Which Democrat do you favor?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks for your useless opinion.

[pinky lee]

Hello, SFB, anyone in there? Its a forum. Its a topic in the forum. Its on the internet. Every post in here is someone's worthless opinion. Of course, your's was more worthless than most since it didn't have shit to do with the topic.

Of course what can I expect from someone who immediately jumps on the dork train by using t33kid as his avatar, just like 20,000 other dorks I've seen in other forums today and yesterday.

Is everyone in this forum a moron or just the ones who've been responding to my posts?

[kellychaos]

All the major parties hold conventions to pick their candidates. This thread is opinion poll of the users for just one of them. If you don't like the party, then perhaps this isn't the post for you. Please obligeby leaving the thread and/or starting your own poll with your party of choice, K?

[pinky lee]

Yeah, God forfend anyone rain on your little puff party by suggesting that your hand-picked choices might have Gary Coleman's chance at actually getting elected. Let's not dilly dally with any tangential issues like electability, let's just stick with a meaningless exercise in clicking radio buttons. We wouldn't want intelligent political discourse to break out.

And by the way, why are Richard Gephardt, Carol Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham, not to mention Wesley Clarke left off that poll? You have some kind of unreasoning prejudice against the front runner in Iowa, the only woman running and the senior senator from Florida?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

Hello, SFB, anyone in there? Its a forum. Its a topic in the forum. Its on the internet. Every post in here is someone's worthless opinion. Of course, your's was more worthless than most since it didn't have shit to do with the topic.

It had everything to do with the topic, because when someone makes a ridiculous argument that they don't substantiate, then it's completely in-line with the topic to call you out on it.

Of course what can I expect from someone who immediately jumps on the dork train by using t33kid as his avatar, just like 20,000 other dorks I've seen in other forums today and yesterday.

Yeah, unlike the very original user pic of yourself or maybe your mall punk girlfriend looking all introspective and deep for the digital camera.

Is everyone in this forum a moron or just the ones who've been responding to my posts?

I dunno, keep making interesting and thought provoking interjections such as "it no matter, republicans so better."

Yeah, God forfend anyone rain on your little puff party by suggesting that your hand-picked choices might have Gary Coleman's chance at actually getting elected. Let's not dilly dally with any tangential issues like electability, let's just stick with a meaningless exercise in clicking radio buttons. We wouldn't want intelligent political discourse to break out.

It's very early in the game to insinuate who will or could win. All you can do is monitor polling data, see how certain candidates are doing compared to others in fundraising, look at who is giving them their support, etc.

So, if you want to make a serious contribution to this thread, why not define what it is you consider electability? Is it merely some partisan nonsense, or do you really have some objective analysis on what it takes to win the popular vote in 2004....?

And by the way, why are Richard Gephardt, Carol Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham, not to mention Wesley Clarke left off that poll? You have some kind of unreasoning prejudice against the front runner in Iowa, the only woman running and the senior senator from Florida?

Yeah, Check the date on the poll genius. Clarke announced he MIGHT run YESTERDAY, And by that point the other three were shakey on announcing their candidacies, if I recall correctly.

Nobody has contributed to the poll in days anyway, and if you read through the thread, I haven't discriminated against any of the candidates (providing they were actually making any headlines that day or week).

[pinky lee]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

Yeah, Check the date on the poll genius. Clarke announced he MIGHT run YESTERDAY, And by that point the other three were shakey on announcing their candidacies, if I recall correctly.

Nobody has contributed to the poll in days anyway, and if you read through the thread, I haven't discriminated against any of the candidates (providing they were actually making any headlines that day or week).

you remember incorrectly t33kid fan:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._p..._2004#Timeline

All the candidates you missed had announced a good 4-6 months before your little poll. Research first, then speak. Gephardt was a big blunder there t33boy, he may well win the nomination yet. And anyone who really follows politics knows Clarke has been jockeying for position since before the Gulf War. But perhaps you are just a dilettante, in that case you are excused.

