Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "Counterfeit Biden"

Original Song Title:

"Eleanor Rigby"

Original Performer:

The Beatles

Parody Song Title:

"Counterfeit Biden"

Parody Written by:


The Lyrics

Stanza Ii refers to a Kamala Harriss campaign rally in Arizona that was attended by absolutely nobody
Ahh, look at all the missing people
Ahh, look at all the missing people

Counterfeit Biden, slurring some words at a speech
Where two dozen have been
Its a real sham
Speaks from a prompter, wearing a face
That looks pickled in formaldehyde
Its a rare sight
All those Biden voters, where did they all come from
All those Biden voters, how did they build that throng

Kamala Harris, speaking the words of a stump speech
That no one did hear
No one was near
Look at her faking, speaking to air
In a lot cause there's nobody there
Cause nobody cared
All those Zonie voters; where did they all come from*
All those Zonie voters; how did they build that throng

Ahh, look at all the Zonie ballots
Aah, look at all the Zonie ballots

Counterfeit Biden, had a brain fart
And was replaced by ol' What's Her Name
That was the game
Kamala Harris, wiping the smirk from her face
Cause the scam was depraved
The Turtle* had caved

All those Biden voters (How did they get those Biden voters)
Where did they all come from
All those Biden voters ( How did they fill those Biden ballots)
How DID they build that throng
*Affectionate name for Mitch McConnell .... *There was a record obliterating number of Biden voters in AZ, even tho' not a single person showed up for the only Democrat campaign rally. Real head scratcher, that

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 

In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.

Voting Results

Pacing: 4.7
How Funny: 4.7
Overall Rating: 4.7

Total Votes: 88

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   5
 2   2
 3   0
 4   1
 5   80

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

CML - January 22, 2021 - Report this comment
Zonies -- term of endearment used by denizens of San Diego and other SoCal coastal cities to describe the hordes of AZ heat refugees who descend upon these cities like a Biblical plague of locusts in July and August ...... Seriously, there are more Zonies in San Diego beach communities in late July than Fornies
Patrick - January 22, 2021 - Report this comment
I have family in San Diego. I wish they'd move back to a more rational part of the country. But Mama doesn't appreciate the sort of weather we're getting in Kansas City this weekend. The only other place I've ever lived was South Bend, Indiana. I was a lot younger then. I remember that rally in Arizona. Biden showed up and the only people there were the mariachi band the campaign committee had hired. That attack on the Capitol was aimed at stopping the Republicans from challenging the ballots in the contested states. There was absolutely no reason for Trump's supporters to interfere with a perfectly legal and constitutional process. The insurgents pushed the presentation of the Republican case to the wee hours of the morning when the media wasn't watching. My brother, who didn't watch the inauguration, asked if the assembly took a knee when Lady Gaga sang the National Anthem. I said that if they had, they's still be there until someone with a crane hoisted them up. Gaga, wearing more clothing at one time than she wore all last year combined, did do a very credible job with this song that has confounded a lot of other celebrity singers. Are you old enough to remember Aretha Franklin at the 1968 Democratic Convention?
CML - January 22, 2021 - Report this comment
Biden did not show in AZ; it was Kamala Harris. And she was in a parking lot about 2 miles away from a place I once lived. And yes, there was a local TV reporter who was absolutely gobsmacked at the fact that there were no audience AT ALL ..... I certainly remember 1968, and the Vietnam protest as I had older brothers who were born in '48 and '50 and '52 who would argue endlessly with Dad about the war. I can even remember the Life magazine cover showing that Saigon police chief injecting a lead pill into that Viet Cong terrorist's noggin ... But I dont remember Aretha at the Dem convention
In other news... - January 22, 2021 - Report this comment
...a sampling of how the American people ACTUALLY voted in the 2020 elections shows up on YouTube:

They've already removed the comments section and erased tens of thousands of down votes, but the real down votes just keep flooding out the fake up votes! Probably going to have to do a Dominion Systems-style vote flip next to pretend the POS illegally occupying the White House represents the will of anyone but the treasonous vermin who stole the election for him and his Kommielaw Whoreass.
Phil Alexander - January 23, 2021 - Report this comment
@Another pseudonym: you think youtube votes are a reflection of how people actually voted? Huh?? Do you have any concept of how voting (both online and in elections) actually works?
CML. - January 23, 2021 - Report this comment
Well, I know how the bellwether voting metric works. Since 1852, the winner of Florida, Iowa and Ohio has won the election 41 out of 42 times, with the exception being JFK. And in the case of Kennedy he lost those by the barest of margins. Trump won Ohio and Iowa by comfortable margins. So nobody who breezed thru these states has lost since 1852 ..... So what evidence is there for Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin to buck this highly sigificant trend? Well, Pennsylvania had the largest rallies anywhere right before the election and Trump had a 700K lead by the end of the night. Clearly an ominous sign that a 170 year pattern was about to reverse itself. How about Wisconsin. Was it their gratitude to the Dems for those riots that caused them to buck that historical trend. What about Michigan? Was it their infatuation with Wretched Gretchen's abusive and hypocritical lockdown that did the trick? Or was it something else?
CML - January 23, 2021 - Report this comment
And then we move to the 19 (sometimes 18 or 17) bellwether counties. These counties are significant for being dominated by neither Reps or Dems, which means there is no fraud going on in these places .... Since 1956, every winner has won the vast majority of these counties, except for JFK, who still won the majority. Joe Biden won only one of these counties, by 4 points. Trump won his by an average of 15 points. He also won 51 out of 57 of a larger sampling of bellwethers by an average of 12 points. These highly predictive metrics indicate that Trump won the general in a landslide. So the idea that ol' Zhou Bai Deng got his ass handed to him in the bellwethers yet still not only won, but won in a landslide is, to quote Mike Tyson, woodicwous ..... So what could account for this? Hint: the fact that JFK won without the bellwether states strongly suggests he got some help from the ol Chicago underground vote, IF ya know what I mean.
Michael Pacholek - January 23, 2021 - Report this comment
You want a bellwether: New Jersey. Since 1964, it has voted for the winner of the popular vote every time except 1976 and 2004 -- and those two were really close.
Phil Alexander - January 24, 2021 - Report this comment
@CML: That "in other news" comment was yours? Self-selecting polls of which YouTube votes are a subset are never representative, and anyone who tries to use them to prove any kind of wider point really needs to learn some statistics.

Maybe you also understand cherry picking data: manually selecting only those data sets which support your desired outcome, and intentionally ignoring things that don't. Such as.. you know: an actual vote which has been ratified by (including Republican) election officials. Show evidence of actual vote tampering and I'll change my mind, until then, the election result was exactly what it was and pretending indicators of outcome always predict the outcome is fallacious.
CML - January 24, 2021 - Report this comment
No, Phil I am not "that guy" Theres a certain style of argumentation used by the right that is toxic to the man right in the middle. I avoid that style cause I'm trying to reach that guy. I have several siblings who are or were lawyers; so Ive learned over the course of 40 years of sparring with them to avoid saying patently stupid sh*t, lest you get your @ss handed to you ..... So, Ok Phil, you're an even handed, even tempered gent; I do believe I'll take you up on that challenge. Will have to collect my thoughts for a day or so
2Eagle - January 25, 2021 - Report this comment
Good lyrics but I admit your POV sucks.
Totally Not Illegitimate - January 25, 2021 - Report this comment
"We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
CML - January 26, 2021 - Report this comment
So, where to start. Several months before the election, Dem lawyers started a campaign to circumvent the Republican legislatures of four battleground states in order to introduce fraud prone innovations like mail in ballots and less strict measures to validate mail in ballots .... They did this by a legal weaselization know as "Consent Decrees" This is where a Dem plaintiff sues a like minded Secretary of State in a friendly courtroom, and the defendant "caves" and agrees to some innovation which is more prone to fraud. Then the court proclaims this decree as law. This is a fraud firstly on Article III of the Constitution which stipulates that courts are to be used only for cases and controversies. There's no controversy going on here. And it is a fraud on Art Ii which stipulates that only state legislatures may pass laws regarding elections
CML - January 26, 2021 - Report this comment
On to the big event. As predicted by the bellweather metric, Trump was leading by comfortable margins in the states of Penn, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan late into the night when something happened that has never happened before in even one state -- the four states announced that they were stopping the counting until the next morning. This was a lie designed to lose the Republican observers. ....... Then, within a few hours, they resumed the counting. Next thing you know, the damndest thing happened -- within a few hours enormous and impossibly lopsided ballot dumps showed up favoring Biden ... 570K--3.2K in Pennsylvania; 143K-25K in Wisconsin; 195K--11K and 136K-29K in Georgia ....... Seeing as how virtually all ballot dumps prior to the bogus stoppage favored Trump, it is impossible that these ratios could have occurred randomly. In a brief to the Supreme Court signed on by the Attorney Generals of 18 States, it was averred that the odds of these numbers occuring at random were a quadrillion to one. But Mitch says no evidence of fraud. Well, I say that unless a quadrillion is a meaningless numbet or unless 18 AGs thought it was a strategic move to inflate the actual odds by, say, a trillion percent .. there is some evidence
Phil Alexander - January 27, 2021 - Report this comment
OK.. I can see why presented that way and taken without analysis this might lead you to conclude that the election "must" have been stolen, but..

* bellwether "predictions" are not predictions, they're a statistical anomaly. Just because an election has tracked a small area in the past does not mean the same thing will happen forever into the future: any change in a tiny subset of the population does not mean it will definitely happen everywhere else, or vice versa.

* The changes to voting regulations were not happening in a vacuum: we were (and still are) in the middle of a pandemic, a pandemic that is being taken seriously at a level corresponding very closely with party affiliation. Describing the change as "introducing fraud prone innovations like mail-in ballots" is so inaccurate as to be untrue: mail in ballots are not an innovation, they've been around forever - yes, the changes were trying to make it easier *because we're in a pandemic*; the other is an assertion that isn't true just because Trump has repeated it since April: please supply evidence to show mail-in ballots are so much more fraud-prone that they are even the tiniest bit more likely to cause a change in the result

* You say "it is impossible that these ratios could have occurred randomly" - thing is, nobody has claimed that it was random. Whoever wrote to the Supreme Court was either utterly ignorant of mathematics, or being fraudulent themselves: not being random does not mean fraud is the only explanation. It was being widely reported before the election that postal voting patterns were heavily skewed towards Democrats voting early by post. To the point where even John Oliver was making predictions of *exactly* what happened on election day - not only the counting pattern, but Trump's evidence-free assertions about fraud because of it. Claiming fraud "because the numbers can't be random" is ignoring that a very obvious (and nothing to do with fraud) cause had been reported on for weeks beforehand.

* You say "Penn, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan late into the night when something happened that has never happened before in even one state -- the four states announced that they were stopping the counting until the next morning. This was a lie designed to lose the Republican observers" - as far as I can tell, this simply did not happen:

To summarize: you've got a mishmash of things that feel wrong, none of which prove fraud, some show a lack of understanding of mathematics, and some just plain didn't happen.

Seriously, come up with some evidence of fraud, or do the honest thing and admit there was none.
CML - January 29, 2021 - Report this comment
You not to be trifled with when it comes to argument, Phil. But I completely reject any source that purports to proves that what I am saying are lies, especially Politifact. When you present facts in a legal brief you aver, under penalty of disbarment, that you believe these facts to be true. If you are found to be lying, there are consequences. Can you say the same for Politifact? ....... Seventeen Attorneys General with a combined 500 years of experience stated in a brief that the numbers that showed up after midnight on Nov 4, are a thousand orders of magnitude beyond impossible. So, if this is a lie, it is the greatest lie ever uttered in all of history. And if this is the case why didn't the Supreme Court take the case on its merits and discredit this idea once and for all ...... Why hasnt any court looked at the evidence in Georgia, which sets out 7 different categories of ballot fraud, each of which would reverse the result. Why hasnt any court listened to witnesses who, under, penalty of perjury, signed affidavits that Republican observers were chased out of counting centers in Michigan and Pennsylvania. You'd think a court would want to expose these lies and punish these lying, perjuring miscreants .... But no. No court has ruled on the veracity of these facts at all ......... And if it please the website, that is all I have to say. The prosecution rests
Phil Alexander - January 30, 2021 - Report this comment
>But I completely reject any source that purports to proves that what I am saying are lies, especially Politifact. When you present facts in a legal brief you aver, under penalty of disbarment, that you believe these facts to be true. If you are found to be lying, there are consequences. Can you say the same for Politifact?
Politifact quotes its sources, what it can find out and what it can't. I've never caught it misrepresenting sources or lying. If you think it's so unreliable, I'm sure you'll find it really easy to give me lots of examples of it being wrong.

As I understand it, you're claiming that a Democrat plot stopped counting in a coordinated manner in four battleground states, and this was argued in court by barristers under penalty of disbarment?

That's not what the Texas amicus brief was saying, at least not that I could find within the 44 pages published: that was a claim that Texas has the right to overturn what other states have done, and with no sense of irony calling other states' behaviours unconstitutional. And that is the only action with "Seventeen Attorneys General" that I could find (you know, you really are awful at presenting a case: it would really help if *you* knew what you were talking about, and linked to something that supported your contention, rather than leaving it up to the other person to google).

It didn't set out any instances of actual fraud, just tried to overturn the results in other states because their rules changed.

> Why hasnt any court listened to witnesses who, under, penalty of perjury, signed affidavits that Republican observers were chased out of counting centers in Michigan and Pennsylvania. You'd think a court would want to expose these lies and punish these lying, perjuring miscreants .... But no. No court has ruled on the veracity of these facts at all
The courts haven't ruled on the veracity of these assertions because no lawyer was willing to present said evidence to a court, not because the courts haven't listened. It isn't up to a court (not talking courts of inquiry, but law courts) to decide what evidence is placed before them, it's up to the plaintiffs to enter evidence into the court (or the defence to offer evidence to counter their case). It has seemed fairly clear to me that the reason these things haven't been put before a court is that Giuliani and co know damn well their claims of fraud do not stand up to inspection. For example, the "list of 12,500 people under-age in Georgia" would definitely have been used in court, if it actually contained 12.5k examples of children who voted - but I will bet that like the list of "dead people who voted", it doesn't. It contains names of people who are underage (or dead), which were found by a name search and no attempt was made to match these names to actual voters. That's why they haven't been presented to the courts as evidence - because the lawyers know it's not:

>So, if this is a lie, it is the greatest lie ever uttered in all of history.
Hardly. But it *is* a great big lie from someone who has spent the last well over four years telling ever bigger lies. I'm not even sure that Trump recognizes truth or even reality any more.
Libby - February 02, 2021 - Report this comment
Trumpers don't like facts because they are so difficult for them to comprehend and/or they aren't as interesting.
Phil Alexander - February 06, 2021 - Report this comment
OK, CML, so what about it? Can you either provide something to show what I've missed, that 17 attorneys general have stood up in court, under oath, to say that the numbers are impossible? Because the only thing I've found that has those people sticking their names against doesn't claim that. So that means that against a Politifact site that you haven't shown to be wrong, you have given *absolutely nothing* that supports your contention that things were as impossible as you claim. So either take back the claim and admit there was no fraud, or show something that does support what you assert happened.
CML - February 15, 2021 - Report this comment
A couple of new items: The Upper House of The Peoples Republic of Vespuccistan just concluded a bizarre exercise in kangaroo jurisprudence wherein they charged that DJT incited a riot. Implicit in that charge was that Trump falsely claimed that the election was stolen. He did this by citing exact numbers of illegal ballots in several battleground states which apparently were false figures. And yet .. and yet, when the trial began, they didn't rebut any of those numbers. Gee Wally, you'd think they would want to settle this matter that is tearing this nation apart once and for all .................. In Michigan, a video has surfaced showing a truck pulling into the Detroit at 3 AM and offloading 60 boxes of 1000 ballots, just as witnesses who swore out affidavits claimed. A website called The Gateway Pundit made a demand for this video in December, and the arena stonewalled the request until February when basically there's very little that can be done. And just by coincidence, I guess, three hours after the ballots were offloaded. there was a 100K vote dump in favor of Josef Stolen ............ And now in Zoniestan, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) has defied an order by the Senate of the State of AZ to hand over the Dominion Voting Machine and the ballots. Seeing as how Maricopa is a subordinate entity and creation of the State of AZ, and seeing as how only the State of AZ is charged by the Constitution of the USA with ensuring the integrity of elections, this act of defiance is clearly illegal not to mention unprecedented in the 108 year history of the State. And once again, you have to ask why. Don't the folks at MCBOS want to expose all these completely insane, totally whacked out conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines? Why would they risk going to jail over this
CML - February 15, 2021 - Report this comment
BTW, how did everybody like "Vespucchistan" That's the name I've given to whatever country were living in after Jan 6. Its derived from America Vespucci's last name .... Is being best joke, da, my Vespuccistanski Komrades? Whew, good thing I studied Russian 30 years ago.
CML - February 15, 2021 - Report this comment
Whoops, Amerigo Vespucci (damned auto correct)
Phil Alexander - February 16, 2021 - Report this comment
Sorry, CML, all that attempt at distraction isn't going to work: you haven't addressed anything above, just come out with more unsupported blether. You obviously believe this stuff you've picked up from some unmentioned sources, but I don't see why that should convince me that *anything* you say has happened. Especially when I can go to sites like Politifact who give chapter and verse of exactly why they have come to the conclusion they have, you haven't shown any instances of them being wrong yet you still claim they're completely untrustworthy.

