BS: Obama in Wilmington

Subject: BS: Obama in Wilmington, NC
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:37 AM

Hillary snuck in to town today (Sunday), according to some of her local blogging supporters, she was trying to steal the thunder from Obama's visit tomorrow. We shall see.

Carol and I have tickets. As do some of our neighbors. We are going to the town hall meeting. We are very much looking forward to this. I will write a report after Carol's dental appointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 08:47 AM

Do tell!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 09:08 AM

Why do you use words like 'snuck'?
Sorry that was a rheotorical question - anything is ok to discredit another candidate isn't it? - unless it happens to be the one you support.

It seems that it's acceptable to accuse anyone who isn't under some kind of thrall to Obama's style of rhetoric as 'racist'

Do I detect more than a little 'sexism' in the continual sniping about Hilary Clinton in these repetitive and tedious posts?

'WILMINGTON, NC (2008-04-27) Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop in Wilmington last night'

public broadcasting radio mp3 listen here

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 09:38 AM

This is the same tactic a handful of virulent Mudcat Kerry "supporters" used against anyone who didn't agree with their candidate choice in 2004.

SOS.

But EmmaB is dead on the money. Clinton "snuck" into the state where the upcoming primary is to "steal" Obama's thunder--rather than just campaign?

All extremely loaded emotional words, used by people who vote out of anger and frustration and an extremely well developed sense of being entitled and justified to "get back at" the Republican right by seeking vengeance against anybody who dares disagree with them.

There are several men here who routinely engage in this sick behavior.

Most Mudcatters share a real dislike for the current administration, regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof. However, they don't stoop such a base and vulgar level as the men you see routinely flaming everyone and anyone who disagrees with their "anything goes to get the Bushie out" tactics.

Anything doesn't go with most of us, but that doesn't matter to these slash and burners.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 10:51 AM

Ooooh, hiss, spit, snarl. Clawsies, duck.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:04 AM

And you are one of the ringleaders, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:05 AM

"Obama will be next President of the United States and I don't give a rat's rear who knows it. Neither do I care to discuss it."

There. That oughta piss off the folks around these parts, but since I won't be back to this thread--hey, who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:11 AM

I think all the negative bullshit is going to backfire on Hillary. I HOPE it is anyway, because if I'm tired of it, others might be as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:18 AM

People are just tired of the Democratic primary season dragging on. I don't think most people see the "negative bullshit" as coming exclusively from one side. Not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:18 AM

"Snuck" or whatever, The Cinton's have long been known to play hardball... Hope they have something left in the tank for McCain after the nomination process is thru... Unless, of course Obama get the nomination and McCain chooses Hillary as his VP nominee...

(lol)

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM

A regular contributor to the Daily Kos an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view. It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists, whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party has withdrawn from contributing....

'Writers need a safe place to reach out and exchange ideas, to communicate and challenge one another. DailyKos should be that place, but its tone, its essence has evolved into something ugly and destructive. Good writers can't survive in that kind of atmosphere. Democrats shouldn't have to put up with that from fellow Democrats.

Sadly, the majority of the administrators have allowed this hostile environment to develop in our online community for anyone who isn't planted firmly in the Obama camp. They've routinely ignored personal attacks and allowed disruptive, spam-like posts to go unchecked whenever anyone expresses support for Hillary or challenges something their candidate has said or done. There are however several front-pagers who have managed to avoid taking part in the attacks on Hillary and for that I'm grateful. But the site has grown to the point where they simply can't – or won't monitor it.

As a result, our community has become little more than an echo chamber with an attitude that harkens back to the early days of Dubbya's administration - yer either with us or yer a'gin us, heh! The attackers and disrupters are no better than Chris Matthews with their sexism, hate, lies, and obsession with bashing - all – things – Hillary.'

open letter

As I have written elsewhere, as a Brit, I would wholeheartedly welcome a US democratic president of any race, creed or gender but, it appears that every thread purporting to support Obama, is often little more than another attack on the rival candidate.

Some of the remarks/language here are not the stuff of informed, reasoned 'adult' debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

"Anything is ok to discredit another candidate isn't it? - unless it happens to be the one you support."

