Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

OUR SIGNS FOR TOMORROW:
Education by Ponderer     April 18, 2025 5:39 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [217 views]

The Trump administration isn't just corrupt, it's incompetent
President by Curt_Anderson     April 19, 2025 12:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (3 comments) [68 views]

While Fox sleeps... DEI strikes the heart of American heritage and values!
Conspiracy by Indy!     April 19, 2025 5:06 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [28 views]

Supreme Court temporarily pauses deportations under Alien Enemies Act
International by Ponderer     April 19, 2025 6:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [133 views]

pb's Legal Goober #3 with Clay and Buck on Tishy James' troubles
Crime by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2025 3:13 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [7 views]

Now... sports!
Sports by Indy!     April 19, 2025 8:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [44 views]

After four years of Joe Biden, Freedom of the Press is reinstated
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2025 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [81 views]

Trump's egg lie today is ridiculous, but typical.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2025 9:50 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (6 comments) [62 views]

OK, let's go ahead and lose 500 electoral votes
Politics by ROB3RT     April 17, 2025 6:21 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (12 comments) [180 views]

As Donna said, "Just pay your "dang" taxes!"
Video Games by oldedude     April 15, 2025 11:37 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [106 views]

Politics selectors, pages, etc.
The Young Turks on the Former Truckers' dementia
By HatetheSwamp
April 13, 2025 9:21 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Each and every one of the progressive Swampcultists on SS lied about the obvious state of "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" cognitive ability... until the lie was obvious. pb saw the truth in early 020, and he told the truth.

Joe's story aside, I watched Ana on Megyn Kelly not so long ago. They got along famously. About lots.

IMO, most of you are holding on to the old liberal/conservative, Dem/GOP way when, before our eyes, a new way is taking shape...

You lack either the brains,... more likely courage... to see it.

... which pb's been advocating it for years.

Go ahead. Mire in your Swamp. A new day dawns.

Cenk and Ana are exactly right. Ole pb could not agree more. We're calling you liars, idiots, or both.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Young Turks on the Former Truckers' dementia ":

  1. by oldedude on April 13, 2025 9:58 am
    I'm really interested in what the congressional investigation is going to report. I think it will churn up some things that if you understood dementia, you'd see your mom, or dad, or uncle in what pedojoe was doing. There's just no missing it once you're up close and personal. And you can see the decline. Of course, the dims don't want it out. I don't blame them. It would also show how much havoc there was trying to keep him upright. I'd really like a timeline on the decline. I also wonder about the culpability of Dr Jill. I don't know, and there hasn't been this type of thing before, so we're in uncharted waters. Obviously, lying per se for a politician in DC is expected. And I think this goes beyond the political stunts that are "normal" with politicians. So we'll see.

  2. by meagain on April 13, 2025 12:52 pm
    To judge by your contributions, PB, you are a quite ordinary, unremarkable example of a right winger. The one remarkable thing about you that sets you apart is your stupidity. That is remarkable even by right wing standards. iden was the most effective and progressive President America has had since FDR.

  3. by oldedude on April 13, 2025 1:56 pm
    FDR purposefully kept the US in the depression for seven years. This was so the US would become a socialized nation. Obviously, that and FDR were epic failures.

    FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
    Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

    "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

    Just a thought wrongagain...
    historynewsnetwork.org

  4. by HatetheSwamp on April 13, 2025 2:02 pm

    meagain,

    "iden" was monumentally unpopular by the end of his term, one of the least popular presidents in US history.

    Let me start off with two words: Dem incumbents were running away from him like he was on fire.

    See link.

     View Video

  5. by Indy! on April 13, 2025 5:36 pm

    Lee E. Ohanian is from the Hoover Institute which destroys whatever credibility you think he has when it comes to FDR. The other guy is probably also a wingnut - it's not worth it to even look into it. Hoover got us into the Depression FDR got us out. End of story.

