NationStates Jolt Archive

i think hilary deserves it more, obama can run later

This thread needs a poll
Obama FTW.
Left blank unintentionally
Left blank unintentionally
Fnord

The ugly looking one... wait...

Must we have one of these every day?

For the record, Obama.

If I were an American, I would prefer Obama's Cameronian liberal warm-fuzziness to Hillary's shrieking testosterone-fuelled womynhood. Which she only ditched because it was losing her popularity.

I think Hilary stands more of a chance. It's less of a big leap for Americans. They can either vote in a woman, or a Muslim. Given the current political climate, it's a rather obvious choice.
He's a christian.

Since I'm English and only 16, I can't vote, but I would go for Obama. There are a few of reasons.
1. He's more likable.
2. He has more cross-party appeal.
3. Someone pointed out to me that if Hillary becomes president, then America will be ruled by two families for 24 years. And you call that democracy??

Hillary is not liberal enough to fix the shit Bush has done. I also don't care for her waffling whenever the Iraq War is brought up. Obama has no trouble saying he was always against the war and wants the troops gone. This is good. :)

3. Someone pointed out to me that if Hillary becomes president, then America will be ruled by two families for 24 years. And you call that democracy??

Hillary just married into the Clintons so.. not really

I think Hilary stands more of a chance. It's less of a big leap for Americans. They can either vote in a woman, or a Muslim. Given the current political climate, it's a rather obvious choice.

Would you all please stop calling the man a Muslim? He's Christian, not Muslim, he never was Muslim and that madrassa rumor has been debunked. :headbang:

He's a christian.

Oh. Shit.

Hillary Clinton sucks the giant wang that is game censorship, I would never vote for her. That and I like Obama anyways, so he gets my vote.

Obamarama.

Hillary is a carpet-bagging opportunist who jumps on whatever bandwagon she thinks will get her ahead. She and Jack "Video Games are the Devil" Thompson were all gung-ho about bringing down Rockstar Games for something NOT EVEN MEANT TO BE ENABLED IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THEIR GAME, San Andreas. Why would she hook up with this idiot (whom she has since distanced herself from, btw)? Because it shows that she cares about kids. (Or likes to tell parents they are unqualified to decide on what is appropriate for their kids. You decide.)

Of the two, I'd choose Obama but I am concerned over his lack of experience. Then again, the fact that he's less corrupted by all the political bullshit also makes him appealing. Then again, there are those in this country who are sufficiently ignorant and hateful that the idea of electing a black man (read -- the Red States in the middle of the country) will never fly.

Hilary or obama?Al gore.

Hillary just married into the Clintons so.. not really

Right, so like, Bill's not going to be living at the White House, and it isn't the Clinton name recognition that would get her there.... and his skills as an ambassador and former President would not come into play....

...oh, PLEASE.

Hillary is a carpet-bagging opportunist who jumps on whatever bandwagon she thinks will get her ahead. She and Jack "Video Games are the Devil" Thompson were all gung-ho about bringing down Rockstar Games for something NOT EVEN MEANT TO BE ENABLED IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THEIR GAME, San Andreas. Why would she hook up with this idiot (whom she has since distanced herself from, btw)? Because it shows that she cares about kids. (Or likes to tell parents they are unqualified to decide on what is appropriate for their kids. You decide.)

Of the two, I'd choose Obama but I am concerned over his lack of experience. Then again, the fact that he's less corrupted by all the political bullshit also makes him appealing. Then again, there are those in this country who are sufficiently ignorant and hateful that the idea of electing a black man (read -- the Red States in the middle of the country) will never fly.

QFT.

Hillary will win from Obama. Obama is too 'young' to be president, that fact will work in this disadvantage and Hillary already tasted the presidential life

Ace

I think a qualified, centrist Republican could take either of those two candidates.. Obama needs a little more time in the senate before he makes a serious run, (although I would like to see him debate HIllary). HIllary is so polarizing, that I believe the number is 46% of the population polled says they would NEVER, EVER vote for her. That says something when you have isolated yourself against virtually half the population.

I am interested to see what other candidates come out of the Democratic party, I was hearing Feingold's name and Edwards' name much more for a while, but both have tapered off a bit..

You know, if Hillary hadn't attacked the sacred hallmark of the dominant NSG population; video games, I'm sure this debate would be a non-starter.

Hilary clearly has the experience, the political clout, and marriage to a very popular ex-president. People sick of Republican administrations aren't likely to vote for another Republican, at least I wouldn't think so.

I guess if you disagree with a push towards a national healthcare strategy, I could see why you might not like her.

I guess if you disagree with a push towards a national healthcare strategy, I could see why you might not like her.

If National Health Care was the only topic of debate, I think we would all be jumping on the Mitt Romney bandwagon, the now ex-governor of the first state to have Universal Health Care, Massachusetts.

I guess if you disagree with a push towards a national healthcare strategy, I could see why you might not like her.

I don't disagree with national healthcare -- I think the current system of making those who can pay pay through the nose and those who can't lose their homes is disgusting.

Unfortunately, I dislike and distrust this woman -- you remember, the one who happened to shred documents that may have been incriminating in the Whitewater investigation -- documents she didn't know were in her possession? And the one who quite cynically became Senator of NY because she knew that a true Blue state was the only place she'd have a chance of getting her stepping stone back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Anyone who thinks that she is a heaven-sent answer to Bush's mismanagement and fuckups is really not looking at her history too closely.

If National Health Care was the only topic of debate, I think we would all be jumping on the Mitt Romney bandwagon, the now ex-governor of the first state to have Universal Health Care, Massachusetts.

Yeah, I see where you're going, but what I was getting at is that Hilary seems like a 'do-er' while Obama seems to get by on his smile and lack of bad press.

But I'm an ingnorant Canuck looking in. Must be the fishbowl effect.

I don't disagree with national healthcare -- I think the current system of making those who can pay pay through the nose and those who can't lose their homes is disgusting.

Unfortunately, I dislike and distrust this woman -- you remember, the one who happened to shred documents that may have been incriminating in the Whitewater investigation -- documents she didn't know were in her possession? And the one who quite cynically became Senator of NY because she knew that a true Blue state was the only place she'd have a chance of getting her stepping stone back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Anyone who thinks that she is a heaven-sent answer to Bush's mismanagement and fuckups is really not looking at her history too closely.

Hmm. Point taken.

Hillary is a carpet-bagging opportunist who jumps on whatever bandwagon she thinks will get her ahead. She and Jack "Video Games are the Devil" Thompson were all gung-ho about bringing down Rockstar Games for something NOT EVEN MEANT TO BE ENABLED IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THEIR GAME, San Andreas. Why would she hook up with this idiot (whom she has since distanced herself from, btw)? Because it shows that she cares about kids. (Or likes to tell parents they are unqualified to decide on what is appropriate for their kids. You decide.)

Of the two, I'd choose Obama but I am concerned over his lack of experience. Then again, the fact that he's less corrupted by all the political bullshit also makes him appealing. Then again, there are those in this country who are sufficiently ignorant and hateful that the idea of electing a black man (read -- the Red States in the middle of the country) will never fly.

You basically said exactly what I was going to say.
Thank for making it unnecessary for me to say it.
Damn you for stealing my thunder. ;)

I think a qualified, centrist Republican could take either of those two candidates.. Obama needs a little more time in the senate before he makes a serious run, (although I would like to see him debate HIllary). HIllary is so polarizing, that I believe the number is 46% of the population polled says they would NEVER, EVER vote for her. That says something when you have isolated yourself against virtually half the population.

I am interested to see what other candidates come out of the Democratic party, I was hearing Feingold's name and Edwards' name much more for a while, but both have tapered off a bit..

I actually do wonder how an Obama/Edwards or Clinton/Edwards pairing would turn out. If I'd been able to vote in the 2k4 primary I probably would've voted Edwards.

If the Dems go with either Hilary or Obama, or a combination of the two, they're going to lose. The media can shove these guys down our throats all they want, but I seriously doubt either one has as good a chance and some would have us believe. Anyone notice where all the democratic U.S. presidents of the last...thirty years have come from? Let's see...Clinton? The south. Carter? The south. Johnson? The south. Sure, Al Gore may have won in the 2000 election, but he was from the...?

What kills me is the Dems have so many viable candidates besides these two. I tend to lean towards the right, I can admit that, but I've always liked Joe Biden. John Edwards isn't such a bad guy, and Bill Richardson has a steady head on his shoulders. I just don't get it.

You know, if Hillary hadn't attacked the sacred hallmark of the dominant NSG population; video games, I'm sure this debate would be a non-starter.

Hilary clearly has the experience, the political clout, and marriage to a very popular ex-president. People sick of Republican administrations aren't likely to vote for another Republican, at least I wouldn't think so.

I guess if you disagree with a push towards a national healthcare strategy, I could see why you might not like her.

I couldn't care less about the video game thing. I don't like her because she's an overly ambitious and none-too-scrupulous (sp?) opportunist.

It's really a matter of whether you want your government to be hillarious or obaminable..
(god, that's stretching it for a pun..)

Al gore.

okay then...

I actually do wonder how an Obama/Edwards or Clinton/Edwards pairing would turn out. If I'd been able to vote in the 2k4 primary I probably would've voted Edwards.

I think Edwards/Gore would have been at least more exciting in 2000 than Gore/Edwards.... Edwards has much more life, and much less Zombie-esque..

you know, actually, i changed my mind... obama can definetly fixed bush's shit. Obama is christian, but that whole rumor about obama going to a muslim school may change the middle-east's idea about america.

Bush killing innocent people is akin to the fonz popping his thumbs with an ayyy...

and in soviet america, iraq breaks up YOUR FAMILY!

*fix

you know, actually, i changed my mind... obama can definetly fixed bush's shit. Obama is christian, but that whole rumor about obama going to a muslim school may change the middle-east's idea about america.

Bush killing innocent people is akin to the fonz popping his thumbs with an ayyy...

and in soviet america, iraq breaks up YOUR FAMILY!

Dipped into the propaganda much? Iraq breaks up my family? No it didn't. My family is still together and my father has been over to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The military is strictly volunteer DuQuad. We do not have a draft so those who joined, joined on their own free will.

To the thread, I will go with Obama because Hillary is a bitch.

Dipped into the propaganda much? Iraq breaks up my family? No it didn't. My family is still together and my father has been over to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The military is strictly volunteer DuQuad. We do not have a draft so those who joined, joined on their own free will.

To the thread, I will go with Obama because Hillary is a bitch.

In Soviet Russia, things are reversed. I'm pretty sure he was saying our bombs break up Iraqi families (literally).

I couldn't care less about the video game thing. I don't like her because she's an overly ambitious and none-too-scrupulous (sp?) opportunist.

Isn't that the textbook defenition for 'politician'?

You know, if Hillary hadn't attacked the sacred hallmark of the dominant NSG population; video games, I'm sure this debate would be a non-starter.
:rolleyes:

OK, first of all, banning video games for minors won't affect me, since I'm 18, so don't trot that argument out.

Second, the video game thing is a symptom, not the problem. It shows that she doesn't really have any firm principles -- she just pursues whatever issue is politically expedient at the time. She knows that attacking something trivial like "violent video games" will score points with soccer moms and the like, so she does that. Too bad she didn't show such sterling judgment when she voted to invade Iraq. Something that Barack Obama did not do.

No

oh my god I hate the democrats. I'm voting libertarian.

Hillary or Obama?
Neither, Yuck.

Obama seems like a sensible and honest sort. Hilary Clinton should be shot in the face. With a gun that fires baseball bats. Which are on fire. And filled with acid. *nods*

....poll? Please.. :(

And, as a citizen of the UK, how exactly do Clinton Mark II or Obama expect to get near the White House? Will half of America not just scream at the concept of either a female or black President?

Or is the US more accepting than I’m giving it credit for?

....poll? Please.. :(

And, as a citizen of the UK, how exactly do Clinton Mark II or Obama expect to get near the White House? Will half of America not just scream at the concept of either a female or black President?

Or is the US more accepting than I’m giving it credit for?
You'll likely see more attempts to tie him to teh ebil Muslims than pointing out the fact that he's black. Islamophobia is America's bigotry du jour.

....poll? Please.. :(

And, as a citizen of the UK, how exactly do Clinton Mark II or Obama expect to get near the White House? Will half of America not just scream at the concept of either a female or black President?

Or is the US more accepting than I’m giving it credit for?
It balances out since after Dubya half of America will naturally scream at a Republican president.

You’ll likely see more attempts to tie him to teh ebil Muslims than pointing out the fact that he’s black. Islamophobia is America’s bigotry du jour.
Same old, same old. Basically, neither candidate is a white man which, unfortunately, seems to me like a fatal flaw in a bid for the Presidency.

It balances out since after Dubya half of America will naturally scream at a Republican president.
I suppose. Here in Blighty, it’s much easier. Everyone despises Blair even, or especially, Labour supporters. We just have the problem of which candidate for PM to hate more.

My personal focal-point of vitriol is David Miliband. Slimy fucker.

But excuse my hijack. Back to your slimy fuckers.

and in soviet america, iraq breaks up YOUR FAMILY!

In Soviet Russia, thread flames you!

I don't really know if I even want to vote Democrat yet, so I can pretty much call this thread moot.

*nods*

I don't really know if I even want to vote Democrat yet, so I can pretty much call this thread moot.

*nods*

*stares*

If Ruffy is going Republican I might end up insane...

*collects dozens of cats and awaits answer*

*stares*

If Ruffy is going Republican I might end up insane...

*collects dozens of cats and awaits answer*

What's wrong with Republicans?! Hehe, see how many ways that can be taken?! =P

Obama

:rolleyes:

OK, first of all, banning video games for minors won't affect me, since I'm 18, so don't trot that argument out.

I don't remember the part where I singled out 'Rhaomi' in my post, so I'll trot out that argument any day. The wrath of the gamer crowd on this issue has been made clear on many occasions on this forum.

Second, the video game thing is a symptom, not the problem. It shows that she doesn't really have any firm principles -- she just pursues whatever issue is politically expedient at the time. She knows that attacking something trivial like "violent video games" will score points with soccer moms and the like, so she does that. Too bad she didn't show such sterling judgment when she voted to invade Iraq. Something that Barack Obama did not do.

The video game thing is what? A symptom of responding to the electorate? Gee. How awful. The opinions of soccer moms matter too ya know. Whether this proves that she makes up her principles as she goes along isn't really apparent here. Believe it or not, it wasn't that long ago video games were little digitized plumbers dodging barrels thrown by large monkeys. Video games where you play gangsters committing violent felonies in order to expand your turf is relatively new, and has social impact. It's only natural for people to be concerned and politicians to take a stance, one way or another, about it.

However, I agree that she's shown a single-minded determination to get to the presidency, and all of her steps since leaving the white house as first lady have been that way. But guess what; most presidential aspirants work that way. We shouldn't really be faulting a politician for being a politician. (Well, yeah, we should, but that's another story.)

On Iraq - Perfectly blamable. As were the majority of the American people who agreed with it, if you want to follow that line of thinking. And I'm not familiar enough with Obama's electoral background to say what he was doing during that decision. But I don't see a record of having no record as a strong suit.

What's wrong with Republicans?! Hehe, see how many ways that can be taken?! =P

Do you want the whole list, or just a brief synopsis?

Video games where you play gangsters committing violent felonies in order to expand your turf is relatively new, and has social impact.
What "social" impact? That people who play violent video games are more likely to engage in real physical violence? What scientific study proves this? None that I am aware of. The "social impact" is that the "protect our children from everything" crowd wants to ban it to, well, "protect" the children.

I don't remember the part where I singled out 'Rhaomi' in my post, so I'll trot out that argument any day. The wrath of the gamer crowd on this issue has been made clear on many occasions on this forum.
Just saying, don't make such big generalizations.

The video game thing is what? A symptom of responding to the electorate? Gee. How awful. The opinions of soccer moms matter too ya know. Whether this proves that she makes up her principles as she goes along isn't really apparent here.
Suffice to say, there are far more important issues that she should be focusing on apart from video games.

Believe it or not, it wasn't that long ago video games were little digitized plumbers dodging barrels thrown by large monkeys. Video games where you play gangsters committing violent felonies in order to expand your turf is relatively new, and has social impact. It's only natural for people to be concerned and politicians to take a stance, one way or another, about it.
This debate could take up a whole thread in itself...

However, I agree that she's shown a single-minded determination to get to the presidency, and all of her steps since leaving the white house as first lady have been that way. But guess what; most presidential aspirants work that way. We shouldn't really be faulting a politician for being a politician. (Well, yeah, we should, but that's another story.)
Yeah, but there are good ways and bad ways to pursue the presidency. Clinton is a political opportunist, modifying her views and stances to whatever the situation calls for. This shows ambition and determination, yes, but does not reflect well on her leadership skills. Obama, on the other hand, has always been firm in his beliefs and has always tackled the big problems.

On Iraq - Perfectly blamable. As were the majority of the American people who agreed with it, if you want to follow that line of thinking. And I'm not familiar enough with Obama's electoral background to say what he was doing during that decision. But I don't see a record of having no record as a strong suit.

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

From a speech delivered by Obama in Chicago in the fall of 2002. You don't need to be a Senator to have a record, you know.

You can vote on this here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518453

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

From a speech delivered by Obama in Chicago in the fall of 2002. You don't need to be a Senator to have a record, you know.


booyah!

One of the many reasons my political crush on Obama grows daily.

Another - just this mornign a pastor from Obamas church was on NPR talking about how they support a wall of separation between church and state. He also said that he believes that you don't have to belong to their church or even be a Christian to "go to heaven" and that there are "many paths up the mountain" and other similar phrases. I am no fan of religion but talk like that is so nice and refreshing.

....poll? Please.. :(

And, as a citizen of the UK, how exactly do Clinton Mark II or Obama expect to get near the White House? Will half of America not just scream at the concept of either a female or black President?

Or is the US more accepting than I’m giving it credit for?

It's fairly accepting of race where I'm from, which is very much a red state. The problem is that people tend to vote for whoever their party puts up, regardless of whether they're competent or not.

I'm a Libertarian, but if I were a Democrat, I'd go with Obama. He doesn't seem to want to stamp on Civil Liberties like Hilary does, and a black president would help promote tolerance I think. If nothing else his name is more fun to say.

Another - just this mornign a pastor from Obamas church was on NPR talking about how they support a wall of separation between church and state. He also said that he believes that you don't have to belong to their church or even be a Christian to "go to heaven" and that there are "many paths up the mountain" and other similar phrases. I am no fan of religion but talk like that is so nice and refreshing.

QFT. May whoever is or are the gods bless this pastor.

Just saying, don't make such big generalizations.


The hate-on for Hillary for bashing video games is obvious around here. Otherwise, you'd probably have a lot more Hilary bandwagon jumpers.

Suffice to say, there are far more important issues that she should be focusing on apart from video games.

This debate could take up a whole thread in itself...

Indeed (and not a topic I really feel like rehashing). However, just because there are more important topics, doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. And what seems unimportant to you, might mean a lot to someone else. A responsible politician should address all the issues.


Yeah, but there are good ways and bad ways to pursue the presidency. Clinton is a political opportunist, modifying her views and stances to whatever the situation calls for. This shows ambition and determination, yes, but does not reflect well on her leadership skills. Obama, on the other hand, has always been firm in his beliefs and has always tackled the big problems.


"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

From a speech delivered by Obama in Chicago in the fall of 2002. You don't need to be a Senator to have a record, you know.

So Barrack Obama made a clear statement of his protestation of the Iraq War. Good. However, many people in America, including many politicians, bought into the 'weapons of mass distruction' angle put out by the administration. Let's not forget, that Hilary was in the White House prior to Bush's current regime. No doubt the Clinton's were wondering what kind of threat Saddam was longterm as well.

I haven't seen any evidence of Hillary flip-flopping (other than Iraq, which includes pretty much the opinion of the electorate as well) which would show that she only responds to what is 'popular'. Then again, I'm not American and pay less attention to the everyday politics.

So, Hillary Clinton made a tough decision in what she, and most Americans believed, was necessary for the longterm prosperity of the American people, and the middle-east. Obviously, they were wrong. But it's also obvious, that there was a lot of misleading information prior to that decision.

It's relatively easy for Barrack to wear his heart on his sleeve when he doesn't have to make that vote. But I'll definitely credit him for having said it. Now, that being said, what are the other 'big problems' that he's tackled in his vast experience?

What "social" impact? That people who play violent video games are more likely to engage in real physical violence? What scientific study proves this? None that I am aware of. The "social impact" is that the "protect our children from everything" crowd wants to ban it to, well, "protect" the children.

What exactly is wrong with wanting to protect your kids? I'm not saying that letting your ten-year-old play San Andreas is going to result in them going out and joining gangs. But to deny that something like this could have any impact is just plain silly. Of course it has social impact. The very fact that it is a point of debate means it has social impact, because, well, we're socializing about it.

Violence in our media is practically commonplace now. And now more graphic than ever. And it's everywhere. So naturally, parents will be concerned, and voice their opinion to politicians. And politicians, will naturally respond to that. No scientific study needed.

That being said, I'm not endorsing the banning of any of the Rockstar Games line. I like them. But the line that should be drawn somewhere is constantly shifting...

Hillary is not liberal enough to fix the shit Bush has done. I also don't care for her waffling whenever the Iraq War is brought up. Obama has no trouble saying he was always against the war and wants the troops gone. This is good. :)

:rolleyes: Yeah, with his amazing 18 months of experience, he can claim to be against the war. We'll never know what he'd have done had he been in office from before September 11, 2001, will we? "Always" gets stretched a bit there.

I hate to admit it, but Hillary has a much better organization and the Rodham family dynasty behind her. Look up the Rodham family in US politics/history.

If my personal opinion counted for anything but the echo it produces off the walls of my cell--uh...room, then I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich.

I think a qualified, centrist Republican could take either of those two candidates..

Possibly, but can you name two? One?

The ugly looking one... wait...

Could you be more specific?

*snip*
Second, the video game thing is a symptom, not the problem. It shows that she doesn't really have any firm principles -- she just pursues whatever issue is politically expedient at the time. She knows that attacking something trivial like "violent video games" will score points with soccer moms and the like, so she does that. Too bad she didn't show such sterling judgment when she voted to invade Iraq. Something that Barack Obama neither could nor could not do.

Fixed for accuracy.

In Soviet Russia, thread flames you!

In Soviet Buddhism, Nirvana finds you!

*snip the other good stuff to make room for the best stuff*
It's relatively easy for Barack to wear his heart on his sleeve when he doesn't have to make that vote. But I'll definitely credit him for having said it. Now, that being said, what are the other 'big problems' that he's tackled in his vast experience?

You win the thread.


And I apologize for not using the multi-quote. I keep forgetting it's there, and that I can use it between page switches.

Neither deserve anything. The choice should be made by determining which one wants to serve your interests the most. Personally I like Obama slightly better but I'm not going to make any hard decison until all of the parties that are running have checked in.

You win the thread.

:)

Thanks for your vote. I'll be sure to blah, blah, blah, blah for the American People.

*votes self massive pay-raise*

And I apologize for not using the multi-quote. I keep forgetting it's there, and that I can use it between page switches.

There's a multi-quote?





... I've been cutting and pasting all this time. Thus my hatred of posts split up like a balkan yard-sale.

Damn.

Hilary Clinton. Obama has more personal appeal, but he's way too liberal.

:)

There's a multi-quote?


Damn.

Yep, see the image with a plus sign on it next to the "quote" button/link?

CLick on that for every poster you want to reply to before clicking on "reply"

Yep, see the image with a plus sign on it next to the "quote" button/link?

CLick on that for every poster you want to reply to before clicking on "reply"

Sweet!

No more running with internet scissors! Thank-you!

EDIT: I was under the impression it had a different meaning... the way people break down each post into multiple sections. I guess there's a quote button up in the top bar though...

That being said, doesn't the multi-quote button deter those who like to lord about their high post count?

Hilary.