quote:Do you remember when people actually argued, on this forum, that the term was not racially evocative?
To be fair, I can't remember whether they didn't believe it was being used that way, or whether it was intended to be used that way. Either way, maaaannn, that's a steep sort of denial.
Interesting. I've never remotely associated the term with racism. An abomination is "anything greatly disliked or abhorred". And the people who use the term "Obamination" certainly feel that way. I'm an Obama supporter and sometimes I think it gets a little silly how quick people are to claim racism. Do people not remember how vile and despicable Republicans thought Clinton was at the time? I think assuming racism instead of the more apparent extreme partisanship tinged with fanaticism is somewhat dishonest.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You were not simply pointing that out. Simply pointing that out consists of simply pointing it out. Listing the arguments is different. Listing the arguments demands, or at least invites, a response. And these were items which have all been responded to, in depth, and with a great degree of certainty, in the past and on the public record. Now, I understand how it seemed to you that people were only addressing the one argument about "Born in America." This is not because they think there is only one specific argument, but because they *understand* that there is only one general argument, and the details, fluid as they are, are not very important. The whole birther issue is *one* issue, and not a class of issues. The different claims are discreet only in that they are based on different sets of information and different leading interpretations of those sets of information. The interpretations lead to only one base claim, and that base claim is always the same, and generated for the same reason. See where we're going? Everybody else already got there. It's like we're having an argument about racism (this is a race related issue after all), and you need to go back and say, "hold on a sec, racists don't just hate black people for being genetically inferior, they hate them for being poor, stupid, dirty, and drug addicted as well." We got it. All those claims are bound up in the same bias, so as long as we understand, in this discussion, what that bias is, we understand all the claims and their motivations.
Nice opinion. I stated my reasons, but you just dismiss them because OBVIOUSLY you know what I was trying to get at and I wasn't. You seem to know what my intentions were more than I did. Amazing!
The discussion was focusing on one detail of the birther issue. I simply pointed out that there was more to the birther issue than that one detail. If you already knew those other facets of the issue then good for you. Others may not have known that there was more to the issue than that one part. If you did, then great! Give yourself a pat on the back, you are an informed individual!
quote: Try it. Go back into my posting history, and give it a shot. Never mind that the contexts will be different in such a way as to completely nullify your point. Do it! Make your point, even though it makes no sense. It shows what you really know about me. Anybody should feel free to disagree with me on this, but I would characterize myself, in this regard, as being quite consistent. I appreciate quality thinking, and while perhaps I don't acknowledge it enough when I see it, I don't argue in the same way with people whom I believe are thinking reasonably. I am dismissive of you because you seldom present anything I would term as quality thinking. On the contrary, though a lot of people do a lot of non-quality thinking a lot of the time, you often do worse. This recent post is an example (and again I think anybody could tell you I'm consistent in this regard), of what I see as fairly poor reasoning. Not only did you jump into the discussion to correct an assumption that was not being made (at least not to my eyes), but you didn't really know why you were doing it, did you? Why was making that list important to you? Did you feel it would enlighten others as to the depth of the issue? This is the problem, you don't seem to get where the depth of the issue actually is. You get the surface stuff- there are a bunch of people arguing about something- but what are they arguing about? Because making that list, again, invites responses to those points, and it brings the discussion to the level where people who made up those lists in the first place want it to be: "address me, acknowledge my concerns, and in so doing, acknowledge me and my feelings about this." It's feelings. The birthers want to be heard, and because what they want to say -what is in their hearts- is something that they have been trained never to reveal or even to acknowledge, they need to be acknowledged in this way. Children argue over petty details and inversions and restatements of the same arguments because they think that somehow, in engaging continually in the same debate, they will somehow by will alone overcome the grief of being denied what they want. In the five stages of grief, birthers are stuck somewhere between Anger and Bargaining. These claims and related claims and restatements of old claims, and reshuffling of the standards of evidence and what is or isn't common knowledge or official record is *bargaining.* And they get you involved in it too, unwittingly, by continuing to insist that they aren't being *properly* heard, and that they aren't being *fairly* addressed, because that's what you do when you are coping with loss.
See, here's the thing. I have a fairly evolved reason for disliking what you posted, and I won't be surprised now if you insist that it's just me being mean, and even use this post as evidence of me just being a big ol' meany, because I'm tough on you. But I have my reasons, and they go beyond not liking you- I don't know you, and my feelings about you are ambiguous, mostly because you are ambiguous and thin in a lot of what you have to say, all of which I read when it is addressed to me.
I imagine you think that because I came down so hard on you when you first starting posting political drivel that I disagreed with so much, I was only posting because I disagreed with your opinions. And now that you are not expressing opinions (at least you are being vague and coy and ambiguous about your opinions), you think I ought to leave you alone. But the thinking is the same. You're the same mind, and while I could forgive everything you've ever been wrong about, this is harder to forgive. Now, that you think me such a fool as to not recognize the same sort of thinking when you aren't actually claiming any position on an issue is just insulting. But I understand, you ignore me whenever you can.
Since you've already stated that you aren't liable to read my posts at all if you feel overwhelmed by my terrible invective, I'd say you don't have much of a right to claim my reasons for posting. I can always state my own reasons. Can you? [/QB]
Orincoro, it is one thing to disagree with someone, it is another to completely berate and dismiss what someone posts, simply because you do not agree with them. You say you appreciate quality thinking, but it seems like you only appreciate it if your views are in line with the person doing the thinking. If their view differs from yours, it is not quality thinking.
I don't ignore your posts because I feel overwhelmed by you. Sometimes I ignore your posts (even if they are in response to someone else) because of your posting style. I can appreciate the passion you show in your posts though we almost always disagree. When you disagree with someone though your posts often read like you are angry and cannot fathom how someone could think the way they do.
posted
You're not going to get anywhere engaging Orincoro on personal attacks in his posting style, Geraine. People who are completely not engaged directly with him and who don't strongly disagree with him politically have tried, without much impact that I can remember. It is, as has been noted, an ongoing thing of his.
That said, do you see why some of us - him included - are really just exasperated with this notion of lending anything other than, "OK-this whole birther thing is a bunch of conspiracy theory crap and ought to be rejected as anything worth serious consideration whenever it comes up, by all sources!"
Because listen, I'm sure there are birthers and people who know birthers who think they're well-meaning. Who don't realize, "Hey-this is a bunch of garbage. I don't actually have any credible evidence for it that hasn't been soundly, and I killed dead and then thrown into the sun which then goes nova and coalesces into a black hole, rebutted." But just because they don't realize it doesn't mean the stuff they believe in, or tread lightly around, isn't a bunch of nonsense.
And pretty much anyone who goes looking into the topic with something other than, "Proof that Obama isn't a citizen" as their Google prompt is going to realize that if he really shouldn't be a US citizen...they have no way of knowing it. That is to say if this is some massive conspiracy that the 'Obimination' has pulled on America, we don't have any evidence of it. The world looks the same as it would if he hadn't pulled off some big conspiracy and was, in fact, a rightful US citizen from birth.
Which relegates this whole issue to sandwich board wearing conspiracy theory Truther territory. As far as actual evidence is concerned, that's where it is more or less. But you probably wouldn't, if some Truther (that's someone who thinks 9-11 was a conspiracy by Jews, the Feds, Jews and the Feds, aliens, never actually happened at all, whatever) started going off on their rants, say, "Look, I think it's kinda ridiculous, but they've got some arguments and I can see why they think that way."
There simply are no honest, rigorous ways to think that way. If there were, any one of the hundreds of expert, very thorough people who would've seen quite a payday and much glory to yield such discoveries would've found it already. It's a non-issue. That's bad enough. What makes it worse is that it's a non-issue that is so often really thinly veiled in racism, jingoism, and Islamophobia.
Forget Orincoro's style of posting: can you see why people just get all, "Ugh!" and throw up their hands whenever someone throws in a, "Well, but..." to this birther nonsense?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You were not simply pointing that out. Simply pointing that out consists of simply pointing it out. Listing the arguments is different. Listing the arguments demands, or at least invites, a response. And these were items which have all been responded to, in depth, and with a great degree of certainty, in the past and on the public record. Now, I understand how it seemed to you that people were only addressing the one argument about "Born in America." This is not because they think there is only one specific argument, but because they *understand* that there is only one general argument, and the details, fluid as they are, are not very important. The whole birther issue is *one* issue, and not a class of issues. The different claims are discreet only in that they are based on different sets of information and different leading interpretations of those sets of information. The interpretations lead to only one base claim, and that base claim is always the same, and generated for the same reason. See where we're going? Everybody else already got there. It's like we're having an argument about racism (this is a race related issue after all), and you need to go back and say, "hold on a sec, racists don't just hate black people for being genetically inferior, they hate them for being poor, stupid, dirty, and drug addicted as well." We got it. All those claims are bound up in the same bias, so as long as we understand, in this discussion, what that bias is, we understand all the claims and their motivations.
Nice opinion. I stated my reasons, but you just dismiss them because OBVIOUSLY you know what I was trying to get at and I wasn't. You seem to know what my intentions were more than I did. Amazing!
The discussion was focusing on one detail of the birther issue. I simply pointed out that there was more to the birther issue than that one detail. If you already knew those other facets of the issue then good for you. Others may not have known that there was more to the issue than that one part. If you did, then great! Give yourself a pat on the back, you are an informed individual!
Once again, you were not "simply pointing out" anything. You made a list. I told you the real effect of that list. I don't know your intentions, but I know what making that list does. You need to differentiate between the observed effects of your actions, and your personal motivations. This is exactly what I'm talking about with you- you don't even seem to understand what saying the things that you say even means. If you didn't have a good reason for making a list, why did you make it? Because informing people that there are other birther claims smacks, frankly, of complete B.S. And if it isn't, and you don't understand why listing them makes you look a certain way, then you're really just clueless. You need to understand all this- it would really enhance your ability to express yourself if you did.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a little ridiculous that this moon landing hoax issue keeps popping up. That being said, I can see why some would still have issues with it.
Some of the more popular arguments:
In some photos, crosshairs appear to be behind objects.
There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used.
The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation.
The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon.
There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember seeing any stars.
The Moon landers made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter
That is a few of the arguments. PLEASE NOTE I am not agreeing with any of them, just pointing them out.
------------------------------------------------
Just for fun. PLEASE NOTE all of these arguments are crap.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For the record:
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
I thought it was just an inevitable play on his name. It's a pretty easy one to come up with. If his name rhymed with "stupid" I'm sure they'd be using that. It being racially evocative hadn't occurred to me until you brought it up. Doubtless some use it deliberately for its racial overtones; I'm sure many do not.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. How inevitable is such a play on the name?
More importantly, how culpable are those who don't appreciate racial implications in using the word? Are they just ignorant? Because the word 'abomination" appears most often in collocation with religious references to homosexuality or race. It is religiously significant, in that it's one of those words preserved largely as part of a biblical lexicon. So for those who don't appreciate these factors, why are they using the word? What does it mean to them?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For the record:
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
I thought it was just an inevitable play on his name. It's a pretty easy one to come up with. If his name rhymed with "stupid" I'm sure they'd be using that. It being racially evocative hadn't occurred to me until you brought it up. Doubtless some use it deliberately for its racial overtones; I'm sure many do not.
Whenever I've heard it, I've always replied with, "Yes, we are living in Obama's nation." Seems to drive those people nuts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We must have universal healthcare," wrote Trump. "I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. "Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork," he writes.
quote:In The America We Deserve, Trump proposed a one-time 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts "with a net worth of over $10 million." He predicted that it would raise $5.7 trillion, "which we would use to pay off the national debt" and pay for Social Security. (The first part of this seems quaint now.) "By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts," he explained, "we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century." Like basically every other Trump idea, this one came with a story of epiphany and self-sacrifice. "The plan would cost me $700 million personally in the short term, but it would be worth it." This is what a swath of people were angry about or panicked about in 1999. They were worried about campaign finance reform, so Trump sided with them. "If I were drawing a political cartoon to represent the situation," he wrote, while not actually drawing the cartoon, "it would include a very large guy with a huge bag of money. On that bag would be written one word: soft. Soft money is the bane of the current system and we need to get rid of it." How far can this schtick take you? In 2000, not very far. That was when a lonely nation cried out for blandness, and demanded candidates with smart ideas of how to spend budget surpluses. There was none of the anger and immediacy that there was in 1992 or 2010. And Trump's success, such as it is, is coming because he will say anything that fed-up people are thinking. Here's an example that's more recent than his book. In 2008, after George W. Bush's party lost, Trump made a critique of the Iraq war predicated on the idea that Bush was a lousy president.* "He'd go into a country," said Trump, "attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, and just do it because he wanted to do it." When he said that, that's what people thought about Bush and Iraq. Smash-cut to this month, when Trump sat down with the Wall Street Journal for one of many interviews with baffled reporters. He went at Iraq from another direction. "I always heard that when we went into Iraq," he said, "we went in for the oil. I said, 'Eh, that sounds smart.' "
posted
Trump has my vote so far, so long as he can do what he says.... but all politicians speak out their ass and rarely deliver what they campaign.
Big problem is you can't see if they can deliver what they say unless they make it in, and since our government is set up in a corruptish way (bad politicians playing musical chairs with positions), even if said electee tried to change something it might not fly with the other guys....
Funny money.... President makes $400K a year plus very generous bonuses Vice President makes $230,700 a year (Bonuses??) Cabinet(15) makes $191,300 a year (average??, and bonuses??) Totaling $2,869,500 House(435)and Senate(100) makes $169,300 a year (Bonuses??)Totaling $90,575,500 a year I believe Supreme Court(chief #??) makes $195,138 a year (Bonuses??) Supreme Court(not chief #??) makes $189,620 a year (bonuses??)
Believe they are all being payed rather generously, neh?
School teachers questionably* make around 50k a year (bonuses??) *varies considerably Police officer make $51,410 a year (averaged, and bonuses??) Doctors make ?????? a year(bonuses??) get payed too much, NOT talking about surgeons here..... Dentists make ????? a year(bonuses??)can't find a good average, they all seem low despite the costs.. Construction worker make $50k a year (averaged, and bonuses??) VERY low, in my opinion /:
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Funny money.... President makes $400K a year plus very generous bonuses Vice President makes $230,700 a year (Bonuses??) Cabinet(15) makes $191,300 a year (average??, and bonuses??) Totaling $2,869,500 House(435)and Senate(100) makes $169,300 a year (Bonuses??)Totaling $90,575,500 a year I believe Supreme Court(chief #??) makes $195,138 a year (Bonuses??) Supreme Court(not chief #??) makes $189,620 a year (bonuses??)
Believe they are all being payed rather generously, neh?
School teachers questionably* make around 50k a year (bonuses??) *varies considerably Police officer make $51,410 a year (averaged, and bonuses??) Doctors make ?????? a year(bonuses??) get payed too much, NOT talking about surgeons here..... Dentists make ????? a year(bonuses??)can't find a good average, they all seem low despite the costs.. Construction worker make $50k a year (averaged, and bonuses??) VERY low, in my opinion /:
I guess people get vague* number figures (perhaps other things???????)(Bonuses??????) *and it varies
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too
Well, of course they do. They can claim all they want, but that's just flimsy evidence. They seem peculiarly unwilling to take a simple step like flying me to the moon to give us actual proof.
edit: Am I saying that there is no proof? Not necessarily, but it seems strange that they are putting so much effort into not providing it.
quote: Well, of course they do. But they can claim all they want. But that's just flimsy evidence. They seem peculiarly unwilling to take a simple step like flying me to the moon to give us actual proof.
I never thought of it that way... Those sneaky so and so's!!! How hard could it be to take a few of us there so we can see for ourselves!!?!?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too
My post was a parody. I was using it to show just how ridiculous it is to post a list of thoroughly refuted statements and then say "I'm not saying I agree with these, but they are out there".
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today, Trump is telling everyone that Reagan is the president he admired most. But at the end of Reagan's presidency Trump wrote that Reagan was a con man who "couldn't deliver the goods."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Trump is trolling America. That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Scott Adams agrees with you:
quote:Scott Adams' Blog: Trump is smart enough to never admit that his presidential aspirations are no more than marketing. To admit the trick would damage his brand. But he has no need to ever expose the prank. Trump, the magnificent bastard, has figured out a way to have his cake and eat it too. The people who are in on the joke find it entertaining. The people who will never know it's a joke have raised their opinion of him so much that he's the leading Republican presidential contender. And his TV ratings are up, so from a marketing standpoint it's working.
Expecting "intelligent and mature responses" on this subject is like expecting a child raised on gristle and potato peelings to grow up to be an olympic sprinter. This subject is being treated with all the respect it deserves.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Expecting "intelligent and mature responses" on this subject is like expecting a child raised on gristle and potato peelings to grow up to be an olympic sprinter. This subject is being treated with all the respect it deserves.
Here's the response it deserves: if you were guileless enough to take Trump's presidential aspirations seriously, hang up your politics hat. You're done.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's the proper response. If you get trolled, quit. You can't learn anything from being trolled, such as how to look out for it in the future. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you were guileless enough to take Trump's presidential aspirations seriously, hang up your politics hat. You're done.
Guileless? You mean 'naive?'
I think Samp was saying that only somebody with no sense of guile whatsoever (so guileless) would be unable to recognize Trump's ploy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Yes, that's the proper response. If you get trolled, quit. You can't learn anything from being trolled, such as how to look out for it in the future.
That's what you have to do. You have to go back to the magical world of learning. preferably first about yourself and where you filter your information and perspectives in from. You aren't ready to be in the woods yet.
posted
God, you're such a badass, Samp. Every time I think you can't get any cooler, you go and be just that much more badass and prove me wrong. You're like what would happen if John McClane got really bored and started spending too much time on the internet.
The verbal smackdowns you deliver onto your intellectual inferiors are so impressive, and they must make you feel good too. You are awesome.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: God, you're such a badass, Samp. Every time I think you can't get any cooler, you go and be just that much more badass and prove me wrong. You're like what would happen if John McClane got really bored and started spending too much time on the internet.
The verbal smackdowns you deliver onto your intellectual inferiors are so impressive, and they must make you feel good too. You are awesome.
posted
Next up: samprimary mcclane guest stars on 24, defends freedom and the american way by torturing the truth out of some terrorists.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The terrorists are quickly reduced to breaking point by his self-obsession and irregular use of capitalisation.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the letter zed may be the coolest in America, but around here we don't pay much attention to it.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm paying some attention, trump wouldn't be that bad if he would lay off the damn birth certificate crap .____. , I was skeptical about Obama too, but his mom was fully American, from that point it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Iran, he would still be American, so after seeing that much I realized how big of an idiot Trump is making himself look..
I also noticed he only likes to say things people want to hear /: and he's really taking the spotlight off all the other candidates WHICH I hear absolutely nothing about, all I hear and read about is about Trump and Charlie... ---- Someone fill me in, on the candidates- don't use the words democrat or republican or tea-party crap, that tells me absolutely nothing about them..
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will repeat: please don't be a fool. Right now, you are being a fool. Learn more (ideally by doing something besides asking random strangers on the Internet to sum things up for you), and then form opinions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Trump lost my vote on the birth certificate matter.
The only place where I can get enough information to make judgements IS on the internet since the government channels I have on TV with "professionals" talking seem only interested in Trump, my internet speed prevents me from researching myself. If I hear fool derogatory towards my end Trump will get my vote.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not being derogatory towards your end; I'm being derogatory towards your head.
Stop making excuses. I mean, seriously, why would Trump have your vote if not for the whole birther crap? What about him suggests presidential material to you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
