Michelle Obama Slips: "Fortunately We Have Help From the Media"

[epicSocialism4tw]

In an interview with CNN, First Lady Michelle Obama thanks the media for their "support" and "kindness."

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know." "Fortunately we have help from the media."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/24/michelle_obama_fortunately_we_have_help_from_the_m edia.html

[tnedator]

It looks like she was talking in terms of the media respecting their children's privacy.

[Requiem]

Another knee-jerk thread by the forums biggest dolt.

Guzzle, guzzle.

It's called context. ****ing idiot.

[tnedator]

Another knee-jerk thread by the forums biggest dolt.

Guzzle, guzzle.

It's called context. ****ing idiot.

FWIW, real clear had a misleading headline on it.

[Requiem]

FWIW, real clear had a misleading headline on it.

Not surprising, it's RCP.

Epic taking it hookline and sinker is not surprising either. This happens all the time. It is just embarrassing.

[Boomhauer]

It looks like she was talking in terms of the media respecting their children's privacy.

Maybe, but that perk also doesn't apply to Repubs.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It looks like she was talking in terms of the media respecting their children's privacy.

That's the point that is important.

Sarah Palin is afforded no such luxury. Neither was Bush or even Cheney.

[Blueflame]

That's the point that is important.

Sarah Palin is afforded no such luxury. Neither was Bush or even Cheney.

There's a bit of difference between real children (like the Obamas' kids) and adult "children" like Bush's and Cheney's...

Furthermore, Chelsea Clinton was afforded no such luxury either. And Palin? She seeks the spotlight like iron filings seek a magnet. She's made absolutely no effort... given zero indications of any desire... to shield her family from the glare of publicity; quite the opposite in fact. Her family is in the news because she wants it that way.

[cutthemdown]

Really I don't remember anything negative in the press about Chelsea Clinton. She sort of had a low profile compared to the Bush girls from what i remember. Of course she wasn't running around getting drunk and flashing her cooch. :)

[Blueflame]

Really I don't remember anything negative in the press about Chelsea Clinton. She sort of had a low profile compared to the Bush girls from what i remember. Of course she wasn't running around getting drunk and flashing her cooch. :)

I kinda recall Rush Limbaugh publicly calling her "the White House dog" when she was 12 years old...

[epicSocialism4tw]

There's a bit of difference between real children (like the Obamas' kids) and adult "children" like Bush's and Cheney's...

Furthermore, Chelsea Clinton was afforded no such luxury either. And Palin? She seeks the spotlight like iron filings seek a magnet. She's made absolutely no effort... given zero indications of any desire... to shield her family from the glare of publicity; quite the opposite in fact. Her family is in the news because she wants it that way.

When Palin was nominated for VP, the press relentlessly attacked her minor daughter with a newborn and her own mentally handicapped son Trig. With liberal bloggers pushing the whack job conspiracy theory that Trig was not Sarah's.

I don't believe that you yourself think that the coverage has been fair between the two families. It is extremely obvious that the MSM has been aggressively handling Sarah's family while virtually ignoring the Obamas unless it promotes them in a good light.

The real question is...should the MSM TV/print time/space be included as campaign contributions for the Obama campaign?

[cutthemdown]

There's a bit of difference between real children (like the Obamas' kids) and adult "children" like Bush's and Cheney's...

Furthermore, Chelsea Clinton was afforded no such luxury either. And Palin? She seeks the spotlight like iron filings seek a magnet. She's made absolutely no effort... given zero indications of any desire... to shield her family from the glare of publicity; quite the opposite in fact. Her family is in the news because she wants it that way.

Often to the parents there isnt much difference. Would you not be just as defensive or upset if someone hurt an older child. My mommy still loves me a ton! :thanku:

[cutthemdown]

When Palin was nominated for VP, the press relentlessly attacked her minor daughter with a newborn and her own mentally handicapped son Trig. With liberal bloggers pushing the whack job conspiracy theory that Trig was not Sarah's.

I don't believe that you yourself think that the coverage has been fair between the two families. It is extremely obvious that the MSM has been aggressively handling Sarah's family while virtually ignoring the Obamas unless it promotes them in a good light.

The real question is...should the MSM TV/print time/space be included as campaign contributions for the Obama campaign?

I do remember the questions about the kid with the disability. I remember there being rumors about if the kid was really hers or maybe one of the daughters right? Not saying it was CBS or anything but I do remember that.

[Blueflame]

When Palin was nominated for VP, the press relentlessly attacked her minor daughter with a newborn and her own mentally handicapped son Trig. With liberal bloggers pushing the whack job conspiracy theory that Trig was not Sarah's.

I don't believe that you yourself think that the coverage has been fair between the two families. It is extremely obvious that the MSM has been aggressively handling Sarah's family while virtually ignoring the Obamas unless it promotes them in a good light.

The real question is...should the MSM TV/print time/space be included as campaign contributions for the Obama campaign?

Um... her minor daughter didn't have a newborn when Palin accepted the VP nomination; she was visibly very pregnant. And yes, this is a (hypocrisy) problem for a "family values" candidate. In Palin's place, I would have put my daughter's needs above my own political ambition, but hey...

It's also clear to me that the Palin family seeks the media attention, while the Obamas have indicated that they prefer to keep their children's lives... unpublicized.

MSM TV/print time/space has never, ever been considered as campaign contributions in the past. And media bias is nothing new. But I'd be all for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (which was abolished during Reagan's presidency).

[epicSocialism4tw]

I do remember the questions about the kid with the disability. I remember there being rumors about if the kid was really hers or maybe one of the daughters right? Not saying it was CBS or anything but I do remember that.

Yeah, and the major outlets covered Bristol's pregnancy like it was a huge controversy. Progressives arent supposed to mind premarital sex, but when it comes to someone they don't like, they sure do want to make a big deal out of it.

They don't cover those stories because they think they are important, they cover them because they believe that controversy will follow and that it will tarnish her pubic image. They spent much, much, much more time on Palin's minor daughter than they did on Obama's link with a convicted terrorist and Obama's long-term mentorship with an anti-American hate monger.

