• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CNN severs ties w/ DNC chair Brazile for sharing Dem primary debate q's with Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.

cheezcake

Member
I mean there's no actual there there to this story except in the fact that Donna Brazile is dumb and Podesta didn't report it. No evidence Hillary used this knowledge to her advantage, no evidence she even got these questions. No evidence of anything except Donna Brazile is a terrible politician who thought the risk of sending these obvious questions was worth a damn.

That is a story and it should be reported. But I feel it is a stupid story because it has so little actual impact on anything: the election or the primary or anything.





This is not a point I think I have major hard disagreement with. I disagree philosophically because of how I interpret the level of fair scrutiny to Hillary. I do not, based on the way reporting has been done this season, trust the news to properly report a story like this. Therefore, I agree with Hillary's decision to be quiet. I think the positives she would have got from being ethically sound would have been nullified by the negatives of the optics of this story. I mean Hillary is a uniquely unfairly treated politician and always has been. And putting on my politician hat, I believe I would have made the same decision. Were it another candidate I may not have. But Hillary has to walk on egg shells.



I don't believe in unilaterally disarming. If for example the Republicans had a strategy where throwing out nothing but lies was actually working to destroy a Democratic candidate, I'd be in favor of hitting back worse. Why? Because real lives will be destroyed if we don't get the Supreme Court. And I personally don't think how clean I look is more valuable than that fact. And I don't merely believe this is a matter of two equally respectable positions. We know the incalculable damage Republican policies and obstructionism has done. And I'm willing to play unfair, within the legal bounds, in order to destroy them for it.

And at the end of the day when LGBT rights are being expanded and voters rights are being saved and abortion is preserved we can argue about how muddy a person got afterwards. But given how history has always been written, people remember the sum totality of your best actions, not the dirt every president ever has had to occasionally wade into in order to win.

I think at the very least however you view ethics and its flexibility, you can agree that every single President has at one time or another been questionable ethically. It is almost impossible not to get muddy in politics.

Absolutely. I think we're pretty much at an understanding now, at least, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's always a bit odd having to be reminded how cartoonishly villainous the republican party is as someone not from the states.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Apparently you don't live in NY

I'm from Brooklyn. Don't live there now, but, I don't need to in order to support a view with evidence.

cheezcake said:
Absolutely. I think we're pretty much at an understanding now, at least, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's always a bit odd having to be reminded how cartoonishly villainous the republican party is as someone not from the states.

Yeah totally. It's not like I don't understand either. Even only as far back as eight years ago, I was far more idealistic about how a candidate should behave. But eight years of unprecedented Republican obstructionism and slander has hardened me to believe sometimes you gotta do the ethically questionable thing in order to dislodge the "cartoonish evil" that the party has become as you say. Hard choice to make though, which is why I would not ever be a politician (even if my career wouldn't be destroyed in five seconds once someone found my GAF post history lol)
 

droggg

Member
Poor baby...

It really is a shame that people like you turn a blind eye to this behavior simply because it has benefited the candidate you support. I could only imagine how you'd respond to this level of corruption had this been done by the Republican party. This whole mentality is disgusting to me and echos Brazile's way of thinking exactly. And then to insult this guy and call him names for being outraged with political corruption? Sad.
 
Why not both? I sincerely doubt Bernie had a real chance at the nomination regardless, but it is also true that the DNC clearly had a preferred candidate and acted, in mostly minor ways, to tip the scale in her favor.

The parties have almost always played favorites. They usually want someone they know or someone who has a high chance of winning the general, and given that Bernie couldn't beat Hillary the way Obama did in 2008, he met neither of those expectations.

Why should they have supported an outsider who tried to hijack the party's platform exclusively for the chance at getting the presidency? The RNC did just that, and the GOP is suffering for it in a way it hasn't suffered in an extremely long time.
 

Amir0x

Banned
First that's personal, and second as this thread proves, there is a lot of underhanded business at play to prevent anyone but the preordained candidate from winning in the first place. And the end of the day I'm just another disenfranchised voter.

Absolutely. It is personal. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt about voting Trump, but now I won't.

So you now have no right to speak about corruption without being made fun of for such anti-intellectual nonsense. Congrats!

Right alongside with aliens and multidimensional time beasts for you, right?
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
The parties have almost always played favorites. Why should they have supported an outsider who tried to hijack the party's platform exclusively for the chance at getting the presidency? The RNC did just that, and the GOP is suffering for it in a way it hasn't suffered in an extremely long time.

It's only a threat if the DNC or RNC moves far away from their voting base and core issues. otherwise people would be happy to elect the insiders.
 
Maybe you should get off that fucking tall as shit horse standing on a hill if you're gonna produce a joke of a list as evidence that Clinton is way better than Trump.

Ok, for sake of argument lets say the Clinton list is not completely filled out.

What would you add to it that would make her almost as "equal" as Trump?

Because while Amir0x is brash, at least he is backing up his shit
 
Being sued for something doesn't prove being guilty. The house discrimination lawsuit - if that's what you're referring to - was settled without any prove that Trump was wrong IIRC. If you are talking about "mexicans being rapists" or "mexican Judge" then that's not really evidence, just like the "superpredators" and being backed by for profit prisons is either.



Your demeaning, self-righteous tone is annoying lol

I am very well informed and Clinton is a crooked, corrupt individual who just happens to be a tad better than Trump, but feel free to ride off on your high horse thinking you are so well informed, "bro".

Get outta here with that "tad better than Trump" bullshit.

Do me and Amir0x have to post the entire list of all the things that make Hillary vastly superior to Trump?

Oh wait you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite by using claims of corruption against Hillary yet excusing what Trump has been accused of.

Don't respond until you can name me a time when Hillary Clinton explicitly encouraged violence on protesters the way Trump did.

First that's personal, and second as this thread proves, there is a lot of underhanded business at play to prevent anyone but the preordained candidate from winning in the first place. And the end of the day I'm just another disenfranchised voter.

"Disenfranchised". Bullshit. Have you been literally denied your right to vote by the democrats?

To call yourself disenfranchised is deplorable considering numerous minorities and poor people have LITERALLY been disenfranchised by voter suppression tactics like Voter ID laws and closing polling places.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Maybe you should get off that fucking tall as shit horse standing on a hill if you're gonna produce a joke of a list as evidence that Clinton is way better than Trump.

The best way to tell somebody can't actually defend their positions is when someone doesn't even bother trying to refute the evidence contained therein. It's OK dude, grab a towel and go wash up. You did good today, most improved player. Go reward yourself with an ice cream.
 

Debirudog

Member
It really is a shame that people like you turn a blind eye to this behavior simply because it has benefited the candidate you support. I could only imagine how you'd respond to this level of corruption had this been done by the Republican party. This whole mentality is disgusting to me and echos Brazile's way of thinking exactly. And then to insult this guy and call him names for being outraged with political corruption? Sad.
And I'm laughing at you. Yes, political corruption based on Donna giving piss easy questions on michigan led water...let alone that Bernie won the state, so it didn't matter jack shit.

i never condone Brazille's actions or dumbass twitter but there's no evidence that the primary voting process was rigged, nor actual collusion with clinton campaign. Yes, the DNC favored Clinton just like how they favored her in 2008 but Obama won. The reality is that Clinton won because she appealed to minorities better than Bernie did, seized up the South and won the states that actually matter.

What about the caucuses that Bernie won? Why didn't the DNC circumvented them and made them semi-open, which is Hillary's best option?
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Who are you voting for freenudemacusers? I mean, if you're so against corruption. I'm assuming your avatar may not actually show your political views, so I'll let you tell me.



So well informed, yet no evidence. So well informed, yet she is a 'tad better than Trump'.


Don't worry, my high horse is fucking tall as shit. And it's standing on a hill.

Isn't quoting slate from a high horse on a hill much like a trump supporter quoting Breitbart from a high hill on a horse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Your horse smells like shit.
 
The best way to tell somebody can't actually defend their positions is when someone doesn't even bother trying to refute the evidence contained therein. It's OK dude, grab a towel and go wash up. You did good today, most improved player. Go reward yourself with an ice cream.

Have you hit the speed again?
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Isn't quoting slate from a high horse on a hill much like a trump supporter quoting Breitbart from a high hill on a horse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Your horse smells like shit.

No. Unless you have an example of Slate having a headline where they call someone a "Renegade Jew".

Yes, Breitbart actually had a headline where they called conservative Bill Kristol a "Renegade Jew" because he dared to prop up a Never-Trump conservative candidate. I'm not going to waste time finding the link but you can look it up easily if you don't believe me because they actually still have the article on their website with the headline unchanged.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Isn't quoting slate from a high horse on a hill much like a trump supporter quoting Breitbart from a high hill on a horse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Your horse smells like shit.

Everything in that slate article is a fact, and they post sources for it at the bottom. That article you link only posts the ideological lean of each site. But, if the mere fact Slate posted it makes it hard for you to believe, that's fine. It's not like every other institution ever hasn't posted easily available evidence about how awful Trump is:

The 282 People, Places and Things Donald Trump has Insulted on Twitter
The Many Scandals of Donald Trump
The Most Corrupt Candidate Ever is Donald Trump
Donald Trump's history of corruption: A Comprehensive View
The Definitive Roundup of Donald Trump's Scandals and Business Failures

Have fun parsing which media outlets you want to utilize to try to continue down this indefensible road of yours.
 
Absolutely. It is personal. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt about voting Trump, but now I won't.

So you now have no right to speak about corruption without being made fun of for such anti-intellectual nonsense. Congrats!

Right alongside with aliens and multidimensional time beasts for you, right?
Don't understand the last point, and I did not state that I was voting for trump
 

Amir0x

Banned
Don't understand the last point, and I did not state that I was voting for trump

Well you refuse to say who you are voting for. You love criticizing Hillary, yet you rarely criticize Trump. And you are wearing an avatar infamous in alt right Trump circles.

If you won't define yourself, others will. And I was bringing up your absurd conspiracy beliefs in order to suggest you are not a good judge of information. If it wasn't clear enough.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Well you refuse to say who you are voting for. You rarely if ever criticize Trump. And you are wearing an avatar infamous in alt right Trump circles.

If you won't define yourself, others will. And I was bringing up your absurd conspiracy beliefs in order to suggest you are not a good judge of information. If it wasn't clear enough.

Right you just HAPPEN to have the same kind of avatar as all those Alt-Right people (anime girl with a MAGA hat)./s

At this point I feel like it is time to release in the wild the catch of this fishing trip.

You guys have been taken on a merry freemacusers trip.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Incomplete.

So it's incomplete, you have no evidence of Hillary's corruption, cannot produce any counter evidence to suggest even a more rigorously critical article of Hillary could even come close to producing such horrendous evidence against the candidate in contrast to Trump and you think there is no evidence of his racism.

I love how easy these people are to figure out. They don't even try hard. Kinda sad.
 

KingK

Member
I would be more angry/disappointed in the DNC if Bernie didn't make them out to be a target day one, branding them "the establishment" that is the cause of our current political issues and lack of progress.

Instead of getting an entire coalition of apathetic young people to become politically active and become a new wave of reliable voters who will actually vote on off years, he spent the last half of the campaign poisoning the well and turning his group of potential dem voters right back into politically apathetic people who will vote for Johnson or what ever (and even a smaller portion of them into a cult of personality)

At that point, I don't blame the DNC for wanting his ass gone, I wanted his ass gone, he wasn't a democrat (and isn't a democrat) and I don't blame the party for seeing what he is doing and going "We need to shut this asshole down yesterday".

Doesn't excuse something like this, but when Russia hacks DNC servers and shock, people at the DNC don't fucking like Sanders, well I don't know what you were expecting.
I won't defend everything Bernie's campaign said in the last month or two, but the DNC definitely did/does deserve flak for its complacency and taking the left for granted while pandering to the center right and donors over the years. You can argue that it's necessary to win (though I would counter that outside of the presidency, they aren't doing a good job at winning either), but I don't like the attempts to stifle criticism of "our side." Especially when it's equated to support for the Orange fascist. Bernie didn't create this disaffection with the DNC, it was already there and he tapped into it.

Also, that attitude in the bolded part, which I saw a lot of in the primary ("he's not even a real democrat"), just seems weird/creepy/off-putting to me. Not a fan of that tribalism shit.
 
Incomplete.



That's adorable.

So you can come up with 235 other major problems with Hillary?

I'm waiting. Hopefully you'll have that list for us before this election is over.

So it's incomplete, you have no evidence of Hillary's corruption, cannot produce any counter evidence to suggest even a more rigorously critical article of Hillary could even come close to producing such horrendous evidence against the candidate in contrast to Trump and you think there is no evidence of his racism.

I love how easy these people are to figure out. They don't even try hard. Kinda sad.

Well he doesn't want to reveal that he takes infowars seriously.
 

JABEE

Member
Nobody is surprised that the DNC would favor Clinton.
Bernie was literally running against the DNC (establishment).

Now favoring is different from "conspiring", or actual rigging, which Bernie supporters often imply. There is 0 actual proof that the voting itself was influenced, obviously.
Clinton won the primaries by a wide margin, and being linked to many several issues (realism of policy and financing, bi partisan work and being able to maneuver around/ with opposition have been big ones, for me at least).

This one is a little weird. Favoring turns into conspiring when you as an organization transform yourself from an impartial platform into actively doing things to influence the election. They don't have to rig or steal votes to do this. It's as easy as networking with superdelegates, pundits and journalists or feeding someone primary debate questions because you have special access as an employee of the broadcaster.

Richard Nixon won the election by a landslide and would have won without wire-tapping the DNC, but he was still impeached.

People do things which don't really have a major impact all the time if they are sure they wouldn't get caught. If not for Wikileaks, no one would have known about this. I don't even think Sanders or someone else would go out on a limb now with the way things are with the general election. This is how news stories like this are often buried. No one has a motivation to bring up sludge that isn't politically advantageous.
 

manakel

Member
The best way to tell somebody can't actually defend their positions is when someone doesn't even bother trying to refute the evidence contained therein. It's OK dude, grab a towel and go wash up. You did good today, most improved player. Go reward yourself with an ice cream.
It's amazing to me that you think it's okay to talk to people like that. I can disagree with someone on virtually everything, as I have with most Trump voters I know, and still approach them with respect. Not demean them and speak to them like a damn toddler.

I swear to god this election cannot end soon enough.
 

Amir0x

Banned
It's amazing to me that you think it's okay to talk to people like that. I can disagree with someone on virtually everything, as I have with most Trump voters I know, and still approach them with respect. Not demean them and speak to them like a damn toddler.

I swear to god this election cannot end soon enough.
Trump voters dont deserve respect. You can treat racists, bigots, xenophobes and misogynists with respect (particularly ones who refuse to even attempt to defend their outrageous views) if that is your preference, of course. I ain't stopping you.

I stopped coddling the ignorant and racist when i was like 22.
 

ralexand

100% logic failure rate
Really disappointed at the Clinton campaign. Someone should have replied to Donna "what the hell are you doing? Why are you risking your rep for something like this?" Especially considering all the focus on emails at the time. She certainly shouldn't be the head of the DNC with those type of ethics.
 

manakel

Member
Trump voters dont deserve respect. You can treat racists, bigots, xenophobes and misogynists with respect (particularly ones who refuse to even attempt to defend their outrageous views) if that is your preference, of course. I ain't stopping you.

I stopped coddling the ignorant and racist when i was like 22.
Well you see, I don't generalize entire populations to say "all members of X group MUST be Y!" Such a gross and dangerous way to think. But you keep doing you, bro.
 
So you can come up with 235 other major problems with Hillary?

I'm waiting. Hopefully you'll have that list for us before this election is over.



Well he doesn't want to reveal that he takes infowars seriously.

Will show up along with Trump's tax returns and the evidence promised by Pence that will prove all those women accusing Trump are in fact liars.

In other words, don't expect much.
 

Malvolio

Member
Fear of electing a racist Russian puppet has become justification for undermining our election process. Even if Trump loses, we're all still worse off than we were before. Tragic.
 
Being sued for something doesn't prove being guilty. The house discrimination lawsuit - if that's what you're referring to - was settled without any prove that Trump was wrong IIRC. If you are talking about "mexicans being rapists" or "mexican Judge" then that's not really evidence, just like the "superpredators" and being backed by for profit prisons is either.

