The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Obama's Winning Because He's Not White!

Obama stoking the fires of racism...funniest thing I've read yet. I'm pretty sure that before he publicized his intentions to run for President, those same people were already racist--it would surprise me otherwise to think that he has caused them to be so. Also, everyone is screaming about the race issues..what about gender issues? I know plenty of women, of all ethnicities, voting for Clinton based on her being female; which is no better than "I'm black, he's black...he's got my vote!" The fickle voters you speak of exist on both ends of the spectrum. Record breaking turnouts have landed for both of them. I'm soooooooooo exhausted over listening to this credentials bull. The area between Clinton's political background (actually being apart of the political process) versus Obama's is so marginal that it should be a non-issue. She wasn't signing peace treaties, ending nuclear proliferation, handing out healthcare to the needy.... She was a first lady, a figure head. Being at the scene of political happenings doesn't qualify you for Presidency. It makes you an experienced traveler.
 
Read the posts.

Those who have been viciously nasty about Hillary and her supporters are being nasty about Ferraro.

If they're Obama supporters then they are once again viciously attacking a member of their own Party.

Not simply criticizing or registering complaint or disagreeing. Being nasty.

Look how Obama's campaign is causing an increasingly bitter divide within the Democratic Party. This is not a man who will unite America.
 
Way to blame the victim Nick [-X Hillary's supporters have been responsible for at least 90% of the nastiness in this campaign because of their exalted sense of entitlement.

It seems to me that the Clinton campaign has borrowed a page from the late Senator Helms' campaign against Harvey Gantt which featured a white hand crumpling a job rejection letter and noted Gantt's support of affirmative action. Hillary's (un?)official surrogates Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro have repeatedly tried to promote a theme that black men have it easy while others have to work for what they get. First GS with her Op-Ed piece and then GF with her attacks. Is it a coincidence that Ferraro was pushing theme in time for Pennsylvania where Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell gleefully told reporters that some Pennsylvanians just won't vote for a black man? Guess that's her latest firewall. My prediction is that we will see more of this campaign theme since 60% of Ohio voters who said race was a factor in their vote went to Clinton.
 
Read the posts.

Those who have been viciously nasty about Hillary and her supporters are being nasty about Ferraro.

If they're Obama supporters then they are once again viciously attacking a member of their own Party.

Not simply criticizing or registering complaint or disagreeing. Being nasty.

Look how Obama's campaign is causing an increasingly bitter divide within the Democratic Party. This is not a man who will unite America.
If you honestly don't see that these things are happening on both sides of the party, you can't objectively reason who would be a better candidate. If you don't think that the Clinton party is just as much a contributor to the divide (if not more so with Mr. Clinton so boastfully speaking at her side), your opinion is less valued. Also, so that it's clear, I'm not advocating the pettiness amongst the party or posters :P. The debate over who would make a better candidate as President has been overshadowed by personal issues more so than political.
 
Look how Obama's campaign is causing an increasingly bitter divide within the Democratic Party. This is not a man who will unite America.

You're right Nick. Imagine the gall of this man to challenge Mrs. Clinton's right to the democratic nomination.
 
Read the posts.

Those who have been viciously nasty about Hillary and her supporters are being nasty about Ferraro.

If they're Obama supporters then they are once again viciously attacking a member of their own Party.

Not simply criticizing or registering complaint or disagreeing. Being nasty.

Look how Obama's campaign is causing an increasingly bitter divide within the Democratic Party. This is not a man who will unite America.

Doesn't seem like you are making any progress.

Viciously attacking a member of their own Party?

Can we get that line you used in the past?

"How dare these Obama supporters treat a Woman like that?" in reference to Hillary. This time, Mrs. Ferrara.

Well, if Mrs. Ferrara didn't make such explosive comments and attack another member of her own Party, like you say, then this wouldn't be happening.

You expect someone to just sit and take comments like that without a response? Give me a break.
 
Obama stoking the fires of racism...funniest thing I've read yet. I'm pretty sure that before he publicized his intentions to run for President, those same people were already racist--it would surprise me otherwise to think that he has caused them to be so. Also, everyone is screaming about the race issues..what about gender issues? I know plenty of women, of all ethnicities, voting for Clinton based on her being female; which is no better than "I'm black, he's black...he's got my vote!" The fickle voters you speak of exist on both ends of the spectrum. Record breaking turnouts have landed for both of them. I'm soooooooooo exhausted over listening to this credentials bull. The area between Clinton's political background (actually being apart of the political process) versus Obama's is so marginal that it should be a non-issue. She wasn't signing peace treaties, ending nuclear proliferation, handing out healthcare to the needy.... She was a first lady, a figure head. Being at the scene of political happenings doesn't qualify you for Presidency. It makes you an experienced traveler.