Of course! ;-) That's how it works in politics. The politicians do it. The media does it. The citizens do it, and all the big blabbermouths here on Mudcat do it too. Standard procedure. They don't mind it when they do it, but they hate it when their opponents do it, because they can't stand seeing themselves reflected in the mirror of life.

No exceptions.

Look, people, you are all taught by the social system around you to do this from the time you are toddlers. It's conveyed to you in every way possible. You are taught to be mean, competitive, aggressive, judgemental, prejudiced, and fanatically partisan. You are taught this through organized sports, all forms of political discourse, those silly student council elections in your schools, beauty contests, business, and every other form of publicly competitive exercise, all of which produce a few winners and a great many losers.

This is how you are ruled from the top down...by divide and conquer tactics. You are kept uselessly fighting against each other while the $ySStem rules you all from the top down till the day you die. And it works like a dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

Exact same phenomenon here, EmmaB.

Those Obama camp folk are the former Kerry folks who have villified Nader.

I stopped reading those sites (Daily Kos, MoveOn, and more and more, Huffington Post and some others which didn't seem as partisan prior to Super Tuesday), along with the so-called "progessive press" which includes The Nation, The Progressive, The New Republic, and increasingly Mother Jones.

It's awful, to see how deep the claws of the corporate Democrats have dug into the heart of the progressive left, and disemboweled it.

Really depressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:46 PM

I can't agree with you Little Hawk. This divide and conquer game has become far worse since Bill Clinton lost Congress in the 90s, and the corporate Democrats who control the party panicked.

Some of us go pretty far back to the New Left days and earlier, so we've seen the changes.

Which is why I am STILL arguing against voting for any of the 3 corporate candidates this year, and telling everyone who will listen objectively (which includes my car mechanic this week!) to give Nader one last look--because he won't be here after this election cycle. This is his last run, and our best last chance as a nation to turn things around.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

I agree that it has gotten steadily worse, Fantasma. It has always been around, but it's definitely gotten worse in recent decades. It gets more shameless and negative year by year, and the media (radio and TV) have played a big part in allowing that to happen.

What we are witnessing is the accelerating decline and fall of a decadent civilization ruled by people with irrational ideas and extremely immoral attitudes. The chickens are coming to roost, just as they did long ago in Rome or Babylon.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM

Some over-generalizations going down here...

I support Obama...

I have never villified Nader and have worked for him and voted for him...

I did not vote for Kerry...

I am not "stupid", as Fantz would like to think of anyone who supports Obama...

And lastly, Fantz, you may have duped yourself into thinking that ***You*** are the only "objective" person here because people don'tr agree with you but you are as wrong as wrong can be... You come off as highly subjective and dogmatic...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:49 PM

And you are one of the very few of the Mudcat Obamamaniacs who claims not to have voted for Kerry.

But this election cycle, you joined the corporate Democrats ranks by supporting Obama.

So I'm not too concerned about you calling me dogmatic, Bobert. You are marching to the corporate Republicrat tune, in lock step this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:07 PM

That's not the way I see it, Fantz...

Like, ahhhhhh, if it isn't asking too mmuch, and in your own words, would you explain how supporting Obama is "marching to the corporate Rublican tune, in lock set this year."

I don't believe you can...

That's why I view you as subjective and dogmatic...

Oh sure, you can come up with any number of "twisted" logic explanations such as Obama's "support of the war" (Not!!!) because he voted for the supplimental... That is not support "of the war" but yer blogger buds have convinced you that if you say it enough then it will become true... Fact is that opne of 3 people will be the next president... One opposed the invasion... Two supported it...

But somehow the one that opposed it has made it to the top of yer hate/disgust list the other two get a free pass from you but in yer twisted world the one who opposed it is the one "marching to the corporate Republican tune"...

Well, if that is the case then, if you don't mind me asking, just what tune are the ones who voted for the war marching to??? Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey"???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:22 PM

Bobert, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Obama is being financed by the corporations.

His voting record is pure Republicrat, including voting to sustain the Iraq war, rather than voting to end it, as he had the opportunity to do along with his Senate and House colleagues who did just that.

To claim that a vote for the appropriations bills that keep the war going isn't a vote in support of the war, is pure, unadulterated lying.

There was a clear choice. Vote to continue the war (yes on the appropriation bill) or vote to end the war (yes on any number of friggin' votes to end the war).

Now Bobert, a lot of people have provided you with the links, with excerpts of articles, bills, copy and pastes from the friggin' US Senate votes pages, ALL showing Obama's voting record on Iraq, but you don't accept that as "proof".

Which means you have no intention of taking the truth of your candidate's political stand on the issue of the Iraq war.

So why would anyone bother with you? You keep "proving" again and again and again you aren't willing to do the hard work of examining Obama's record.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM

Talk about the candidates' quest dragging on... In 1968, as I remember well, it went on a good deal longer than it has so far in 2008. 1968 was another election year when the incumbent president did not run for reelection and the scramble for votes was an active one, leaving a lot of acrimony in the air. Had Kennedy not died midway, I think it would have brcome even more vicious.

"Kennedy was still in second place in the race for the candidacy with 393 delegates compared to the leader Hubert Humphrey who had 561." Wikipedia

And this was in early June.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Just before he was assassinated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:44 PM

Which pretty much put an end to the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:12 PM

Yes, it sure did. It pretty much put an end to a lot of people's hopes at that time.

I didn't vote for Kerry either. ;-) If I'd been there, though, I probably would have. Because I believed in Kerry? NO! I don't believe in either the Democrats or the Republicans. Besides, Kerry and Bush are both alumni of the Skull and Bones Society, and I have a fairly good idea of what that means.

The only guy that got me really excited with what he had to say in this present campaign was Kucinich (well, and Ron Paul when it came to foreign policy). They never had a chance.

I don't know enough really about Ralph Nader to have what I would call an informed opinion about him...nor do I think he has a chance either, anymore than Kucinich or Ron Paul did. The MSM are ignoring him. The public won't vote in any significant numbers for someone the MSM ignores...just as sheep will not obey a sheepdog that they cannot see or hear. That's how it works. The MSM and the other power structures can easily insure who (from a select group of candidates) is electable and who isn't, because they control the flow of information. Result: Hillary, Obama, and McCain are now all potentially electable. No one else is. The flow of information controls the public mentality. The public is told who to vote for, and like good little sheep they go out and do it. When all of the officially sanctioned presidential candidates in the MSM's election campaign are already toadies of the $ySStem, the result is all wrapped up regardless who wins.

Wouldn't you say that is correct, Fantasma? I don't mind at all if you pin your hopes on Nader, and I understand why you do, but is it not a bit Quixotic of you to expect it to change that ruling $ySStem when they can easily ensure that Nader remains well below most people's radar and is barely ever even spoken of on the MSM?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:17 PM

"The public won't vote in any significant numbers for someone the MSM ignores...just as sheep will not obey a sheepdog that they cannot see or hear. That's how it works."

Little Hawk, that is not the reason that Nader does not have the votes. Have you listened to RN answer questions? I would be happy to have him in an administration, preferably in a non-competitive position, but as leader of a country in all its facets, Ralph Nader would be a disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:20 PM

I agree about the corporate control of MSM, but I don't agree that Nader is below the radar. Quite the contrary, anyone who even marginally pays attention to the "blue" spectrum of American politics knows very well who Nader is, what he represents, and if they chose to, could abandon the corporate Democrat candidate & vote for him.

When Democrats and their voting allies say Nader could never win, they are lying to themselves and each other, to protect their status quo, NOT to bring about political change.

You can't expect to bring about political change through voting, when you keep voting the way you've been voting for decades.

But by pulling one lever on election day, you CAN start a revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:25 PM

No, Ebbie, I haven't listened to him answer questions. At least not that I recall. I've listened to Obama, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Hillary, and McCain answer questions...oh and Bush too...but not Nader.

My impression, though, is that even if he was the most brilliant question answerer in the world, the MSM would be ignoring him right now. What do you think? Honestly, do you think he'd be getting significant coverage on MSM then? I don't. He's not running as either a Democrat or a Republican. He HAS to if he's going to get any significant coverage by the MSM. That's how the $ySStem is set up. It's a closed shop with 2 official League teams that get to play off against each other at the end of each 4-year season...like the NBA playoffs or the World Series. You don't get to play in that Series if you're outside the official league.

Oh, you can make some noise. You just can't do it on the playing field, that's all. You can do it outside the entrance gates to the stadium. The audience is in the stadium.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:31 PM

Ah well...perhaps if I was an American I'd know a bit more about Mr Nader. My impression is that he's well below the radar of about 98% of the American public, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I agree that continuing to vote for the Democrats or Republicans every time will effectively change nothing. I've thought so for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:33 PM

Just like you can't speak your political opinions freely here at Mudcat without being censored.

See the closed "Odd Etymologies" thread before they disappear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:45 PM

I used the word "snuck" because she came into town with no publicity and very little advance warning, Oh yeah I also used the word "snuck" because that's the word the pro Hillary blogger used. The reason given for the sneaking was "security". Do you think she is as fearful about visiting Wilmington openly as Bush is about Iraq? ;-)

I said that her supporter said she was trying to Steal Obama's thunder. It seemed like a challenge to me.

Having attended his rally and having talked to people who attended both, it is my opinion that Obama put on the better show.

If you watch the video, you may see Carol and me in the shot, We were directly behind the candidate just below the big blue banner. I hope I didn't yawn or burp or anything at the wrong time or do anything else that could put me on Olbermann. ;-)

I did laugh so loudly when Obama said McCain said that the economy was good that the Senator seemed to glance back to see where the noise was coming from. I'm not sure he meant that line for a laugh. But come on!!? funny is funny.

The hall was packed. the capacity is 6,100 for basketball, but some of the stands were not in use because of the cameras and there were chair on the playing floor. Obama said there were 5,000.

I was pleased that Obama made a pledge to stop being negative about Hillary. He criticized the Bush administration to wild applause and found issue with McCain's Tax policy and foreign policy.

He seems smaller in person, but perhaps that was because we were six or seven rows back and above him. It also seems to be true for him that the camera adds ten pounds.

We thought that we were not going to get good seats. we showed up an hour and a half before the doors opened and there were at least a thousand ahead of us. But the volunteering and donations paid off and we were given little gold stars which allowed us to be placed directly behind the stage by the head of the official Wilmington Obama Campaign.

The half hour speech was rousing; the Q&A informative and entertaining. A ninety two year old lady railing about global warming stole the show. The sound was bad where we were from the questioners mikes. But we got the gist.

For me it was like witnessing history being made. I'm so glad that we got to go there. I feel very blessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:50 PM

No, but she & her dumb ass husband ought to be scared to death to step in front of an all black audience for the rest of their lives, and deservedly so.

Notice how no one ever asks the question "why can't Hillary get blacks to vote for her" like they keep asking Obama why he can't get whites to vote for him?

Hmmmm....wonder why THAT is.

Like I said in the race and religion thead--I am FED UP with all of them. With the Clinton's race baiting and card playing, and Obama's religion baiting and card playing.

I'm sick watching these egomaniacs tear the nation asunder for their personal ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:50 PM

Thanks for the update!

We're heading to see Obama in Chapel Hill tonight: very excited!

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM

Dani! You will love it!

Very entertaining and inspiring!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM

It was a very good event. And I was also pleased to see the amount of security he has around him now. He had six or seven secret service men surrounding him any time he wasn't up on the stage. While he was shaking hands with members of the audience after he finished, the security guys were in a semi circle behind him, and right up close, shielding him with their bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM

Just like you can't speak your political opinions freely here at Mudcat without being censored.


Sigh. I don't find this credible, Fantzy. I think it is a subjective distortion on your part.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM

Really. Well, folks are free for a few more minutes to go the thread "Odd Etymologies" themselves, and ask why it was closed.

Censorship is the only reasonable answer, of course.

There weren't any personal attacks. There was nothing controversial--hell, it was barely even provocative.

It took Rev Wright's comment today that the word "damn" came from "D E M N" etymologically, which is most certainly does not. We were discussing the OED etymologies, when the thread was suddenly closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:19 PM

What does D E M N signify? And what does OED signify?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:22 PM

As to what D E M N signifies, you will have to ask the Rev Wright.

As to what OED signifies? Oxford English Dictionary.

And you a Canadian!

I don't dare conjecture as to what the D E M N significance is, for fear of the Mudcat censors swooping down and banishing this thread as well. They made it clear (as quicksand) why they HAD to close the "Odd Etymologies" thread now, didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:24 PM

This link won't be any good tomorrow but if you look at the picture under.
"Obama holds Town Hall event at UNCW"


I am under the "B" in "Believe", Carol is under the "A" in "Can".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:25 PM

Demn is defined here Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:32 PM

Except we weren't discussing definitions, we were discussing eytmologies, which your link doesn't provide.

Which is why intelligent people use dictionaries.

Perhaps Carol will buy you one for May Day.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

I think the point was clearly made in that thread that "condemn" and "damn" are conjugate and have the same root. That's the point he was making, I belileve -- what you glibly dissed as "ebonic etymology". Kind of a racist remark on your part, I would suggest. Especially since he was speaking perfectly sensibly. If you want to get your knickers in a twist because ..."demn" is not the immediate unwed father of "damn", go ahead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:41 PM

Yes, I knew I could count on you to suggest that, Amos. Utterly predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:46 PM

Yo, Rufus... Pass me one o' demn Iron Ceety beers, willz ya???

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:49 PM

Just for a moment I had a vision of Obama on the A35 in Devon, England... as Wikipedia says, "Wilmington is a village between Axminster and Honiton in East Devon on the A35 road.

The village is in the parish of Offwell. St Cuthburts Church dates from the 14th Century and nearby Castle Hill is of historical interest"

Axminster is famous for carpets, Honiton for lace.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:51 PM

Whether or not Rev. Wright was correct in saying that 'damn' was derived from 'condemn', I think he probably came by his understanding of the word's etymology honestly. I have two books of word origins. One of them gives the same etymology as the OED, and the other gives the same etymology as the one Dr. Wright gave.

This is what it says:

Though it is first recorded in the 16th century 'damn' is a much older oath than that. It derives ultimately from the Latin 'damnare', to condemn.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:58 PM

Ummmm, I musta missed the demn comment last night but I didn't even know he was gonna speak and had been gone all day, turned on CNN and there he was so I sat thru the rest of the speech and thought it was real good...

Reminded me of a few black preachers I knew a long, long time ago...

Right on, Reverand, right on...

Lets have that conversation afterall, brother...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:16 PM

There seems to be a pretty strong consensus across the board that the problem wasn't the Moyers interview, the speech to the NAACP, or the first half of Wright's appearance at the National Press Club, which was with prepared remarks.

What seems to be a near universal consensus (at least among the online news outlets, I haven't listened to radio or TV today) forming that the problem was with the Q & A session that followed his prepared remarks this morning.

Carol, the issue I raised here wasn't etymology, it was censorship of political threads in this forum.

I was also aware of the etymology you reference, but the OED is far clearer as to the subject to which Wright was referrring, which is the Christian use of the word 'damn'.

Context is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

Yo, Fantz... When I came here I was probably more of a leftest radical than 'bout, ummmmmm, maybe 99% of the folks that were here then and I've never had one single "political" post of mine censored or removed...

I think you bnedd to stick to your positions and you poklitics and leave the personal attacks behind... To call everyone who supports Obama "stupid" is gonna get alot of yer posts censored... Stick with the ideas...

Just some ***good*** advice... Take it or not... Yer the one who wants to have yer posts stick... Unless, of course, you want yer posts to go away so you can cry "foul"??? I donno...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obama in Wilmington
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:34 PM

Like I said, he may not have been correct, but he may have legitimately thought he was using 'damn' in the way he said he was.