I was actually referring to the fact that he racially profiled one of his own supporters a few days ago. But no, please keep defending a verified racist on your way to proclaim how "neutral", you are. This is highly entertaining.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Well you see, I don't generalize entire populations to say "all members of X group MUST be Y!" Such a gross and dangerous way to think. But you keep doing you, bro.
If you vote Trump after everything he has done, there is no interpretation but dangerous ignorance or profound racism, misogyny, xenophobia or bigotry. Either says something terrible about the voter in question.

But hey ill wait for you to be person 1,345,678 who tries and fails to articulate how you could vote for Trump otherwise. It is always wildly entertaining.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Fear of electing a racist Russian puppet has become justification for undermining our election process. Even if Trump loses, we're all still worse off than we were before. Tragic.

The good news is we just need to limp along for 8 years. Generation Z will likely be more educated and diverse than millennials, which won't play well for the Republican party. They are going to be forced to reform to a legitimate center right party or face being forced out by an increasingly educated and diverse electorate.

This will sound callus, but the 65+ demographic will continue to decline, but that is just a reality.
 
I won't defend everything Bernie's campaign said in the last month or two, but the DNC definitely did/does deserve flak for its complacency and taking the left for granted while pandering to the center right and donors over the years. You can argue that it's necessary to win (though I would counter that outside of the presidency, they aren't doing a good job at winning either), but I don't like the attempts to stifle criticism of "our side." Especially when it's equated to support for the Orange fascist. Bernie didn't create this disaffection with the DNC, it was already there and he tapped into it.

Also, that attitude in the bolded part, which I saw a lot of in the primary ("he's not even a real democrat"), just seems weird/creepy/off-putting to me. Not a fan of that tribalism shit.

How can you be dissatisfied with something you have had zero history being interested in or involved in?

The group of voters who followed Sanders followed him because they, for some reason, think that nothing matters and their votes don't matter and the only solution to anything is what ever isn't being done now. They don't want actual progress, they don't want to know how our government actually works, they just want disruption of the current system and basically a revolution to get everything they think is a good idea into a working state.

People forget that our parties are already basically coalitions of different ideas and views of things. "Why don't we have a more liberal party!?" I hear my Facebook feed cry. Well, it's because we have to deal with other democrats from conservative areas who also need to be voted in and deal with their own people to satisfy their needs. "Why can't we just stop fracking and destroying ourselves!!??" Well, that's because we have states that kinda rely on it for their local economy, and having a platform in the general election about basically taking away a towns/states source of income will most likely make you lose those states.

The people who are dissatisfied with the democrats and saw Sanders as some beacon of hope don't understand and don't want to understand why things are dirty, complex, fucking shitty. They wanted magic answers to the ills of the nation and were told the issue we haven't fixed anything was because of them not trying hard enough. We're dealing with a party this is branded together by a pretty diverse set of views, so much so that the ACA had to be rammed down the dems throats because of blue dogs crying about it. They think the democrats are a single entity that have simply failed to have major progress because there is no will for it, where the real problem is the country is just way more conservative than the Sanders wing wants to recognize, and that includes portions of the democrats because (news shock), we have 50 states with different needs for each one.

So when I say that "he's not a democrat", I mean it in the idea that he wanted to basically hijack the party and potentially send it down a road it might not have been able to recover from if he actually platformed on his policies. I don't want to go down a what-if cycle of hypotheticals of if he had the nomination, because he didn't, but when I say stuff like that, it's because his political views are the equivalent of selling everything you own, putting it on a single hand of blackjack and then hoping you get a 20/21.

Now this doesn't apply to all Sanders supporters, but there is a general group of voters who this does apply to and is directed at.
 

manakel

Member
If you vote Trump after everything he has done, there is no interpretation but dangerous ignorance or profound racism, misogyny, xenophobia or bigotry. Either says something terrible about the voter in question.

But hey ill wait for you to be person 1,345,678 who tries and fails to articulate how you could vote for Trump otherwise. It is always wildly entertaining.
Did I ever say I was voting for Trump? Or how I can understand how anyone is voting for him? No, I didn't. I said that I approach people who are voting for him with respect to have a civil debate. You don't need to be a dick and insult people to get your point across.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Did I ever say I was voting for Trump? Or how I can understand how anyone is voting for him? No, I didn't. I said that I approach people who are voting for him with respect to have a civil debate. You don't need to be a dick and insult people to get your point across.
Right, your philosophy is that racists, xenophobes, the intentionally ignorant and misogynistic deserve respect. I didnt say you voted for Trump. Just wanted to see you try to offer a way out for these voters you want me to respect.

And you couldnt, of course.

The only thing i respect is a sound argument and an earnest attempt to interpret facts.
 
Did I ever say I was voting for Trump? Or how I can understand how anyone is voting for him? No, I didn't. I said that I approach people who are voting for him with respect to have a civil debate. You don't need to be a dick and insult people to get your point across.

Civil discourse went away after one nominee insulted a gold star family because they were brown, called an entire race of people rapists and murders (but some of them r k), sexually assaulted women over a dozen times and called for the execution of black kids for something they didn't do. Oh, he also has this strange habit of retweeting white supremacists and neo-nazis.

At this point, alls fair in love and war.
 

JABEE

Member
Who told her this was a good idea? Jesus, talk about being tone deaf.

nk6cBYN.png

HILLARY ADs: American Kids are watching.

DNC Chair: Cheating is okay as long as you win.
 
It's amazing to me that you think it's okay to talk to people like that. I can disagree with someone on virtually everything, as I have with most Trump voters I know, and still approach them with respect. Not demean them and speak to them like a damn toddler.

I swear to god this election cannot end soon enough.

Trust me when I say that me and Amir0x are perfectly capable of responding to people in non-demeaning ways when we are talking to people who show intellectual honesty, and that includes those that are ignorant but open to new information.

The people we are demeaning are people who have shown they don't care about the facts and just want any excuses they can think of to either claim Trump is better or just make some crappy false equivalency between Trump and Clinton.

For example, we both have already said we agree that what Donna did was unacceptable even if we don't think it actually had any real effects on the primaries.

And BTW, trying to respectfully reason with outright bigots (not talking about Trump voters that are simply very ignorant) tends to do nothing but make them feel more justified in their bigoted views. The best you can hope for with them is that society shames and humiliated them until they just go back into hiding their bigotry.
 

Elandyll

Banned
This one is a little weird. Favoring turns into conspiring when you as an organization transform yourself from an impartial platform into actively doing things to influence the election. They don't have to rig or steal votes to do this. It's as easy as networking with superdelegates, pundits and journalists or feeding someone primary debate questions because you have special access as an employee of the broadcaster.

Richard Nixon won the election by a landslide and would have won without wire-tapping the DNC, but he was still impeached.

People do things which don't really have a major impact all the time if they are sure they wouldn't get caught. If not for Wikileaks, no one would have known about this. I don't even think Sanders or someone else would go out on a limb now with the way things are with the general election. This is how news stories like this are often buried. No one has a motivation to bring up sludge that isn't politically advantageous.
What's weird in basically saying that, in my opinion, Sanders had no business running as nominee for a party that he has shown contempt for, and hasn't even been part of (his own website describes him as independant) in spite of having been in Congress for decades (where he did caucus with the Dems)?

Now that does not excuse passing debate questions ahead of time (that was stupid, and wrong), but in and of itself it does not mean anything as far as Clinton is concerned, unless you can show she was actually involved in seeking and obtaining the questions ahead of time.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Trust me when I say that me and Amir0x are perfectly capable of responding to people in non-demeaning ways when we are talking to people who show intellectual honesty, and that includes those that are ignorant but open to new information.

The people we are demeaning are people who have shown they don't care about the facts and just want any excuses they can think of to either claim Trump is better or just make some crappy false equivalency between Trump and Clinton.

For example, we both have already said we agree that what Donna did was unacceptable even if we don't think it actually had any real effects on the primaries.

Look at my huge post quoted by cheez at the top of the page. That is how I respond to people who are intellectually honest.

Respect is earned, not automatically given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom