Saturday, February 18, 2006

Organized labor's leadership spends more on democrats instead of representing working families

Redstate's Mark Kilmer has a great thread on Redstate, that I highly recommend. I can't say I'm not surprised, especially with the three BS attack ads on my answering maching from their goon squads.

Early reports show the AFL-CIO spent $49 million (27 percent of its total annual budget) on political and lobbying activities but only $30 million (or 16.5 percent) to represent its members. That gap contributed to the breakaway from the AFL-CIO of the Teamsters, the Service Employees and other unions.

22 comments:

Robert Ball said...

Many unions engage in political activities which oppose the political views of many of their own members.

Unions pay for most of their political activities by setting up a separate fund that is financed through a "voluntary" portion of union dues. But I know many union members who complain that they are afraid to decline the "voluntary" donation due to threats of violence from other members.

I've also heard a lot of complaints about unions engaging in political activities while working out of union offices during regular business hours, which effectively uses regular union dues for political activities.

People also complain that unions put a lot of resources into candidates and issues which are unrelated to the normal interests of the union or the company where the union members work.

I've long thought that it is a joke to pass election finance reform laws while these kinds of political activities by unions are ignored.

Another thing we need to crack down on is the use of churches for election activities. Tax free non-profits like churches are not supposed to use church resources for political purposes, yet this is done openly in some churches. I don't know exactly where the line between legal and illegal is, but I've definitely seen some churches engage in questionable behavior over the years.

Robert Ball said...

I just found this site. I'm a Republican from Wayne Country and I've been reading some articles in the last few weeks about the Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate seat. I don't know much about any of the candidates but I noticed that Mike Bouchard and Keith Butler have a lot of endorsements from Republican officials. They have also raised a lot of money.

Now Bouchard I can understand because he has been around for many years and has a lot of name recognition. But this Keith Butler guy, all I know about him is that he is a minister. And who is this Zandstra guy? He does not have many endorsements nor has he raised much money. The only thing I've heard is that he is a minister from somewhere around Grand Rapids.

I've been planning to vote for Bouchard but I want to know why you support this Zandstra guy? What makes him so special? Why does he do so well in the polls when nobody knows who he is, he has no money, and few party leaders support him?

Also, why is Butler fading in the polls when he has so much money and party support?

Where do you put these 3 guys on the political scale?

Republican Michigander said...

Non-profits (considered corporate money for elections purposes) in general are used often for political purposes under the guise of "issue advocacy". "Call so and so, and tell him to stop being a bad guy"

A solution I see to the non profits is simple. Eliminate tax exemptions for all "non-profits", and require full disclosure. If they want to be in politics, I don't have a problem with it, but it should be out in the open and I'd like to know who their major benefactors are.

If charities don't like it, then they should be helping people instead of lobbying or being political organizations.

Robert Ball said...

Also, who is this Pete Hoekstra guy that you have listed in the poll on your website? Why have I not heard anything about him anywere else? Did he not participate in the debates? Has he dropped out of the race already? If so, how come you have him listed in your poll?

Republican Michigander said...

Welcome aboard.

First, re: Pete Hoekstra - He's a congressman from West Michigan. He was rumored to run when I put the poll up. I didn't want to take it down when it is was off. I should update it though.

As for Zandstra, I have the two debate threads on the sidebar, as well as my endorsement post for Jerry Zandstra.

I'm not against any of the senate candidates. All are conservative and are running as conservatives - but I'm backing Jerry mostly because of one major reason. The economy, and ability to win.

Butler is mostly running on social issues, and Bouchard is running mostly on security. Those are important, but I don't think those aren't the key issues in this state, at least from the people I've heard. Those are secondary issues to the economy.

Zandstra is running on the economy first and has the background to back up his points. He's the director of programs from the Acton Institute, a think tank based in Grand Rapids. - http://www.acton.org/ - He's dealt in public policy around the world.

He's not the choice of most party bigwigs (although he has a lot of support among activists). That's not a big deal with me, as I'm more of a grass roots guy. His message is resonating since he is competitive, if not winning in many of the polls, and is doing no worse than the others currently against Stabenow (and in one poll leads) - despite very little name recognition.

I think Jerry has the best chance with crossover support because of his message - http://www.jerryzandstra.com/ - much of it at his website. He's also a very good communicator of his message. He's intelligent without sounding like a college professor.

I recommend calling his office and going to an event near you where he's speaking and talk to him. In the end, that's what convinced me to support Jerry.

Robert Ball said...

There is no way to tell what the big issue will be this fall. Given all the problems in Michigan right now the economy is a safe issue to run on. Security may or may not be - as things stand right now probably not - but if there is another attack security could be big again.

It doesn't seem like social issues usually effect voting decisions very much.

So has Zandstra ever run for office before? Does he have any name recognition anywhere in Michigan? One thing I like about Bouchard is that he gets his name in the paper frequently. I suppose he is probably less well known outside the metro area but every little bit helps. Another good thing about Bouchard is that he has a lot of political experience.

I think that Debbie Stabenow will be hard to beat in the fall no matter who wins the primary. Even thought the economy is bad in Michigan I don't hear people blaming her for Michigan's problems. For the Republican's to win they will need to convince voters that Debbie could be doing more than she is.

Probably the best hope for the Republican party is to create an economic recovery plan that they can sell to voters. Still, there is a lot of anger in Michigan and there are bound to be a lot of people who use their vote to punish incumbants.

I saw the bit about the MCRI which said that Zandstra is the only Senate candidate to support it. That sounds kind of risky. Didn't Republican candidate for Governor DeVos come out against it? Why is Zandstra supporting an amendment that the rest of the Republican party opposes? This whole MCRI thing is hard to figure out. It seems like a lot of people like it but yet all the leadership of both parties oppose it. What the heck is going on, anyway?

Anonymous said...

I could not imagine why any union member would wish to have their union support a Republican. The Republican agenda is to take away pensions, destroy unions and reduce healthcare. It's a race to the bottom for union benefits while CEO's take profits and jobs overseas.
Democrats are clear on supporting the bread and butter issues that unions are support.
Republicnas are NOT!
Democrats clearly support a minimum wage increase, Republicans do not.
While you all sound intelligent in your posts, your blinders are clearly on when it comes to what the Republican agenda is all about.

Kevins said...

Are you serious? Spending money on Democratic candidates is representing working families, and spending money, or even voting for a republican, is working against the economic self-interest of middle class Americans.
I guess your view as union member

Republican Michigander said...

"""So has Zandstra ever run for office before? Does he have any name recognition anywhere in Michigan?"""

He has some over in Kent County, and it gaining it elsewhere. He has a wide lead in the polls out in West Michigan and North Michigan, and is working East Michigan hard. He has not run for office before, which is an obstacle.

"""One thing I like about Bouchard is that he gets his name in the paper frequently. I suppose he is probably less well known outside the metro area but every little bit helps. Another good thing about Bouchard is that he has a lot of political experience."""

True, but what is Bouchard known for? Sheriff.


"""I think that Debbie Stabenow will be hard to beat in the fall no matter who wins the primary. Even thought the economy is bad in Michigan I don't hear people blaming her for Michigan's problems. For the Republican's to win they will need to convince voters that Debbie could be doing more than she is."""

Debbie isn't very popular out here, but voters need a reason to vote FOR a candidate, instead of just against Debbie. That's where I think Jerry does best.

"""Probably the best hope for the Republican party is to create an economic recovery plan that they can sell to voters. Still, there is a lot of anger in Michigan and there are bound to be a lot of people who use their vote to punish incumbants.""""

Agree 100%

"""I saw the bit about the MCRI which said that Zandstra is the only Senate candidate to support it. That sounds kind of risky. Didn't Republican candidate for Governor DeVos come out against it? Why is Zandstra supporting an amendment that the rest of the Republican party opposes?"""

Most of the party supports MCRI. Many of the leadership opposes it. They oppose it since they are afraid of being tagged as racist by the mainstream media.

Anonymous said...

I think you would be most surprized just how popular Debbie Stabenow is with Republicans. There is not one of these candidates who can beat her and her popularity among Republicans in Livingston County is stunning.

Your comment on why the Republican party doesn't support MCRI should show you just how 2 faced the Republicans have become.
Guess what they don't want to overturn Roe V Wade either as they would lose their big GOTV tactic. You who are Republicans seem to support phoniness.
Your party and your ideals do not match up.

Anonymous said...

I love it. Bosses making large six figure saleries, taking junkets to Las vegas etc, spending money on politics (yes, I got one of their cheesey phone calls on my msge machine) and the workers are fighting to keep their jobs. The truth hurts. If union members want to work to keep their jobs they should start by electing labor bosses who care more about jobs than their Democrat backroom politics.

Debbie popular with Republicans? pleeease. She has made a carear of doing nothing. You dems are clearly living in a fantasy world.

"let us raise taxes, socialize your health care, run like cowards from the enemy, and talk bad about walmart and america will be just fine." Nice platform. For disaster.

No wonder your only hope is to leave nasty messages on answering machines and talk negative. You should be embarrassed.

Robert Ball said...

I like the way Zandstra is focusing on economic problems. That is clearly the number 1 issue in Michigan right now.

I also like the MCRI. How can anyone be against equality?

But I'm not going to commit to any candidate yet. I really like the way I've not seen any negative campaigning. I won't vote for anyone that gets negative in the primaries, so I hope it stays issue oriented.

I think that I could support any of the 3 based on what I've read so far, so it is a matter of deciding which candidate is the cream of the cream. MCRI may be one tie breaker for me.

I will be paying particular attention to the ideas each candidate has for reforming our economy. I'm very interested in Zandstra and I'll going to see if I can meet him at some local event. I don't understand how a guy with no money, no name recognition, and little support from party leaders can be pulling ahead in the polls against candidates that have everything going for them. At the very least Zandstra must be a man worth meeting.

There is a lot of time before the primaries and I want to watch all three a bit more before making a final decision. I wish someone would broadcast the debates on a channel available statewide so everyone would get a chance to watch them in action.

Republican Michigander said...

All three candidates signed a clean campaign agreement. I hope they stick to it and to issues. A mud fest only helps Debbie. I'll be voting for the primary winner, whoever it is. None of the three are bad people.

I don't know when Zandstra is next going to visit Wayne County as I don't follow the campaign in Wayne County as much as I probably should. I'd call his office and ask them when he's going to visit the area.

I agree about broadcasting the debates. I hope as many of them as possible are televised for those who can't make them.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone be against social justice? Affirmative Action is good for our country, plain and simple.

Debbie Stabenow gets it, Republicans don't.

Keith Richards said...

Hey, Comrade Socialist KevinS, you have returned. Completed your anger management yet?
Don't worry. You can hate me all you want but be assured that I will still treat you like a friend. After all, I never abandon a friend that needs help.

Yeah, Democrats take care of the working class alright. It is the "working class" that buys most of the cigarettes and booze in the U.S., so Democrats jack taxes way up on these items. It is the working class that suffers the most from high gas prices. So what do Democrats do? They block new oil drilling and construction of new refineries.

High natural gas prices are also killing working families. So Democrats block the building of a gas pipeline from the North of Alaska to carry new supplies to the U.S. and reduce the price.

Part of the problem with natural gas is that electric companies are using it to generate electricity. They want to build more nuclear power plants to free up gas for home heating but the Democrats won't let them. They could also use more coal but Democrats don't want that either.

Working families struggle to pay their property taxes. But Democrats want to increase them to pay for new social services. These new social services are supposed to help the working class. Hey, Democrats, here is a thought: Maybe if you did not tax away so much money from everyone, people could afford to pay for their own needs. But no, we can't have people taking care of themselves. We must have government do it.

High unemployment rates in Michigan hurt the working class the most. So what do Democrats want to do? Improve the business climate to attract more jobs? No. They want to create lots of new social programs and then increase taxes to pay for them. Yeah, lets have the Democrats drive away all the remaining jobs in Michigan so that we can all be unemployed. At least then we will be equal, huh?

By the way, have you seen the articles in the paper talking about how low the overall U.S. unemployment rate is? The U.S. unemployment rate is now lower than it was at any time during the Clinton administration. No, you probably did not see this reported, unless you watch Fox News. Our media which you say is impartial won't print articles that make our President look good. Except for companies like Fox, which obviously needs government oversight to prevent them from reporting news that liberals don't like.

Here in Michigan we wallow around in a bad and growing recession but in the rest of the U.S. the economy is booming. Hmmmm. By the way, did you know that Michigan has the 2nd highest business taxes in the U.S.? Did you know that Michigan is ranked as having one of the worst business climates in the U.S.? Did you know that Michigan is the only state with a Single business tax, where they have to pay high taxes no matter if they are making or losing money? But I'm sure that this has nothing to do with our personal recession here in Michigan.

A recent study was done which compared the cost of locating a business in three places: South Dakota, Michigan, and Mexico. The study determined that there is no cost advantage to building in Mexico over South Dakota, but that Michigan is far more expensive than either alternative. If you were a business owner and had to invest your own scarce resources, are you going to build in a state with high taxes and an anti-business climate, or in a state with low taxes and a pro-business climate. If you have to think about this for more than a millisecond you had better not go into business because you will lose your shirt.

Did you hear about the incident recently where the UAW picketed a Toyota meeting near Kalamazoo? Toyota was thinking about building a new factory with lots of high paying jobs in Michigan. But Toyota removed Michigan from their list of potential sites after they saw the picketing. Yeah, the UAW really cares about working families too.

Maybe we should drive the remaining jobs out of Michigan so that we can all live off welfare and unemployment. But gee, if we drive ALL business out of Michigan, who will pay the taxes to support us? Oh yes, I forgot. We'll just get the U.S. government to print money to pay for our needs. (Can anyone say runaway inflation?)

Yeah, you Democrats are full of ideas alright. Old ones. Create lots of new social programs. Let the government take care of everyone. Raise taxes way up to pay for it all. But we don't have to worry. If we don't want to work because taxes are too high, or if we lose our jobs because so many companies fold up shop, we can always live off welfare.

Lets not forget that Democrats want to choke off free trade. So instead of buying a $2 pair of pliers, we can all spend $10. Or buy shirts for $50-$100 instead of paying $15-$25. Of course, Democrats will demand that all employers pay high wages so that we can all afford to pay high prices, or at least the few of us that are left working.

Democrats care about the working class so they will surely wave their magic legislative wand and decree that gas prices be reduced to $1 or $1.50 per gallon. This will be real popular until all the gas dries up and forces the Democrats to begin gas rationing. But that is fair, is it not? So what if we can all buy only 10 gallons per week each (This was Jimmy Carter's emergency plan back when he was President) As long as we only pay $1 per gallon it helps the working class. Or, we could do what Europe does and put a tax on gas of $2-$4 per gallon. This helps the working class because we all know that taxes are good and high taxes are better.

Yeah, Democrats are full of ideas. All their ideas involve using the government to solve all problems. Redistribute income so that we all have the same standard of living, regardless of whether we make a big contribution to the economy or none at all. Regulate every aspect of our lives in order to protect us from ourselves. After all, when the government pays for healthcare they don't want us to do anything which might cause us to get hurt. Better not to take chances.

Yes, Democrats have created a wonderful plan to dictate how Americans should live their lives. It includes everything necessary except for personal freedoms and an incentive for individuals to be creative, responsible, and productive. And of course we'll be better off because religion will have been moved out of sight and hidden behind closed doors.

We'll still have wealth in this liberal nirvana, though. Trial lawyers will be allowed to sue everyone and everything left into poverty, but a few lucky people will get wealthy from it. What a wonderful idea. No wonder trail lawyers donate lots of money to Democrat candidates.

The one thing that Democrats have not explained is how they are going to create an economy that looks much like the economies of socialist countries (but they are NOT socialists!) without also getting the slow rate of growth in the GNP and the high unemployment that ALWAYS comes with massive government intervention in the economy. The problem is always the same: High taxes and high levels of government intervention slow down the rate of growth in GNP. GNP equals wealth. If we want to increase the wealth of all Americans we need to have a high rate of growth. No nation on earth has yet found a way to have a high rate of growth in a government run economy. Government intervention ALWAYS kills the goose that lays the golden egg.

So go ahead. Regulate and tax the U.S. economy into socialism. After all, the resulting poverty can always be blamed on rich Republicans.

Keith Richards said...

Hey, Robert Ball - Hmmm, lets see . . . . that works out to "Bob Ball" or "BB". Cool, I like that. I hope you stick around and become a regular. Most of us here are friendly and optimistic. We like to discuss news, candidates, and ideas with a focus on how we can improve our nation. We also like to have fun and exchange the occasional friendly insult.

We do have one guy over on the dark side that is trying to preserve the liberal tradition of ranting and raving, complaining, and generally being negative. Like all Democrats, he never makes a mistake and so never takes any responsibility or admits he is wrong. Only a Republican will stand up like a real man, admit a mistake, and issue a public apology. But don't worry, we are working hard to educate so that he can graduate from being a perfect liberal into being an imperfect Republican.

Like I said, we try to have fun here.

As for Jerry Zandstra, I have also met him. In fact, I've been supporting him since last summer.

This has been a tough race since all 3 candidates are high caliber. I'm proud to say that all 3 have run positive campaigns and focused on the issues. On many subjects their positions are substantially equal, so you are right in focusing on the areas where they differ.

MCRI is an important issue for me too. I believe that all people should have full equal opportunity in schools, universities, and in government. MCRI would prohibit schools from giving one subgroup of our society preference over other subgroups during the admission process, but would not prevent schools from offering extra assistance to students that need it. Like you say BB, how can anyone be against equality?

You say you have been leaning toward Bouchard. That is OK, Bouchard is a good man. But if you get a chance to meet Jerry Zandstra, you will see that he is a star. He is a leader. He has an incredible resume that has made him well prepared for this position. For decades Michigan has suffered because we have had average people working as Senators that show no leadership once they got to Washington. If you watch any political talk shows on TV, you will see various Senators on these shows everyday. But appearances by Michigan Senators are uncommon (Except when they are demanding that the feds hand over billions in corporate welfare for the big 3. Why do Democrats campaign against corporate welfare but then demand it when it applies to companies in their home state . . . hmmm. ) because nothing they say is worth listening to. Jerry Zandstra is man that will quickly rise to positions of leadership in the Senate. With his sharp policy oriented mind I expect that we will see him on TV regularly debating other Senators as well as the hosts.

Listening to all the talk about the '08 Presidential races, how often do you hear Michigan politicians mentioned as possible candidates? For either party? Looking at history, how many Presidents has Michigan contributed? Gerald Ford, who became President after being appointed Vice-President, but was unable to win reelection? Jerry Zandstra is exciting because he is the caliber of person that could one day run for President and win.

While I like both Butler and Bouchard, it is very exciting to think that a man like Jerry Zandstra could be representing Michigan a year from now. Go back and read some of the posts about him on this blog. Go to his website and read up on him. Then track him down and meet him in person. I promise that once you've talked to him you will forget about the competition.

Another good point about Zandstra is that he is campaigning full time, and has been for nearly a year. His competition keeps working in their regular jobs. Zandstra has put his money where his mouth is, giving up a lot to campaign full time. And Jerry is not rich either, so campaigning full time has been a real hardship for him personally. But when Jerry believes in a cause he throws himself into it completely, regardless of the cost to him. To beat Stabenow in November we need someone that is willing to campaign full time and make personal sacrifices.

Stabenow is definitely beatable in November. That is why we have three good men running for her seat. We have to keep in mind that it is always tough to defeat an incumbent, but Stabenow is vulnerable and Zandstra is the man that can do it.

By the way, good point about not voting for candidates that go negative in the primaries. There is enough of that in the general election. Having met all three men, I am confident that they will keep the campaign issue oriented, and I also will not support anyone that breaks his pledge.

Anonymous said...

Mr Richards,
Love your stuff and more importantly your philosophy!! keep it up.

I heard Mike Rogers speak recently on jobs and the economy. He was fantastic. He covered alot of ground. From "consumerism" in health care to his work on breaking down trade barriers with countries like china. I was very impressed. I met him briefly and didnt get to ask him why HE isnt running for US Senate. He could run circles around all three of the current candidates and give Stabbenow a real race. Anybody have any idea why he is not running? Is he waiting for the Governors race?

Republican Michigander said...

To the last anonymous:

"Anybody have any idea why he is not running? Is he waiting for the Governors race?""

My guess is that it is because he got on the committee he wanted in Congress. (Intelligence) I expect him to be there for awhile.

Kevins said...

Wow, another long, incoherent rant. I don’t hate you because I don’t even know you, but don’t try and tell me I’m your friend, especially after I present an argument you don’t like and you roll out the personal attacks. I expected to be attacked, and that’s fine. But it’s so disingenuous to personally attack someone then say you’re going to “treat me like a friend.”

I have no problem taxing booze and cigarettes, and if the consumption of those items went down we would see it made up in a savings in health care costs. To say only the poor smoke and drink is untrue and discriminatory.

You’re right, “It is the working class that suffers the most from high gas prices.” So why are we giving away millions of tax dollars to oil companies that are already recording record profits to pump oil from public property without paying royalties? Progressives have been saying for years we need to find alternative energy, but some how it's our fault for high gas prices because we didn’t. I remember living in California in the mid-70.s when he had high prices and shortages. We knew we had a problem then. What’s changed? The fact that huge oil corporations wrote the administration’s energy policy might have a little to do with it.

“Our media which you say is impartial won't print articles that make our President look good.” What BS. I have heard the right pushing that political strategy since Nixon, and it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. You would think that after more than 30 years of that propaganda, you would have more proof than just a book from a disgruntled conservative like bernie goldberg to show for it. There was a reason Shotgun Cheney chose faux news – AKA the official propaganda tool of the right – to face softball questions about his hunting accident instead of the Washington Press Corps.

Just because you say “Michigan has the 2nd highest business taxes in the U.S.? Did you know that Michigan is ranked as having one of the worst business climates in the U.S.? Did you know that Michigan is the only state with a Single business tax.” Doesn’t make it true. If you say it, I don’t believe it. If it is true, why is it the Democrats fault? You control the Senate and the House, as well as the Supreme Court, and Engler was in office for 12 years. Why was it not addressed or fixed when you had no opposition at all, and at a time when the economy was booming and the coffers were full? Why is a national problem the fault of Jennifer Granholm and the minority party? Ford and GM closed plants all over the country, not just in Michigan.

“We'll just get the U.S. government to print money to pay for our needs.” Or bush could create an even larger budget deficit, it that’s possible.

“Democrats want to choke off free trade.” How is a communist country producing the lion’s share of our consumer goods free trade? The race to the bottom in cutting the wages cannot be good for our economy. Granted, you’re an economist, and I am not. But if good paying jobs are fleeing overseas I the race to the bottom where the wages are artificially controlled under a repressive, communist regime, then who’s going to have a job to buy those goods, or who will have a good enough job to buy anything other than the basics?

“Democrats have created a wonderful plan to dictate how Americans should live their lives?” Are you serious? It’s the conservatives who want to dictate how you will live your lives. They want to dictate who you can marry, who you can worship and limit your privacy.

I agree with you when you talk about lawyers, and it’s nice for use to finally find some common ground. Public Protection Lawyers should be allowed to sue anyone because with the current administration rolling back workplace protections and other protections the courts are the last resort for the little guy to fight back against unscrupulous corporations.

Anonymous said...

kevins, get out the koolaide line before it is to late!

Energy prices are up because the Dems blocked the energy bill for YEARS that would have expedited the gas pipeline from alaska (would have reduced natural gas prices by 30-40%, stoped any new refineries for 25 years (consumption up, supply down, prices up), required over 75 different types of gas be produced (costs go up)fight anwar (enough oil to tell saudi to jump in the lake), and whine that gas prices go up. you guys are a mess. Bush and a GOP congress finally are getting biodiesal, ethynol and clean coal technology pushed to the forefront (dems voted no) and a natural gas pipeline and more refinery capacity!!!! common sense over your idea of price setting and your emotional bable will save america.

You quite obviously never made a payroll either. The SBT is a tax put on business by Dems. Gov Engler began the phase out a few years ago. It was stopped by your lawyer Governor Jenifer. She also just vetoed a Small Biusiness tax relief package that us small, middle class business owners desperately needed. If I can't make payroll no one gets paid. No regulation, no rule, no tax hike, no new government madate is going to change that. You want to help the middle class, Kevins? Get your big government, lawsuit happy, big union bosses out of my way and let good old fashioned American hard work, innovation and risk taking have at it. I pay my people well when sometimes I dont get paid. I will take care of them, make payroll, pay taxes, insurance, comply with untold regulation, fight your frivolous lawsuits and somehow make this work.

Dont be angry because someone made it in America, shout their praises. Dont take away from others because you dont have it yourself just try harder.

Keith Richards said...

KevinS -

Sorry I don't have time to leave a longer email because I am dealing with a family crisis right now.

Just wanted to say thank you for calling me a liar. It always makes my day when I tell the truth and someone does not believe me.

I'LL BE BACK!

Kevins said...

What that’s called is being skeptical, and I’m very skeptical of anything a republican says, and even more skeptical when something is presented with no source. I don’t think I called you a liar, but if you interpreted that way, I can’t help that. I stand by what I said.