Go Hillary

[JoB]

charlabob.. you make me blush. i thought i might have erred just a bit on the side of righteous crankiness there…

beachdrivegirl… i didn’t “work” for Hillary or give her money myself until this last push because i didn’t think she needed it.

what seems obvious to you about your candidate seemed like a real no-brainer to us with ours. she is a remarkable woman and she paid her dues… for the past (nearly) 40 years.

If you had not had Obama, you might have come to appreciate her more.

The thing that really surprises me is how polarizing the Obama campaign is…

he was really stupid to publicly dismiss Hillary last night on national tv. I think dismissing a woman that way.. trivializing her.. will create a backlash he doesn’t expect.

at least i hope it will… it wasn’t nice.

Share This

[JanS]

my opinion…when it comes to politics, no one “plays nice”. I have friends that have voiced to me that if it gets to muckraking and slime as usual that they will be totally turned off to the process…and that will definitely harm the dems, whoever the candidate is. These are liberal, educated people who simply don’t want the “same ol’, same ol’ “

Share This

[JoB]

JanS.. it will come to politics as usual sooner or later and the republicans are counting on it turning off democrats.

you can’t change the same ol same ol unless you get elected.

and i wonder if you can change it then.

Hillary’s campaign didn’t take back off until she hired a new manager who isn’t so squeamish about the high road. As long as it works someone will use it.

i can’t believe i would ever be in a position of justifying the means for the endgame.. but to some extent i am.

It’s absolutely astounding the positions you find yourself at least partially defending as you age.

I am not my parents.. but sometimes i find the d…d things coming out of my mouth.

i can’t find your number after the vacation. call me.

Share This

[JoB]

i forgot to say please

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Sorry but the wins yesterday really werent quite as big as some had though. Out of 370 delegates it is now beign projected that Hillary gained 187 with Barack gainign 183. That is only a net gain of 4 delegates.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Just a bit more… It’s interesting to see, despite what SNL might say, just how much they media has allowed her and her campaign to shape the context of the argument. The story the entire time he was winning 11 states in a row, was that she had such a huge lead in Texas and Ohio that she would be able to even out any potential gains from the primaries leading up to it. Well, he won 11 states in a row and the closest margin of the 11 was 58-42, and he netted over 130 pledged delagates in doing that, and took a decent sized lead. Her “firewall” as her campaign called it was last night, and as her campaign was quoted saying in Febraury- they expected to be even in pledge delegates after Texas and Ohio. Well, last night was her big “triumph” and she netted 4 delegates, and still trails by over 130 pledged delegates. To make that up, she had have to do what she did last night 33 more times, just to tie. That was 4 states- there are only 12 left, to win in pledged delegates she would have to win 70-30 in all 12 remaining states. That’s how big his lead is. She clearly failed miserably at her campaigns own stated objectives, and is now hopelessly behind in pledged delegates without enough states to make it up. But her “moral” victory last night is the only story covered and I heard a number of “experts” say the race is “essentially tied” now! The media has it out for Clinton? Not sure I buy it…

Share This

[JoB]

beachdrivegirl… a net gain of 4 still keeps her in the race…

If America’s democrats were so overwhelmingly behind Obama she would be finished.

Kayleigh.. where do i start? It couldn’t be that her add highlighted that a person of experience might be who you want when the s… hits the fan?

This race isn’t all about Obama and what makes him look good or bad… although i get that it is for you.

It is not her job to make him look good… she is not in the race to be an end game set up for Obama. This is a campaign.. not a personality contest. She is not his running mate… they are fighting it out for the chance to become president.

This is politics.. pure and simple. Obama and his campaign have been indulging in the same tactics. His letter with a truly biased viewpoint on her stand on NAFTA is just one example. They are both ruthless. they are politicians.

And if that ad plants suspicion in anyone’s mind that they might not want him on the other end of the line when trouble hits… then maybe his candidacy isn’t such a great idea after all.

Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that this subject is going to come up again if and when Obama meets McCain.. and it is not likely to be so tastefully done.

If you are offended now.. you are going to be righteously livid when McCain’s campaign gets through with him… they won’t be pulling any punches and his lack of experience won’t be the only thing they use. they will find a way to use his color and his parental background against him.

