Tuesday's Pennsylvania Primary shows that:

1.Barack Obama cannot win one single swing state.

2.Barack Obama cannot get the votes of "lunch-bucket Democrats" and the Democrats can't win without that vote.

3.Barack Obama can outspend his opposition three to one and still lose in the double didgets [and don't think John Mc Cain is not taking note of that].

4.Obama only got as far he did because he wasn't being scrutinzed.

5.Obama does not hold up well to scrutiny.

6.Hillary may still win the popular vote in the primaries.

Spin :nonono:

It's obviously highly opinionated, and from a partisan source, but writing it off as "spin" isn't a good idea.

Point #2 is especially important: Obama is incredibly popular with college kids and black voters, but he clearly does have a big problem with the so-called "lunch bucket" Democrats, even in deep blue states (e.g. Hillary whomps McCain in Massachussets, but Obama and McCain run neck and neck). I'd be shocked if he doesn't get the nomination at this point, so I hope it's something he pays attention to and addresses as quickly as possible. This is urgent, and something that cannot be written off as spin if Obama wants to win.

It's obviously highly opinionated, and from a partisan source, but writing it off as "spin" isn't a good idea.

Point #2 is especially important: Obama is incredibly popular with college kids and black voters, but he clearly does have a big problem with the so-called "lunch bucket" Democrats, even in deep blue states (e.g. Hillary whomps McCain in Massachussets, but Obama and McCain run neck and neck). I'd be shocked if he doesn't get the nomination at this point, so I hope it's something he pays attention to and addresses as quickly as possible. This is urgent, and something that cannot be written off as spin if Obama wants to win.

I don't entirely disagree, but I simply pulled a TT in my response because it's not worth it to reply to his dumb ass in any other way.

Spin :nonono:



Name me one thing on that post that is factually incorrect.

Name me one thing on that post that is factually incorrect.

Well I'll re-iterate what I said since you make such an incessant habit of simply typing those 4 letters in response to facts presented against you all the time: I don't entirely disagree, but I simply pulled a TT in my response because it's not worth it to reply to his dumb ass in any other way.

But since it's easy enough, she did not win by double digits. She won by 9.2-9.4 (votes still being counted).

But since it's easy enough, she did not win by double digits. She won by 9.2-9.4 (votes still being counted).


By rounding off [which most people do] she does win by double digits.

Okay, if that makes you feel better. Okay.

she did not win by double digits. She won by 9.2-9.4 (votes still being counted).


This nitpicking^ of TLG's reminds me of a story:

The Pope and Hillary were in a boat,the wind blows off the Pope's cap and Hillary gets the cap back by walking on the water.

The next day TLG gets on DA and mentions it,but instead of saying "Hillary walks on water" TLG says "Hillary can't swim".:D

Okay. If that makes you feel better. Okay.

It also shows that the racist black vote along with the ignorant twit 'youth vote' and the self-hating white liberal vote isn't enough to win major elections.

The 'youth vote' was decidedly thin. I guess there was some new shiny game on their ButtBerries or whatever those things are called that distracted them from the polls.

It also shows that the racist black vote along with the ignorant twit 'youth vote' and the self-hating white liberal vote isn't enough to win major elections.

The 'youth vote' was decidedly thin. I guess there was some new shiny game on their ButtBerries or whatever those things are called that distracted them from the polls.

Yep. It looks like Hillary's two core constituencies, the Archie Bunkers and those angry, old, menopausal, man-hating "white women" are solidly behind her. Those are a couple of groups for her to really be proud of consistently carrying votewise, they embody the old-fashioned "American Way".
Actually, I had no real idea there were so many of either group in this country. Who could have known, in this day and age, that there are so many old throwbacks still alive and living comfortably in the past?

In each state that has been contested, as the voters got to know both candidates, Hillary's numbers went down and Barack's numbers went up with registered Democrats who actually voted in the last DNC primary. PA started with her up by 20 - 24 points and ended with her up by 10. Same with Ohio and Texas. In fact, if the Rush Limbaugh vote hadn't saved her, she would've lost Texas as the DNC-only caucuses proved in that state.

The truth is that Hillary is an extremely divisive individual, and if she were to be put out as the Democrat general election candidate, the GOP base would be energized as it has never been energized, and McCain would win in a landslide. A mummified corpse would win in a landslide against Hillary in a general election. She's earned that much hatred from the GOP base since 1992, and that hatred runs really deep.

Believe me, once Barack Obama finally puts this primary behind him, the Democrats will rally around him, and the "Reagan Democrats" will remain the pseudo-Republicans they've always been and vote for the GOP candidate anyway. Just like they'd do if Hillary were the nominee. Barack isn't losing any DNC voters due to Hillary's nonsense.

All this talk about him bringing millions of new voters into the DNC ranks is pure crap. Not all, but many of these are Republicans who are voting against him in these primaries. In PA, they saw the need to actually (and temporarily) switch party affiliation to do so. I know this by what happened in Ohio. My own in-laws are Republicans who voted in the DNC primary - here in Ohio - in order to vote against Obama. John McCain was already the nominee, so they all just figured they'd make their votes count. They have some weird fear that a Barack Obama presidency will cause serious damage to our society. As my father-in-law said, "This country just isn't ready for a black president." This is a belief that a lot of these older voters firmly believe, and they believe that it's up to them to save us from ourselves by voting against Obama. My in-laws are unapologetic for their votes, and see it as being concerned about their country. Not as anything racist at all. Just being sensible, and responsible. Sadly, they still live in a past where decent black folks keep in their place, and they only see young black men as gang members and criminals.

Republicans wouldn't vote for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. I don't care what the pundits say. Most of the big move from GOP to DNC in this primary season is about shutting Obama down. Period. The media is just afraid of the societal ramifications of admitting such a thing. They've been stumbling over themselves to try and explain the weird record breaking turnouts, even while the race stays so relatively close. Hillary owns the temporary GOP crossover, and she knows it. They all know it. They also know that it'll all turn against her if she steals the nomination through the Super Delegates, along with the rest of the Democratic Party.

Only the average voter is oblivious to what's happening here.

Tuesday's Pennsylvania Primary shows that:

1.Barack Obama cannot win one single swing state.

2.Barack Obama cannot get the votes of "lunch-bucket Democrats" and the Democrats can't win without that vote.

3.Barack Obama can outspend his opposition three to one and still lose in the double didgets [and don't think John Mc Cain is not taking note of that].

4.Obama only got as far he did because he wasn't being scrutinzed.

5.Obama does not hold up well to scrutiny.

6.Hillary may still win the popular vote in the primaries.

PS OMG U R RIGHT! What a crappy candidate!

Must suck to be losing to him.

Yep. It looks like Hillary's two core constituencies, the Archie Bunkers and those angry, old, menopausal, man-hating "white women" are solidly behind her.


That is toal bullshit.

It is women [of all sorts ], baby boomers and Latinos that support her and I've got news for you Obama can't win the election without them either.





The truth is that Hillary is an extremely divisive individual, and if she were to be put out as the Democrat general election candidate, the GOP base would be energized as it has never been energized, and McCain would win in a landslide. A mummified corpse would win in a landslide against Hillary in a general election. She's earned that much hatred from the GOP base since 1992, and that hatred runs really deep.


Are you kidding?

She is a moderate,someone like Obama is much more divisive.

Barack Obama cannot bring the country together.



Barack isn't losing any DNC voters due to Hillary's nonsense.

No ,but he might be losing DNC voters due the nonsesne of you and other Obamamanicas.

Sam Donaldson is right,the youthful ,extremist Obama supporters feel like they are "entitled" and that arrogance turns mainstream people off.




PS OMG U R RIGHT! What a crappy candidate!

Must suck to be losing to him.


C'mon now,play nice.:rolleyes:

No ,but he might be losing DNC voters due the nonsesne of you and other Obamamanicas.

[...]

C'mon now,play nice.:rolleyes:

All in the same breath :)
You bring new meaning to self-contradiction...

Carry on.

M.

All in the same breath :)
You bring new meaning to self-contradiction...


Walt Whitman would be proud.:D

I think Howard Dean will order Hillary and Obama to be on the same ticket.

They both have constituencies that the Democratic Party needs in order to win the election.

And the Obama supporters have divided the Party that having them both on the same ticket will be the only way the party can reunite.

I think Howard Dean will order Hillary and Obama to be on the same ticket.

They both have constituencies that the Democratic Party needs in order to win the election.

And the Obama supporters have divided the Party that having them both on the same ticket will be the only way the party can reunite.

LOL.

...

LOL.

I think Howard Dean will order Hillary and Obama to be on the same ticket.

They both have constituencies that the Democratic Party needs in order to win the election.

And the Obama supporters have divided the Party that having them both on the same ticket will be the only way the party can reunite.

Will you just go ahead and embrace the inner Republican within you? You're an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Call yourself a Clinton Republican if need be. I hate seeing complete idiots claiming to be Democrats. Maybe a third party would be a good choice for you?

That is toal bullshit.

It is women [of all sorts ], baby boomers and Latinos that support her and I've got news for you Obama can't win the election without them either.

She can win battleground states like Ohio, and other big states that Obama loses to McCain in but Hillary wins. Also the much touted 'youth vote' will fade away, short attention spans, and even at that Hillary will get some 40%-50% of that in the general elections.


Ignore these racist, sexist, ageist twits here; they're exactly why Ospama-O-Rama will lose. One of them is already becoming even more unhinged than he normally is.

Oh, no! Certainly nobody saw this coming.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/obama.demographics/

Yes, I said somewhere else in these threads they were already spinning the myth that Ospam-O-Rama is only losing because of Racist Whitey, despite all the real evidence to the contrary. That black vote in Penn was especially embarrassing, almost 93%+ for Obaspama; surely that's not racist bloc voting ...

Will you just go ahead and embrace the inner Republican within you?


I'm a moderate,you are an extremist.


You're an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.


It's you and your ilk who alienating the mainstream from the Democartic Party,not me and my ilk.


Call yourself a Clinton Republican if need be. I hate seeing complete idiots claiming to be Democrats. Maybe a third party would be a good choice for you?
Aw,now be nice.:(
She can win battleground states like Ohio, and other big states that Obama loses to McCain in but Hillary wins. Also the much touted 'youth vote' will fade away, short attention spans, and even at that Hillary will get some 40%-50% of that in the general elections.


Agreed.




Ignore these racist, sexist, ageist twits here; they're exactly why Ospama-O-Rama will lose.


Ah,I don't take them personally,but others do.



One of them is already becoming even more unhinged than he normally is.
:D
Yes, I said somewhere else in these threads they were already spinning the myth that Ospam-O-Rama is only losing because of Racist Whitey, despite all the real evidence to the contrary. That black vote in Penn was especially embarrassing, almost 93%+ for Obaspama; surely that's not racist bloc voting ...


I think a black man [or woman]can be become president,but Obama is vulnerable .

Don't blame the meesenger for the news.

Tuesday's Pennsylvania Primary shows that:

1.Barack Obama cannot win one single swing state.

Assuming you mean the general election, what swing state does he lose that Hillary wins? (As in, I don't think Hillary could take Florida, personally.) And if nothing else, he puts Illinois in the bag on the D side of the ledger. It was probably Dem leaning, but a native son seals it.

2.Barack Obama cannot get the votes of "lunch-bucket Democrats" and the Democrats can't win without that vote.

What evidence do you have that Hillary gets them while Obama won't in a general election? Hell, Obama's been the one talking about withdrawing from NAFTA, and nobody with a prayer to win gives a hoot about border security. I'd imagine "lunch-bucket Democrats" will vote D if they're concerned about things like healthcare, R if they're still hypnotized by the administration spin about national security.

3.Barack Obama can outspend his opposition three to one and still lose in the double didgets [and don't think John Mc Cain is not taking note of that].

I've yet to see a poll that shows Obama as nominee v. Clinton as nominee will make a whole heck of a lot of difference overall. (It may on a state-by-state basis, so anything you'd care to present about that I'll happily read over.) Seems to me the race is a dead heat whomever comes out on top, and any poll you'd care to quote has a victory for McCain, Clinton fairly close to a rounding error.

See here. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html) - My only concern is I'm honestly not sure how up to date this listing is.

4.Obama only got as far he did because he wasn't being scrutinzed.

5.Obama does not hold up well to scrutiny.

None of the candidates do.

6.Hillary may still win the popular vote in the primaries.

Unless this Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html) is garbage, she absolutely will not. The only way to conclude that Clinton wins the popular vote is to include Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot. Moreover, Hillary is going to lose both North Carolina and Indiana, maybe not by much, but she's still going to lose them. So Obama's margin in the popular vote is going to increase, not decrease.

What evidence do you have that Hillary gets them while Obama won't in a general election? Hell, Obama's been the one talking about withdrawing from NAFTA,

He got caught lying about that, just as Hillary did; they both sent people to comfort the Canadians and probably the narco-state consulates, too, the latter just didn't have anybody working there who squealed on them, so all that's a wash. One look at the list of his big donors also makes that platform a farce as well.

None of the candidates do.

Hillary's been getting scrutinized and villified almost daily since before Bill got elected. She's still here. On the other hand, there is no telling what other idiocies are still in Ospama's closet, waiting for the right moment.

Hillary's been getting scrutinized and villified almost daily since before Bill got elected. She's still here.

And fair or not, that's why 48-51% of the country HATES her and would never vote for her no matter who she ran against. Yeah, smart to nominate that one. :|

He got caught lying about that, just as Hillary did; they both sent people to comfort the Canadians and probably the narco-state consulates, too, the latter just didn't have anybody working there who squealed on them, so all that's a wash.

Ah, thanks. I thought those pronouncements were too good to be true. Especially since I've not heard them repeated. Obama might actually have gotten my vote had he stuck to this, even though I suspect he'll make a worse president even that Bush has. Neither McCain nor Clinton has said anything I want to hear, that one statement from Obama is all I've heard from him I liked. And now I'll disregard it.

One look at the list of his big donors also makes that platform a farce as well.

Besides Soros, who is as inevitable in major Dem campaigns as stench is in excrement, who do you mean? Just if you have a link handy, no need to do any leg work. I believe you, consider this a question asked in idle curiousity...answer at your own convenience, or not.

Hillary's been getting scrutinized and villified almost daily since before Bill got elected. She's still here. On the other hand, there is no telling what other idiocies are still in Ospama's closet, waiting for the right moment.

I'm skeptical that there aren't many rocks Hillary's campaign hasn't looked under yet, personally.

Besides Soros, who is as inevitable in major Dem campaigns as stench is in excrement, who do you mean? Just if you have a link handy, no need to do any leg work. I believe you, consider this a question asked in idle curiousity...answer at your own convenience, or not.

No problem. They would be linked to opensecrets.org, and an article in Z magazine last February. Despite all the hoo hah about 'small donors', the data from February didn't show any great wave of 'small donors', unless Ma and Pa Kettle regularly blow $500 and above on political donations, and besides it's the big boys who donate early that get the access, not the unwashed masses who donate later after all the media exposure. Those would be in the Z article on 'The Hidden Primary'.

Don't recall if Ospama ever opted out of the Federal matching Funds thing or not; he claimed he wasn't going to, then he said he wasn't sure, blah blah blah.

opensecrets should have the March update out by now; haven't looked at it for a month or two.

Assuming you mean the general election, what swing state does he lose that Hillary wins? (As in, I don't think Hillary could take Florida, personally.) And if nothing else, he puts Illinois in the bag on the D side of the ledger. It was probably Dem leaning, but a native son seals it.


I think she can take all of them including Florida.


What evidence do you have that Hillary gets them while Obama won't in a general election?

The fact is that Obama fans have to ask that with everything going for him,why can't win a single primary in those states?

If Obama is every bit as great as his fans says he is,then why couldn't he be able to wrap it up a long time ago?

A lot of people have very serious doubts about him.


And fair or not, that's why 48-51% of the country HATES her and would never vote for her no matter who she ran against. Yeah, smart to nominate that one. :|


Yeah,but that poll represents the popular vote ,not the electorial vote.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those 48-51% you name live in hardcore Red States that no Democrat will win in the Electorial College anyway.

By the summer of 1992 Bill Clinton was in third place and went on to win the White House,at this point in 1988 Dukkais was farther ahead than Obama now is.

The only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day and the only vote that really counts is the Electorial College vote.

By October 2007 employees of the Goldman Sachs investment bank had given Clinton $338,690, Morgan Stanley employees $326,190, and Citibank employees $303,865. Obama got $360,328 from Goldman Sachs employees, even more than Clinton, but overall securities and investment companies, commercial banks, and real estate firms favor Clinton first. Security and investment companies favor Obama second, but real estate likes Romney and Guiliani over Obama. Hedge funds donate more to Guiliani than anyone, ahead of Clinton and Obama, and insurance ranks Chris Dodd (from Connecticut, where the insurance industry is headquartered), ahead of Romney, Guiliani, and Clinton in that order.

A second pot of corporate gold comes from lawyers and law firms. Clinton leads among this group as well, followed closely by Edwards and Obama, then leading Republicans Guiliani, McCain, and Romney. Lobbyists—the third group of major donors—give more to Clinton and Guiliani than to McCain, Dodd, and Romney. Obama and Edwards are refusing to accept lobbyist donations. A fourth pot of money—oil and gas interests—favors Guiliani first, followed by Romney, Clinton, and McCain. Guiliani and McCain appear to have captured most of those who gave heavily to the Bush/Cheney campaign. The final source of major funding is from professionals, who are often tied to corporations and who generally have less capital and donate less money to campaigns. Health professionals, educators, entertainment, and computer/Internet professionals favor Obama with slightly more money than Clinton, who in second place stands well ahead of Romney, Guiliani, and Edwards respectively in donations.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16305

... and more detail in the rest of the article. His data is from Fall '07, the important money that matters. I'm sure he got more money in April and March. Hey, people are still sending money to Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, so it's not like he really has to give a crap about 'populism' or 'reform'; he's already proven he has the same Cake Eaters' contempt and hate for average Americans that the Pelosis, Clintons, and Kennedys do.

Yeah,but that poll represents the popular vote ,not the electorial vote.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those 48-51% you name live in hardcore Red States that no Democrat will win in the Electorial College anyway.

You're sure wrong. It does enough to put her out of contention--or at least on insanely thin ice in Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida and other places where Obama doesn't have that albatross around his neck.

You're sure wrong. It does enough to put her out of contention--or at least on insanely thin ice in Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida and other places where Obama doesn't have that albatross around his neck.

Hillary won the primaries in Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Why would she be any more likely to lose those states in the general election than Obama would be? I certainly don't see many Obama voters crossing to McCain, though maybe they'll stay home.

LOL, just saw this. Absolutely unbelievable. Probably enough to set Howard Dean screaming again. :p

Using New Math, Clinton Contends She’s Ahead (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1209118673-6mUd5j/gi1CvWWdN9p8BWA&oref=slogin)

“I’m very proud that, as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday in a campaign appearance in Indianapolis. “It’s a very close race, but if you count — as I count — the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that.”

Mrs. Clinton won both those states by double-digit margins, but neither she nor Mr. Obama campaigned in them and Mr. Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot.

Translation: Gimme the damn nomination, and if I rip the party apart, oh, well. Truly nasty bunch, these Clintons. Think she'd want to count them if she'd lost them? :D

Hillary won the primaries in Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Why would she be any more likely to lose those states in the general election than Obama would be? I certainly don't see many Obama voters crossing to McCain, though maybe they'll stay home.

Florida = didn't count. New Hampshire = 3% difference. Nevada = 4% difference (and my vote wasn't counted, so who knows how many others weren't). And at that time the question was Hillary or Obama, not Hillary or McCain / Obama or McCain. They're different questions. Primary support =/= necessarily an indicator of General Election matchups. And if you don't believe I'm approaching this objectively... Obama beat Clinton in Missouri, but Clinton runs at least a little stronger there vs. McCain. It runs both ways. I just think Obama is much stronger overall.

You're sure wrong.


No,I'm not.



Michigan,


She won Michigan big.


Ohio,


She won Ohio by a landslide ,plus she has the support of of our very popular Gov and other key Democrats.



Pennsylvania,


She beat Obama's ass in Pennsylvania,he is not popular in Penn [or Ohio].


Florida


She beat Obama's ass in Florida.

Are you stating this on real data from the states in question or are you just making up your own stats?




Hillary won the primaries in Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Why would she be any more likely to lose those states in the general election than Obama would be?


She wouldn't be.


I certainly don't see many Obama voters crossing to McCain, though maybe they'll stay home.

And in the key battleground states Obama's demographic [African-Americans and college students] won't decide who wins the state.


LOL, just saw this. Absolutely unbelievable. Probably enough to set Howard Dean screaming again. :p

Using New Math, Clinton Contends She’s Ahead (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1209118673-6mUd5j/gi1CvWWdN9p8BWA&oref=slogin)



Translation: Gimme the damn nomination, and if I rip the party apart, oh, well. Truly nasty bunch, these Clintons. Think she'd want to count them if she'd lost them? :D

If you do not the count the votes from two very key states like Florida and Michigan,then get ready to say : President John Mc Cain.

No,I'm not.




She won Michigan big.



She won Ohio by a landslide ,plus she has the support of of our very popular Gov and other key Democrats.



She beat Obama's ass in Pennsylvania,he is not popular in Penn [or Ohio].



She beat Obama's ass in Florida.

Are you stating this on real data from the states in question or are you just making up your own stats?

I'm not going to fall into your stupid argument that "ZOMG SHE WON THE PRIMARY SO ONLY SHE CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER" BS. Just because I'd prefer cookies to brownies for dessert doesn't mean I'd prefer brussel sprouts to brownies too.

I'm not going to fall into your stupid argument that "ZOMG SHE WON THE PRIMARY SO ONLY SHE CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER" BS. Just because I'd prefer cookies to brownies for dessert doesn't mean I'd prefer brussel sprouts to brownies too.It may mean that for many in the electorate who have to a deep-rooted cultural aversion to brownies as the principle component of dessert. The brussels sprouts may be the only acceptable choice between the two for them, even if they have to hold their noses to get it down.

I'm not going to fall into your stupid argument that "ZOMG SHE WON THE PRIMARY SO ONLY SHE CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER" BS. Just because I'd prefer cookies to brownies for dessert doesn't mean I'd prefer brussel sprouts to brownies too.


I'm just saying your contention isn't fact,it's your interpertation of various facts.

And since you are a Obama supporter you'de be less than human if you didn't manipulate the facts to say what you wanted them to say.

And since you are a Obama supporter you'de be less than human if you didn't manipulate the facts to say what you wanted them to say.

Since you're the master of that, I'll defer to your judgment.

Since you're the master of that, I'll defer to your judgment.

No kidding.
Talk about the pot talking crap about the kettle...

M.

At least I'm honest about it.:shrug:

At least you're honest about the fact that you lie and manipulate facts...

:scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

At least you're honest about the fact that you lie and manipulate facts...

:scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

Yeah, its TT's latest ploy. He seems to think that if he openly admits to being spineless, his hypocrisy will somehow be ok.

M.

What Pennsylvania showed to me is "Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't know."

Barack raises too many qustions in the eyes of working joe Schlubs who say to themselves, "he's not one of us."

People have been dealing with Hillary and John for so many years, there are no suprises anymore, unpleasant or otherwise. Every week now you keep finding out something about the things, dealings, or people that Obama has associated himself with over the years and its getting too disconcerting for people.

In the is time of uncertainty and indecision, the last thing people want is to be wondering about is their leaders. And thus they fall back onto the old predictable stand-bys.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

I think this piece says it all.

NSFW audio, so be careful.

:nonono:At least you're honest about the fact that you lie and manipulate facts...



Aw,play nice.:nonono:



Yeah, its TT's latest ploy. He seems to think that if he openly admits to being spineless, his hypocrisy will somehow be ok.

M.


Aw Malclom ,play nice.:nonono:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

I think this piece says it all.

NSFW audio, so be careful.

:nice: Yes, it does.

:nonono:

Aw,play nice.:nonono:

Aw Malclom ,play nice.:nonono:

Victim complex still going strong...

M.

Victim complex still going strong...

M.

At least he's stopped attacking using faulty logic... ;)

At least he's stopped attacking using faulty logic... ;)

Yes, hopefully the moratorium on that holds strong.
:)

M.

Victim complex still going strong...

M.


No vicitm complex,just good manners [not to mention boredom over the same old banal points your side makes].