American Individualism
Jonathan Cohn writes “I would concede that America’s strong individualistic streak makes the country inhospitable to government activism, at least relative to Western Europe.”
I think sometimes people are too quick to make concessions of this sort. It does seem to be the case that the Anglophone states have a systematically less expansive state in a way that makes it tempting to look for a cultural explanation. But at the same time, Canada and the UK have among the most heavy-handed government health care systems in the world. And when trying to understand why we differ so much from our Anglosphere cousins in that regard, I don’t think it’s very enlightening to talk about culture or individualistic streaks. FDR decided against making a big push for universal health care during the New Deal era not because of “individualism” but because of racism, it would raise a thicket of questions about integrating hospitals and so forth that he didn’t want to deal with. In later periods, efforts to create a universal health care system have been stymied by the institutions of American government which features a relatively large number of “veto points” at which organized interests can block legislative initiatives. If the United States had a Westminster-style political system we would almost certainly have implemented a universal health care program during one of our earlier periods of progressive ascendancy, the program wouldn’t have been dismantled.
In general, I don’t think people should overestimate the role of public opinion in constraining policymaking. People don’t generally have detailed opinions about policy issues, and politicians can “get away” with doing all kinds of stuff as long as it doesn’t wind up blowing up into some kind of obvious disaster down the road. By contrast, institutional factors create very real constraints on what people can do. A farm reform bill would need to go through the Agriculture Committees which are both chuck full ‘o congressfolk who represent the beneficiaries of current bad policies. Consequently, nothing can be done. One could look at all the grain-fed beef we eat in the United States and conclude that our cultural proclivity for grain-fed beef is causing our agricultural policies, but that’s almost certainly backwards — people come to think of the results of longstanding policies as “normal.”
63 Responses to “American Individualism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It seems that the Bush administration was never constrained by public opinion, criticism in the media or congressional opposition– they sailed with the wind… right onto the rocks.
Will the next administration have a similarly free hand in undoing the damage?
October 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
In other words, what Alesina et al. said:
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/534
October 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Couldn’t it be that we have a government with a lot of ‘veto-points’ because of our relatively individualistic culture that wants to keep the government from making rapid changes without mass consensus? And how exactly did you read FDR’s mind to know that lack of popular support/individualism wasn’t a reason for his forgoing universal health care?
October 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
FDR decided against making a big push for universal health care during the New Deal era not because of “individualism” but because of racism
All of the reasons that we do not have a decent social net in the US can be attributed to racism. In a European country, the person who benefits is likely a distant cousin of the ones who pay. You are helping your “family”. In the US, racism keeps us from helping our neighbors – because some of the money might go to “those” people.
It’s 2008 and it sickens me. The US was founded on the backs of slaves, and we still carry it around our necks like a stone.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Matt, do you have a citation for the claim that it was segregation that stymied universal health care under the New Deal? I can see that segregation made it impossible to pass, but I’m not sure segregation was the binding constraint.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Don’t think it was easy to establish the NHS in the UK, the Labour government that did was thrown out at the next election in part as a side effect.
One thing that some people often forget about is the number of revolutions that there have been in Europe in the last few hundred years, the ruling elite know how easy it can be to lose their lives if they upset too many. Perhaps someone setting up a guillotine on The Mall in Washington, DC would concentrate a few minds among the Washington elite.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“And how exactly did you read FDR’s mind to know that lack of popular support/individualism wasn’t a reason for his forgoing universal health care?”
Because universal health care proposals had broad support? And always has?
October 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
always have…
jesus
October 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Yes! I have argued this for years. If the US had a parliamentary system like the UK, we would have had a national health care system either under Truman or Clinton, when you had their party controlling the legislature.
The US has more barriers to government actually doing anything than any other large Democracy.
Bicameralism
Judicial Review
Executive separate from the legislature
Federal structure, with explicit limits to Federal power
Executive Veto
Filibuster
States having a near mirror-image of all of these obstacles
Usually most of these checks and balances are considered features, not bugs. I won’t argue the point (although I hate the filibuster), but let’s not pretend that this isn’t an inherent part of America’s Constitutional design. It says nothing about America’s inherent individualism if its simply our structure of governance that makes it impossible to have the size of government we see elsewhere.
