“I am not a crook” - Richard Nixon, November 17, 1973
“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” - George W. Bush, Sept 2 , 2005
The chances of George W. Bush being forcibly removed from office or having the gravitas to resign are slim and none. The Republican congress is about the preservation of power, morality be damned, and they have power if they have the presidency - period. But the aftermath of Katrina has rendered real what was only an abstract notion: what kind of society does the conservative movement want?
They want an ownership society, where if you don’t have it you’re out of luck and too bad. It is clearly a society that is antithetical to what it means to be American and when its been put to the test - privatizing social security, for instance - has been roundly rejected by the American people.
There was also something abstract to Democrats talking about the Republican culture of corruption, as the biggest example to date was an admittedly complex series of shady campaign finance maneuvers by Tom DeLay, coupled with exotic junkets fueled by big money lobbyists. Disgusting, yes, but nobody died. With the cronyism rampant at FEMA and other government agencies, we see that the culture of corruption is more than just a back scratching operation. It is an infestation of our government, where a man unqualified to work with horses is given the reins of our federal first responders. The culture of corruption rewards mediocrity and engenders cronyism, and that will end up killing people. Remember, the Bush administration’s first choice for homeland security secretary was Bernie Kerik, a Giuliani crony.
The Republicans had big plans for this fall, built around an ownership society fueled agenda (tax cuts for Paris Hilton, social security privatization, etc.) that they thought would cut off war critics and give their guys a slate to run on in ‘06. Instead, Katrina and the criminal response has given us a choice between two visions of America. In Newsweek’s latest poll, the Republican path has the support of a measly 28%, which means not even the party’s supporters are buying in. The Democrats have an alternative, a vision of America that rejects the selfish, homicidal ownership society and instead provides for a rising tide that lifts people up and doesn’t tear us apart.
By pushing this vision, the vision of our united America against their cold and calculating hateful vision of our nation at every opportunity, the Democrats can effectively end the Bush presidency. It is a comparison of extremes that must be made. Do we want to work towards collective greatness, like we did in fighting off the Depression, destroying the Nazis, and in other great battles both foreign and domestic - or do we want our enemies to continue going without punishment or capture (tomorrow is 4 years since 9/11), and for people - babies - to literally die on the streets of America because we’ve got unfeeling, unqualified people in charge of our government?
These people can be stopped, and good can triumph over evil, you just have to through caution to the wind and fight for what’s right.
Groupthink was the fatal flaw of the last criminal presidency.(Nixon–children of the 80’s)
It is only a matter of time before the Christo/Fascists receive their due, first in this life, then the next. It is time for and end to the avaricious plundering of
treasure and lives. True ‘family values’ will grind their way back from the abyss. It just takes time.
Very dramatic, but so much baloney…
This will rebound against the left, as politicizing everything under the sun has, since 2000.
You will all awaken in Nov 2006 and Nov 2008, scratching your heads, aking yourselves, “How could those fools have voted Republican again?”
Remember my words.
Frank;
I’m guessing you are a blackjack player and like to hold at 17
Politicizing everything under the sun? Sorry, the GOP already got there.
Hey, my names Kabeer and I really like your site. I totally agree with your ideas. you are an inspiration to me
peace 4 now
Frank, who voted for these guys in the first place? in 2000, it was achieved by judicial fiat, and in 2004, everything came down to Ohio, where, to put it mildly, some very shady Republican maneuvering carried the election. (Diebold, anyone?)
I think it’s more likely that we’ll awaken some day in the future to the ’smoking gun’ proof that the Republican corruption machine fixed one or both elections.
That’s why people have been scratching their heads–where did the votes come from? hmmmmm……
Frank –
Sheesh, if we can’t politicize incompetence and indifference is there anything in your book that can be safely “politicized”?
I was referring to politicizing a hurricane, for Pete’s sake! [As if you didn't know]
What do you plan on doing, when the truth is finally told, and the blame falls on the Louisiana and New Orleans governments?
I know this like asking rabid dogs to do tricks, but why is there no similar hue and cry in Mississippi and Alabama?
Miss. was hit a lot harder, but apparently, FEMA didn’t go “boom” there — how come?
David W — while there a still a few people that might take your claim seriously about 2000, forget about 2004 (Ohio). You’re in tinfoil hat territory with that one — even Democrats in Ohio thought a recount was foolish.