  6. by meagain on April 13, 2025 6:04 pm
    "FDR purposefully kept the US in the depression for seven years"

    What a truly moronic statement! FDR applied the Keynesian doctrine that saved the world's economies as soon as Keynes publicised it. That is what the New Deal was: applied Keynesianism. It put millions back to work.

  7. by oldedude on April 13, 2025 7:34 pm
    I cited my source, apparently you didn't read it. Here are a few others. These are from real economics scholars, not you.

    FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

    FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

    New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis

    THE NEW DEAL: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FAILURES
    fee.org
    historynewsnetwork.org
    jstor.org
    banking.senate.gov

  8. by Curt_Anderson on April 13, 2025 10:31 pm
    OD,
    Did you read the sources you posted? Take them with several grains of salt, but read them.

    Jim Powell, the author of FDR's Folly, is Cato fellow libertarian--of course he'd object to FDR's approach of using government to better the lives of Americans. Cato, btw, hates Trump's tariffs: "The Logic Behind Trump’s Tariffs Is Not Coherent".

    As for the two UCLA academics who claimed in 2004 that FDR prolonged the Great Depression by seven years, read what Professor Ohanian said years later:
    Internet users continue to share Lee Ohanian’s critique of the New Deal, often without fully understanding it
    Ohanian and Cole’s research focused primarily on the impact of Roosevelt’s early policies that allowed for monopolies and too much union power to increase prices and salaries. Roosevelt did institute other policies that helped the economic recovery, like stabilizing the banking system and creating unemployment insurance and Social Security, Ohanian explained.


    As for the last link you posted for example, it doesn't fault FDR for addressing the Depression, instead he says FDR was right and America id better off because of him. Read the professor's conclusion yourself.

    Did the New Deal, as has sometimes been charged, exacerbate and extend the Great Depression? Hardly. The regulatory state provided protections that benefited all Americans. The administration could have treated business interests better, but they were often responsible themselves for the antagonism that persisted throughout the 1930s. Fiscal policy would certainly have worked better had it been better understood. The fact that we were slow to embrace Keynesian theory is one of the disappointments of the decade.

    Today, the lessons are clear. Government can make a difference. A major stimulus is essential and can promote recovery. We need to ensure that measures do not work in contradictory ways against the stimulus. We can do something about unemployment. It is as important today as it was in the 1930s to bolster security, as we turn our attention to health care reform just as the New Deal crafted a program, pathbreaking for us, for retirement assistance. The New Deal made a profound difference in people’s lives and in the lives of our nation. Now it behooves us to learn from the lessons of the 1930s and take the actions necessary to promote a return to prosperity.
    --Allan M. Winkler Distinguished Professor of History Miami University Oxford, Ohio Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs March 31, 2009


    cato.org
    newsroom.ucla.edu

  9. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 5:44 am
    You must have really dug to answer like that. I was trying to bring in several thoughts. The last one you mentioned is actually called, "THE NEW DEAL: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FAILURES," which you missed (or purposefully eliminated) altogether any failures. So yes, there are (by the title of the report) "accomplishments." You decided to cherry-pick those to say it was a complete success.

    The other piece is something I also expected from one of the libtards. FDR was attempting to get the US into full-scale socialism. Where the government owns the means of production. To me, that was an epic failure. And it's something liberals work to do. It's much like explaining dark, damp places that the author is saying is bad to a cockroach.

    In "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate," it talks about the desire of FDR to make the US means of production owned by the government. During the recession, the "fed" raised the rates from near zero to 6%. This made "money" per se, very hard to get and accelerated the trip into a full-blown depression. After that, private businesses and manufacturing couldn't grow (something FDR was unconcerned with), and money (per se) was extremely tight. That's when he jumped in and instead of supporting industry and manufacturing, created a working welfare. Every Marxist's dream.

