Vote Republican

The liabilities on the metaphorical Democrat balance sheet outweigh the liabilities on the Republican balance sheet, despicable as some of the Republican platform may be.

Overall, holding my nose, and despite my views on religion I would sooner accept the strong Republican balance sheet of more assets and less liabilities over the weaker softer greater liabilities Democratic one.
Going with the swift and the strong is the way to bet.
 
'when I drag the nation through 8 years of incompetence and carnage and I leave the place a bigger mess than Lindsey Lohen's trailer, then blame the Democrats for cleaning up too slow... you will wake up refreshed, confused, and somewhat paranoid, and you'll remember nothing and vote Republican'​

Don't you get it CTLS? The song really does drive home the point of 'how is Romney going to be any different than Bush'? Romney is just going to be a somewhat more rich, somewhat more lenient towards the rich, and I want a just slightly different war in the Middle East, lets lower taxes while we spend, spend, spend, clone of Bush. It is set up just the same - the house will remain republican - I think there is a really, really good chance of the senate going republican so..... Why in the world would we want another Bush in the White House?

Heck, they should just be running Jeb...
 
Romney does not provoke the same kind of hatred there was for Bush.
He is a self made success with a long track record of accomplishing things he sets out to do.
He also diggingly said he's not running for Pastor in Chief like some of the other Republican Jesus candidates whereas Bush said Jesus told him to run which to me is a great sign of incompitence and weakness.

Obama is perceived as aloof,timid and lacking gravitas which Romney projects.
Romney's response to Gingrich after S Carolina shows he is a competent opponent who is at the top of his game as well as he can play it.

Obama has not been the magic one and will be cast aside by the majority of voters tired of a dilletante out of his league wonk who lacks people skills and is too eager to please and not offend anyone, a weakness Steve Jobs famously said he didn"t have.
It takes an A Hole not a village to get things done.
 
Romney is Bush with more money-CTLS - and 'self made man' - come on - his rich daddy paid for education and his rich daddy connections are what made Romney.

And he will do exactly what Bush did - wow - and the hill will be republican, just like it was during Bush - the country can't handle another 'bush' in the white house -

Well, Romney got a new debate coach after SC - I guess he is good at hiring coaches.

Obama is far more 'everyday' than Romney is- have you seen Romney on the campaign trail - I have, up close- he is east coast old money - through and through.
 
The song really does drive home the point of 'how is Romney going to be any different than Bush'?

Romney is certainly not an ideal choice but at least he isn't an ideologue who would ignore economic reality and work to force his myopic worldview on the rest of the nation by hook or by crook (Obamacare, Frank-Dodd, Executive fiat and bureaucratic overreach). ANY of the republican candidate would be preferable to that. They would all certainly have more respect for the law and economic reality.

With Obama, the mask has slipped off. You cannot deny that he is a socialist at this point. He has shown an utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law and is now blatantly pursuing redistribution politics. We have never had a more single minded ideologue in the White House and his is wrecking the economy in pursuit of his Utopia.
 
Romney is Bush with more money-CTLS - and 'self made man' - come on - his rich daddy paid for education and his rich daddy connections are what made Romney.

And he will do exactly what Bush did - wow - and the hill will be republican, just like it was during Bush - the country can't handle another 'bush' in the white house -

Well, Romney got a new debate coach after SC - I guess he is good at hiring coaches.

Obama is far more 'everyday' than Romney is- have you seen Romney on the campaign trail - I have, up close- he is east coast old money - through and through.



We're not looking for some regular guy to have a beer with.
I'd much prefer someone of Romney's stature and record of accomplishment for POTUS than some everyday Joe or a former community organizer with lots of intellectualism but minimal management experience.
Romney's success and personal life speak for themselves.

Ongoing wealth
Bain Capital's approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry. Economist Steven Kaplan would later say, "[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses."
His experience at Bain & Company and Bain Capital gave Romney a business-oriented world view – centering on a hate of waste and inefficiency, a love for data and charts and analysis and presentation, and a belief in keeping an open mind and seeking opposing points of view – that he would take with him to the public sector.


Romney had priviledge but on his own is a creator of things and not his father's man.
Romney was not an alchoholic cokehead who got a DUI like Bush did.
Bush was the black sheep of the family and never abusiness success on his own.
He tellingly didn't succeed in making his mark by turning business his family oil connections handed him into a profit.
If you can't make a go of that what does that say about your capabilities.
Bush was an embarassment getting elected and it's hard to believe he purportedly has a 135 IQ but Romney is a smart accomplished guy with a good balance sheet who can talk proud about his achievements and his family.

Bush's greatest achievement was cornering the religious vote by appealing to crony nepotism as being one of us, as if IMO that lumpen sentiment of style over substance is some kind of major qualification for president.

People have not been that impressed with our minority president and any excuse will be enough to send him home.
The open minded majority of American voters took a chance last time but hope and change have turned into gloom and cynicism and the public wants to go back to a traditional candidate, a bill that Romney fills more than well.
After the disappointment of Obama many people will vote for Mittens because to them he's one of us, not a minority and is a man's man, the type of person Mormonism notwithstanding, traditionally thought of as desirable (by Tea Party types and others) and in charge in the role of a US leader.
You know what I mean.
We send in a man to do a man's job.
Romney looks and sounds Presidential, like he's up to the task.
 
We're not looking for some regular guy to have a beer with.
I'd much prefer someone of Romney's stature and record of accomplishment for POTUS than some everyday Joe or a former community organizer with lots of intellectualism but minimal management experience.
Romney's success and personal life speak for themselves.
Nope - we had the guy you could have a beer with - Bush.

But, with Romney you are getting an elitist, with no ties to the middle class.

Oh, Daddy's connections got Romney his job at Bain to begin with - true, Romney parleyed Bain into Bain Capital, but without Daddy - that road would have not likely have been open to mittens.

The open minded majority of American voters took a chance last time but hope and change have turned into gloom and cynicism and the public wants to go back to a traditional candidate, a bill that Romney fills more than well.
After the disappointment of Obama many people will vote for Mittens because to them he's one of us, not a minority and is a man's man, the type of person Mormonism notwithstanding, traditionally thought of as desirable (by Tea Party types and others) and in charge in the role of a US leader.
You know what I mean.
We send in a man to do a man's job.
Romney looks and sounds Presidential, like he's up to the task.
You make Romney sound like Reagan - he is no Reagan. His disconnect with the young, the poor, the minorities, can hurt him. I don't know if Obama can rally those groups again - I agree I have been disappointed with Obama - but having Romney in the House will be a return to Bush policies - have you looked at Romney's ideas - the way they mirror Bush is scary.

Look what Bush policies did to this country - we are just barely creeping out of the hole he dug, and now you want to elect someone who will re-enact the same policies - do you like living in a hole?
 
Look what Bush policies did to this country - we are just barely creeping out of the hole he dug, and now you want to elect someone who will re-enact the same policies - do you like living in a hole?

With regards to what, the economy? That is a highly ignorant thing to say. The problems that caused the housing bust did not start under Bush, they go back much further. Blaming Bush is the easy answer and is bad economics because it avoids examining what is unseen and the various factors that indirectly led to the housing bust.

With regards to those factors, the Dems and the Fed have actually doubled down on those same failed policies.
 
Nope - we had the guy you could have a beer with - Bush.

But, with Romney you are getting an elitist, with no ties to the middle class.

Oh, Daddy's connections got Romney his job at Bain to begin with - true, Romney parleyed Bain into Bain Capital, but without Daddy - that road would have not likely have been open to mittens.


You make Romney sound like Reagan - he is no Reagan. His disconnect with the young, the poor, the minorities, can hurt him. I don't know if Obama can rally those groups again - I agree I have been disappointed with Obama - but having Romney in the House will be a return to Bush policies - have you looked at Romney's ideas - the way they mirror Bush is scary.

Look what Bush policies did to this country - we are just barely creeping out of the hole he dug, and now you want to elect someone who will re-enact the same policies - do you like living in a hole?

Romney is polling well with Hispanics, better than Obama.
As to me I'm a 1 percenter and don't live in a hole.
The world is my oyster.
It's Morning in America for me as Reagan put it and my business will at least double in the next 5 years.
My success and quality of life doesn't matter on who is in office.
This Republican Democrat wrestling match is all just more entertaining and (melo)dramatic than regular television and movies to me.
They all talk about creating jobs as if politicians can create wealth but no one talks about creating demand without which there are no good jobs.
Apple and Steve Jobs created demand and wealth out of thin air with the iphone and ipad, demand that was not there before.
Creating government jobs does not count in creating wealth.
Republicans will be kinder to my money than Democrats.
Bush gave the middle class 3.2 Trillion dollars out of the 4 Trillion in 10 years of his tax cuts.
What have they done with that money other than mostly squandering it on cost of living beyond their means with not much to show for it other than debt.
Most 99 percenters are just are not good handling money.
I'll bet the 800 million the 150,000 "rich" people got(avg close to 6000.00 each) has not likewise been squandered.

That would make for a good analysis to see what the different classes did with their Bush tax cut money.
 
Creating government jobs does not count in creating wealth.

Government does not actually create jobs.

They simply transfer jobs and resources from the productive, wealth producing sector of the economy (private) to the wealth destroying and job killing sector of the economy (government).

This is also a big part of the reason government does not "invest" in any honest sense of the word.
 
Government does not actually create jobs.

They simply transfer jobs and resources from the productive, wealth producing sector of the economy (private) to the wealth destroying and job killing sector of the economy (government).

This is also a big part of the reason government does not "invest" in any honest sense of the word.

That is not quite correct.
Government creates jobs that the government does like police, firemen, military, coast guard, highway and roads,air safety,clean water, food and drug inspectors, tax collectors etc that only the government can do.
These things do add to the quality of life for the rest of us.

The investment in the interstate highway system which only the government could do is a prime example on an investment that brings many returns.
The Manhatten Project is another example of government created wealth that only the government could have accomplished.
 
Letter to the editor on Hot Air today regarding this article about "Fairness"

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/01/29/more-notes-on-fairness/

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
 
Ties back into the entitlement mindset which is behind the Occupy movement and the British riots. There is nothing legitimate about their demands. The more they push, the more it demonstrates they must be defeated.

What they demand CAN NOT WORK. It has been tried and has had deadly consequences.

Incentives and virtue matter but, without exception, EVERY supporter of the Occupy movement I have interacted with fails to realized that
 
That is not quite correct.
Government creates jobs that the government does like police, firemen, military, coast guard, highway and roads,air safety,clean water, food and drug inspectors, tax collectors etc that only the government can do.
These things do add to the quality of life for the rest of us.

The investment in the interstate highway system which only the government could do is a prime example on an investment that brings many returns.
The Manhatten Project is another example of government created wealth that only the government could have accomplished.
You created jobs when you started your business. You created them out of nothing but your hard work. That's what 'create' means in this context.

Government doesn't 'create' jobs. It only confiscates money from the private sector and channels it into the public sector, at a huge cost of fraud, waste, and abuse. All of those things you mentioned (police, fire, etc.) are referred to as 'costs.' Not 'created jobs.' They don't add to the economy, and the government BY DEFINITION cannot grow the economy. Every single dollar the government spends is a dollar that was TAKEN from the private sector ECONOMY.

And the highway system argument is so old and tired.

Seventy PERCENT of the federal budget is wealth transfers - entitlements.

Give me thirty percent of the fed budget and eliminate the entitlements and I'll show you how much better our roads can be.

If you want to play anecdotal games, try googling the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and the 'Massachusetts Big Dig.'

Assuming that private individuals couldn't have done the Manhattan Project is so silly as to border on lunacy. The only thing the government did with the MP is provide SECRECY.
 
So, foxpaws, apparently you are in full-on 'destroy Romney' mode with your propaganda now. And using class warfare is so classic liberal - and so much FAIL.

Not surprising, considering that Obama can't run on his record.

Pretty sad that you can't argue anything other than to try to take Romney down, because your boy Obama is dead in the water.
 
You created jobs when you started your business. You created them out of nothing but your hard work. That's what 'create' means in this context.

Government doesn't 'create' jobs. It only confiscates money from the private sector and channels it into the public sector, at a huge cost of fraud, waste, and abuse. All of those things you mentioned (police, fire, etc.) are referred to as 'costs.' Not 'created jobs.' They don't add to the economy, and the government BY DEFINITION cannot grow the economy. Every single dollar the government spends is a dollar that was TAKEN from the private sector ECONOMY.

And the highway system argument is so old and tired.

Seventy PERCENT of the federal budget is wealth transfers - entitlements.

Give me thirty percent of the fed budget and eliminate the entitlements and I'll show you how much better our roads can be.

If you want to play anecdotal games, try googling the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and the 'Massachusetts Big Dig.'

Assuming that private individuals couldn't have done the Manhattan Project is so silly as to border on lunacy. The only thing the government did with the MP is provide SECRECY.


Hey Long time no hear foss :)
We miss you here at LVC
My view on entitlements is similar to yours.
They are overpromised and underfunded, a Moral Hazard.
The only solution that would not result in a drastic cut in payments would be euthenasia.:rolleyes:
When the rest of the world finds better uses for it's money and stops lending it to us ( as will happen since 500 million people have been lifted out of real poverty in China and India (to the level of our poor) since 2006) that's when things will start to come apart.
I say as soon as 10 but probably 15-20 years.
I'm all for eliminating Military Entitlement and Military Welfare that p!sses away money without creating anything by your definition :D
No one in the media uses the term Military Welfare even on the left but I contend that half the military budget is exactly that, welfare for the "worthy" enlisted and makework projects for contractors.
Why is it silly using the Manhattan project as an example.
There is no way private industry could have accomplished something like that mostly in the last 2 years of the effort along with no profit motive.

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $24.4 billion as of 2012). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites, some secret, across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

How about the Moon landing and the technological progress that resulted from that effort.
I suppose you would want to eliminate the police and border guards as they don't create anything you would call wealth.
We could have a total breakdown of law and order like portrayed by killer with charisma Alex in Clockwork Orange.
Perhaps you would prefer to be extorted to pay tribute to the local gangster or mob every week instead.
Maybe we should just fund the government with import tarrifs like before the Income Tax.
Then the consumer can fund the government.
Cars are more efficient now and the 18 cent federal gas tax there to pay for the highways does not bring in as much money as it used to.
Some of our infrastructure is decaying and fixing it creates american jobs here.
Maybe you want private industry to build more toll roads.
In Ontario Canada there is an expensive 20 cents a mile toll road highway 407 that is owned by the CPP or Canada Pension Plan.
Lets get the highways to fund the benefits ;)
Government though inefficient is not useless.
That's just petulant of you.
 
What I was referring to ties back in part to the Marxist class analysis vs the Austrian class analysis I have linked to earlier (in another thread, IIRC) as well as the idea of opportunity cost.

Most ALL Leftist economic thought and rhetoric is rooted in Marxist class analysis that sees business owners as exploiters and laborers as being exploited (which might also partially explain the absurdly high status they give to manufacturing jobs (though that may just be a union thing)). This view suffers from long ago discredited false assumptions and logical inconsistency (polylogic).

The Austrian view shares many of the same premises, but rejects the economically discredited ones and is logically consistent. In essence, they view the political class as exploiters and the private sector as exploited. The political class would include those who are well connected politically and leverage that to the advantage of their business.

Of course, class analysis in general is an oversimplification of reality and misses many key aspects of human nature. Still, there is certainly truth in both and moreso in the Austrian view than the Marxist one.

Private enterprises can be hired by the government and actually add economic worth. But economics is always looking at what is unseen; in this case, opportunity cost.
Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative foregone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices. The opportunity cost is also the cost of the foregone products after making a choice.​
The moon landing and NASA in general have advanced science and technology, but at what cost? If we hadn't had such a choice imposed by politicians, what advances would the free market have made that we have had to forgo?

Generally, the free market will be more efficient and maximize value. There may certainly be justifiable instances when that should be overridden, but the opportunity costs should not be ignored either.
 
The moon landing and NASA in general have advanced science and technology, but at what cost? If we hadn't had such a choice imposed by politicians, what advances would the free market have made that we have had to forgo?

What The Apollo Space Program Cost

http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-apollo-space-program.htm

$25.4 Billion (1969 dollars)
$145 Billion (2007 dollars)

Cost of Iraq War

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/15/what-did-the-iraq-war-cost-more-than-you-think

As U.S. operations in Iraq end, tallying up the costs and benefits of a nine-year ordeal is a daunting task. Estimates on Iraq War spending vary. The Congressional Research Service has put the Operation Iraqi Freedom pricetag at $806 billion. President Obama said that the Iraq War would cost over $1 trillion, all told. Either way, compared to past U.S. conflicts, spending on the Iraq war has been relatively small—at its height, spending on WWII helped drive government spending to 42 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At its height, operations in Iraq cost around 1 percent of GDP.

_______________________________________________________________

Apollo and the moon landing was not a huge cost for the government but who in the market is going to come up with 140 billion.
Apple only has 100 billion in the bank right now,:D
Maybe they can team up with Richard Branson.
He's into that cutting edge.
But seriously, who in their right mind in the free market would go to the moon in 1969.
I saw it live on television as a child.
It has no profit or immediate commercial value.
It is what is known as an intangable asset, the triumph of the human mind and spirit.
In this case the mission and the accomplishment IS the treasure :):)
American Exceptionalism (with the help of ex Nazi WW2 V2 rocket scientist Verner Von Braun:p)
You should look beyond your usual definitions of value.
 
That doesn't answer the opportunity cost question.

Most government initiatives simply speed up what would naturally occur in the market. The moon landing is no exception, as your Richard Branson point inadvertently alludes to. The problem is that in speeding up this process, opportunity costs typically outweigh economic value as resources are diverted from where they would most efficiently be utilized (the private sector) to where they would less effectively be utilized.

That doesn't necessarily mean that no economic value is created by the diverted resources, or that other value is not created (cultural value for instance), but there is really no objective way to make comparisons when it comes to all those various considerations of "value".
 
Opportunity cost is plainly what you miss out on by doing something else that could be more profitable or valuable.
We already had ballistic missiles and thermonuclear weapons in 1960.
This WAS the opportunity for America, NASA and all the engineers.
You can get too generalizing about opportunity costs typically outweighing economic value to try and knock down my argument but this moon landing is not typical but specific and still something as an example the free market could not do in 1969. Howard Hughes and american military contractors were not going to go to the moon on their own and American pride was at stake after Sputnik.
You could say we rose to the occasion.
It was a spectacular triumph.
There were also a lot of military benefits from the developed technology.
Some things the free market cannot do.
Would you trust the defence of the US completely to the for profit free market, which you like to romantasize.
How would that even work.
 
but there is really no objective way to make comparisons when it comes to all those various considerations of "value".

There is no how to on being objective,
You make the comparisons and have to form an opinion :D of their value and not rely on some generalized theories.
If it was that easy to succeed relying on theories without forming an opinion we would all be rich.
 
Hey Long time no hear foss :)
We miss you here at LVC
My view on entitlements is similar to yours.
They are overpromised and underfunded, a Moral Hazard.
The only solution that would not result in a drastic cut in payments would be euthenasia.:rolleyes:
When the rest of the world finds better uses for it's money and stops lending it to us ( as will happen since 500 million people have been lifted out of real poverty in China and India (to the level of our poor) since 2006) that's when things will start to come apart.
I say as soon as 10 but probably 15-20 years.
I'm all for eliminating Military Entitlement and Military Welfare that p!sses away money without creating anything by your definition :D
No one in the media uses the term Military Welfare even on the left but I contend that half the military budget is exactly that, welfare for the "worthy" enlisted and makework projects for contractors.
Why is it silly using the Manhattan project as an example.
There is no way private industry could have accomplished something like that mostly in the last 2 years of the effort along with no profit motive.



How about the Moon landing and the technological progress that resulted from that effort.
I suppose you would want to eliminate the police and border guards as they don't create anything you would call wealth.
We could have a total breakdown of law and order like portrayed by killer with charisma Alex in Clockwork Orange.
Perhaps you would prefer to be extorted to pay tribute to the local gangster or mob every week instead.
Maybe we should just fund the government with import tarrifs like before the Income Tax.
Then the consumer can fund the government.
Cars are more efficient now and the 18 cent federal gas tax there to pay for the highways does not bring in as much money as it used to.
Some of our infrastructure is decaying and fixing it creates american jobs here.
Maybe you want private industry to build more toll roads.
In Ontario Canada there is an expensive 20 cents a mile toll road highway 407 that is owned by the CPP or Canada Pension Plan.
Lets get the highways to fund the benefits ;)
Government though inefficient is not useless.
That's just petulant of you.
The logical flaw that undercuts your entire argument is that you blindly assume that the private sector could not have accomplished these things on its own.

You also fail to consider the unintended consequences of mandated efficiency. Untold trillions have been spent on necessary R&D for improved efficiency DUE TO THE EVER TIGHTENING NOOSE AROUND THE NECK OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. What's the opportunity cost of making a car more efficient, if the huge hungry dragon that is the government didn't need to be fed so much and so often? Could we have already cured cancer, maybe colonized the moon or Mars? There's no telling what we might have accomplished if not for the OVERTAXATION and OPPRESSION of the government FORCING the private sector to constantly adapt.

Again, you fail to address or even understand my main point: Every dollar spent as a result of government interference is a LOST DOLLAR that could have been spent on improving mankind or society as a whole.

Instead of accusing me of being an anarchist you could try just sticking to a discussion of the topic. It doesn't take long for you libs to lose your cool. Frankly, the name calling is why I don't come around anymore. Nobody here is interested in having a rational discussion.
 
I didn't say you are an anarchist merely petulant

pet·u·lant(p
ebreve.gif
ch
prime.gif
schwa.gif
-l
schwa.gif
nt)
adj. 1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.

You of course are entitled to your opinion

P!ssy would also fit.
Without government we would be left with mob rule and anarchy and criminality.

I sure wish the government wouldn't take 45% of my income.
It sucks!
That would make it easier to grow but suceeding on those terms
with a product mandated by government regulations has kind of tempered and perhaps biased my opinion.
I have reached the level where I am self funding as my own bank with reserves on hand at any given time.
We are the product of our Set and Setting.
My set and setting worked out well for me.
I was always very good in craft.
My grade 6 painting was hung at the Catholic Seperate School headquarters,
My good luck came from joyriding and crashing my dad's car skipping out a Catholic high mass(2 Frickin hours!) dressed in a boy scout uniform with my droogs.
I despised these masses and ethnic concerts and scout things I was forced to go to on saturdays and sundays in Monkey Suits as we called them and acted out.
I was "petulant" when I was 15.
Ironically "God" rewarded me for my punking, even forgetting about the joke store pranks :D with a career field impervious to politics.
It doesn't matter who wins as to my destiny.
Serendipity.
 

Members online

Back
Top