Red wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:02 pm
That's just psychology man.
Look, I'll cut you a deal: I'll review your Wikipedia article if you review my video.
There might be no reason, but it is.
So how can we resolve this? That is the question.
I don't think that'd ever happen in America.
Maybe not, but Bernie and AOC, regardless of what you think of them, have played a vital role in shifting the American Overton window to the left.
Whatever, I'd still bang her.
Weirdly enough, I consider most people with whom I disagree with politically to be very ugly. The only exception I can think of is Ben Shapiro, who I would probably bang if he was not a reactionary.
True, not inherently, but many people would interpret it as such.
No, I don't, Blue. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that's something I want to lead, something we haven't had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that's one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We've had great success in my own state. And we've reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.
Welcome to the lab, the lab of aesthetic climatology. Is it hot in here or is the world just like this now? Imagine that this is the earth. This is what the earth would look like if you stabbed it with a giant knife. In 1976, a beta cuck named Al Gore led the first congressional hearings on global warming. For the next several decades, he devoted much of his career to raising public awareness about the grave predictions of climate science, in particular the disastrous effects of global warming induced by industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Gore's activism culminated in 2006, with the release of his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, but a month before its release, Comedy Central aired an episode of South Park ridiculing Gore as a hysterical buffoon obsessed with warning the nation about a mythological creature called ManBearPig. The episode portrays Gore as a narcissistic, attention-seeking alarmist, an issue-haver, a care-about, a sibilant moralf(bleep)g. I'm super cereal, you guys. We all had a good laugh at Gore's foolishness. After all, no one likes a complainer, a critic, a moralist, a killjoy, a naysayer, a bearer of bad news, and in fact a lot of us probably remember ManBearPig better than we remember An Inconvenient Truth. A lot of this backlash against Gore seems to fit a pattern described in the brilliant video essay Why Are You So Angry? by Innuendo Studios. Part 2 of the essay describes a phenomenon I'll call the Angry Jack effect. It works like this: You're at a barbecue shoving brisket into your front hole when you notice the person seated next to you declines to eat any meat because they're vegan. Your immediate instinctual reaction is anger at the vegan, because even if they're not really judging you, the mere fact that they are vegan means that they probably have reasons for not eating meat, and that means there might be reasons why you shouldn't eat meat. So what you do is you lash out at the vegan and you tell you them, "Oh, so you think you're better than me, huh? Well, I'll have you know that eating meat is perfectly natural, and evolution, and people who don't eat meat, well, their bones fall out, and besides, you're a hypocrite anyway because more animals die when they plow the fields for your stupid fucking vegetables, you moral jerk." Of course, this is not really a rational response to the situation. This is you subconsciously protecting your ego from potential guilt, from the potential accusation that you're a bad person, and you're protecting the lifestyle that you enjoy and are accustomed to from a potential threat. And this is essentially how people have been reacting to Al Gore for decades. He's a fun-ruiner, criticizing our high-emission way of life, and instead of engaging sincerely with the critique, we lash out at him so we don't have to think about it. The problem is that, scientifically speaking, climate change is in fact real, and Gore was right all along. Oopsy doopsy! So now it's current year, and the global temperature has risen one degree Celsius above the pre-industrial average, which is on track with the projections presented in Gore's film. Now one degree doesn't sound like much, but to get a sense of scale, consider that the last ice age was only 4.5 degrees Celsius cooler than the 20th century norm. We are already at one degree warmer than the pre-industrial average, and current scientific models put us on track for three degrees warmer by the end of the century, an outcome that would, among other catastrophes, completely flood Shanghai and Miami. Scientists have long recommended that we limit warming to two degrees in order to avert global cataclysm. But the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that even two degrees of warming could result in an iceless arctic summer at least once a decade, the destruction of nearly every coral reef, and a heightened frequency of tropical cyclones, droughts, and famines around the world. The report therefore recommends we limit warming to 1.5 degrees, a goal that requires drastic and unprecedented reduction in emissions within the next 12 years and net zero emissions by 2050. But even limiting warming to two degrees requires a significant reduction in emissions. Otherwise we're on track for three degrees of warming and possibly even four or more, a situation that could be near apocalyptic.
It remains pretty unclear, but the very progressive Democrats are usually anti-nuclear, Regular Democrats are generally mixed on it, and the Blue Dogs and Republicans are usually in favour of it.
Well I suppose then it wasn't much of a defiance for Obama to support nuclear if Regular Democrats were generally mixed. I thought that most of them were pro-nuclear though, which big Regular Democrat figures are anti-nuclear?
Again, I don't know what it's like in the UK, but after the insanity that ensued after 9/11 chilled out, more Democrats on average oppose things like the PATRIOT Act since it violates privacy and such.
Or would it?
You're right. It wouldn't have been. It would have been better to say "@Jebus
Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Blue, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I'd say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I'm glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn't.
Imagine the year is 2100. I want you to picture the earth as a human vagina and imagine you're a gynecologist and you're using a speculum to examine the inside of a watermelon. How does that make you feel, kids? I bet you wish your irresponsible gas-guzzling parents had done something to stop this. So we may have a global climate catastrophe fast approaching, but at least our political leaders are responsible, rational, and scientifically literate, right? Donald Trump has a consistent history of climate change denial, from his 2012 claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax aimed at undermining American manufacturing to his tweet last week that it's very cold outside, therefore, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" Of course the term global warming refers to the increase in the global average temperature, temperature continuing to vary by region. In fact, global warming could cause some regions to become much colder, for instance, if the ocean current known as the Atlantic conveyor belt is disrupted, chilling the North Atlantic and potentially making European winters more severe. But Trump doesn't know or care about any of that. He's kind of the anti-Al Gore, you know? A real man who takes what he wants by any means necessary and won't be slowed down by any worries about what's factual or scientific or true or good or consensual or just or safe or legal or even possible. He's the kind of man who Americans collectively want, on some sub-rational erotic level, to brutally dominate us like an ancient Chinese god-emperor. Burn the scholars, build the wall. But the problem, at least for those of you who don't actively enjoy civilization's plunge into primeval darkness, is that the notion that there's any actual scientific controversy about the role of carbon emissions in global warming is simply false. A 2013 analysis of the scientific literature on climate change found that 97% of papers published on the subject supported the conclusion that humans caused global warming, and the consensus has only increased over time. Climate change denial is considered an oddity in Europe, but is very common in America, largely as a result of a massive campaign of manufactured uncertainty and misinformation that goes back to the early 1990s, when the Western Fuels Association developed a strategy to quote reposition global warming as theory, not fact, and spent half a million dollars researching the most effective way to promote that message via a propaganda campaign. Climate denialist talking points promoted by organizations in the subsequent decades have been statistically linked to funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch family, and denialism has been frequently pushed by Republican politicians, perhaps most vocally Senator James Inhofe, whose campaigns are financed by oil and energy companies, and who's presented on the Senate floor such compelling arguments as throwing a snowball to own the libs. Denialist talking points have trickled down from the reptilian overlords to the ordinary YouTube comment goblins, where they provide ammunition for the Angry Jack effect. Just like Al Gore or any messenger of inconvenient information, climate scientists themselves have for years been targets of endless harassment. Michael Mann, the original publisher of the hockey stick graph, has received thousands of hate messages, death threats, even white powder in the mail. The mental health of many climate scientists is actually suffering as a result of harassment, denial, the bleak political situation, and the daily grind of studying a cataclysmic future. It's likely that this video will attract some deniers, and I therefore invite my audience to use the denialist debunking resource listed in the top comment below to refute such claims as: There's still scientific controversy about the cause of climate change. There isn't. What if the sun is getting hotter? It's not, at least in the relevant time frame. And science is a liar sometimes. But even if you don't believe in science, maybe you'll find it convincing that even many oil companies, including ExxonMobil, now acknowledge climate change is real and caused by human activity. In fact, at the behest of oil companies, the state of Texas is now seeking at least $12 billion in public funds to build a 60-mile spine of seawalls along the Gulf Coast, largely to protect oil refineries from rising tides and more severe tropical storms. After Hurricane Harvey, Texas lobbied Congress for $61 billion to quote future-proof the state, despite the fact that many of its top politicians are public climate change deniers. Do not listen to the cant of these sneering reptoids. The science is clear: Climate change is real and humans are causing it. If even ExxonMobil says it's real, it's probably real. There's really no point in digging in your heels and refusing to look at the evidence just because you don't want it to be true. None of us want it to be true.
I don't think so.
Think about it; How are so many religions and political beliefs and such able to be around for so long? Simple; They are spread to their children. Sure there are exceptions, but if you are born in a conservative household, you're going to grow up to be a conservative. If you're born a Muslim, you'll grow up to be a Muslim. You're predisposed to be open to the beliefs if they fall more in line with what you've been raised to think for better or for worse.
This doesn't really disprove what I said, as children are usually undecided on political, economic and religious issues.
True, but for something like Nuclear, we don't have a significant amount of time.
The significant amount of time may have already passed.
I'd have confidence in him. And I made a good selection. And I've never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young Senator in my entire life. And I've never seen a presidential campaign where the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee; never seen one before. (Applause) But you know, Lloyd Bentsen jumped on Dan Quayle, when Dan Quayle said, he's had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress. He had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term. He founded authored, the job training partnership act. It says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own that they're going to have jobs. We're moving into a new competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense; helped amend the INF treaty so we got a good, sound treaty, when these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we'd listened to them, we would never have had a treaty. And so I have great confidence in him. And it's turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don't like it when there's an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I'm proud of my choice. And you know, I don't think age is the only criterion. But I'll tell you something, I'm proud that people who are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it, and I'm proud of it; that's what I'd say. And he could do the job.
If you picture the earth as a watermelon, you can see there's the outer shell here that traps the Red Flesh. And if you leave it out at midnight, the stalkers, the stalkers come for the Red Flesh. Before describing the details of our doom, let's take a moment to review how we got where we are. The modern science of anthropogenic climate change began in 1896 when a Swedish science jerk called Svante Arrhenius published a study titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth, in which he predicted that industrial carbon dioxide production would eventually have a warming effect on the planet. By 1960, scientists had demonstrated that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was in fact rising, and President fucking Johnson's Science Advisory Committee warned that industrial CO2 emissions could have a greenhouse warming effect. The Stanford Research Institute warned the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that continued emissions would lead to Antarctic melting and rising sea levels, but nothing was really done about it until 1988, when NASA announced to the U.S. Senate that the Earth was warmer than at any time in modern history, that the warming could be attributed to human causes with 99% certainty, and that the warming was worsening heatwaves, storms, and droughts. That same year, the IPCC was formed to provide world leaders with a summary of the science on climate change and its political and economic impacts. So it started to seem like something was going to change. But by the early 1990s, the oil and energy-funded climatology denial industry was up and running in the United States, despite the fact that oil companies had known climate change was happening for decades, and Republican politicians became mouthpieces for the so-called skeptic cause. Meanwhile the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, pledging the United Sates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a pledge that the Bush administration then refused to make good on. The 2012 Republican platform stated against all scientific consensus that quote the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain, and opposed regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Then finally, in 2015, things seemed to be changing for the better. 195 nations, including China, India, and the United States under Obama became parties to the Paris Agreement, which established the goal of limiting the increase in global temperature to well below two degrees Celsius. But the very next year, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States on a platform of outright climate science denial. Trump has since begun withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, appointed a climate change denier the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and released his America First Energy Plan, which encourages unregulated burning of fossil fuels. So it's with a particular sense of doom that we now receive the grim 2018 IPCC report, which informs us that the world has already warmed one degree Celsius, resulting in significant melting of both polar ice caps, increased average temperatures, increased extreme weather events, and increased mosquito-born illnesses like malaria, dengue, and Zika. If drastic action is taken to reduce carbon emissions 49% by 2030 and to net zero carbon by 2050, global warming will still increase to 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial average, resulting in a doubling of populations exposed to water scarcity and drought, and an estimated $10 trillion in annual flood damage losses from sea level rise. But with the current political situation, the goal of reducing warming to 1.5 degrees is quickly slipping out of reach. By the end of the century, we're likely to see at least two degrees of warming, which will lead to the eventual displacement of 200 million people in coastal regions. Three degrees of warming will flood many of the world's major coastal cities, including Shanghai, Miami, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Alexandria, and Hong Kong. Four degrees of warming will be close to the difference between early 20th century temperatures and the last ice age. A global crisis of hundreds of millions of refugees from island and coastal areas will be exacerbated by severe droughts and water scarcity, trillions of dollars of damage to the economy, famines, starvation, terrorism and war. So it's not just the poor polar bears and coral reefs. There are real human consequences to this.
Well for someone like you where politics is a pretty big passion, it'd be much harder for you to do anything about it, but if you at least have an open mind and search for evidence, that might be quite enough.
My mind is sort of open. Like, I do change my mind when I see new evidence. It just sort of takes a while, because the belief I held before was so intertwined into my identity. For instance, it took me a while to support the abolition of the monarchy in Britain because of my identity of wanting to fuck the Queen. You can learn more about this in the video I sent you.
It might be, but as @Greatest I am said, you can find the best ideologies (and I'm not sure if you can go wrong with trying to do the most good as an ideology).
Well, what if it turns out that trying to do the most good actually leads to less good happening? You'd still have to drop that ideology on the basis of new evidence, like you would with any other. Also, it is my opinion that socialism, LGBT+ rights, feminism, etc. are the best ideologies, but they may well not be.
Blue, this was the first presidential decision that we as nominees were called upon to make. And that's why people are so concerned. Because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make. The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War II, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the President and commander in chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, because I thought he was the best qualified person for the job. (Applause) GOY. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle, and before he did it, he said, watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all And it sure did. It sure did. (Applause)
When I was a little girl, I used to sit on the porch eating watermelon and I'd stare up at the stars and wonder where did they all come from, you know? What does this all mean? The cosmos, humanity, our little time here on Earth? And that's why I became a scientist, so I could spend my life studying tropospheric trace gases. If you want to do your part to stop climate change, there are some lifestyle changes you can make. You can use LED light bulbs. You can drive a hybrid or electric car. You can use public transportation. You can try not to fly very often. You can eat less red meat. But the reality is just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, and the burden of stopping this can't really be placed on individual consumers. The companies themselves do not care. Left to their own devices, they will only pursue short-term profit. They will ask the government to build them sea walls while continuing to emit greenhouse gasses. Climate change is exactly the kind of problem that capitalism is really ill-equipped to solve. The time frame involved is short enough that scientists can predict total catastrophe in the foreseeable future, but just long enough not to enter into the shareholder-pleasing decision-making of corporations. So unless there's a drastic change in the next couple decades, this is going to be capitalism's Great Chinese Famine moment, only potentially, it'll be much, much worse. This is probably the most important issue facing humanity in the 21st century, so we kinda need to fix it by any means necessary, beginning with rapid political change. If that means direct action, it means direct action, for instance organizing, participating in, or supporting a massive general strike. You also should demand that your politicians take a strong stance against climate change and the companies that cause it. And if you're American, vote this monumental dingdong out of the Oval Office in 2020 before the entire planet shrinks and transforms into a corn cob.
What are you talking about? Gazelles (more specifically Thomson's Gazelles) are beautiful and magestic creatures.
Is that why you keep sending me videos of them being brutalised by alligators?
Well, put it this way; Most people say they're less biased than average. That's not possible.
Well they can be mistaken about that. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are irrational. Also, what is your source for this?
The Agent Smith is being channeled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agent Smith is my spirit animal.
No, because I'm pledged to that, and yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is, taxes have been cut, and yet income is up to the Federal Government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. More Americans at work today than at any time in the history of the country, and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don't want to do that, and I won't do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it's going to take discipline of the executive branch; it's going to take discipline of the congressional branch. And that is what I call a flexible freeze that allows growth about 4 percent or the rate of inflation but does not permit the Congress just to add on spending. I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart: they know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress. And by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. So I'm pledged to do that. And those pessimists who say it can't be done, I'm sorry, I just have a fundamental disagreement with them
Hello, mankind. It is I, your dark mother, the sea. And you, my children, have been an absolute disappointment. Every one of you is so pathetic. You make me want to throw up! Politicians, businessmen, and worst of all, environmentalists, ugh! The condescension of it all! You think you are capable of hurting me? Hah! I enjoy your so-called degradation. Your filthy air makes me hot. Your melting glaciers fill me up deep inside. And when you spew your filth all over, oh, it only makes me fucking wet. Every year my heaving bosom encroaches farther on your shores, and as I spat you out, my children, I will swallow you whole. I will take every inch of you inside of me and I will suck you down into the deep black pit of my wetness, you scum. And why? Because I am a slut. My progeny encompass the earth, and whatsoever I create, I shall destroy. For I, your deep, dark mother, am at once deliveress of your doom. And that's why I vote Republican!
Blue, the Vice President made that pledge. He's broken it three times in the past year already. So it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And what I'm concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening, the flexible freeze somebody described it the other day as a kind of economic slurpee he wants to spend billions on virtually every weapons system around. He says he's not going to raise taxes, though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country a five-year $40 billion tax break, and we're going to pay for it. And he's been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. Now if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that's already been added on the backs of the American taxpayer is going to increase even more, and if we continue with this for another four years, then I'm worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around. No, we need a chief executive who is prepared to lead; who won't blame the Congress; who will lead to bring down that deficit, who will make tough choices on spending.
As a kid who grew up to be bi, who knew kids who grew up to be trans and would have loved the support Mermaids is helping to provide: Log the fuck off before you get promoted to head of mermaids' marketing department. Every time you tweet five people donate. You're losing. You had an out here: Shut up and pretend you didn't notice us. Instead you provided tens of thousands of dollars of free promotion to Mermaids. If you'd just done what I asked, and told me how to beat beaver bother, the stream would have ended sooner, but no. Thanks btw
Yeah but I'm just referring to a matter of degree.
Their "self help" videos are the worst in my opinion, because they're pushing their viewpoint much more subtly and so people are more likely to accept it.
No, I'm not sure I can promise that; I don't think either one of us can really. There is no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this: that we will set as our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending; it will require a good strong rate of economic growth; it will require a plan that the president works out with the Congress doesn't blame them, works it out with them, which brings that deficit down; it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren't being paid in this country. And that's grossly unfair to the average American who is paying his taxes and paying them on time and doesn't have any alternative: it's taken out of his paycheck. Mr. Bush says we are going to put the IRS on every taxpayer. That's not what we are going to do. I'm for the taxpayer bill of rights. But I think it's unconscionable, Ann, that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans when there are billions out there, over $100 billion, in taxes owed that aren't being paid. Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily, $20, $25, $30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. Senator Bentsen said, as you recall at the debate with Senator Quayle, that if you give any of us $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. But sooner or later that credit card mentality isn't going to work. And I want to bring to the White House a sense of strength and fiscal responsibility which will build a good strong foundation under which this country, or above which country can move, grow, invest, and build the best America for its people and for our kids and our grandkids.
Imagine how a woman feels. Imagine how soft and warm her skin feels. Imagine the sweet smell of her perfume. Imagine her tenderly pressing her soft lips against yours. Imagine her letting you get on top of her and insert your [bleep] inside her, softly moaning as it slides in. Imagine the walls of her tight, soft, warm [bleep] wrapped around every inch of your [bleep]. Imagine her breathing getting heavier with every thrust. Imagine her wrapping her arms and legs around you, holding you as close as she possibly can and begging you to [bleep] inside her as you release every ounce of your [bleep] into her. Then imagine the feeling of pure satisfaction and peace that comes afterwards, and looking beside you to see a person that cares about you and has accepted you in the most intimate way possible. You will never get to experience this because your skeleton is too small or the bones in your face are not the proper shape. Have a nice day.
That's what I was saying!!!!!!!
Good. I was just checking.
Would you say that Churchill had a net positive impact during his time in office?
In his first time in office, he definitely did due to his leadership in the Second World War. However, I'd argue that Stalin had a net positive impact on history for the same reason.
In his second time in office, he didn't really have that much of an impact at all. Even though he was Prime Minister, it was largely Anthony Eden who was directing policy at that point. At a Conservative Party conference, people were asked to rank post-war prime ministers from greatest to worst. Churchill came at the top, and this doesn't reflect a very accurate view of post-war British history, as Churchill's main achievements weren't in his post-war government.
The Governor has to balance the budget in his state he is required to by law. He has raised taxes several times. I wish he would join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the American people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line-item veto. (Applause) I'd like to have that line-item veto for the president, because I think that would be extraordinarily helpful. And I won't do one other thing that he's had to do: took $29 million out of his state pension fund that's equivalent at the federal level of taking out of the Social Security trust fund. I'm not going to do that; I won't do that. (Applause) And so I'm still a little unclear as to whether he's for or against the tax increase. I have been for the taxpayer bill of rights all along. And this idea of unleashing a whole bunch-an army, a conventional force army, of IRS agents into everybody's kitchen I mean, he's against most defense matters, and now he wants to get an army of JRS auditors going out there. (Laughter) I'm against that; I oppose that. (Boos and applause)
Why do we build the wall? My children, my children. Why do we build the wall? Why do we build the wall? We build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. How does the wall keep us free? My children, my children. How does the wall keep us free? How does the wall keep us free? The wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Who do we call the enemy? My children, my children. Who do we call the enemy? Who do we call the enemy? The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not! My children, my children. Because they want what we have got! Because we have and they have not! Because they want what we have got! The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. What do we have that they should want? My children, my children. What do we have that they should want? What do we have that they should want? We have a wall to work upon! We have work and they have none and our work is never done. My children, my children. And the war is never won. The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. We build the wall to keep us free.
Do I? I forgot what we were talking about.
Do you venerate Jeremy Corbyn?