• 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.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

masud

Banned
CoolTrick said:
Newsflash:

You going "www.republicansforobama.com" does not provide evidence that Obama's coalition can win the presidency. There's plenty of polls: The Pew and Gallup ones come to the forefront, that have directly shown Clinton's backers are much more likely to defect.

And it should be common sense that upscale liberals, blacks, and young voters are more likely to reliably vote Democratic. I shouldn't need to cite that because that's everywhere.
First of all this is really funny considering how many polls I've seen you disregard when they didn't help your argument.
Two things:
1 True upscale liberals, blacks, and young voters are more likely to reliably vote Democratic but in the case of blacks and young voters they are even more likely to not vote at all. And if we're talking about blacks, if Hilary steals the nomination there is a good chance that they would not vote for a Democrat for a long time.
2 Lets suppose your right and polls taken months before the GE actually mean something. Obama is pretty much tied with McCain in national poling. Now if 30% of Hillary supporters intend to vote for McCain if Obama wins doesn't that mean that the other 70% of them might vote for Obama? Shit even if a large portion of them stayed home he would still get more Hilary supporters than McCain right?
 
it seems a lot of people are totally ignoring the electoral college. and that's all it's really about come november. i would think obama's a lock in that regard.
 

Chrono

Banned
OK so there's a debate this Wednesday right? Is there another one planned right now? I'm not going through the last 10 page just for this... :p
 

Clevinger

Member
Chrono said:
OK so there's a debate this Wednesday right? Is there another one planned right now? I'm not going through the last 10 page just for this... :p

Yes, two days after it I believe. Then another one after the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton has committed to but Obama hasn't yet.
 

mj1108

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
i cant wait to see cooltrick start defending mccain when obama gets the nomination. its going to be hilarious

I can't wait to see him when Obama does clinch the nomination. He might implode. :lol

At this point he's pretty much a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Clevinger said:
Yes, two days after it I believe. Then another one after the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton has committed to but Obama hasn't yet.

Wasn't Obama the one to commit to the 2nd debate but not Clinton yet?
 
How is Hillary Clinton more electable than Obama? Do tell.

Let's compare 3 the three candidates on several things, off the top of my head. If anyone wants to add to it, please do.

Now, as for HRC vs BHO (vs JM), let's see the arguments being offered up:

Clinton can get more of the electorate, because she's won the bigger states.

True.

However, let's think this through. Tell me the chances the big Democratic states, like California and New York, will defect to McCain over Obama, especially since they were highly contested. Since they were highly contested, I'd say they'd go for OHB over JM, if HRC is not the candidate.

The little states that Obama's won don't matter!

Let's analyze the implications and the details of this argument. HRC is focusing on Democratic states and the swing states, states with lots of weight that have a habit of switching colors. As for the solidly blue states, I'd say it doesn't matter if either HRC or BHO wins them, because those states will go Dem anyways. Example: Cali will go HRC or BHO over JM.

The swing states is another issue, and that'll be examined later.

Now, as for the little states. The little red states that have been ignored by Dems for years. Well, if we look at voter turn out, it seems more Democrats turned out to vote for Democrats than Republicans did for Republicans in various states. This means that BHO has the potential to wrest away some of these states from JM in the general election.

Dem strongholds + smattering of traditional Rep strongholds = a strong argument for BHO in the GE.

Add to this the swing states, in which BHO that the longer his presence within any state, the higher his percentages rise.

Michigan and Florida resent him, because he disenfranchised them!

Well, as a resident from Florida...

Look, firstly, the Rep side of the state set it up so that they'd force the Dem side to break party rules, thus causing the DNC to punish Florida's delegates. That's neither BHO nor HRC's fault.

Now, we couldn't count the vote as is (I know a ton of a people who did not go to vote precisely because we knew it wouldn't count) and we sure as hell weren't going to do a revote. With the rampant corruption in our state, and our horribly fucking up two elections previous, we weren't going to take our chances on a mail in ballot. So, to say Floridians might turn against BHO is false. All he has to be given is time to campaign in the state; time that he's not being afforded by HRC's threat to take this to Denver.

