Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32318

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So he didn't storm out of a meeting yesterday, but seems it's his modus operandi:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-10/for-trump-storming-out-of-a-meeting-is-a-signature-ploy?srnd=premium

 

Quote

President Donald Trump’s decision to abruptly storm out of a meeting with congressional leaders on Wednesday shocked some on Capitol Hill. But those who have done business with him recognized it as one of his trademark negotiating tactics.

Long before he entered the White House -- where the latest turn on his heel occurred -- Trump was known to have done the same thing when a deal wasn’t going his way. He even walked out of a judge’s chambers during divorce proceedings.

 

Quote

His dramatic exit on Wednesday, however, appeared to gain him little traction with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic lawmakers who attended the Situation Room meeting. She called Trump’s approach to the shutdown talks “pathetic,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the president had thrown a “temper tantrum,” slamming the table before walking out.

Trump on Thursday tweeted that Schumer “told his favorite lie when he used his standard sound bite that I ‘slammed the table & walked out of the room. He had a temper tantrum.”’ Trump said he “politely said bye-bye and left, no slamming!”

 

Spoiler

But, according to Jay Goldberg, who was Trump’s lawyer from 1989 to 2014 and handled two of his divorces, the president has reason to believe that walking out could be effective.

“He crafted that approach, it’s one he owns,” Goldberg said. “He has a tendency to argue, and if he is not satisfied he will leave the room, disappear, doesn’t come back and the people are on edge wondering where he is. And then when he feels it is the appropriate time he comes back.”

Goldberg said that Trump once attended a protracted meeting to reach a divorce settlement with his first wife, Ivana Trump. After hours of talks, he disagreed with the amount of alimony she wanted, and the two sides couldn’t agree. So Trump stood up and left.

“Everyone was looking for him because without his presence a deal couldn’t be done and he was gone for two hours and we didn’t know where he was,” Goldberg said. “When he came back, the other side was so concerned if they didn’t make a deal he would walk away again.”

In another episode during the divorce case, Trump walked out on a judge he thought had made an unreasonable request and didn’t come back, rattling the judge and lawyers from both sides, Goldberg said.

Trump’s approach to the current standoff with congressional Democrats -– in which he is refusing to sign off on funding to reopen much of the government until Democrats give him $5.6 billion to pay for a wall at the Mexican border -– may be viewed through the same lens.

While Pelosi and Schumer stood aghast outside the White House in the windy chill after Trump abruptly ended their meeting, the president was inside, tweeting: “Just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time. I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!”

Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, who also attended the meeting, said he suspected that Trump thought the lawmakers would stay in the room and negotiate with Vice President Mike Pence. But they followed his lead -- and left.

“It was pretty clear his heart was not in it,” Durbin said. “I think he’s getting impatient.”

Goldberg thinks the president was merely employing a signature ploy from his New York days.

Trump has not exactly kept the tactic a secret. “Negotiations 101: The best deals you can make are the ones you walk away from . . . and then get them with better terms,” he said on Twitter back in May 2014 before his 2016 bid.

“Know when to walk away from the table,” he tweeted in July 2011, quoting from his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17557

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

Ugh.  Paul Heninger's op ed in the WSJ this morning explains, again, (and in a positive light) Trump's strength.  And that is the solid right is oblivious to his various asshole moves because he is the living exemplar of "the resistance".  In other words, and again, the solid right cannot stomach the thought of sharing any power with any version of "the left", ever, period.  That they hold the majority of state governments, hold the presidency, the senate, and the suprement court, and recently the house does not keep them from taking the perspective of the aggrieved insurgent "resistance".   And Trump shits on the dems like no other pub ever, thus he is the god of the resistance.

The picture is Brisketerian in its dystopia.

The more the dems gain, the stronger the "resistance". 

 

And the view from Frum on the left...

Quote

Trump Has Defeated Himself

The president, trapped without a decent exit in a predicament of his own making, will yield everything and get nothing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-speech/579850/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

So walls “make sense” in some places, but are immoral in others on the same border?

I'll say this once: liberals, progressives, Democrats, pragmatists, independents, and moderates simply don't think that way. We don't tend to blindly follow or parrot "Party Leadership" and we remain, by nature, skeptical of authority.

That is why your "gotcha" question is landing with a thud.

Edited by bolverk
repetition
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17345

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is what everyone needs to realize.  This is all about wielding power.  It has nothing to with walls, money, or security. 

I get that.  I think this is all about cementing his base for a cataclysmic final conflict of his presidency when the Mueller report drops in the next few weeks.  The conservative street will be whipped up into an anti-lib frenzy when their champion is “attacked” by Mueller.  His control over them is his control over the GOP, which is his control over the Senate which is his only hope for survival.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I get that.  I think this is all about cementing his base for a cataclysmic final conflict of his presidency when the Mueller report drops in the next few weeks.  The conservative street will be whipped up into an anti-lib frenzy when their champion is “attacked” by Mueller.  His control over them is his control over the GOP, which is his control over the Senate which is his only hope for survival.

This.   He may also think this will slow down the conflict, with the federal courts running out of money on Friday.  Trump doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself.  The shutdown is good for him personally.  Not politically.  But in terms of his power and his ability to keep making money from his corrupt businesses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADHD

ADHD 28

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

No. I think it’s an interesting follow through. If you think walls are immoral, should we tear down the ones that we’ve built?  

Walls are not "intrinsically immoral". You're being overly simplistic and ignoring answers already given. You will always cohere to that pattern, as your brain functions simplistically, and revels in ignorance.

Build your wall in Canada too. Explain why not then think critically and with self initiative begin to answer your own facetious questions. Your brain shall improve this way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I get that.  I think this is all about cementing his base for a cataclysmic final conflict of his presidency when the Mueller report drops in the next few weeks.  The conservative street will be whipped up into an anti-lib frenzy when their champion is “attacked” by Mueller.  His control over them is his control over the GOP, which is his control over the Senate which is his only hope for survival.

Bingo.  

Kavanaugh was a trial run of this operation when he chose to do the obvious wrong thing in the name of consolidating political power. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

And the view from Frum on the left...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-speech/579850/

That Atlantic article is something I was thinking about this morning.  When you only govern to your base, you don't have any ammo.  There isn't going to be a single D rep telling Pelosi to cave because their constituents are getting anxious.  It's also why I think the 2020 election is already over.  The 2018 election wasn't just a typical out-of-power-party swing.  It reflected permanently baked-in negatives for Trump.  The people that voted D are the people that feel Trump has been they saying are his enemies.  It's not a matter of failing to persuade someone (and maybe he'll succeed to persuade them given more time); its a matter of being told you are on the other side altogether.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17345

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bingo.  

Kavanaugh was a trial run of this operation when he chose to do the obvious wrong thing in the name of consolidating political power. 

Yep, and in that context, McConnel’s silence about the shutdown is not fence sitting.  It’s preserving political capital for what is to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'll say this once: liberals, progressives, Democrats, pragmatists, independents, and moderates simply don't think that way. We don't tend to blindly follow or parrot "Party Leadership" and we remain, by nature, skeptical of authority.

That is why your "gotcha" question is landing with a thud.

A couple things, progressives and a lot of Dems aren’t skeptical of authority. They appeal to it. 

Secondly the person that made the blanket statement condemning walls as immoral was Pelosi. That’s not a relative statement. It’s absolute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/pelosi-should-recognize-president-mcconnell?srnd=opinion&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view

 

Pelosi Should Recognize President McConnell

 

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Charles Schumer left empty-handed from their White House meeting with President Donald Trump on Wednesday. And so did the president, who failed, yet again, to gain a commitment to fund a symbolic wall on the nation’s southern border.

 
 

The Democrats had appeared together on camera the night before, responding to the latest jumble of lies, fear-mongering and pure laziness (making an argument is too much work, and making one logically or persuasively is well nigh impossible) that passes for presidential discourse.