    No doubt the US Conservation Corps built many great things nationwide. And it was done with near slave labor that was getting a buck and change for a full-days work (by FDRs decisions) and looked more like chain gangs then free workers.
    historynewsnetwork.org

  10. by meagain on April 14, 2025 7:29 am
    Your few links do not say what you claimed as Curt demonstrated. I wouldn't give them the time of day because they deny the experience of all developed countries. The New Deal was no different than Britain, the European countries, Canada and others did. hey did it a little earlier than America because they were not hamstrung by your Constitutional roadblocks, and consequently, suffered a bit less than America and were recovering earlier.

    There is no dispute in economic theory anywhere in the world about Keynesianism except for that right-wing school that without any evidence expounded absurd theories like "Trickle Down" and the displaced austerity that preceded Keynes.

    It needs no argument. The economic and financial benefits were clear.

  11. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 8:57 am

    I'm guessing the rightwing is now obsessing over FDR in an attempt to deflect from the fact Reagan's supply side economics (which has been America's economic "engine" for the last 40+ years... Rs, Ds, everybody)... has led us directly into the oligarchy we now laughingly refer to as a "democracy".

  12. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 9:27 am
    So neither of you actually read the citations. Ergo, you really don't know what they said. Here are some of the cites and what they said.

    There are two striking aspects of the recovery from the Great Depression in the United States: the recovery was very weak, and real wages in several sectors rose significantly above trend. These data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory, which predicts a strong recovery with low real wages. We evaluate the contribution to the persistence of the Depression of New Deal cartelization policies designed to limit competition and increase labor bargaining power. We develop a model of the bargaining process between labor and firms that occurred with these policies and embed that model within a multisector dynamic general equilibrium model. We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the failure of the economy to recover back to trend.[1]

    In the original study, Ohanian and Cole examined what might have happened if FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) was never enacted. The act allowed unions to bargain for increased wages that reached unsustainable levels and effectively allowed for a cartel economy — promising companies that they could establish monopolies and artificially inflate prices without fear of anti-trust prosecution.

    Though NIRA was deemed unconstitutional after just two years, the FDR administration still gave tacit approval to monopolies for at least four more years, bringing relatively few antitrust cases against businesses engaging in price-fixing. This reduced competition kept real income and output 14 percent lower than it otherwise would have been, Ohanian and Cole's study maintains.[2]
    This is from curt's citation and the other one was about trumpster.

    The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, unemployment in the United States had soared to an unprecedented 16.3 percent. In human terms that meant that over eight million Americans who wanted jobs could not find them. In 1939, after almost two full terms of Roosevelt and his New Deal, unemployment had not dropped, but had risen to 17.2 percent. Almost nine and one-half million Americans were unemployed.

    On May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!” (For more information, see “What Caused the Great Depression?“)

    In FDR’s Folly, Jim Powell ably and clearly explains why New Deal spending failed to lift the American economy out of its morass. In a nutshell, Powell argues that the spending was doomed from the start to fail. Tax rates were hiked, which scooped capital out of investment and dumped it into dozens of hastily conceived government programs. Those programs quickly became politicized and produced unintended consequences, which plunged the American economy deeper into depression.

    More specifically, Powell observes, the National Recovery Administration, which was Roosevelt’s centerpiece, fixed prices, stifled competition, and sometimes made American exports uncompetitive. Also, his banking reforms made many banks more vulnerable to failure by forbidding them to expand and diversify their portfolios. Social Security taxes and minimum-wage laws often triggered unemployment; in fact, they pushed many cash-strapped businesses into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to produce, raised food prices and kicked thousands of tenant farmers off the land and into unemployment lines in the cities. In some of those cities, the unemployed received almost no federal aid, but in other cities — those with influential Democratic bosses — tax dollars flowed in like water.
    These were the first few paragraphs of this article. curt couldn't actually read these.
    jstor.org
    newsroom.ucla.edu
    fee.org

  13. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 9:51 am
    curt- I know you'll be demanding this, so here it is early.


    Yes, monetary policy did cause the Great Depression
    1. In 1929 the Fed tried to institute a tight money policy, in order to restrain the stock market boom. At first they failed. But in the fall of 1929, they raised their target rate to 6%, an astoundingly high level for an economy experiencing zero inflation. The monetary base immediately began declining, falling by over 7% between October 1929 and October 1930. By that time, industrial production had already fallen more than 27% below its July 1929 peak. The economy was now in a deep depression. Contrary to popular imagination, there was no financial crisis during the first year of the Great Depression—it was 100% tight money.


    econlib.org

  14. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 10:08 am

    The source matters, OD.

  15. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 10:26 am

    Just reading your excerpts it sounds like they also did not consider the long term benefits of the New Deal. The problem is the Hoover Institute has an agenda, OD - it is a politically motivated organization. It is NOT an organization interested in the truth - it is interested in the best interests of the wealthy. Ergo everything they say is tainted an cannot be trusted as evidence of anything except their continued support for the oligarchy.

  16. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 10:52 am
    ?????

  17. by meagain on April 14, 2025 12:05 pm
    You are way out of your depth, OD. Citnin Right Wing Think tanks without giving it any thought yourself, is not helping your case. For just one example, one of your references is a quite deliberate misstatement of the unemployment level before the New Deal. It was closer to 25% NOT 16%.

    I have no intention of getting deeply into this: it would be a waste of time I can use more productively. But here is an unimpeachable source you can look at if you wish. I glanced at it and have not read it but I am sure it will be close to the contrary to your "sources."

    One partial agreement I would have is that Monetary Policy did contribute to the Depression: it did not cause it but was one among several.

    I was a Depression child and grew up with everyday talk about it and the war that did end it. What is ignored in your sources is that the aspect of war that did lead to full recovery was the forced Keynesianism of increased spending: the impetus behind the New Deal in full flight.

  18. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 1:16 pm

    There were so many programs like SSI and the TVA that paid off in spades long term that even if FDR did "extend" the Depression longer than it could have been - it was well worth it. You can't put a dollar value on bringing electricity to large parts of the country that didn't have it - or keeping old people out of "Old Folks homes" and with their families or self sufficient due to SSI. This - in general is one of the big problems with both the parties these days... they can't see past the next quarterly report. That's why we no longer build big projects that will pay off for decades (or centuries) - like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal. Now we waste cash on wars of choice that payoff for the wealthy and bring absolutely nothing of value to average Americans.

  19. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 1:22 pm

    Oh and btw, what this report (and Republicans) will go NOWHERE NEAR in any discussion is the fact FDR was able to pass all those "socialist" programs was due to the fact the right tried to overthrow FDR and install Smedley Butler as a dictator. If that didn't happen and threaten to expose a shit ton of GOP elected officials as traitors to the US - FDR never would have been able to pass ANY of his New Deal programs.

    So Hoover Institute? You brought those (alleged) "extra 7 years" of Depression on yourselves.

  20. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 1:56 pm
    I have no intention of getting deeply into this: it would be a waste of time I can use more productively.

    you, curt, and indy are the ones keeping this going. If you have no intention of wasting your time, you can just not reply. But that's not in your makeup.

    Citnin Right Wing Think tanks without giving it any thought yourself, is not helping your case.
    UCLA is not even near (sic)citnin a "right wing think tank"

    indy- When did I use the Hoover Institute as a source? Please let me know.

  21. by Curt_Anderson on April 14, 2025 2:06 pm
    OD,
    Lee E. Ohanian, whom you cited, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution was founded by Herbert Hoover so they have an axe to grind with FDR.

    Ohanian and his partner's main claim was that the Great Depression would have ended sooner had FDR done nothing. Of course it's not really possible to "do nothing". A lack of response to a crisis is a response. Indecision is a decision to not make a decision.

