HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Columbian professor Rober...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:59 PM

Columbian professor Robert Thurman calls the Grover Norquist oath "seditious" and "treasonous".

I'm with him on this one!

Do you serve Grover Norquist, or do you serve the American people and the Constitution?

If you fulfill the Norquist oath by selling out the middle and working class and drive all government business to a halt, as far as I'm concerned, you're a traitor!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/columbia-professor-blasts-grover-norquist-pledge-as-seditious-and-treasonous/

The video:



Columbia Professor Blasts Grover Norquist Pledge As ‘Seditious’ And ‘Treasonous’

Professor Robert Thurman, a Buddhist scholar working at Columbia University, isn’t happy with our Republican Congresspeople signing a pledge to Grover Norquist. And he isn’t afraid to take that anger public.

Thurman, who was once chosen as one of Time Magazine‘s “25 Most Influential People,” has released a video calling Norquist’s anti-tax increase pledge a “seditious” and “treasonous” oath. Thurman says his purpose in making the video is so that U.S. citizens start to think more deeply about this pledge and what it means for our Congresspeople to have taken an oath to an unelected, non-governmental citizen.

Thurman’s main point is that Congresspeople take an oath to upload the Constitution of the United States, and among the promises they make are to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it. According to Thurman, pledging an oath to the U.S. government and pledging an oath to Grover Norquist can’t co-exist:

“95% of the Congressmen and Republican senators have sworn a written oath to someone called Grover Norquist and an organization called American For Tax Reform, that they will under no circumstances, and for no reason, raise taxes of any kind on anyone. And therefore, they have taken an oath to an outside organization which is not supported by the U.S. Constitution – which gives Congress the right to levy taxes, to do the work of the people through the government –but this is a non governmental organization, not elected by anybody and supported by big money people who are making money by not having to pay taxes.”

55 replies, 6425 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Columbian professor Robert Thurman calls the Grover Norquist oath "seditious" and "treasonous". (Original post)
backscatter712 Dec 2012 OP
jsr Dec 2012 #1
kentauros Dec 2012 #2
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #3
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #13
LuckyLib Dec 2012 #41
aquart Dec 2012 #4
indepat Dec 2012 #5
indepat Dec 2012 #6
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #33
freshwest Dec 2012 #11
Dont call me Shirley Dec 2012 #46
Baitball Blogger Dec 2012 #7
DearHeart Dec 2012 #17
bluerum Dec 2012 #8
Cha Dec 2012 #15
BainsBane Dec 2012 #22
pangaia Dec 2012 #51
Cha Dec 2012 #52
pangaia Dec 2012 #55
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #9
ReRe Dec 2012 #24
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #31
ReRe Dec 2012 #34
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #44
ReRe Dec 2012 #38
DreamGypsy Dec 2012 #26
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #30
ReRe Dec 2012 #32
DreamGypsy Dec 2012 #43
Tigress DEM Dec 2012 #39
stellanoir Dec 2012 #47
ErikJ Dec 2012 #10
dreamnightwind Dec 2012 #12
Cha Dec 2012 #16
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #18
snort Dec 2012 #14
JanT Dec 2012 #19
trailmonkee Dec 2012 #20
Coyotl Dec 2012 #21
Lugnut Dec 2012 #23
ReRe Dec 2012 #35
Buns_of_Fire Dec 2012 #36
Rockyj Dec 2012 #25
mfcorey1 Dec 2012 #27
malaise Dec 2012 #28
Berlum Dec 2012 #29
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #37
Whovian Dec 2012 #40
Auntie Bush Dec 2012 #42
Scurrilous Dec 2012 #45
WillyT Dec 2012 #48
Fence rider Dec 2012 #49
ashling Dec 2012 #50
11 Bravo Dec 2012 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #54

Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:00 PM

1. That's exactly what it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:14 PM

2. I love Robert Thurman!

And he has a great message. Thanks for sharing it

Now I need to share it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:17 PM

3. I believe the Professor makes a good, profound point.

Thanks for the thread, backscatter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:20 PM

13. I believe the Professor teaches at COLUMBIA - and may or may not be Columbian.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:28 AM

41. If he were, he'd be Colombian, from Colombia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:20 PM

4. Thurman is correct.

The Norquist Pledge has weakened our infrastructure and left us unready and unable to cope with the real threats against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:30 PM

5. About time someone of stature called a blatantly seditious and treasonous action seditious and

treasonous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:42 PM

6. Our President surely realizes that those who take a seditious and treasonous oath are not men of

good faith who will uphold their oaths of office by acting in the best interest of our country and will: deal with them accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:40 AM

33. So has our President called out those who have taken a sedition and treasonous oath,

to the public?

Some blockheads in this Country need to hear this.


The MSM won't tell them, unless forced into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:08 PM

11. +1,000 to what you said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:28 PM

46. Thom Hartmann has been for some time now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:45 PM

7. It's about time someone points out the obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:07 AM

17. I agree!! Wish more would stand up with him!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:50 PM

8. Columbia prof, not Columbian

Otherwise, bravo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:57 PM

15. thank you, bluerum.. I wondered why a Prof from Columbia

had a comment on Grover. But, you never know.

Thanks for the news, backscatter! It is treasonous but the gops get away with so much aided and abetted by the US corporatenewswhores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:53 AM

22. Would have been Colombian

But the name isn't Spanish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:17 PM

51. He teaches at Columbia University.

He is not from Columbia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:33 PM

52. Got it. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:47 PM

55. I forgot the smilie in my post. :>)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:50 PM

9. The oath is a very bad idea, but it is not seditious or treasonous.

Asking politicians to pledge something is just one method of advocacy on a public policy issue. The anti-tax pledge is the most prominent one but there are plenty of other pledges out there. Consider:

There is a pledge to protect Social Security that has already been endorsed by more then 100 members of Congress. The pledge is very simple. It commits members of Congress, or candidates, to oppose cutting Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age. It doesn't get any simpler than this - even a member of Congress can understand it. (from "The Social Security Pledge Versus the Old Politics", by Dean Baker, October 11, 2010)


(If you're interested, the text of the Social Security pledge is here.)

The Campaign for America's Future wasn't elected any more than Norquist was. Nevertheless, Baker reports that more than 100 members of Congress have signed on to this pledge. Are they all being seditious or treasonous? Without bothering to look up the list, I'll guess that it's a Who's Who of legislators whom DUers admire.

BTW, it's at least a little misleading for the linked article to identify Thurman as a professor at Columbia. He is a professor, but in this context some people might assume that he's a professor of constitutional law or some such. He's actually a Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies. His scholarly expertise, while highly regarded in his field, has no bearing on the point for which he's being quoted.

Look, I think this pledge is terrible public policy. But if we start screaming about treason where there is none, we enable the other side to shift the focus to whether it's treasonous -- an argument they'll win. It's much better to follow Professor Krugman's approach and point out that anti-tax pledge signers are among the loudest of the deficit hawks, a contradiction that exposes their fundamental dishonesty and hypocrisy. That's a much stronger argument for our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:25 AM

24. I don't agree with you...

I look at the "Social Security" pledge as a reaction to the threat that Grover Norquest's pledge had on government as a whole, which would include the privatization of Social Security.

When did Grover Norquest start his no-tax organization? Wasn't it after GW "won" in 2004? Remember when GW said he was going to spend his "political capital" right after that election, and hit the road around the country to TRY to talk the American People into privatizing Social Security? That was a total failure, wasn't it?

If you don't mind, give us a link on Norquist's pledge...like the history of it. When did it begin, etc., etc. etc., and who were the signatories to it? Did any Blue-Dog Dems sign it too?

No, when I think of Norquist's pledge, I never think of Krugman. I think of how treasonous it is that they have taken a pledge that supersedes their pledge to the US Constitution. And I have never heard or seen this man (Thurman) before I opened this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:04 AM

31. More about Norquist

I'm no big Grover Norquist expert, so I checked Wikipedia. According to the relevant section of the Wikipedia article about Americans for Tax Reform (Norquist's organization), he started circulating the pledge in 1986. Thus, the pledge (or at least some version of it) long predated Bush's 2004-05 push for Social Security privatization. The current version of the pledge can be found here. I don't know how much it's changed over the years. Wikipedia says that, in the current (112th) Congress, three Democrats have signed it: Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) and House members Robert Andrews (NJ) and Ben Chandler (KY).

As I read the current anti-tax pledge, it doesn't relate to Social Security privatization. A legislator signing the pledge could vote for or against privatization. Furthermore, even if we assume that the pledge not to raise any taxes includes the FICA tax that supports Social Security, I don't remember the privatization proposals as calling for a change in the FICA tax rate. The push was instead to divert that particular stream of tax revenue out of public control and into Wall Street's oh-so-capable hands. For these reasons, I don't think the pledge to protect Social Security can be read as solely or even primarily a reaction to an anti-tax pledge begun more than 20 years earlier.

Finally, even if it were such a reaction, that wouldn't go to the issue of whether pledging to oppose some specified fiscal measure is ipso facto treasonous, or a violation of the oath to uphold the Constitution. I still don't think it is, though I'm apparently in the minority in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:54 AM

34. Thanks for the info...

... I like to think I know-it-all, but I don't Ben Nelson...now that one I expected, don't know the guy from NJ and I'm really shocked about Chandler being a signatory. (He got voted out in the election and is being replaced by (R)Andy Barr, an old crony of corrupt former Gov and US House member Ernie Fletcher.)

Yeah, I've got to go back and read up on all this. I sure didn't know that they signed this pledge 26 years ago! Did they keep it secret for 20 years? It is good to know when it started, so I can put it all into prospective (chronologically). I know Rushbo started up on the radio in 1989.

Well, Mr Lane, I still stick to my guns on this. Letters, OK. Pledges? NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:31 PM

44. No, the pledge wasn't secret. Far from it.

You ask, "I sure didn't know that they signed this pledge 26 years ago! Did they keep it secret for 20 years?" No, Norquist's tactic was to publicize who had signed the pledge and, perhaps more important, who had not. The idea was that candidates who had not signed would come under pressure from conservative voters, who would demand that they sign; the candidates, fearful of losing support if they didn't pass this litmus test, would then fall into line and sign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:18 AM

38. Norquist started ATR in 1985.... yeah, everything is falling into place now in my mind....

...ATR is 27 years old. Who knew? Now isn't that special...When Ronnie was still in office.... Wow, I've never seen so many projects! They are busy little bees, now aren't they? And Rover Grover has been it's only leader. Beginning to remind me of Herbert Hoover.

Yes, I did go look at the Wikipedia link you provided. It''s just loaded with all kinds of tidbits, isn't it? I've got about a thousand questions, but I'm writing them down and will work on the answers later today. I truly can't see how they could be a legal 501c3, though. All you have to do is just scan down the list of signers. And money launderer for Jack Abramhoff? (sp?) I have really been asleep. Did this guy (GN) serve time too? If not, has money laundering in America become legal? Wow, I think this kind of makes the USA a rogue nation.

I love to learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:20 AM

26. Your information is incorrect.

You write, apparently quoting Baker, that "100 members of Congress have signed on to this pledge" ie. the Social Security pledge.

On pledge website the number of Senators and Congresspersons for whom they have Signed Promises is exactly 8. You need to look at the list..it's exactly 8 names long.

There are many others who support the idea of the pledge and who, for example, co-signed the Conyers-Grijalva-Maffei Letter to President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreamGypsy (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:13 AM

30. Baker's number (from 2010) is defensible but the exact number is irrelevant anyway

As to the number, yes, Baker counted legislators who had signed a letter stating, "If any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them." It doesn't have the word "PLEDGE" at the top but it's reasonable for him to count those signers.

Beyond that, even if it were only the eight members, the issue is whether their signing a liberal promise is "seditious" or "treasonous" -- Thurman's description of the signing of a conservative promise. I say that those eight progressives (or those 100+ progressives on the more charitable count) didn't do anything wrong by using this vehicle to publicize their views. As for their Republican counterparts signing on with Norquist, there's also nothing wrong with that format for stating their views. The flaw is the more basic one that their views are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:28 AM

32. Yeah.... a letter and a pledge are....

two different animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:11 PM

43. I beg to disagree



A congressperson signing and sending a letter to the President of the United States expressing her opinions and proposals on matters of policy is a very valid part of the political process in a democracy. I have no trouble with Boehner using such a letter, cosigned by McCarthy, Camp, Upton, Cantor, McMorris Rogers, and Ryan, stating their intent to obstruct any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy (a tiny bit of hyperbole on my part here )

A congressperson signing an agreement to follow strictly the dictate promulgated by a lobbyist and lobbying organization is at best a violation of the trust of his constituency and of the agreement to serve that constituency that is represented by his oath of office. Until recently such an action has not been recognized as a proper move in the political game and accepting such tactics into the repertoire will cause much damage to our system and our country.

Treason, sedition, and crime are strong words which should not be bandied about without careful consideration. Violating the trust of the electorate is still a serious offense which should not pass unnoticed and should demand consideration of appropriate consequential action.

(...but I don't feel strongly about this )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:06 AM

39. The Social Security pledge protects PEOPLE -- Norquist oath protects PROFITS. Seditious CONTENT.

Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

It is their JOB to deal with creating FAIR taxation, to stand on a line and simply refuse to tax the richest of us is to show their allegiance to the wealthy and refute their oath to their constituents.

I think we can go for "perjury" against their oath of office on any member of Congress who does NOT RENOUNCE this Oath to Norquist immediately and start working FOR the American PEOPLE on a real solution to our problems at hand.

They should be an "out" for any lawmaker who didn't "intentionally" move in this direction, but let's look at the "fruit" of this oath and what it is honestly doing to the country. The Congress is held up from doing it's job by obstructionist behavior. Groups that support this "no more taxes" route want to secede from the union. How much more sedition needs to be proven?

Krugman is right in respect that there are those who play both sides against the middle, but again, THOSE members need to be held accountable for how their choices affect US all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:10 PM

47. if not seditious then perhaps

we could reframe it for what it truly is. . .

*Economic Terrorism*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:55 PM

10. Republicans are Government moles out to destroy the "beast"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:16 PM

12. Uma's dad, for those that don't know

K & R for the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:59 PM

16. Oh thanks, dreamnightwind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:11 AM

18. I didn't know that!



The Repubs had better change their ways, or else...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:45 PM

14. Who needs to take an oath to upload the Constitution?

Really its just not that big of a file.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:22 AM

19. K & R whether it is treason or not

the pledge to NG is against what these individuals pledged to do for the people that elected them. the best way to answer their pledge is to vote them out and replace them with individuals who will pledge themselves to work for the people. that is our job now to continue to point out their sad acts, their obstructionism, their lies and who they actually work for. obviously they are not working for me or any of the 98%. so they have to go. 2014 is not that far away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:31 AM

20. One of my favoroite peeps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:50 AM

21. Don't you just love intelligent and cogent conversation?

Especially when it breaks the sound byte barrier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:55 AM

23. Exactly!

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So where's their faith and allegiance to their oath as a member of congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lugnut (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:02 AM

35. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for posting THE ONE AND ONLY PLEDGE

But as to where it stacks up to their pledge? Numero Dos!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lugnut (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:16 AM

36. That's the complete text of a letter I just sent my congresscritter

(who, BTW, DID sign Grover the Fuzzy's "pledge"). I just added two sentences to the end:

"Remember, Grover Norquist's name doesn't appear anywhere in it. No one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24)."

(He's a religious type, so I'm sure he gets the reference. All in all, he's not a totally bad person, so I saw no need to bring up urns of boiling oil or pitchforks. Yet.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:50 AM

25. Link to this thread & his You Tube vid address

Needs to be posted, RT sent to Lawrence, Maddow, Big Ed, Thom Hartman, etc.! Ironically, I tweeted earlier that Norquist should be arrested for treason!
We need to hold the GOP accountable & send Grover Norquist a message to CEASE and DESIST his blackmail attempts on our congress or face being prosecute for TREASON!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 AM

27. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:06 AM

28. I've been saying this for years

Send this everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:09 AM

29. Republicans against America. As usual.

Why do Republicans hate America and Americans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:19 AM

37. Agreed. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:23 AM

40. Absolutely brilliant!

 

So well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:57 AM

42. I've been saying they are a bunch of traitors for a long time.

You can't sign an oath of allegiance to the constitution and Grover Norquist (or anyone else) at the same time...it's one or the other. It's simple...if you don't sign allegiance to the constitution Your a TRAITOR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:40 PM

45. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:18 PM

48. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:37 PM

49. I absolutely love this

I am so happy there is an articulate voice ststing this fact. I could not agree more. Grover should be charged with treason and sent to his room like the 12 year old he is!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:46 PM

50. For a minute I thought it was a Colombian professor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:55 PM

53. I prefer "doughy little fuckwad", but I suppose "seditious and treasonous" will have to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:43 PM

54. Eric Holder disagrees.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread