START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

# Half the Republicans You Know Are Insane -- William Rivers Pitt

Society & Culture
- 346 days ago - truth-out.org
In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to.
 Kit B. (276) Thursday October 3, 2013, 8:35 pm Photo Credit: Facebook If I may, I would like to go over some figures with you regarding the current situation in America. I know numbers are boring and often perplexing in the main - I was an English Major, so if you put a pistol to my head and demanded I do long division, the pistol would have a better chance of coming up with the right answer before you painted the wall with my literature degree - but these numbers, I think, speak volumes, and have an unfortunately dramatic bearing on the state of modern American politics. Public Policy Polling did a survey on the preponderance of belief in conspiracy theories among American voters, and the results are telling. For example, a question was posed about whether the respondents believe the Obama administration is coming to take their guns away, and 62% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means three of them believe this, and a fourth has doubts. This, despite the fact that no gun legislation of any impact whatsoever has shadowed the president's desk since he took office. When asked if they believe that Mr. Obama is secretly plotting to remain in office when his term expires, 44% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means two of them believe this, and a third is halfway convinced. This, despite any supporting evidence whatsoever, and the fact that the man will be arrested and detained if he tries to enter the White House again after the inauguration in January of 2017. When asked if Muslims are working to implement Sharia Law in America - the harshly medieval seventh-century Islamic code best represented by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahabists in the ranks of al Qaeda and (shhhh) a significant portion of the rebels in Syria - 44% of Republicans said it was true. If you know five Republicans, once again, two of them believe this, and a third is halfway convinced. Um...how? Where? In what way? Because women can now get free contraception and gay people have the same rights as you do? You think the Taliban is down with that? Is the US government secretly staging "false flag" mass shootings all across the country in order to blame others and distract the country from their gun-grabbing, office-staying, Sharia-implementing ways? A full 26% of Republicans believe this, so if you know five of them, one is convinced of this, and another is well on his way. I'm sure all the left-leaning folks who believe that 9/11 was a Cheney-orchestrated "inside job" are thrilled to know their gospel has been co-opted by people who think 26 children were massacred in Connecticut so Mr. Obama could give everyone's guns to the Syrians, because that makes sense, too, apparently. Or something. In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to. That's not a majority, but it is pretty much half the crowd, and is a definite majority every time the crazy two convince the third to go their way, you know, just in case. The thing is, those two-and-a-half Republicans you know are energetic voters, and they throw enormous weight in American politics. Thanks to the Republican gerrymandering process of 2010 and the berserk anti-information "news" bubble dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, WorldNetDaily and the ceaseless gibberish machine that is Fox News, Republicans in general who even occasionally look to these outlets for information have been in an enforced state of flat-out derangement for years and years and years. The ones who go to the "liberal" news media for "information" are in a slightly leavened version of the same state, but vote Republican anyway out of habit and allegiance. Why do these people swing so much weight in American politics? That's easy: maybe 55% of the voters in America turn out for presidential elections, and maybe 30% turn out for the midterm elections, y'know, the incredibly important elections where a third of the Senate and all 435 seats in the House are up for a vote. That means, come November of 2014, less than a third of the country will choose all 435 members of the House, and a sizeable percentage of those voters are flat-out loons in gerrymandered districts where their impact on Congress is amplified by orders of magnitude. Make no mistake about it: these people will vote in 2014, because they always vote. If it is raining live, ravening, man-eating jaguars outside, they turn out with strong umbrellas and cast their ballots for the pro-gun anti-Sharia Jesus-and-fetuses candidate. Because guns, and Sharia, and they believe everything they've heard and read from their beloved bedlam news sources. Why is the government shut down? Because a lot of people don't vote, but these people did in 2010, like they always do, and the crazy will elect the crazy every single time and twice on Sunday, amen. That's why the government is shut down, and a disastrous default looms, in case you were wondering. **** By: William Rivers Pitt | Op Ed | Truthout | Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Thursday October 3, 2013, 8:51 pm Definition of insanity (n) Bing Dictionary in·san·i·ty [ in sánnətee ] lack of reason or good sense: extreme foolishness, or an act that demonstrates such foolishness psychiatric condition affecting legal circumstances: legal incompetence or irresponsibility that results from a psychiatric disorder "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein Insanity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Insanity (disambiguation). "Crazy" and "Insane" redirect here. For other uses, see Crazy (disambiguation) and Insane (disambiguation). Page semi-protected Engraving of the eighth print of William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress depicting Inmates at Bedlam Asylum Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.[2] In English, the word "sane" derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning "healthy". The phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" is often translated to mean a "healthy mind in a healthy body". From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning. Another Latin phrase related to our current concept of sanity is "compos mentis" (lit. "of composed mind"), and a euphemistic term for insanity is "non compos mentis". In law, mens rea means having had criminal intent, or a guilty mind, when the act (actus reus) was committed. A more informal use of the term insanity is to denote something considered highly unique, passionate or extreme, including in a positive sense. A notable example has been the use of the phrase 'insanely great' in the launch of the Apple Macintosh, subsequently also used to describe one of its developers.[3][4] The term may also be used as an attempt to discredit or criticise particular ideas, beliefs, principals, desires, personal feelings, attitudes, or their proponents, such as in politics and religion. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity in·san·i·ty noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ : severe mental illness : the condition of being insane : something that is very foolish or unreasonable plural in·san·i·ties Full Definition of INSANITY 1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) 2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable See insanity defined for English-language learners » See insanity defined for kids » Examples of INSANITY She was found not guilty by reason of insanity. His friends thought his decision to quit his job was pure insanity. Please, no more violence. It's time to stop this insanity. the insanities of modern life First Known Use of INSANITY 1590 World English Dictionary insanity (ɪnˈsænɪtɪ) — n , pl -ties 1. relatively permanent disorder of the mind; state or condition of being insane 2. law a defect of reason as a result of mental illness, such that a defendant does not know what he or she is doing or that it is wrong 3. utter folly; stupidity Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 --------------------- Research showing why his use of the term fits. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Esther Z. (101) Thursday October 3, 2013, 9:24 pm Insane and right down cruel! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Abdessalam Diab (154) Friday October 4, 2013, 6:24 am " The crazy will elect the crazy every single time and twice on Sunday, amen." These few words say it all. Thanks Kit for this post. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Ben Oscarsito (338) Friday October 4, 2013, 8:06 am "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (Albert Einstein) Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Franck R. (51) Friday October 4, 2013, 3:57 pm Thanks for the post Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Michael Kirkby (85) Friday October 4, 2013, 3:58 pm Wouldn't surprise me. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Terrie Williams (769) Friday October 4, 2013, 4:28 pm Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup! That's my crazy-aed neighbors, townsfolk and statesmen......they all fit the definitions. Soooooooooooooooooo, what is a half-way sane person to dew........MOVE. Tryin' to get that wish checked off my bucket list...except my loan is in a holding pattern and circling the House of Congress......Bastages. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Ros G. (90) Friday October 4, 2013, 4:31 pm Thanks Kit, Thanks JL A or maybe there is a huge out-break of Syphilis among those believers. LOL Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Bill C. (354) Friday October 4, 2013, 4:46 pm Crazy people have enough stigma without making them republicans Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Yvonne White (231) Friday October 4, 2013, 6:36 pm RepubliCONs have NO Idea that THEY are the ones trying to pass Sharia Laws! But most insane people don't believe THEY are the nut-puppies, it's always the other guy..;) I know, my voices told me so! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 GGmaSheila D. (169) Friday October 4, 2013, 9:01 pm WRP forgot the third Biggie out there these rabid voters are against - LGBT anything. There seems to be a belief that Obama is waiting for the"Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Homosexual Classroom Act" to cross his desk, as soon as the Democrats can get them passed. Yes, my dear sweet, mother, the second out of five of those rabid GOP voers out there, truly believes that "the homosexuals and perverts want to take over our children's education..." She doesn't care whether there are guns in classrooms, and nuts may get a hold of those guns, or the teachers are the nuts with the guns. Then there's the prayer meetings of honest, law-abiding Christians, that have been raided because the Aethists want to get rid of Christianity, especially any belief in a God...this from a woman who only went to church for weddings, funerals, and my confirmation while I was growing up. She didn't seem to get religion until she moved to TN - Bible Belt Central. Now she's outraged that Creationism isn't taught to children and the Aethists ar taking over our Military...Hypocrisy, in my family. I get to talk, rather listen, to her Saturday... Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Betsy Bee (1055) Friday October 4, 2013, 9:48 pm Sort. of true.....I am TOO SANE to know any Republicans personally. Not too many of those types of persons hang around the hallowed Bluest of Blue states, Vermont. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Dimitris Dallis (2) Saturday October 5, 2013, 1:21 am Most of the politicians we know are insane :) All around the world... Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 . (0) Saturday October 5, 2013, 7:14 am They sure are. Thanks for sharing, Kit. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Tom Tree (254) Saturday October 5, 2013, 7:21 am ABSOLUTELY Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Winn Adams (192) Saturday October 5, 2013, 12:39 pm Please, this is absolutely NO surprise to ANYONE. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kathleen R. (138) Saturday October 5, 2013, 12:58 pm Thanks Kit .... great article. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Robert O. (12) Saturday October 5, 2013, 1:07 pm Half of them are insane and the other half are without realizing it. Thanks Kit. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Angelika R. (143) Saturday October 5, 2013, 2:00 pm Great words of truth-probably one of his best pieces there! Thx Kit! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Birgit W. (144) Saturday October 5, 2013, 2:12 pm Most politicians are on an ego overdrive (Or you might call it insane). They only know one right which is theirs. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 marie c. (168) Saturday October 5, 2013, 4:17 pm Thanks Kit Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Nelson Baker (0) Saturday October 5, 2013, 4:43 pm Only half? Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Terrie Williams (769) Sunday October 6, 2013, 3:14 am Lucky you, Betsy! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Shanti S. (0) Sunday October 6, 2013, 7:24 am Thank you. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 ewoud k. (73) Sunday October 6, 2013, 8:44 am Insane, but smart enough to convince voters that they're sane. What's more, extremists are more likely to go voting than more moderate citizens. Combine these two lines, and you get a lot of non-moderate reps elected........ Thanks for posting Kit! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Sunday October 6, 2013, 8:45 am The conspiracy-theories mentioned are not as crazy as they sound. After Obama's Fast & Furious fiasco, reported in Republican-affiliated media and mostly ignored by liberals, the "False flag" thing us still pretty nuts, bit more believable as the Obama administration did take a supporting role in it. It sounds even more in line with crazy Republican conspiracy theories after the murder of border-guards, using guns which the administration had ordered be supplied to Mexican rebels without the tracking that had accompanied previous similar operation were abused as a means to promote gun-control.. Then there are the nearly endless problems with the ATF that would be pretty much unknown to anybody who does not deal with guns. An executive-branch agency really could pull all sorts of horrible stuff even without the administration's orders. IT comes down mostly to a question of who reads what news. As for Muslims and Sharia, in general they do not want it in the U.S. However, there are some organizations actively working to promote it. Strictly speaking, Muslims do want Sharia in the U.S., just not all Muslims want it, or even a majority. However, using the Common Law tradition of using agreed traditional rules to arbitrate disputes and enforce such arbitration through law, there is actually a system built into the U.S. justice-system by which it can be hijacked in precisely the way described in the question. In some immigrant communities, women are traditionally subservient or illiterate, and have been effectively coerced into following traditional law (agreeing to arbitration by it for legal purposes). Then are the rest of the results of the study behind the article: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_1002.pdf Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Sunday October 6, 2013, 9:02 am And that malarkey relates to the topic of this thread in what way? A real conspiracy will not be known about until years after the fact, if at all -- ergo - conspiracy. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kathleen R. (203) Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:16 am Only half. I think that is to conservative, no pun intended! lol. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 David Menard (43) Sunday October 6, 2013, 1:39 pm Try 99.99% Actually Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Sunday October 6, 2013, 2:49 pm Hi Kit :) The problem is that a lot of these things aren't so much conspiracies as combinations of very public acts and statements. They're not theorizing the existence of some secret conspiracy by a small and powerful cabal so much as perceiving the existence of popular movements with the objectives described in the questions on the questionnaire.. Here's an example: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/cair-member-sues-oklahoma-over-sharia-ban followed by http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/justice/oklahoma-sharia/index.html There is nothing secretive about it. There was a public initiative by at least one highly politically active Islamic group to support the use of Sharia rather than standard local law in this case, and people appropriately know about it. The question is whether CAIR there promoted the use of Sharia as a way of respecting the family's wishes, or as part of a larger campaign to promote its use in the place of local law wherever possible. The "conspiracy theory" in this case is a matter of perceiving a pattern wherein such initiatives are promoted as often as possible and the question is not even whether they happen, but whether the events suggest such a pattern. It is not crazy to think that they do. Also, many conspiracies have failed due to discovery, or even carried on despite discovery. That does not make them any less conspiracies. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Barbara K. (84) Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:15 pm I know several and they are not only insane, they are crazy and mean bullies. They care hot a crap about the people they should be serving. They are in it for their own gain, and what they can bleed out of the government, and absolutely nothing else. They have done nothing to help us, only to hurt us every way they can. It is a shame that their voters haven't caught on to who it is they are voting for and what they will do to the voters, not for the voters.The maddening part is that we are also stuck with the idiots that other idiots send to congress. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:15 pm Definition of conspiracy (n) Bing Dictionary con·spir·a·cy [ kən spírrəssee ] plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act ---------------- It is not a conspiracy if it isn't illegal--fast and furious was not illegal thus not a conspiracy. Apply the basic rules of logic to all the others (e.g., Sharia law, etc.) and most also will not deserve the term because they do not meet the definition. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:18 pm From Merriam Webster: conspiracy theory noun : a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups Full Definition of CONSPIRACY THEORY : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Twyla Sparks (208) Sunday October 6, 2013, 6:09 pm Thanks so much Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Past Member (0) Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:22 pm "In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to. That's not a majority, but it is pretty much half the crowd, and is a definite majority every time the crazy two convince the third to go their way, you know, just in case." Yep...you know, just in case. Insanity and craziness is embedded certainly in Repubs but also in most other members of congress at this point in time. If it weren't so seriois, it would almost make me want to laugh. Thanks Kit. ~L. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Past Member (0) Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:23 pm You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last day. *stars galore* :-)) Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Roseann D. (178) Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:54 pm Only half??? Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Karen Chestney (106) Monday October 7, 2013, 2:54 am Thank-you for this very well written article. I enjoyed reading it. We all know Republicans do not live in reality. They love manipulating their constituents with fear....and....those sheeple aren't too terribly bright (or educated) too begin with---( which just goes to point out why we need to invest a lot more in better Education)our HOPE is 2014. BE SURE you are registered (correctly)---checking your states vetoing laws--- AND----VOTE DEM.---State & Federal !!! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Irene S. (62) Monday October 7, 2013, 3:04 am Could be funny if it wasn´t so sad. But it´s a good reason why they try to ruin the country now, instead of letting the government do their jobs, they are elected for. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Phil R. (29) Monday October 7, 2013, 5:57 am "Make no mistake about it: these people will vote in 2014, because they always vote. If it is raining live, ravening, man-eating jaguars outside, they turn out with strong umbrellas and cast their ballots..." This is exactly true. What worries me are the Progressives that don't vote because they are hyper-critical of Democrats and Progressive Independents (like Bernie Sanders). They expect all their prayers and desires to be answered immediately and for the President, in particular, to overturn and undo every Republican-sponsored legislation...past and present. This unrealistic expectation leads to the "they're all the same" syndrome. The erroneous belief that both parties are the same and working to subvert the American people. Crazy conspiracy theories and fruitcake speculations abound on the Left as well as the Right, i'm afraid....and many Progressives see abstaining from voting as a means of protest. This is exactly what Republicans and Libertarians want....and they fuel the fire by giving Progressives more craziness to dwell on. Most of the conspiracy theories we see are products of Ultra Conservatives and so called Libertarians, which some Progressives buy into. It's a tactic that works. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Monday October 7, 2013, 7:14 am Hi JLA :) Providing arms to rebel forces fighting against an allied state is pretty seriously subversive. I'm pretty sure it violates at least one or two treaties too. Fast & Furious was both illegal and subversive, and definitely secretive. The suspected secret regarding CAIR is not one of effective acts committed by groups, but of intentions: again, the question is whether the acts committed are part of a pattern of protecting individual rights as claimed, or of a subversive and consistently denied one working against integration of minorities and against the use of the standard legal system. That difference is important because the primary potential dangers posed by some of their acts revolve around the legal precedents that they set, and while one pattern would suggest that the precedents would never become an issue, the other would suggest that the danger will be realized if CAIR is allowed to continue. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Monday October 7, 2013, 7:17 am Hi Phil :) I wouldn't worry about the hard-left turnouts: Democrat party support is solid in the areas where most of them live, so the question is only of the margin by which the party's candidates win there. Over a whole state, I understand the direct voting-effect of the hard left tends to be tiny anyways, affecting turnout probably less than the weather on the day of the election. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Monday October 7, 2013, 7:26 am Not illegal--it was legal since it was done by law enforcement just like the prior one under the Bush administration---not wise perhaps, but no law was broken --anyone doing their homework would be unable to find a law, that some want to claim without evidence, was broken. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Gloria picchetti (290) Monday October 7, 2013, 7:30 am They are like nazies. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Joanne Dixon (38) Monday October 7, 2013, 8:32 am Yvonne, you made me chuckle, not easy when I am surrounded by Republicans. Please, EVERYONE, pay attention to Phil R. When 33% vote in an election, it tends to go to the crazy candidate. The only exception would be in an area where there aren't enough crazies to get their candidate elected (but oh, how they will whine). That means the 22%, which is 40% of those voting in Presidential years, are the MODERATES. Who are sane. Polls are showing we have a chance to pick up between 17 and 19 House seats handily in 2014. But not if 40% of voters don't vote. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Tim L. (86) Monday October 7, 2013, 10:30 am Only half of the repubs are crazy? I thought the number would be much higher. You have to hand it to the rethugs though. They are so very good at at making lies stick. There are two types of people who vote for the repubs: Greedy rich people and the terminally ignorant. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Monday October 7, 2013, 11:28 am In the specific area of Physics, Stephen I am interested in your accumulated knowledge. In discussions about politics without exception I find your input to be exiguous at best. **An added note, though I personally find the policy of fast and furious to be injudicious, it is a continuation of a legal if ill advised policy from the Bush administration . Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 John Wesen (0) Monday October 7, 2013, 4:21 pm I pretty much think all pollies are nuts. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 S J. (116) Monday October 7, 2013, 6:00 pm Just half? I thought it's more than that! Thanks so much Kit for good fun. I really like your sense of humor: intelligent humor. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Phil R. (29) Tuesday October 8, 2013, 8:32 am "Democrat party support is solid in the areas where most of them live" A condition Republicans have been able to lessen through "creative" redistricting. I agree with KIt. Most of the sins of Democrats are a carryover from the Republican administrations that preceded them (in these cases, both Bush administrations). Policies, laws and wars cannot often just be swept away when a new administration takes over...there are consequences and priorities to consider. As far as the far Left is concerned, my observation has been that they're as critical of the President as Conservatives are. When they don't get their way immediately (the Public Option...Syria) they join the chorus of detractors making his attempts at change, reconstruction and diplomacy all the more difficult. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Tuesday October 8, 2013, 9:00 am Excellent points Phil. Relatedly, this administration kept more agency appointees from the last administration compared to most party changes in the White House--understandable given the fillibustering of appointments in the Senate, yet historians may find the biggest mistakes made were not changing enough or certain of those players so malfeasance was discovered and addressed before whistleblowers or other sources led the actions being in the public arena. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Daniel Partlow (189) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 6:43 am I don't understand how they are still getting their salaries while they deny so many others theirs! Impeach the loser idiots! Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 8:03 am Hi JLA :) Having something done by law-enforcement officials certainly does not make it legal, unless you're talking about suddenly changing stances on police brutality and such. The U.S. executive branch is bound by treaties which the government has ratified and certainly not permitted to commit acts of war against neighbours with which the country is at peace without a declaration of war from Congress. Arming rebels which do not hold reasonable claim to statehood (control of territory and legitimate belligerent status) rebels is legally an act of war. Even taking action specifically to avoid enforcement of local laws against such provision of arms is legally an act of war. The difference under Bush was that the program ran when the rebels had not yet begun to find the GPS devices in the guns. There was not even any attempt to track the guns under Obama. Hi Kit :) You may find my comments exogenous, but others evidently do not. My inbox is getting cluttered with Green Stars for them. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 8:45 am Sorry about the typo earlier: The second "rebels" was an error. Also, regarding the specific law broken: A quick Wikipedia search turned this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression#The_Convention_for_the_Definition_of_Aggression I didn't go to the original text because there were two complimentary conventions and I really don't have time to sift through both right now. If you want to do so, go ahead. That impacts U.S. law according to this (found with a quick Wiki search, followed by a Google search for a source cited): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf (See " TREATIES UNDER U.S. LAW ".) Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:02 am Stephen - two very different words - exogenous - that relates to external factors while exiguous is when you chose to call something meager. I'm very happy you have a group of Green Stars, that by no means improves either the quality or knowledge within your exiguous comments. I do not judge my comments by the flattery of green stars, but whether or not I actually know what I am discussing. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:03 am And... Stephen I am not referring to length of your comments as being meager, by no means could you ever be accused of being succinct. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:28 am Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. If it were even a remote possibility of any part or individual's action in fast and furious being illegal, Issa's committee's investigation would have found it (like with their baseball investigation) since their bias was that direction--and they came up empty and so the argument of illegality is apparently without merit or any foundation beyond wishful thinking--or as Kit so aptly noted exiguous. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:29 am PS--I lost count of how many stars I got for my comments here days ago and they keep rolling in--LOL Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:47 am Another Green star coming your way, J L as soon as the hour is up from the last one. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 11:56 am Hi Kit and JL, My point still stands. You may consider my contributions meager, but others consider it worthwhile to send me indications that they appreciate what I write. As for whether I know what I am writing about, I recommend that you check the links which I provided above and the one in this post. I'm pretty sure I understand the matters at hand better than almost anybody else I have ever seen on Care2. I verify my beliefs regarding issues here with professionals in appropriate fields and, in issues regarding war, people who would have been arrested had they misunderstood the matters. Also, regarding whether ISsa's committee found anything illegal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/06/will-fast-and-furious-justice-finally-befall-eric-holder/ "Despite the fact that our attorney general has been indicted for contempt of Congress on both felony and civil charges" Apparently it did not come up empty at all and has even indicted Eric Holder directly. Also, how does "Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal" apply here? My previous post was about standing treaties and their treatment under U.S. law, not about anybody's preference for anything in particular. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 12:09 pm @ Stephen - " I'm pretty sure I understand the matters at hand better than almost anybody else I have ever seen on Care2." That is exactly the problem. You suffer from delusions of grandeur. Many people are well versed on various issues. They do not find it necessary to attempt to force feed and repeat how they are correct and others are not. Most of us do read and use the Internet to learn facts. Some of us are very well read, even without agreeing with very morsel that passes as self contrived fact from you. Your long winded and endless blathering on virtually all topics presented is so boring most can not be bothered to read what you have to say. Strange that people drop in only to send you a green star, in fact so strange as to be not believable. Carry on Stephen, I do not suffer fools well so I assure you, I will not be reading any further concoctions or droppings from you. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 1:31 pm Grandiosity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Not to be confused with grandiose delusions. "Grandiosity refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority - a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior - as well as to a sense of uniqueness: the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people." --------------------------------------------------------- A type of "insanity" that is the core of the content on this thread in more ways than one. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 3:25 pm Hi Kit, Before dismissing something as a delusion, let's look at questions of factual basis and self-consistency. Just in this thread: The central premise of the article, that half of Republicans are insane, as you should be able to tell from your experience teaching, clearly contradicts reality. Consider that roughly half of the U.S. supports the Republican party at election-time. Half of that would be close to a quarter of the population. Now imagine in your classrooms what would happen if a quarter of the class were insane. Now imagine that level of disorder on the scale of the entire U.S. If that were the case, the country would cease to function entirely, not just Congress. If the numbers even came close to what nearly every poster on this thread seems to believe, the U.S. economy would have already practically disappeared in a total collapse of social order. Has that happened? No? Then the central premise of the article is dead wrong. The consensus here does not decide whether the article is right or wrong. The numbers do, and they disagree w with the bulk of the posters on this thread. In fact, many posters here seem to believe that the country could somehow function with nearly half of its population being insane., Imagine if half of your class actually fit the descriptions given to Republicans on this site, scale that up to a country, and consider that that half possesses the bulk of the country's weapons and includes the bulk of its armed forces. Does the phrase "total breakdown of social order would already have occurred" mean anything to you? Your daily life disproves what most posters on this site say. Who, exactly is delusional here? Also in this thread, JL, who is one of the best-informed major posters on Care2, wrote "anyone doing their homework would be unable to find a law, that some want to claim without evidence, was broken". I then posted a reference to such a law with full explanation, from the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, and how it applies to the case. Finding it took me about 4-5 minutes. I timed myself. Your depiction of me as "delusional" does not look good. It gets worse: You then presumed that the people sending me stars are not posters on the threads. They generally are, as Dan and Tina, for example, know. Your claim to the contrary was, as you put it, a "self contrived fact from you". Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 7:37 pm I feel quiet sure that many do not bother reading the full article, that is not a comment on excellent Op Ed by William Rivers Pitt but rather for some, a time constraint. Those who do follow WRP realize that he often uses hyperbole to make his point. He too is guilty of using the tongue in cheek approach to make his point more palatable to the reader. It would take a very dense mind to not recognize the use of exaggeration in this article. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 7:49 pm Hyperbole From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the term used in rhetoric. For the mathematical term, see Hyperbola. Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2] Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[3] Hyperbole makes the point that the bag was very heavy, though it probably does not weigh a ton. In rhetoric, some opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the 'letdown' after a hyperbole in a phrase)." _____________________ Excellent point Kit--many unfamiliar with rhetorical devices often apply the kind of literalism so problematic with some using the Bible as a source. AP English Composition makes students know and recognize and use appropriately to pass the course and/or exam. The kinds of distorted thinking identified as symptoms for many DSM diagnoses can have similar results. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Wednesday October 9, 2013, 10:03 pm Hi JL :) I read the survey and can think of at least two ways it could easily have come out wrong. First, there is the party that holds the presidency. Exactly how many leftist conspiracy-nuts were there while Bush was president? Is there an equivalent survey for comparison? Does the phrase "war for oil" (a conspiracy-theory that makes no more sense than do many of those on this survey) ring a bell? How about the politics and ideologies of "truthers" that Pitt even mentioned in the article? If you ran a similar survey, just switching the conspiracy-theories in question but not their absurdity, with a Republican president, the results would probably be similar, but reversed. The survey does not distinguish between outright conspiracy-nuttitude and the heavy partisanship that has become standard in the U.S. The other method to rig such a poll is by selection-bias. The pollsters could easily have identified a population that is heavily Republican and in which conspiracy-nuts are common, and another which is heavily Democrat where conspiracy-nuts are not. It could also have weighted demographic-groups after checking the data to produce whatever result it wanted. However, I suspect the cause of the results was partisanship and partisan media, not deliberate selection-bias by those making the calls.. Also, JL, I'm pretty certain you're not a psychoanalyst. A professional would realize she didn't have nearli enough material to work with. Stop pretending to be one. It's annoying. As for inventing evidence, are you saying you think I am on the Congressional Research Committee, or that I wrote the conventions on what constitutes a war-crime? If so, perhaps there really should be a psychoanalyst involved. Hi Kit :) I doesn't take as long to go through the tables relevant to the article as it does to go through the article. We are talking about 14 tables,with 9 entries each, totally about as much reading as one of Pitt's longer paragraphs. It takes under two minutes. especially with the URL posted here, so no, the time-commitment is not the problem. It's a lack of desire to check claims, just like why JL never followed the links I gave here, and it's worse than not checking: I remember the first time I pointed out that the math in an article here didn't work out: Posters here tried to mock me for using math to prove something wrong because they just wanted to believe what they were told. There is nothing grandiose at all about claiming to be both better-informed about the issues that arise here and outright better at analyzing them than the bulk of Care2 posters. While there are quite a few who are well-informed and competent to discuss the matters that they do, there are very, very many who are not. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Thursday October 10, 2013, 4:48 pm Many do not have high speed internet and prefer not to have to load another webpage to follow threads or read articles and thank me and ask for information from the links. I post full definitions of terms, etc. for their sakes and not a minority of one's preference. The content of this article was about the kinds of distorted thinking and label of insanity was associated (note the title)--if one chose to apply it to himself, that was his choice; for most readers of the article it was clearly topical to the article posted. I Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Thursday October 10, 2013, 4:56 pm For those of you reading, and perhaps choosing not to comment to avoid the kind of treatment Kit and I have received, many of you know there is value in specific information. You might recognize some of these symptoms in someone you know and be in a position to encourage them to connect with a mental health professional (if they have health coverage or other access to care) and get beyond stereotypical stigmas many associate with mental health issues. Making that kind of difference in one or more lives makes lengthy posts such as here even more worth doing for me. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Friday October 11, 2013, 2:07 pm Please do not disparage others' opinions and needs that are not your own--their own voice is more reliable and I've been informed by educators, researchers and others that it is extremely disrespectful to substitute one's own views in this way. Content on future of technology in this thread seems rude to readers and a tangent inappropriate for this thread IMO. Thank you for affirming the validity of the information I posted with your preferred industry-funded site--I'll leave it to the readers as to why you chose to add paranoia to the other forms of distorted thinking, if they even are interested. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Sunday October 13, 2013, 1:57 pm Hi JL :) Did I disparage others' opinions and needs? Are you talking about issues of loading-times? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding: I have been following current affairs literally since I learned to read. I used the "World" section of the newspaper to practice in Grade 1. That also happened to precisely when the Berlin Wall came down. (Funny story there.) As far as international politics go, I began following matters just late enough to avoid getting stuck with Cold War-era assumptions that no longer hold true. Between that and many years of formal training in analysis of data and dynamic systems, as well as formal training directly in mattes of politics, I have a very good background to understand what is going on. I am also lucky enough to have stumbled upon, years ago, another three forums where posters include top-end professionals posting about their fields of expertise. For example, when posters here bicker, pontificate, and theorize about what is wrong in U.S. drug-testing, I just ask one of the FDA's "go-to people" who personally reviews a substantial fraction of the tests and effectively makes the call as to whether the drugs may go to market. When I said "Arming rebels which do not hold reasonable claim to statehood (control of territory and legitimate belligerent status) rebels is legally an act of war. ", I wasn't making stuff up. I got that from a retired professor of international law, specializing in treaties relating to war, who arguably held the most prestigious position on Earth as far as such teaching goes. (I would not be shocked if the penalty for a mistake in class-lecture there involved prison-time or death, because a misunderstanding when teaching at the U.S. Army War College could cost thousands of lives.) That, and my analysis of the data, leave me much better-informed than most posters here. This is not a form of disparagement. I just happen to be very good at understanding this stuff and have far easier access to important information than do most posters on Care2. I added paranoia because it is a form of mental illness that would motivate precisely the sort of conspiracy-theories that Pitt tries to claim are common among Republicans. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Monday October 14, 2013, 9:28 pm Those who miss the meaning of statistics and apply methods to data that do not meet the standards for that method end up without appropriate meanings or interpretations. If one misses the main points someone else communicates and focuses on tangents and portions taken out of context instead, then citing an expect source does not provide credibility to the statements. I welcome input on physics from someone who has demonstrated ability to understand the subject, yet not on other subjects where efforts I've seen fall short of understanding the subject and meaning as communicated by experts. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Tuesday October 15, 2013, 9:24 am Once more time for the cheap seats, the device used by WRP is humor and satire both cloaked in the form of an Op Ed or if one lacks understanding of the term Op Ed that is an editorial opinion. People are free to agree, disagree or just read it for the interesting and slightly humorous take on the current politics of the day. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Tuesday October 15, 2013, 4:57 pm Of course they do, read the New York Times. Papers have always had a place for their opinion writers, those also can be found in the larger and better news papers. Things have changed with the advent of the Internet. People like WRP have to earn their readership just as they always have had to do. By writing well enough, and knowing enough about the topic to inform or entertain the readers. This article is written with a sardonic wit not all of his articles are amusing. Yes, I believe we all know the reasons for Congress to request the unknowable. The CBO - Congressional Budget Office makes those predictions for ten years because they must do as Congress demands. They often come with a caveat that the predictions are based on current models. I can not see why your "friend" would mock someone he does not know and has not read for himself. What J L said about the use of statistics is quiet accurate and you should know that. Somehow, I think this is more about you having the last word. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Tuesday October 15, 2013, 7:20 pm Thanks Kit for providing an accurate viewpoint, as usual. One has to know enough about a subject to recognize relevant information and facts to present for a response from an expert to be accurate, valid or reliable--like they say about computers, garbage in=garbage out for any analysis, including by human experts. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Stephen Brian (23) Tuesday October 15, 2013, 8:51 pm Hi Kit :) It have read the NYT, and while they do sometimes run Op-Eds opposing their editorial commentary, it's pretty rare. They might try, but the people they have on hand seem so badly versed in what those with opposing views actually say and believe that the job they do is so bad that they might as well not try. He did not mock JL. He mocked the argument, which is a very separate thing from mocking a person. When the argument is based upon the presumption that professionals cannot bin data that is normally provided to them already binned, and that averages aren't numbers. (You weren't in that conversation, but I mean it in the sense that "If I have 4 apples, and you have 6, on average each of us has 5", and that JL insisted that averages were functions over some domain.) There was that, and the presumption that professionals could not bin data ... that is gathered and provided to them already binned. It was so long ago that I don't remember the exact comments, but they were pretty funny. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:08 am When relevant factors to an argument are omitted in information provided, it equals garbage in=garbage out. When someone has a history of missing central messages in articles and comments and focuses almost exclusively on tangents, I and many others do not trust them as accurate reporters of any information. Once again your summary shows you missed the point that certain statistical methods are not appropriate to use when numbers are averages and not counts because it violates the assumptions that permit using the method to get valid results. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 JL A. (275) Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:14 am Afterthought: I know many experts that would find it laughable that someone would even ask them if they should follow the rules/assumptions for use of statistical methods...and might do so sufficiently diplomatically that someone who cannot believe they do not know a subject enough to know what they do not know might manage to hear support for absurdities. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.
 Kit B. (276) Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:20 am I'm often taken aback when someone so young makes so many assumptions. I guess while still in our 20's and 30's some do think they are extremely well informed; after a bit more time life happens and we learn we do not know all that we once thought. Life can be a painfully humbling experience. Why is this inappropriate? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later.

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

### butterfly credits on the news network

• credits for vetting a newly submitted story
• credits for vetting any other story
• credits for leaving a comment

### Most Active Today in Society & Culture

 126 Stop Violence Against Vulnerable Women ! PLEASE SIGN ! ! 79 Stand Together to Stop Violence Against Women ! PLEASE SIGN ! ! 47

more Society & Culture stories »
Kit B.

Kit B.
Kit's contributions:
 Stories noted recently: 0 Stories submitted: 3517 Front Page stories: 3420

 Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.