As to the rest of your blather, its a fucking forum. If you put up a thread, don't think you can come bullying around telling people exactly what they can and can't discuss. If you are discussing candidates for president, their ability to take on the current president is not only relevant, its the ONLY relevant thing. Unless they are just talking to bring up policy points they hope the eventual winner, Bush, will have to respond and react to. That may be all they are doing, because basically this election is an exercise in futility for the Dems, who are treading water until 2008 when Hillary runs and takes the party down in flames. If this election doesn't, that liberal fest will mark the complete end of the Dem party as a national force. I predict it will break into various feuding components, much like it is now, but with less effect.

[glowbelly]

DENNIS!!

my hometown hero who will never win

pinky? you're a meanie.

[pinky lee]

Originally Posted by glowbelly

DENNIS!!

my hometown hero who will never win

pinky? you're a meanie.

its my raison d' etre

[glowbelly]

how stylish and french of you

[pinky lee]

Originally Posted by glowbelly

how stylish and french of you

well I do seem to be t33kid-avatarboy's bete noire

[glowbelly]

i bet you get that a lot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

you remember incorrectly t33kid fan:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._p..._2004#Timeline

All the candidates you missed had announced a good 4-6 months before your little poll. Research first, then speak.

You're correct. If it'll make you happy, I will include them all now....all of them:

Warren R. Ashe (D-Virginia) *
Donald P. Award (D-Connecticut) *
Jerry G. Beck (D-Missouri) *
Sanderson Beck (D-California) *
Jim Bollinger (D-Indiana) *
Willie Carter (D-Texas) *
Patrick Cazneau (D-California) *
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina) *
John Estrada (D-Nevada) *
Susan Fey (D-Colorado) *
James I. Glover (D-New Jersey) *
Al Hamburg (D-Wyoming) *
Amanda Lou Hardy (D-DC) *
Alfonzo Jones (D-New York) *
Lyndon LaRouche (D-New York) *
Glenn D. Leaverton (California) *
Sherry Meadows (D-Texas) *
Grady Dean Mollenhauer Jr. (D-New York) *
Fred Ogin (D-Oregon) *
Bill Pearman (D-Indiana) *
Fern Penna (D-New York) *
James J. Prattas (D-Hawaii) *
John Donald Rigazio (D-New Hampshire) *
Adam Safran (D-California) *
Ole S. Savior (D-Minnesota) *
Craig E. Sharp (D-Texas) *
Former Congressman Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) #*
Evelyn L. Vitullo (D-Arizona) *
Lucian J. "Louie" Wojciechowski (California) *

Happy now? Might wanna double check on when they all filed their paper work, too.

Gephardt was a big blunder there t33boy, he may well win the nomination yet.

I doubt it.

And anyone who really follows politics knows Clarke has been jockeying for position since before the Gulf War. But perhaps you are just a dilettante, in that case you are excused.

And anyone who really follows politics would know that Senators Clinton and Biden were both "jockeying for position" as well, and they have since ruled it out. Clarke would not be running were he not getting the grassroots/financial support he has, nor would he be running if he hadn't done well with some test sampling groups he sat down with. So he can "jockey" all he likes, but he just announced it this week.

As to the rest of your blather, its a fucking forum. If you put up a thread, don't think you can come bullying around telling people exactly what they can and can't discuss.

Never once have I told anyone in this thread what they can or can't discuss. The viability of any Democratic candidate is a fine discussion, and I wouldn't dismiss it. But what I ask is that you actually start the conversation, articulate the point, rather than posting some snide remark.

Saying something enough times doesn't necessarily make it true. Conservatives can say "Dean will be McGovern, Dean will be McGovern" all they like, but that doesn't make it true. Just like if I had said "Bush will be Goldwater, Bush will be Goldwater" over and over again, that doesn't make it true.

If you are discussing candidates for president, their ability to take on the current president is not only relevant, its the ONLY relevant thing. Unless they are just talking to bring up policy points they hope the eventual winner, Bush, will have to respond and react to.

I sincerely doubt that's what they are doing, but it's kind of why I started this thread. I disagree that the challenge the pose to Bush is the only relevant matter. Historically, it should be of interest to every Democrat/Liberal/Leftist just who gains Dem. popularity, and in contrast, who favors support from the Party operatives in the DLC. The Democratic Party IS in trouble, and that's what makes an internal debate just as relevant as the debate over who will be president (although the latter just might be a premature debate).

That may be all they are doing, because basically this election is an exercise in futility for the Dems, who are treading water until 2008 when Hillary runs and takes the party down in flames.

On what grounds do you make these claims? I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Hillary fan, but I don't think your argument has any merit at all. It really sounds like partisan grumbling. You don't think Hillary would mobilize an apathetic voter, perhaps one eager to simply put a woman in the White House...? And further, on what grounds are the Dems "treading" right now??? Clearly, most of these candidates stand no chance, and some would represent a wrong path for the Democratic Party, IMO. However, Dean has mobilized immense popularity, considering the void he came from, where most citizens had no clue who he was.

If this election doesn't, that liberal fest will mark the complete end of the Dem party as a national force. I predict it will break into various feuding components, much like it is now, but with less effect.

This is a gross over-exaggeration. The Democratic Party is too monied, too much of a corporate-like institution to fracture like this. Our system can currently only sustain to major parties, and the two with the most investment will be the ones in the dance. The DLC, and all of its financial interests, have MUCH decision making power in the Party (which in part contributes to the popularity of a Dean campaign, or even a Kucinich campaign on a considerably lesser scale).

Can you at least expand upon your apocalyptic prediction here....?

[Perndog]

No matter how poor the Democratic party gets, there will still be plenty of voters for them, like me, simply because we hate the Republicans and will accept any alternative to them.

[pinky lee]

The Whig party was pretty monied too, and it met the same fate.

I'll tell you what I base it on- there is a hard core cadre of unrepentant tax-spend-socialist government program- politically correct- minority set aside- gay empowerment- anti-military- pro-abortion fanatics who are tired of sublimating their hard left ideology in order to win elections. Its not working anyway, the only years it worked and the only Dem is elected is Bill Clinton, and he was basically a liberal nightmare- he single handedly set back socialized health care, the welfare system and protectiionist union policies. So, they are rebellilng against the DLC with its Leibermanlst centrist policies and going on a liberal kamikaze mission. The only reason the Dem party is viable at all is that mostly they hide their far left agenda or pander to enough groups to mollify the lefties who dont really get any real power. Now, Dean and Co. are threatening to blow the lid off what the true agenda of the far left is: and they control the Dem activists who control the primaries. By and large the electorate DOESNT support the ideology of Commisar Rodham-Clinton and even she knows enough to make nice about the military and security. Dean has no such compunctions. His "surrender first' strategy will go over like a led zeppeliin and he could conceivably lose 49 states, even liberal NY and CA. On his coattails the Senate could go 60+ filibuster proof Republican.

On the heels of this, the centrist disgust at the far left's hari kari will split the party. The Greens will make up a 3rd sect. Once the rift begins, there will be scism after scism as various interest groups break off to consolidate what power they have left.

etc. ad nauseum

[pinky lee]

Originally Posted by Perndog

No matter how poor the Democratic party gets, there will still be plenty of voters for them, like me, simply because we hate the Republicans and will accept any alternative to them.

Therein lies your problem. Sane, rational and responsible voters don't vote on the basis of who they hate. They vote for men with values and core beliefs. The Dems are quite voluble about what they are against, very shaky on what they are for. Oh yes, there will always be a Communist party in the US too, they just don't elect Presidents. Welcome to 2nd tier party status, Mr. Democrat.

[Perndog]

I don't think you quite get it. Right now, there is no way we will have a 3rd party candidate. I am opposed to the Republican platform, and I feel that any Republican official will support policy that is detrimental to me and contrary to my personal beliefs. Therefore, I vote Democrat to keep Republicans out of office. Shove your sanity and rationale up your ass, I've demonstrated mine and it makes perfect sense to me.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

The Whig party was pretty monied too, and it met the same fate.

True, but different times.

I'll tell you what I base it on- there is a hard core cadre of unrepentant tax-spend-socialist government program- politically correct- minority set aside- gay empowerment- anti-military- pro-abortion fanatics who are tired of sublimating their hard left ideology in order to win elections. Its not working anyway, the only years it worked and the only Dem is elected is Bill Clinton, and he was basically a liberal nightmare- he single handedly set back socialized health care, the welfare system and protectiionist union policies.