Michigan might be a whole nother story, but I can speak for Florida.

The RNC will take him down with their horrible propaganda machine!

Perhaps the most valid argument, I do think that the RNC will hit him hard on issues like "He does not wear a lapel pin. Does he really love America?" and "He went to an Ivy League university, and thus thinks he's better than you."

Seriously, though, the issues they'll smear him with are questions about his patriotism, his faith, his pastor, his supposed elitism, and his experience.

Now, no doubt that these are issues that'll sway some voters. But lets see how he's handled these issues thus far:

---He has yet to address the issue of patriotism, at least in a very direct and overt way. He has made a foundation for his future argument; being patriotic is not draping yourself in the colors of the Union, but working in the spirit of the Constitution. He's already made such an argument, but they were small comments and quickly forgotten. I point you, however, to his pastor, on how he could deal with such an issue.

---Look how he handled Wright. He did so in a way that was satisfactory to most Americans. However! He left lingering doubts. Why?

Because of the issues of patriotism Wright brought up. Obama never addressed the patriotic implications that "God damn America"created. Wright directly cursed America for perceived injustices, and in this day and age, doing so is the highest treason you can commit.

However, Wright did also bring another issue to the table, which was the division that is caused by race, and Obama handled that well and his speech was heard by many and was well reviewed. Why could he not do the same for the patriotic issue?

---As for his faith, that'll be most a whisper campaign run by the RNC, adding in the suspicion that he's a Muslim. While damaging, I think Obama, by standing by his pastor, has answered this question. By solving the second issue of patriotism, I'd think this issue of his religion should be greatly diminished.

---As for his elitism, that's going to be something difficult to fight. He's eloquent, went to good schools, and doesn't look like he's been through tough times. He looks young and fresh.

To this, I could suggest an ad blitz on his early life. A father who left him, a step dad who did the same, a solo upbringing by his mother, aided by his grandparents, and lived in Indonesia, not the wealthiest of places. He also grew up of a mixed race, white and black, something that isn't that easy, even today. I'd think this would have a substantial effect on the claim that he is elitist.

---As for experience, that's going to be his weak point, and he's actively shied away from it, because Hillary and McCain both out pace him in sheer amount. He could, in debates, counter with his 8 years as a state senator and 3 years in the Senate. He also chairs, or chaired, several committees involving national security and international affairs, and helped push several important bills through Congress in terms of ethics reform.

Now, for possible attacks against McCain:

Pastor: McCain's pastors, and some of his supporters who are pastors, are loonier than Wright. It wouldn't take much for the media to go pick up on this. They haven't yet, because the big show is between BHO and HRC.

Elitism: It wouldn't be hard to flip the issue on him, considering he's worth in excess of 100 million dollars and owns several homes.

Experience: And, of course, we have BHO's long standing argument: What good is experience if you have poor judgment?

Obama has refused to attack McCain's patriotism, because he said that McCain has been a war hero during the Vietnam War. McCain's pretty bulletproof on that. Same on the religious issue, in terms that McCain's religion is not in doubt. What can be attacked are his pastors, and pastoral supporters.

How would Hillary fare against McCain?

Well, the argument for her being in the race right now is that she'd be stronger against McCain, even if Obama wins the nomination. Let's examine that.

She claims experience as one of her strong points. Even with her years in the White House counting as such, McCain handily out paces her. Lets not forget, the RNC can easily call into doubt those years: Bosnia and Northern Ireland, anyone?

She says she's better prepared for day one, but what does that argument rest on? Experience. And McCain has her beat there.

Not to mention all the lingering suspicions about the Clintons floating around (I don't believe most of them, myself) and the narrative they are being stuck with; a history of scandal and twisting the truth. Do you think that will not return in the GE, should Hillary become the nominee?

Hillary the nominee; who's voting?