Frank-
Aside from all the allegations of racial bias in NO, it is a primarily democrats who live there. In Mississippi, well…….I do not have any evidence that the way the crisis was handled had any conscious intent. However, sub-conscious
propensity gives one pause. I do think this White House uses it’s power like a club and punishes, with extreme prejudice, anyone viewed as an obstacle to their agenda. Perhaps you would agree that is not an appropriate excercise of power.?
What a ridiculous question!
Of course, I would agree if that’s what I thought they were doing.
You need to come up with some evidence that something like that took place, instead of treating it like a given.
Remember, I don’t speak “HateBush”, the new political language of the Democratic Left.
Oh, Frank_D:
*This will rebound against the left, as politicizing everything under the sun has, since 2000.*
Yeah, those poor Democrats. Always a victim of rebound relationships.
“Nooooo, Republicans wouldn’t go and (9/11) do anything as heinous (9/11) as politicizing (9/11) tragedies and mistakes.”
And let’s not forget:
*I was referring to politicizing a hurricane, for Pete s sake! [As if you didn t know]*
Hmm… let’s see… got my dictionary… seems to be a problem here… “hurricane” seems to be a weather phenomena. There’s no mention of “disaster relief failures at the local, state and federal level” under the word’s definition. Hmm… perhaps that means that the two things are actually distinguishable.
*What do you plan on doing, when the truth is finally told, and the blame falls on the Louisiana and New Orleans governments?*
Really, Frank, what “truth coming out” party do you think is going to happen? Take a look at some of these polls at:
http://www.pollingreport.com/disasters.htm
Looks to me like people ARE blaming those local and state governments. But also note that some people are saving up some of that blame for the Prez. Just like people can separate “hurricane” from “disaster relief failures,” they can also cast blame on multiple parties. You think there’s going to be some magical smoking gun that emerges and shows the Feds (and Bush) in a different light?
And you claimed David_W was in tinfoil hat territory. Which, we all know, is silly. It’s BEANIES that deflect the government thought-control rays. Those little propellers aren’t just for decoration, you know.
Forgive me if I’m being glib (or don’t, as the case will probably be), but really, Frank, stop it. You’re starting to look silly.
And there I have it: What is it you know about a group of people or an individual? That’s what I’m waiting to hear. I’m not asking you to ‘prove’ the sun comes up.
I’m asking for evidence to support this statement:
["with extreme prejudice"? really]
Mississippi is no shining example of local governance either, Frank. Just listen to that raving liberal Joe Scarborough tell it. Money quote: “One state over, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour continues to claim that Katrina caught him by surprise, telling one reporter that it was after all a cat one storm after crossing Florida. That useless fact doesn’t erase the fact that the entire Gulf Coast was put on alert as early as Friday that this storm would be historic.
If Barbour thought Katrina would be little more than a category one storm, then he is not to be trusted organizing his sock drawer let alone the most tragic natural disaster to ever hit his state.”
Scarborough rightly takes ALL local and state officials to task. Mississippi had absolutely no evacuation plan whatsoever. What about the poor people of the Point neighborhood in Biloxi? They had no means of getting out either. Did Barbour have a plan for them? Only 30% of Biloxians bothered to evacuate. Why? Did Barbour not take the storm seriously?
I don’t mean to single out Barbour. I think he made mistakes, but he did as good as he could have. I would say the same about Blanco. She made mistakes too - misallocating the National Guard when they were needed in New Orleans, putting bureaucratic roadblocks to the Red Cross and other doctors, etc. But at least she took the storm seriously and evacuated as much of the eastern part of the state as possible.
Considering the immutable nerve pathways of the right wing, it is a perfectly reasonable question that gives entre’ to the meat of the issue.
First of all, the conservative bloggers obsession with trackbacks, links and URL’s makes one wonder, you know because documetation of each and every factoid is so important, how I would prove that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West? Now there is one of those givens, but that’s just my perspective.
You see I am not interested in playing the diversion game of proving every little thing, because the core issues need to take a back seat to the mindless cul-de-sac that will result . But that is the intent of some.
Not to say that is your intent. But then, I couldn’t prove a negative, could I?
On to what I consider ‘evidence’;
So as not to beat a dead horse,(I don’t even know if you will return to this thread. When I have followed up to your comments in past posts, no reply was forthcoming.)
I will give you the only evidence I need for the POSSIBILITY , NOT THE CERTAINTY, that there was a subconscious tendency to regard the democratic stronghold of New Orleans as less of a priority, than say Mississippi with the vast Republican population (including Trent Lott).
I use heuristic logic to make a jump using what I know about a group of people or an individual to deduce future or speculative conclusions based on previous behaviors. There you have it.
Whether or not you can respect my breadth of experience, it is not job to prove it to you. Can you grasp that concept?.
(Another stupid question that leads to somewhere perhaps)
“… conservative bloggers obsession with trackbacks, links and URL s makes one wonder,”
Yeah it does. And typically when one follows all those trackbacks, links and URLs one quickly finds one self trapped in a vacuum sealed feedback loop where the supposedly originating article or evidence appears in endless regress always one more click away, tantalizing excerpts scattered here and there, but never, really, finally the big picture, the full context. We saw it here recently when Phile and Mike both cited the same paragraphs from the WaPo article suggesting that Bush tried to federalize the releif effort BEFORE the hurricane hit. Googling the article itself (they provided no links) revealed dozens of conservative blogs citing the same article, each time citing the selected paragraphs but never once providing a link to actual article with the dateline that gave away the whole charade. You see conservatives prefer to create their own reality, like the fascinating bubble that Frank lives in where the Bush administration is a flock of innocent lambs fighting for their high ideals against the wolves and predators of a Washington world they never made.
frameone;
You said it better than I have.
[...] r by the spirit of Paul Krugman. Normally, I would leave such dreck alone, but there is so much crap in this entry that it deserves to refuted: [...]
Frank;
Semantics is a bitch isn’t it?
“You need to come up with evidence like that took place…….”
Like what took place? The different treatment given NOLA vs Miss? Oh No! no that one….the one where you have prove Karl Rove (preferably with a picture taken with a digital camera so you can download it to your own desktop for review) is not a) co-equal to the Prez in palpable power, and b.) Is not the most ethical advisor to Bush.
Really, I have no wish to discuss an issue when the goal keeps getting moved. If you are going to disrespect me by suggesting you are not fully aware of the borderline criminal, if not definitively criminal dirty tricks of Rove and Co, then you must also think G. Gordon Liddy was unfarily railroaded!
Oh Frank. Please. From the 2000 primaries when the Bush team slandered John McCain just for excersing his right, god forbid, to run against W to the wholesale scapegoating of low ranking enlisted personnel for Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo to Richard Clarke, Valerie Wilson, a half dozen fired or demoted bureaucrats in a half dozen government departments and finally the state and local officials of NOLA, this administration has demonstrated time and time again that its primary use for power is to cudgel its critics and to exact petty revenge. Looking back over the past 5 years can you honestly say that this White House doesn’t use its power to punish without mercy its critics?
Katrina is going to stick and this is why:
A scandal only has legs when it plays to the stereotype. That’s why the Republicans were able to impeach Clinton for a blowjob, because the stereotype says “Democrats are hedonists.” Yet the left has gotten nowhere in the past five years talking about Republican corruption and incompetence, because it goes against the grain of the stereotype. It’s not enough for something to be true, it has to “fit” with what people think they already know.
But now, the Republican reaction to Katrina has tripped the wire of the negative Republican stereotype, which is “Republicans don’t care about people.” They can’t spin their way out of this one because once reality and perception click together it’s all over.
Unfortunately for SadieB, the people that hold the perception that “Republicans do not care about people” are … drumroll … people who would not ever vote for a Republican anyway.
What’s extremely dissapointing, is that when Bill Clinton left office, we had an extraordinary opportunity to enter the new millenium with all cylinders firing. Right now, the Europeans are years ahead of the U.S. on stem cell research, Bush’s environmental record is dismal, and in the past few weeks, the world is witnessing the “great superpower” not being able to take care of our own in a real time of crisis . Meanwhile, we’re fighting a war of choice in Iraq that EVEN by Colin Powell’s assessment , is a “MESS.”
Frankly, we’ve lost an incalculable amount of credibility in the international community, and that blame, folks, lies not only with George W. Bush, but also with the 50 Million Americans that voted for the most ill prepared man to hold of the office of the Presidency in the 230 year history of our great nation.
I take exception with any talk that this is about “good vs. evil,” however. I realize the past few weeks have been highly emotional times, but Republicans and conservatives raise their families, play by the rules, pay
their taxes and contribute to charity and their communities. They love their country, just like I do. ..they do however, have a much different vision for America. I have always felt that conservatives don’t really have a great sense of the complexity of the the issues that confront us, and don’t have a particular interest in understanding them, which is why they often resort to simple themes, which have resonated well over the past 10 years.
Leave the “good vs. evil” crap for the wingnuts, however.
JK
“Republicans don’t care about people”
Careful, Sadie.
Be specific unless you mean all republicans.
Now, if you were to say “a sociopath thinks of human life as though it were as much value as tissue paper’ then you would have focused on a core group of republicans (who happen to be in power) of whom you could accurately say, ‘don’t care about people.’
Sadie, the NEW media will not forget about the Ray Nagin Memorial Motorpool or the indignant and “self-sufficient” Gov. Blanco.
It’s a different world.
See you in ‘06
Good luck
Apparently politicizing hurricane response is bad, but exploiting is perfectly acceptable:
Per Yahoo/Reuters
Since the intellectual “circle jerk” has begun: “Why don’t you understand, as we intelligent liberals do, what a bad guy Bush is?”, it’s time for me to leave…
I’ll come back when you’re out of that “We’re so much better than those — eeeww — smelly Republicans are” mode.
Once again you deliberately misunderstand my words.
What I said was that “Republicans don’t care about people” is a stereotype. That doesn’t make it true anymore than “Democrats are hedonists.” Stereotypes are a short-hand way people have of understanding what’s going on around them, a way to filter all the noise.
People use facts to help them decide what to think about something, but they also use rules of thumb, like stereotypes. When facts and stereotypes line up, perceptions harden and they are very difficult to change.
Frank;
Please return when there is no more need for the breath mints.
Ahh, Frank makes another dramatic exit (although I have to say, I enjoyed the last one much more).
Frank;
You are a true literalist, aren’t you?
Your reference to ’smelly republicans’ tempted me, beyond my control, to say what I’ve been sorely tempted to say, but witheld because it was juvenile.
Since you have released me from that inhibition, I will tell you what I meant was figurative when I say;
You and your ilk are so full of shit, I can smell it on your breath.
Yes, Frank, even though you are thousands of miles away. You are guilty of Stinkin’ Thinkin’
I’m not leaving the blog, just this monotonous, stupid thread.
Leo: Really? Breath mints? Considering we’re on keybpards, separated by perhaps thousands of miles, that was really juvenile, and so like you.
Mouse: so did I.
Ohmigod! The uninhibited Semanticleo! Lock up the women and children!
And you’re a poopyhead!
You’re mama’s so fat…
Frank;
This thread is nearing it’s end.
Are you one of those people who won’t say shit even if you have a mouthful.?
That’s your wiggle room for remaining above the fray?
Just another whitewashed grave, appearing pure and white from the outside, but on the inside is found every unclean thing.
Ummm, I thought the point of a dramatic exit was to like, exit?
Frank, I’m beginning to suspect you’re all about the drama and less about the exit.
Some might even say (affectionately, of course) that you’re a bit of a drama queen.
Of nothing else, you are certainly not boring. And for this, I thank you.
Leo, you’re developing quite the potty mouth, aren’t you? (Pun intended)
Mouse, not boring you is what I live for.
SadieB: That soft spot should have closed within a few months of birth.
He is cute, Mouse. I think I am developing a bit of a soft spot myself.
By the way, how’s the plan to destroy the Democratic Leadership Council going?
I think MoveOn and ANSWER have made tremenous strides in that direction. I see Republican victories — in the usage favored three to one by Democrats — “as far as the eye can see.”
Gee, I leave for the day after having seen Frank_D declare:
*It s time for me to leave&
*I ll come back when you re out of that We re so much better than those eeeww smelly Republicans are mode.*
And then:
*I m not leaving the blog, just this monotonous, stupid thread.*
Four posts later, he’s still posting to this “monotonous, stupid thread.” And I’m pretty sure none of us are out of “Smelly Republican” mode.
You really must work on your gratious exits, Frank. Again, you’re looking silly.
“I know this like asking rabid dogs to do tricks, but why is there no similar hue and cry in Mississippi and Alabama?”
Somehow we are not getting the press coverage New Orleans is getting, but don’t you worry, plenty of people here are pissed. Plenty.
RTK: I was invited back into the thread y posts addressed to me after I left.
Yes, the thread is stuoid and monoyonous — like your comments (you insult me, I insult me — that’s how it works here. You stop, I stop)
The edited version:
RTK: I was “invited” back into the thread by posts addressed to me after I left.
Yes, the thread is stupid and monotonous like your comments (you insult me, I insult me that s how it works here. You stop, I stop)
If you think Bush is doomed, you must read this:
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/09/ill_wind_may_no.php
“Invited back?”
No silly, we just thought you were gone so we started talking about you behind your back. That’s not an invitation.
Oh, great, you’re admitting it… {The comments were not just about me; they were addressed to me)
Are you proud?
BTW. did you read the essay linked above — or are you still more concerned with busting my chops?
*RTK: I was invited back into the thread by posts addressed to me after I left.*
Translation: I can’t let you guys have the last word.
*Yes, the thread is stupid and monotonous like your comments (you insult me, I insult me that s how it works here. You stop, I stop)*
A few things you should take into account, Frank:
You are nothing more than some unknown writer to me. You have no power over me. Therefore, your insults have absolutely no weight with me. So here’s how the game is played: you stop saying silly things, and I’ll stop pointing them out. I’m having fun, and I don’t care a wit what you think of my comments or whether you are offended or not (though, my friend, if I actually wanted to insult you, I wouldn’t be calling you “silly”).
Why this attitude, you might ask? Simple. I’ve been mostly a lurker on this site and I’ve read enough of your posts to generaly believe you are not someone I can actually debate with cordially. Now, that Duggar fellow irks me on occasion (as I’m sure I would if I was a more prevalent poster), but he’s a civil debater. You’ve proven in this thread alone that you’re not here to debate, but to either pick a fight, vent your rage, or try to win a futile contest of wills that cannot be won. Neither you nor your opponent is going to change their minds. Why would they, or you?
Honestly, why do you post here? Sure, freedom of speech. Great. But to what end? And I ask that of all “righties” that frequent this site. Do you think anyone’s going to listen? Do you think someone other than a fellow rightie is going to agree? It’s about as logical as myself going to Red State.org and trying to change minds by ranting about how all Republicans want to rule the world. This is a place for “lefties” to rant; most aren’t receptive. And the blog world isn’t really the place to change minds. Honest debate is decided face-to-face, in person, and with a civil tongue. The fact that many lefties here are about as rational as you are simply denotes the futility of your tactics.
Now, if you want a cordial debate, I’d suggest you watch what you say. Otherwise, I consider you fair game. Your best bet would be to ignore me, but that doesn’t mean I’ll leave you alone. I will continue to point out your logical inconsistances until you wise up or (much more likely) I get bored.
So let’s see how far you want to take this. If you reply to this post (stating my name or implying my name in this thread) you will be greeted with this:
“I have the last word. It’s mine, I’m keeping it. You can’t have it.”
Everytime. Every single time. It’s quite juvenile, but I’m having fun.
Your move, Frank.
Wow! A bit verbose, but well done!
If I read you correctly, you reserve the right to yourself to “point out the silly things I say.” I don’t have that right? I’m having fun, too.
As to whether I’m here to pick a fight: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I’ve usually been attacked or answered with condescension or arrogance before I respond in kind.
Why do I post here?
Why do lefties post at right wing blogs? It may not be “logical” to you, but a) It need not be; and b) What if my reasons to do so are not your reasons? Is that it? I just “pack up my keyboard and go home” because RTKguy thinks I should?
You think the blog world isn’t really the place to change minds?
Who says?
You?
And, even if it’s not, that doesn’t mean going to opposition blogs is not a good idea. As I alluded to above, there are lots of reasons to post on opposition blogs, some of which are the reasons I do it.
And I love remarks like “I consider you fair game,” Especially coming after your statement that I seem to be here “only to pick fights.” Fair game? Square that with “cordial debate”.
RTKguy:
You have the last word. It s yours, you’re keeping it. I can t have it.
Everytime. Every single time.
*If I read you correctly, you reserve the right to yourself to point out the silly things I say. I don t have that right? I m having fun, too.*
‘Course you do, Frank. Never said you couldn’t (nor could I stop you). I just stated that I don’t care what you say because your words have no power over me unless I let them have power. Threatening me with insults, for instance, is useless. Surely you must have a similar way of coping with the arrogant and the crass.
*As to whether I m here to pick a fight: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I ve usually been attacked or answered with condescension or arrogance before I respond in kind.*
In your defense, you do get attacked a lot.
But a couple of examples:
Thread: The Media Jackels, fifth post down.
“Did you eat your lunch just before, or just after you posted that, Oliver?”
He hadn’t attacked or answered you before you responded in kind (unless you consider the host of the blog “fair game”. He still didn’t attack you personally, by your definition). Or perhaps you only count direct assaults rather than, say, ones where you criticize an entire group, such as here:
Thread: The Progressive Century, tenth post down:
*There is no rational system of measuring academic performance which will be accepted by the money hungry, feel good social worker wannabes who pass for teachers in our country today. They don t even major in college in the subjects they teach now that would be a start!*
I’m about to become a teacher. Any other educator on this site would have been insulted enough to smack you. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and yet you act like an expert. Arrogance. It was probably that statement alone that had me single you out.
You’re no angel. Maybe I’m hoping you’ll see that. I’m not claiming I am, either. I usually don’t pick fights, but I did this time.
*I just pack up my keyboard and go home because RTKguy thinks I should?*
Well, yes. (that’s an opinion)
or:
*You think the blog world isn t really the place to change minds?
Who says?
You?*
Well, yes. (that’s also an opinion)
or:
*As I alluded to above, there are lots of reasons to post on opposition blogs, some of which are the reasons I do it.*
and:
*What if my reasons to do so are not your reasons?*
It’s all opinion, Frank. My opinion and your opinion. That’s what I’ve been driving at here. Why should you listen to me, and why should I listen to you? We don’t know each other and we clearly don’t like each other (albeit, I threw the first punch on this one).
It’s about respect. We don’t have it, obviously, and I doubt we going to give it to the other. What makes you think I would respect what you’re saying and listen to you with the record of posts you’ve got on this site? What makes you think I would expect you to respect and listen to me?
If we were face to face, I suspect we wouldn’t be acting like this. Respect is mutual, and it’s something both parties have to give.
Oh, and what “are” your reasons? You can’t expect me to take your points into consideration without an example or two of your own thinking.
*And I love remarks like I consider you fair game, Especially coming after your statement that I seem to be here only to pick fights. Fair game? Square that with cordial debate .*
Look at my post again. It said, *Pick a fight, vent your rage, or try to win a futile contest of wills.* Correct the list rather than being mysterious and splitting hairs. And I’m not going to engage in a “cordial debate” with someone I believe has shown (repeatedly) that he doesn’t respect others with differing views than his own.
You can’t escape your words, Frank. They’re all over the place. People are going to see that.
But I lied. This isn’t really fun. This is one of those “futile contest of wills” that I don’t like to do. This was an experiment for me, exercising a bit of battle lust, and it’s just… useless. Nothing was accomplished. Nothing. I just feel empty. Debate has to be towards a goal, not just egos clashing.
Not that you were worried, but I’m not going to single you out anymore. I won’t attack — unless you say something stupid about teachers again. I’ll just post as I have been — seldomly, and when the mood hits.
If you want to end this on a good note, don’t reply. Forget my earlier questions. Let’s get rid of the egos and go our separate ways.
I have nothing more to say on the subject. You said you were you were done, and I’m done. Your writing indicates that “I’m all through here” — I’ve shown (repeatedly) that I don’t respect others with differing views than my own.
One small point before we “go our separate ways” (which I doubt will happen — ‘my opinion’): I was an education major, and have had a special interest in education for several decades. I do know what I’m talking about.
While I was exaggerating, I wasn’t that far off the mark, or you wouldn’t be so pissed. Are you the education major who didn’t major in his subject, or the wannabe social worker?
Be honest, now.
If you want to end this on a good note, stop trying to be an “Oliver ambassador,” telling me what I need to do to ‘fit in ‘ to this blog.
Don’t stereotype me. Don’t treat me like an idiot. And don’t tell me you don’t have to respect me because of my previous posts, but I should respect you.