Who's your least favorite president from each party?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:45:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Who's your least favorite president from each party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 68438 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: July 07, 2009, 11:37:43 AM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.

Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

I don't think Civil liberties have been threatened after the war. The Patriot Act, instead, is still here... The strangest thing being that many of the Lincoln dislikers should be huge Dubya supporters. Funny, isn't it ? Cheesy
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: July 07, 2009, 03:45:29 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.

Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

To my knowledge it was only used on enemy soldiers, not Union citizens (which is acceptable, because they're basically POWs).

The states' rights thing was very mainstream back then. If he didn't take that into account, there would no doubt have been a bigger backlash against him. At that point in history, you were a resident of your state first, then of the union, not the other way around.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: July 08, 2009, 05:13:22 PM »

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore


Democrat

Woodrow Wilson, or
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Republican
Abraham Lincoln or
George W. Bush
Logged
Husker
Rookie
**
Posts: 154
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -5.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: July 08, 2009, 10:26:23 PM »

Democrat:
Tie between Wilson and LBJ. Carter deserves a dishonorable mention

Republican:
George W Bush is certainly in the running but it's too early to give him a fair judgement, so I'll say Richard Nixon
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: July 08, 2009, 10:33:03 PM »

Democratic-Republicans
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
John Tyler (he was a traitor)

Democratic
Andrew Johnson
Woodrow Wilson

Republican
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: July 08, 2009, 10:41:29 PM »


Democratic
Andrew Johnson
Woodrow Wilson

I'm surprised you didn't say LBJ.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: July 08, 2009, 10:50:32 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: July 08, 2009, 10:53:17 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?

I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: July 08, 2009, 11:04:24 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?


I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Oh yes,  I forgot all about the fact that Lincoln sent a half-a-million men to their deaths for the "righteous cause" of forcing tariffs upon the South to enable his industrialist corporate clients to monopolize the market under a wall of favoritism and protectionism.

What was it you were rambling on about?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: July 08, 2009, 11:20:07 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.
Logged
Daniel Z
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 785
Switzerland


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: July 09, 2009, 12:42:54 AM »

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican
George W. Bush
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: July 09, 2009, 02:32:54 AM »

Federalist- Washington
Whig- Fillmore (Does Tyler count? If so, him)
Democratic republican- Jefferson
Republican- Benjamin Harrison
Democrat- Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson
Logged
LastMcGovernite
Ringorules
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 831
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: July 09, 2009, 12:50:28 PM »

Federalist- John Adams
Democrat-Republican- James Madison (come on folks, if the British have set fire to Washington D.C. on your watch, you've failed.)
Whigs- Zachary Taylor
Democratic- Grover Cleveland
Republican- Calvin Coolidge
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: July 09, 2009, 02:01:40 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?


I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Oh yes,  I forgot all about the fact that Lincoln sent a half-a-million men to their deaths for the "righteous cause" of forcing tariffs upon the South to enable his industrialist corporate clients to monopolize the market under a wall of favoritism and protectionism.

What was it you were rambling on about?

The genius of Lincoln was not that he was perfect, but that he learned along the way and changed his views on certain matters. For example, he was originally neutral on the slavery issue, but when he started to meet blacks during his tenure as President, that opinion changed.

What of the "industrialist corporate clients". Who are they? To my knowledge, the civil war occurred before the industrial revolution, so there certainly weren't "big industrialist corporations" at the time.

Secondly, you have to look at his presidency in the context of the era. Back then, high tariffs were reasonable and considered a mainstream view (though certainly there were opponents).

Sorry, but you're wrong about the war being unnecessary. It was the confederate army who attacked a union military base in South Carolina that started the war. The south succeeded because they didn't want to be told by the federal government that owning other people wasn't morally right. Lincoln publicly stated that he had no intentions of invading the southern states, which he didn't until provoked.

Lincoln only suspended habeas corpus in contested states. That is, states where war was either occurring or likely to occur (Maryland for example).

