| Herr Trump you say? on 10:08 - Jan 10 with 2328 views | Swansea_Blue |
Luckily they’re not a dictatorship, or at least not yet. But I know what you mean. He’s straight out of the dictator playbook - ‘might is right’, propaganda control, suppression of opposition, disregard for rules and law, expectation of obedience reinforced through ‘might is right’ (deploying federal troops against his own people)’; rinse and repeat.
Luckily the legal system and States are still able to challenge him, but I don’t know for how much longer once he massively expands his Stasi, er I mean ICE. And democracy still holds, but we’ll have to see how he responds when he loses his majority or position.
This re-writing of history is poor of course. I suppose it’s always happened that victors re-write it retrospectively, but it’s both fascinating and chilling to see it happen so brazenly in realtime (see also the counter narratives pumped out by the WH on everything else, most starkly seen this week after the killing of Good). [Post edited 10 Jan 10:09]
|  |
|  |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:23 - Jan 10 with 2271 views | Churchman |
Interesting. Trump’s redrawing of the world into three spheres of influence, the predominance of might is right so shake down the weak is one thing. The attack on culture internally and the imposition of his truth, whether he has authority to do do or not, is quite another.
There will be many, if not the majority, that will support Trump on this but I do not. While I’m not into the self loathing and the distortion of history you see in this country now, I am equally opposed to see history doctored to present an image in the way Trump seeks to do let alone his weird version of right and wrong.
The Smithsonian’s independence for all these years is to cherished, not assaulted because it doesn’t conform to his comic book perceptions. He might not agree with what the Smithsonian does, but that does not give him the right or his witless henchmen to tear it down.
What they will be left with is something in principle bearing an uncomfortable resemblance to what the Nazis did in the late 1930s. Trump-history in all its tasteless ignorance. And people will believe it.
Presenting something we might not agree with is part of learning and understanding, but the concept that they might be right and you wrong is completely lost on people like Trump. Since when did an authoritarian like him or a dictator like Hitler, Putin or Stalin listen to a challenging view?
Never, because they are always right. America is falling into an abyss. |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:24 - Jan 10 with 2262 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
Stop the world - I want to get off. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:25 - Jan 10 with 2263 views | DJR |
I generally don't like comparisons with the Nazis but I couldn't help but compare the Trump meeting with the supine and obsequious oil executives yesterday with the secret meeting Hitler had with industrial leaders to raise the equivalent of $9.6 million for the Nazi election campaign in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of the meeting, British historian Adam Tooze wrote.
"The meeting of 20 February and its aftermath are the most notorious instances of the willingness of German big business to assist Hitler in establishing his dictatorial regime. The evidence cannot be dodged."
Of course there is nothing to suggest that the US will end up as a dictatorship but the willingness of big business in the US to cow-tow to Trump is not something that should be happening in a liberal democracy.
Incidentally, I hadn't been aware of the 1933 meeting until I read recently the book The Order of the Day where a fictional version of the meeting is described,
https://www.waterstones.com/bo [Post edited 10 Jan 10:35]
|  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:26 - Jan 10 with 2244 views | Herbivore |
Anyone still blind to the danger is an ostrich at this point. We're talking about someone who tried to overturn the result of a democratic election in 2020 in order to cling on to power. If he hadn't been elected as president again (you fecking morons, America) he'd be facing criminal charges in relation to trying to overturn a democratic election. If people think he won't do whatever it takes to cling on to power again, either for himself or his cronies, then they've not been paying attention. There's too much at stake for him and his associates to let up their grip.
I'm starting to think this is part of the end game of the sowing social division and the kind of rhetoric they are using. Describing a murdered woman as a domestic terrorists, a radical leftist, an agitator etc. when their own released videos show nothing of the sort. If the civil unrest that will result from more incidents like this becomes serious enough they can declare martial law and that gives them all kinds of power. Similarly the warmongering and threats to send military into Greenland, all a potential pretense for overriding usual democratic processes.
The language and rhetoric around immigration and left wing (though Democrats aren't remotely left wing in classic political terms, they are right of centre economically and are classic liberals really) opponents is the stuff of Nazi Germany already. It's now being used to justify the unjustifiable and we're not at the top of a slippery slope anymore, we're some way down it. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:26 - Jan 10 with 2253 views | Guthrum |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:08 - Jan 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Luckily they’re not a dictatorship, or at least not yet. But I know what you mean. He’s straight out of the dictator playbook - ‘might is right’, propaganda control, suppression of opposition, disregard for rules and law, expectation of obedience reinforced through ‘might is right’ (deploying federal troops against his own people)’; rinse and repeat.
Luckily the legal system and States are still able to challenge him, but I don’t know for how much longer once he massively expands his Stasi, er I mean ICE. And democracy still holds, but we’ll have to see how he responds when he loses his majority or position.
This re-writing of history is poor of course. I suppose it’s always happened that victors re-write it retrospectively, but it’s both fascinating and chilling to see it happen so brazenly in realtime (see also the counter narratives pumped out by the WH on everything else, most starkly seen this week after the killing of Good). [Post edited 10 Jan 10:09]
|
Things are a lot more fragile, IMO.
Lower-level elements of the legal system can still challenge, but the ultimate back-stop and destination of all appeals - the Supreme Court - is unassailably dominated by conservatives and Trump partisans. It has already handed down a ruling that can be interpreted as legalising anything he does as President. Plus those going against his will have faced legal action and threats of violence.
How far Congressional democracy still holds we shall see in November, but Trump has already demonstrated the lengths he will go to in order to maintain power.
Many dictatorships maintain a polite-but-subservient veil of democratic process while concentrating absolute power at the top. The nazi-era Reichstag, for example, or Cinese Party assemblies. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:32 - Jan 10 with 2200 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:08 - Jan 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Luckily they’re not a dictatorship, or at least not yet. But I know what you mean. He’s straight out of the dictator playbook - ‘might is right’, propaganda control, suppression of opposition, disregard for rules and law, expectation of obedience reinforced through ‘might is right’ (deploying federal troops against his own people)’; rinse and repeat.
Luckily the legal system and States are still able to challenge him, but I don’t know for how much longer once he massively expands his Stasi, er I mean ICE. And democracy still holds, but we’ll have to see how he responds when he loses his majority or position.
This re-writing of history is poor of course. I suppose it’s always happened that victors re-write it retrospectively, but it’s both fascinating and chilling to see it happen so brazenly in realtime (see also the counter narratives pumped out by the WH on everything else, most starkly seen this week after the killing of Good). [Post edited 10 Jan 10:09]
|
He isn't there yet but he is probably only one step away and that is a step he has alluded to being ready to take. If he grabs unaccountable power whereby there are no future free and democratic elections he is there isn't he? |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:36 - Jan 10 with 2174 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:26 - Jan 10 by Guthrum |
Things are a lot more fragile, IMO.
Lower-level elements of the legal system can still challenge, but the ultimate back-stop and destination of all appeals - the Supreme Court - is unassailably dominated by conservatives and Trump partisans. It has already handed down a ruling that can be interpreted as legalising anything he does as President. Plus those going against his will have faced legal action and threats of violence.
How far Congressional democracy still holds we shall see in November, but Trump has already demonstrated the lengths he will go to in order to maintain power.
Many dictatorships maintain a polite-but-subservient veil of democratic process while concentrating absolute power at the top. The nazi-era Reichstag, for example, or Cinese Party assemblies. |
Yeah, I agree those checks and balances seem to be getting weaker. It’ll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on his tariffs; I think that’s coming up next week. Although a one off, it’ll give us a further idea of how willing they are to challenge the administration. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:38 - Jan 10 with 2147 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:26 - Jan 10 by Guthrum |
Things are a lot more fragile, IMO.
Lower-level elements of the legal system can still challenge, but the ultimate back-stop and destination of all appeals - the Supreme Court - is unassailably dominated by conservatives and Trump partisans. It has already handed down a ruling that can be interpreted as legalising anything he does as President. Plus those going against his will have faced legal action and threats of violence.
How far Congressional democracy still holds we shall see in November, but Trump has already demonstrated the lengths he will go to in order to maintain power.
