Senate votes to condem Moveon ad

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The add was not right. At this time we believe that. Time may change some minds. Problem with Lush is he can't stop. Yesterday he attacked one soldier again comparing him like a suicide bomber.
He should stay off his pills and take a week off.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Heres your prob jabbers on issue of Moveon ad and Rush's comment

Everyone knows these liberal media history of supporting the code pinko's far left anti war--anti troop movement--

Then you have the far left liberal congress doing same--

Reid--we've already lost
Murtha --cold blooded killers
Kerry-stay in school
Durbin-comparing our troops to Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge,
ect ect ect

--and it is absolutely :142smilie that you have the above trying to chastise Rush for being anti military when he has documented history of adamantly supporting the war and troops.


Liberals--the gift that just keep giving. :)

No, HERE'S the problem with the two, in my view. Most democrats have condemned the Move-On ad, and even ardent supporters and anti-war believers thought the ad was out of line - and said so. In the case of Rush, the loudest of the loud are defending him and his comment, altering the true situation, and attacking anyone who takes issue with it. Which is exactly what the right wing does with most issues during this administration. The fact that Rush benefits directly and financially from his contract with Armed Forces Radio - and then manipulates the tape for playing on that radio (for obvious reasons) so that part is not aired there - is a problem. The man is not even man enough to admit what he said, and even doctors the evidence to the troops - why would that happen if his explanation were true?

The very simple issue is, if Rush were actually talking about one person, why would he say the simple phrase "Phony SoldierS?" Why would it be plural? You need go no further than that to know he is outright lying. And there can be no doubt for anyone with a fair perspective to know that unless someone supports the war in Iraq, then they are not considered patriotic, a worthy American - he has said so in more ways than one throughout his history. Why would the soldiers who don't agree with the war be any different? They wouldn't. Period. Rush is not supportive of all braves soldiers fighting on behalf of our country. He only considers them real soldiers if they share his personal beliefs. Period.

A majority of Dems came out against the MoveOn ad. How many republicans or talking heads have come out against Rush? Did you happen to catch Hannity, O'Reilly or Bill Bennett yesterday? I did. All of them.

There's the problem, no matter how many colors and communist names you want to toss out there, Wayne.
 

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
55
Austin, Texas
No Tenzing, I engage plenty of people on this board in meaningful discourse and I will continue to do so. I just don't waste my time on idiots. Sorry you are so miserable...and so embarrassingly stupid.

Dude, you are embarrassing. Seriously, consider stop posting until you acquire some reading apprehension skillz. You used slurs and ad hominem attacks against me AS YOUR FIRST POST ON THE THREAD. Not the epitome of enlightenment. Then, instead of appologizing to me, when I called you out, you try to defend your moronic off-topic shit. grow up. Seriously. If you "engage" (lol, good one) in idea exchanging all the time, I was unable to ascertain that from your one line post. Do try to be a little less of a liar and hypocrite in the future, my child.

At least Chadman and I can differ and be civil; he agreed that some of my comments about his post were true, in that he got off-topic, and there was no need to use name calling.

I'm sorry I have to do this, but I must educate you, Jabberwocky, When you attack the messenger and cannot/will not refute his message, it means you yourself have conceeded that you have no point, wouldn't know when you finally acquired a point, and frankly have no way figuring out if your point was vaild and correct.

Chadman, I'm sure you are well meaning, but your posts on the subject are as I have described them- an attempt to make it so that those who hold differing views you than you are prohibited from posting. It's the typical Liberal modus operandi. Under no circumstance are you or anyone else allowed to decide, infer, or insinuate that a person or group of persons is enjoined from speaking as they wish.

This goes back to that quote of me by Jabberwocky - that Liberals hate freedoms. They most certainly do. That is to say when non-Liberals try to use them, at least. Somehow the left is able to do and say as they wish, since of course it's educational and for the public good, but conservatives only want to lie and create falsehoods at every turn, and must therefore not be allowed to state a viewpoint in public.

The Senate of the United States of America has a perfect right to create whatever message, draft, resolution, bill, law, code, or censure they deem fit. If you cannot understand that that is so, and has been so since we founded this nation, then you need to move to someplace more hospitable to your views (which in my opinion are odious, at best) like China or North Korea.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
55
Austin, Texas
No, HERE'S the problem with the two, in my view. Most democrats have condemned the Move-On ad, and even ardent supporters and anti-war believers thought the ad was out of line - and said so. In the case of Rush, the loudest of the loud are defending him and his comment, altering the true situation, and attacking anyone who takes issue with it. Which is exactly what the right wing does with most issues during this administration. The fact that Rush benefits directly and financially from his contract with Armed Forces Radio - and then manipulates the tape for playing on that radio (for obvious reasons) so that part is not aired there - is a problem. The man is not even man enough to admit what he said, and even doctors the evidence to the troops - why would that happen if his explanation were true?

The very simple issue is, if Rush were actually talking about one person, why would he say the simple phrase "Phony SoldierS?" Why would it be plural? You need go no further than that to know he is outright lying. And there can be no doubt for anyone with a fair perspective to know that unless someone supports the war in Iraq, then they are not considered patriotic, a worthy American - he has said so in more ways than one throughout his history. Why would the soldiers who don't agree with the war be any different? They wouldn't. Period. Rush is not supportive of all braves soldiers fighting on behalf of our country. He only considers them real soldiers if they share his personal beliefs. Period.

A majority of Dems came out against the MoveOn ad. How many republicans or talking heads have come out against Rush? Did you happen to catch Hannity, O'Reilly or Bill Bennett yesterday? I did. All of them.

There's the problem, no matter how many colors and communist names you want to toss out there, Wayne.

Chadman, I'm not sure what Rush did, but since you can't point me to a COMPLETE transcript of the show you find offensive, I think it best you stop trying to say he did something wrong. Like I said earlier, I'm not the biggest Rush fan, but from my understanding of the snippet of a transcript you posted, it had little to nothing to do with what you claim his point that day was.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Complete transcript here - his comment was made specifically after the caller mentioned plural soldiers - take it for what you want. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to note plurals, context, etc., unless you feel the need to massage something. I listened to the exact call in question. I heard it that day, live, happened to be listening to his show at that moment, I heard the reference, the voice inflexions, etc. But here it is - I love the earlier reference to not being able to follow intellectually "these people." A lot of pluralities and generalities put forth by Rush here. (By the way, I have heard two reports that he doctored that very transcript before airing on Armed Forces Radio - will look for verification of that.

>>The transcript can be found at The Rush Limbaugh website:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose --

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I'm not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.

RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That's true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can't be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
END TRANSCRIPT
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Dude, you are embarrassing. Seriously, consider stop posting until you acquire some reading apprehension skillz. You used slurs and ad hominem attacks against me AS YOUR FIRST POST ON THE THREAD. Not the epitome of enlightenment. Then, instead of appologizing to me, when I called you out, you try to defend your moronic off-topic shit. grow up. Seriously. If you "engage" (lol, good one) in idea exchanging all the time, I was unable to ascertain that from your one line post. Do try to be a little less of a liar and hypocrite in the future, my child.

At least Chadman and I can differ and be civil; he agreed that some of my comments about his post were true, in that he got off-topic, and there was no need to use name calling.

I'm sorry I have to do this, but I must educate you, Jabberwocky, When you attack the messenger and cannot/will not refute his message, it means you yourself have conceeded that you have no point, wouldn't know when you finally acquired a point, and frankly have no way figuring out if your point was vaild and correct.
I find it ironic that Tenzing is chastising another poster for name calling when his very first post in this thread was laced with hatred for ?low-life, non-English speaking liberals.?
Chadman, I'm not sure what Rush did, but since you can't point me to a COMPLETE transcript of the show you find offensive, I think it best you stop trying to say he did something wrong.
Follow the instructions in my post from several days ago to hear the recording of Rush slandering our soldiers.
Rush is backtracking big time over his comments saying that it was taken out of context and claiming that he was talking about Jesse McBeth when he used the term "phony soldiers". Limbaugh has now reportedly submitted an editted tape of his conversation with a caller to MediaMatters. Click HERE and play the audio clip in the upper right corner of the page for the uneditted version of his despicable remarks about our soldiers that don't agree with his views.

LIMBAUGH: I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,487
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad I agree with you on most Dems attitude on Moveon as well as most being behind the troops--

I'm not dissing Dems at all only the far left element who are involved in the Rush ordeal.

--as far as Rush I have seen/heard his and others use the phoney soilders clip from CBS just prior to prop up his wiggle room for his motives and to give him benefit of doubt--maybe so--however I lean as I told Gregg-- my 1st impression is he was implying more than one--be that what it may--I certainly think it is foolish for Rush and others to be so rabid about it--as Rush has been dishing it out in same arena for years- if you give heat-you need to be able to take the heat.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Chad I agree with you on most Dems attitude on Moveon as well as most being behind the troops--

I'm not dissing Dems at all only the far left element who are involved in the Rush ordeal.

--as far as Rush I have seen/heard his and others use the phoney soilders clip from CBS just prior to prop up his wiggle room for his motives and to give him benefit of doubt--maybe so--however I lean as I told Gregg-- my 1st impression is he was implying more than one--be that what it may--I certainly think it is foolish for Rush and others to be so rabid about it--as Rush has been dishing it out in same arena for years- if you give heat-you need to be able to take the heat.

Very fair points, Wayne. To be honest with you, I am having a hard time with the politicizing being done by dem leadership on some things - I know it's the way to play the game, I guess, but personally don't care for Pelosi and Reid much on camera - just don't come out looking strong with their points too often. I think Pelosi is pretty strong in many ways, but the tit-for-tat thing is getting old. I listened to Geraldo last night on Hannity & Colmes and for once he seemed to be the most sensible person on this issue of all - very odd, ha.
 

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
55
Austin, Texas
!

!

This thread is why I rarely bother posting here. You people are disgusting. Do you realy think I'm going to say myself, "Oh, they took everything they could out of context, refused to actually refute anything, and worst of all used slurs and personal attacks instead of facts, so, I guess these Liberals must be right"?

I'm not sure how many differant ways I have to phrase something in order to get a left-winger to devote time to refuting me, rather than using name calling, so I'm done with this thread. TheJudge is so loony that his brain can't even understand the simplest of sentences, it appears. sigh, it's like he wakes up in the morning and immediate sets about to randomly type in letters until something resembling English appears, and if it has nothing to with the topic, he's gonna post it anyways.

I propose that all threads from now til Jan 1, 2008 contain nothing but facts; no snippets, or opinions, just facts.

Have a nice day.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
TheJudge is so loony that his brain can't even understand the simplest of sentences, it appears. sigh, it's like he wakes up in the morning and immediate sets about to randomly type in letters until something resembling English appears, and if it has nothing to with the topic, he's gonna post it anyways.
I am not sure what it is that you feel I have failed to understand or where I have posted anything that is even remotely "random."
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
"This thread is why I rarely bother posting here. You people are disgusting."

You really shouldn't waste your time with a bunch of stupid, low-life, meth addicted losers. I would say not posting would be the best course of action.

Have a nice day.


btw, I for one Judge always enjoy your posts.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
wikipedia said:
Tenzing came from a peasant family from Khumbu in Nepal, very near Mount Everest, which the Sherpas call Chomolungma. At the time he climbed Everest it was generally believed that he was born there, but in the 1990s it emerged that he was actually born and spent part of his early life in the Kharta Valley region in Tibet to the east of Mount Everest, but this had been kept secret for political reasons.

His exact date of birth is not known, but he knew it was in late May by the weather and the crops. After his ascent of Everest on 29 May, he decided to celebrate his birthday on that day thereafter.

He was originally called "Namgyal Wangdi", but as a child his name was changed on advice from the head lama and founder of the famous Rongbuk Monastery - Ngawang Tenzin Norbu. Tenzing Norgay translates as "wealthy-fortunate-follower-of-religion". His father, a yak herder, was Ghang La Mingma (who died in 1949) and his mother was Dokmo Kinzom (who lived to see him climb Everest); he was the 11th of 13 children, most of whom died young.

He ran away to Kathmandu twice as a boy, and, at age 19, eventually settled in the Sherpa community in Too Song Bhusti in Darjeeling, West Bengal, India.
Suddenly it is all starting to make sense.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
At least Chadman and I can differ and be civil; he agreed that some of my comments about his post were true, in that he got off-topic, and there was no need to use name calling.

Chadman, I'm sure you are well meaning, but your posts on the subject are as I have described them- an attempt to make it so that those who hold differing views you than you are prohibited from posting. It's the typical Liberal modus operandi. Under no circumstance are you or anyone else allowed to decide, infer, or insinuate that a person or group of persons is enjoined from speaking as they wish.

This goes back to that quote of me by Jabberwocky - that Liberals hate freedoms. They most certainly do. That is to say when non-Liberals try to use them, at least. Somehow the left is able to do and say as they wish, since of course it's educational and for the public good, but conservatives only want to lie and create falsehoods at every turn, and must therefore not be allowed to state a viewpoint in public.

The Senate of the United States of America has a perfect right to create whatever message, draft, resolution, bill, law, code, or censure they deem fit. If you cannot understand that that is so, and has been so since we founded this nation, then you need to move to someplace more hospitable to your views (which in my opinion are odious, at best) like China or North Korea.

Have a nice day.

I missed this before, so I'll touch on it now. I can disagree with most here in a civil way, but most here deserve that. Your incessant need to paint yourself a martyr and above others is pretty sad, IMO. You say we can disagree in a civil way, and then show how I agreed with you and admitted I was off topic - how big of you.

Please show me how I ONCE inferred that you or anyone else here should be prohibited from posting their opinions on any issue? If you could start by doing that, then maybe anything else you meander on about might be interesting to discuss further. Your conservative talking points about hating freedoms seem to stem from the above theory - maybe you can prove it and show me where I made this some reality in your mind. I already explained the fallacy of your initial comment on this, and you seem to be droning on about it. Show me where it happened, and we'll go from there.

I agree (in most ways) that the Senate has a right to take whatever stance they see fit (although rarely as an entire group do they take any unanimous one, right?), and that we as citizens and voters have a right to disagree with those stances and how they spend their time. I personally don't think that the time spent on the MoveOn ad or the Rush commentary was a useful way to spend their time. My opinion, you are entitled to yours.

But please address the first part of the post, and we can go from there. If you care to be specific, that is, and not make random generalizations and move on later as those being some kind of "fact" just because YOU made the point based on your opinion.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top