By the way, Lincoln couldn't have been corrupt because he took the Whig view of the presidency, let congress write the bills and set the agenda, and he would sign or veto them. You sir, just want to be different, to stand out, even though you have little evidence to support your claims.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: July 09, 2009, 02:43:26 PM »

The genius of Lincoln was not that he was perfect, but that he learned along the way and changed his views on certain matters. For example, he was originally neutral on the slavery issue, but when he started to meet blacks during his tenure as President, that opinion changed.
Right, Lincoln really cared about ending slavery and helping blacks. That's why he ran for president on a white supremacist platform. That's why he waited until he was threatened by widespread Northern dissent to the war and the threat of U.K. intervention on behalf of the C.S.A. to make the war a crusade against slavery. That's why when he did make the war about slavery, he issued that pointless do-nothing "Emancipation Proclamation" that specifically freed slaves only in states he didn't have control over anyway. That's why 'til his dying breath he had dreams of deporting all blacks to Africa and making the U.S. an all-white nation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
By the 1860s there was already a substantial manufacturing base both in the Northeastern United States and in the U.K. The primarily rural South imported most of their goods more cheaply from Europe and would bear the brunt of any protectionist tariff agenda implemented by the federal government.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And? Support of slavery was a mainstream view in that era too, what's your point?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sorry, many countries ended slavery peacefully without starting wars against their own people.

And Lincoln would not have ended slavery if he didn't have to.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And? Lincoln was a tyrant.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I know, in 2009 America, being a supporter of limited and decentralized government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers certainly makes one stand out...

Instead people like Lincoln, FDR, Stalin, Mao, etc. are made into saints.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: July 09, 2009, 02:51:33 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

They can void it together.  When a group of states breaches the contract they signed with all the others, that's not the same as voiding the contract.  They broke the law and then committed treason by attacking Ft. Sumter.  And when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus he did so legally under the ability to enact Marshall Law, which was entirely appropriate in the state of Maryland where that occurred and would be in a number of other states.  I also don't see how being on the losing side of an election is the same as oppression.  Y'all broke the law, Lincoln enforced it as per his job description.  The end.
And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: July 09, 2009, 03:58:22 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

They can void it together.  When a group of states breaches the contract they signed with all the others, that's not the same as voiding the contract.  They broke the law and then committed treason by attacking Ft. Sumter.  And when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus he did so legally under the ability to enact Marshall Law, which was entirely appropriate in the state of Maryland where that occurred and would be in a number of other states.  I also don't see how being on the losing side of an election is the same as oppression.  Y'all broke the law, Lincoln enforced it as per his job description.  The end.
And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?

That's an obvious non-sequiter and quite a desperate argument.
Really, do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is your response that is the non sequitur here, since you clearly have no argument to explain exactly what made 1861 so different from 1776.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: July 09, 2009, 04:05:24 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

They can void it together.  When a group of states breaches the contract they signed with all the others, that's not the same as voiding the contract.  They broke the law and then committed treason by attacking Ft. Sumter.  And when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus he did so legally under the ability to enact Marshall Law, which was entirely appropriate in the state of Maryland where that occurred and would be in a number of other states.  I also don't see how being on the losing side of an election is the same as oppression.  Y'all broke the law, Lincoln enforced it as per his job description.  The end.
And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?

That's an obvious non-sequiter and quite a desperate argument.
Really, do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is your response that is the non sequitur here, since you clearly have no argument to explain exactly what made 1861 so different from 1776.

You brought it up, prove how there is a connection.
You made the claim that the 1861 C.S.A. secession from the U.S. was treason. If this is the case, explain how the 1776 U.S. secession from Britain wasn't.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: July 09, 2009, 04:31:50 PM »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

They can void it together.  When a group of states breaches the contract they signed with all the others, that's not the same as voiding the contract.  They broke the law and then committed treason by attacking Ft. Sumter.  And when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus he did so legally under the ability to enact Marshall Law, which was entirely appropriate in the state of Maryland where that occurred and would be in a number of other states.  I also don't see how being on the losing side of an election is the same as oppression.  Y'all broke the law, Lincoln enforced it as per his job description.  The end.
And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?

That's an obvious non-sequiter and quite a desperate argument.
Really, do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is your response that is the non sequitur here, since you clearly have no argument to explain exactly what made 1861 so different from 1776.

You brought it up, prove how there is a connection.
You made the claim that the 1861 C.S.A. secession from the U.S. was treason. If this is the case, explain how the 1776 U.S. secession from Britain wasn't.

The 1776 secession was treason. I don't think anyone ever claimed otherwise.

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: July 09, 2009, 04:40:01 PM »

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.
Well, well, look at you flail around trying to turn this into a racial issue.