It should cause the average person to begin asking questions about what they are watching.

[Blueflame]

Often to the parents there isnt much difference. Would you not be just as defensive or upset if someone hurt an older child. My mommy still loves me a ton! :thanku:

Oh, come on... if an adult child is making choices that draw negative media attention to them, they're presumed to be mature enough to understand what happened and why... and perhaps to even change the behavior that brought it on (as you noted re: the Bush twins... maybe don't get drunk and overexpose yourself in the future). And adults are also expected to understand the concept that "the world isn't always fair".. and deal with that reality.

[Blueflame]

Yeah, and the major outlets covered Bristol's pregnancy like it was a huge controversy. Progressives arent supposed to mind premarital sex, but when it comes to someone they don't like, they sure do want to make a big deal out of it.

They don't cover those stories because they think they are important, they cover them because they believe that controversy will follow and that it will tarnish her pubic image. They spent much, much, much more time on Palin's minor daughter than they did on Obama's link with a convicted terrorist and Obama's long-term mentorship with an anti-American hate monger.

It should cause the average person to begin asking questions about what they are watching.

When a candidate for national office has taken a public "abstinence-only" stance... and her own offspring obviously doesn't practice abstinence-only... then yeah. That candidate is going to have a PR problem. A lot of people... maybe even the majority... have premarital sex and it's shortsighted (IMHO) to enforce policies that don't recognize this.

And just why did Palin make her visibly-pregnant unmarried daughter attend public functions? Why not just say that she didn't have time (due to school or other activities)?

You presume a bit in thinking that everyone watches national news. The only tv news I ever watch is the local news or ESPN.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Um... her minor daughter didn't have a newborn when Palin accepted the VP nomination; she was visibly very pregnant. And yes, this is a (hypocrisy) problem for a "family values" candidate. In Palin's place, I would have put my daughter's needs above my own political ambition, but hey...

It's also clear to me that the Palin family seeks the media attention, while the Obamas have indicated that they prefer to keep their children's lives... unpublicized.

MSM TV/print time/space has never, ever been considered as campaign contributions in the past. And media bias is nothing new. But I'd be all for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (which was abolished during Reagan's presidency).

The MSM has been so far left for so long that the idea of the fairness doctrine is an absolute joke, especially when you are putting regulatory power in the hands of a bunch of power-hungry progressives who have no problem moving the standard completely to the left. Its not fairness that they are interested in, and I'm sure you know that. Hopefully you are not the type that wants the government to control what people can and cannot say in public...because thats where that road leads. Its in absolute opposition to free speech. Some things are more important than political power. Free speech is one of those things. We should all be able to rally around that...its one of the freedoms that defines this country and separates us from the rest. Its what made the west germans, chinese, and the soviets crave revolution.

As for your argument as to why its okay to lampoon the Palins and not the Obamas. This is selective sexism. You find it okay to question the woman's mothering skills in this case. I seriously doubt that you questioned Hillary Clinton's wifehood when Bill was cheating on her with ugly interns. Maybe Hillary was a crappy wife? Maybe poor Bill just had enough and wanted out? Maybe Hillary was a cold fish who couldn't take care of her man? Maybe Hillary was too selfish of a woman to take care of the most important man in the country?

See what I mean?

You can drum up controversy over many things if you want to.

As for your whole "those people adhere to a different set of morals than I do, so I can attack them according to what I assume to be their morals"...that is incredibly dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? Because you really aren't holding people in your community to the same standards. You have one standard (a much lesser standard) for your own team. You shouldn't be dividing into teams here. You should be above that. Attacking one culture because they have higher moral standards is harmful for the reason that it drives the cultures apart. What the leftists don't realize is that their Alinksy tactics (holding "enemies" to impossible standards) have been the root cause in driving the country into polarized factions. Leftists have become vicious, irresponsible attack zombies who have no sense of ethics or morals in their dealing with fellow Americans. It has created a culture of violence and hatred on the left. Is that what you want?

[epicSocialism4tw]

And just why did Palin make her visibly-pregnant unmarried daughter attend public functions? Why not just say that she didn't have time (due to school or other activities)?

You didn't understand?

They were not trying to hide it. It was their way of saying "we may be upset that it happened like this instead of as we would have planned, but we're moving forward united, with grace."

It was a very nice public statement. It said something that alot of people with similar situations could identify with. Hiding the unplanned pregnancy of a daughter is something that happened in the 1940's and made alot of womens' lives a living hell. It should be noted that Sarah Palin didnt give them the opportunity to paint her as one of those women, but that the media tried to do it anyway by claiming that Trig wasn't hers.

They were already under the microscope.

Seriously though...a far left media person moved next door to the Palins so he could spy on them for a book. Has that ever happened to another candidate for vice president?

[cutthemdown]

Um... her minor daughter didn't have a newborn when Palin accepted the VP nomination; she was visibly very pregnant. And yes, this is a (hypocrisy) problem for a "family values" candidate. In Palin's place, I would have put my daughter's needs above my own political ambition, but hey...

It's also clear to me that the Palin family seeks the media attention, while the Obamas have indicated that they prefer to keep their children's lives... unpublicized.

MSM TV/print time/space has never, ever been considered as campaign contributions in the past. And media bias is nothing new. But I'd be all for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (which was abolished during Reagan's presidency).

Oh come on they had the kids with them a ton on the campaign trail. They played up the great family just like every political family does.

[Blueflame]

The MSM has been so far left for so long that the idea of the fairness doctrine is an absolute joke, especially when you are putting regulatory power in the hands of a bunch of power-hungry progressives who have no problem moving the standard completely to the left. Its not fairness that they are interested in, and I'm sure you know that. Hopefully you are not the type that wants the government to control what people can and cannot say in public...because thats where that road leads. Its in absolute opposition to free speech. Some things are more important than political power. Free speech is one of those things. We should all be able to rally around that...its one of the freedoms that defines this country and separates us from the rest. Its what made the west germans, chinese, and the soviets crave revolution.

As for your argument as to why its okay to lampoon the Palins and not the Obamas. This is selective sexism. You find it okay to question the woman's mothering skills in this case. I seriously doubt that you questioned Hillary Clinton's wifehood when Bill was cheating on her with ugly interns. Maybe Hillary was a crappy wife? Maybe poor Bill just had enough and wanted out? Maybe Hillary was a cold fish who couldn't take care of her man? Maybe Hillary was too selfish of a woman to take care of the most important man in the country?

See what I mean?

You can drum up controversy over many things if you want to.

As for your whole "those people adhere to a different set of morals than I do, so I can attack them according to what I assume to be their morals"...that is incredibly dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? Because you really aren't holding people in your community to the same standards. You have one standard (a much lesser standard) for your own team. You shouldn't be dividing into teams here. You should be above that. Attacking one culture because they have higher moral standards is harmful for the reason that it drives the cultures apart. What the leftists don't realize is that their Alinksy tactics (holding "enemies" to impossible standards) have been the root cause in driving the country into polarized factions. Leftists have become vicious, irresponsible attack zombies who have no sense of ethics or morals in their dealing with fellow Americans. It has created a culture of violence and hatred on the left. Is that what you want?

So you don't like the Fairness Doctrine... and are in favor of it being abolished... but then complain loudly that the media is biased? You can't have it both ways. A biased media is the direct result the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Don't like it? Turn off the national tv news.

As to Hillary Clinton... if infidelity is a deal-breaker for her (it would be for me), then she should have kicked Bill to the curb. I would have.

[Blueflame]

You didn't understand?

They were not trying to hide it. It was their way of saying "we may be upset that it happened like this instead of as we would have planned, but we're moving forward united, with grace."

It was a very nice public statement. It said something that alot of people with similar situations could identify with. Hiding the unplanned pregnancy of a daughter is something that happened in the 1940's and made alot of womens' lives a living hell. It should be noted that Sarah Palin didnt give them the opportunity to paint her as one of those women, but that the media tried to do it anyway by claiming that Trig wasn't hers.

They were already under the microscope.

Seriously though...a far left media person moved next door to the Palins so he could spy on them for a book. Has that ever happened to another candidate for vice president?

Yep. Sarah chose to put them under the microscope (by accepting the VP nomination)...and the message that came through (with Bristol's pregnancy) was "do as I say; not as I do".

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yep. Sarah chose to put them under the microscope (by accepting the VP nomination)...and the message that came through (with Bristol's pregnancy) was "do as I say; not as I do".

Then I guess Barack and Michelle made the same choice, didn't they? Its a good thing that they have the media to thank for taking care of them though. Sarah Palin? Not so much. Liberals feel so threatened by conservatives who impede on their claims for the ownership of women and minorities that they recruit the full force of their media powers to isolate them publicly and attack them assiduously. Is that a right or good thing to do? Of course not.

A thinking person understands that modern liberalism only cares about the ownership of women and minorities, not in their advancement. If they only cared about their advancement, they would celebrate people like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin instead of attacking them with racist and sexist statements.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So you don't like the Fairness Doctrine... and are in favor of it being abolished... but then complain loudly that the media is biased? You can't have it both ways. A biased media is the direct result the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Don't like it? Turn off the national tv news.

You can certainly be opposed to the "fairness" doctrine and be in favor of free speech.

The "fairness" doctrine is only being proposed to silence conservative talk radio. And here's the deal...conservative talk radio sprung into existence because there was a huge market for it. Why? Because the mainstream media was so incredibly biased to the left for so long.

It should have been a lesson for progressives who want to control those media outlets (so that they can continue their social engineering) that no matter how much they raise the intensity and frequencies of their liberal rhetoric and propaganda, that there are people who just will find another outlet that they think presents the information in a way that they trust.

Instead, the progressives just became more aggressive...further alienating the populace and opening opportunities for Fox News, Drudge, and the like to assume leadership in American news (Fox leads cable news by a mile, and Drudge has more hits than facebook).

As to Hillary Clinton... if infidelity is a deal-breaker for her (it would be for me), then she should have kicked Bill to the curb. I would have.

I have no problem with the way Hillary Clinton handled her personal life. It doesn't matter to me. She wasn't an elected official, and I commend her for sticking it out. My point was that there is opportunity there to attack her in the same sexist way that the media has attacked Sarah Palin. But it doesn't happen.

[Blueflame]

Then I guess Barack and Michelle made the same choice, didn't they? Its a good thing that they have the media to thank for taking care of them though. Sarah Palin? Not so much. Liberals feel so threatened by conservatives who impede on their claims for the ownership of women and minorities that they recruit the full force of their media powers to isolate them publicly and attack them assiduously. Is that a right or good thing to do? Of course not.

A thinking person understands that modern liberalism only cares about the ownership of women and minorities, not in their advancement. If they only cared about their advancement, they would celebrate people like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin instead of attacking them with racist and sexist statements.

The two families had entirely different situations. Had Obama supported "abstinence-only" policies and then accepted a nomination to run for national office at a time when one of his unmarried daughters was visibly pregnant, then I'd consider him a hypocrite too. My take? An ounce of prevention (re: teenage pregnancy) beats a pound of "cure".

Race and gender aside... it is possible to oppose any given candidate because that candidate appears to be unqualified for the office they're seeking. Most people who cast their vote "against Palin" in the last presidential election... did so not "because she's a woman" but "because they thought she wasn't qualified".

[Requiem]

http://www.valeriebastien.com/yawn11.jpg

[Blueflame]

You can certainly be opposed to the "fairness" doctrine and be in favor of free speech.

The "fairness" doctrine is only being proposed to silence conservative talk radio. And here's the deal...conservative talk radio sprung into existence because there was a huge market for it. Why? Because the mainstream media was so incredibly biased to the left for so long.

It should have been a lesson for progressives who want to control those media outlets (so that they can continue their social engineering) that no matter how much they raise the intensity and frequencies of their liberal rhetoric and propaganda, that there are people who just will find another outlet that they think presents the information in a way that they trust.

Instead, the progressives just became more aggressive...further alienating the populace and opening opportunities for Fox News, Drudge, and the like to assume leadership in American news (Fox leads cable news by a mile, and Drudge has more hits than facebook).



I have no problem with the way Hillary Clinton handled her personal life. It doesn't matter to me. She wasn't an elected official, and I commend her for sticking it out. My point was that there is opportunity there to attack her in the same sexist way that the media has attacked Sarah Palin. But it doesn't happen.

Um... wasn't the Fairness Doctrine enacted in like 1949? I don't think conservative talk radio existed back then. Maybe the radio had like... the Grand Ole Opry or somesuch...

So to conclude... if you support the right of one biased viewpoint to be heard (conservative talk radio) on public airwaves then it's hypocrisy to complain if the "other side's bias" is also heard.

Hillary Clinton is in charge of her own life... if she wants to forgive (and remain married to) a philanderer, that's her business; not mine and I don't care. But to say she wasn't attacked by the media... and to a far greater extent than Palin's ever experienced... is simply untrue (it's been a while.. perhaps you forgot how brutal the media was during the Lewinsky scandal?)

[Inkana7]

Another swing and a miss. Keep this up, llama, and we'll send you do single A.

[BroncsRule]

The fairness doctrine wouldn't "silence" anyone - in fact, the Right could use the fairness doctrine to sue for increased access to the "lame stream media" outlets. You would think they'd be all for it. But no, they are vehemently opposed.

It's almost as if they knew their whole argument about a Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy was specious.

[Requiem]

Bristol Palin's memoir came out today.

[TonyR]

That's the point that is important.

Sarah Palin is afforded no such luxury.

Proving your stupidity and lack of perspective once again.

The biggest difference that needs to be noted here is that Obama doesn't use his children like stage props the way Palin does. Nor do Obama's children go on reality shows or write books. Although it often blows up in her face this is all orchestrated by Palin. She knows it will invite scrutiny and criticism and then she can play the victim card. This in turn gets her the support of dopes like you. As usual you're being played for the fool that you are.

[tnedator]

The fairness doctrine wouldn't "silence" anyone - in fact, the Right could use the fairness doctrine to sue for increased access to the "lame stream media" outlets. You would think they'd be all for it. But no, they are vehemently opposed.

It's almost as if they knew their whole argument about a Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy was specious.

No, it's because the traditional media was liberally biased even when the fairness doctrine was in place. However, the reason that the Democrats want the fairness doctrine back, or as they cal it Hush Rush, is that they think it will kill the conservatives control of talk radio as based on what the Dems in Congress say, it would require stations that air Rush, Hannity or other conservative radio programs to have equal length programs hosted by liberals.

Unfortunately, there is not a market for liberal radio shows, so that puts a major financial burden on radio stations to air programs with little interest from listeners or advertisers.

[barryr]

No, it's because the traditional media was liberally biased even when the fairness doctrine was in place. However, the reason that the Democrats want the fairness doctrine back, or as they cal it Hush Rush, is that they think it will kill the conservatives control of talk radio as based on what the Dems in Congress say, it would require stations that air Rush, Hannity or other conservative radio programs to have equal length programs hosted by liberals.

Unfortunately, there is not a market for liberal radio shows, so that puts a major financial burden on radio stations to air programs with little interest from listeners or advertisers.

Not to mention the major networks would not have to add any conservative shows since they claim they are neutral and are not biased even though reality says something else. But then courts would have to decide whose show is conservative and which ones are liberal and who decides that with any objectivity? The Fairness Doctrine is just a way to get conservatives on the radio shut down since thise stations are not going to want to put loser liberals on the air when it has been shown time and time again they don't get good ratings. Basically instead of letting the people decide, the left wants their viewpoints shoved down people's throats and not like they are hurting having enough outlets to do that already.

[DenverBrit]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/4/128965494832102992.jpg

[elsid13]

Maybe, but that perk also doesn't apply to Repubs.

Yes it does. Bush's daughters were given a lot of privacy even when they ****ed up.

[barryr]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/4/128965494832102992.jpg

Wow, tiny mental capacity though nice you can link pictures. LABF has some nice copycats.

[DenverBrit]

Wow, tiny mental capacity though nice you can link pictures. LABF has some nice copycats.

You really ought to re-take English yourself, before claiming to teach it. No wonder the school system is a mess. :welcome:

[Requiem]

He is a teacher, which is a shame.

[barryr]

You really ought to re-take English yourself, before claiming to teach it. No wonder the school system is a mess. :welcome:

My English is just fine, though I never claimed to teach English nor do I do so. Maybe worry more about reality than listening to a couple of fellow idiot lefties who think they know so much, but know very little, especially about myself. I haven´t even written about what I do and with what I have seen around here, there is a good reason. Threatening to call people´s jobs and crap like that which apparently has been done to people here? True sign of weakness.

[DenverBrit]

My English is just fine, though I never claimed to teach English nor do I do so. Maybe worry more about reality than listening to a couple of fellow idiot lefties who think they know so much, but know very little, especially about myself. I haven´t even written about what I do and with what I have seen around here, there is a good reason. Threatening to call people´s jobs and crap like that which apparently has been done to people here? True sign of weakness.

LOL

You're right, you're not qualified to teach English.

You teach elementary reading, spelling and math. And lie a lot.

[Requiem]

Owned.


mod note: The url was deleted so that personal contact information (phone number) isn't accessible

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Lol.

Anyone remember when Rush said "let's take a look at the Clinton family dog," and then put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was about 12 years old at the time?

She deserved it, evidently.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am shocked - SHOCKED - that EpicFAIL would take something out of context in the hope that nobody would click the link.

What a dip****.

[ant1999e]

Owned.


mod note: part of the url was disabled so that personal contact information (phone number) isn't accessible

How? You're very immature, not to mention a stalker.

[Rock Chalk]

I dont care what side of the fence you sit on, attack the person running leave the family alone. That includes the media. It doesnt matter if the child is a minor, or an adult. THEY are not running for office and their sins or mistakes do not matter.

You people that defend democrats and republicans should consider this: What if it were your family that the media relentlessly attacked? Disregard your political stance and consider JUST that.

How would you feel?

Exactly. Shut the **** up about the families of these people. Obama has made some good and bad decisions and he should be judged on that and your vote should count for that and that alone.

[ant1999e]

Owned.


mod note: the url was disabled so that personal contact information (phone number) isn't accessible

What a chicken**** move. This thread has nothing to do with barryr's profession but once again childish b****es can't hold a mature conversation and resort to low blow tactics. Let's deflect the conversation because we are immature fools and attack a mans profession and release his private information. This man serves as a public servant educating our children. Have a little respect for that. But then again, you people are incapable of having respect for anything.

[ant1999e]

Lol.

Anyone remember when Rush said "let's take a look at the Clinton family dog," and then put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was about 12 years old at the time?

She deserved it, evidently.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am shocked - SHOCKED - that EpicFAIL would take something out of context in the hope that nobody would click the link.

What a dip****.

The "They did it first" excuse is some second grade **** man. At some point we need to rise above the childish nonsense and become adults. And that goes for both sides.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Owned.


mod note: the url was disabled so that personal contact information (phone number) isn't accessible

You should be perma-banned for this.

This is the second time that you have done this to my knowledge, the first time being with the poster Karen.

[cutthemdown]

What did req do put the guys work link on the board? Why would someone do something like that? Hoping someone screws with his life or job? I'm confused that link would not work, what was that all about?

[ant1999e]

What did req do put the guys work link on the board? Why would someone do something like that? Hoping someone screws with his life or job? I'm confused that link would not work, what was that all about?

Req is a chicken**** who probably doesn't work. Goes to college in ND and mooches off his parents.
Yeah, the link was barryr's school with his personal information.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What did req do put the guys work link on the board? Why would someone do something like that? Hoping someone screws with his life or job? I'm confused that link would not work, what was that all about?

Yes and yes.

A mod disabled the link.

[ant1999e]

Yes and yes.

A mod disabled the link.

They need to disable his account.

[cutthemdown]

Yeah but even disabled you can still see where to go to get the information right? That is some chicken**** crap Req pulled. Not sure I want to be on a board where someone would want to do that. What a punk. Now a facebook page, a social media page etc maybe but peoples jobs should be off limits. Not cool to potentially do anything that could cause someone trouble at work. What if posting that made some crazy people call all day and say things about the guy, or harass etc etc? Disabled the link? that is it? What a joke.

[ant1999e]

Yes and yes.

A mod disabled the link.

Did a mod do it? I don't think so.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah but even disabled you can still see where to go to get the information right? That is some chicken**** crap Req pulled. Not sure I want to be on a board where someone would want to do that. What a punk. Now a facebook page, a social media page etc maybe but peoples jobs should be off limits. Not cool to potentially do anything that could cause someone trouble at work. What if posting that made some crazy people call all day and say things about the guy, or harass etc etc? Disabled the link? that is it? What a joke.

If you remember, someone from this site harassed another poster at work and got them fired because of it.

[Blueflame]

Did a mod do it? I don't think so.

Yes, a mod did do it... and now removed the link entirely.

[ant1999e]

Yes, a mod did do it... and now removed the link entirely.

I tried to manually type in the url but it wouldn't come up so I thought it may have been done from the school website.
Don't be offended that I questioned if a mod took action. After all, his account is still active isn't it?

[cutthemdown]

If you remember, someone from this site harassed another poster at work and got them fired because of it.

I sort of remember that but I didn't realize someone lost a job. I wouldn't even do that in the midst of a Spider/Cuttem **** fest. :) I don't want anyone to lose the way they make money, even if it is transporting dead hookers. :) I jest I jest. Well the good news is if hes a teacher I'm sure the union will protect him right libbies. Man we need some football around here sumthin' fierce.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

The "They did it first" excuse is some second grade **** man. At some point we need to rise above the childish nonsense and become adults. And that goes for both sides.

It's not about "they did it first," ant. It's about EpicFAILURE being a complete and total ****ing hypocrite.

Apparently, it was fine when Rush was doing it to 12 year old Chelsea Clinton. However, it's completely unacceptable when the Bush twins, who were getting into trouble on their own, had that fact brought up on television. It's not acceptable when people ask "Is Sarah Palin using her children as set dressing?" when Sarah Palin is using her children as set dressing.

And, evidently, it's WAY out of line for the media to ask questions about the legitimacy of running on a "family values" platform when your own child is having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant.

It's a double standard.

12 year old who did nothing wrong? ATTACK!

17 year old who got pregnant and whose mother is running on a platform of "let's promote abstinence education!": Leave her alone!

It. Is. Absurd.

[ant1999e]

It's not about "they did it first," ant. It's about EpicFAILURE being a complete and total ****ing hypocrite.

Apparently, it was fine when Rush was doing it to 12 year old Chelsea Clinton. However, it's completely unacceptable when the Bush twins, who were getting into trouble on their own, had that fact brought up on television. It's not acceptable when people ask "Is Sarah Palin using her children as set dressing?" when Sarah Palin is using her children as set dressing.

And, evidently, it's WAY out of line for the media to ask questions about the legitimacy of running on a "family values" platform when your own child is having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant.

It's a double standard.

12 year old who did nothing wrong? ATTACK!

17 year old who got pregnant and whose mother is running on a platform of "let's promote abstinence education!": Leave her alone!

It. Is. Absurd.
Hate to do it again but I agree.

[barryr]

LOL, geez, liberals complain I rail on them for being immature, then try do the very things I say they do. More like try since I do not work at a school, so idiots are apparently posting personal information about someone who isn´t even posting here. If that does not require a permanent ban, then nothing will and this site will just turn into this type of thing.

[ant1999e]

LOL, geez, liberals complain I rail on them for being immature, then try do the very things I say they do. More like try since I do not work at a school, so idiots are apparently posting personal information about someone who isn´t even posting here. If that does not require a permanent ban, then nothing will and this site will just turn into this type of thing.