I don't think you are applying *any* critical analysis to the things you believe, instead trusting people who say things you want to agree with and dismissing without thinking anyone who disagrees. This is not a rational way to decide where reality lies.

..and no, "Vespucchistan" does nothing for me: it's a very Trumpian thing to do, invent a disparaging term rather than debate with any kind of integrity.
Peter Andersson - February 19, 2021 - Report this comment
555 for the parody on its own merits, but had I read this one first and realized what a hornest's nest of comments I'd be getting myself into I'm not sure I would have commented on either. See my comment on Phil's with the same name though.
John Dacey - February 20, 2021 - Report this comment
Good technical scores, let down by basing it on a demonstrably false premise. No thinking person who's observed Biden's appearances since the election could rightfully cling to that crap about diminished verbal capacity. And compared to whom, the previous asshat whose command of language couldn't successfully compete with Koko the gorilla? Prior to the election, there was little motivation for Biden supporters to go to rallies - they knew what policies he supported. On the other hand, trump drew crowds to each circus of cruelty because nobody wanted to miss the next expression of bigotry when he'd throw some immigrant Mayan to his 'christians'.
CML - February 22, 2021 - Report this comment
Just as I suspected, the US Supreme Court dropped the second part of the ol' Catch 22 on 45. Before the Certification Dates for the Electoral College, this action was untimely, hence there was no standing; then after delaying, without justification, a hearing on the merits until after Joe Biden was inaugurated they "realize" the case is moot. Can't undo a duly elected President, after all. Well of course not, ya big goofs; why dincha hear the case between the date when the electoral votes were certified and Jan 6 -- when it would have been timely and not yet moot. But once again, like every other court in America, they dodged a hearing on the merits.
CML - February 22, 2021 - Report this comment
@John Dacey .. RE: Your general tone of negativity vis a vis Trump locution .... How about we talk about one of Joe Biden's first attempts at nation "healing" where he compared Ted Cruz's case for voter fraud to Josef Goebell's big lie about the death toll at Dresden. First, it's not a serious attempt at reconciliation when you compare the group that still reveres the memory of the 400K Americans who suffered and died to stop the Nazis and their Allies to the Nazis themselves. It ranks right up there in rationality with calling the son of a fireman who died fighting a fire an arsonist .................... Secondly, did you see the part where your fully competent POTUS channeled Porky Pig when he said that Goebbels claimed there was "250, no 2500 .. no 25000 ... 250,000" fatalities (Abadia, Abadia, Abadia... That's all folks) He was trying to show the Big Lie stratagem of Goebells and couldn't hold two figures together in his brain. And even then his figures were wrong -- the actual toll was 25,000; the inflated figure was 135,000. And this inflated figure did not even come from Goebbels; it was from a Holocaust denier that later showed up in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Slaughterhouse 5". So you were close, Joe ................... And in a further step into pathological Joe-tardation, he claimed that people in America bought this lie because Goebbels practiced the magical "Big Lie" technique (Just like TED CRUZ!!) As if anyone on the planet believed anything that club footed bastard was saying in February, 1945 ............. And the Pies d' Retardance is the idea that Goebbels was trying to sway "international opinion" with his diabolical "Big Lie" when the truth is, every country in the world that mattered was in this total war on one side or the other and could have cared less how many people died at Dresden. I mean, what was Goebbels big idea here -- to persuade Guatemala to sponsor a resolution at the League of Nations to condemn Britain's bombing campaign?
John Dacey - February 22, 2021 - Report this comment
@CML: It's a long established maxim to avoid mentioning Hitler and Nazis in any argument and as an experienced politician Biden should have known better. See how easy that was? - didn't have to prattle on for 300+ words. Nice job making fun of a former stutterer though; that makes whatever point you tried to make in that rambling screed so much more persuasive. And it doesn't change the fact that trump is profoundly stupid.
Phil Alexander - February 23, 2021 - Report this comment
@CML, too: I shouldn't really address this, given that it's another deflection and you still haven't posted anything to show election fraud, or that politifact is always (or even "ever") wrong, but don't you find the outrage just a little bit fake and over the top? As a distraction, perhaps, so that the Cruz and Hawley types are not appropriately quizzed about the lie they keep repeating being a lie? Which is the important thing: millions appear to believe something without foundation in fact, Trump has never cared about reality, but the high profile repeaters of the lie have also never explained why they prefer to believe a serial liar than the FBI, Republican election officials, etc. ad nauseam. Other than political expedience, obvs.
Libby - February 23, 2021 - Report this comment
So much delusion, so much grasping at straws, so much BS. How do these people live with themselves (cuz lord only knows no sane person could live with these people)??
CML - February 24, 2021 - Report this comment
I'll have to give my response to Phil little more thought, because your sh*t can't be weak when you tangle with Phil. No, your colonic extrusions need to be wired tight. ................ As for JD, Biden is not a "former stutterer he is an at-present, due-to-cognitive-decline stutterer. Google up Joe's 2012 VEEP debate where he punked Paul Ryan (at the age of 70.) Not a hint of a stutter. As for the "BS" about Bidens diminished mental capacity, perhaps you can expain why a group of Democrats are sponsoring a resolution asking Biden to share responsibility for the nuclear codes, a resolution that is absolutely without precedent in our 70 year history with nukes. Is it because of concerns that he was a former stutterrer? ..... And what's the deal with second in command Kamala Harris taking calls from other heads of state which is an unprecedented breach of international protocol. More concerns about his non existent former stuttering problem"? Or did his pathetic performance with Putin create alarms that he's just not up for any of duties
Libby - March 09, 2021 - Report this comment
So Call Me Lennie, are you gonna burn your $1400 check?
CML - March 09, 2021 - Report this comment
Actually, Libby I thought I might use my check to buy this ginormous yellow bag found in a dumpster last Sunday outside the Maricopa County Voter Tabulation which was filled with thousands of illegally shredded ballots from the 2020 election. Which is weird because Maricopa County had just been ordered to turn all ballots over to the AZ Senate so that a real audit could be conducted ...... And then I'd want to ship this bag over to England because a certain resident of the mother country had been all over my ass to show him evidence of election fraud. And under the theory of "spoilation of evidence" materials that are destroyed in defiance of a court order to preserve them are presumed to have been material evidence to the other side's contention -- that these thousands of ballots were illegal
Phil Alexander - March 10, 2021 - Report this comment
Oh, come on CML, you should know better than to make *another* bullsh.t claim from right-wing conspiracy sources that has no chance of being true. "Presumed to have been material evidence"?? Yeah, by people whose mind is already made up without having any evidence: you do realize that presumption is exactly why you're wrong, right?

My presumption would be that the reason you have linked to a huge total of zero of all the stories you have claimed prove election fraud is that subconsciously you know damn well that they don't stand up to scrutiny. But I wouldn't rely on the Arizona senate managing to do anything that might legally affect the result there, they seem to be a bunch of halfwits at best:
Libby - March 12, 2021 - Report this comment
Phil hasn't a posted a comment on anything since March 10. I have known him as long as this website has existed, so I can assure you he is *way* above posting troll commentary under a different alias (unlike you Puddy Tat). You are not worth the trouble. And, with that in mind, this is the last you will here from me and *my* aliases (HA!). I hope your mental health improves.

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 231