Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 14 Sep 2009 13:05 Post subject: Dowd on Teabaggers
Quote:
Op-Ed Columnist
Boy, Oh, Boy
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.
I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
“A lot of these outbursts have to do with delegitimizing him as a president,” said Congressman Jim Clyburn, a senior member of the South Carolina delegation. Clyburn, the man who called out Bill Clinton on his racially tinged attacks on Obama in the primary, pushed Pelosi to pursue a formal resolution chastising Wilson.
“In South Carolina politics, I learned that the olive branch works very seldom,” he said. “You have to come at these things from a position of strength. My father used to say, ‘Son, always remember that silence gives consent.’ ”
Barry Obama of the post-’60s Hawaiian ’hood did not live through the major racial struggles in American history. Maybe he had a problem relating to his white basketball coach or catching a cab in New York, but he never got beaten up for being black.
Now he’s at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension. Even if he and the coterie of white male advisers around him don’t choose to openly acknowledge it, this president is the ultimate civil rights figure — a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.
For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.
The state that fired the first shot of the Civil War has now given us this: Senator Jim DeMint exhorted conservatives to “break” the president by upending his health care plan. Rusty DePass, a G.O.P. activist, said that a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was “just one of Michelle’s ancestors.” Lovelorn Mark Sanford tried to refuse the president’s stimulus money. And now Joe Wilson.
“A good many people in South Carolina really reject the notion that we’re part of the union,” said Don Fowler, the former Democratic Party chief who teaches politics at the University of South Carolina. He observed that when slavery was destroyed by outside forces and segregation was undone by civil rights leaders and Congress, it bred xenophobia.
“We have a lot of people who really think that the world’s against us,” Fowler said, “so when things don’t happen the way we like them to, we blame outsiders.” He said a state legislator not long ago tried to pass a bill to nullify any federal legislation with which South Carolinians didn’t agree. Shades of John C. Calhoun!
It may be President Obama’s very air of elegance and erudition that raises hackles in some. “My father used to say to me, ‘Boy, don’t get above your raising,’ ” Fowler said. “Some people are prejudiced anyway, and then they look at his education and mannerisms and get more angry at him.”
Clyburn had a warning for Obama advisers who want to forgive Wilson, ignore the ignorant outbursts and move on: “They’re going to have to develop ways in this White House to deal with things and not let them fester out there. Otherwise, they’ll see numbers moving in the wrong direction.”
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 14 Sep 2009 16:42 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is a widely used term in the media. If you would prefer "anti-Obama Administration/tax/deficit/communist/socialist" protesters.
It's a widely used term in the left wing media to insult people who would dare speak out aginst Obama, Pelosi, and the other leftist Democrats. It is used as an INSULT. It's a derogatory term used to reference a homosexual act. This is why it is extensively used in the left wing Obama media.
It's funny, Ms Dowd who is an unhinged leftist, has to pull out the race card when she sees the agenda coming apart. Not only that, the left feels they need to insult people who would dare speak up. I think it must bother them that there are as many people protesting this administration and Congress as there were protesting Nixon in the late 60s/early 70s. Perhaps even more. I guess the left is supposed to be doing the protesting, not being protested against. I know this bugs them immensely to the point where they must insult people and claim this is about race.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 14 Sep 2009 17:16 Post subject:
I think it is hard to seperate the racial hysteria from the anti-government hysteria, to the people who have legitimate issues.
It is not fair to label all people who do not support Obama as racist, but there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of folks out there yesterday, just like a lot of people you can see on youtube at Palin rallies, and a lot of people interviewed on the street hate Obama because of his race.
I have no doubt about this. The problem is what percentage is that? Also, if someone is a racist does that mean that their issue is invalid or does it mean they are just more vitriol and outraged more than they would normally be? Those are things I can't answer.
Obama did not even win 50% of the white vote and there are plenty of folks who thought that if a black was elected black folks would take over America, oppress white people, open up the border to Hispanics, ban free speech, let all violent criminals out of prison, etc. I've heard all this for the year of the primaries. Those folks did not disappear.
What I think is that many people have legitimate issues with Obama's polices (I have some myself), but at the same time I believe that those issues are multiplied intensely by the racial issue. I do not believe if Obama was a white man the anti-administration protest would be so intense.
As far as liberal they have said many nasty things about Bush personally, more than has been said about Obama, I agree. I also don't remember any Dem congressmen calling BUsh a liar during a State of the Union or any similar speech. I don't remember liberals marching on Washington carying signs like "He had a dream, we got a nightmare", emailing pictures of Bush with bones in his nose, saying that Barbara Bush's family were Gorillas, making jokes about "spooks", etc.
When Bush was reelected I didn't see many people saying Bush would destroy the United States (but many felt he would ruin us overseas, so on and so forth), I don't remember black politicians saying George Bush was a racist who would oppress blacks specifically (Kanye West is not a politician), I don't remember people say George Bush would open the border, although he was for some form of amnesty (his policies were not much different from Obama in that regard). I guess the difference is the amount of paranoia is off the scale, people did not like Bush, many hated him, he went out of office very unpopular. Bush started the bank bailouts, no major groups were going nuts, although he was criticize by some on the far right. No Child Left Behind can be called a socialist, big government power grab failure, but I saw no hysteria or major protests on Washington. When Bush spoke to school children I did not see outrage in the media and people saying they would pull their kids from school, etc.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 14 Sep 2009 19:48 Post subject:
Quote:
What I think is that many people have legitimate issues with Obama's polices (I have some myself), but at the same time I believe that those issues are multiplied intensely by the racial issue. I do not believe if Obama was a white man the anti-administration protest would be so intense.
Don't have a lot of time to respond. I disagree with you 100%. You have a man who was elected President who is trying to radically alter, not only health care, but the way the government operates. It will increase more government interference into our lives, and more Barakcracy. If he was "100 % White" instead of "50%", I think there would be the same reaction.
I would be more inclined to agree with you if Obama came in with a more moderate approach like that of perhaps Colin Powell or McCain if you will, and Clinton to an extent. If he were doing things that would normally make moderates and independents comfortable, then I would agree if such a response resulted, it would be racial. I do not get a lot of that here. Certainly, it makes up for some of it, but I think it does not make up the bulk of it.
Just my take from someone who has been to some of these rallies. I can tell you most people were just as pissed off at Bush and the GOP. Why did they not rally against Bush??? Well Bush made them feel comfortable with national security, though the people opposed him in the Amnesty Bill championed by McCain and Kennedy. Bush did not go around the world apologizing for the nation. Bush, while he spent out of control, was nothing like this President. There's a lot of thngs this President stands for and advocates that do not make the "mainstream" comfortable. Along with Congress, because this is as much against the Congress as it is the President. The man is as much of the left wing radical many in talk radio said he was and then some.
Our ego wants to believe we are wonderful, and so cannot tolerate evidence to the contrary. Consider America. As good as we are, we have a dark side and our actions often have dark consequences. We are large and cast a large shadow. If we were a more mature people we would simply own our dark side, integrate it into part of our self knowledge, and act accordingly. However American mythology says that we are the good country, and to maintain that the pure version of that belief, we are willfully ignorant of our faults. In the minds of many “patriotic” Americans, we have no dark side. Unwilling to own our dark side, we project our shadow onto others.
The Cold War gave us a long period as “the good country” as the Soviet Union gave us a steady (and objectively evil) force onto which we could project our shadow. After the fall of communism we finally found Saddam Hussein to play that role, which clouded our perceptions of the real Saddam (and again, he was objectively evil). Since the Iraq war we’ve looked for a new target onto which to project our shadow. Perennial candidates China, North Korea, and Iran don’t quite suit our needs, and “the terrorists” finally wore thin. I have wondered who our next victim would be. Now we know.
It is Obama.
The right is projecting its shadow onto Obama. The same qualities that make him a saint to the left make him the devil to the right - he is easy to project onto.
That is why he is the out of control spender when they sat on their hands through all of Bush’s malfeasance. That is why his talking to schoolchildren is dangerous when our government wiretapping its citizens wasn’t. That is why saving the financial system from years of Republican regulation is taking away our future. The more evil revealed about the right’s excesses on torture, or wars of choice, or nearly destroying the economy, the more evil Obama will look in their eyes, as they cannot tolerate owning responsibility, because in their own minds they are only good.
That is why he is the Fascist/Communist/Socialist/Muslim . . . Racism makes Obama the Other, but shadow projection is an even more powerful (if interrelated) force than simple racism, and it is very susceptible to the mob mentality – think Goldberg in Orwell’s 1984. This will not end well. Now that Obama is carrying their shadow, only a dramatic event from outside could change it. . . . The more those on the right deny their own failings, the more their internal unease will increase, the more the hatred to Obama will grow, and the more the need to do something will increase.
Comfortable.Comfortable. While Bush may have....,comfortable.
DC, the word you used is comfortable. You used it often.
I think part of Obama's problem is he is just not making half of the people ,comfortable.
With Obama, it is that 50% perhaps is not comfortable with him for being him. I think we can say,50% is just against the Democratic party half of Obama.
I am not in favor of all of HC Reform Bill as it is now,but other things such as the lies,rumors, digust, fights, and other things last week he was to talk to school students proved that there is a little more here than just Rep.and Dem. divided as usual.
It is a widely used term in the media. If you would prefer "anti-Obama Administration/tax/deficit/communist/socialist" protesters.
It's a widely used term in the left wing media to insult people who would dare speak out aginst Obama, Pelosi, and the other leftist Democrats. It is used as an INSULT. It's a derogatory term used to reference a homosexual act. This is why it is extensively used in the left wing Obama media.
People who play football are footballers. People who play softball are softballers. People who attend parties are partygoers or partyers. People who attend "Teabag events are teabaggers.
An insult? A homosexual act? Are you serious? Where do you get this from?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 15 Sep 2009 12:31 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is a widely used term in the media. If you would prefer "anti-Obama Administration/tax/deficit/communist/socialist" protesters.
It's a widely used term in the left wing media to insult people who would dare speak out aginst Obama, Pelosi, and the other leftist Democrats. It is used as an INSULT. It's a derogatory term used to reference a homosexual act. This is why it is extensively used in the left wing Obama media.
People who play football are footballers. People who play softball are softballers. People who attend parties are partygoers or partyers. People who attend "Teabag events are teabaggers.
An insult? A homosexual act? Are you serious? Where do you get this from?
Yes I am serious. No, people who attend tea party events are TEA PARTYERS. It's obvious the type of media you follow. Anderson Cooper of CNN was the first person to insult the movement by making the "tea bagger" incendiary remark as a put down. Cooper has since apologized. Tea bagging, a term which I was not familair with until the remark was made, is a term used to reference a homosexual act which I will not describe here. Let's say it's anologous to the term "cocksucker" as it was meant in the same way.
So if you just frequent left wing Obama media where they use this term freely to insult people, you will not know that it is an incendiary, ad hominem, derogartory reference intended to insult, not describe.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 232 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Tue 15 Sep 2009 13:29 Post subject:
Quote:
Yes I am serious. No, people who attend tea party events are TEA PARTYERS. It's obvious the type of media you follow. Anderson Cooper of CNN was the first person to insult the movement by making the "tea bagger" incendiary remark as a put down. Cooper has since apologized. Tea bagging, a term which I was not familair with until the remark was made, is a term used to reference a homosexual act which I will not describe here. Let's say it's anologous to the term "cocksucker" as it was meant in the same way.
So if you just frequent left wing Obama media where they use this term freely to insult people, you will not know that it is an incendiary, ad hominem, derogartory reference intended to insult, not describe.
So that's where I got this from.
Have a nice day.
That is not true, DChapman. "Teabagging" isn't a homosexual term... it is a sexual term, homo or hetero, and I don't think the men in here would be mad if they've ever had a chance to sexually "teabag" their partner (whether hetero or homo).
In fact, I've never heard it equated with homosexuality until you made mention of it. Up until now, this was something that heterosexual men (that I know, at least, when we were bachelors) would talk about amongst themselves and I've never associated it with homosexuality. If you don't know, then you don't know but there is nothing wrong with a little "teabagging" if you ask me.
I think some on the "Right" are playing the semantics game. It's all good, but just admit it, at least.
It is a widely used term in the media. If you would prefer "anti-Obama Administration/tax/deficit/communist/socialist" protesters.
It's a widely used term in the left wing media to insult people who would dare speak out aginst Obama, Pelosi, and the other leftist Democrats. It is used as an INSULT. It's a derogatory term used to reference a homosexual act. This is why it is extensively used in the left wing Obama media.
People who play football are footballers. People who play softball are softballers. People who attend parties are partygoers or partyers. People who attend "Teabag events are teabaggers.
An insult? A homosexual act? Are you serious? Where do you get this from?
Yes I am serious. No, people who attend tea party events are TEA PARTYERS. It's obvious the type of media you follow. Anderson Cooper of CNN was the first person to insult the movement by making the "tea bagger" incendiary remark as a put down. Cooper has since apologized. Tea bagging, a term which I was not familair with until the remark was made, is a term used to reference a homosexual act which I will not describe here. Let's say it's anologous to the term "cocksucker" as it was meant in the same way.
It was a term you were unfamiliar with so you did research and your findings led you to this conclusion? Are you alleging that in the midst of arguements people exhort to their opponent, "Shut up you teabagger!" as an insult or a slur? Can you honestly say that after getting cut off while driving, driver blow their horns and have been known to exclaim "Teabagger!!!" in order to voice their frustration?
Many of us who have grown up using AOL instant messenger have come across the "dirty AOL icons" years ago. These were basically a reworked AOL icons that came out in the late 90s depicting various sexual acts and "teabag" is one of them. Curiously it involved a male & a female character.
This is a non issue. It is no more a "homosexual" act than fellatio. Some might say it is an integral part of it. And to allege it is a slur is downright silly IMO.
My advice to you would be to get off the internet for a little while and enjoy life outside the matrix.
DChapman wrote:
So if you just frequent left wing Obama media where they use this term freely to insult people, you will not know that it is an incendiary, ad hominem, derogartory reference intended to insult, not describe.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 15 Sep 2009 15:12 Post subject:
Former Bush speech writer for George Bush agrees with me somewhat, he is also concerned:
Quote:
GOP fears that extreme views defining party
"Wild accusations" may hurt chances in coming elections, say Republican insiders.
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - Amid a rebirth of conservative activism that could help Republicans win elections next year, some party insiders fear that extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the angry reaches of the conservative base are undermining the GOP's broader credibility and casting it as the party of the paranoid.
Critics point to theories running rampant on the Internet, such as the idea that President Obama is ineligible to be president, or that he is a Communist, or that his allies want to set up Nazi-like detention camps for political opponents. Those theories, the critics say, have stoked the GOP base and have created a "purist" climate in which figures such as Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) is lionized for his outburst calling Obama a liar.
They are "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps," said David Frum, a conservative author and speech writer for former President George W. Bush who is one of the more vocal critics of the party base and the conservative talk-show hosts helping to fan the flames of unrest.
"Like all conservatives, I am concerned about this administration's accumulation of economic power," Frum said. "Still, you have to be aware that there's a line where legitimate concerns begin to collapse into paranoid fantasy."
Speaking out
Frum and other establishment Republicans have begun to speak out against the influence of what they view as their party's fringe.
Some are pressuring mainstream GOP organizations, such as the Republican National Committee, to cut ties with a Web site, WorldNetDaily.com, that reports on some of the allegations and whose articles are sometimes cited by Web sites and pundits on the right. More than any other group, critics say, WorldNetDaily has come to set the conservative fringe agenda.
Critics charge that the RNC has paid WorldNetDaily for access to its mailing list, estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands, and so is subsidizing the Web site's anti-Obama writings. Committee spokeswoman Gail Gitcho did not respond to questions on the matter.
The site was started in the 1990s by longtime conservative journalist Joseph Farah, who also founded the Western Journalism Center, which helped spread conspiracy rumors about the suicide death of Clinton White House counsel Vincent Foster. Other conservative outlets that have grown in prominence and have carried pieces on the Obama eligibility issue are Newsmax.com and the online magazine Human Events.
The GOP critics' efforts have been rebuked by some conservative leaders who argue that the party will have no hope of regaining power in future elections unless the base, no matter how extreme, remains energized. Some analysts believe the GOP could pick up as many as 30 House seats next year, partly the result of a summer revolt by conservatives against Obama's health-care agenda that has eroded public approval of Democratic leadership.
Leaders in both camps say the tension could define the forthcoming battle over who will be the party's presidential nominee in 2012. "There's a war going on, a pretty big one," said Dan Riehl, a Virginia activist who has criticized those challenging the base.
Michael Goldfarb, a former spokesman for 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, likened the impact of the conservative fringe to that of vocal liberal activists during the Bush years. The antiwar group Code Pink drew headlines, for example, when a protester with fake blood on her hands accosted then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - but Democrats still won elections later.
Request rejected
"Do we look crackpot? Yes," Goldfarb said. "But that's how the left looked to me in 2004, and in 2006 they took back Congress. Then they started marginalizing the lunatics."
One symbolic development came last week when organizers of next year's Conservative Political Action Conference, the country's biggest annual meeting of activists on the right, said they had rejected a request to include on the program a panel focusing on whether Obama was a native-born U.S. citizen and therefore eligible to be president.
"It would fill a room," said event director Lisa De Pasquale. "But so would a two-headed monkey. There really are so many more important issues, and it's only a three-day conference."
Republican critics of the fringe point with concern to a largely party-line vote in which many GOP senators opposed Obama regulatory nominee Cass Sunstein, even though his views on regulatory issues are considered favorable to industry.
One leading conservative, Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), said he opposed Sunstein after he was deluged with calls demanding a "no" vote due to Sunstein's "extreme views."
Asked to cite which views he considered extreme, DeMint couldn't answer. A spokesman later said his boss objected to Sunstein's once calling for a hunting ban and for past statements on animal rights.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 16 Sep 2009 11:59 Post subject:
Quote:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
JIMMY CARTER
Racism Blamed for Clamor Over Obama
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter told NBC in an interview. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"
Continued Carter: "And that racism inclination still exists. . . . It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."
The 39th president also predicted that Obama will be able to "triumph over the racist attitude that is the basis for the negative environment that we see so vividly demonstrated in public affairs in recent days."
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 16 Sep 2009 12:50 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
This is a non issue. It is no more a "homosexual" act than fellatio. Some might say it is an integral part of it. And to allege it is a slur is downright silly IMO.
It is an incendiary slur, that's the way it was originally intended, I don't care what your opinion is. That's the way it will be taken here. I understand it's tough on Obama supporters to imagine such opposition to the man who was supposed to save us from ourselves.
anonymouse wrote:
Now there is an Obama media? Interesting.
Now you sound like Charles Gibson to his astonishment of the ACORN corruption scandals that he claimed he didn't know about!!!
This is a non issue. It is no more a "homosexual" act than fellatio. Some might say it is an integral part of it. And to allege it is a slur is downright silly IMO.
It is an incendiary slur, that's the way it was originally intended, I don't care what your opinion is. That's the way it will be taken here. I understand it's tough on Obama supporters to imagine such opposition to the man who was supposed to save us from ourselves.
It is such an intense incendiary slur that you never even heard of it before this summer and that you had to do research to figure it out. Gotcha. And you wonder why people look at right wingers as kooks. in the immortal words of the former MTV personality and current radio host Ed Lover: C'mon SON!
anonymouse wrote:
Now there is an Obama media? Interesting.
DChapman wrote:
Now you sound like Charles Gibson to his astonishment of the ACORN corruption scandals that he claimed he didn't know about!!!
The man has been president for all of 9 months and now he has his own media. Talk about conspiracy theorists
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 16 Sep 2009 14:58 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
It is such an intense incendiary slur that you never even heard of it before this summer and that you had to do research to figure it out. Gotcha. And you wonder why people look at right wingers as kooks. in the immortal words of the former MTV personality and current radio host Ed Lover: C'mon SON
WRONG!!! I never heard of the term before it was used in April by Anderson Cooper, then used by the MSNBC mob. The next day there were several articles describing what it meant. Not necessarily a homosexual term but associated with homosexuals.
The context in which it was used by Cooper and Olbermann, et al, was intended as a put down, an insult, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Cooper has since apologized..... I understand people who only frequent the Obama left wing media would not get it because the term is used so freely, they think it's a legitimate description of the people involved in the protests. This might be why Fox News keeps gaining viewer market share, while CNN (not as bad as the others), MSNBC/NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, et al, keep losing market share???
Just a guess.....
I would gather that some in the Obama media, Jimmy Carter, and other unhinged supporters will attribute most of this to "race".....
As far as kooks, I don't think you get anymore kookier than Van Jones, an Obama confidant??? How many Van Jones is he associated with???
anonymouse wrote:
The man has been president for all of 9 months and now he has his own media. Talk about conspiracy theorists
Gee, even the Clintons complained about that during the primaries. I guess they're conspiracy theorists along with us "right wingers" ???
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 16 Sep 2009 16:36 Post subject:
actually many conservatives, as in my Post: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:12 are starting to wish some of the "protesters" would shut up. Meanwhile, new polls show Obama's approval rating edging up...
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