It says clearly not to post personal information. I guess there are no consequences here anymore.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=72896

[DenverBrit]

LOL, geez, liberals complain I rail on them for being immature, then try do the very things I say they do. More like try since I do not work at a school, so idiots are apparently posting personal information about someone who isn´t even posting here. If that does not require a permanent ban, then nothing will and this site will just turn into this type of thing.

You really ought to keep a low profile.

Anyone who searches Barry Ramey and looks at his posts will draw one conclusion. It's you.

Either you're a chronic liar or a plagiarist. Your posts and Ramey's are often almost identical.

Both of you use the epithet, 'lefty' to describe anyone who disagrees with you.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/search.php?searchid=526273

Of course, only the mods would know for certain, but reading Ramey's posts, are just like reading yours. So drop the fake indignation, it's transparent.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The MSM has been so far left for so long that the idea of the fairness doctrine is an absolute joke, especially when you are putting regulatory power in the hands of a bunch of power-hungry progressives who have no problem moving the standard completely to the left. Its not fairness that they are interested in, and I'm sure you know that. Hopefully you are not the type that wants the government to control what people can and cannot say in public...because thats where that road leads. Its in absolute opposition to free speech. Some things are more important than political power. Free speech is one of those things. We should all be able to rally around that...its one of the freedoms that defines this country and separates us from the rest. Its what made the west germans, chinese, and the soviets crave revolution.

As for your argument as to why its okay to lampoon the Palins and not the Obamas. This is selective sexism. You find it okay to question the woman's mothering skills in this case. I seriously doubt that you questioned Hillary Clinton's wifehood when Bill was cheating on her with ugly interns. Maybe Hillary was a crappy wife? Maybe poor Bill just had enough and wanted out? Maybe Hillary was a cold fish who couldn't take care of her man? Maybe Hillary was too selfish of a woman to take care of the most important man in the country?

See what I mean?

You can drum up controversy over many things if you want to.

As for your whole "those people adhere to a different set of morals than I do, so I can attack them according to what I assume to be their morals"...that is incredibly dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? Because you really aren't holding people in your community to the same standards. You have one standard (a much lesser standard) for your own team. You shouldn't be dividing into teams here. You should be above that. Attacking one culture because they have higher moral standards is harmful for the reason that it drives the cultures apart. What the leftists don't realize is that their Alinksy tactics (holding "enemies" to impossible standards) have been the root cause in driving the country into polarized factions. Leftists have become vicious, irresponsible attack zombies who have no sense of ethics or morals in their dealing with fellow Americans. It has created a culture of violence and hatred on the left. Is that what you want?

Seriously, curious... please answer. What is there to cover with Obama's daughters? Is there a story there? Anything at all? Let's hear it here first from Mr. Fairness.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Bristol Palin went on Dancing with the Stars for Christ Sake. The Palin's thrive off of all this media attention. Seriously, they are making a fortune.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Bristol Palin went on Dancing with the Stars for Christ Sake. The Palin's thrive off of all this media attention. Seriously, they are making a fortune.

Um...she wasn't on Dancing with the Stars when Sarah was running for office. Wasn't Bristol a legal adult when she chose to do that show?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Um...she wasn't on Dancing with the Stars when Sarah was running for office. Wasn't Bristol a legal adult when she chose to do that show?

The point is the Palin's aren't concerned about privacy. They never were.

Answer my question: What story is it that you would like to hear from the Media about Obama's daughters? Is there anything there? Anything?

Or are you just being a sour puss yet again... :~ohyah!:

[barryr]

You really ought to keep a low profile.

Anyone who searches Barry Ramey and looks at his posts will draw one conclusion. It's you.

Either you're a chronic liar or a plagiarist. Your posts and Ramey's are often almost identical.

Both of you use the epithet, 'lefty' to describe anyone who disagrees with you.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/search.php?searchid=526273

Of course, only the mods would know for certain, but reading Ramey's posts, are just like reading yours. So drop the fake indignation, it's transparent.

Sure, I am the only one using lefties around here. I am not spending my time playing Mr. Detective, trying to see who has personal info. or fake names or whatever. Nor do I go around seeking certain posters in various threads to post demeaning crap about them. For all I know, you use many names. Seems a waste of time, but to each his own. But trying to post personal information about someone whom I guess doesn´t post anymore to play gotcha idiot games since have to resort to that toargue points should have consequences.

[ant1999e]

Sure, I am the only one using lefties around here. I am not spending my time playing Mr. Detective, trying to see who has personal info. or fake names or whatever. Nor do I go around seeking certain posters in various threads to post demeaning crap about them. For all I know, you use many names. Seems a waste of time, but to each his own. But trying to post personal information about someone whom I guess doesn´t post anymore to play gotcha idiot games since have to resort to that toargue points should have consequences.

Doesn't seem like it's gonna happen. I guess if you are arguing on the side of the mod in a thread you get a free pass to break the rules.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The point is the Palin's aren't concerned about privacy. They never were.

Answer my question: What story is it that you would like to hear from the Media about Obama's daughters? Is there anything there? Anything?

Or are you just being a sour puss yet again...

You are just a selective reader. That's the problem.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You really ought to keep a low profile.

Anyone who searches Barry Ramey and looks at his posts will draw one conclusion. It's you.

Either you're a chronic liar or a plagiarist. Your posts and Ramey's are often almost identical.

Both of you use the epithet, 'lefty' to describe anyone who disagrees with you.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/search.php?searchid=526273

Of course, only the mods would know for certain, but reading Ramey's posts, are just like reading yours. So drop the fake indignation, it's transparent.

Wow.

You wack-job lefties in this forum are something else.

Instead of agreeing that the stalkerisms are creepy and should be condemned, you crazy moonbats just turn around and start attacking again. Its like you are completely ignorant of standards of behavior. Either that or you are so sold out to your political allegiances that you throw your standards away any time you can if it allows you to get a little political jab in.