He was also the chair of the DLC in 1990, and was never truly the champion of Leftist "fanatics" that you claim he was. He was more like Jimmy Carter than he was George McGovern, and just because he was an old pot smoking hippie, that doesn't mean he was really a Leftist, or even a traditional, national liberal in the Truman/Johnson sense....

So, they are rebellilng against the DLC with its Leibermanlst centrist policies and going on a liberal kamikaze mission. The only reason the Dem party is viable at all is that mostly they hide their far left agenda or pander to enough groups to mollify the lefties who dont really get any real power.

The Democratic hierarchy has no "far left agenda," at least not any more than the Republican Party has any "far right, seditious militia-supporting, harmful tax breaks, corporate welfare loving, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-environment, anti-womens choice, anti-SOLDIER" agenda....

You give far too much credit to the Left. It has tried working throughout the system to take over the Democratic Party, and it hasn't worked since the 1970s. The pieces left after the demise off the Citizens Party went into the Jackson presidential camp in the 80s, in an attempt to push him up. That didn't work, and it hasn't worked. The DLC are far too powerful, and far too many elected Democrats are in bed with big donors to push too far to the Left.

Now, Dean and Co. are threatening to blow the lid off what the true agenda of the far left is: and they control the Dem activists who control the primaries. By and large the electorate DOESNT support the ideology of Commisar Rodham-Clinton and even she knows enough to make nice about the military and security. Dean has no such compunctions. His "surrender first' strategy will go over like a led zeppeliin and he could conceivably lose 49 states, even liberal NY and CA. On his coattails the Senate could go 60+ filibuster proof Republican.

Again, unsubstantiated ideas. What makes Dean a leftist nut? The fact that he supports gay unions as opposed to gay marriage, and feels that the Federal government shouldn't even be discussing such issues of privacy and morality...? Perhaps you mean how he opposes measures such as medical marijuana, and calls universal health coverage "tipping at wind mills"??? Maybe you mean how he argues for a balanced federal budget, a traditionally conservative argument...? Wait, maybe you mean how he opposed a war with a nation that clearly posed no threat to us, yet another traditionally conservative standpoint...? Or MAYBE you mean how he supports the death penalty for specifically horrid crimes....? I'm "treading water" here, so you'll need to help me out (and I'm really gonna need help with Senator Clinton).

On the heels of this, the centrist disgust at the far left's hari kari will split the party. The Greens will make up a 3rd sect. Once the rift begins, there will be scism after scism as various interest groups break off to consolidate what power they have left.

Interesting argument, but not likely. I am a member of the Green Party, and they do not have the viability needed to maintain a national party (and in some ways, it's in fact contrary to the very premise of the party). When the going gets rough, third party and infdependent voters always flock back to one of the main two parties. Fact is, Clinton provided a certain degree of national comfort during the 90s, thus making the folks on the fringes of the spectrum more restless. We had high third party activity in the 90s, also because the two parties moved closer and closerto each other. But now in President Bush, folks on the Left see a clear and present danger. It isn't about building a party like in 2000, or electing a third option, this time it's about getting Bush out of office for many people.

The Lefties are flocking to Dean because he opposed the war, he was governor of Bernie Sanders' state, and he works on a so-called "grassroots" level. Truth is, he isn't that liberal, and he also has big money behind him, like from AOL Time-Warner. Now I'm certain that your view of what makes someone a "socialist" or a "fanatic" is different than mine, but I have a hard time seeing what makes Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton one of those things.

[pinky lee]

In brief, my opinion is the angry far lefties who control the primaries are going to drag the party to the left and ultimately break it up. I know the Greens aren't viable. I suspect in the next generation we'll see a dominant majority Republican party with a shifting coalition of smaller parties of varying degrees of liberal/socialist slates, much like in Parlimentary countries. The problem with the Dem party is, and has always been, its a competing group of special interests who are all chasing the same dime- the well has run dry so they have very little common interest, and each of their competing interests are going to make them tear at one another. On top of that is the real anger and impotence of the dying hippie left who bemoan the conservatism of today's youth. I think they are already a regional instead of a national party and the exodus of productive members of the blue states to the red states is going to exacerbate the situation. I'd link you to the article I read aobut that yesterday but I'm too busy.

later

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

In brief, my opinion is the angry far lefties who control the primaries are going to drag the party to the left and ultimately break it up.

Or, perhaps mobilize an apathetic electorate that barely shows up at 50% for the presidential election...? If Dean can get all of the "typical" Dem. supporters, interest groups, unions, and on top of that garner the grassroots, far-left vote, he can create a base that can challenge Bush.

Both Dean and Kerry have dropped mentionings that Bob Graham would make a good runningmate. Is this because he's such a swell guy and a great senator? No. It's because he could possibly lock in Florida....learning from mistakes. Granted, recent polling data shows that Graham may not be a lock for Florida, but he is still fairly popular amongst the conservative Democrats in Florida. Dean can easily take NY, probably take California, probably home state Vermont, and probably other North Eastern bastions as well. This guy has a chance....

I know the Greens aren't viable. I suspect in the next generation we'll see a dominant majority Republican party with a shifting coalition of smaller parties of varying degrees of liberal/socialist slates, much like in Parlimentary countries.

This is unlikely, as I stated previously, because both parties have become too much of an institution with the electorate. The nation is far too stagnant, far too apathetic to truly will the demise of one of these parties.

And you give "Republican dominance" far too much credit. Republicans may have swept out the Federal level, but when you count win totals from the 2002 mid-cycle elections, AND include statewide offices, the Democrats did just peachy. Most places are still dominated by old machine and party boss style setups. I wouldn't anticipate any kind of sweeping "Republican revolution" any time soon...

The problem with the Dem party is, and has always been, its a competing group of special interests who are all chasing the same dime- the well has run dry so they have very little common interest, and each of their competing interests are going to make them tear at one another.

This has not always been the case, and probably only became really dominant during the New Left era of the 1970s. Prior to that, the Democratic Party (again) was moreparty machine based, like in Chicago, or like a lesser scenario in Albany, NY. People voted for the party that had intense, decentralized representation in their town. Granted, these systems were prone to corruption, so pick your poison.

However, this very same problem once burdened the Republican Party. "liberal Republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," or "Eisenhower Republicans" ran much of the 1st half of the century, while conservative ideologues and southern racists bounced around from party to party. Folks like Barry Goldwater helped shift the "solid South" though, and the Willie Buckley's of the party fought for more influence.

This again occurred in 1994, when guys like anti-semite Pat Robertson helped devise the "no enemies to the Right" policy. Oh, the conservative ideologues and populists are in the Republican Party, they just shut up when told to. You think guys like Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist are happy with Medicare expansion and a sky rocketing deficit....? Both parties are considered "big tent" parties. Shouldn't internal debate, pulling-and-tugging, representation, etc. be encouraged with these broad parties, rather than stifled debate...?

On top of that is the real anger and impotence of the dying hippie left who bemoan the conservatism of today's youth.

More like the apathy......

Young people today are just as involved in community events, functions, aiding homeless shelters, etc. The thing they consistently do not do is vote. I don't know of any old leftists who "bemoan" the conservative youth, which is again a greatly overstated matter....

I think they are already a regional instead of a national party and the exodus of productive members of the blue states to the red states is going to exacerbate the situation.

Right, blue states which hold a predominant amount of the American voters. There certainly are more red states, but there are also lots of farms, trees, and dirt with no living, breathing voters. The Republican Party is JUST as regional, if not more so....

I'd link you to the article I read aobut that yesterday but I'm too busy.

I'd be glad to read it, and I apologize for biting your head off initially. I had mistake you for one of the many idiots who post garble and then move on, but you clearly have a solid interest and understanding of what you're talking about.

[pinky lee]

you misunderstand my point about the red and blue states

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110003942

explains it better- plus, blue states like CA and NY are losing electoral votes while red states are picking them up

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that the Republican Party is likewise a "regional" party.

And the exodus aside, states like California still comprise a large amount of the nation's population, and with our birth rate decreasing, and other factors in California, the state can oinly go down in population from there. And of course people and businesses are going to flock to the places with cheaper taxes....