Many dictatorships maintain a polite-but-subservient veil of democratic process while concentrating absolute power at the top. The nazi-era Reichstag, for example, or Cinese Party assemblies. |
being a conservative in the supreme court means a particular reading of the constitution. it doesn't imply any less of a commitment to or willingness to defend the constitution than those with a liberal leaning. it doesn't imply less independence or being politically subservient, or making decisions on party lines. it is a return to a reading of the constitution which was probably dominant up to the 1960s. there is a debate about the interpretation of the constitution that has always been going on - it's just that the dominant position in the supreme has switched after 50 years of liberal dominance. but the commitment to the constitution by individual members hasn't changed. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:39 - Jan 10 with 2146 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:38 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
being a conservative in the supreme court means a particular reading of the constitution. it doesn't imply any less of a commitment to or willingness to defend the constitution than those with a liberal leaning. it doesn't imply less independence or being politically subservient, or making decisions on party lines. it is a return to a reading of the constitution which was probably dominant up to the 1960s. there is a debate about the interpretation of the constitution that has always been going on - it's just that the dominant position in the supreme has switched after 50 years of liberal dominance. but the commitment to the constitution by individual members hasn't changed. |
Who amends the constitution and why are some parts such as those that give the right to bear arms considered impossible to amend by some? | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:40 - Jan 10 with 2146 views | Churchman |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:32 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
He isn't there yet but he is probably only one step away and that is a step he has alluded to being ready to take. If he grabs unaccountable power whereby there are no future free and democratic elections he is there isn't he? |
The article in the OP demonstrates he can exercise power and make decisions without the authority to do so. He’s not going to stop now and I just see opposition being crushed or draining away in fear and by intimidation.
Given his self proclaimed ‘successes’ to date, I think his behaviour and actions are going to very quickly get a lot more extreme. | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:44 - Jan 10 with 2090 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:39 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Who amends the constitution and why are some parts such as those that give the right to bear arms considered impossible to amend by some? |
it's all set out in the constitution! the super-majorities required mean that changes are very difficult and impossible where there is clearly no overwhelming public support (such as removing the right to bear arms). | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:47 - Jan 10 with 2089 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:44 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
it's all set out in the constitution! the super-majorities required mean that changes are very difficult and impossible where there is clearly no overwhelming public support (such as removing the right to bear arms). |
What level of public support is there for removing the right to bear arms? It seems totally nuts that there isn't overwhelming support for it to change. I guess it is akin to what has led us to where we are in terms of standing on the brink of a dictator in charge. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:47 - Jan 10 with 2088 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:40 - Jan 10 by Churchman |
The article in the OP demonstrates he can exercise power and make decisions without the authority to do so. He’s not going to stop now and I just see opposition being crushed or draining away in fear and by intimidation.
Given his self proclaimed ‘successes’ to date, I think his behaviour and actions are going to very quickly get a lot more extreme. |
Absolutely. The court is loaded. He bypasses everything with exec orders, and he has a private paramilitary force.
The issue is what the military will do, and whether the states and national guard will actually stand against them. Civil war looks a genuine prospect. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:48 - Jan 10 with 2084 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:25 - Jan 10 by DJR |
I generally don't like comparisons with the Nazis but I couldn't help but compare the Trump meeting with the supine and obsequious oil executives yesterday with the secret meeting Hitler had with industrial leaders to raise the equivalent of $9.6 million for the Nazi election campaign in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of the meeting, British historian Adam Tooze wrote.
"The meeting of 20 February and its aftermath are the most notorious instances of the willingness of German big business to assist Hitler in establishing his dictatorial regime. The evidence cannot be dodged."
Of course there is nothing to suggest that the US will end up as a dictatorship but the willingness of big business in the US to cow-tow to Trump is not something that should be happening in a liberal democracy.
Incidentally, I hadn't been aware of the 1933 meeting until I read recently the book The Order of the Day where a fictional version of the meeting is described,
https://www.waterstones.com/bo [Post edited 10 Jan 10:35]
|
Anyone who cannot now see the parallels with Nazi Germany is just blind.
For decades, I and no doubt most others wondered how the nazis managed to do it, how they just hoodwinked ordinary German people with their lies and misinformation. But I think we all thought that in the world of mass communication and instant sharing of images, videos and commentary, that it could never happen again, it was a hugely unfortunate part of history but thankfully something that could never happen again. But here we are.
The truth, it now seems, is what Trump tells us is the truth. Don't let your eyes deceive you, that video of Ms Good was "fake" - it's been doctored by lefties or misinformed lefty commentators are trying to tell us that she wasn't weaponising her vehicle, and the poor ICE officer had to act in self defence. Trump didn't lead people to storm the capitol building. And of course the Chinese or Russians are about to invade Greenland, so it had better come under US sovereignty.
It's so blindingly obvious now that we are in an Orwellian dystopia. It's not the case that it could happen, it already has. The question for us in the UK is what will our government do to stand up to it. It looks like the current answer is very little. I am now feeling very uncomfortable having US military bases in the UK. The words of Trump's administration are simply not the words of an ally, he and his supporters are openly talking about invading Greenland. That's an enemy talking. A fascist dictator. So why are we not standing up to this and closing down US bases on our own soil? | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:52 - Jan 10 with 2065 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:48 - Jan 10 by LegendofthePhoenix |
Anyone who cannot now see the parallels with Nazi Germany is just blind.
For decades, I and no doubt most others wondered how the nazis managed to do it, how they just hoodwinked ordinary German people with their lies and misinformation. But I think we all thought that in the world of mass communication and instant sharing of images, videos and commentary, that it could never happen again, it was a hugely unfortunate part of history but thankfully something that could never happen again. But here we are.
The truth, it now seems, is what Trump tells us is the truth. Don't let your eyes deceive you, that video of Ms Good was "fake" - it's been doctored by lefties or misinformed lefty commentators are trying to tell us that she wasn't weaponising her vehicle, and the poor ICE officer had to act in self defence. Trump didn't lead people to storm the capitol building. And of course the Chinese or Russians are about to invade Greenland, so it had better come under US sovereignty.
It's so blindingly obvious now that we are in an Orwellian dystopia. It's not the case that it could happen, it already has. The question for us in the UK is what will our government do to stand up to it. It looks like the current answer is very little. I am now feeling very uncomfortable having US military bases in the UK. The words of Trump's administration are simply not the words of an ally, he and his supporters are openly talking about invading Greenland. That's an enemy talking. A fascist dictator. So why are we not standing up to this and closing down US bases on our own soil? |
To answer your final question, because so far Trump has only talked about invading Greenland. Were he to actually do so, the occupants of those bases become enemy combatants immediately. I am sure Trump will be aware of that and I cannot see him taking military action against NATO unless he is genuinely is insane which I don't believe he is. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:54 - Jan 10 with 2057 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:48 - Jan 10 by LegendofthePhoenix |
Anyone who cannot now see the parallels with Nazi Germany is just blind.
For decades, I and no doubt most others wondered how the nazis managed to do it, how they just hoodwinked ordinary German people with their lies and misinformation. But I think we all thought that in the world of mass communication and instant sharing of images, videos and commentary, that it could never happen again, it was a hugely unfortunate part of history but thankfully something that could never happen again. But here we are.
The truth, it now seems, is what Trump tells us is the truth. Don't let your eyes deceive you, that video of Ms Good was "fake" - it's been doctored by lefties or misinformed lefty commentators are trying to tell us that she wasn't weaponising her vehicle, and the poor ICE officer had to act in self defence. Trump didn't lead people to storm the capitol building. And of course the Chinese or Russians are about to invade Greenland, so it had better come under US sovereignty.
It's so blindingly obvious now that we are in an Orwellian dystopia. It's not the case that it could happen, it already has. The question for us in the UK is what will our government do to stand up to it. It looks like the current answer is very little. I am now feeling very uncomfortable having US military bases in the UK. The words of Trump's administration are simply not the words of an ally, he and his supporters are openly talking about invading Greenland. That's an enemy talking. A fascist dictator. So why are we not standing up to this and closing down US bases on our own soil? |
We need to start taking steps on those military bases. We cannot have a hostile state basing military within our borders.
Trump is a bully. If Greenland is defended he will not pursue it. If it is not, he will press on. He is not interested in wars, he is interested in rolling people over. Europe is quite capable of putting a viable defence in place that would would deter. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:55 - Jan 10 with 2050 views | Guthrum |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:38 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
being a conservative in the supreme court means a particular reading of the constitution. it doesn't imply any less of a commitment to or willingness to defend the constitution than those with a liberal leaning. it doesn't imply less independence or being politically subservient, or making decisions on party lines. it is a return to a reading of the constitution which was probably dominant up to the 1960s. there is a debate about the interpretation of the constitution that has always been going on - it's just that the dominant position in the supreme has switched after 50 years of liberal dominance. but the commitment to the constitution by individual members hasn't changed. |
But it does imply a desire to keep a conservative President in power and with control in Congress. These are people appointed specifically for their partisan viewpoint (each side trying to affect the "balance" of the court).
In practical terms, they haven't shown themselves particularly resistant to Trump's actions. At most tinkering around the edges (e.g. requiring further clarification, not declaring the policies wrong in themselves). | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:57 - Jan 10 with 2042 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:38 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
being a conservative in the supreme court means a particular reading of the constitution. it doesn't imply any less of a commitment to or willingness to defend the constitution than those with a liberal leaning. it doesn't imply less independence or being politically subservient, or making decisions on party lines. it is a return to a reading of the constitution which was probably dominant up to the 1960s. there is a debate about the interpretation of the constitution that has always been going on - it's just that the dominant position in the supreme has switched after 50 years of liberal dominance. but the commitment to the constitution by individual members hasn't changed. |
Im afraid that is nonsense.
The "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are literally appointed Trump supporters, with markedly religous right leanings. Appointed for their inclination to support Trump and his agenda. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:58 - Jan 10 with 2012 views | lowhouseblue |
history is a debate. there are alternative views on how events should be interpreted and their historical significance. that debate is particularly important when it comes to how a nation understands itself and how it produces a shared understanding of where the nation has come from and what holds it together. so at a time of a national anniversary it's particularly important to reflect that debate and the different ways of reading history and explaining the nation. that debate and disagreement should be shown as live and on-going. the criticism of institutions such as the smithsonian is of course that they have been captured by one side in that debate. the state shouldn't be dictating how history is presented by such institutions, but institutions should be more diverse and should be reflecting multiple competing readings of history not giving dominance to one. if they fail to do that they are open to political criticism. equally at the time of a national anniversary the state can decide what form the celebrations take and what story is told - eg how the uk opened the olympics. but something has gone badly wrong is the state dictates the detail of museum exhibitions. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:02 - Jan 10 with 1998 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:52 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
To answer your final question, because so far Trump has only talked about invading Greenland. Were he to actually do so, the occupants of those bases become enemy combatants immediately. I am sure Trump will be aware of that and I cannot see him taking military action against NATO unless he is genuinely is insane which I don't believe he is. |
Look at the lessons from history. Nazi Germany started with threats and domestic beatings, propoganda. By the time anyone realised what was happening, it was too late. He's moving so fast, and the world is still holding up pieces of paper. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:03 - Jan 10 with 1985 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:54 - Jan 10 by redrickstuhaart |
We need to start taking steps on those military bases. We cannot have a hostile state basing military within our borders.
Trump is a bully. If Greenland is defended he will not pursue it. If it is not, he will press on. He is not interested in wars, he is interested in rolling people over. Europe is quite capable of putting a viable defence in place that would would deter. |
It is important that we have worked out a clear strategy for the eventuality.
I would suggest the bases would immediately become prisoner of war compounds with supplies in and out strictly controlled. Any flights made out or attempted in would be denied permission and shot down if attempted. Whether entering the bases and seizing equipment and supplies would be advisable is another question.
It would be such a mess for the US as much as for the UK (and other NATO members with US bases on their soil) that I just can't see it happening. However, the scenario needs to be planned for.
Further plans would involve the seizing of US assets (including football teams) and potentially expulsion of US citizens. It would be a mess. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:04 - Jan 10 with 1974 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:57 - Jan 10 by redrickstuhaart |
Im afraid that is nonsense.
The "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are literally appointed Trump supporters, with markedly religous right leanings. Appointed for their inclination to support Trump and his agenda. |
i'm not sure dismissing 200 years of legal debates about the interpretation of the us constitution as "nonsense" is right. they have undoubtedly been appointed because their conservative reading of the constitution favours trump's view of the state and its powers. that is different from supporting trump. and it doesn't alter the fact that they would always uphold the constitution (as they read it and as the supreme court always read it up to the 60s) regardless of trump. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:08 - Jan 10 with 1956 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:04 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
i'm not sure dismissing 200 years of legal debates about the interpretation of the us constitution as "nonsense" is right. they have undoubtedly been appointed because their conservative reading of the constitution favours trump's view of the state and its powers. that is different from supporting trump. and it doesn't alter the fact that they would always uphold the constitution (as they read it and as the supreme court always read it up to the 60s) regardless of trump. |
Can you actually evidence "that is different from supporting trump"?
There is very little genuine opposition from within his supporter base and it really is tinkering around the edges where it has happened. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:15 - Jan 10 with 1922 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:08 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Can you actually evidence "that is different from supporting trump"?
There is very little genuine opposition from within his supporter base and it really is tinkering around the edges where it has happened. |
they are politically independent in every practical sense. that doesn't alter the fact that their legal philosophy supports a view of the us state which better suits policies from the right than liberal policies. they are not puppets of trump any more than all the liberal judges appointed from the 60s onwards (and who had a different legal philosophy) were partisan puppets of the democrats. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
