Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
That proceding wasn't an agrument. it was a statement.
What followed the ":" was an argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Make the country great by restoring the rights and freedoms that we've lost because of entitlement programs, citizen pocket raping, fixing out image of pushy war mongers, you know, that kinda great.
Go to Colonial Williamsburg.
I do every year, since I live right down the road from it. It's a great educational tool for my daughter.
Quote:
My statements are not directed directly at you personally
but what
you and people like Michael Savage represent;
and if you stand under that flag; than you deserve no better words from me than I would give to Michael Savage.
You want to sponsor a man to be the leader of our country you better be prepared to answer for that man's views.
and I say again,
Michael Savage is a racist, biggoted, xenophobic, hate-monger.
So...they're not aimed at me, but what I represent...you're a closed politician, aren't you.
He may be a racist (show proof please), biggot (again, show proof), xenophobe (where do you come up with this stuff?), and a hate monger (maybe, maybe not), but you know, everyone has their flaws. People said the same things about Ronald Regan, and he didn't kill of the homosexuals. I think you're making mountains out of mole hills, much like everyone who ran scared over homosexuals getting married. OMG, the world will end if someone you don't like wins the election. I don't like most of the Dem's, but you didn't hear me saying that I'd flee the nation if they won.
I never said that I want Savage to win. I want him to run. I think that'd be enough, as I've said time, and time, again. If he did win, I don't think the country would suffer a horrible fate, remember, the president is only as powerful as we allow him to be. He may actually do some good, who knows?