[pinky lee]

CA lost 2 electoral votes and 2 seats in Congress last census.
The point is the Republicans are gaining in the areas of growth and prosperity.

Also, you were talking about local elections- the Republicans gained control of a majority of state legislatures for the first time since the Civil War. Despite losses, they still lead in Governorships. They control all 3 branches of the Federal Government and look to expand that advantage next election, by even Dem estimates- also, they performed a historical first when they picked up seats in an off-year elections in both Houses of Congress. It can only get batter. I'd hate to be a Dem in the coming decade, they are fighting a reactive battle to try to keep from losing power, and the big deficit will help contract government.

Everything further erodes the terrible burden FDR put on the average citizen with his disasterous New Deal- we are still dismantling it. GWB should have it pretty well reversed by 2008.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roese...dt-roes30.html

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

Also, you were talking about local elections- the Republicans gained control of a majority of state legislatures for the first time since the Civil War. Despite losses, they still lead in Governorships. They control all 3 branches of the Federal Government and look to expand that advantage next election, by even Dem estimates- also, they performed a historical first when they picked up seats in an off-year elections in both Houses of Congress. It can only get batter.

What I was referring to was an overall level of national, state, county, and local seats that were won. The trend at the top levels was not reflective on the local levels for the most part.....

And following your logic, I'd say it can only get worse if the Republicans gain more and more seats. They can't hold it all forever, right?

Everything further erodes the terrible burden FDR put on the average citizen with his disasterous New Deal- we are still dismantling it. GWB should have it pretty well reversed by 2008.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roese...dt-roes30.html

The "terrible burden"?? Such as?? Such as social security, which has benefited millions of retired Americans? Maybe workfare programs that employed our great grandparents, including my own...? Granted, the New Deal was not perfect, but public policy never is.

The article was an interesting read, but I cringe at the selective use of history and information used by the libertarian extremists at the Cato Institute.

I'll have to read through it again, but here's one part that caught me: "New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation's poorest region. ''A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams,'' Powell writes. ''Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.''

And what the author neglects to mention is that it was racist southern Democrats who pushed to prevent the New Deal from extending too far into their own constituencies, because it would've provided blacks with work. Had FDR not yielded on this, the welfare policies may never have reached fruition in the first place. This was undoubtedly an unfortunate compromise, but certainly not FDR's intent, or his "folly."

In providing social nets and expanding government programs, FDR just may have saved us from the popularity of Communism and Socialst revolution that often resulted when countrires went into economic distress. I'm sure our friends at the Cato Institute wouldn't believe that....

And just how is President Bush contracting the size of government, by expanding medicare to cover elderly prescription plans?? This is a big government conservative if I have ever seen one....

[pinky lee]

well you should hope that Gephardt wins the nomination, and not Dean if you are a Democrat- Dean is going to cause a whole new wave of Reagan Democrats- conservative Dems who cant stomach a hard lefty like Dean and who might vote straight Rep ticket
Labor delivered the votes for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000. But union members are much more conservative on issues like national security and gun control, and not likely to fall in line behind an old school peacenik like Dean.

If they go in big numbers to Bush and the GOP, it increases the possibility that Republicans will win super majorities in the Senate and House.

Some labor leaders are agitating to back a single Democratic candidate to offsett Dean. The Teamsters already endorsed Gephardt and several other unions are also backing Gephardt.

But Gephardt 's an uninspiring candidate. Union members may give him their vote but first they have to care enough to come to the polls. Dean can speak to the 25 percent of voters who hate Bush and will bring out college students who otherwise wouldn't vote. And in a primary with a lot of candidates, that could be all it takes to win. That would leave labor in using membership money to back a candidate its members can't stomach. Dean may talk the talk on trade and job protection, but union members are smart enough to know that jobs don't come from that far left. Privately, some union officials hint they may effectively sit out the general election if Dean wins the nomination.

[VinceZeb]

Pinky's politics are stupid, but he/she has single-handedly made Kevin look like a flaming idiotic homo. I thought only a posting of Kevin's picture would do that.

Good show.