What you don't realize is that this is the behavior that defines you now. You make yourself irrelevant. Why would anyone trust a liar without any standards? Its a fine bed you guys have made yourselves.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Its like you are completely ignorant of standards of behavior.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

[DenverBrit]

Sure, I am the only one using lefties around here. I am not spending my time playing Mr. Detective, trying to see who has personal info. or fake names or whatever. Nor do I go around seeking certain posters in various threads to post demeaning crap about them. For all I know, you use many names. Seems a waste of time, but to each his own. But trying to post personal information about someone whom I guess doesn´t post anymore to play gotcha idiot games since have to resort to that toargue points should have consequences.

What personal information have I provided that wasn't already on the Mane??

And you still post here.

[DenverBrit]

Wow.

Why would anyone trust a liar without any standards?

Indeed, why would anyone trust you??

[barryr]

Wow.

You wack-job lefties in this forum are something else.

Instead of agreeing that the stalkerisms are creepy and should be condemned, you crazy moonbats just turn around and start attacking again. Its like you are completely ignorant of standards of behavior. Either that or you are so sold out to your political allegiances that you throw your standards away any time you can if it allows you to get a little political jab in.

What you don't realize is that this is the behavior that defines you now. You make yourself irrelevant. Why would anyone trust a liar without any standards? Its a fine bed you guys have made yourselves.

They stick up for their kind, so not shocking. The Patriot Act is a violation of people´s rights as they claim, yet are not above trying to dig up dirt on people on the internet or wherever else. Great consistency, but they never see their hypocrisy.

[alkemical]

They stick up for their kind, so not shocking. The Patriot Act is a violation of people´s rights as they claim, yet are not above trying to dig up dirt on people on the internet or wherever else. Great consistency, but they never see their hypocrisy.

People have a problem seeing their own hypocrisies. Just a fact of human nature.

I read about how Tesla & Edison both were nominated to share the Nobel prize. Each though, were so stuck in their belief that each of their ideas was "THE" right way to do it - they wouldn't even acknowledge each other.

If those two guys, have a problem being objective...what chance to we have?

[barryr]

People have a problem seeing their own hypocrisies. Just a fact of human nature.

I read about how Tesla & Edison both were nominated to share the Nobel prize. Each though, were so stuck in their belief that each of their ideas was "THE" right way to do it - they wouldn't even acknowledge each other.

If those two guys, have a problem being objective...what chance to we have?

And they were scientists, so how do we know which scientists to believe today? Just the ones we agree with?

[alkemical]

And they were scientists, so how do we know which scientists to believe today? Just the ones we agree with?

We all have a "bias" - and we fit things and draw things that confirm those things.

IMO, best not to really be tooooo serious about it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

You are just a selective reader. That's the problem.

Riiight... but you, you see all sides of the argument. You are just a wonderfully open-minded individual in search for equality and truth. Give me a break.

Now, third time I'll ask. What would the media report with regards to Obama's daughters? What is the story?

Finally, if one of the Obama daughters becomes pregnant as a minor out of wedlock, do you really believe the media is just going to ignore it?

In order to evaluate the situation, you have to be able to draw comparisons. You use Obama's daughters as your example but Chelsea Clinton is a much more fair comparison and she got a TON of media exposure even though the Clinton's asked to keep her out of the spotlight.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Riiight... but you, you see all sides of the argument. You are just a wonderfully open-minded individual in search for equality and truth. Give me a break.

Now, third time I'll ask. What would the media report with regards to Obama's daughters? What is the story?

Finally, if one of the Obama daughters becomes pregnant as a minor out of wedlock, do you really believe the media is just going to ignore it?

In order to evaluate the situation, you have to be able to draw comparisons. You use Obama's daughters as your example but Chelsea Clinton is a much more fair comparison and she got a TON of media exposure even though the Clinton's asked to keep her out of the spotlight.

And to expand on that point, it was the right wing's favorite ignorant **** talker, Rush Limbaugh, who fired the opening salvo.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Riiight... but you, you see all sides of the argument. You are just a wonderfully open-minded individual in search for equality and truth. Give me a break.

Now, third time I'll ask. What would the media report with regards to Obama's daughters? What is the story?

Finally, if one of the Obama daughters becomes pregnant as a minor out of wedlock, do you really believe the media is just going to ignore it?

In order to evaluate the situation, you have to be able to draw comparisons. You use Obama's daughters as your example but Chelsea Clinton is a much more fair comparison and she got a TON of media exposure even though the Clinton's asked to keep her out of the spotlight.

http://www.jokespalace.com/wp-content/uploads/big-turd.jpg

[Blueflame]

I tried to manually type in the url but it wouldn't come up so I thought it may have been done from the school website.
Don't be offended that I questioned if a mod took action. After all, his account is still active isn't it?

Um... well, there was a "mod note"... in bold print... on Requiem's post before you quoted it (stating that the post had been edited to remove personal contact information). Not my fault you didn't notice it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

http://www.jokespalace.com/wp-content/uploads/big-turd.jpg

Typical. You have no place calling anybody a whack job.

[ant1999e]

Um... well, there was a "mod note"... in bold print... on Requiem's post before you quoted it (stating that the post had been edited to remove personal contact information). Not my fault you didn't notice it.

Um... well, you're full of ****. Come on, it gave a name, place of employment and email address. Is that not personal contact information??? Not my fault you can't do your job objectively. Why is it always you?

[DenverBrit]

Typical. You have no place calling anybody a whack job.

In fairness, I believe that's a pic of Epic talking!

[Blueflame]

Um... well, you're full of ****. Come on, it gave a name, place of employment and email address. Is that not personal contact information??? Not my fault you can't do your job objectively. Why is it always you?

Yes, the link did have "someone's" name, place of employment, phone number and email address. Barryr says it wasn't his info... so who cares? At any rate, the link shouldn't be on the Mane so it was disabled.

And I guess it was me who dealt with the situation because I happened to be the OM moderator who had the free time to be online on a nice June Sunday afternoon. Admins/moderators have lives too.

[tnedator]

I happened to be the OM moderator who had the free time to be online on a nice June Sunday afternoon. Admins/moderators have lives too.

