’)
“I choose to fight. Stand and fight, stand and fight!”
– John McCain
Conservatives had it easy for several decades. The Democratic left of the ’70s and ’80s was in full retreat, convinced by the Reagan revolution that they had no serious place in the American political spectrum. Occasionally there were flashpoints, like Ted Kennedy being so mean to Robert Bork, or for other Democrats not rolling over for the nomination of Clarence Thomas — who retreated into identity politics when his sexual harassment was revealed.
But those were exceptions. Cons set the parameters of the discussion, they said the worst they could about the left and the left was mute, foolishly assuming that the mainstream media might do their jobs and debunk the lies that pass for discourse on the right. Of course that didn’t happen.
We had a moment of false hope when Clinton ran for president, as the war room was conceived of to fight back versus the smear machine – but at best it neutralized elements of it. The right was still able to impeach Clinton and the mainstream press just kept on carrying the water.
Then came the Bush presidency, 9/11, and the Iraq War. At that moment, the Democratic party essentially ceased to exist for all intents and purposes. They went along with the entire Bush program with nary a protest. It wasn’t until the blogosphere came along and began to fill the coffers of pols who refused to back down like Howard Dean did the left regain it’s capacity to fight – the same spirit that fought against racism and sexism in some of the seminal battles of the American story.
Now we’ve got a Democratic administration who has simply pushed back against the day-in-day-out smears of Fox News, as well as a congressman who is telling the basic truths of the GOP’s non-plan for health care reform. For this, the mainstream press rushes to Fox’s defense, while the Republican noise machine expresses OUTRAGE that a Democrat would do to them what they’ve done for the last 20+ years.
Oooooh, scary.
Here’s hoping this fighting spirit becomes the natural position of the left. No more cowering, go toe to toe. Don’t turn off what offends you, but refute it and yell it from the highest mountain. When they punch you in the gut, you rhetorically beat them in the face until they can’t stand anymore.
I chose to fight.
Win one for the Gipper, guys.
Ronald Reagan dyed his hair like a woman
Ronaldus Magnus?
http://washingtonindependent.com/63840/ronaldus-magnus
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/rnc-web-site-pays-tribute-to-ronaldus-magnus.php
Jeezus was that man stupid, even before the Alzheimer’s began in ‘87.
You keep using that word “smear”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The nicest guys here are your best warriors, Oliver.
Funny how that works.
The fact that you can get an entire group of trolls to obsessively camp here and spew like some twisted sprinkler filled with diarrhea tells me you’re doing a great job at it, Oliver.
Them’s finghtin’ words.
And I likes the sound of ‘em.
And the days of “real americans” sending smokes to family and friends for Christmas are long gone: http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/kids/reagan-chesterfield.asp
What Jody said. You’ve literally got full-time trolls here, because they’re scared of you and your message and your willingness to fight.
I think the Democratic party has a bright future, but the immediate hurdles are namby-pamby guys like Reid who are more worried about re-election than carrying out the will of the American people.
But we’re definitely far better off as a country than we were five years ago, thanks to Democrats.
I saw a kick-boxing match in Thailand once. Pretty wild.
That’s the Democratic version of the history of the last 20 years? No wonder you guys can’t hit your a** with a bass fiddle and a flashlight.
Talk about denial! Talk about self-deception!
There will be a lot of Democratic senators and congressmen heading for home in 2010.
Pres Obama to St Elizabeth’s in 2011.
“Talk about denial! Talk about self-deception!”
Talk about 2001-2008. The GOP shat the bed, Obama is going to fix it.
For every American who doesn’t like Obama, there are two that absolutely hate the GOP and how they fucked over our country.
Win one for the
GipperAyatollah, guys.Fixed.
Here’s hoping this fighting spirit becomes the natural position of the left.
Well it probably won’t be, at least for the left’s nationally elected leaders. Politics is a big money game which naturally trends conservative. So the FDRs are few and far between.
That’s the Democratic version of the history of the last 20 years?
Well he left about the bit about the shrinking middle class, but otherwise it was spot-on. Why, you got a version?
hilarious. Frank that is.
I wouldn’t know where to begin to unravel that Gordian Knot of lies, half truths and misconceptions.
But let’s start with, President Clinton moved back to the center because this is not a left wing country, and he didn’t have the stones to resign, as he should have, when he was impeached. And, since Pres Obama wouldn’t ever resign, and may be incapable of moving to the center, he will end up in St. Elizabeth’s in 2011.
‘And, since Pres Obama wouldn’t ever resign, and may be incapable of moving to the center, he will end up in St. Elizabeth’s in 2011.’
The Right Wing in America has completely lost its collective mind. They insist upon beatifying cretins like Reagan and Bush and castigating intellects like Carter, Clinton and now Obama, because they have been taught that flash over substance is the American way, and that if it worked in 1950, it will continue to work until the end of time.
What they all fail to realize is that the vast majority of the population realize that as 2010 dawns, the world has changed irrevocably, and that bluster and bravado, so well displayed in Iraq, utterly fails to accomplish anything except to further stereotype the Conservative mindset as being hopelessly anachronistic and wholly incapable of evolving beyond the ’shoot first and ask questions later’ mentality that has reduced it to virtual insignificance in modern domestic and international politics.
Cue the revisionists to dispute that 8 years of Reagan and Bush weren’t total disasters driven by hysteria, fear and regressive policies based on religious fervor and sheer ignorance.
“Jeezus was that man stupid, even before the Alzheimer’s began in ‘87.”
Yeah and we had our on-the-take Prime Minister Brian Mulroney singing “when Irish eyes are smiling” with your loony President. Some of the worst days of my life.
‘And, since Pres Obama wouldn’t ever resign, and may be incapable of moving to the center, he will end up in St. Elizabeth’s in 2011.’
The Right Wing in America has completely lost its collective mind. They insist upon beatifying cretins like Reagan and Bush and castigating intellects like Carter, Clinton and now Obama, because they have been taught that flash over substance is the American way, and that if it worked in 1950, it will continue to work until the end of time.
What they all fail to realize is that the vast majority of the population recognize that as 2010 dawns, the world has changed irrevocably, and that bluster and bravado, so well displayed in Iraq, utterly fails to accomplish anything except to further stereotype the Conservative mindset as being hopelessly anachronistic and wholly incapable of evolving beyond the ’shoot first and ask questions later’ mentality that has reduced it to virtual insignificance in modern domestic and international politics.
Cue the revisionists to dispute that 8 years of Reagan and Bush weren’t total disasters driven by hysteria, fear and regressive policies based on religious fervor and sheer ignorance.
Jr, I was about to applaud your perspicacity, til that double post showed up
Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The Right Wing in America has completely lost its collective mind
The right wing does not have a collective mind — never did, never will, This is what the left will never, never comprehend. It will always be your undoing, because you lefties DO possess a collective mind, and are rather proud that you do. You are terminally separated from 18th century liberalism, and you will never be politically successful, as long as you remain in the 19th century collectivist modality.
And speaking of modality, Jr: That writing is not your style. That is definitely a cut and paste .
Frank, the major issues with liberals was that we divided ourselves amongst several single issue campaigns, rather than unifying our efforts into a single set of goals. The conservatives did manage to do this, but time has shown that, in practice, they have hit the wall. Trickle down economics has allowed investment to go overseas to other countries, and reduced competition as large companies purchase greater percentages of their markets. Social conservatism has been, at best, reserved to faith based charities which are inadequate to respond to the inefficiencies of the market, or worse, have been outright attempts to flog the needy into a ‘convert or suffer’ choice. Military adventurism has met with, charitably, mixed successes, while wearing at ties with our allies.
Which is why you are seeing a politically ascendant liberalism, to which I point to the current executive and legislative branch majorities. The challenge for us is to show that liberalism is a better method to provide for Americans than the failed conservative archetypes. So, we’re fighting the remnants of political inertia left by about 30 years of conservative dominance to enact this agenda. As is our right, having been elected by the majority.
“this is not a left wing country”
That’s why McCain beat Obama in a landslide.
“you will never be politically successful”
You’re right Frank. I’m still hurting from that landslide loss to McCain, and George Bush’s second term, and Bob Dole being elected president in 1996 over Clinton.
You people really do live in a world of your own making. Delusion can be more powerful than any drug, apparently.
Jaim: see Abanterer
Abanterer : The challenge for us is to show that liberalism is a better method to provide for Americans than the failed conservative archetypes. So, we’re fighting the remnants of political inertia left by about 30 years of conservative dominance to enact this agenda.
Pres Obama claimed he was bringing something “new” to America — now Americans are finding out that it’s the New Deal, the unhappiness is growing.
Pres Clinton won in 1996, by moving to his right.
Pres Bush lost in 1992, because he promised he would not raise taxes, but then he raised taxes. Raising taxes is a conservative no-no, liberals love increasing taxes.
The same New Deal that saved America from the Republican-created Great Depression?
You guys keep trying to scare people with bits of American history that actually improved our country. I can’t wait till you say something like “He’s as bad a Commander-in-Chief as FDR and Truman,” you remember, those Democratic presidents that could actually win wars instead of just starting them?
“liberals love increasing taxes.”
Like when Reagan raised taxes in his second term? Like when Obama recently pushed through the largest tax cut in American history?
Like I said, you guys live in an alternate universe, and it ain’t a pretty one.
Clinton was indeed a centrist, but he was most definitely a Democrat. And America does better with Democrats in charge.
Explain then why the 1994 congressional election for Democrats was such a slaughter for them, and why Clinton had to move to the right to win in 1996, if Americans felt America does better with Democrats in charge. Or if America did so much better with Democrats in charge with Clinton, why did he defer to Alan Greenspan so much with respect to his economic vision, and why did he allow for the deregulation of the derivatives industry as he was leaving office, Jaim? How did that work out for Americans?
Talk about someone living in an alternate universe.
If you actually believed what you just said, there wouldn’t be the need for you to repeat the same lines over and over every day about how much better Democrats have been for the country.
why Clinton had to move to the right to win in 1996, if Americans felt America does better with Democrats in charge.
Wha?
You mean when Clinton basically called Dole a wingnut ideologue that wanted irresponsible tax cuts? Are we talking about the same election?
“The era of big government is over”, Parthy.
Triangulation, deregulation….in short, transmogrification.
Dennis, I think we can take the Republicans’ word for it: Clinton was a leftist liberal. At least, according to them.
The same New Deal that saved America from the Republican-created Great Depression?
May I make a few minor corrections?
The New Deal did not save America from the Depression; the Depression was not caused by the Republicans. Other than that, you are correct.
Like when Obama recently pushed through the largest tax cut in American history?
Another correction, if I may?
Huge rebates and stimulus checks to benefit recipients are not tax reductions. Tax reductions occur when you reduce taxes or tax rates. Otherwise, you are correct.
FDR and Truman, you remember, those Democratic presidents that could actually win wars instead of just starting them?
Please, just a few more tiny corrections, if you don’t mind?
FDR did not win World War II. We had a thoroughly united country, Democrats, Republicans, even socialists and communists, once the Soviet Union joined the battle. All of Eastern Europe , half of Germany, and one quarter of Berlin were all lost because of FDR. Truman had victory handed to him by Gen MacArthur, but turned it down , because he feared the Communist Chinese. So now we have two Koreas, and the bad guys will soon have the atom bomb. But, other than that, you are correct, Jaim.
Raising taxes is a conservative no-no
You know, I’m really tired of hearing this kind of sentiment. I never hear from a conservative that there are potentially good reasons why we should have a tax hike. No, it’s “taxes are always bad, lower them!”
You know what? I don’t like paying taxes either. I don’t think many people, regardless of political leanings, enjoys paying taxes.
But I do allow for the possibility that there might be projects or items that necessitate a tax hike. I never hear conservatives allow for that possibility. It just seems narrow-minded.
FDR: Such A Disaster, America Elected Him Four Times.
While your argument is sensible, Mambo, like any other taboo, it defies cogent rationalization.
I would offer this, though:
From a conservative’s point of view, the less money the government has, the better off the economy (and we as individuals) will be.
There are only two ways to do that: 1) Reduce spending. But that results in miles of file footage of elderly poor folks dying in the steets, so that’s out. So what’s left? 2) Reduce taxes. Let people keep and spend their own money.
It seems to make sense, and it seems to feel right — accent on “seems”.
“Raising taxes is a conservative no-no.”
“From a conservative’s point of view, the less money the government has, the better off the economy (and we as individuals) will be.”
But conservatives don’t have a collective mind.