Well, let's say Hillary wrests the nomination away from Obama at this point. So, who's voting for her?

a) Her diehard base, those that have kept her going this long.

b) Latinos (possibly affected by Richardson)
I'm trying to think of, and failing, on other groups. Minorities (aside from Latinos, possibly)? They are going to feel burned. Same with the young vote. These are two groups Barack has dominated.

In fact, I see the Republicans rallying against her, and their voter turnout increasing shoudl she become the nominee. The Republican hatred against the Clinton brand is strong, and she'll start the GE with effectively half of the nation against her. It'd be another 2000/2004, and it'd be another roll of the die when it comes to counting votes.

Conclusion:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is more electable and effective than Barak Hussein Obama against John McCain in the General Election?

I'm just not seeing it.

Now, CoolTrick, if you would reply to me, I'd welcome it.

I'll admit, I'm not the most informed of posters. Perhaps, I'll need assistance? *summons the hordes*

Edit: I've missed like a freakin' 1 and 1/2 hour of my martial arts class, due to typing this out.

FUCK YOU, GAF
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Wow...

CoolTrick seriously just wasted 3 pages of this thread since I last checked...

Absolutely crazy. This thread is becoming a joke and a waste to visit.
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Funky Papa said:
I disagree. His meltdown was hilarious.
Did this happen gradually over the last 3 pages, or in one post?

I completely skimmed the last 3 pages and saw CoolTrick every other post so I've essentially considered them all dead.
 

mashoutposse

Ante Up
Probably tomorrow in time for the debate on Wednesday.

theBishop said:
not to mention the unique political ramifications of Democratic super delegates overturning Barack's democratically obtained lead. The people have spoken at this point. The picture isn't going to look different April 22 or August 22. The only thing that could change is if Democratic officials decide to go against the will of the people. And if that happens, I'm probably not the only one giving a serious look at these guys:

http://www.gp.org/

Yep.
 
Obama: the elitist marxist who hates small-town America.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,547157,00.html

I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker -- a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”


Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration -- as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns -- as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America -- one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service -- then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Instigator said:
Obama: the elitist marxist who hates small-town America.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,547157,00.html

Good piece, and it goes back to what I said like 5 pages ago. It wasn't the "bitter" part that was bothersome, it was the implication that the bitterness is why we "cling" to religion. Definitely the one time where I felt that Obama misfired. Personally, that statement bothered me a lot.
 

Cheebs

Member
VanMardigan said:
Good piece, and it goes back to what I said like 5 pages ago. It wasn't the "bitter" part that was bothersome, it was the implication that the bitterness is why we "cling" to religion. Definitely the one time where I felt that Obama misfired. Personally, that statement bothered me a lot.
We? He didn't say we cling to religion. Unless GAF is somehow made up of poor blue collar workers.
 

Cheebs

Member
I saw this on Politico. A major democratic fundraiser says to stop worrying about the general election. That worrying is often justified but not in this election at all.


A wealthy Democratic donor of my acquaintance likes to say, “Sometimes panic is the appropriate reaction.” But for Democrats, this is not that time. Judging by almost any meaningful metric, the current political topography strongly favors the party this year. Unless Obama foolishly gets shamed into accepting public financing—and trust me, the Obama people are no fools, and they have less shame than you’d imagine—he will be the proverbial Mr. Universe at the beach, kicking sand in McCain’s face when it comes to advertising and the ground game. His positions on the issues are more popular than McCain’s. He can’t be blamed for Bush’s war or Bush’s recession. He is young and vibrant and inspiring, whereas McCain is not and not and not.

Seems the pressure from the party is on Obama to NOT accept public financing.
 
I do find it interesting how one of the arguments for religion is always essentially "it helps people through the tough times and stay positive", but apparently you can't say that idea out loud as a presidential candidate (even if you're religious yourself)

So on one hand, religious people are supposedly offended by Obama, yet whenever something bad happens, what are you going to likely hear in church/from friends/strangers? God is on your side, God helps those who helps themselves, you must stay strong in your faith, etc. Of course, he wasn't saying that that's the only time people are ever religious. But it's not some wild claim to make that if you're more stressed out about something, you're more likely to focus on your faith, which is something that "works" for a lot of people.