 
 

While Pelosi is pretty brilliant at leading the House, neither she nor Schumer are very good at public communication. But the problem with their response to Trump Tuesday night wasn’t so much what they said. It was the same problem that plagued them in their meeting the following day: They were talking to the wrong person. 

 
 

To borrow a construct from the classical orator Marco Rubio, let’s dispense with the notion that President Donald Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. Because he really, really doesn’t.

 
 

Trump is not in control of Washington. He’s not even in control of his own administration, where officials simply ignore his diktats until his feeble attention shrivels. Trump is not in charge even of the West Wing of his White House, where his own aides regularly leak embarrassing details of his ignorance and buffoonery and his recently departed chief of staff definedhis personal achievements in terms of repeatedly foiling the boss’s half-baked (and not quite half-legal) schemes. And, of course, the reason Trump still doesn’t have a wall is that his fellow Republicans refused for two years to fund one. 

 
 

With Democrats in charge of the House, Pelosi should stop wasting time and energy on the reality-television president and deal instead with the closest thing we’ve got to the real thing: Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Increasing pressure on Trump to end the government shutdown, which he backed into without a suspicion of a hint of something that resembled a strategy, makes a certain amount of sense. At least it does if your goal is to embarrass and expose the president. But Pelosi surely must recognize that on both the presidential embarrassment and exposure fronts, the returns are diminishing. 

In any case, identifying McConnell as the real Republican power in the federal government, and treating him accordingly, is the most humiliating thing she can do to Trump. In addition to being satisfying politics, it’s highly practical.

Trump, as my colleague Timothy O’Brien points out, never mastered far less demanding jobs. He will forever be an agent of chaos, and an enemy of competence.

But the House and Senate don’t need a president for budget negotiations. They can work out a compromise between them and send it over to Trump, who can lie about what it means and sign it into law. Ann Coulter won’t like it. But nobody elected her, and, realistically, that may be the best Trump can do.

 

McConnell doesn’t want to antagonize the president’s tribe, which, as one Trump supporter eloquently explained to the New York Times, wants to be sure that Trump is “hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” But McConnell’s tribe is smaller – 53 senators – and not all of them are as solemnly invested in buttressing the racial hierarchy and punishing their perceived enemies as the MAGA troops tend to be.

Some of McConnell’s Republican colleagues are looking at an uncertain path to re-election in their states. They are eager to get the government open, appear sensible, moderate and competent, and move on.

Pelosi should put the onus for doing so squarely and completely on McConnell – not Trump. After all, when two parents have a squabble, they don’t sit around and wait for their 2-year-old to resolve it.

 
 

The House speaker should make it clear that Trump is not the decisive factor in the dispute. McConnell is. For reason to prevail, or at least to have a chance, McConnell will have to take the reins while Trump howls.

Can the chaos chief executive veto what Congress sends to him? Of course, he can. But figuring out how to avoid that outcome is really not Pelosi’s problem. It’s President McConnell’s. 

Oh, this will piss off Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas73

Texas73 420

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

No. I think it’s an interesting follow through. If you think walls are immoral, should we tear down the ones that we’ve built?  

I don't think walls are immoral, nor do I think current walls should be torn down and how many Democrats have you heard say that?  IMO, Nancy was talking about the racism that is apparent in this president, how he has used hispanics in his speeches for 3 years to scare old white Americans and that is immoral.

Trump supporters on here are stuck on this one comment, wordsmithing it like they did "You didn't build that" when anyone with any sense who listened to Obama's speech that day knew he was talking about the roads and bridges that have been built to get to businesses.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

So walls “make sense” in some places, but are immoral in others on the same border?

In short, yes. Because that's how people with brains look at everything.

Is water good, or is it bad? If you are walking through the desert and are thirsty, a heavy rainstorm is a god-send.  If you are sitting in a downstream arroyo during that same rainstorm, that rain will kill you.  Same rain.  Different places and contexts, wildly different values.

There are places along the border where a physical barrier of some sort makes sense, when considering all of the values: will it actually prevent crossings?  What is the dollar cost to achieve that benefit?  What is the human cost to achieve that benefit (that is, what does it do to American property owners)?  What is the ecological cost to achieve that benefit?  What is the diplomatic cost to achieve that benefit?  If you don't analyze all of those factors, you're a dumbfuck.

I could build the Great Wall of China, 20 feet tall and 30 feet thick, through Big Bend State Park.  It would cost billions.  It would devastate an important natural area.  It would take away an incredible public resource -- a great State Park on the banks of a natural river -- from the people of Texas.  It would mostly stand as a big middle finger to our largest trading partner.  And it would do jack shit to prevent border crossings.  Seriously, it would prevent nothing more than a handful.  And when you layer on the fact that the whole world knows that the REAL reason I want it is as a personal Brisketexan monument/vanity project, it's jackassery at its finest.

Under THOSE circumstances, yes, a fucking moronic, wasteful, assinine wall is immoral.  

Barriers are not immoral...Rain is not an evil killer...Guns are not dangerous....in some circumstances.  In others, literally the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. If your brain is incapable of grasping that "complexity," then the problem is yours, not ours.

Jesus.  It's not the existence of Trump excusers and apologists that pisses me off.  It's that their thinking on everything is so goddamned childlike and rudimentary that simply responding to them lowers the intellectual level of national discourse by 90%.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7675

Posted
Posted

The statement that walls are immoral is one of many, many arguments against the wall. It's also the weakest and flimsiest argument. 

Which is why mouth breathers want to choose that plot of land as their battlefield. It's the easiest way to get down into the mud and roll around yelling about them crazy bleeding heart libs.

The problem is, even if we come across one troll who has even the marginal intelligence to win that specific battle, there are many, many more anti-wall arguments left, which they'll be incapable of addressing. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/pelosi-should-recognize-president-mcconnell?srnd=opinion&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view

 

Pelosi Should Recognize President McConnell

 

Oh, this will piss off Trump.

This needs to be forwarded to her twitter or whatever over and over and over.  This needs to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29225

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In short, yes. Because that's how people with brains look at everything.

Is water good, or is it bad? If you are walking through the desert and are thirsty, a heavy rainstorm is a god-send.  If you are sitting in a downstream arroyo during that same rainstorm, that rain will kill you.  Same rain.  Different places and contexts, wildly different values.

There are places along the border where a physical barrier of some sort makes sense, when considering all of the values: will it actually prevent crossings?  What is the dollar cost to achieve that benefit?  What is the human cost to achieve that benefit (that is, what does it do to American property owners)?  What is the ecological cost to achieve that benefit?  What is the diplomatic cost to achieve that benefit?  If you don't analyze all of those factors, you're a dumbfuck.

I could build the Great Wall of China, 20 feet tall and 30 feet thick, through Big Bend State Park.  It would cost billions.  It would devastate an important natural area.  It would take away an incredible public resource -- a great State Park on the banks of a natural river -- from the people of Texas.  It would mostly stand as a big middle finger to our largest trading partner.  And it would do jack shit to prevent border crossings.  Seriously, it would prevent nothing more than a handful.  And when you layer on the fact that the whole world knows that the REAL reason I want it is as a personal Brisketexan monument/vanity project, it's jackassery at its finest.

Under THOSE circumstances, yes, a fucking moronic, wasteful, assinine wall is immoral.  

Barriers are not immoral...Rain is not an evil killer...Guns are not dangerous....in some circumstances.  In others, literally the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. If your brain is incapable of grasping that "complexity," then the problem is yours, not ours.

Jesus.  It's not the existence of Trump excusers and apologists that pisses me off.  It's that their thinking on everything is so goddamned childlike and rudimentary that simply responding to them lowers the intellectual level of national discourse by 90%.

Man, why waste so much time and energy on someone who is so clearly devoted to not getting it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A couple things, progressives and a lot of Dems aren’t skeptical of authority. They appeal to it. 

Secondly the person that made the blanket statement condemning walls as immoral was Pelosi. That’s not a relative statement. It’s absolute. 

You're not following me. This thread is an experiment in real time. How many posters here have treated her statement as an absolute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14251

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, ADHD said:

Walls are not "intrinsically immoral". You're being overly simplistic and ignoring answers already given. You will always cohere to that pattern, as your brain functions simplistically, and revels in ignorance.

Build your wall in Canada too. Explain why not then think critically and with self initiative begin to answer your own facetious questions. Your brain shall improve this way.

But Karl Rove said so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, why waste so much time and energy on someone who is so clearly devoted to not getting it?

Because fuck these fucking ignorant fucks.

They are fucking poison, and they should quit spreading their fucking poison, and it should be shoved up their ignorant asses.

It's for the same reason that I piss on a campfire at the end of the trip -- to kill it and keep it from spreading.  And, because piss on those fuckers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17557

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/pelosi-should-recognize-president-mcconnell?srnd=opinion&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view

 

Pelosi Should Recognize President McConnell

 

Oh, this will piss off Trump.

Quote

After all, when two parents have a squabble, they don’t sit around and wait for their 2-year-old to resolve it.

^Ooooh!  That's good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm not so sure he is a troll.  He might just be really really fucking stupid.  It's so hard to tell these days because people actually believe this bullshit.

And this.  The difference between someone playing at being breathtakingly stupid and actually being a legitimate Trump fan is undetectable.  We've reached peak stupid - being a mouthbreathing moron and faking a mouthbreathing moron are identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7675

Posted
Posted

I enjoyed the comment on the previous page from one of those articles that suggested Trump invented or crafted the negotiation tactic of walking out of the room. 

Ooooh yeah no one ever did that before old Trump changed the negotiation game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What a world we're in when David Frum is seen as a voice from the left. 

When the Trumpists create a dichotomy where everyone who is not a simpering sychophant of an infantile wannabe dictator is a leftist libtard, every sane and rational person in the world magically transformed into a leftist.  "Left of insanity" is indeed left of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16491

Posted
Posted
I've been along the border. Lots of barking dogs. And local cops. And grassy pastures. Driven down around Big Bend too. Lots of beautiful scenery. High rocky bluffs. Kinda gorgeous. I was just in El Paso a couple months ago. They were having a downtown outdoor music festival. A shit load of industry there, all lit up. Lots of enormous new malls.
There is NOT a crisis there. There is no National Emergency. 

You mean to tell me Donald J. Trump is pushing a claim that is demonstrably false?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TornACL said:

I enjoyed the comment on the previous page from one of those articles that suggested Trump invented or crafted the negotiation tactic of walking out of the room. 

Ooooh yeah no one ever did that before old Trump changed the negotiation game. 

I got up and briskly walked out of the room before reading the second half of this post.  Me 1.  You 0.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The words of a man who has taken credit a million times, but responsibility zero times.

If he was my child, I would have disowned him long ago.

I met his (federal judge) sister a number of years ago at some legal event, during the whole birther thing.  Someone asked her about it, and she just said, "Oh, that Donnie," with a shake of her head.

He's been enabled in his awfulness all his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104559

Posted
Posted
Just now, lemonlime said:

I met his (federal judge) sister a number of years ago at some legal event, during the whole birther thing.  Someone asked her about it, and she just said, "Oh, that Donnie," with a shake of her head.

He's been enabled in his awfulness all his life.

Then we've got a lot of kicking him in the balls to catch up on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And this.  The difference between someone playing at being breathtakingly stupid and actually being a legitimate Trump fan is undetectable.  We've reached peak stupid - being a mouthbreathing moron and faking a mouthbreathing moron are identical. 

"“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”

- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr."

- Michael Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...