And the diarrhea sprinklers spew ever onward…hoping to throw shit all over the message…
The right wing does not have a collective mind — never did, never will, This is what the left will never, never comprehend. It will always be your undoing, because you lefties DO possess a collective mind, and are rather proud that you do. You are terminally separated from 18th century liberalism, and you will never be politically successful, as long as you remain in the 19th century collectivist modality.
Shorter Frank: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Pres Obama claimed he was bringing something “new” to America — now Americans are finding out that it’s the New Deal, the unhappiness is growing.
Yes, because everyone HATED social security and supported privatizing it, causing it’s value to explode in the Fall 2008 market boom.
he will end up in St. Elizabeth’s in 2011.
Wow…just wow. The undeserved sense of self-worth and arrogance is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
But conservatives don’t have a collective mind. Nope, but there are a few, a very few, majoritarian principles: One of them is that individuals spend money better than the government.
Zython: If I had the vaguest idea what you were driving at, I might respond.
“I know you are, but what am I”? What are you talking about?
Social Security is connected to the 2008 real estate failure?
Undeserved sense of self-worth and arrogance ?
On Pres Obama’s part? Yes, that is exactly what will cause cognitive dissonance in early 2011. Pres Obama will be whisked off to Camp David, and secretly taken to St Elizabeth’s for a “medication adjustment” (code for a “5 day stay”).
Awesome, this is like when you called the 2006 election for the GOP.
Social Security is connected to the 2008 real estate failure?
I would have been if John McCain had his way.
What are you talking about?
You pretty much said to the whole “collective mind” point “Nuh uh, YOU”. Right here:
“The right wing does not have a collective mind — never did, never will, This is what the left will never, never comprehend. It will always be your undoing, because you lefties DO possess a collective mind, and are rather proud that you do.”
Undeserved sense of self-worth and arrogance ?
On your part. You really think that Obama’s insane because he has the nerve to think that a black man can run a country?
Frank, don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?
It would have been if John McCain had his way.
This is tiring . What are you talking about ?
On your part. You really think that Obama’s insane because he has the nerve to think that a black man can run a country?
Where on earth did you get the absurd, fantastical, imaginary, stupid, totally undocumented, unsupported, nonsensical notion that I believe Pres Obama can’t run the country because he is black?
Do you think he is insane because he thinks a black man can’t run the country? Well, then, why should I?
Where did I ever — ever, now, think hard — ever say that Pres Obama can’t run the country because he is black?
Don’t you ever get tired of running around behind me, nipping at my ankles, trying desperately to prove I am wrong, and failing 99.99% of the time?
If FDR deserves no credit for winning WWII, what does that make a buffoon like Bush II for starting two wars and not even finishing them? And I really doubt Americans were excited by the prospect of another war with the USSR in 1945. You get to have your own wrong-headed opinions, not your own facts. Although it’s cute how you constantly mangle American history.
And just because Obama’s largest tax cut in American history didn’t go to George Soros doesn’t mean it wasn’t a tax cut all the same.
Have fun being crushed in 2012 and beyond Frank!
This is tiring . What are you talking about ?
Ok, I can see that subtlety isn’t your strong suit. Let me explain this in steps.
1. John McCain wanted to privatize Social Security in 2006.
2. The stock market crashed in Fall 2008.
3. Since the privatization plan involved funding it via the stock market. Social Security would’ve gone bankrupt had it been privatized.
4. Therefore, it stands to reason that if John McCain had his way in 2006, Social Security would be bankrupt today.
Where on earth did you get the absurd, fantastical, imaginary, stupid, totally undocumented, unsupported, nonsensical notion that I believe Pres Obama can’t run the country because he is black?
If you have a more likely reason to believe Obama’s insane, I’d like to hear it. Sources would also be prefered.
If you have a more likely reason to believe Obama’s insane, I’d like to hear it. Sources would also be prefered.
I have a better idea , Zython: You brought it up ; you document it. It was your suggestion – back it up .
As for the preposterous notion that the injection of billions of dollars of social security money would have led to a stock market crash, I am not going to bother.
and, Jaim, there was no thought given to the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union, they were weak, and starving, their infrastructure nearly wiped out. Why do you think Sen McCarthy asked ,”Why did we give them so much for doing so little?”
As for your definition of tax cut, Jaim, I prefer to believe that a tax cut is when taxes are cut. You can believe monkeys fly out of George Soros’ ass , if it amuses you.
As for the preposterous notion that the injection of billions of dollars of social security money would have led to a stock market crash, I am not going to bother.
No, you idiot, other way around. The crash of the stock market would have bankrupted Social Security. How can I make this any clearer?
I have a better idea , Zython: You brought it up ; you document it. It was your suggestion – back it up .
Interesting idea. Well, your attitude towards the black community in the past has, shall we say, not so rosy. In addition you seem to be intent on avoiding explaining your view on this subject, which suggests that you realize that being forthright with your reasoning will discredit you.
OK, Zython, first, don’t call me an idiot. You’re a punk , and you will respect your elders , or just step the f*ck off.
Here’s how you can make it clearer, you dope … If Social Security had been privatized in 2006 , there would have been a massive infusion of cash into the stock market, which would have stanched the flow of cash out of the stock market. See how simple it is when you know how?
You know nothing about my attitude toward the black community , because you are a simpleton. I have done more for the black community, than you will do between now and the end of the world .
Now, beanbrain, you made a stupid statement, and you are trying to back pedal away from it.
You asked the question, “You really think that Obama’s insane because he has the nerve to think that a black man can run a country?”
I said no such thing. If you found some way to say I did, let’s see it… If you can’t back it up, then shut up and back off. I don’t consider you mature enough to apologize.
OK, Zython, first, don’t call me an idiot.
Let me rephrase that…
Hmm…
Ah! “You have a tendency to say idiotic things.”
Here’s how you can make it clearer, you dope … If Social Security had been privatized in 2006 , there would have been a massive infusion of cash into the stock market, which would have stanched the flow of cash out of the stock market. See how simple it is when you know how?</I.
Speak of the devil.
You know nothing about my attitude toward the black community
Except for, you know, calling them “feral”.
“you will respect your elders”
No when they spew idiocy and untruth, no.
“he Soviet Union, they were weak, and starving, their infrastructure nearly wiped out.”
As opposed to how robust they were getting trounced repeatedly in 1942-1943?
My god, you know nothing about history. The Soviet Army was at its peak in troop strength when they took Berlin. They were fully mobilized, tank production was insanely high (just ask the Germans), and they were a tidal wave rolling over Germany.
One could take a hypothetical approach and consider a war between a nuclear-armed US and a Soviet Army that would have rolled across western Germany and France within weeks, but you’d have to consider that Soviet troops weren’t holed up in Moscow, they were all over the place. The tactical use of nukes (and I really doubt we had more than a handful after dropping two on Japan) would entail blowing up the very European cities we were supposed to have saved such as Berlin, Paris, etc.
So no, you’re wrong as usual. And you have no idea what you’re talking about.
And quoting Joseph McCarthy to make a point? Really?
There’s a reason I’ve been paid to teach history and you haven’t.
HTML code > me.
One last time , Zython, I did not call black people “feral” . You will never find that single, isolated , reference which in your darkened , miniscule, wizened brain “proves” I have a belief that Pres Obama must be insane if he thinks he can be President and black at the same time.
Try connecting those two ideas , you nitwit . Now you’re pissing me off, you’re so dopey.
and , Jaim,you teach history to children , and I have taught history to children. You get paid for it because they are Koreans , and you are conning them … Why aren’t you teaching American History in America , you jimoke ?
And a) I was not quoting McCarthy , I was paraphrasing him; and 2) His observation was valid: Why did we give all that to the Soviet Union? Just because , according to you, after getting their ass kicked for four years , they were magically a superpower? What were we, chopped liver.
I told Jaim, read a book , check out a documentary, read an old news paper , talk to your grandfather,and, yes , you ill – mannered lout , respect your elders… Maybe if you don’t your ass killed for being a jerk, you might live to be old, and then maybe people will treat you like you treated your elders.
But, Zython , you’re a young punk. If you don’t get some manners , pronto, some “old man” is going to kick your ass, when you least expect it.
and , oh, yes, I am off this thread.
Actually I taught history in America. But thanks for asking.
“Why did we give all that to the Soviet Union?”
Because they’re the ones who took over a million casualties to take Berlin. This was a conscious choice on the part of Eisenhower who was willing to spare American lives in order to give the Soviets the “photo ops” of a captured Reichstag.
“hey were magically a superpower? What were we, chopped liver.”
America was in a strong position, but we were also tired. Our civilian armies are good in short bursts of activity but not so much as occupying forces (cf. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Could we have started a war with the Soviet war machine? Sure. Would it have been a good idea? Absolutely not. Would we have won? Probably not, or at least not without nuking half of Europe which would have been an even worse loss.
” I am off this thread.”
Coward.
FDR did not win World War II.
Oh, but Bush liberated Iraq. Right-o.
We had a thoroughly united country, Democrats, Republicans, even socialists and communists, once the Soviet Union joined the battle.
The Soviet Union was fighting the Nazis before we were.
All of Eastern Europe , half of Germany, and one quarter of Berlin were all lost because of FDR.
What a fat load of nonsense. The Soviets already held all the territory that FDR ‘lost’ at Yalta. He’d have had to fight them for it.
Truman had victory handed to him by Gen MacArthur, but turned it down , because he feared the Communist Chinese.
Oh good grief. MacArthur wanted to bomb the Chinese, at the time still a Russian ally. He went over the head of his commander-in-chief.
I’ll grant MacArthur the Incheon Landings. But other than that he was severely over-rated as a general (not unlike Patton).
and , oh, yes, I am off this thread.
Ah yes, running away with your tail between your legs. How conservative of you.
Stoner punk Zython says at 2:28 AM to someone who checks out at midnight.
How liberal of him.
I am not a coward , or running away.. I am just sick of the two of you.
Congrats … You are both possessed of such monumental suckitude , that I can’t even bother debating you.
You are provocative with no point. You say things with no foundation, while insulting me for being wrong, and your “left wing Democrat” version of history could have been written by Turtledove.
Frank, please point out a single comment I made that isn’t historically accurate. A single one.
You however claimed that a US attack on the Soviets at the end of WWII would have been an easy victory.
Because your ignorance of all things, especially American history, is staggering.
People don’t make fun of you here because you represent conservatism, we make fun of you because you’re stupid. (Not that the two things don’t often go hand in hand.)
You have to remember that people who have been conservative (but not racist, mind you!) since 1960 have their own version of events that has little to do with fact and everything to do with dogma.
FDR gave everything away at Yalta, Truman lost China, Commies were all over the State Dept under Ike, Earl Warren should have been impeached, MLK was a secret commie, we would have won in Vietnam if it wasn’t for dirty fucking hippies stabbing the troops in the back, Carter and Clinton were idiots, Reagan was a fucking genius, and on and on and on.
It’s a whole ‘nother world they live in, where shit happened that didn’t, and shit didn’t happen that did.
Jaim-
This statement is not historically accurate, and if you educated your history students with this it was irresponsible.
If you watched the Frontline program on derivatives and the woman in charge of the CFTC at the time warning of the dangers of an unregulated derivatives market in the late 1990’s when Clinton was president and riding the wave of the overly-valued stock market, you couldn’t make that claim without being blindly partisan.
Frontline: The Warning–One Lone Regulator Warned About Derivatives’ Dangers
I linked to a liberal website that has the video and some psot-program interviews, but there is no denying that Clinton joined hands with Greenspan, Summers, Geithner and Robert Rubin to shut this woman down and Clinton signed legislation to allow for the deregulation of the derivatives market that led to the market collapse. And now Geithner and Summers are hand in hand with Barack Obama, and this woman is saying without a doubt it will happen again.
Democrats, Jaim. No denying it. You can only ignore it.
Your statement is not historically accurate. It is only extremely biased cherry-picking.
I was talking about my comments regarding WWII and Frank’s idiocy re: America could have simply attacked the Soviets in 1945 and easily defeated them.
So please un-bunch your panties.
Although America does do better with Democrats in charge. Granted, that’s more of an opinion than a fact, but in terms of recent history I’ll take Clinton over Bush II any day. So would the majority of Americans.
You present opinions as fact, Jaim.
Democratic presidents are good for America is an opinion based on fact. Everything I said about WWII was factual, except the hypothetical about an America vs. USSR war in 1945. But I based it on fact.
Here’s another: You’re a cowardly little bitch who follows me around like an abused puppy.