One can argue that the US structure is a reflection of that individualism, and there is some truth to that, but if so its mostly a reflection of individualism at the point of creation, not now, and it is also a reflection of the world’s lack of experience with large scale democracies at the time, and the fact that the system was designed to be amenable to 13 different mostly-autonomous states, who could opt out of signing on if they didn’t like what they saw.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Couldn’t it be that we have a government with a lot of ‘veto-points’ because of our relatively individualistic culture that wants to keep the government from making rapid changes without mass consensus?
Or perhaps American government has a lot of veto points because 18th century slaveholders didn’t want too strong a federal government, because this might mean it would take action against the peculiar institution? Looking at the actual history of our institutions generally helps on subjects like this.
And how exactly did you read FDR’s mind to know that lack of popular support/individualism wasn’t a reason for his forgoing universal health care?
Surely it is your job, as the person making the claim, to demonstrate that FDR was motivate by such things. And there is, of course, evidence beyond “reading FDR’s mind” – written documents and the like.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“It says nothing about America’s inherent individualism if its simply our structure of governance that makes it impossible to have the size of government we see elsewhere.”
The fact that the United States has the world’s largest government is what gives discussions such as these a disorienting lunar quality (although I agree with the jist of the comment from which I quote).
Discussions of the individualist ethic as an explanation for the history of American government are popular among pundits, Jamie and other assorted dummies. But the conversation is an empty one. The truth is that our government, like every other in the history of the world, is interventionist and forever growing, exercised and influenced by people and groups who have no scruple over enlisting the power of the state on their own behalf. The most meaningful question so far as I can tell is: which people, which groups? Then you ask how? why?
But “individualism” is a non-starter.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
One can argue that the US structure is a reflection of that individualism, and there is some truth to that, but if so its mostly a reflection of individualism at the point of creation, not now, and it is also a reflection of the world’s lack of experience with large scale democracies at the time, and the fact that the system was designed to be amenable to 13 different mostly-autonomous states, who could opt out of signing on if they didn’t like what they saw.
Well, those who favor restructuring the government to greatly increase the centralization of power and reduce the role of all those pesky checks and balances have had two hundred years to amend the Constitution for their purposes. It doesn’t seem to be anywhere on the horizon. Americans don’t seem to want a parliamentary-style system today any more than they did 200 years ago.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
One thing that some people often forget about is the number of revolutions that there have been in Europe in the last few hundred years, the ruling elite know how easy it can be to lose their lives if they upset too many.
Indeed. That’s why it’s become habitual in modern historiography to call the English Civil War the ‘British Revolutions’ and why ‘the American Revolution’ really wasn’t one.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think the same thing when I hear people say, “Americans won’t give up their cars. They love their cars. Whereas other people love being crammed into buses.” Baloney. Americans treat their cars like the outhouse that they don’t clean. They practically live in them because they have no other choice, and don’t enjoy much of the time they’re driving in them. Your average car trip is not _On the Road_, like car commercials make it out to be.
Now Germans *do* love their cars. And they have a lot better transit than we do.
“In later periods, efforts to create a universal health care system have been stymied by the institutions of American government which features a relatively large number of “veto points” at which organized interests can block legislative initiatives.”
But most other wealthy democracies are not majoritarian Westminster systems. Some in fact have more veto points than the U.S. does. Say Switzerland. Italy, too–another country where citizens complain about gridlock and the legislature not doing anything. So is your point that the *combination* of a lack of solidarity (due to racism) and consensual institutions are to blame for a smaller welfare state in the U.S.? Maybe so.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Ignoring the silly glibertarian boy ’seeming’ things from his ass, the obvious point is that the US constitution went from being a means to an end to an end in itself fairly quickly. It took, in essence, a bloody civil war to get Amdts 13, 14 and 15, after a 61-year gap. Substantial changes to a constitution that’s difficult to amend require major upheavals. People don’t seem to like civil wars or coups, for some strange reason.
The more interesting question is at what point the US constitution began being treated as holy writ.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
They practically live in them because they have no other choice,
Er, who’s stopping Americans from choosing differently? Americans have been progressively shifting from public transportation to cars for nearly a century. To what force that Americans are powerless to resist do you attribute this transformation in travel?
Now Germans *do* love their cars. And they have a lot better transit than we do.
Germans are abandoning transit for cars just like Americans. All across Europe, cars are displacing transit.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
the obvious point is that the US constitution went from being a means to an end to an end in itself fairly quickly.
“The obvious point” here meaning “pseudo’s wild unsubstantiated speculation.”
Substantial changes to a constitution that’s difficult to amend require major upheavals.
If Americans consider the amendment process to be too difficult they are free to add an amendment to make it easier. Given that they’ve managed to amend the Constitution 27 times for other purposes, this doesn’t seem to be a big deal.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“The obvious point” here meaning “pseudo’s wild unsubstantiated speculation.”
Actually his point is completely commonsensical and helpful to conservatives, I would think: our constitutionalism is civil religious. It’s constitutive of our national identity and a source of “meaning”. That is, an end in itself–valuable in and of itself.
idiot.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Actually his point is completely commonsensical and helpful to conservatives, I would think: our constitutionalism is civil religious. It’s constitutive of our national identity and a source of “meaning”. That is, an end in itself–valuable in and of itself.
The fact that there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution over the past 200 years, and thousands more unsuccessful attempts to amend the document, the idea that Americans view the Constitution as some kind of sacrosanct quasi-religious artifact is clearly preposterous.
Moron.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
the big difference between us and Europe is black people.
Really, that’s the explanation.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Americans view the Constitution as some kind of sacrosanct quasi-religious artifact is clearly preposterous.”
Really, amending the constitution is akin to throwing it out? Extending voting rights is a rejection of the idea of a presidency and bi-cameral legislature? People generally view the Consitution as a bad thing? The flag is a treasured symbol but not we the people?
Poopy face.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Really, amending the constitution is akin to throwing it out?
No, amending the Constitution means changing it. If Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to change the structure of our government, they would do so.
Imbecile.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“No, amending the Constitution means changing it. If Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to change the structure of our government, they would do so.”
So you agree with me?
Cock-boxer.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Re: But at the same time, Canada and the UK have among the most heavy-handed government health care systems in the world. And when trying to understand why we differ so much from our Anglosphere cousins in that regard, I don’t think it’s very enlightening to talk about culture or individualistic streaks.
I suspect it’s purely a historical accident, not due to any deep reason of national character. The USA expanded its employer-based system enormously during WWII, when wage and price controls did not allow employers to raise wages, only offer more munificant benefits. And after WWII unions sucessfully fought to extend comprehensive insurance plans to working people as well. There just wasn’t a large uninsured population in the US to demand a government healthcare system. And even so it was a near thing: Richard Nixon’s plan (which resembles Obama’s in the larger outline) might well have pased the Senate but for some partisan sniping at the time (1971, I think), and we would have universal healthcare with about half the population at least under a public plan.
Meanwhile note that Britain was able to carry out the sort of “privatization” of their retirement system that sends politicians here to the bargain basement of popularity.
Re: the big difference between us and Europe is black people.
Europeans have minorites too that they have traditionally viewed as subhumans or abhumans– and often treated that way. The Jews, obviously. The Roma. In Britain, the Irish. In some parts of Europe, Slavic peoples. And nowadays Muslim immigrants everywhere. Anyone who thinks Europe has a history happily free of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination might wish to consider a visit to a little town in Poland now known as Oswiecim.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Given that they’ve managed to amend the Constitution 27 times for other purposes, this doesn’t seem to be a big deal.
Let’s enumerate for the silly glibertarian boy, shall we?
- 1-10: en banc in the Bill of Rights, submitted while the ink was still drying on the ratification documents for the Constitution. That’s about 37% of the total straight off.
- 11: prompted by a SCOTUS decision in 1793 denying sovereign immunity to the states.
- 12: prompted by the fucked-up 1800 election.
[61 year gap]
- 13-15: prompted by a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
[43 year gap]
That gets you past half-way. Even the twentieth century amendments generally came after moments of national turmoil or crisis: women’s suffrage, the moving-forward of the inauguration (Great Depression), the abolition of poll taxes (Civil Rights), the presidential succession (JFK’s assassination), the lowering of the voter age to 18 (Vietnam).
So, the US Constitution has, in fact, been amended only 15 times in the past 200 years, and over half of those changes were prompted by the kinds of civil and political upheaval that a populace generally prefers to avoid.
Still, it’s nice to know that Mixner’s enough of a fucktard to think that name-changing and parroting makes him look less of a fucktard. A pity that he’s ignorant of history, civics and pretty much everything.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
pseudo,
So, the US Constitution has, in fact, been amended only 15 times in the past 200 years,
To be precise, 27 amendments have been made to the constitution since 1791. That’s 27 amendments over 217 years. And thousands more proposed amendments.
That’s what makes your claim that the Consitution is “treated as holy writ” such utter nonsense, fucktard.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Americans are actually among the least individualistic people around. In general I would say, but specifically in regards to politics. Especially in regard to political speech. Double that when it comes to political topics in all media, as we all know.
The universal celebration of or individuality is in itself a marker of our conformity. A habit or tic which provides comfort to all.
This may seem off topic but I am a motorcyclist but don’t ride a Harley or that style of bike. 60% of all large displacement bikes sold are Harleys. On any given weekend you can find hundreds or thousands of their owners gathering together to celebrate their individuality, their non conformity. Embracing and advertising their outlaw nature. Most dressed in the idealized style of the original biker outlaws. Those late 40’s disaffected WWII GI’s who declared themselves the One Percenters. Now 60% are the one percenters. Go figure.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Mixner become Dick become Mixer again,
You’re confusing the constitution with constitutionalism. The former is the document; the latter is the constitutional system–the system of government–the tripartite institutional framework. Changes in the constitution were efforts to preserve the constitutional system in the face of changing realities. We added an income tax because certain articulate sectors of the public–the progressives–saw the overwhelming concentration of private wealth as a harbinger of oligopoly while others–the conservatives–saw said concentration as an invitation to socialism. The lesson here: both groups acted in order to preserve the system as it existed.
Americans are loyal to American constitutionalism. We extended the right to vote so that more people could participate. We instituted presidential terms limits in order to preserve the constitutional balance of power. We formalized the system of vice-presidential succession so that in the face of crisis the constitutional system would run smoothly.
It’s not difficult to understand Mix/Dick/Mix: our constitutionalism is the thing–our constitution is just the document–the system in writing. We’ve added to (note: not re-written) the document in order to preserve the system.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
The US was founded on the backs of slaves, and we still carry it around our necks like a stone.
For all his faults, LBJ addressed this issue as no President subsequently has dared to do.
More than 40 years later, I still find the rhetoric in
LBJ at Harvard in 1965
to be breath-taking, in its palpable engagement.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Whoops, for “Harvard” read “Howard”,
but all else stands.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Matt: “In general, I don’t think people should overestimate the role of public opinion in constraining policymaking.”
But he thinks Obama is going to listen to him rather than the military-industrial complex when he increases the war in Afghanistan, starts one in Pakistan, and probably another in Iran.
Oh, but MAYBE Obama will get us out of Iraq! And since Matt is still smarting over having supported that war initially, that’s all that counts. Obama is the “good guy” who MAYBE will get us out of Iraq – and then send another 100,000 troops to Afghanistan because that’s the “good war”.
Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad
http://www.counterpunch.org/everest10172008.html
And if that doesn’t tell you that 9/11 was known in the White House as about to occur, I don’t know what does. They get a plan to attack Afghanistan the DAY BEFORE 9/11?
Civilian dead are a trade-off in Nato’s war of barbarity
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/afghanistan-nato
October 21st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Mixner become Dick become Mixer again,
Does he, “Mark?”
You’re confusing the constitution with constitutionalism.
Sorry, “Mark,” you’re the one who’s confused. Hopelessly, deliriously confused. Pseudo didn’t say “constitutionalism.” He said “the US constitution.” His nonsensical assertion is that “the US constitution” is treated as a “holy writ,” not that “constitutionalism” is.
You’re not only an imbecile, you’re an illiterate imbecile.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad
Indeed. The war in Afghanistan is a Bad War, fought unwisely, for mistaken reasons.
