Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Dear Mr. Eastwood,

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 1, 2012, 12:47 p.m. EST by angrybusinessman (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Dear Mr. Eastwood,

Mr. Eastwood, I am a Republican. I am an angry Republican. I will NOT vote for Mr. Romney.

Mr. Eastwood, I am not an 80 year old man with $100,000,000, or however much money you have, and with medicare. I am a working stiff. I am a middle class, middle aged man who has worked in small businesses since I was a teenager, and I haven't been a teenager for decades. I pay for my own health insurance and yours. My insurance is expensive and what it covers is crappy. Fortunately I have never had a major illness. I would lose my insurance and my ability to work if I did. It has been my good luck and taking care of myself that makes it so that I can work to pay for your health insurance. You have excellent taxpayer paid health insurance, and I hope excellent health, too. Mr. Eastwood, I am not jealous of your weath. I am sure that you have worked hard and have had some good luck. I have worked hard and had some good luck, too. Mr. Eastwood, I am glad that you have been successful. However, Mr. Eastwood, why am I paying for your heath insurance?





Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

Even though he doesn't need Medicare to help him with his medical expenses, he has already paid more money into Medicare than probably 99.99% of the population. He is entitled to what he paid for as much as you and I are entitled to it.

[-] 1 points by petergreen4 (3) 11 years ago

I think Clint Eastwood was foolish to endorse either candidate. Obama and Romney are both tools of Wall Street.

That being said, I'd rather watch Eastwood debate an empty chair than listen to Obama or Romney say anything except that they are retiring.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

I agree 100% with all of that.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

health insurance makes no sense

healthcare should be publicly available

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 11 years ago

Like a utility, such as water or power? I think the "Hill Burton" plan, inaugurated by Roosevelt years ago was the closest we had to that. Here's more:

'Hill Burton' Hospital Principle

The rebuilding effort can best be done in the spirit of the 1946 "Hospital Survey and Construction Act," which, for 25 years, built up the hospital and health-care system to high standards and accessibility. The nine-page law, often called the "Hill-Burton Act," after the bipartisan co-sponsors of the Act, Sens. Lister Hill (D-Ala.), and Harold Burton (R-Ohio), mandated Federal and local cooperation and funding, to see that the goal would be achieved of having a community hospital in every county, to guarantee hospital care to citizens: in rural counties at a ratio of 5.5 beds per 1,000 (sparsely settled regions require redundancy); and in urban areas, 4.5 beds per 1,000.

The Hill-Burton concept sees the community hospital as the hub of regional networks of health services, involving education, public health, sanitation, defense against epidemics and disasters, and research.

At the same time that the Hill-Burton hospital construction boom proceeded—providing many of the 3,089 U.S. counties with their first hospital ever—public-health programs and applied medical R&D all but eliminated polio, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Pertussis (whooping cough) declined from a peak of 156,000 cases in 1947 to 14,800 in 1960; diphtheria declined from 18,700 cases in 1945, to 900 in 1960. Mosquito control programs—including the use of the insecticide DDT, begun in 1940—were on the way to eliminating malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.

By the mid-1970s, the Hill-Burton goal of 4.5 beds per 1,000 was nearly reached as the national average. Intervening laws furthered the approach: Amendments to the Hill-Burton Act in 1954 authorized funds for chronic-care facilities; in 1965, the Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs were begun.

Then came the downshift, in line with the 1970s policy turn towards deregulation, privatization, and globalization. On Dec. 29, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed into law, with bipartisan support, the "Health Maintenance Organization and Resources Development Act," which, along with follow-up laws, ushered in the era of deregulation of health-care delivery, to the point where today, over 2,000 hospitals have shut down. Likewise, core public-health functions have been drastically reduced; hundreds of counties now have next to no programs at all. One of the most dramatic examples comes from the nation's capital.

In Fall 2001, the Washington, D.C. metro region could barely cope with the anthrax attack, given that its leading community hospital, the 150-year old D.C. General—a 500-bed, full-service facility with a pathology laboratory and isolation wing—had been shut down only months before, by direct action of Congress.

Hospital Systems Decline

The number of community hospitals in the U.S. fell from nearly 7,000 in the mid-1970s, down to barely 5,000 in 1999, and today, stands at 4,897. The ratio of licensed hospital beds per 1,000 citizens has dropped from 4.5 in the 1970s, down to 3 today.

The false "alternative" to full-service hospitals, has been presented in the form of clinics. The Obama Administration's "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" is letting out $155 millions for 126 clinics. These are useful in themselves, but no substitute for hospitals and hospital networks. Even worse, there are those proposing that "doc-in-the-box" operations should supplant hospital systems, in order to offer cut-rate care as a pretense for real health insurance.

Look at the emergency situation on the state level. In New Jersey, in 2007, three acute-care hospitals closed, and five more filed for bankruptcy. On Feb. 18, the New Jersey Hospital Association released the results of a survey over the past two months, reporting that of the 37 of the state's 74 acute-care hospitals that responded to the survey, 27% had a drop in cash reserves, and were making drastic cuts in staff and services. Clinics associated with the hospitals were also cut. This is the nationwide pattern.

In March, in Dallas, Texas, the 95-bed Renaissance Hospital shut; the parent company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008. In New York City, two hospitals closed on March 1: Mary Immaculate, and St. Johns Queens, after Caritas Health Care, Inc. filed for bankruptcy in February. In Pennsylvania, on March 5, the 40-bed Brownsville Tri-County Hospital closed, after 93 years. It is 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

The Veterans Administration nationwide hospital system—in the forefront of many medical advances, from prosthetic therapies, to electronic records, to successfully battling MRSA—is being downsized to far below what is required to meet the needs of former servicemen, and their extended community.

Staff, Public Health Shortages

Many hallmark features of a modern health-care system are declining, for example, cancer-screening services per capita. This goes along with the downsizing or loss of hospital-centered webs of medical-care delivery. For example, the number of counties without mammography equipment is increasing.

Public health-care capacity has likewise been reduced below even minimum levels required to deal with mosquitoes, vermin, and other pests; monitor and deal with disease outbreaks; maintain sanitation; conduct vaccination programs, etc. No concerted effort was mounted to contain West Nile Virus when it first appeared. Lyme Disease—carried by ticks thriving in suburbanized environments—has spread to epidemic proportions in several areas, where the landscape has been de-structured by the now-collapsed McMansion boom. Denge Fever is resurgent in the Americas.

As of 2000, the total U.S. public health-care workforce numbered 448,000, which was 50,000 fewer than in 1980. Looked at per capita; in 1980, there were 220 public-health workers per 100,000 U.S. residents; but in 2000, this had fallen to 158 per 100,000.

Of the total public-health worker roster today, fully 23%, or 110,000 of them will be at retirement age by 2012, but new ranks are not being trained up in the required numbers. In December 2008, a report on the crisis was issued by the Association of Schools of Public Health (www.asph.org). The shortage of nurses exemplifies the general situation of understaffing in the U.S. medical-care delivery system across the board. At present, there are about 2.5 million nursing jobs in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that each year—without a major expansion of health-care delivery—an additional 233,000 nursing positions need to be filled. However, in 2007, only 200,000 candidates passed the Registered Nurse licensing examination. Thousands of nurses leave the profession each year.

White House Summit: 'Money,' Not Medicine

At the "White House Forum on Health Care Reform" March 5 in Washington, aspects of this shortages picture came up only secondarily. Instead, the theme was on "money," not the state of the physical economy. President Obama called for focusing on today's "exploding health care costs" in his opening remarks to the 120 attendees. This is in line with the new Administration budget proposal for a fund of $634 billion, intended to lead to universal health insurance, through "money-saving" ideas, and cost-cutting. Obama called on the Summit to discuss ways to provide medical care for the 48 million Americans lacking health insurance, as a "fiscal imperative" as well as a "moral" one. He wants legislation by the end of the year.

The ensuing Summit discussion then dwelt mostly on specific proposals for cost-suppression and incentives for cutting expenses while inducing people to "live healthy." There are advocates demanding deadly "evidence-based" and "outcome based" methods of coercing medics to use only mandated lists of symptoms and treatments, instead of judgment and science; the enforcement is to come from threatening to not pay them.

However, a few notable exceptions to this venality came from participants who gave accounts of how the lack of medical-care facilities and staff in their areas—and lack of infrastructure generally—mean that health care is just not available for millions of Americans right now, whether or not they have health insurance. Examples:

Missouri: Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R) said that her district has 28 rural counties, where many cannot get medical treatment, because it isn't there to be had. This is typical of rural counties cross country, where there is a "workforce shortage," and "decaying rural health-care infrastructure." There aren't enough doctors, nurses, and other staff. We "need to fix and build rural health-care infrastructure." Furthermore, people can't travel the distances to seek care. "We don't have public transportation at all.... Unless you are a senior [potentially eligible for van service] you have no public transportation."

Pennsylvania: Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) said the situation is now the same in many urban and suburban areas. In half of her own 13th C.D., "you can't have a baby!" In northeast Philadelphia, they no longer have obstetrical services at the hospitals. Sure, she said, "You can go somewhere else to have your baby—if you can get there!"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

where can I get a check up ?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

As a healthcare provider, I tend to agree. Someone has to pay for it though.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

health should be paid for by the government

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

I pretty much agree, but it does take away from the patient-doctor relationship. As a dentist, I don't deal with Medicare but I volunteer sometimes at a clinic that takes Medicaid patients and usually it isn't the patient and myself who decide on a treatment plan, but Medicaid does. Every day I am there, I extract teeth that are completely restorable but Medicaid has already decided for us that the extraction is the one and only treatment. It is extremely frustrating for both the patients and myself because we both would typically like to save the tooth.

If a single payer system is similar, it would be awful. Patients and doctors would no longer have a discussion and make a decision. The decision would already be made.

[-] -2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 11 years ago

I doubt that is true.

Medicare is paid for with FICA taxes. You only pay FICA on income from wages. You pay zero FICA tax on any wage you get paid above ~$105k (I forget the exact number but that is approximately what it is).

And you pay ZERO FICA tax on investment income.

Since most wealthy people get paid their income as investment income (profit, dividends, capita gains, etc.), in order to avoid taxes, they pay no FICA tax.

So there is a good chance Eastwood paid nothing or very little into Medicare.

[-] 4 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

There is actually no limit on the Medicare portion of the contribution like there is for SS.



And starting next year it will be 3.8% on all investment income as well.

I have no doubt he pays a lower tax rate than most but all the millions he has made from movie royalties and production contracts had Medicare contributions removed from it and starting in a few months all of his investment income will also. He has paid plenty into Medicare and is about to start paying a lot more.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 11 years ago

I don't think the claim that there is no limit on the Medicare portion is correct. And the source you linked to does not confirm that there is no limit.

Plus, Eastwood is likely paid in investment income, not a salary from a movie studio. The studio probably pays Eastwood's production company and does not hire him as an employee. So I don't think he pays anything into Medicare.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

It is 100% correct. And he obviously makes a lot from investments but to say he has not made a ton of regular income over his career is naive.


See the second to last paragraph on the first page:

" For higher-income taxpayers (more than $200,000/individual and $250,000/couple), the payroll tax on earnings will increase by 0.9 percentage points, from 1.45% to 2.35%, in 2013."

I am fortunate enough to make over the SS limit so I will also tell you from first hand experience that it is true. After I stop contributing to SS, I still pay 2.9% (because I work for myself) on all my income. So it is either true or my CPA has been playing a very, very dirty trick on me all these years.

[-] 1 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 11 years ago

You just exposed yourself. Con-gratulations

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 11 years ago

I swear all my clothes are on and have been the entire time I have been posting.

[-] 0 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 11 years ago



[-] 4 points by marvelpym (-184) 11 years ago

It was weird, but even though Obama says it didn't bother him, I don't believe that. If you are an American man and Clint Eastwood says you aren't doing your job, that has to sting.

[-] 3 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

last week when asked , obama said he didnt watch the convention. after the convention he said that "It was a re-run. We'd seen it before.You might as well have watched it on black and white T.V." he said he didnt watch it, then he said he did.

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

Why has the cost of your health insurance increased and quality of care decreased while over the same period the opposite has occurred with things like TVs, mobile phones, computers, and cars?

[+] -4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Do some reading, and learn some facts.

It's not what you are thinking. It's all about the profits.


It seems we've had this same argument once before.

Are you addicted to deja vu?

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

Why have profits improved things like TVs, mobile phones, computers, and cars but have failed to improve things like healthcare, education, and public transportation?

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

Cuz the govt doesn't try to involve our tax dollars in tvs and puters.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago


Gov involvement in anything nearly always drives up the cost and degrades the quality.

[-] -2 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 11 years ago

Government is involved in research and development that has benefited private industry fundamentally and on a massive scale,from the level of student loans and subsidies through research grants to Academia,all the way up to actual creation of entirely new avenues of human endeavor such as IT and the Aerospace industry.Indeed,Capitalists do not finance expensive R&D in numerous disciplines precisely because they know they need only wait for R&D in Academia and the military to bear fruit,at which time they can swoop in and enjoy a lucrative harvest without having borne the expenses of research efforts that failed to pan out.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

You DO realize that every dime "government" spends comes from yours and mine pockets?

When O said 'You didn't build that" he kinda forgot that it wasn't gov, but TAX DOLLARS extracted from one and all that built our infrastructure. Govt does not create wealth.

[-] 5 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

Workers create wealth, everyone else just plays with it.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

indeed! Too bad we let our elite politburo make a life off of it. I say one term, 6 yrs. No pension. Insurance ends with your term. that way you aren't worried about the next election or beholden to your supporters.

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

ehhh. It takes a long time to get good at a job that complicated. I'm not in love with politicians either but I do respect experience. I think the short term limits are just an easy answer. I think it's going to take a lot of smaller adjustments to get what we need from the situation. The stop to insider trading was a little noticed but powerful beginning.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

I see what you are saying about experience, but hey...our elected reps neither write NOR READ bills they pass. How hard can it be?

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

Yes, that is Really big problem. Part of that is many of the bills are prepackaged solutions from lobbying firms. They figure, "hey, it was written by educated people, it must be ok and what they told us it was". This needs to end or the public needs an offset for introducing these prepackaged solutions ourselves.

[-] 1 points by GoldmanSachs (6) from New York, NY 11 years ago

And who exactly is the "worker"? The way I see it, everyone from the CEO to the janitor is a 'worker'.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

It was an inclusive statement, not exclusionary. Well ok, investors do not count as workers. It points to the forgotten importance of the laborer, just as you perceived.

[-] 2 points by GoldmanSachs (6) from New York, NY 11 years ago

Investors may not count as workers but remember they provide the capital which when combined with labour leads to production. That being said, IMHO the person who actually does the work is more important than the one who provides the capital (whether it's investors or bankers)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

wealth comes from the earth resources

[-] 0 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 11 years ago

Government collects the revenue which is redirected theoretically to the places where it will do the most good.The mechanism for allocating these funds is called The United States Congess-AKA-We The People.Sometimes it works,sometimes it doesn't work,but your main point does not make sense and is apropos of nothing because nobody has stated that governments create wealth.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 11 years ago

That's the point. We all built it together. Government is a facilitator that lays a foundation that helps to enable the wealthy to become wealthy. Hopefully socio-economic policy is such that gives the best possible opportunities to everyone. That helps to achieve the broadest possible prosperity. Because that's good for everyone. Including the wealthy. We're all in this together.

[-] -2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

Government does not create wealth, but it does channel it through democratic consensus. If there were no government, there would be war between the haves and the havenots. And that my friend is a truth most Americans are too greedy to realize. Destroy your government, and you destroy your futures.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

I never said I wanted to destroy the govt? I was merely disagreeing with TRASHY'S r&d nonsense.

That said, I don't appreciate getting my pockets picked by career politicans with their own self interested agenda.

[-] -2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

That is my point, your pocket gets picked to ensure you have a pocket to pick. Get over yourself, and except the reality of the situation.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

If the govt wasn't so wasteful, their hands wouldn't get into my pockets so deeply. I must respectfully request you, too, get over yourself and give it a rest. I see your point, but then again, I never said I didn't believe in govt. Seems to me we really don't have anythign more to discuss .

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Stop repeating yourself.

I've already gone over this with you.

You didn't read a thing from the link, or you would have had something to say about it, instead of repeating yourself off subject.

You also have that backwards. (That's not surprising).

Those things you quote have actually improved profit, not the other way around.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

Gov involvement in anything nearly always drives up the cost and degrades the quality. Profit is the motivation for improvement.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Now you want to bring thinly veiled partisanship into it?

I was avoiding commenting on government today.

Spoken like a CATO operative, however, none of that statement is inarguably true, nor the veracity of it.

Speaking your BIG lie over and over, won't work on me.

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

The incompetence and corruption of Gov is not a Dem or Rep issue. It is an issue at which they are both equally proficient.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Actually the "issues" have been and still are the province of neolibe(R)tarians.

They are indeed Worldwide, negating all thoughts of dem/rep.

[-] 2 points by Uneasy (19) 11 years ago

You will not vote for Romney but millions of others will.


[-] 2 points by ClearView (73) 11 years ago

well put question. Lets level the playing field. Occupy Common Sense! No more double standard.

[-] 2 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

what makes you think he doesnt have private insurance. many people , who, when they reach 65 , choose to keep their private insurance. thats the way it was before obamacare. under obamacare, when a person reaches 65 they MUST enroll in medicare, they have no choice. its now the law.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 11 years ago

Clint Eastwood served one or more terms as mayor of Carmel,California,and he may have pension and/or health care benefits available to him if he worked in the city's government long enough.Mr.Eastwood is now and has been for many years a member of a labor union known as the Screen Actors Guild.I am not aware of the specific provisions of their benefit package,but I do know that their insurance includes a provision for Long Term Care which is a type of coverage rarely seen due to the fact that it is extremely expensive.I think it is likely that SAG members probably do not pay anywhere near as high premiums for this type of coverage for the reason that their policy has included this coverage since the 1920's and the union has probably been able to grandfather it in when negotiating with the insurance company.Mr.Eastwood probably has stayed with the insurance plan that most closely corresponds with his needs,and would,given his financial resources possibly choose a plan based on that consideration rather that switching from plan to plan to save a relatively small amount of money.I do know well-heeled people who do spend considerable time constantly switching around insurance policies in order to pay the least,but I think that is actually a part of an obsessive compulsive penny pinching thing that some well-heeled people are prone to rather than a common occupation of rich and well-heeled insurance consumers.Since SAG provides its members with comprehensive,affordable insurance and in Eastwood's case those policies predate his political forays in Carmel,that is almost certainly the policy he is still on.Judging from his appearance and demeanor when he gave his talk on behalf of Mitt Romney,he would be well advised to avoid any public speaking engagements in the future because he seemed enfeebled and confused-not good qualities for a Movie Star to put on view before audiences.

[-] 0 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

the way eastwood looked was on purpose. you dont understand acting , do you?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 11 years ago

They want to means test medicare and social security in order to change the thinking of the population about those programs- turning them into "welfare" instead of "insurance I have worked for". Once the public regards these as "welfare" programs it is politically easier to cut, cut, cut and cut again.



[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Two things with this....

  1. When a campaign has no change of winning, they go for strange things like parading on actors during the nomination annoucnement night. Romney is a joke, he doesnt stand a chance against Obama.

  2. Medicare is an auto enrollment. They dont allow you to say no. You are in whether you want to be or not. Just like you are taxed on it whether you want it or not.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

Which is really the only fair way to do it.

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

before obama care, you had the right to have private insurance upon turning 65. with obamcare, you longer have that right.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Debating a chair is the only way for them to win a debate based on facts.

Thanks for demonstrating that Mr. Eastwood.

[-] 4 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

the EMPTY chair represents the the empty suit that obama is. was that too dificult for you to grasp? eastwood wasnt " debating" an empty chair, he ws using the empty chair to show that obama is vacuous.

[-] 4 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

It takes a brain to recognize irony! Save your breath.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

So now you want to claim poetic license?

LOL That's a funny one, there.

That whole "speech" was pretty vacuous in and of itself.

He's a piece on the science.


NO wonder you guys hate that stuff, if you can't make a profit on it.

Truth hurts.


[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

ahHahaha on Aussie TV? Awesome.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

Yep. That's the dot au extension.

Taxpayer funded tele. Purportedly leftwing, but I don't see it that way.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Public Broadcast Service - yeah we have that - PBS - and quite often that is a source for real information. Not like what is offered off of corpoRAT TV.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

Oh, that's what PBS means.

Thanks for that.

We have SBS as well, which is our multicultural branch of the ABC. Their World News show is probably the best of our channels for real information.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

GOD Bless and keep em honest - Hey?

[-] 0 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 11 years ago

Moyers & Co, best show on TV.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Moyers does quite often have a very outstanding show.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Thanks for that builder..........................:)

Be very afraid if one of your own Aussie parties drafts Mel Gibson to do something similar..................................:)

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

Mel's a kiwi. Meaning from New Zealand.

We disowned him after that drunken rant.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Thanks again.

My mistake.

Good thing you disowned him, I don't think the drunken rant is over yet.....:)

I think it all started to fall apart for him when he brought Brittany Spears to his compound.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

No shit. What a dog. ummm take your pick.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

LOL - what about the Crow?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Hell - they wouldn't want to risk suffering through a reply!