A blog about News and Politics.
Gender: male Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: November 20, 2008 Profile Views: 8063 Blog Views: 30599 It's MY turn! Oh, Marie Poor Rob's Almanac You can't open a door that is already open Will the REAL will please stand? Reality check Life is for the living I'll relent..Just a little It could be worse! Forward or Back? It's up to us! June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Socialism stinks
Hugo Chavez...A perfect model of a socialist dictator. Ideal socialism may sound enticing, but this thug's madness is what it has always boiled down to. A man and a leader of a nation without respect of or to anything. The ability and right of the people to dissent crushed. Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R, Mussolini's Italy, North Korea, Cuba, most Arab nations, and now, Venezuela. The Bush haters will say he is doing the same thing, but they know in their hearts it is not true. Even the normal Bush bashing politicos derided Chavez' ravings at the U.N., which is itself, nothing more than an anti-American, anti-Semitic organization. There is nothing wrong with true liberalism(even though I disagree with it), but Socialism is very dangerous, and the far left is well on it's way to pushing just such an ideology on the public. Oh, they wrap it in the language of progressive change(much like Hitler did), and giving power to the people, but it has never quite worked out that way. In the end, it was always the people who suffered. Even the quasi-socialist countries like Canada and Sweden are being crushed economically by taxe rates as high as 50%, proving there is no such thing as a free lunch(or free healthcare). Most socialist governemnts have come to power through violent coups and stay in power through threats and rigged elections, and most have violent civil unrest and the voices of the people are crushed. Again, the Bush haters will say that is happening here, now, and again, they know it is not true. They just wish it to be so so they can pound their chests and say "See"? I have debated with many liberals and not one could cite any freedoms they have lost since 2000 except for the freedom to hurry through check in at an airport, forgetting that such travel is not a right, but a priveledge(like driving). Priveledge. So many Americans confuse the difference between that and a right and it is one of the reasons that things are so out of whack these days. Most socialist governments allow neither right OR priveledge. People who see themselves as oppressed(and generally wouldn't feel that way were they not to told to feel that way by the Jesse Jacksons of the country)in this day and age have no idea what oppression really is. We are a nation of spoiled brats, and in some ways, that is good, but in most, it is bad. Hugo Chavez should be a stark reminder of what is good about America and what is wrong with truly oppressive leadership in other nations, but sadly, many will fail to grasp that distinction. I say take a trip to Venezuela and see what poverty and oppression really look like. George W. Bush is not a perfect man nor is he a perfect leader, but who is? It is easy, as the ones without responsibility, to be Monday morning presidents, but most of us would collapse under such withering duties as trying to run the most powerful nation on earth. In 2008 Bush will be gone and the people will select a new leader. The people in most socialist countries do not have that option. Their leadership will not change until it is overthrown. I don't know about you, but I prefer our way, no matter it's flaws. Utopia exists only in fairy tales, not in Nations and governments. 85 comments from 14 users
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 26, 2006 at 09:02 PM
I love Hugo and love Citgo, anyone who can ID the great Satan is good in my book!!
But you are correct utopia only exists in the halls of wall Street! posted by
ximenabenitez
on Sep 26, 2006 at 09:58 PM
I love Hugo too. People picture as a dictator. There is a difference between socialism, and dictatorship. Besides, coming from Venezuela I know that Chavez is the best that has happened to Venezuela. Perhaps he is a little rough when it comes to his big mouth, however, the entire south America is waking up. Enough we had of what is so called "Democracy". It is time for a change. I loved what he said at the United Nations Meeting. Bush( his empire) is not the owner of the world. Who is Bush to decide what to do with Iran's uranium, or decide justice in other countries. They should live that to the United Nations. The United States is much intrusive in the development of other countries. The U. S actions reminds me of little boy running to mom( United Nations) to tell on his brother for stealing their toy (Iran's Uranium). Anyhow...great blog though. Have a great day! posted by
mattloch
on Sep 26, 2006 at 11:10 PM
By the way, did Hugo Chavez come to power in a coup? No. But he had to take care of a coup against him, by the military leaders trained by and faithful to the current Administration.
.
How are Canada's and Sweeden's economies these days? Oh yea, better off than ours. And I wouldn't call their taxes "crushing", just because in comparison here in the US we pay less than half of the taxes expected of the citizens of any other Western industrialized nation on earth. By the way, we also have "socialized medicine" here in the US. It's just called "emergency rooms".. Oh, and how exactly is the UN an "anti-American and anti-semetic" organization? They vote to condemn Israeli war crimes and US invasions of other sovereign countries. Not that they have a chance to pass, seeing as how we are on the Security Council with a veto vote. Is that what you are refering to? Or are you just parroting what they say on talk radio these days? . By the way, do you know who is responsible for the "poverty and oppression" in Venezuela? Certainly not Chavez. You can blame the previous governments for making bad deals with the IMF/USAID, and US companies for stripping the mineral wealth from the country while giving nothing back to the citizens. Don't believe me? Then you have some reading to do. . I will be the first to admit that what Hugo Chavez did last week was cheap theatrics. But you have to admit that this is not the first such stunt pulled in the UN. Nor will it be the last. You will also have to admit that while he may be (in your eyes) a tin-horn psudo-dictator, he would not have hit such a resonant tone with the rest of the world if the US was not acting like a spoiled little child, a petulant bully demanding that the world see things our way. He pointed out what is patently obvious to anyone not living in this country; that the US has acted in a self-serving way for the past 100 years, and that while we may preach freedom and democracy, our track record throughout the world for the past 100 years reflects the exact opposite belief being held by previous Administrations, and continuing through this one. If the US was not acting in the way that we are, he would not appear to have a legitimate gripe against us. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 06:36 AM
But Moto, *WHY* did Pelosi decry Chavez' speech? Theatrics. Had it not been so close to the election, she would have given him the ignoring he was asking for.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 06:58 AM
Mattloch, nice point about emergency rooms being our "socialized medicine." The practice of cost-shifting -- socking it to people with more ability to pay to help recoup the losses incurred treating those who can't -- is also "socialism.". The conservative Heritage Foundation, of all institutions, seems to rate much of "socialist" northern Europe very high in economic freedom: 2006 Index of Economic Freedom http://www.heritage.org/res... . Both Canada and Sweden's economy are rated as free, and the UK, with it's "Socialized medicine" -- is rated even more free than the United States -- as is Denmark's. . Motopoet is, I think, being a little disingenuous when he challenges "liberals"* to name freedoms that have been lost since 2000. He knows damn well that the Bush Administration and the GOP leadership would like to see quite a few freedoms disappear -- past posts on his part seem to indicate that he supports "conservatives"* because he would likewise like to see a lot of freedoms disappear. Therefore, his argument is subtly dishonest. . Furthermore, in the United States, clearing the way for the repeal of our freedoms is a long undertaking. That's why it's the far right's top priority to appoint corrupt, freedom-hating, Constitutionally blind judges to the federal courts. To begin taking away major freedoms, they must first disable our strongest protection: the Constitution. . * For the record, I reject the far right's attempt to turn the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" on their heads. It is not necessarily "liberal" to want to protect freedom, and it is not necessarily "conservative" to want to take it away. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 07:21 AM
(I will make one positive observation. The post was written with a less broad brush than I have seen in the past.)posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:08 AM
And something like national single-payer health insurance, to name just one example, is not a bad idea just because someone wants to put a "socialism" label on it. That's like saying you won't eat soup because it's full of "ingredients."
posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:26 AM
Motopoet, the right to a trial. The right to see the evidence against me in a trial. The right to be secure in my person and belongings. There are a few rights I have lost that are getting weakened even as we speak. Oh, and the UN as an anti-US force is laughable. Do you believe the world invaded and set up a base in midtown Manhattan? We created the UN and for an administration that wasn't always on about doing whatever whenever, the institution works well. Ximena, "we" don't have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons, but Iran is a signatory on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UN has the right to enforce that, unfair as any of us may think it is. Of course, it also bans the development of bunker busters and sub-megaton weapons which the US is working on, so we've lost the moral authority there as well. posted by
marsh
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:32 AM
In any society, where people are oppressed, remember that it's the liberals, not the conservatives, who are the first to go . . .
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:44 AM
The shorter version of Moto's argument, adam, is "Socialism is bad, mmmkay?"
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:45 AM
Marsh, that's because we're the first to object.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:50 AM
Marsh, I agree.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 27, 2006 at 09:08 AM
Chavez isn't a socialist dictator Mark. He's a democratic socialist (big difference). While he did attempt at coup d'etat in 1992, he was democratically elected by a majority of Venezualians (got a higher percentage than either Bush), and was re-elected (72% of the vote) in an honest election certified by Carter's group (Carter didn't even endorse our last election). Just as xiemena said, he is well liked by his people. He has made tremendous improvements for the very poor in his country, but the very rich have had to suffer a bit (boo hoo). I believe his main goal in life right now is to embarrass George W Bush in any way he can. His speech was way over the top, but really that seems to be his style. He is not the oppressive dictator you paint him as Mark. This is one of your better posts, even if I don't really agree with you. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Improving, but still a way to go.. I'm not trying to put you down moto, just wants to point out some inaccuracies. Keep at it. You're getting closer each time. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM
I guess Chavez will not be invited to Garces very soon.