The war in Iraq is a Bad and totally Dumb War.
Obama’s easy assumption that he would vigourously prosecute the former while abandoning the latter was one of the weakest points in his debates.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Dick/Mixner,
First I wrote this:
Actually his point is completely commonsensical and helpful to conservatives, I would think: our constitutionalism is civil religious. It’s constitutive of our national identity and a source of “meaning”. That is, an end in itself–valuable in and of itself.
Then you wrote this:
The fact that there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution over the past 200 years, and thousands more unsuccessful attempts to amend the document, the idea that Americans view the Constitution as some kind of sacrosanct quasi-religious artifact is clearly preposterous.
Now you wrote this:
Sorry, “Mark,” you’re the one who’s confused. Hopelessly, deliriously confused. Pseudo didn’t say “constitutionalism.” He said “the US constitution.” His nonsensical assertion is that “the US constitution” is treated as a “holy writ,” not that “constitutionalism” is.
You’re not only an imbecile, you’re an illiterate imbecile.
Now I say this:
I love you.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
All of the reasons that we do not have a decent social net in the US can be attributed to racism. In a European country, the person who benefits is likely a distant cousin of the ones who pay. You are helping your “family”. In the US, racism keeps us from helping our neighbors – because some of the money might go to “those” people.
Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the last great welfare program enacted resulted in ~70% illegitimacy rates and the explosion of a criminal underclass?
October 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Mark,
Thanks for confirming what Dick just explained to you. Pseudo said “the constitution,” not “constitutionalism.” You do understand those are not the same thing, don’t you?
October 21st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
harry/dick/mixner
read closely.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
But at the same time, Canada and the UK have among the most heavy-handed government health care systems in the world.
I can’t speak for the UK but I don’t know how you can say Canada has a heavy-handed health care system
1) Its not a federal government health care system; its administered by each province with some differences among them.
2) It’s not administered by bureaucrats or insurance companies. My doctor decides as a professional what care I need, not a desk jockey or junior cubicle inmate. Its simply a single-payer system: the provincial health ministries pay the physicians and hospitals but they do not question their professional judgements.
3) Heavy-handed? Its there when I need it but otherwise not in my life.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
D…I mean, Mark,
As Dick pointed out, you are hopelessly confused. Find a dictionary. Look up the word “constitution.” Then look up the word “constitutionalism.” Note the difference in meaning.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
mixner cum dick cum mixner cum dick cum harry,
constitutionalism has a number of meanings. please read post 28.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
2) It’s not administered by bureaucrats or insurance companies. My doctor decides as a professional what care I need, not a desk jockey or junior cubicle inmate.
The doctor’s ability to prescribe tests and treatments for you is limited by what government bureaucrats decide to pay for, as is how quickly you can get them. The Canadian health care system, like the British one, is plagued by rationing and waiting lists due to underfunding.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
D…Mark,
You do know that “constitutionalism” doesn’t mean the same thing as “constitution,” don’t you?
Please read all of Mixner’s and Dick’s posts in this thread. As carefully as you can. Pay very close attention.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The war in Afghanistan is a Bad War, fought unwisely, for mistaken reasons.
Barbarity and contempt
“This is the conflict western politicians and media continue to urge their reluctant populations to support as a war for civilisation. In reality, it is a war of barbarity, whose contempt for the value of Afghan life has fuelled the very resistance that western military and political leaders are now unable to contain.”
October 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“Please read all of Mixner’s and Dick’s posts in this thread. As carefully as you can.”
D…harry/mixner/dick,
Your split personality thing is very charming.
I really don’t know what you yourself and I were going on about–something about amendments as proof of American disloyalty to the constitution. Quite puzzling.
Goodnight sweet prince.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
To be precise, 27 amendments have been made to the constitution since 1791.
So, when you referred to “[t]he fact that there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution over the past 200 years” were you lying or just ignorant? Because 12 of those 27 (that’s 4/9, or 44.44% to two decimal places) were approved, not in the past 200 years, but before that period. So, it was one of your out-o’th’ass “facts”.
It’s very simple here: you were wrong, so admit you were wrong.
Your talk of ‘thousands more proposed amendments’ is equally silly, though it does prove my point. Most never got out of committee. A small number reached the floor of Congress. Half a dozen went to the states and either expired or lie dormant. The convention method of amendment has never been used. That’s a pretty good demonstration of how reverence for the document which federal officers and members of the military swear oaths to uphold, together with a convoluted amendment process, combine to render the constitution sufficiently sacrosanct for the engrossed manuscript to be displayed in a setting that resembles a place of worship.
Amendments to the constitution over the past 200 years have generally been motivated by times of national crisis or widespread social upheaval: three of the 15 were the consequence of a bloody civil war, three were in response to suffrage movements, one was in response to a presidential assassination. Dickner has not tried to refute this, and since he’s a coward, we can assume that he’s got no response and would prefer nit-picking tangential bullshit.
Now, if Dickner wants to argue that the US does not demonstrate an idiosyncratic reverence for its constitution, I could do with a good laugh.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Canada and the UK have among the most heavy-handed government health care systems in the world.
Thank goodness!
You may find it hard to imagine the satisfaction of knowing that health care, for me, my family, and my fellow citizens, is — even yet — essentially free at point of need.
Among several other blessings, this makes the payment of tax a positive pleasure.
We have to fight to maintain this Social Contract, but there is still a large majority of Brits who would regard its dilution as retrograde.
David
October 21st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
brilliant as usual. The bit about Roosevelt was new to me (although he could have proposed the Obama plan or even the Edwards plan without addressing segregation).
I’d add another point which I read I forget where in 1994.
There was a window of opportunity in which it was easy to introduce universal health care in the brief period between the time Medical care first became demonstrably better than wishing and hoping and the time it became god-awful expensive.
The other industrialized countries introduced universal insurance or a national health care system back when health care spending was a much smaller fraction of GNP. They had no way of predicting how expensive the systems would be (nor that our non system is now twice as expensive as their systems).
October 21st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
pseudo,
It’s very simple here: you were wrong, so admit you were wrong.
Good one, p. The simple truth is, the fact that Americans have already added 27 amendments to the Constitution and have proposed dozens or hundreds of others, many of which are for such trivial purposes as banning flag-burning, conclusively demonstrates that your assertion that Americans treat the Constitution as “holy writ” is utterly preposterous. You’re as dumb on this matter as you are on everything else.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
And like I predicted, Dickner dances around with his ass on fire, and can’t admit that he fucked up on a basic fact (or on basic subtraction). Hilarity ensues.
Fail.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:05 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
laptop battery
February 18th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Hey Guys My name is Jimbo
Does anyone know anything about blackhat stuff? I found these sites and these people are have proof of making over $900 a day from some these Black hat methods. What do you guys think about this.
Click Here Now To Learn More! make money online forum
Or Go Here! BlackHat
February 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Whats Up My name is Sarah
Does anyone know anything about blackhat stuff? I found these sites and these people are have proof of making over $900 a day from some these Black hat methods. What do you guys think about this.
Click Here Now To Learn More! make money online
Or Go Here! alertpay
March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Hello My name is and Admin I hope this is posted int he right section. I felt this was the best place to ask about this , if not please feel free to move it where it belongs, I really like this place and will be an advid poster here. Nancy
I have been into internet marketing lately and would like to know if you know anything about blackhat marketing techniques? The reason I ask is because I found a couple places where people have proof of making over $900 a day from some these Black hat methods. Im just curious if anyone here is making money online through Blackseo or any types of whitehat techniques like these sites are about.
These sites have many different money making free scripts and types of ways to make money online. Alot of it has to do with CPA and affiliate programs. Hopefully you guys could help me understand some of these methods or just PM me and I can show the methods I am struggling with and I would be willing to give the scripts I bought for free, if you can help me figure them out. I just want to make money online since the economy is so bad now.
Here is the first site make money online forum
Here is the 2nd site strictpay
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hey. Let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
I am from Iceland and also now am reading in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Expressairlinetickets offers dirt cheap airline tickets! Discount airline tickets, cheap vacation packages, cheap hotel rates, car rental, hotels in las.”
Thank you very much
. Gideon.