I don’t know what you think the democratic party is Kayleigh, but that add didn’t betray the one i have belonged to for the last 35 years…

it is clear that it offended you.. and it may have offended others as well… but it didn’t betray any principle i hold. And i am quite clear about my principles.

We live in very frightening times Kayleigh. The presidency isn’t just about presenting a “uniting” figure to the world.. or “signaling change”… (though i am not sure at all how a black man is more change for this country than a woman)… it is also about that middle of the night call.

America needs to be thinking about who is going to take it and what they will do next.

And as a candidate, it is actually Hillary’s job to point that out.

You keep thinking that there is some high road in politics… and that America would be better off if candidates would just follow it…but i have seen good candidates fall right off the end of that road more than once…

Toughen up if you want your candidate in the white house.

Share This

[villagegreen]

Kayleigh, if you thought the ‘3am’ ad was guilty of the Republicans’ favorite pastime (fearmongering), then check out this Clinton ad which has been summarized in a post titled “Clinton campaign making Obama ‘blacker'” here: http://www.dailykos.com/ (about half-way down the page).

The original video of Obama face has obviously been darkened and stretched (horizontally) in Hillary’s commercial to make him appear blacker – darker skin, wider nose. Her campaign denied having anything to do with the commercial, but in fact, it can be found right here http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx on her own website.

Unfortunately, smear tactics are a part of every campaign (or at least the vast majority), but when she starts playing the race card, e.g. circulation pictures of Obamam in native African dress (insinuating that he is Muslim) and manipulating his image in her new ad to make him appear “blacker”, she shows herself to be exactly what she purports to be against – win at any cost, fearmongering, Washington as usual.

No doubt McCain will use similar tactics if Obama receives the nomination (that’s expected from Republicans), but Saint Hillary who always speaks of sticking to the issues and taking the high ground using these tactics is despicable.

Share This

[JoB]

ok.. i followed this one too… and it appears to me what the daily KOS did was more substantial than any distortion i saw in that ad.

and correct me if i am wrong.. but i have seen video of me which does not correctly reflect my skin color or size.. in fact, i can tell you for certain that the video i gave the link to on another thread didn’t accurately reflect either my skin color or that of the correspondent that day.. there was too much natural light in the mall for the lighting they used… and the camera angle distorted my size..

and somehow though i am quite sure editing was used to make me look as frail as possible.. i don’t believe they bothered trying to make me appear fat or washed out.

You will obviously see what you are looking for…

but please tell me why you are spending so much time looking for some reason to vilify Hillary?

I have only to read the news to find the latest scandal which will eventually attach itself to Obama.. and should since his assessment of the people he surrounds himself with are a direct reflection on how he might perform in his job.

I haven’t seen that in a Clinton commercial…

but don’t think that it will escape McCain.

Saint Hillary? give me a break.

Share This

[Kayleigh]

villagegreen, that is despicable indeed.

And yet her supporters keep defending her. As if she’s more important than the party itself. She isn’t.

The idea that Obama will be picking his nose and twiddling his thumbs during important foreign policy meetings is a weak argument, and the Hillary campaign knows it. They’re playing a very dirty game, and it will come back to bite them in the end.

Share This

[villagegreen]

The point is, the video used in Clinton’s ad is from video that already existed (as shown in the post). That’s why you can easily compare and constrast between how the video originally looked and how it looked after it was doctored to appear in the Clinton ad. JoB, you are definitely very well informed and well spoken. You of all people should know that nothing depicted in a campaign commercial is unintentional.

The reason that so many people want to find fault with Hillary lately is that she has spent the last month desperately trying to smear Obama to save her campaign. She learned well from the Republicans that a large percentage of Americans respond to fearmongering and she used that tactic as a last ditch effort to save her campaign. And it worked!

Now it’s time for Obama to return the favor. She brought it on herself, so I don’t see why you seem so confused about the response.

Share This

[JoB]

I am not the lest bit confused by the response… but then i am aware that Obama is a politician… something you seem to be unaware of..

He is calling the moral high road… and getting everyone distracted by Hillary’s “dirty campaign tactics” to distract from the real issues… and it’s working. good politician.

Which of three photos on the daily KOS site actually came from anything? … I don’t remember anything that actually said any of them were from anything .. they were posted as an example of what can be done… do you know that they started with the original?

and hillary has never said that she was responsible for the picture posted showing Obama in native dress… she said she couldn’t guarantee that some staffer somewhere had not posted it. that’s an honest anwswer.

Yet, she stands accused so it must be all be true…

where is your critical thinking?

Who really stood to gain from from a stupid stunt like that? Not Hillary. She already knew that the Obama campaign invokes the “high road” on a regular basis. She would have to be pretty stupid to personally authorize anything like that wouldn’t she.. and stupid is not something even her detractors accuse her of..

I doubt very much that Hillary authorized either… but for the sake of argument, let’s say she did…

Is Obama’s muslim father such an obstacle to his election that nobody except him can mention it? I believe he mentions it regularly.

Is Obama’s color (or lack thereof) such an obstacle to his election that it can’t be mentioned by anyone except him?

I don’t think so. Bigots exist. I don’t think they care much what Hillary’s campaign materials are… they aren’t affected either way.

The big elephant in the room is that Obama is half black, half muslim… There.. i said it.

I dont’ think it makes a d…d bit of difference.

But you don’t get to claim the benefits of being half black and half muslim and then turn around and claim the high road if you think anyone (and i mean that literally) mentions or alludes to it.

What a bunch of fuss about basically nothing.

And if you are all getting so excited now by such trivial things.. how are you going to handle the real assaults.. because they will be coming.

It’s amazing to me how touchy you all are about anything that you think could smear the reputation of your candidate… and why do you think that Obama in native dress and/or a slightly blacker looking Obama would smear your candidate?

I repeat.. if you want your candidate to actually win this election if he gets the nomination, you are going to have to grow a lot togher skin.

Share This

[JanS]

ok..so…Barack Obama’s mother is/was white, father is a Muslim from Kenya. Father left the family when he was 2 years old. So that would make Mr. Obama half black, half white. The fact that there was a Muslim somewhere in his life is irrelevant, and has no place in this election. The fact that his heritage belongs to Kenya has nothing to do with this election, and is irrelevant. The fact that he wore the native Kenyan garb during a visit has nothing to do with this election, and is irrelevant. The fact that there is a nasty false e-mail circulating on the internet is shameful. If any of this is brought up by any of the other candidates, well, my opinion is that it’s being brought up to be inflammatory, when it’s irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. His light skin, his dark skin…who gives a damn. Outward physical appearances are irrelevant. John McCain can’t lift his arms up all the way over his head…so what. Hillary Clinton has a (yes, let’s admit it) shrill voice…so what? NONE of that has anything to do with being a president. The “3AM” ad is irrelevant. Do we really believe that Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama wouldn’t know what to do in that situation? That they would just roll over and go back to sleep? I don’t. The ad means nothing to me. Remember the ad for Burger King? “Where’s the beef”? We all need to start paying attention to the “beef”, and not to all of this little picayune crap…candidates included.

Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama…they all have things that I’m sure could be brought up…dirty politics? Are we destined to have to put up with it forever? I certainly hope not.It’s demeaning to the candidates, to the parties, and most of all to the people who want to make good, educated decisions about who will be the next president. So tell me what you’re gonna do, not what dirt you can dig up on the other guy that has no meaning here.

I’m already tired of the whole thing, and we haven’t gotten to the convention yet…geez.

Share This

[JoB]

if there was no hillary..

i would probably be as excited about Obama as those who post here.

He is charismatic.. he inspires hope… what’s not to like?

but there is hillary.. and while he inspires hope… i feel she can deliver hope… to those who need it most.

It’s not often i am willing to attach my heart so firmly to a dream… but there it is.

I am as passionate about the real change i think a woman who has learned to work the system… and reach across party lines to build consensus on issues that truly matter… this woman… can actually bring to the world… as those who support Obama are about him.

I am passionate about what she has shown me she is capable of doing.. not what she promises to do.

It’s not Saint Hillary… I don’t idealize the woman.. but i truly respect her. It has not been easy to get where she is. No other woman has ever managed to do so in the entire history of our nation. and if she fails, it will be a long time before another does.

I know how quick many of you are to instantly villianize her… and that truly saddens me. I am appalled at the total lack of respect women (of any generation) are willing to show a woman who has worked so hard to get where she is.

It is not ok to call her names that you wouldn’t want applied to yourself or your mothers just because she has been made the target of one of the vilest hate campaigns ever.

If Hillary can be treated that way by the national press… and an entire nation can be taught that it is ok to continually scrutinize and look for any excuse to dismiss her.. then so can we.

Yes, i know this is politics. But if those of you who are so continually offended at any offense to Obama actually turned the same critical eye to what you think is ok when applied to Hillary.. i think you would be appalled.

Ask yourself what she did to “earn” such abuse… and all you will be able to come up with are characterizations fed to you by the evening news… she’s shrill… she’s a ballbuster… he husband cheated on her and she backed him up… she wouldn’t listen to her “betters” in congress who wanted to kill the health bill she brokered… she dared to broker anything….

the truth is.. she stepped above herself. She took on more as a first lady than people were comfortable with. (she didnt’ stick to decorating and good works.. and when she turned to them she was lampooned for her efforts) and then she forgave the “rotten bastard” that half the country wasn’t able to forgive.

She is one of those women who broke through barriers and made it possible for all women to do the things they take for granted today. And some of those same women find it impossible to give her credit for even that.

If Hillary was male and had never been married to bill.. she would be the candidate that broke through barriers.. who idealistically stuck to her goals of bettering life for ordinary Americans.. who survived and surmounted public scandal. someone who would inspire hope.

I don’t expect to change your minds. you are as driven by your dream as i am by mine.. but I do expect you to stop and consider why you think you can only defend your dream by destroying her.

And to ask yourself if that is really in your best interests.

Share This

[andrea]

Amen JoB! Again, your words tell a truth few others could put so adroitly.

Share This

[villagegreen]

I don’t think most Obama supporters want to ‘destroy her’ – I think she’d be a fine nomination and president – I just think Obama is a better candidate. I’m tired of the Clinton/Bush dynasty and I’m ready for a fresh start. I really don’t want to relive the 90’s and am not delusional in thinking that Hillary will be able to bring back the economic prosperity that Bill enjoyed. I know you probably haven’t fallen for the ‘bring back the good days’ thinking, but a large portion of Americans have. The 90’s are gone and it’s time to look to the future.

I have ‘stopped and considered’ (as you requested) why some people want to ‘destory’ Hillary. I think a lot of Obama supporters are offended by the utter hypocrasy of her campaign tactics over the past 3 or 4 weeks. Please understand, it has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman. A woman president would be fanastic, and long overdue. And it has nothing to do with how much worse the smear campaign will become once someone is nominated and has to go up against John McCain.

She spent the last 4 years of her time with Bill in office propogating the notion of a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ based on Republican lies and smears. Then she turns around a rips a page right out of the Republicans playbook by playing to people’s fears. She’s turned her campaign around not by talking about the issues, but by resorting to fearmongering and smear tactics. We expect this from Republicans, but it’s her utter hypocrisy that makes it so egregious in this case.

And I also don’t think it’s good for the Democratic party. Now that the campaign has gone negative, both Hillary and Barack will be so beaten and bloodied by the time that one of them is nominated that neither will be in good shape to take on McCain. Why do the Republicans’ job for them? All this leads me to believe that Hillary will resort to any means necessary to reach her goals. She ‘deserves’ to be president; it’s her ‘right’ is how she comes across. And she’ll do anything to make it happen. Sounds earily similar to the way George W. Bush thinks (if you can call it thinking). I’m tired of that type of thinking and am ready for someone a little more inspiring.

Share This

[JoB]

village green…again.. where do i start?

“Clinton/Bush dynasty”… what dynasty?

have you not noticed that they don’t happen to be members of the same party and the legislative goals of the two were somewhat opposed… We had 4 years of Bush the father.. got smart… had 8 years of Bill Clinton… hampered by a republican congress… and then 8 years of Bush the son.

There is no dynasty there (at least not in the Bushes themselves) in spite of all the hype. In fact, Bush the son has followed policies that have to make his dad cringe.. since they are policies he wisely decided not to follow.

the Political advisors who were in both Bush White Houses.. now that’s a different story…

And any Democratic nominee will share democratic advisors from the Clinton White House… those are “party” jobs…

You speak of a family dynasty.. but the real dynasty is that of the political parties and the staff they pass on to each president.

as for wanting to bring the 90s back… i don’t think so. Hillary isn’t advocating the 90s. She is advocating taking steps to return to both decency and prosperity.

the idea that a new (even inspiring) face is what it will take to create change is bull. Inspiration is only the first step towards change… then you need an intimate knowledge of the system.

the future is always built on the past and a good understanding of what brought you where you are gives you a much better understanding of what might have to be changed to get someplace else.

“hillary spent the last 4 years of her time propagating the notion of a “vast right wing conspiracy” based on republican lies and smears”

so.. you believe all of that was something she manufactured? That’s one take on things i guess… but i thought that was a Republican notion…

Having paid attention to politics during that time.. i would say she/they were the target and she didn’t have to manufacture anything. Blaming her for that is like blaming the poor pedestrian who happened to be in the crosswalk when the drunk hit her…

“now that the campaign has gone negative” …

is this the first political campaign you have actually paid attention to? I don’t ask to put you down.. but so far this is the least negative campaign (even primaries) i have ever witnessed in 40+ years of paying attention to them.

One of the benefits of a primary is that the “dirt” is exposed on all candidates before they match up with the other party’s candidate… that hasn’t happened in this campaign. And that’s really not a good thing. While it might make everyone feel better about the process it makes the democratic position ultimately weaker.

One of the benefits of Hillary is that she has spent the last 20+ years of her life under the most intense scrutiny i have ever seen of any public figure. There is unlikely to be anything more to uncover. It will all be an old story.. rehashed once again.. but made less potent in the light of the current administration’s antics.

Whereas.. no one has looked very closely at Obama’s legislative dealings and we know he came from one of the most corrupt political systems in the country… Chicago. Do you honestly believe that his record is so clean that there is nothing for the republicans to uncover? One of his old campaign managers (i think… i hope that’s all he was) is under indictment right now for some pretty underhanded dealings.

I don’t think we have done Obama any favors by not getting anything he may have lurking out into the light… and allowing him the chance to deal with it in a less negative environment than the one he might face in the fall.

Primaries have a dual purpose.. and that is to see who can gain public favor (and both candidates have) and to see who can stand up to the scrutiny of a campaign.

If there is no scrutiny (what you would call dirty campaigning), how will we know? Because that isn’t the way it will be in the general election.

“all this leads me to believe that Hillary will resort to any means necessary to reach her goals”

does this meant that you think she will run an actual campaign and try to defeat her opponent? yup.. i think she will.

“she “deserves” to be president; it’s her ‘right’ is how she comes across.

Interesting.. now you accuse her of feeling entitled to be president.

And you don’t think Obama does?

She did earn the right to run by working tirelessly for her party for 40+ years. She built a political organization.. she solicited donations.. and she has been working herself ragged during her campaign. Quite frankly.. she looks like she needs more than a nap lately.

Where does any of that become entitlement?

“sounds earily similar to the way George W Bush thinks”

That’s the second time you have equated Hillary Clinton and George Bush. Not good. Not good for your party.

You are a democrat! Stop repeating Republican talking points and concentrate on what works about your candidate.

Your sole argument is that you are ready for someone a little more inspiring.

You can simply say.. Hillary does not inspire me…

I get that.

if you truly beleive what you said….

“I think she’d be a fine nomination and president”

and you believe Obama would make a better president.. then say that.

But this divisiveness needs to stop “for the good of the party”.

When the dust settles… it’s going to be up to the losing side to help elect the party’s nominee.

Will you be there if it isn’t your candidate… or will you have convinced yourself she doesn’t deserve to win and hand the presidency to the republicans?

We’ve done it before.. we can certainly do it again.

worth thinking about.

Share This

[TheHouse]

Please understand how much I wanted to throw up after reading 92 post about Clinton and Obama. I somehow battled through it.

As the famous Internet quote goes, watching these two nitwits duke it out for the Democratic ticket is like watching the Special Olympics….it doesn’t matter who wins, they’re still retarded.

I would like to point out to Kayleigh in response to her comment about Republicans not understanding what Democrats stand for. I will attempt to summarize.

Here are just a sample of what Democrats believe:

1) That the the “group” is more important than the “individual”.

2) It is governments responsibility to sustain its citizens (this could include food, housing, employment, medical needs, etc).

3) Individuals that are wealthy should pay a higher tax rate for the greater good.