posted by
motopoet
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Hugo Chavez is a dictator..you may not see that right now, but I gurantee you will soon enough. Hitler was the darling of the world the first few years he was in power. The savior of Germany. To those who say they have personally lost rights..I don't believe one of you. Are you telling me you have been silenced in any way? You have been arrested and granted a trial? Give me a break! You sound a bit stuck on yourself. Swedens economy is in ruins as we speak because of it's welfare state..more commonly known as "socialism". Canada's economy is not in a shambles, but they do pay MUCH higher taxes than we do which limits the availabe cash of it's population which will, soon enough, cause economical problems that the USA will be asked to bail them out of. You can spin this any way it makes you feel better about yourself or your political leanings, but socialism stinks. You are so fond of it, move to a socialist country and quit whining about America. Miss Benitez..Go home if you think Chavez is such a savior and America is so intrusive..OH..I'll bet the opportunities there stink, whereas the ones here are almost unlimited. It's because Venezuela is a socialist country and it's leadership more interested in lining their pockets than seeing to the welafre of it's people.
posted by
motopoet
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:08 PM
I guess I did get a bit off track with teh socialism-Chavez thing, but I still say they both stink. The peole can afford neither, they just fail to realize it. As for whatever people wnat to call "free health care". there IS no such thing. It's just another form of welfare that the middle class will support, and in the Kerry version, most likely not be eligible for. My son-in-law is from Denmark and, as a mechanic, payed OVER 50% income taxes and received shoddy medical care. Everyone bithces about how the current government programs are bloated and poorly managed and they want the same people to be in charge of their medical care? I'll pass! PS..Jimmy Carter said it was OK? OH my!~ I feel SO much better! posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Here's quite a major freedom that was lost at the hands of the kind of people whom the Bush Administration wants appointed to the federal courts: the right to the free exercise of religion.. In 1990, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, via the pen of Antonin Scalia (Bush's role model for judicial nominees), in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, ruled that the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment gives American citizens absolutely no protection from "laws of general applicability." . It destroyed, in one fell swoop, 27 years of Supreme Court precedent that took the "free exercise" clause seriously, precedent that, up until that point, meant the free exercise of your faith, not merely the right to believe in your faith. Among other important rights, the right to claim conscientious objector status to military combat duty was rooted in the Court's recognition of your right to exercise and abide by your religion. . This might not sound like much, but it enraged religious groups from end to end along the political spectrum. The reason? Its potential fallout is immense: . Suppose that some socialist Congress in the future banned all private education and required that all children be educated in government-run schools. . Now, you might say, "Wait just a rock pickin' minute! I have the First Amendment right to follow my religion and raise my kids in a Christian school!" . The far right judges that Bush wants to see appointed would say "sorry, buddy, but your religion doesn't give you any right to disobey our new federal law requiring that all children be trained in state-run schools." . The far right wing of the court, in the guise of Antonin Scalia, literally knocked the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment right out of the Constitution. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:22 PM
You should, moto. Carter makes a much better ex-President than almost any other I could name.. Here, of course, he'd receive zero medical care, unless he paid for it himself. . The difference between us, Moto, is that I'm not afraid of the words themselves. Chavez is president of a relatively unimportant country (except for the oil) in a backwater part of the world. But his words terrify the superstitious. Just like the word "socialism" terrifies people. Or "liberal." I may go trick-or-treating dressed as a liberal this year. . You see the difference between America and Venezuela as being that in Venezuela "its leadership ismore interested in lining their pockets than seeing to the welfare of its people." And the difference would be...what? . Let's see...Sweden pulled out of a recession, now have a budget surplus, the balance of trade is favorable, and they solved their "social security" problem. Their GDP is growing and not on top of a housing bubble. Wow. What a difference from a "healthy" economy like the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Mark, you have little faith in America if you don't think we can come up with a successful national health care program. :-). You're absolutely right that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But there are more cost-efficient or less cost-efficient ways to have that lunch. In the case of health care, our system is dreadfully inefficient. . It already exists as a de facto "socialized medicine" system -- unfortunately by way of "cost shifting" and by forcing the ill poor to the exceedingly expensive emergency room rather than to a much more cost-efficient primary care physician. (People who delay medical treatment until their condition becomes very serious also multiplies the costs that we're trying to keep down.) We have socialized medicine already; why not formalize it and make it much less costly? . BTW, I'm still waiting for you to relinquish and quit claim to all of your union benefits. You hate socialism -- yet you're already enjoying something better than some of the socialist systems in existence. . It's so easy to hate something, when you don't have to surrender it yourself. :-) posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:34 PM
US Citizens also lost the ability "peaceably to assemble" for redress of grievances. Instead, the Bush Administration substituted the Orwellian "free speech zones" where such things may be permitted far away from the people being petitioned. The whole country used to be a "free speech zone." posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Motopoet, I have lost is the right to be guaranteed a fast, fair trial. I haven't been tried yet. Just because I haven't exercised a right doesn't determine whether or not I have it. I haven't lost the right to buy a new car, even though I haven't done it in a few years. If someone took away that right, would it only affect the people who wanted new cars?
posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:56 PM
When the Nazis came for the communists, posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Random, don't forget that many in the GOP leadership are trying to abolish redress of grievances altogether. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 27, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Mark does have a valid point when he writes, "it's just another form of welfare that the middle class will support, but most likely will not be eligible for." . The foremost point is the middle class will have to shoulder a bigger share, when Bush and the GOP leadership are cutting taxes on, well, you know who. :-) posted by
mattloch
on Sep 27, 2006 at 05:02 PM
Sorry moto, wrong again. Chavez in is power because he doesn't want to line his pockets. The reason you hear so much bad press on him is that because he doesn't want rich people to continue to line their pockets at the expense of the vast majority of the poor in that country, as they have done under the previous president. Try doing a bit more research into the history of that country, and into Chavez's presidency, and then come back to the table. I think it'll clear up a lot of your misunderstandings of the situation.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 05:08 PM
Hmmm...bet DeLay wishes he had judicial nullification *NOW*.... What *IS* it with Republican politicians? Aren't there *ANY* who aren't crooks? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com... posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 05:11 PM
What is left out of the debate so far on healthcare is that it helps small business. If you have to choose between a job that offers healthcare and no heathcare, which do you choose? And who ends up with the better employees simply because they are already big enough to get a better deal on healthcare? We already pay billions in emergency care for people who could have been treated more cheaply by regular doctors and a lot of that cost is still for paperwork.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 27, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Without paying a dollar more as a country for health care, we could cover everyone in the country, legal and illegal, solve the Medicare crisis and be healthier than we are today.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 07:05 PM
WHy should an employer or the government pay for health insurance?? posted by
tonyh
on Sep 27, 2006 at 07:22 PM
Some employers actually pay for health club memberships, weight loss programs, and programs to help stop smoking too. They've decided that it's cheaper to pay for health related incentives than the cost of having people out sick.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:05 PM
If they want to pay for someones health benefits, that is up to them. It shouldn't be mandatory for all though. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 08:07 PM
Sorry, Matloch caught in another lie.. posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM
How do they measure unemployment, Anon? If you want to throw numbers out there, make sure it's apples to apples. I know the US unemployment rate doesn't equal the jobless rate.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:36 PM
Who said anything about the jobless rate not equalling the unemployment rate? The comparisons between the countries are based on the unemployment rates of each country. It is an apples and apples comparison. And the US unemployment rate is significantly lower than the 3 countries listed. It is much lower than the EU unemployment rate.
Oh, and that darn stock market is at all time highs... posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:52 PM
I did. Unemployment doesn't reflect people who have been looking for more than a year. I don't know how the EU or the other countries catagorize unemployment which is why I asked the question. The jobless rate in the US is different. Here's a good story from a few years back:NEW YORK -- Buried inside the official U.S. employment report each month is a little-known figure that gives a much less rosy picture of the labor market than the headlines. The government agency that produces the data also publishes an alternative measure that tries to capture the hidden unemployed, those who are not included in the official unemployment rate for various statistical reasons. That broader measure is dramatically higher, at 9.7 percent in May, compared with the official level of 5.6 percent. That's an extra 5.96 million people, in addition to the 8.2 million "officially" unemployed, who are waiting on the sidelines and may at some point step back into the labor force. posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:59 PM
I did a bit of your homework for you, Anon. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It gives you a good starting point for searching if you want to stick by your statements. The article is old but you should take a look:2/05/96 The Issue: Unemployment rates. What's new: Different standards in U.S. and Canada... - Passive job search explains gap in unemployment rates , Calgary Herald via Southam Electronic Publishing. OTTAWA - Seven per cent of Canada's unemployed have done nothing more than browse the help-wanted ads in their search for work. In the U.S., merely ``looking at job ads'' isn't enough to be listed among the unemployed, defined as those who are out a job but actively searching for work. The finding by Statistics Canada helps explain what has been a widening gap between the jobless rates here and in the U.S., a mystery that has taxed the brains of Canadian economists for a decade. ``It's not clear who first identified the fact that there was a difference in the type of job search accepted in defining unemployment in the two countries,'' Statistics Canada says in a research paper to be presented to a two-day conference on ``the Canada-U.S. unemployment rate gap,'' which starts Friday. Regardless, it reveals in part why Canada's jobless rate is higher than the U.S. rate. posted by
TomW
on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:04 PM
Oh, and Anon, the stock market is almost back to where it was when Clinton left. At least Bush hasn't destoyed it in the way he's destroyed the budget surplus and the military.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 28, 2006 at 07:20 AM
This sounds like the same Anny who claimed that individual income tax revenues are higher than ever.. Go to the blog where you claimed, read my reply, and weep. . State income tax receipts have increased. States have felt obligated (and, at times, have been obligated) to pick up the slack that the federal government cut back on. . (I remember when Rush Limbaugh used to complain about "unfunded mandates." It's an old and evil trick that today serves the GOP leadership well.) posted by
anonymous
on Sep 28, 2006 at 07:34 AM
Stock market is up over 1135 points since Jan 2001 when Bush took office. Tax reciept are the highest in history.
I guess alot of people forgot that the Rapist in Chief also brought us World Com, Enron and the dot com bubble that inflated the stock markets in the later 1990s. As for unemployment, bitch about definitions all you want. Then look at all the want ads in the paper. Then call up an employment agency and hear them talk about how they can't find anyone to do work. There is a job for anyone that actually wants to work... posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 28, 2006 at 07:50 AM
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 28, 2006 at 07:53 AM
And no, there's people willing to work for employers willing to train.. Too many employers have been pampered into thinking that they can just buy ready-made employees with little to no training on their own part. . They "can't find anyone" because they ask for the moon in qualifications and won't settle for anything less. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 28, 2006 at 08:04 AM
Didn't the country have a budget surplus in 2000? Whatever happened to that?
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 28, 2006 at 08:31 AM
It was a THEORETICAL surplus. It never actually existed. It was only an arbetrary number on paper (THAT really disappointed me when I found out). What a bummer.
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 28, 2006 at 08:37 AM
People shouldn't apply for, and EXPECT to get jobs that they're NOT qualified for........................If they want a particular job, then, they need the proper credentials for it. You don't get to be the Office Manager by emptying wastebaskets for two years. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 28, 2006 at 08:45 AM
I see it as what should be a cooperative effort. At the moment, the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility is foist upon the prospective worker to be "qualified." We're conditioned to think that employers shouldn't have to lift a finger.. Either we try to change our own culture so that more employers voluntarily say "will train," or we end up calling for more costly government programs to assist people in getting training outside of the workplace. . From a fiscal standpoint, it would seem the conservative position to urge employers to ease up on their sky-high demands a bit and invest a little more effort in training new hires to create the experience that they want. (I've actually seen employers demanding a Bachelors' degree for a $10/hour job. What a freakin' joke.) . We're all in this together. If we're going to push people into the work force, we should likewise push employers into making room for them and giving them training and experience. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 28, 2006 at 09:02 AM
Down 500 by Christmas!
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 28, 2006 at 08:58 AM
Well, then, maybe the hole Bush has dug us into is a "theoretical" hole as well.. Gotta flash for you. The entire US budget is just a "number written on paper." Those green things in your wallet are just numbers written on paper. The votes cast in national elections are just numbers written on paper. They may or may not conform to reality. . But you're mistaken about the surplus. It was paying down the national debt for the first time since before Reagan started pee'ing on the national economy. posted by
TomW
on Sep 28, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Anon, sorry to burst your bubble on that. Nice switch from arguing we have the lowest unemployment rate to saying there are a lot of ads for jobs in the paper. Have you cross referenced with Canadian and European newspapers as well and checked their want ads or are you just making stuff up again? I'm not "bitching" about the job market. I've got a cushie part time job so I can build a house. I'm "bitching" because your facts are wrong. As for the market, you're right about Bush moving it up. It closed at 10729.52 on January 25th, 2001. So it looks like the market has moved up 900 points in the last six years. The Dow high was set in January of 01 as well, which is where I got confused. That was 10 full days before Bush became President. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 28, 2006 at 11:00 AM
True RF. But then again, who would think that moving around those little green pieces of paper would be so interesting to people. I guess it's not that surprising, considering we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.....
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
