Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bludog

I'm Not Holding My Breath But ....

Recommended Posts

Let's not make this a game of "chicken".

 

On this date in 2008, Obama was behind McCain. Yet Obama won big time.

Clinton is in a much better position. Her chances are much better than Obama's were.

Nothing is guaranteed. Trump might win. Clinton might win. If you want Trump to lose, your only choice is that Clinton wins.

Her intelligence and experience makes it probable that she'll be a reasonable president. Not as liberal as you'd want, and not as conservative as (say) Colin Powell might want. But reasonable.

Trump, by all indications, would not only not be reasonable, but rather dangerous.

Your dreams for the future might be delayed under Clinton ... or destroyed under Trump.

I believe that Clinton will win.

 

Predictions of the future, even educated ones, based on past events, are not guaranteed either. Still, your post makes good sense, except for the "fear" and "reality" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not make this a game of "chicken".

It's not. I'm not competitive that way.

 

It's not "chicken". It's advocacy for a candidate that I think isn't perfect (and none are), but is intelligent, enormously experienced, dedicated, patriotic, and has the interests of regular Americans at heart.

 

I also think her image in the media suffers, in part, because she's a woman. The media doesn't like women that intense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "chicken". It's advocacy for a candidate that I think isn't perfect (and none are), but is intelligent, enormously experienced, dedicated, patriotic, and has the interests of regular Americans at heart.

Hillary is indeed intelligent and experienced. I'll even give her "dedicated" and "patriotic" as I haven't seen anything to directly show her as otherwise. But I can't agree that she has the interests of regular Americans at heart. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Everything I've observed shows that she has the interests of wealthy donors and large corporations at heart first and foremost. She's a corporatist and an establishment politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I can't agree that she has the interests of regular Americans at heart. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Evidence in support of my claim:

1. In the late 70s she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

2. According to Ted Kennedy, she was instrumental in using her position to push Bill Clinton for S-CHIP. If not for her, Kenedy said, it would never have passed.

3. She tried, unsuccessfully, to get universal health care passed in the 90s. What she proposed back then would have been better than Obamacare. This earned her the hatred of conservatives.

4. More details:

She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She also played a leading role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. She encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH. She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome. And she created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.

 

Of course she cares about ordinary Americans. None of her corporate donors need S-CHIP. None have Gulf War syndrome. George Soros is at no risk for violence against women.

 

If you think she's a corporate shill, you've swallowed Republican propaganda hook, line, and orange stinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is indeed intelligent and experienced. I'll even give her "dedicated" and "patriotic" as I haven't seen anything to directly show her as otherwise. But I can't agree that she has the interests of regular Americans at heart. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Everything I've observed shows that she has the interests of wealthy donors and large corporations at heart first and foremost. She's a corporatist and an establishment politician.

You will enjoy this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Political_positions

 

National Journal's subsequent rankings placed her as the 32nd-most liberal senator in 2006 and 16th-most liberal senator in 2007.

 

The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, rated her votes from 2003 through 2006 as liberal or conservative, with 100 as the highest rating, in three areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign.

 

Averaged for the four years, the ratings are:

Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative;

Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative;

Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative.

 

Total average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole issue with Clinton being the candidate is that lets be honest she cheated Bernie out of the ticket and Bernie would have completely destroyed Trump in the general but this is the country that we are going to have to get use to the same old politicians as decades before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think she's a corporate shill, you've swallowed Republican propaganda hook, line, and orange stinker.

Laripu, I resent this comment. I'm not a moron. I don't "swallow" propaganda, Republican, "orange" or otherwise. I simply don't buy everything that comes out of Hillary's mouth on the campaign trail. Instead, I look at her past actions, her donations, and her allegiances. Hillary has a long, sordid history of sucking up to big business. Sure, she's done a few things for the common citizen. As long as she's been in politics, how could she NOT and stay in office? However big money and big business are at her core, first and foremost. This article from The Nation (NOTE: NOT a Republican "orange" propaganda site) explains my objection to Hillary more eloquently than I could:

 

While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything shes built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isnt Clintons corporate cash, its her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

 

To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation at which Hillary Clinton works and which bears her family name. The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatization frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president), that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities.

 

So lets forget the smoking guns for the moment. The problem with Clinton World is structural. Its the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationshipslubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attentionshape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.

 

For instance, under the Clintons guidance, drug companies work with the foundation to knock down their prices in Africa (conveniently avoiding the real solution: changing the system of patenting that allows them to charge such grotesque prices to the poor in the first place). The Dow Chemical Company finances water projects in India (just dont mention their connection to the ongoing human health disaster in Bhopal, for which the company still refuses to take responsibility). And it was at the Clinton Global Initiative that airline mogul Richard Branson made his flashy pledge to spend billions solving climate change (almost a decade later, were still waiting, while Virgin Airlines keeps expanding).

 

In Clinton World its always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn't Just Her Corporate Cash It's Her Corporate Worldview

 

Hillary was for the TPP before she was against it. She was for private prisons before she was against them. She was for lousy, American job-killing trade deals before she was against them. Shall I bring up her union busting efforts as a Walmart attorney? Link Or her appointing a big money donor (who had zero credentials other than a thick check book) to a sensitive nuclear advisory board. Link

 

 

More links (also NOT Republican "orange" propaganda sites):

 

Hillary Clinton's Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry......so much for alternative energy sources. :rolleyes:

 

Arms Industry Donating to Hawkish Clinton over Incoherent Trump ......"progressive" and "hawkish" should NEVER be synonymous, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolling Rock: Hillary was for the TPP before she was against it. She was for private prisons before she was against them. She was for lousy, American job-killing trade deals before she was against them. Shall I bring up her union busting efforts as a Walmart attorney? Link Or her appointing a big money donor (who had zero credentials other than a thick check book) to a sensitive nuclear advisory board. Link

People that don't look that much into politics they do not understand that Hillary is just a puppet for the corporate sector of america and Democrats will I think regret not nominating Bernie Sanders because we would of won buy a landslide if he was the nominee. The TPP is an absolutely awful deal that the president is trying to get through congress We need to bring Jobs back to the great country we live in. She is honestly a Repeat of the last 8 years and we need a more left candidate that will actually put through the progress our country needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between 'liberal' and 'democratic socialist'. Clinton is the former, Sanders is the latter.

 

I'm in between the two, someone agreeing with her (I like trade deals), sometimes with him (I like government-funded education). I'd be ok with either one. (And note: Sanders and Warren support Clinton.)

 

I'm much more in agreement with her than with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​At some point we need to stop blaming big money, lobbyists, and the establishment media for why get the elected officials we do. The problem is with us. More to the point with certain people. Think about left leaning people who are so purist and idealistic about how racist, sexist, and exploitive this country is yet they think it makes sense not to vote or support third parties that can't win. Think about how many blacks and Hispanics with everything to lose from any rightwing Republican every holding office anywhere who don't vote. There is no reason why a the Hispanic population in Texas has not mobilized and joined with blacks and whites liberals to turn that state blue. Even worse think about how many angry white working class males who care more about guns, keeping out foreigners, sticking it to blacks, than affordable healthcare, living wage jobs, and peace rather than unjust needless wars. If Hillary loses its not her fault it's the people ! Yeah go ahead and call me an arrogant elitist liberal who doesn't understand or respect the average American, but the cold hard truth hurts ! Democracy isn't perfect and the are no guarantees. Sometimes more often than we want to admit people get it wrong !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be extremely disappointed if the first female candidate for President for a major political party dropped out, and was replaced by yet another male candidate. Especially since no Presidential candidate in History has ever dropped out before the election. How many of these same people called for John Kerry to step down because he wasn't likable enough? How many people would be calling for Bernie to step down if he had health issues, and people talked about him being unlikable because he's seen as a socialist, and bringing up his Rape Fantasy essay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

​At some point we need to stop blaming big money, lobbyists, and the establishment media for why get the elected officials we do.

 

Is only peripherally relate to this:

Think about left leaning people who are so purist and idealistic about how racist, sexist, and exploitive this country is yet they think it makes sense not to vote or support third parties that can't win.

 

Will Rogers said it back in 1922. "I am not a member or any organized party. I am an Democrat". The disunity of the Democratic Party lives in infamy, to this day.

 

But the multiple political cancers of Big Campaign Contributions, Lobbying Bribes and the Conservative Corporate Media domination of the airways need to be relentlessly exposed and and opposed, until they are expunged from National politics and money ceases to rule the electoral system.

 

 

​Think about how many blacks and Hispanics with everything to lose from any rightwing Republican every holding office anywhere who don't vote. There is no reason why a the Hispanic population in Texas has not mobilized and joined with blacks and whites liberals to turn that state blue. Even worse think about how many angry white working class males who care more about guns, keeping out foreigners, sticking it to blacks, than affordable healthcare, living wage jobs, and peace rather than unjust needless wars. If Hillary loses its not her fault it's the people ! Yeah go ahead and call me an arrogant elitist liberal who doesn't understand or respect the average American, but the cold hard truth hurts ! Democracy isn't perfect and the are no guarantees. Sometimes more often than we want to admit people get it wrong !

 

This is why, first and foremost, Trump needs to be soundly defeated. It is telling that Hillary, with all her faults, is light years ahead of Trump in her potential to unite progressives on these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is not progressive. And that's the problem. She's a war-hawk who supports wall street. Voting for Jill Stein at the very least sends the message to Democrats that we're tired of what they trot out there, and we're not afraid to leave the party behind.

 

I'd be extremely disappointed if the first female candidate for President for a major political party dropped out, and was replaced by yet another male candidate. Especially since no Presidential candidate in History has ever dropped out before the election. How many of these same people called for John Kerry to step down because he wasn't likable enough? How many people would be calling for Bernie to step down if he had health issues, and people talked about him being unlikable because he's seen as a socialist, and bringing up his Rape Fantasy essay?

 

My how the tune changed to opportunistically fit the circumstances. Evidently no longer supportive of Jill Stein and suddenly unconcerned about Hillary being "a war-hawk who supports wall street". A chameleon would stand in awe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job taking what I said out of context. I was never a Stein voter.

Hillary is too warhawkish for me. Sadly it's either her or whoever the Republicans put up for election. I'd vote Jill Stein if I thought it would do any good.


I've always held the position that Stein isn't a viable candidate, and that a vote for her is basically just a means of sending a message to the DNC that we want someone more progressive. But I was never voting Stein myself. I was ALWAYS going to vote whoever the democrats nominated, especially given the field of Republican candidates. I was NEVER voting for Stein.

 

Furthermore, Clinton has moved left on a number of issues since the primaries. But most importantly, just because I have a number of disagreements with a candidate, doesn't mean that I'd want to see them replaced. I disagree with Tim Kaine more than I do Hillary, but I'm not calling for her to replace him because he's not nearly liberal enough and far too religious. That's despite the fact that it actually has happened in history. (Thomas Eagleton) His stances on the issues worry me far more than anything Hillary's done. I like Bernie Sanders, but I absolutely don't want Hillary stepping down to make room for him (or Joe Biden, who didnt' even run in the primaries.) A woman has finally gotten on the ballot for a major political party. I'd like to see her carry it through, just as every other Presidential candidate in the history of this country has--for better or for worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman has finally gotten on the ballot for a major political party. I'd like to see her carry it through, just as every other Presidential candidate in the history of this country has--for better or for worse.

 

This is an extraordinary campaign season. A woman running for president, for the first time, is an extraordinarily positive development. But the danger presented by her opponent is unprecedented. Every effort must be taken to ensure he will lose.

 

Never has an American candidate for president been threat to humanity that Trump is. As Commander-In-Chief, in possession of the nuclear launch codes, the danger of a Trump presidency is incalculable for our Nation and the world.

 

Trump has already expressed a desire to give nukes to Japan, South Korea and other non-nuclear countries.

 

And he has expressed an eagerness to use them:

Trump Asks, 'If We Have [Nuclear Weapons], Why Can't We Use Them?'

www.politicususa.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-if-nuclear-weapons-them.html

Aug 3, 2016 - Trump Asks, 'If We Have [Nuclear Weapons], Why Can't We Use Them?' ... Trump asked three times in an hour, "If we have them, why can't we ...

 

Trump is likely not only to attack other countries because of personal insults and vendettas, but also, drop nuclear weapons on them. He has been the supreme boss of his own little empire all his adult life, as was his father before him. Trump is likely to ignore congress, except for those that agree with him. By the time he gets impeached, it might be too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, Clinton has moved left on a number of issues since the primaries.

She claims she's moved left. But is it for real or is it for votes? Her VP pick certainly wasn't a move to the left. Words are cheap. I don't vote for anyone until their actions match their promises.

 

But most importantly, just because I have a number of disagreements with a candidate, doesn't mean that I'd want to see them replaced.

For me, it's not about 'disagreements' as much as it is about honest, integrity, consistency, and being physically healthy enough to carry out the duties of the highest office in the country. Along with her untrustworthiness, her war hawkishness, and her penchant to suck up to big business, big pharma, and the military industrial complex many also believe she has severe health issues. She just cancelled several more rallies and her poll numbers are dropping through the floor (at the worst possible time). Keeping Hillary on the ticket will prevent me (and many others) from supporting the Democrats....and I've voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976.

 

I like Bernie Sanders, but I absolutely don't want Hillary stepping down to make room for him (or Joe Biden, who didnt' even run in the primaries.)

I'd happily vote for either one of them. They'd destroy Trump in a general election. So would Elizabeth Warren. To me, gender is irrelevant; it's about the candidate.

 

A woman has finally gotten on the ballot for a major political party. I'd like to see her carry it through, just as every other Presidential candidate in the history of this country has--for better or for worse.

Worse could very well be the end result. I'm gender blind when it comes to politics. I'd love to see a woman as president.....just as I was happy to see an African American president. However, I will NOT vote for a secretive liar, corporatist, and warmonger....regardless of gender or race. I know I speak for literally millions of former Sanders supporters when I say, "give us a better candidate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be extremely disappointed if the first female candidate for President for a major political party dropped out, and was replaced by yet another male candidate. Especially since no Presidential candidate in History has ever dropped out before the election. How many of these same people called for John Kerry to step down because he wasn't likable enough? How many people would be calling for Bernie to step down if he had health issues, and people talked about him being unlikable because he's seen as a socialist, and bringing up his Rape Fantasy essay?

 

This is a very astute observation. I embarrassed that I didn't notice it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be extremely disappointed if the first female candidate for President for a major political party dropped out, and was replaced by yet another male candidate. Especially since no Presidential candidate in History has ever dropped out before the election. How many of these same people called for John Kerry to step down because he wasn't likable enough? How many people would be calling for Bernie to step down if he had health issues, and people talked about him being unlikable because he's seen as a socialist, and bringing up his Rape Fantasy essay?

I'd love to see a female president.....just not Hillary Clinton. Gender aside, I don't like the candidate. I did hope that John Kerry would step down in lieu of another candidate (I liked Dennis Kucinich). I didn't like Kerry and felt he would probably lose. If Bernie had health issues or if he was exceedingly unpopular (versus being probably American's most popular politician Link), I would want for him to step down, too. However to suggest he step down because of an essay he wrote 40 years ago is absurd.

 

The fact that Hillary Clinton is female has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opinion of her. I don't like her as a person and I don't trust her as a politician. I'd feel the same if she were male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination fair and square, and by millions of votes in a system that—if rigged—was rigged by distorting the support for her rival who won delegates in caucus states that were disproportionate to his true level of support in the electorate. XX XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX

 

We have a nominee, and a damn good one. HRC is my far the most qualified person who ran in 2016 to be the president, and by a wide margin.

 

Instead of navel-gazing we should be working damn hard for the win.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination fair and square, and by millions of votes in a system that—if rigged—was rigged by distorting the support for her rival who won delegates in caucus states that were disproportionate to his true level of support in the electorate.

That's simply untrue. Bernie had to run against BOTH Hillary and the DNC.

 

We have a nominee, and a damn good one. HRC is my far the most qualified person who ran in 2016 to be the president, and by a wide margin.

 

Instead of navel-gazing we should be working damn hard for the win.

 

Bill

Not sure who's "navel-gazing," but I'm working damn hard to help candidates win in my area. There's no one running for president that I want to see in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a nominee, and a damn good one. HRC is my far the most qualified person who ran in 2016 to be the president, and by a wide margin.

 

Instead of navel-gazing we should be working damn hard for the win.

 

I agree with your first statement, and I'd say "most qualified person ever except possibly FDR".

I agree with the second statement 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's simply untrue. Bernie had to run against BOTH Hillary and the DNC.

 

Not sure who's "navel-gazing," but I'm working damn hard to help candidates win in my area. There's no one running for president that I want to see in the White House.

 

Sorry RR, but a completely false narrative. Bernie enjoyed all the benefits of running as a Democrat. Wrong time to refight the primary.

 

Bernie Sanders is supporting the nominee. Wish you did too. No time to fuck around.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry RR, but a completely false narrative. Bernie enjoyed all the benefits of running as a Democrat.

"Benefits?" :huh: Sorry, I see it differently. I've lost all faith in the DNC. I'll vote for individual Democratic candidates. But, as an organization, the DNC needs a serious overhaul. Jmho.

 

Bernie Sanders is supporting the nominee. Wish you did too. No time to fuck around.

I wish I could support her. I've detailed my reasons many times; no need to rehash. If follows through on her campaign promises, I'll reconsider for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, benefits. Bernie got all the voter lists and other information gathered by the DNC for decades at great expense and effort by the party. If you don't think that's a big deal you're wrong. He also got a debate stage for running as a Democrat.

 

He lost. The DNC didn't beat him, HRC did. The false narrative is an affront to the truth.

 

The excuse to stil this one out has always been pale. Huge mistake.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be gender blind when my 8 year old daughters ask me why there's never been a female candidate on a major party's presidential ticket, let alone a female president.

 

I would absolutely hate to see Hillary step down to make room for yet another male candidate, and then have to wait another 8 years to hope the Democrats nominate one then. The Republicans aren't going to nominate a woman in 2020. And the incumbent isn't going to just step down (assuming of course Biden/Bernie/Whoever the DNC crowns wins). What message would it send to all the young girls out there with dreams of someday becoming President themselves for Hillary to step down because 'she can't win'? Against Donald Trump at that. How long are we going to have to wait to finally get a female candidate on the Presidential ballot of a major political party if Hillary steps down? The fact is we don't have enough women in politics. Only 20% in the house, and 20% in the senate. Only 5 states currently have female governors, and only 23 states have EVER had a female governor.

Hillary won the primaries--maybe not ENTIRELY fair and square. But the DNC didn't have as much of an effect as people like to think they did. Their attacks on Bernie were ineffectual. It was like Tom Brady deflating some footballs. It probably had no effect on the games, and you wonder why they did it in the first place (though most of it seemed more like bias, and they didn't like Sanders, then outright helping Hillary) because it really didn't do much. And the people responsible should receive some sort of punishment even though it was ineffectual. Then again, I doubt most people saying they won't support Hillary would support her even if the DNC hadn't been biased. But in any case, Hillary won the primaries. She had enough delegates to win the nomination, and that shouldn't just be ignored because Bernie Sanders is more likable (not like the DNC would nominate Bernie anyway. If you think they would, I've got an invisible Pink Unicorn for sale for just $35,000) or Joe Biden is more progressive.

If Bernie were the candidate, and losing, how many people would be calling for him to be replaced by Hillary? And they'd be wrong if they did so. You might as well forego primaries, and let the DNC choose whichever candidate has the best chance of winning every time. I mean maybe next time it won't be Trump running for President. But knowing the Republicans, it'll probably be someone just about as repulsive. Or what if people wanted to replace him with Joe Biden? Would Bernie supporters REALLY be okay with that, and should they be?

Of course I think Hillary will win the election. As we get closer to the election, we'll start to see Hillary pull away. She's even been able to sway some Republicans (including apparently George H.W. Bush).

I also find it interesting that female politicians tend to be viewed more as "unlikable". Even Elizabeth Warren was viewed as unlikable in her contest against Scott Brown. (I've read that Democrats preferred Brown personally to Warren). Hillary's favorability also seems to go up and down depending on if she's running for something. I don't think we'll actually see a change in women having more roles in politics until we address these attitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • By teacher

    All lives matter.


  • By teacher

    Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...