What is a "Progressive"?

[NoNukes]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

And you are an idiot who does not know the meaning of either term.

Fascism is derived from the Latin meaning bundle of sticks and Coined by SOCIALIST Progressive Benito Mussolini Meaning together they are strong individually weak. Now that I have educated you I expect your apology any day.

That is not what you were saying about liberals and you know it. Tell that shit to someone with your mental capacity, they might believe it.

 

[NoNukes]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

see post 258 .... By the way dont try to match wits with me when your unarmed.

Do not try to sound sharp when you are unable to use proper English.

 

[thanatos144]

And you are an idiot who does not know the meaning of either term.

Fascism is derived from the Latin meaning bundle of sticks and Coined by SOCIALIST Progressive Benito Mussolini Meaning together they are strong individually weak. Now that I have educated you I expect your apology any day.

That is not what you were saying about liberals and you know it. Tell that shit to someone with your mental capacity, they might believe it.

Cant read can you? Whats the thread title ?

 

[peach174]

This was said of all Liberal/Progressive issues. 'Twas ever thus. FDR heard it and brought us Social Security along with a virtual alphabet soup of federal programs that gave work and hope to a desperate people. His uncle Theodore heard it and was first mocked as, then praised as a Trust Buster.

And yet our economy was saved from monopolistic control at the beginning of the 20th century and saved again from Capitalist panic in the first third of that century.

LBJ heard it just after the mid point of the 20th century and we got Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start.

Keep up the tradition of being blind to accomplishments and focusing on the well worn talking points. In the meantime, Liberals will be fighting the good fight and Conservatives will continue to be behind the curve of history.

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy?

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

The Government won't allow you to refuse that monthly check Nosmo King.
The government forces you and your employer to pay for Soc. Sec. and forces you to take that monthly check. Once you accept it you can never refuse it.

Conservatives are not dissatisfied with Soc. Sec. they are dissatisfied with how it is being run and how it is being robbed and used for other purposes without adding any funding to the additional things that Dem's added on to it over the years. Example- Disability
We all should be outraged that President Johnson moved the money to the general fund so that he could use that money to pay for the Viet Nam War rather than raise taxes to pay for it. And they have been taking from it ever since then.
Getting the funds out of congresses greedy little paws is what conservatives want.

 

[rightwinger]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

see post 258 .... By the way dont try to match wits with me when your unarmed.

Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Morons.

 

[Mertex]

Figures dont lie but liars can figure.

Is that what you are doing? Figures.......(no pun intended)....

 

[Contumacious]

Sometimes a business partnership between private capital and government is a boon to the entire society.

Really, like the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve Board and a progressive Congress partnership which caused our worst depression ever in 1935, forcing our nation into bankruptcy and thereafter abandoning the gold standard?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Mertex]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

If you continue to just regurgitate what other ignorant people tell you, you are always going to sound like them. Every time you call lefties "fascists" you are exposing your inability to comprehend what Fascism stood for.

Inform yourself....this is what Mussolini said:



Wikipedia:
A key concept of the Mussolini essay was that fascism was a rejection of previous models: "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."


In the entire world, not a single authoritative or objective researcher or student of government defines fascism or Nazism as "left wing" movements. They are always, and have ALWAYS been associated with the RIGHT, and they are, in fact, REACTIONARY rightists. Read Shirer, Mussolini, Toland, Bullock, Hess's speeches ca. '38, Hitler, anyone who actually KNOWS the subject, not fat slob scum bags on propaganda broadcasts who barely got through high school and are trying to separate themselves from reality.

One would think it might be persuasive that all the key fascist and socialist writers and propagandists spend at least 25% of their time and space dealing with suppressing--that means KILLING OFF--the LEFT, namely, socialists, liberals, communists, anyone with any free-thinking ideas, the labor unions, etc, etc., etc. Obviously, though, a lot of genuine bozo posters here have no background in thought OR history OR philosophy.


Sullivan: Conservatives are Fascists

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where were you taught this particular lie, or are you making this up as you go?

How was this continent spanned by railroad had it not been by the help from government? How was foreign trade regulated and protected if not by the help go government? How were rivers made navigable, communications develop from pony express to nation-wide telegraph to satellite had government not helped.

Your grasp of American history is tenuous at best. Did you take your studies over seas, or from Sears and Roebuck?

You dont refute a single example and call it a lie. Congratulations!
You are confusing gov't setting ground rules with gov't actually doing the work in all the cases you cite. Ultimately private money built railroads, airlines, telegraph and other infrastructure in America. The fact that people got paid in US dollars or signed contracts enforceable in US courts doesn't negate that.

Federal land grants built the railroads, unless you think that private money was used to buy up vast tracts in the west before the first tie was laid. Federal mandates to string telegraph and telephone wires made communications possible, unless you think private entrepreneurs had an itch to push lines into small towns on the prairies.

To dismiss the federal government as a hindrance on one hand and ignore the federal power that made all this possible on the other betrays a basic ignorance of history and a basic misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. The federal government cannot be both poison and antidote to private enterprises.

Baloney.

Typical of the indoctrination of government schooling.


1. The Great Northern was built by James J. Hill, the 'Empire Builder,' without the generous land grants given to other transcontinental railroads. Hill, a one-eyed Canadian, was a true railroad man "having 20 years of frontier freighting, merchandising, and transportation experience."
John Stover, "American Railroads," p. 76.

a. He began by taking over the bankrupt St. Paul & Pacific, March 13, 1878, building in fits and starts, recycling profits from completed sections to pay for the next stretch. As he progressed westward, he would throw out branches where he could see easy potential profits.

b. Unlike those of his rivals, the financing of his railroad was generated by it transportation activity rather than through land deals. The very symbol of capitalism, it was built with private money, not government subsidies...i.e., mercantilism.

c. The transcontinental essentially stole Indian land. Hill actually purchased the right of was for cash, and gave jobs to Indians.


2. The Great Northern Railway (reporting mark GN), running from Saint Paul, Minnesota, to Seattle, Washington—more than 1,700 miles (2,736 km)—was the creation of the 19th century railroad tycoon James J. Hill and was developed from the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad. The Great Northern's route was the northernmost transcontinental railroad route in the United States. It was completed on January 6, 1893, at Scenic, Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)

a. At completion it was so profitable, it allowed Hill to take over the rival Northern Pacific.

b. "He had the satisfaction of being able to watch all the other transcontinentals to collapse into bankruptcy during the financial panic of 1893, while his railroad continued to flourish."
Wolmar, "The Great Railroad Revolution," p.178.



Shall I await your correction?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This was said of all Liberal/Progressive issues. 'Twas ever thus. FDR heard it and brought us Social Security along with a virtual alphabet soup of federal programs that gave work and hope to a desperate people. His uncle Theodore heard it and was first mocked as, then praised as a Trust Buster.

And yet our economy was saved from monopolistic control at the beginning of the 20th century and saved again from Capitalist panic in the first third of that century.

LBJ heard it just after the mid point of the 20th century and we got Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start.

Keep up the tradition of being blind to accomplishments and focusing on the well worn talking points. In the meantime, Liberals will be fighting the good fight and Conservatives will continue to be behind the curve of history.

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy?

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

The greatest soliloquy:

"I'll be all around in the dark. I'll be ever'-where - wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad - I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise, and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too."
Steinbeck, “Grapes of Wrath.”


I don't know whether I loved that most, or Dos Passos' trilogy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

They're much worse off now. They used to be self sufficient and now they are slaves to the government

Why does CrusaderFrank lie? Does he really believe his whiny rants will convince anyone that history according to him is credible to any but the most ignorant? Or is his need for attention his greatest motivation?

Of course the possibility he is one of the "most ignorant" needs to be ruled out, and he is simply a parrot for the Minister of Truth, PoliticalChic.

We became the world's Number 1 economy and a Super Power without any government subsidies. Since the "Progressives" started the "War on Poverty" all we have is more poverty and more debt and a dollar that worth 10 cents

 

[CrusaderFrank]

see post 258 .... By the way dont try to match wits with me when your unarmed.

Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Morons.

Inconceivable!!

 

[Indeependent]

They're much worse off now. They used to be self sufficient and now they are slaves to the government

Why does CrusaderFrank lie? Does he really believe his whiny rants will convince anyone that history according to him is credible to any but the most ignorant? Or is his need for attention his greatest motivation?

Of course the possibility he is one of the "most ignorant" needs to be ruled out, and he is simply a parrot for the Minister of Truth, PoliticalChic.

We became the world's Number 1 economy and a Super Power without any government subsidies. Since the "Progressives" started the "War on Poverty" all we have is more poverty and more debt and a dollar that worth 10 cents

That Super Power had NOTHING to do with either World Wars?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does CrusaderFrank lie? Does he really believe his whiny rants will convince anyone that history according to him is credible to any but the most ignorant? Or is his need for attention his greatest motivation?

Of course the possibility he is one of the "most ignorant" needs to be ruled out, and he is simply a parrot for the Minister of Truth, PoliticalChic.

We became the world's Number 1 economy and a Super Power without any government subsidies. Since the "Progressives" started the "War on Poverty" all we have is more poverty and more debt and a dollar that worth 10 cents

That Super Power had NOTHING to do with either World Wars?

No, honey. It was American Industry, not Food Stamps, that won the wars.

 

[Contumacious]

You dont refute a single example and call it a lie. Congratulations!
You are confusing gov't setting ground rules with gov't actually doing the work in all the cases you cite. Ultimately private money built railroads, airlines, telegraph and other infrastructure in America. The fact that people got paid in US dollars or signed contracts enforceable in US courts doesn't negate that.

Federal land grants built the railroads, unless you think that private money was used to buy up vast tracts in the west before the first tie was laid. Federal mandates to string telegraph and telephone wires made communications possible, unless you think private entrepreneurs had an itch to push lines into small towns on the prairies.

To dismiss the federal government as a hindrance on one hand and ignore the federal power that made all this possible on the other betrays a basic ignorance of history and a basic misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. The federal government cannot be both poison and antidote to private enterprises.

Baloney.

Typical of the indoctrination of government schooling.


1. The Great Northern was built by James J. Hill, the 'Empire Builder,' without the generous land grants given to other transcontinental railroads. Hill, a one-eyed Canadian, was a true railroad man "having 20 years of frontier freighting, merchandising, and transportation experience."
John Stover, "American Railroads," p. 76.

a. He began by taking over the bankrupt St. Paul & Pacific, March 13, 1878, building in fits and starts, recycling profits from completed sections to pay for the next stretch. As he progressed westward, he would throw out branches where he could see easy potential profits.

b. Unlike those of his rivals, the financing of his railroad was generated by it transportation activity rather than through land deals. The very symbol of capitalism, it was built with private money, not government subsidies...i.e., mercantilism.

c. The transcontinental essentially stole Indian land. Hill actually purchased the right of was for cash, and gave jobs to Indians.


2. The Great Northern Railway (reporting mark GN), running from Saint Paul, Minnesota, to Seattle, Washington—more than 1,700 miles (2,736 km)—was the creation of the 19th century railroad tycoon James J. Hill and was developed from the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad. The Great Northern's route was the northernmost transcontinental railroad route in the United States. It was completed on January 6, 1893, at Scenic, Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)

a. At completion it was so profitable, it allowed Hill to take over the rival Northern Pacific.

b. "He had the satisfaction of being able to watch all the other transcontinentals to collapse into bankruptcy during the financial panic of 1893, while his railroad continued to flourish."
Wolmar, "The Great Railroad Revolution," p.178.



Shall I await your correction?

James J. Hill was a great entrepreneur and courageous man. His RR was successful because he refused to accept one single penny from the federal government.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Federal land grants built the railroads, unless you think that private money was used to buy up vast tracts in the west before the first tie was laid. Federal mandates to string telegraph and telephone wires made communications possible, unless you think private entrepreneurs had an itch to push lines into small towns on the prairies.

To dismiss the federal government as a hindrance on one hand and ignore the federal power that made all this possible on the other betrays a basic ignorance of history and a basic misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. The federal government cannot be both poison and antidote to private enterprises.

Baloney.

Typical of the indoctrination of government schooling.


1. The Great Northern was built by James J. Hill, the 'Empire Builder,' without the generous land grants given to other transcontinental railroads. Hill, a one-eyed Canadian, was a true railroad man "having 20 years of frontier freighting, merchandising, and transportation experience."
John Stover, "American Railroads," p. 76.

a. He began by taking over the bankrupt St. Paul & Pacific, March 13, 1878, building in fits and starts, recycling profits from completed sections to pay for the next stretch. As he progressed westward, he would throw out branches where he could see easy potential profits.

b. Unlike those of his rivals, the financing of his railroad was generated by it transportation activity rather than through land deals. The very symbol of capitalism, it was built with private money, not government subsidies...i.e., mercantilism.

c. The transcontinental essentially stole Indian land. Hill actually purchased the right of was for cash, and gave jobs to Indians.


2. The Great Northern Railway (reporting mark GN), running from Saint Paul, Minnesota, to Seattle, Washington—more than 1,700 miles (2,736 km)—was the creation of the 19th century railroad tycoon James J. Hill and was developed from the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad. The Great Northern's route was the northernmost transcontinental railroad route in the United States. It was completed on January 6, 1893, at Scenic, Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)

a. At completion it was so profitable, it allowed Hill to take over the rival Northern Pacific.

b. "He had the satisfaction of being able to watch all the other transcontinentals to collapse into bankruptcy during the financial panic of 1893, while his railroad continued to flourish."
Wolmar, "The Great Railroad Revolution," p.178.



Shall I await your correction?

James J. Hill was a great entrepreneur and courageous man. His RR was successful because he refused to accept one single penny from the federal government.

.

I was in Old Sacramento...got to see the California State Railroad Museum.

I thought it would be boring...but the docent, George Palmer, was amazing! Dates, data, details poured out of his mouth!

If you can get there, take a tour with Mr. Palmer.....he looks like Walter E. Williams.....the guy is amazing.

He's the reason I researched James J. Hill.

 

[Immanuel]

The Founding Fathers were progressives!

So, by your thinking, the founding fathers didn't believe in individual freedom despite the fact that the documents they wrote guaranteed our freedoms?

Are you crazy?

They may not have been conservatives with sticks up their butts, but they were not Anti-American Progressives

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

Madison and the other founding fathers who gave us the BoR, within 15 years of declaring independence were not progressives for several reasons first and foremost being that they actually valued individual freedoms. Something that a modern day progressive would spit on them for.

 

[rightwinger]

So, by your thinking, the founding fathers didn't believe in individual freedom despite the fact that the documents they wrote guaranteed our freedoms?

Are you crazy?

They may not have been conservatives with sticks up their butts, but they were not Anti-American Progressives

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

Madison and the other founding fathers who gave us the BoR, within 15 years of declaring independence were not progressives for several reasons first and foremost being that they actually valued individual freedoms. Something that a modern day progressive would spit on them for.

Total nonsense

 

[Contumacious]

So, by your thinking, the founding fathers didn't believe in individual freedom despite the fact that the documents they wrote guaranteed our freedoms?

Are you crazy?

They may not have been conservatives with sticks up their butts, but they were not Anti-American Progressives

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

Madison and the other founding fathers who gave us the BoR, within 15 years of declaring independence were not progressives for several reasons first and foremost being that they actually valued individual freedoms. Something that a modern day progressive would spit on them for.

Remember a "progressive" is an individual who wants to use governmental power to manipulate the market place and wants to mold society into whatever the elite believes is ideal.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison , Patrick Henry , et al, were individualists. No power was ever granted to the federal government to either intervene in the economy or to conduct social engineering.


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Ninth Amendment

.
.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This was said of all Liberal/Progressive issues. 'Twas ever thus. FDR heard it and brought us Social Security along with a virtual alphabet soup of federal programs that gave work and hope to a desperate people. His uncle Theodore heard it and was first mocked as, then praised as a Trust Buster.

And yet our economy was saved from monopolistic control at the beginning of the 20th century and saved again from Capitalist panic in the first third of that century.

LBJ heard it just after the mid point of the 20th century and we got Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start.

Keep up the tradition of being blind to accomplishments and focusing on the well worn talking points. In the meantime, Liberals will be fighting the good fight and Conservatives will continue to be behind the curve of history.

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy? Politicians NEED poor people..

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

My God, how stupid you liberals are. We've been fighting this "war on poverty" as long as humans have been on this planet. TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent on fighting this "so-called" war yet nothing EVER changes. EVER. LBJ based his entire failed presidency on (1) the "War" on poverty and (2) Civil Rights - and he was a miserable failure on each count. Again - there are just as many "poor" people now, as there were 200 years ago. DON'T YOU GET IT!?!?! Politicians NEED poor people!!

Liberals just simply CANNOT fathom NOT spending money. It's a waste of time, resources and effort.

And as far as MY Social Security goes - I have mine. I paid for it. YOU on the other hand - will be screwed. You may now write your Congressman and Senator and thank them for screwing you. Jesus Christ - wake the hell up you fools….