  22. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 2:27 pm

    As I said at the top. The Hoover Institute believes the wealthy should run things and have all the money (just like Hoover). Don't know why they're still complaing when that is exactly what has happened to this country - even with all of FDR's "socialist" programs (which also happen to be the most productive and best loved programs our government has ever created).

    And - again - they never would have happened if a bunch of Republicans didn't get together and plan to overthrow FDR's White House. A deal was made once the plan was uncovered that the Rs who were involved had to support FDR's New Deal or he would expose them as the traitors to America they were. THAT is how the New Deal was passed.

  23. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 2:43 pm
    Okay. So that means that all other citations are not valid? The original study was done when he was at UCLA, prior to him getting to the evil Hoover institute.
    Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 112, No. 4 (August 2004), pp. 779-816 (38 pages)

    You and most of the other libtards on SS listen, read, etc MSM almost exclusively. People have cited "mother jones," "rolling stone," MSN, CNN, NPR, NYT, and others. I'm going to not accept those because of the known liberal agenda. Okay? That's going to cut legit liberal sources down to about two or three (maybe).

    indy- If that didn't happen and threaten to expose a shit ton of GOP elected officials as traitors to the US - FDR never would have been able to pass ANY of his New Deal programs.

    That's been my point all along. AND had you actually read posts, I brought this up with curt. Sorry you missed it. I'll just put it in so you can read it now.

    I was trying to bring in several thoughts. The last one you mentioned is actually called, "THE NEW DEAL: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FAILURES," which you missed (or purposefully eliminated) altogether any failures. So yes, there are (by the title of the report) "accomplishments." You decided to cherry-pick those to say it was a complete success.

    The other piece is something I also expected from one of the libtards. FDR was attempting to get the US into full-scale socialism. Where the government owns the means of production. To me, that was an epic failure. And it's something liberals work to do. It's much like explaining dark, damp places that the author is saying is bad to a cockroach.

    No doubt the US Conservation Corps built many great things nationwide. And it was done with near slave labor that was getting a buck and change for a full-days work (by FDRs decisions) and looked more like chain gangs then free workers.

    Making it all BOLD is purposeful because it's the only way you may actually read something.

    meagain- this is what I meant when I said that indy was extending this. He didn't read the posts to begin with to see I already addressed what he brought up again.


  24. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 2:54 pm

    I did not see where you posted anything about Smedley Butler and highly doubt the Hoover Institute would allow any discussion of him and his plot to be a dictator once FDR was overthrown. So give me the NUMBER of the post where you (allegedly) brought that up.

    Of course there were failures in the New Deal. Any program that large with so many working pieces is going to have some issues (See: Leon Musk and DOGE). I never said (or implied) the New Deal was a "complete success".

    The full scale socialism thing is utter rubbish neither you or the Hoover Institute could support with any actual facts.

    The original minimum wage instituted by the Fair Labor Standards Act (another very popular and successful - more or less - part of the New Deal) was 25 cents per hour. So that is what a minimum wage worker would make in a day - a buck and change. That's opposed to making nothing because there were no jobs in the Depression. So again - a good thing, not a bad thing.

    And no, making everything bold does not make the text look more important or stand out in any way - it just makes it harder to read. The purpose of bold is to make KEY PARTS of text stand out. Ergo, when everything is in bold - NOTHING stands out. That is a proven fact whether you (and Brown Shorts) want to believe it or not.

  25. by Curt_Anderson on April 14, 2025 3:04 pm
    "No doubt the US Conservation Corps built many great things nationwide. And it was done with near slave labor that was getting a buck and change for a full-days work (by FDRs decisions) and looked more like chain gangs then free workers." ---OD

    You cannot say the CCC was unpopular or taking advantage of unwilling labor, including with the young volunteers enrolled in it. The Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) probably kept many employed males from getting themselves involved in crime. Through the course of its nine years in operation, three million young men took part in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a monthly wage of $30 (equivalent to $729 in 2024), $25 of which (equivalent to $607 in 2024) had to be sent home to their families.

  26. by Indy! on April 14, 2025 5:57 pm

    And let's keep in mind most red states were perfectly fine with slave labor well into the 1990s and beyond in the form of prisoners working on roads and other back breaking jobs.

  27. by oldedude on April 14, 2025 6:40 pm
    And let's keep in mind most red states were perfectly fine with slave labor well into the 1990s and beyond in the form of prisoners working on roads and other back breaking jobs.

    And all those states you're talking about were actually blue through the 1960's is when the Dixiecrats and Wallace released their dogs on blacks in several cities in the south, and the right swooped in with freedom of individuals regardless of race, colour, or creed. All of a sudden, things changed against y'all.

    it's interesting how the left "forgets" things... Or don't you 'member dat? Were you a dog handler then attacking dos nigras? Naw, you're too cowardly fo dat. You was in the counter protests, cheerin dem on like a little coward.

  28. by Indy! on April 15, 2025 7:49 am

    Why would I care, OD? Two colors - one party. I hate both of you because both of you are racist, bigoted and willing to shoot anyone who's not white.

  29. by oldedude on April 15, 2025 8:20 am
    And let's keep in mind most red states were perfectly fine with slave labor well into the 1990s and beyond in the form of prisoners working on roads and other back breaking jobs.
    Because the dims had control until after turning the dogs loose in Montgomery and Selma. You brought it up, I didn't.

    The feeling is mutual. You're the ones that want to murder anyone you disagree with.[1] That includes Jewish families on 10/7. You're no better than the pieces of shit that murdered those infants, just like your forefathers did a couple of generations ago. You're just trying to recreate feeling superiority to something else.

    washingtonexaminer.com

  30. by Indy! on April 15, 2025 8:23 am

    OD, as soon as LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, all those "Democrats" became today's Republicans. Those are your people. And it's not about "party" (because in reality there is only one - the party of rich white people) - it's about politics. Wallace was a racist. I do not support racists no matter what letter or color they have next to their name. Dixiecrats were bigots. I do not support bigots no matter what color or letter is next to their name.

  31. by HatetheSwamp on April 15, 2025 9:02 am

    Not "as soon," Indy. But, by Reagan's 1980 landslide, the transformation was complete.

  32. by oldedude on April 15, 2025 9:40 am
    Wallace was a racist. I do not support racists no matter what letter or color they have next to their name. Dixiecrats were bigots. I do not support bigots no matter what color or letter is next to their name.

    First, they were still dims. After calling us racists for years, understand that the dim party is rolling back. Not forward.

    As I've said many times, I agree with the above paragraph. I don't judge anyone by their race, creed, color, or religion, etc. Like MLK Jr, I judge a person on their character. If their character is hate-filled, I chose to avoid them. They're what we call spiritual or energy vampires. There are a few examples on this site.

  33. by Indy! on April 15, 2025 7:08 pm

    You and Brown Shorts are the only people I see on this board using the n word, OD.

  34. by oldedude on April 15, 2025 8:10 pm
    And the dims use it a lot. Every time you give a hand job to the blacks in the inner city that you refuse to support. You know? the small business owners, the families working four jobs (not including your hand job to them) They're the one's pedojoe forgot. on purpose. The Black males and the Latinos that you dumped on the side of the road? And the immigrants that pedojoe didn't check with 14 children and all of them are his "nephews" and "nieces?" and he's using them for slave labor? Oh, that's right you (all) forgot about all of them.

  35. by Indy! on April 16, 2025 8:48 am

    Ratchet up the meds, OD or ask the doctor for something stronger - you're hallucinating again.

Go To Top

Comment on: "The Young Turks on the Former Truckers' dementia "


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. © 1999 - 2025 Selectsmart®.com - Do not copy without written permission. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page