/big mean atheist
 

theBishop

Banned
soul creator said:
I do find it interesting how one of the arguments for religion is always essentially "it helps people through the tough times and stay positive", but apparently you can't say that idea out loud as a presidential candidate (even if you're religious yourself)

So on one hand, religious people are supposedly offended by Obama, yet whenever something bad happens, what are you going to likely hear in church/from friends/strangers? God is on your side, God helps those who helps themselves, you must stay strong in your faith, etc. Of course, he wasn't saying that that's the only time people are ever religious. But it's not some wild claim to make that if you're more stressed out about something, you're more likely to focus on your faith, which is something that "works" for a lot of people.

/big mean atheist

You can't have it both ways. Obama took a ton of shit last month over what his Christian pastor "Of 20 Years" said about America. Now, they're giving him shit for undermining religion?

You can have one bullshit non-issue, not both.

But more to the point, the word "cling" is not implying that people are only religious because they are economically depressed. He is saying that in times of economic uncertainty, people cling to anything that gives them a sense of stability. That's why Republicans are able to use social conservative "values" as wedge issues.
 

harSon

Banned
VanMardigan said:
Good piece, and it goes back to what I said like 5 pages ago. It wasn't the "bitter" part that was bothersome, it was the implication that the bitterness is why we "cling" to religion. Definitely the one time where I felt that Obama misfired. Personally, that statement bothered me a lot.

He said when people are distraught (Their city loses job after job, the economy worsens, etc..) and the government fails then administration after administration... they lose faith in it. Instead they turn to their families and the values passed down to them, basically things they can count on. Religion being one of them.
 
VanMardigan said:
Good piece, and it goes back to what I said like 5 pages ago. It wasn't the "bitter" part that was bothersome, it was the implication that the bitterness is why we "cling" to religion. Definitely the one time where I felt that Obama misfired. Personally, that statement bothered me a lot.

There definitely are people who do that. It probably just wasn't good for Obama to point it out. I'm glad that the public is rejecting this story though. Pretty cool to see that happen.
 
Tamanon said:
No, you're missing the point, somehow he's saying religion is bad, even though he himself is a devout Christian.

Or a fake devout Christian, much like the Clintons and a good chunk of the political establishment in the country.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Instigator said:
Or a fake devout Christian, much like the Clintons and a good chunk of the political establishment in the country.

I dunno, a fake devout Christian probably would've switched churches to one that was less politically volatile;)
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Tamanon said:
Rasmussen - Obama 48
Clinton 44


Just polls.
Didn't CoolTrick basically go on and on for 24 hours because this same exact poll showed Clinton ahead...and how this was evidence that this shit is affecting Obama?

One day blip = monumental decline in favoritism...confirmed.
 

theBishop

Banned
Tamanon said:
Rasmussen - Obama 48
Clinton 44


Just polls.

"Following the initial weekend furor over the remarks, Rasmussen Markets data still gives Obama an 81.1% chance of winning the Democratic nomination."

Mrs Clinton: Tear down this campaign.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Various takes that yall won't see on Huffington Post, etc.

Daniel Larison said:
Obama’s “understanding” of other views is an exercise in demonstrating his magnanimity and is not much of an effort to show actual respect to other views. It is the pose of the self-righteous liberal who is so certain of his views that he feels liberated to reach out and touch the benighted gun-toting lepers. This is someone who says, “Obviously, you are all terribly wrong, but I am such a good guy that I am going to indulge you in your false notions out of compassion for your suffering.”

Mickey Kaus said:
Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena. Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama and the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.

Rod Dreher said:
God, guns and patriotism: the opiates of the redneck masses. Barack Obama said so. This is precisely what Jeane Kirkpatrick meant in 1984 when she defined the opposition party as San Francisco Democrats. That Obama made these remarks in San Francisco has poetic resonance. If I were running opposition research at the RNC, I would go on vacation now; Obama and his fun friends are doing all my best work for me.

