Liberal Media, yeah right

When it comes to the Presidential campaigns, it's pile on the Democrats, ignore the same issues - or worse - with Republicans:
----------------------------------
You've heard of Norman Hsu -- why not Robert Lichfield?
by Jamison Foser

As of 11 a.m. today, a Nexis search for "Norman Hsu AND Clinton" returns 1,252 hits. The nation's leading news organizations provide a substantial portion of those results:
The New York Times: 26
Los Angeles Times: 20
The Washington Post: 16
USA Today: 2
Chicago Tribune: 9
The Boston Globe: 8
Associated Press: 47
Newsweek: 2
Time: 1
U.S. News & World Report: 2
CNN: 45
Fox News: 29
NBC News: 14
NPR: 14
ABC News: 6
CBS News: 5
MSNBC: 6
(The actual number of news reports by those organizations, particularly the television outlets, is certainly higher than the Nexis results indicate.)
To date, 137 different newspapers have written about Hsu and Clinton in a total of 591 articles, according to Nexis, and 132 broadcast and cable news transcripts mention Hsu and Clinton.

By contrast, a Nexis search for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" yields a total of only 21 hits. Here's how they break down for the news organizations listed above:
The New York Times: 0
Los Angeles Times: 0
The Washington Post: 1
USA Today: 1
Chicago Tribune: 0
The Boston Globe: 0
Associated Press: 0
Newsweek: 0
Time: 0
U.S. News & World Report: 0
CNN: 0
Fox News: 0
NBC News: 0
NPR: 0
ABC News: 0
CBS News: 0
MSNBC: 0

That's a whole lot of zeros. Of those 21 results, seven are reports that also mention Hsu. The Washington Post report, for example, contained 97 words about Romney and Fabian in the midst of a 1,457 word front-page article about controversial donors to presidential campaigns. Those 1,457 words included the grand total of 137 about Romney donors. No other Republican candidate was mentioned. The vast majority of the article focused on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. So, even when Fabian has been mentioned, it has often been only in passing, as part of a report about controversial donors to Democratic campaigns.

Given the disparate media coverage of Norman Hsu and Alan Fabian, you probably know who Hsu is. But by now, you're probably wondering who Alan Fabian is. Alan Fabian was a Romney bundler until his recent indictment on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. At his arraignment today, Fabian pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.

The indictment of a top Romney bundler has resulted in essentially no coverage from the same news organizations that have obsessed over the controversy surrounding a Clinton bundler. And remember, when the media first began focusing on Hsu, it was not yet known that he had any legal woes, so they don't explain the media's interest in Hsu and disinterest in Fabian.

But maybe Hsu and Fabian aren't perfectly comparable. Sure, Fabian has been indicted on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice, while Hsu wasn't known to have been charged with a crime when the media frenzy about him began. But Hsu, for reasons that may relate to his name (The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrrell charmingly referred to "The Clintons' Chop Suey Connection"), was immediately seen as a sexy story. Mail fraud is just so very dull, particularly in comparison to a donor with a Chinese surname.

But there's nothing dull about allegations against Robert Lichfield, who until recently was Romney's Utah finance co-chairman and helped organize a February event that raised $300,000 for the campaign.

On June 20, The Hill reported:
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were "subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse."
The complaint, which plaintiffs amended and resubmitted to the court last week, alleges children attending schools operated by Lichfield suffered abuses such as unsanitary living conditions; denial of adequate food; exposure to extreme temperatures; beatings; confinement in dog cages; and sexual fondling.

A second lawsuit filed by more than 25 plaintiffs in July in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York. The suit does not allege physical or emotional abuse.
These are two active lawsuits against Lichfield. Several others suits have alleged child abuse on behalf of dozens of plaintiffs, but judges have thrown out the suits for procedural reasons. As a result, the merits of the allegations have not been weighed. In some suits, plaintiffs have settled their cases for undisclosed amounts of money.

News reports about Clinton and Hsu have often featured various reporters or pundits expressing incredulity that Clinton's vetting operation didn't raise red flags about Hsu or about the ability of donors connected to Hsu to make campaign contributions. But campaigns don't have access to donors' bank records, making some of that criticism unfair.
Romney's campaign, on the other hand, would only have had to spend a few moments with Nexis to discover allegations against Lichfield. Among the news reports that Romney staff could have easily found prior to the February fundraiser that Lichfield helped organize:

• An April 21, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported on "persistent allegations of child abuse and claims of questionable business practices surrounding the World Wide Association of Speciality Schools (WWASPS) founded by Robert Lichfield."

• An August 19, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported that a school connected to Lichfield "has been ordered to refund more than $1 million to parents and stop misrepresenting itself." The school had no authority to issue high school diplomas, but issued 113 anyway, and falsely claimed to have been accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. An Associated Press article the same day also covered the order.

So: How much media coverage has there been of the troubles facing Romney's (now-former) Utah finance co-chairman?

A Nexis search for "Robert Lichfield and Romney" returns only 27 hits. None in The New York Times. One brief mention in The Washington Post. Nothing for USA Today or the Associated Press. Nothing for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.

I can already hear the excuses for the wildly disparate coverage of controversial campaign fundraisers connected to Clinton and Romney. Foremost among them will no doubt be the old standby: Republicans just push these stories more, so it's only natural that there are more media reports about Democrats.
Nonsense.

First, journalists shouldn't be stenographers for political parties and other partisans any more than they should be stenographers for war-hungry presidents. If the indictment of a Romney bundler on 23 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and fraud is newsworthy if the DNC sends out a press release, it is newsworthy if the DNC doesn't send out a press release, too.

Second, the DNC did send out a press release. In fact, of the 14 Nexis hits for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" that do not mention Hsu, eight of them are Democratic Party press releases, fact sheets, or other materials. Eight press releases, out of 14 hits. The "Democrats aren't pushing this" excuse doesn't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. The Democrats are pushing it. Reporters aren't covering it.
To be perfectly clear: I am not suggesting media shouldn't have reported the Norman Hsu story (though some of the coverage went overboard and seemed to be more about embarrassing the man than providing the public useful information). There does, however, appear to be a troubling disparity in the amount of coverage given controversial supporters of Republicans.

And that disparity is not new. Looking back over the last few presidential elections, there are numerous examples of wildly disparate coverage of analogous controversies. Bill Clinton's draft record received a huge amount of coverage in 1992; George W. Bush's was given little attention in 2000. A years-old investment in which the Clintons lost money was hyped as Watergate and Teapot Dome and the Kennedy assassination all rolled into one, then the media completely ignored newly revealed evidence during the 2000 campaign that suggested Bush had insider information for a stock sale in which he made about $800,000. Al Gore's lies, which weren't, were a dominant theme in campaign coverage that year, while George W. Bush's, which were, were ignored. Same for flip-flops in the 2004 campaign.

During a recent washingtonpost.com online discussion, Post reporter John Solomon was asked about his paper's failure to cover Fabian's connections to Romney. Solomon replied, in part, "[I]f you have any doubts about the Post's commitment to vet and examine leaders of both political parties, you only need to examine the front pages of the last few weeks that have included stories by myself and my colleagues exposing Karl Rove's 'asset deployment team,' the role of Dick Cheney's chief lawyer in pressing anti-terrorism policies that troubled some in government and our extensive coverage of the attorney general and Larry Craig controversies."
It is perhaps telling that none of the examples Solomon gave had anything to do with anyone running for the Republican presidential nomination.

phony intel to scare Congress into giving Bush what he wants?

Rep. Jane Harmon thinks so.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=&from=00&vid=5d71eafd-d2a4-400f-80ca-3e517ee6e192&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:Source_Countdown:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

and click on "Playing the Fear Card" item.

Hmmm.

This might be a good way to raise some money and make sure the girls are properly taken care of...

A Trip Down Memory Lane

Yay, we all get to make fun of Dan Rather again!

Healthcare Costs

It's not the insurers who are the bad guys....

In August, I had to go to the Emergency Room because I had a serious sinus infection that had moved to my lungs and I couldn't breathe. Unfortunately, my personal insurance coverage had lapsed so I was uninsured.

I went to the hospital about 10 PM....a nurse took my vitals. Then they did x-rays of my lungs. I was put on oxygen. A few hours later I spoke with a doctor briefly and then a respiratory therapist came in and put me on an inhaler. Afterwards I was released.

The bill was $975.

By my calculations I used up:

1/2 hour nurse time
1/4 hour doctor time
1/2 hour respiratory therapist time
Perhaps $10 in oxygen
Perhaps $20 in medicines
Perhaps $10 for the x-ray paper and miscellaneous

I was in the hospital for 5 hours but most of that was waiting. After you subtract out the material costs, that stay cost me about $175 per hour or a gargantuan $700 per hour of professional services time.

That's 4 times what the best attorney in town would cost.

And that, my friends, is the real problem.

Private industry and health care - this is another reason why it shouldn't be

Habana Health Care Center, a 150-bed nursing home in Tampa, Fla., was struggling when a group of large private investment firms purchased it and 48 other nursing homes in 2002.

The facility’s managers quickly cut costs. Within months, the number of clinical registered nurses at the home was half what it had been a year earlier, records collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services indicate. Budgets for nursing supplies, resident activities and other services also fell, according to Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration.

The investors and operators were soon earning millions of dollars a year from their 49 homes.

Residents fared less well. Over three years, 15 at Habana died from what their families contend was negligent care in lawsuits filed in state court. Regulators repeatedly warned the home that staff levels were below mandatory minimums. When regulators visited, they found malfunctioning fire doors, unhygienic kitchens and a resident using a leg brace that was broken.

“They’ve created a hellhole,” said Vivian Hewitt, who sued Habana in 2004 when her mother died after a large bedsore became infected by feces. (click on link to read the entire article)
More Profit and Less Nursing at Many Homes

Analyzing the Data

For this article, The New York Times analyzed trends at nursing homes purchased by private investment groups by examining data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Times examined more than 1,200 nursing homes purchased by large private investment groups since 2000, and more than 14,000 other homes. The analysis compared investor-owned homes against national averages in multiple categories, including complaints received by regulators, health and safety violations cited by regulators, fines levied by state and federal authorities, the performance of homes as reported in a national database known as the Minimum Data Set Repository and the performance of homes as reported in the Online Survey, Certification and Reporting database.

Single-Payer Plans

Here's an op-ed from last year by Michael Kinsley, not exactly a neocon. He reflects my opinion about 90%. Suzie, read this:

Before We Go 'Single Payer'
Insurance Reforms We Should Try
By Michael Kinsley
Friday, March 17, 2006

In the March 23 New York Review of Books, Paul Krugman makes the case for a health care system that is not only "single payer," meaning that the government handles the finances, but in some respects "single provider," meaning that the government supplies the service directly.

Krugman and his co-author, Robin Wells, correctly diagnose the problem with the Bush administration's pet health care solution of encouraging people (with tax breaks, naturally) to pay for routine care a la carte, instead of through insurance. Like Willie Sutton in reverse, this notion goes where the money isn't. Annual checkups and sore throats aren't what's bankrupting us: It's the gargantuan cost of treating people who are seriously ill. People who can get insurance against that risk would be insane not to, and the government would be insane to encourage them not to.

Most lucky Americans with good insurance are doubly isolated from financial reality: They don't pay for their health care, and they don't even pay for most of their insurance -- their employer or the government pays. Of course, one perversity of the current system is that you can lose your insurance either by losing your job, if you've got one, or by taking a job (and losing Medicaid), if you don't.

Krugman and Wells are persuasive -- it's not a hard sell -- about the nightmarish complexity and administrative costs of the current fragmented system. But they don't do much more than simply assert that a single, government-run insurance program would be more efficient. Even the most competitive industry can seem wasteful and inefficient when described on paper. Dozens of computer companies making hundreds of different, incompatible models, millions spent on advertising: Wouldn't a single, government-run computer agency producing a few standard models be more efficient? No, it wouldn't.

Krugman and Wells duck the issue of rationing -- saving money by simply not providing effective treatments that cost too much. They say, let's try single-payer first. So I say: Let's try some more modest reforms before plunging into single-payer.

Krugman and Wells note repeatedly that 20 percent of the population is responsible for 80 percent of health care costs. But that doesn't explain why health insurance should be different from other kinds. The small fraction of people involved in auto accidents in any year is responsible for almost all of the cost of auto insurance. You insure against the risk of being in that group.

What's different about health insurance is the opposite: Much of it isn't insurance at all but a subsidy. The value of the subsidy is the difference between what the individual pays and what the insurance would cost in the free market. If people were buying health care or insurance with their own money, they might or might not spend too much -- whatever "too much" is -- but no one else would need to care if they did.

A subsidy has to take from someone and give to someone else. Everybody can't subsidize everybody. Or, to put it another way, society cannot give the average citizen better health care than the average citizen would choose to buy on his or her own. And this is what people want.

Krugman and Wells believe that the average citizen will be sated by whatever bonus comes out of single-payer efficiencies. In this day of $100,000-a-year pills, I doubt it.

Even though we don't do it, most Americans surely think we ought to guarantee decent health care to everyone. In fact, most would probably be uncomfortable saying it's okay to have anything less than equal health care for everybody. Should a poor child die because her family can't afford a medicine that an insured, middle-class parent can pick up at the drugstore? Current government programs don't protect poor people very well against the cost of becoming sick. They do much better at protecting sick people against the risk of becoming poor. People who can afford insurance ought to protect themselves against a catastrophic health expense. But subsidizing this insurance for them is not only unnecessary, it is futile and unfair. No one is better able to afford health care for people of average means or above than they are themselves.

Krugman and Wells say that private insurance is flawed by "adverse selection": Insurance companies will avoid riskier customers. Only a single payer (that is, an insurance monopoly) can insure everybody, and spread the risk. But anyone is insurable at some price -- a price that reflects the cost he or she is likely to impose on the insurer. Adverse selection is only a problem to the extent that insurance is not really insurance but rather a subsidy.

If you're not as hopeful as Krugman and Wells about being able to avoid rationing, you face this question: Should people be allowed to opt out of rationing if they can afford it? That is, if the system (private or single-payer) won't pay for the $100,000 pill, should you be able to pay for it yourself? Fear that this would not be allowed helped to kill the Clinton health care reform 13 years ago. But explicitly granting some people life and health while denying these things to others is hard, even though this disparity has existed throughout history and is probably unavoidable. In fact, a serious defect of single-payer is that it makes all sorts of unbearable trade-offs explicit government policy, rather than obscuring them in complexities.

There are the makings of a deal here. Better-off or better-insured people could be told, individually or as a group: Give up your health care subsidy and you may opt out of any rationing-type restrictions that the system imposes. And if a few smaller reforms like that don't work, maybe it will be time for single-payer.

HillaryCare: The Return

Here we go again.

In 1993, Hillary severely damaged her husbands political capital with her universal healthcare plan and may have been a major contributor to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.

Now she has a plan to make purchasing private insurance mandatory and to support it via tax subsidies to the poor and tax increases aka eliminating cuts to the rich. She estimates the cost to be about $120 billion a year. When asked for the justification, she equates this to mandatory auto insurance laws in most states.

This whole plan makes me uncomfortable on multiple levels. And I would be it will make a lot of other people wary as well.

First ... is this Constitutional? The Federal Constitution is fairly rigid about what the Feds can mandate.

Second ... what would be the month to month costs for lower income families? Since the tax code is regressive, poor families might have to lay out cash on a monthly basis, painfully, and not reap the subsidy until the end of the year when filing.

Third ... I don't buy the $120 billion a year figure. I don't see anything in her plan addressing medical cost containment. Average family annual premiums run about $11,500, individuals $4400, and rates increase by anywhere from 6% to 15% annually.

Assuming the 45 million uninsured is accurate, of which perhaps 30 million are families, the annual cost would be about $550 BILLION dollars.

I don't see much in the way of employer contributions rising because I would surmise that most of the current uninsured don't have plans to participate in or there are no employer contributions. So where is the additional $400+ billion coming from? Certainly not the inidigent themselves...if they could afford it they'd already have it.

But let's compromise and assume the cost to the government ends up around $200 billion. Our current GDP growth is slowing down from the 4% it recently enjoyed. But, again, let's be wishful and assume that the GDP continues to rise at 4% in spite of the counterindications.

Also, bear in mind that Hillary wants to force the insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions and limit their ability to actuarialize their policy holders. This will undoubtedly accelerate the cost of premiums.

So, we're looking at a boondoggle that will cost as much as the war in Iraq and that cost will increase by at least 2 to 11% per year after GDP tax growth estimates - $4 to 24 billion growth each year. What will that do to taxes and economic growth?

Assuming she's the nominee her opponents are going to have a field day with this.

This reminds me of the monorail debacle in Seattle. A good idea that is unworkable and dangerously expensive.

The MoveOn Archives?

Heh. Expand to read.

Found on Craig's list SF

From an angry soldier

Subsidizing Sedition

Investor's Business Daily is hopping mad

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=274575840416598

Today's Cartoon

MM on Syndicated Columnists

Hey, MM can do an objective study! Who knew?

Their conclusions are misleading, though I have to give them credit for posting the data that shows where they are wrong.

By sheer circulation, conservatives lead progressive columnists and that is the basis for their contention of "conservative dominance". However, the last chart showing commentators by average newspaper circulation clearly shows a majority of large papers lean more liberal.

Furthermore, I would argue that the larger newspapers, ie the NY Times, is far more influential than the 20 small or medium papers carrying conservatives that when combined would equal their circulation.

Also, here's something to consider: Newspapers are subscription based, unlike the airwaves, people have to go out and buy papers. Therefore, isn't it likely that the papers will carry the columnists that they believe will appeal to their subscriber base and locale?

P.S. - I hope Suzie sits down before she reads this as I'm not often praising MM.

Top Democrat Vows to Block Possible Bush Nominee

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1227215020070912?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Monkeys in cages throwing feces.

Somebody should find something wrong with him besides being a Republican or STFU. I've never heard a negative comment of any merit against him.

Update: In the interest of fairness, I should note that Olsen's alleged involvement in the highly partisan Arkansas Project has never been fully vetted.

Vladimir the Great?

An interesting article about Russia's Vladimir Putin by Jay Winik. He compares Putin with Catherine the Great.

The author is a very respected historical writer. A few years back he wrote April 1865: The Month That Saved America which was one of the best books about the end of the Civil War I've ever read. It was turned into a documentary for the History Channel.

If World War 2 was a MMORPG

Hysterical


*Hitler[AoE] has joined the game.
**Eisenhower has joined the game.
**paTTon has joined the game.
**Churchill has joined the game.
**benny-tow has joined the game.
**T0J0 has joined the game.
**Roosevelt has joined the game.
**Stalin has joined the game.
**deGaulle has joined the game.
*Roosevelt: hey sup
T0J0: y0
Stalin: hi
Churchill: hi
Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0J0: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]: sure whatever
Stalin: cool
deGaulle: **** Hitler rushed some1 help
Hitler[AoE]: lol byebye frenchy
Roosevelt: i dont got crap to help, sry
Churchill: wtf the luftwaffle is attacking me
Roosevelt: get antiair guns
Churchill: i cant afford them
benny-tow: u n00bs know what team talk is?
paTTon: stfu
Roosevelt: o yah hit the navajo button guys
deGaulle: Eisenhower ur worthless come help me quick
Eisenhower: i cant do **** til rosevelt gives me an army
paTTon: yah hurry the fock up
Churchill: d00d im gettin pounded
deGaulle: this is fockin weak u guys suck
*deGaulle has left the game.
*Roosevelt: im gonna attack the axis k?
benny-tow: with what? ur wheelchair?
benny-tow: lol did u mess up ur legs AND ur head?
Hitler[AoE]: ROFLMAO
T0J0: lol o no america im comin 4 u
Roosevelt: wtf! thats bullsh1t u fags im gunna kick ur asses
T0J0: not without ur harbors u wont! lol
Roosevelt: u little biotch ill get u
Hitler[AoE]: wtf
Hitler[AoE]: america hax, u had depression and now u got a huge fockin army
Hitler[AoE]: thats bullsh1t u hacker
Churchill: lol no more france for u hitler
Hitler[AoE]: tojo help me!
T0J0: wtf u want me to do, im on the other side of the world retard
Hitler[AoE]: fine ill clear you a path
Stalin: WTF u arsshoel! WE HAD A FoCKIN TRUCE
Hitler[AoE]: i changed my mind lol
benny-tow: haha
benny-tow: hey ur losing ur guys in africa im gonna need help in italy soon sum1
T0J0: o **** i cant help u i got my hands full
Hitler[AoE]: im 2 busy 2 help
Roosevelt: yah thats right biznitch im comin for ya
Stalin: church help me
Churchill: like u helped me before? sure ill just sit here
Stalin: dont be an arss
Churchill: dont be a commie. oops too late
Eisenhower: LOL
benny-tow: hahahh oh sh1t help
Hitler[AoE]: o man ur focked
paTTon: oh what now biotch
Roosevelt: whos the cripple now lol
*benny-tow has been eliminated.
*benny-tow: lame
Roosevelt: gj paTTon
paTTon: thnx
Hitler[AoE]: WTF Eisenhower hax hes killing all my sh1t
Hitler[AoE]: quit u hacker so u dont ruin my record
Eisenhower: Nuts!
benny-tow: wtf that mean?
Eisenhower: meant to say nutsack lol finger slipped
paTTon: coming to get u hitler u paper hanging hun cocksocker
Stalin: rofl
T0J0: HAHAHHAA
Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
*Hitler[AoE] has been eliminated.
*benny-tow: OMG u noob you killed yourself
Eisenhower: ROFLOLOLOL
Stalin: OMG LMAO!
Hitler[AoE]: WTF i didnt click there omg this game blows
*Hitler[AoE] has left the game
*paTTon: hahahhah
T0J0: WTF my teammates are n00bs
benny-tow: shut up noob
Roosevelt: haha wut a moron
paTTon: wtf am i gunna do now?
Eisenhower: yah me too
T0J0: why dont u attack me o thats right u dont got no ships lololol
Eisenhower: fock u
paTTon: lemme go thru ur base commie
Stalin: go to hell lol
paTTon: fock this sh1t im goin afk
Eisenhower: yah this is gay
*Roosevelt has left the game.
*Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
*tru_m4n has joined the game.
*tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy sh*tholysh*thoylshti!!!111
*T0J0 has been eliminated.
**The Allied team has won the game!
*Eisenhower: awesome!
Churchill: gg noobs no re
T0J0: thats bullsh*t u fockin suck
*T0J0 has left the game.
**Eisenhower has left the game.
*Stalin: next game im not going to be on ur team, u guys didnt help me for ****
Churchill: wutever, we didnt need ur help neway dumbarss
tru_m4n: l8r all
benny-tow: bye
Churchill: l8r
Stalin: fock u all
tru_m4n: shut up commie lol
*tru_m4n has left the game.
*benny-tow: lololol u commie
Churchill: ROFL
Churchill: bye commie
*Churchill has left the game.
**benny-tow has left the game.
*Stalin: i hate u all fags
*Stalin has left the game.
*paTTon: lol no1 is left
paTTon: weeeee i got a jeep
*paTTon has been eliminated.
*paTTon: o sh1t!
*paTTon has left the game.