Excellent post.

And the only reason they are upset is because Gender isn't prevailing in this one. If it was, you would be hearing no complaints or cries of unfairness from them.
 
That we have to likely face a summer of this unpleasantness is really the depressing thing.Hillary wins even by a close margin in Pennsylvania,then two weeks later it appears Obama will take back the momentum in Indiana and North Carolina...then the Florida,Michigan redo late in the process.I've heard as of now more Obama voters would back Hillary than her voters woulsd back Obama,but if things stay nasty how long is this going to last?Ultimately,isn't keeping John McCain out of the White House...keeping conservative Republicans from regaining one or more of the legislative houses more important than a politician's ego?Or the petty and petulant prejudices and idiocies emanating from supporters of one or the other?
 
Way to blame the victim Nick [-X Hillary's supporters have been responsible for at least 90% of the nastiness in this campaign because of their exalted sense of entitlement.

That's not true. Hell, just look on this forum. The one who feels entitled is Obama--why else are his followers demanding Senator Clinton drop out of the race even though no candidate can win this election based on pledged delegates alone. So don't give us that bullshit.

As for "nastiness," it started with the Obama campaign because they had no other card to play. And it was the Obama campaign that pushed this divisive Ferraro storyline.

Refer to my previous post outlining Obama's attacks on Senator Clinton:

^Obama & Iraq.

Obama & NAFTA.

Examples of Obama throwing mud:

Summer 2007: Obama campaign urges press to look into Bill Clinton's "post-presidential" sex life (a favorite topic of Republicans)

August 2007: The Obama campaign contacted the press to tie Norman Hsu to Sen. Clinton - even though Hsu was a donor and fundraiser to/for Sen. Obama as well.


December 2007: Obama unfavorably compares Clinton and Bush eras.


December 2007: Obama surrogate once again raises Bill Clinton's sex life and ties it to Sen. Clinton's electability.


December 2007: Sen. Obama explicitly questions Sen. Clinton's electability using approval ratings and her negatives (not the first time he's done this)

January 2008: Obama paints Sen. Clinton as divisive and questions whether people who vote for him will vote for her in the general election.


.
February 2008: Sen. Obama talks up Sen. Clinton's negatives by falsely caricaturing her as a person whose "natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated" and then adds about himself "I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom."

February 2008: Obama campaign repeatedly attacks Clinton Presidency and paints Clintons as harbingers of Congressional losses in elections.


As for providing "ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee":

February 2007 onwards: Obama repeatedly claims Sen. Clinton lacks judgment when it comes to national security and foreign policy (which is no different from Clinton claiming he is short on experience).

June 2007: Obama campaign peddles false story that the Clintons were trying to profit from 9/11.

June 2007: Obama campaign circulates borderline racist "D-Punjab" attack against Sen. Clinton

October 2007: Due to a flagging campaign, Sen. Obama and his campaign/surrogates falsely paint Sen. Clinton as a liar, "basically adopting the fraudulent words that Bill Bradley used to trash Al Gore in 2000 - words that were subsequently picked up by George Bush and the GOP and used very effectively against Al Gore in the 2000 general election. Obama's character attack on Sen. Clinton was over a stance she took that was essentially identical to the stance Sen. Obama took in his own book."

November 2007: Obama uses GOP "crisis" rhetoric on social security to bolster his false attacks on Clinton and gets called on it by Paul Krugman and many in the blogosphere. His response? "So the notion that somehow because George Bush was trying to drum up fear in order to execute [his] agenda means that Democrats shouldn't talk about it at all I think is a mistake."

November/December 2007: Obama campaign uncritically pushes baseless smear story by right-wing fraudster Bob Novak alleging that the Clinton campaign was about to peddle some below-the-belt story about Sen. Obama

December 2007: Obama campaign mimicks media's (and GOP's) fraudulent attacks on Al Gore (in 2000) - in order to attack Sen. Clinton.

December 2007 onwards: Obama campaign launches false attacks on Sen. Clinton's healthcare plan using the worst kind of Republican talking points - and by borrowing Harry and Louise type ads from the 1990s. In using this tactic yet again, the Obama campaign effectively borrowed the tactics used by the GOP that helped defeat the Clinton healthcare plan and partly led to the defeat of Democrats in Congress in 1994.

January 2008: Sen. Obama paints Sen. Clinton as divisive and questions whether people who vote for him will vote for her in the general election.

January/February 2008: Obama campaign and surrogates participate in one of the ugliest smear campaigns against a fellow Democrat ever - by falsely painting the Clintons as race-baiters or racists.

November 2007: Obama mocks and minimizes Clinton's experience as First Lady - a standard right-wing attack that we can expect even more now if Clinton becomes the nominee.

November 2007/ January/February 2008: Sen. Obama paints Sen. Clinton as being unprincipled, poll-driven and calculating (very effective lines of attack used by the GOP) while he himself out-spent Clinton on polling and demonstrated enough "calculation" and "lack of principle" to keep us busy.


January / February 2008: Obama campaign paints Sen. Clinton as someone who would say or do anything to get elected.


March 2008: Sen. Obama claims that although he does not measure experience using longevity, if longevity is the metric to judge experience McCain would win on experience (undermining Sen. Clinton's statements about her years of experience). Obama campaign also puts out a memo in which they refer to McCain's history of "straight talk and independent thinking", which, along with Obama's character attacks on Clinton, will no doubt be used by McCain and the GOP against Clinton if she becomes the nominee.

March 2008: An Obama advisor refers to Sen. Clinton as a "monster" and is forced to resign.
 
That's not true. Hell, just look on this forum. The one who feels entitled is Obama--why else are his followers demanding Senator Clinton drop out of the race even though no candidate can win this election based on pledged delegates alone. So don't give us that bullshit.

Good. Good. Bring that fire out that we all want to see.

You have finally realized that you aren't making any progress here in your attempts to gain voters on this Forum ... so you figure "what the Hell?" And you don't have to kiss anyone's ass anymore. Rather, you can be yourself now. Doesn't it feel ... liberating?

As for "nastiness," it started with the Obama campaign because they had no other card to play. And it was the Obama campaign that pushed this divisive Ferraro storyline.

Just out of curiosity, what was the remark specifically from the Obama Camp, that started the political nastiness between the 2 Campaigns? When was it said and by whom?

And as far as the Ferraro comment, I love how you attempt to actually turn her comments around and portray her as a victim, when she was the one that actually made the comments to begin with. In the process, you make the Obama supporters look like the bad guys here, for actually responding to her own ludicrous remarks.

What was everyone supposed to do? Nod our heads, accept being insulted, and be complacent ... just like the mindless spoon-fed voters your campaign appeals to?

Oh, this campaign is going down in flames, and I am enjoying every minute of it.
 
Good. Good. Bring that fire out that we all want to see.

You know you are going to lose, now, so you figure "what the Hell?" And you don't have to kiss anyone's ass anymore. Rather, you can be yourself now. Doesn't it feel ... liberating?

What are you talking about? It's not the first time I've said bullshit and as long as you keep posting here I highly doubt it will be the last time.

A rose by any other name...

So you think this process just started becoming nasty with the Ferraro comment? Just now? Where have you been the past several months?
No, if you would actually read my posts you would see that I outline Senator Obama's long record of smears against Senator Clinton, since last summer.


And as far as the Ferraro comment, I love how you attempt to actually turn her comments around and portray her as a victim, when she was the one that actually made the comments to begin with. In the process, you make the Obama supporters look like the bad guys here, for actually responding to her own ludicrous remarks.

What was everyone supposed to do? Nod our heads, accept being insulted, and be complacent ... just like the mindless spoon-fed voters your campaign appeals to?
I'm not portraying her as a victim. I'm portraying our Party as a victim of the divisive campaign Obama is trying to run. I said her comments were inappropiate. Senator Clinton said her comments were not appropiate. It should have been left at that and we should have moved on to discuss the issues at hand. But it's interesting that you don't respond with such viciousness to sexism.


Oh, this campaign is going down in flames, and I am enjoying every minute of it.
That may be what you wish were happening, but that's just not the case. You have no proof of that. Believe or not, people actually decide this election. And there are still about 8 million voters left to have their say in this contest. You should have learned after New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and March 4th never to second-guess Senator Clinton.
 
I'm not portraying her as a victim. I'm portraying our Party as a victim of the divisive campaign Obama is trying to run. I said her comments were inappropiate. Senator Clinton said her comments were not appropiate. It should have been left at that and we should have moved on to discuss the issues at hand. But it's interesting that you don't respond with such viciousness to sexism.

Seems to me like Bill Clinton started with the Racial Remarks with the Jesse Jackson comment, don't you. If that isn't divisive, I don't know what is. Face it. You guys started all this. But the Obama Camp will finish it.

And as far as the last sentence, I see the Neo-Feminists are at it again with their discrimination claims. Where's the violin?

That may be what you wish were happening, but that's just not the case. You have no proof of that. Believe or not, people actually decide this election. And there are still about 8 million voters left to have their say in this contest. You should have learned after New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and March 4th never to second-guess Senator Clinton.

You'll take Pennsylvania. What other state do you plan on taking? More importantly ... how do you actually plan on winning this election?
 
Are you taking credit for someone else's research? There are problems with it.
When did I ever do that? I cite and credit the source of everything.

LOL, it's amazing what nonsense you claim. You pretend that Rodham is some blessed saint, who has done no wrong. Ridiculous.
And how, exactly, do you guys see Obama? I support Senator Clinton because she has the best solutions to solving the problems we face as a nation. I've made my reasons clear. She has actual plans to solve our problems. I don't have to take a leap of faith to support her.
 
Geraldine said some very curious things on this clip

"guys r sticking together" - she says - don't get that one

super delegates should look at "experience" when determining their choice

i think her comment about "would we be having this conversation if BO was a white man" is kinda true - it's not very PC - and im not sure exactly what she meant .........

did she mean

he would never have this many votes if he was white?
people wouldn't be considering changing their superdelegate vote from hillary to obama if he was white

not really sure

i think she's saying he's getting a lotta slack cuz he's black

and she said in defense that if she were a he - she never woulda got the vp slot back in the day

perhaps a little non PC but not a racist comment

everyone should chill

al sharpton is a racist
geraldine ferraro is not

my 2 cents
 
Seems to me like Bill Clinton started with the Racial Remarks with the Jesse Jackson comment, don't you. If that isn't divisive, I don't know what is. Face it. You guys started all this. But the Obama Camp will finish it.

You're actually missing a lot of things that developed before President Clinton made those historically accurate and non-controversial comments, which were blown out of proportion by the Obama campaign.

The whole race thing started after New Hampshire when the media started talking about the "Bradley Affect" although there was no evidence of it. The Obama campaign say it as an opening to inject race into the campaign, starting with their national co-chair--Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.--who had this to say the day after the New Hampshire Primary:
...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.


So it was Obama's national co-chair that first brought up the issue of race in the form of Hurricane Katrina--using this same dog whistle politics that we see today.

But it didn't end there. Obama surrogate Michael Eric Dyson pushed the issue on MSNBC's Hardball the next day:
DYSON: Yes, yes. He [Bradley] was mayor of Los Angeles, running for governor of California. And people said by an overwhelming, you know, majority, Yes, we‘re going to vote for him, yes, he‘s going to—and everybody predicted he would win. And then when they went into the polls, into the booth, they did not vote for him.

So here, I think, with Obama, the possibility—I‘m not saying it‘s a necessity, I‘m not even saying it‘s a probability, but the possibility that New Hampshire voters, after seeing Obama‘s swagger, so to speak, from his confidence because of his Iowa victory, may have rejected him, repudiated him, or at least had second thoughts or become skeptical about pulling the lever, so to speak, for a black man. ... ..

Again, it doesn't end there. The Obama campaign sent out a memo in advance of the South Carolina Primary, offering a list of talking-points aimed at making the Clintons appear racists:
The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

Then they blew Senator Clinton's historically accuarte comments about Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr. out of context and yelled "Racist!" An Obama staffer is even quoted as saying, "Go ask black people about that." They did the same thing after President Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson, about which Jesse Jackson said he was not offended.

Then came the threats from Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr., targeted at African-American automatic delegates who dared to support Senator Clinton:
He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate. ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

They even labeled black automatic delegates supporting Clinton as "Uncle Toms" and launched a threat-campaign against them:
African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change.

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a black lawmaker and Clinton backer, said the intense lobbying for Obama would not alter her vote.

“I’ve gotten threatening mail,” Watson said. “They say, ‘Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change.’ But I don’t intimidate. I can hold the ground. … I would lose my seat over my principles.”

Neither Watson nor Cleaver faces a strong reelection threat at this time. Cleaver’s Kansas City-area district narrowly supported Obama in Missouri’s Feb. 5 primary.

Black superdelegates are getting heavy pressure from such groups as ColorOfChange.org, a grass-roots organization whose members overwhelmingly support Obama.

“Some [Congressional Black Caucus] members are threatening to vote against their constituents, and perhaps against the will of the American people, by casting their superdelegate vote for Sen. Clinton,” the ColorOfChange.org website reads. “We can prevent this from happen by letting black leadership know we're watching.”

But Watson said that she could not see switching her vote simply because Obama is black.

“I don’t support one type of person above all others. How would that message resonate with Koreatown?” she asked. Watson’s Central Los Angeles district is 35 percent Latino, 30 percent black and 12 percent Asian-American, including many Korean-Americans.

The Clinton campaign, for its part, has been working hard to keep its superdelegates on board. On a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said he and campaign manager Maggie Williams had “spent a lot of time talking to our superdelegates over the past week,” and that they are “holding fast.”

The Clinton camp released a statement Thursday touting the defection of Obama supporter Veronica Escobar after polls in Texas, Escobar’s home state, showed Clinton leading among registered Hispanic voters by 62 to 21 percent.

Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), a Black Caucus member, said he is still “very strong” for Clinton even in the wake of Lewis’s turnaround. He was unmoved by some other website in his Queens district, which backed Obama in the New York primary.

“Some people threw out flyers. That doesn’t faze me at all. If someone wants to run against me, that’s democracy,” he said. “Sen. Obama is a very inspirational person. People in the district are proud. I’m proud. You can’t not be proud being an African-American… But I have to do overall what’s in the best interests of my district.”

Cleaver questioned why white superdelegates such as Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry weren’t being targeted to support Clinton after she carried their state.

“If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we’d see headlines,” he said.


Cleaver said he did not believe the Obama campaign was behind the disturbing e-mails and phone calls he has received.

“I refuse to believe that Sen. Obama gave orders for something like this to happen. This is a contradiction of the new politics that Sen. Obama is running on,” he said. “My fear is with all of the nastiness, we’re going to have a whole lot of kissing and making up to do as a party."

So it seems that it was the Obama campaign and its supporters that have injected race into the campaign when it seems to their benefit. That's why it's no coincidence that they pushed the Ferraro story on the eve of the Mississippi Primary and after a week of bad press.
 
Lance, you know what fascinates me about that? The sort of pressure being brought on black UPLEOs is exactly the same thing used by many, many Democrats to keep blacks from voting Republican or any other way. It's an attitude of ownership, and it's ugly in both cases.
 
What isn't cleared up is why you continue to post attempting to sway Obama supporters' opinion, even though you repeatedly strike out. What's the point of it?

He doesn't know. He can't answer that question. He clearly sees he isn't bringing anyone over to his camp. He's taken so many notes on "how to be a politician" from studying the Clinton Camp. It's too bad that we are entering a new age of politics where that kind of talk and spin doesn't fly anymore. You have to be a little better at the game than that in this day and age.

They are just in the Temper Tantrum phase because things aren't going their way.

Since Lance tells it like it is, I am still waiting on that second list of things that the Clinton Camp have said to make this a Race War. He presented us with an Obama one, and claimed the Obama Camp started this. But I am still waiting for his list on the attacks the Clinton Campaign have made against Obama so we can compare the lists side by side. Or does he not think the Clinton Camp have made any attacks against Obama?

Furthermore, I suppose Hillary, at no point in time, inserted Gender into this Race. No, not at all.

Something tells me he doesn't want to go there.
 
He doesn't know. He can't answer that question. He clearly sees he isn't bringing anyone over to his camp. He's taken so many notes on "how to be a politician" from studying the Clinton Camp. It's too bad that we are entering a new age of politics where that kind of talk and spin doesn't fly anymore. You have to be a little better at the game than that in this day and age.
Umm...who said I was here trying to win over converts. This is an opinion forum and I--like every other poster--am just posting my beliefs and opinions. From what you are saying, does that mean you guys are trying to win souls for Obama? Why the double standard? I'm I not able to express my opinion and speak freely on this forum like everyone else buy virtue of my position?


Since Lance tells it like it is, I am still waiting on that second list of things that the Clinton Camp have said to make this a Race War. He presented us with an Obama one, and claimed the Obama Camp started this. But I am still waiting for his list on the attacks the Clinton Campaign have made against Obama so we can compare the lists side by side. Or does he not think the Clinton Camp have made any attacks against Obama?
You're the one that made the claim, so you have to provide the proof. I'm not going to argue your case for you and the very fact that you are asking me to suggests that you can't argue it on your own.
 
Umm...who said I was here trying to win over converts. This is an opinion forum and I--like every other poster--am just posting my beliefs and opinions. From what you are saying, does that mean you guys are trying to win souls for Obama? Why the double standard? I'm I not able to express my opinion and speak freely on this forum like everyone else buy virtue of my position?



You're the one that made the claim, so you have to provide the proof. I'm not going to argue your case for you and the very fact that you are asking me to suggests that you can't argue it on your own.

100 US Dollars Lancelva. My offer is still on the line...

If you're serious with all your statements which every sane person on here recognizes as spin, you'll take my offer.
 
Back
Top