A single example of the following will elevate this article to "calculated lie" status....

[Smarmie Doofus]

(Ah... screw it. The OP got banned. But he/she got my dander up. So take THIS !)


>>>Sanders and his people are arguing that should be thrown by the wayside because white voters prefer a white male candidate.>>>

... from the "dizzy, emotionalized bullshit" level we've come to expect .... and pretty much overlook.... from the ID-politics simpletons leading the Clinton charge.

So: I'm waitin' on that example.

If you can't produce it.... you should delete this idiotic and malicious post.

(DU saved him/her the time and trouble it seems.)

[morningfog]

1. WHo was banned?

[merrily]

2. Name removed? (I played the odds.)

[NV Whino]

3. Man, you are good!

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. I guess "banned" is wrong word. The POST got banned.

"Deleted", I guess is what happened.

The OPer is here all the time. I guess he/she is unbannable.

Funny, 'unbearable' would be more apt.

[insta8er]

5. This is why I hate the "abuse" button, the way I understand is that this place after the primaries

are over, is going to turn into something like a camp fire with people holding hands and singing soothing songs. No dissent, because that will get you banned. In a "normal" society there are different viewpoints heck this place calls itself "democratic" one thing that I have seen that Democrats seldomly do is to silence others. We leave that for oppressionist and dictators found on the other side of the aisle. I do agree that there need to be some rules, like personal attacks (I have been guilty of some of that myself) or name calling..(for the less articulate amongst us). But when it comes to policies or contrasts or faults in our elected or to be elected democratic politicians I don't see a reason for holding back. If anything we get a better and clear understanding on some of the weaknesses and strengths of our candidates. But I guess that is just wishful thinking....Flame Suit on!


OP sorry for the rant!