My display name will remain to reflect my belief in individual liberty, something so despised by that warmongering tyrant Lincoln and his supporters. I would appreciate not being lectured about libertarianism by a non-libertarian such as yourself.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: July 09, 2009, 04:50:01 PM »

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.
Well, well, look at you flail around trying to turn this into a racial issue.

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm the non-libertarian? I'm not the one supporting a backwards agrarian economy founded on the contravention of the law of self-ownership through slavery. The Confederacy was a slave-based socialist State.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: July 09, 2009, 05:05:40 PM »

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick.

I agree, you're not promoting libertarianism, you're promoting the borderline fascism of Abraham Lincoln.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes, supporting warmongering, tyrannical, protectionist, inflationist dictators like Dishonest Abe tends to conflict with libertarian values.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: July 09, 2009, 05:10:31 PM »

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick.

I agree, you're not promoting libertarianism, you're promoting the borderline fascism of Abraham Lincoln.

Hahaha, wow.

So tell me, my Southern-fried friend: is socialism not the ownership by the collective of the labor power of the individual? And, if so, does that not qualify the collectively-owned (by the whites) of the black slaves' labor power as a form of socialism? Finally, if these two premises are met, does it not follow then that the Confederacy was a racialist-socialist polity, to be adamantly opposed by all supporters of free labor?

I don't actually expect you to, you know, think through this logically, applying a principled analysis to the issue. But you can at least make the effort to be intellectually honest.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: July 09, 2009, 05:28:54 PM »

Hahaha, wow.

So tell me, my Southern-fried friend: is socialism not the ownership by the collective of the labor power of the individual? And, if so, does that not qualify the collectively-owned (by the whites) of the black slaves' labor power as a form of socialism? Finally, if these two premises are met, does it not follow then that the Confederacy was a racialist-socialist polity, to be adamantly opposed by all supporters of free labor?

I don't actually expect you to, you know, think through this logically, applying a principled analysis to the issue. But you can at least make the effort to be intellectually honest.
You sure you're in the right thread? One second we're talking about Lincoln's tariff war, the next you're talking about slavery. Quite a non sequitur.

To your point, slavery was practiced worldwide since ancient times, a holdover from pre-liberal eras, and was maintained in the southern U.S. for economic, not racial, reasons. Had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and bought and freed the slaves themselves, it could have avoided the tremendous loss in both blood and treasure that came with Lincoln's war.

 But then, that would defeat the whole point of Lincoln's scheme to centralize power in the federal government.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: July 09, 2009, 05:44:41 PM »
« Edited: July 09, 2009, 05:47:17 PM by Einzige »

You sure you're in the right thread? One second we're talking about Lincoln's tariff war, the next you're talking about slavery. Quite a non sequitur.

Uh, no, it isn't. Because unless you've never heard of a war economy before, you'd know that tariffs and protectionism generally are entirely justifiable during a period of war: it guarantees business and stability to native industry, and therefore prevents them from selling arms and ammunition to the enemy. And so Lincoln's economic programme was formulated in the light of Southern secession; he was a free soiler capitalist otherwise. Not, of course, that I expect your primitive Southern brain to be able to wrap itself around this fine a point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the rest of the world began marching posthaste off the nearest cliff, would the South follow also (let us hope)?

Slavery is the agrarian equivalent of socialism; for it treats the individual slaves as the means of production, and justifies the common ownership of them on a class (or race)-basis. It's not my fault your white trash cracker ancestors were too lazy to plow the land themselves, and so appropriated Africans to do it for them. Just as any method towards the defeat of socialism is sacrosanct, so too is massive resistance towards its agrarian counterpart. One cannot have socialism without slavery, and one cannot have slavery without socialism.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and not resisted Soviet aggression, we'd be a benign social-democratic state today, right?

Don't be a tool. The European's hesitance to buck agrarian slavery is one of the chief reasons its industrial counterpart is so prevalent there today, in socialism.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, you know, his scheme to win the war, free the slaves from the bondage of their caste-based socialism, and restore them to honest capitalist employment?

Now I am going to go swimming, and that ought to give you time sufficient to eat your Porn-'N-Beans, fart, and play a few bars on the ol' banjo. But when I get back, I fully expect and want another Southern Manifesto to plow through. So, chop-chop.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.