You know, Hillary would never have said anything like that, because for all her faults, she actually had to live in Little Rock for a while, and understands, I presume, how patronizing and false that stereotype is. Obama took a perfectly reasonable and worthwhile point -- that rural and small-town people have been made particularly vulnerable to the economic dislocations of globalization, and ought to be given some consideration -- and turned it into condescending pity for them and their culture. It's the pity that rankles.
 
He will be the proverbial Mr. Universe at the beach, kicking sand in McCain’s face when it comes to advertising and the ground game. His positions on the issues are more popular than McCain’s. He can’t be blamed for Bush’s war or Bush’s recession. He is young and vibrant and inspiring, whereas McCain is not and not and not.

I definitely agree with this. I think Obama is going to run circles around McCain in the general election. My prediction is 55-45.
 
Today's Ras numbers:
Obama: 46
Clinton: 44

Analysis from Ras:

n the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama leads Clinton 48% to 44%. While statistical noise has created daily fluctuations, this race has remained quite stable for the past month or so. A look at the overall trends shows Obama enjoying a modest but consistent advantage.

Support for the Illinois Senator has been with three percentage points of the 48% level every day for the past two-and-a-half weeks. Prior to that, his support had stayed within three points of the 45% level every day but one in March. Clinton’s support has also been stable, but at a slightly lower level. The former First Lady has within three percentage points of the 43% level every day for over a month (see recent Democratic Nomination results). When Clinton is at the top of her range, the race appears even. When Obama is at the top of his range, he appears to have a commanding lead. The reality is somewhere in between those two extremes.

but....

New polling data released this morning shows that 56% of voters nationwide disagree with Obama’s controversial comment that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Partisan and ideological perceptions suggest that Obama’s comments may have more impact on the General Election than the Primaries. Liberal voters tend to agree with Obama and Democrats are fairly evenly divided.

The data also suggests that the Obama campaign was shrewd to try and focus attention on the portion of the comments about people being bitter. Most Americans agree with Obama’s statement that “People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.”
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Anecdotal evidence that the mainstream are morons:

My mother told me that Bittergate was worse than the Reverand Wright comments, and that she's been (apparently) hearing that this would sink Obama.

Granted, she's a feminist who supports Hillary Clinton... Just hearing her say this shit is infuriating to me.

Old people need to not be allowed to make decisions.

No, check that. Old people who disagree with me should not be allowed to make decisions.

If you are older than me, than you must take a compatibility test that will be run against my results. If you are far enough off the mark, then we ship you to Antarctica.

I also have the right to deport anyone I want to Antarctica because they are morons.
 
Zaptruder said:
1. How was the rev wright his screw up? A big issue?

Tyrone Slothrop said:
the rev. wright thing was really nothing...


If it is wrong for white politicians to associate with white racists, then how is it acceptable for Obama to associate with black racists like the Rev. Wright?
 
Door2Dawn said:
I liked how you italic the word hereing to make fun of his spelling.

He got two replies in one. One addressing his point and another highlighting such a strange spelling mistake.

You are getting the same honor, BTW. :D
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
siamesedreamer said:
If it is wrong for white politicians to associate with white racists, then how is it acceptable for Obama to associate with black racists like the Rev. Wright?
The difference here is that I don't find Wright racist, and you assume he is.
 

theBishop

Banned
siamesedreamer said:
If it is wrong for white politicians to associate with white racists, then how is it acceptable for Obama to associate with black racists like the Rev. Wright?

Could you please post some racist remarks made by Rev Wright?
 

Door2Dawn

Banned
Instigator said:
He got two replies in one. One addressing his point and another highlighting such a strange spelling mistake.

You are getting the same honor, BTW. :D
Like he or I really cares what some smug guy thinks about someone else's spelling.



Also,instead of being a snooty about it,you should of toke the time to correct the mistake.
 

harSon

Banned
siamesedreamer said:
If it is wrong for white politicians to associate with white racists, then how is it acceptable for Obama to associate with black racists like the Rev. Wright?

You really are clueless :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom