Even Liberals Know The Truth

[Mac1958]

I realize that, in your binary political world, folks are either "conservative" or "liberal".

Crazy enough, some of us belong to neither ideological group. My best guess is that most of us don't, for that matter. Go figure, huh?

Since I clearly need to explain, here we go: It has been my experience that partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum have managed to convince themselves that they have a vice-like grip on The Truth.

So, when I see a partisan ideologue making such a claim, I snicker a bit and think:

That's all. You don't have to take it so personally.

.

It's not that I take it personally...it's that I respect and stand up for truth.

Could you explain the parts of the OP that lack truth?

But, personally, for conservatives, data informs policy.
What Kristof is revealing is that the same is not true for Liberal-auspiced welfare policy.

That would depend on what an agreed-to definition of "The Truth" is.

If the definition is, "The truth as I see it from my personal partisan perspective without even a hint of a sincere and reasonable examination of the opposing point of view", then I'd say you're all over the truth. And if you're satisfied with that, then more power to you. Such a definition is inadequate for me.

For the record, I agree with most of the point. But to claim some kind of ownership of The Truth as if it's the whole truth while only providing a part of the debate is intellectually dishonest at best. And that's what I've had enough of from both ends of the political spectrum.

But as an idiot (your term), perhaps my priority on intellectual honesty is a waste of time.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not that I take it personally...it's that I respect and stand up for truth.

Could you explain the parts of the OP that lack truth?

Rather than always being on the attack and seeking ways to take something away from the poor, work on coming up with ideas that prevent people from falling into poverty to begin with.

Provide superior ideas for success rather than seeking to find fault in others so often.

There is currently a massive redistribution of wealth going on up the ladder, not down the ladder. This unnatural concentration is doing more damage to our market system, and creating more poverty, than anything else going on right now.

The fight over taxes and entitlement programs is classic political misdirection.

The partisan hacks on the right can see that taking more from the rich will not solve the problem. However, they cannot see that taking more from the poor will not solve the problem, either.

The obverse is true for the partisan hacks on the left.




.

You misunderstand.


I never attack the poor.


The poor are folks with no home-no heat- no food.



Programs that support any outside of that definition are for suckers.
Does 'Useful Idiot' sound familiar?
There is a certain party that makes good use of folks like you.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Don't let PoliticalChic's rants lead you to believe that Republicans hate poor people.

After all, if the Republican Party hated poor people they would not have helped to make so many of them.

.

And here everyone was thinking that the poor usually have only themselves to blame and that decades of obscene welfare programs have kept them that way.........

 

[Freemason9]

Don't let PoliticalChic's rants lead you to believe that Republicans hate poor people.

After all, if the Republican Party hated poor people they would not have helped to make so many of them.

.

What is really funny is that you were exactly the dim-wit I pictured as I read Kristof's article...the kind of sanctimonious 'I love the poor' dunces who endorse the programs that Kristof is skewering.


Learning isn't a strong point with you, is it.

So let's get rid of all social welfare programs. That will fix everything, right?

 

[Misty]

Nobody wants kids to grow up hungry but adults do abuse the system and that abuse should be stopped.

 

[Misty]

Don't let PoliticalChic's rants lead you to believe that Republicans hate poor peoplep
After all, if the Republican Party hated poor people they would not have helped to make so many of them..

What is really funny is that you were exactly the dim-wit I pictured as I read Kristof's article...the kind of sanctimonious 'I love the poor' dunces who endorse the programs that Kristof is skewering.


Learning isn't a strong point with you, is it.

So let's get rid of all social welfare programs. That will fix everything, right?

Ignoring the problem doesnt help either. Here in Los Angeles welfare is a stepping stone to gang banging and crime.

It's not just a monetary problem. It's a social one too

 

[Freemason9]

What is really funny is that you were exactly the dim-wit I pictured as I read Kristof's article...the kind of sanctimonious 'I love the poor' dunces who endorse the programs that Kristof is skewering.


Learning isn't a strong point with you, is it.

So let's get rid of all social welfare programs. That will fix everything, right?

Ignoring the problem doesnt help either. Here in Los Angeles welfare is a stepping stone to gang banging and crime.

It's not just a monetary problem. It's a social one too

Frankly, I don't give much of a shit anymore. Yes, welfare is abused. BUT, American jobs pay shit. There is still NO national healthcare system. Most Americans, even those that work, remain debt slaves. There is nearly no opportunity for a child born in poverty to leave that economic group.

This American economic system sucks now more than ever. It's not worth saving or supporting, unless you're one of the few wealthy sociopaths that benefit from it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I realize that, in your binary political world, folks are either "conservative" or "liberal".

Crazy enough, some of us belong to neither ideological group. My best guess is that most of us don't, for that matter. Go figure, huh?

Since I clearly need to explain, here we go: It has been my experience that partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum have managed to convince themselves that they have a vice-like grip on The Truth.

So, when I see a partisan ideologue making such a claim, I snicker a bit and think:

That's all. You don't have to take it so personally.

.

It's not that I take it personally...it's that I respect and stand up for truth.

Could you explain the parts of the OP that lack truth?

But, personally, for conservatives, data informs policy.
What Kristof is revealing is that the same is not true for Liberal-auspiced welfare policy.

That would depend on what an agreed-to definition of "The Truth" is.

If the definition is, "The truth as I see it from my personal partisan perspective without even a hint of a sincere and reasonable examination of the opposing point of view", then I'd say you're all over the truth. And if you're satisfied with that, then more power to you. Such a definition is inadequate for me.

For the record, I agree with most of the point. But to claim some kind of ownership of The Truth as if it's the whole truth while only providing a part of the debate is intellectually dishonest at best. And that's what I've had enough of from both ends of the political spectrum.

But as an idiot (your term), perhaps my priority on intellectual honesty is a waste of time.

.

"For the record, I agree with most of the point."

Well, then...let's review.
You certainly got my back up when you posted a cartoon that I found disgusting, characterizing the OP as a…fecal blizzard…


In post #16 I asked you to point out the aspects of the OP that were not true.


Now, in full retreat mode, you write "For the record, I agree with most of the point."


I'll settle.



Here is some context: over the last few weeks, I've posted several several OPs documenting the vapidity of the welfare system, as well as the reasons for Obama's amplification of same.

And Kristof is supporting everything I've said....just not to the extent I've said it.

 

[Freemason9]

The only reason welfare exists in the U.S. is to prevent the masses from rioting. Take away meager welfare payments (and the huge U.S. imprisoned population), and the entire nation will come unglued.

so, let 'er rip.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only reason welfare exists in the U.S. is to prevent the masses from rioting. Take away meager welfare payments (and the huge U.S. imprisoned population), and the entire nation will come unglued.

so, let 'er rip.

1. "The only reason welfare exists in the U.S. is to prevent the masses from rioting."
[citation needed]


2. "...meager welfare payments ..."
"In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year"
In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year | ZeroHedge


3. "... U.S. imprisoned population..."
Have room in your place?



4. "...and the entire nation will come unglued."
There is an old saying:
"We can only judge others by ourselves."

No greater proof is necessary than your post.

 

[Mac1958]

It's not that I take it personally...it's that I respect and stand up for truth.

Could you explain the parts of the OP that lack truth?

But, personally, for conservatives, data informs policy.
What Kristof is revealing is that the same is not true for Liberal-auspiced welfare policy.

That would depend on what an agreed-to definition of "The Truth" is.

If the definition is, "The truth as I see it from my personal partisan perspective without even a hint of a sincere and reasonable examination of the opposing point of view", then I'd say you're all over the truth. And if you're satisfied with that, then more power to you. Such a definition is inadequate for me.

For the record, I agree with most of the point. But to claim some kind of ownership of The Truth as if it's the whole truth while only providing a part of the debate is intellectually dishonest at best. And that's what I've had enough of from both ends of the political spectrum.

But as an idiot (your term), perhaps my priority on intellectual honesty is a waste of time.

.

"For the record, I agree with most of the point."

Well, then...let's review.
You certainly got my back up when you posted a cartoon that I found disgusting, characterizing the OP as a…fecal blizzard…


In post #16 I asked you to point out the aspects of the OP that were not true.


Now, in full retreat mode, you write "For the record, I agree with most of the point."


I'll settle.



Here is some context: over the last few weeks, I've posted several several OPs documenting the vapidity of the welfare system, as well as the reasons for Obama's amplification of same.

And Kristof is supporting everything I've said....just not to the extent I've said it.

If it makes you feel better to think that I'm in "full retreat", that's fine. I'm right here.

And my point is that you are being intellectually dishonest by pretending that you have a singular lock on "The Truth".

Pretend all you wish. Self-esteem is a funny thing.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On the Right, we’ve known all along that the ‘welfare system’ is not only fraudulent in principle, but debilitating for those who participate. Now, inveterate Liberal NYTimes writere Nicholas Kristof adds his degree of exactitude.

I challenge any who read this not to feel the pain in their hearts; Progressives will not admit the truth.

The take-away is that much of the solution is what conservatives have been saying for decades.




1. “THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability…. the Supplemental Security Income program….

a. About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.

b. That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school…. condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.

c. But the bottom line is that we shouldn’t try to fight poverty with a program that sometimes perpetuates it.





2. This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency.

3. Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

4. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.






5. ‘The greatest challenge we face as educators is how to break that dependency on government.’… a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity —

6. I don’t want to suggest that America’s antipoverty programs are a total failure. On the contrary, they are making a significant difference. Nearly all homes here in the Appalachian hill country now have electricity and running water, and people aren’t starving.

7. Our political system has created a particularly robust safety net for the elderly, focused on Social Security and Medicare — because the elderly vote. This safety net has brought down the poverty rate among the elderly from about 35 percent in 1959 to under 9 percent today.

8. Of American families living in poverty today, 8 out of 10 have air-conditioning, and a majority have a washing machine and dryer. Nearly all have microwave ovens. What they don’t have is hope.






9. A growing body of careful research suggests that the most effective strategy is to work early on children and education, and to try to encourage and sustain marriage.

10. I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record. But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they — and millions like them — should be a national priority. They’re too small to fail.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/o...d=2&adxnnlx=1355241766-9YB8/+T5s0YnaFOVSnoFHg




I suggest that those in charge are not oblivious to the solutions suggested in Kristof's piece....so the perceptive on the Left, many of whom made the mistaken votes in the election, should ask themselves why they've been lied to.


And...perhaps....ask why this article wasn't printed prior to the election.....

Once you've made the poor poorer,

when do the good things start to happen?

 

[NoNukes]

Only Liberals Know The Truth

Fixed that for you.

I'm thinking that a fix for you would be along the lines of what is meant when one refers to a canine as having been 'fixed.'


Let's see if logic is of aid here:

a. Only Liberals Know The Truth

b. Nicholas Kristof is a well known Liberal

c. Therefore his piece, i.e., the OP, must be true.



Thanks so much for your endorsement.

Here is an endorsement.

If Political Chic was not so boring, she might be amusing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not that I take it personally...it's that I respect and stand up for truth.

Could you explain the parts of the OP that lack truth?

But, personally, for conservatives, data informs policy.
What Kristof is revealing is that the same is not true for Liberal-auspiced welfare policy.

That would depend on what an agreed-to definition of "The Truth" is.

If the definition is, "The truth as I see it from my personal partisan perspective without even a hint of a sincere and reasonable examination of the opposing point of view", then I'd say you're all over the truth. And if you're satisfied with that, then more power to you. Such a definition is inadequate for me.

For the record, I agree with most of the point. But to claim some kind of ownership of The Truth as if it's the whole truth while only providing a part of the debate is intellectually dishonest at best. And that's what I've had enough of from both ends of the political spectrum.

But as an idiot (your term), perhaps my priority on intellectual honesty is a waste of time.

.

"For the record, I agree with most of the point."

Well, then...let's review.
You certainly got my back up when you posted a cartoon that I found disgusting, characterizing the OP as a…fecal blizzard…


In post #16 I asked you to point out the aspects of the OP that were not true.


Now, in full retreat mode, you write "For the record, I agree with most of the point."


I'll settle.



Here is some context: over the last few weeks, I've posted several several OPs documenting the vapidity of the welfare system, as well as the reasons for Obama's amplification of same.

And Kristof is supporting everything I've said....just not to the extent I've said it.

You choose to live in a high tax city within a high tax state.

If your complaint is about taxes, aren't you yourself making a choice to pay higher taxes that you yourself could remedy simply by relocating?

 

[candycorn]

On the Right, we’ve known all along that the ‘welfare system’ is not only fraudulent in principle, but debilitating for those who participate. Now, inveterate Liberal NYTimes writere Nicholas Kristof adds his degree of exactitude.

I challenge any who read this not to feel the pain in their hearts; Progressives will not admit the truth.

The take-away is that much of the solution is what conservatives have been saying for decades.




1. “THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability…. the Supplemental Security Income program….

a. About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.

b. That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school…. condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.

c. But the bottom line is that we shouldn’t try to fight poverty with a program that sometimes perpetuates it.





2. This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency.

3. Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

4. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.






5. ‘The greatest challenge we face as educators is how to break that dependency on government.’… a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity —

6. I don’t want to suggest that America’s antipoverty programs are a total failure. On the contrary, they are making a significant difference. Nearly all homes here in the Appalachian hill country now have electricity and running water, and people aren’t starving.

7. Our political system has created a particularly robust safety net for the elderly, focused on Social Security and Medicare — because the elderly vote. This safety net has brought down the poverty rate among the elderly from about 35 percent in 1959 to under 9 percent today.

8. Of American families living in poverty today, 8 out of 10 have air-conditioning, and a majority have a washing machine and dryer. Nearly all have microwave ovens. What they don’t have is hope.






9. A growing body of careful research suggests that the most effective strategy is to work early on children and education, and to try to encourage and sustain marriage.

10. I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record. But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they — and millions like them — should be a national priority. They’re too small to fail.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/o...d=2&adxnnlx=1355241766-9YB8/+T5s0YnaFOVSnoFHg




I suggest that those in charge are not oblivious to the solutions suggested in Kristof's piece....so the perceptive on the Left, many of whom made the mistaken votes in the election, should ask themselves why they've been lied to.


And...perhaps....ask why this article wasn't printed prior to the election.....

Gee, Sounds familiar doesn't it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227696-even-obama-knows-the-end-is-near.html#post5415612

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't worry. I understand.

Bush and the Republicans had the White House, the House, and the Senate. During this time they helped to create many millions upon millions more poor people.

They did?

Are you sure you're not blatantly lying, as is the way of leftists such as you?

Kind of looks like you're lying, for your little tin Messiah® - who actually HAS created millions and millions of poor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, it's all Bush's fault.. how delicious.

My God you're ignorant.

He's just a leftist - zero integrity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I realize that, in your binary political world, folks are either "conservative" or "liberal".

Crazy enough, some of us belong to neither ideological group. My best guess is that most of us don't, for that matter. Go figure, huh?

Since I clearly need to explain, here we go: It has been my experience that partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum have managed to convince themselves that they have a vice-like grip on The Truth.

So, when I see a partisan ideologue making such a claim, I snicker a bit and think:

That's all. You don't have to take it so personally.

.

Psst... Mac?

You're a partisan leftwinger. You're nowhere near the center, dude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On the Right, we’ve known all along that the ‘welfare system’ is not only fraudulent in principle, but debilitating for those who participate. Now, inveterate Liberal NYTimes writere Nicholas Kristof adds his degree of exactitude.

I challenge any who read this not to feel the pain in their hearts; Progressives will not admit the truth.

The take-away is that much of the solution is what conservatives have been saying for decades.




1. “THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability…. the Supplemental Security Income program….

a. About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.

b. That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school…. condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.

c. But the bottom line is that we shouldn’t try to fight poverty with a program that sometimes perpetuates it.





2. This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency.

3. Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

4. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.






5. ‘The greatest challenge we face as educators is how to break that dependency on government.’… a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity —

6. I don’t want to suggest that America’s antipoverty programs are a total failure. On the contrary, they are making a significant difference. Nearly all homes here in the Appalachian hill country now have electricity and running water, and people aren’t starving.

7. Our political system has created a particularly robust safety net for the elderly, focused on Social Security and Medicare — because the elderly vote. This safety net has brought down the poverty rate among the elderly from about 35 percent in 1959 to under 9 percent today.

8. Of American families living in poverty today, 8 out of 10 have air-conditioning, and a majority have a washing machine and dryer. Nearly all have microwave ovens. What they don’t have is hope.






9. A growing body of careful research suggests that the most effective strategy is to work early on children and education, and to try to encourage and sustain marriage.

10. I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record. But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they — and millions like them — should be a national priority. They’re too small to fail.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/o...d=2&adxnnlx=1355241766-9YB8/+T5s0YnaFOVSnoFHg




I suggest that those in charge are not oblivious to the solutions suggested in Kristof's piece....so the perceptive on the Left, many of whom made the mistaken votes in the election, should ask themselves why they've been lied to.


And...perhaps....ask why this article wasn't printed prior to the election.....

Once you've made the poor poorer,

when do the good things start to happen?

Nothing makes the poor poorer than the welfare system.

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.

b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.



2. What happened when conservative forced a change in welfare to workfare? “It has been 10 years since the welfare reform law was signed by President Clinton amid predictions of disaster from the left….about 60 percent of the adults leaving welfare are employed at any given moment and that, over a period of several months, about 80 percent hold at least one job. Even more impressive, national data from the Census Bureau show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent. Moreover, employment among never-married mothers, the most disadvantaged and least-educated subgroup of single mothers, grew from 44 percent to 66 percent, an increase of 50 percent, over the same period. Again, these sweeping changes are unprecedented.” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCD/is_1_64/ai_n24986762/



3. Of course, Barack Obama will not allow those gains to remain...'cause folks might reject dependency.

"Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill



So....a vote for Obama was a vote for dependency and oppression.

Did you vote for dependency and oppression?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only Liberals Know The Truth

Fixed that for you.

I'm thinking that a fix for you would be along the lines of what is meant when one refers to a canine as having been 'fixed.'


Let's see if logic is of aid here:

a. Only Liberals Know The Truth

b. Nicholas Kristof is a well known Liberal

c. Therefore his piece, i.e., the OP, must be true.



Thanks so much for your endorsement.

Here is an endorsement.

If Political Chic was not so boring, she might be amusing.

So....you find yourself regularly drawn to the boring?


Once again....the dunce is 'Hoist with his own petard.'