spend most of you life on the web anyway.
Regarding your comment - conseratives would rather have confrontation and progresses humor, you're right on. To libs. everything is a joke. That's why there're NOTHING but funny.
It is not my OPINION that Rush's show is successful (and the rest of conserative talk radio). It is a FACT. Because you see, if they weren't SUCCESSFUL then they wouldn't be on. They would be CANCELLED like AirAmerica was because of a LACK of listeners.
MS: Rush invited Sen. Ramo Reid on his show. But, guess what?
Rabid Dog Olbermann's ratings must be climbing a bit because he now does a pre-game show for the NFL.
Repubs. are "big, fat, loathsome, drug-addicted (that's a great one coming from the left!), sex-perverted losers."
Well, let me tell you what left-wing Dems. are.
They are either new or old left-over hippies from the 70's who live in a time warp. The "if it feels good do it" crowd doesn't get that that doesn't work. When they come down from their high disappoinment sets in because now they have to face the real world. And they don't want to live in the real world - they want to make LOVE not WAR.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't all you left-wing losers grab your tie-dyed shirts, Joni Mitchell tapes, all you "protest" gear, and of couse, a stash of your favorite drugs get into your mini-van (you know the one with all the Peace and "ban the bomb" grafitti) and drive that van right into the hole that you crawled out of.
lee, I don't know what cracker state you live in or how much education you lack (although it would appear to be a rather major deficit) but there's only one word to describe your replies:
http://tinyurl.com/36nbx3
Ooops, sorry, lee, actually that was two words, both well deserved!
A piece of shit on a carpet. WOW, MS that coming from an "educated" person.
Why didn't you just say it BrainDrain? Or did that worthy description of lefties leave you speechless?
Now Lee, MS is a "Best Selling" author. Couldn't you tell by the sample of her work she showed you?
BOW WOW!!
Geez. Too many threads now to check what everybody is saying. I'm done checking this thread now because I am only looking for "http://...." in any of Lee's posts, and since I don't see any, I'm outta here...
Your description of "lefties" left me speechless? Ha! No, lee, sorry. My dogs have left more "insightful remarks" in the yard than you have here. Just thought you'd like to see what I think of your comments.
MS: Thought your description of the Republicans was real funny until it came back in you face, didn't you?
Typical liberal-can only dish it out (like you buddy Rantin' Rosie). Liberals don't want debate they only want to shout everyone down.
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about,lee. When and how did my description of Repugs "come back to hit me in the face"? Did this happen on one of those other planets you visit? Or did one of your "special friends" that no one else can see tell you about it? Because I don't see any evidence of it here.
http://tinyurl.com/2wjdp6
4th pic from the top...
Since that seems to be your level of sophistication MS...
/;}
MS: You know exactly what I'm talking about but it just pisses you off. Now,read slowly: YOU thought your description of the Repubs. was real clever. When I stooped to your level (sometimes you just have to do that to get your point across to a dummy) and threw back the description of the Dims. YOU got pissed.
You can throw all your BS around but when it comes back to hit you in the face YOU can't take. And the best you can come up with is "living on another planet" and "special friends"? What?
You're just like your hero, Rantin Rosie OD. As long as she was spewing her poision everything was fine and dandy but when she got a taste of her own medicine she blew up. Typical loud-mouthed, raging, ranting, cry baby, whinning liberal!
Post a Comment