4) The United States should maintain it’s political positions (Freedon and Democracy) through peace. The military is necessary, but if and only after the opposition has cast the first stone.

Tell me I’m wrong on any of the statements above…

Share This

[JanS]

I’m trying to figure out how you would know if you aren’t one…or is this just an OPINION !!!?

Share This

[charlabob]

g-d house, you are pathetic! i could explain to you the concept of the public common, but you are clearly too retarded to understand anything that sophisticated. so-phis-ti-cated–look it up.

And, to anyone tempted to flame me, I do not throw the term “retarded” around lightly — it goes toward those who use it–or, as they say in the vernacular (look it up, house) — it takes one to know one.

sayonara kids–so long and thanks for the fish (and a special thank you to the person on another thread who reminded me of Wanda.)

the c half –over and especially out

Share This

[Kayleigh]

House, you are correct on the second two, but not on the first two. (at least in terms of my beliefs and those of most Democrats I know.)

The group isn’t more important than the individual, but rather that the individual has some level of responsibility toward the group. None of us is an island; we have responsibilities toward one another. This is actually a pretty Christian belief–one even many conservative Christian churches embrace. It’s just that conservatives are under the mistaken belief that private non-government efforts can solve the problems—they don’t they and never will be enough.

The second one: it isn’t correct that government has a responsibility to sustain you. Rather, that government can (and should) provide a safety net. That’s all…a safety net, not a way of life. The universe creates its own random inequalities and capitalism creates even more; a humane society demands a safety net to help people though hard times.

The government has tremendous power and it actually does some things pretty well (NASA, the public libraries, the CDC, Medicare). It’s imperfect, but unlike corporations, government answers to *us* rather than its stockholders. So it’s often the better choice to perform certain functions (like healthcare) that should not be solely determined by striving for a profit margin.

There are things that transcend money and this is a moral belief most Democrats I know have. We believe it as strongly as the Republicans believe in their concepts of morality.

Share This

[JoB]

Kayleigh.. i am proud of you! I couldn’t have said it better.

The house.. You should look at the history of your own party. they once stood for some very similar ideals…

and those ideals are what got you the education that allows you to be literate enough to throw those ideals in our face…

yogurt works really well for me for indigestion…. and it might even do your body good:)

Share This

[JoB]

The House.. Kayleigh missed a big one.. so i will take it up…

Democrats don’t want rich folks to pay more for taxes than they do.. they just want rich folks to pay the same percentage of their income that those who are less fortunate do…

you make less.. you can afford less. you make more.. you can afford more.

That would actually stimulate our economy (according to current Bush principals) because the rich aren’t likely to spend more if they have more in their pockets (you can only spend so much) but the poor are likely to spend it if it lands in their pockets….

so how about (instead of making the rich pay a larger percentage of their income) .. we actually calculate what the rich do pay and charge the rest of us poor suckers the same. We’d spend it!

Great economic stimulation package!

Share This

[TheHouse]

Charlabob/Kayleigh, thanks for your useless comments. I was not being sarcastic at all when I wrote my comment above. I was actually attempting to remove my normal disdane for liberals and believe that I wrote a comment that was not condescending.

As for the “concept of public common”, please explain. I will find it interesting to see how you explain that Democrats do not feel that the group is not more important than the indivudual. If you read the 2004 Democratic National Platform (which I did), it is loaded with comments that support my statement.

JoB, your post doesn’t make any sense at all. Your 2nd and 3rd paragraph contradict each other. In addition, Democrats typically do want to INCREASE the percentage your taxes if you make more money. If we all paid a standard flat tax (typically a Republican/Libertarian pushed idea), then yes the wealthy would pay more in net dollars but the percentage would be equal with lower income folks. You also seem to have a misconcemption that if you make more money then you don’t pay any taxes at all or you pay less. There are many factors involved in how your income is factored and what you can consider deductible.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Even though House needs no help in the defense category, I am bothered that charlabob would call him “retarded”. I thought the agreement was no name-calling. We can have differences of opinion and still maintain an adult dialogue. Let’s not apply rules only when we all agree on something. Just because you may not like what House has to say, reverting to inappropriate behavior is not the path to take. Why not challenge him with your own intelligent opinions?

Anyways, as the only other Republican on this forum, I am glad you are back, House.

Share This

[Author]

Posts