That's the problem with America, no work ethic anymore!! ;)

[Blueflame]

That's the problem with America, no work ethic anymore!! ;)

LOL ^5

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yes, the link did have "someone's" name, place of employment, phone number and email address. Barryr says it wasn't his info... so who cares? At any rate, the link shouldn't be on the Mane so it was disabled.

And I guess it was me who dealt with the situation because I happened to be the OM moderator who had the free time to be online on a nice June Sunday afternoon. Admins/moderators have lives too.

That's the third person that this individual poster has stalked and harassed that I know of.

It doesn't matter that he got the wrong person this time. He still made the attempt. Robbing the wrong store is still robbery.

Its time for a Perma-ban.

[ant1999e]

Yes, the link did have "someone's" name, place of employment, phone number and email address. Barryr says it wasn't his info... so who cares? At any rate, the link shouldn't be on the Mane so it was disabled.

And I guess it was me who dealt with the situation because I happened to be the OM moderator who had the free time to be online on a nice June Sunday afternoon. Admins/moderators have lives too.

What a piss poor excuse. So some poor guy had his info put up here and may get harassed by people who disagree with barryr. It doesn't matter if he got the wrong person. The point is he tried to do it. He broke the rules. Why are you protecting this scum bag?

Thanks for surfing the internet on a nice Sunday afternoon. Too bad you really didn't do your job.

And when I said why is it always you, I didn't mean being a moderator, I meant being a moderator that is incapable of objectively doing her job.

[ant1999e]

Yes, the link did have "someone's" name, place of employment, phone number and email address. Barryr says it wasn't his info... so who cares? At any rate, the link shouldn't be on the Mane so it was disabled.


You're right, the link shouldn't be on the Mane. It never should have been posted but it was. Are there no consequences here anymore? This kind of activity worries me. What kind of person mentally; makes the time to look up peoples personal info? Who does that?

This place is ruthless enough. we don't need people doing this type of crap.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Stephanopolous to Bachmann: The Media's Coming After Your 23 Foster Kids

"ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said the media plans on investigating all 23 of Michele Bachmann's foster children"
http://nation.foxnews.com/michele-bachmann/2011/06/28/stephanopoulos-says-media-will-investigate-bachmanns-23-foster-children


Is there anyone left who is still under the illusion that there is not a heavy left-wing media bias?

How do you attack Bachmann's womanhood? By trying to say that she's a bad mother. Just like they did with Palin.

[tnedator]

Stephanopolous to Bachmann: The Media's Coming After Your 23 Foster Kids

"ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said the media plans on investigating all 23 of Michele Bachmann's foster children"
http://nation.foxnews.com/michele-bachmann/2011/06/28/stephanopoulos-says-media-will-investigate-bachmanns-23-foster-children


Is there anyone left who is still under the illusion that there is not a heavy left-wing media bias?

How do you attack Bachmann's womanhood? By trying to say that she's a bad mother. Just like they did with Palin.

That's not exactly what he said (based on the quote, I haven't watched the video). He asked if she was prepared for their loss of privacy:

I think one of the most impressive things that people find in your background is the fact that you and your husband have helped raise 23 foster children and I know you want to shield them but are they prepared and are you prepared for the loss of privacy that comes with the president campaign? And is that something you are concerned about for them?

Fact is that the press will dig into her past. She also keeps bringing up the foster kids in promoting herself. So, while I find it distasteful that they will be hounded to get dirt on her, the fact is she is opening the door by using it to promote herself.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

That's not exactly what he said (based on the quote, I haven't watched the video). He asked if she was prepared for their loss of privacy:



Fact is that the press will dig into her past. She also keeps bringing up the foster kids in promoting herself. So, while I find it distasteful that they will be hounded to get dirt on her, the fact is she is opening the door by using it to promote herself.

You're kidding! You mean EpicFAIL once again uses distortions to get people to think badly about the media? How ODD!

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's not exactly what he said (based on the quote, I haven't watched the video). He asked if she was prepared for their loss of privacy:



Fact is that the press will dig into her past. She also keeps bringing up the foster kids in promoting herself. So, while I find it distasteful that they will be hounded to get dirt on her, the fact is she is opening the door by using it to promote herself.

It is common knowledge that she has had 5 kids and 23 foster children. Snuffaluffagus asked her about it, she didn't bring it up to him.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

It is common knowledge that she has had 5 kids and 23 foster children. Snuffaluffagus asked her about it, she didn't bring it up to him.

She has also mentioned it. In the South Carolina Debate, at Waterloo yesterday. She uses them as set dressing.

Of course, she also said she "raised" 23 foster kids, when the truth is she likely had them between 6 months and 5 years, which isn't exactly "raising" anything. Finding out just how honest that story is seems like a reasonable story for the media to pursue.

No? Why not?

[DenverBrit]

Stephanopolous to Bachmann: The Media's Coming After Your 23 Foster Kids

"ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said the media plans on investigating all 23 of Michele Bachmann's foster children"
http://nation.foxnews.com/michele-bachmann/2011/06/28/stephanopoulos-says-media-will-investigate-bachmanns-23-foster-children


Is there anyone left who is still under the illusion that there is not a heavy left-wing media bias?

How do you attack Bachmann's womanhood? By trying to say that she's a bad mother. Just like they did with Palin.

Bachmann spent the entire interview deflecting, avoiding and ducking the questions about statements she has made.

The headline is typical of FOX; Stephanopoulos said no such thing.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Bachmann spent the entire interview deflecting, avoiding and ducking the questions about statements she has made.

The headline is typical of FOX; Stephanopoulos said no such thing.

Snuffaluffagus is just the Mouth of Sauron.

Its necessary to send a message.

[DenverBrit]

Snuffaluffagus is just the Mouth of Sauron.

Its necessary to send a message.

You condone FOX lying?? I'm shocked!!

[epicSocialism4tw]

You condone FOX lying?? I'm shocked!!

They lied? Ha!

You're a silly little guy. As a Brit you should understand the reference I gave.

[DenverBrit]

They lied? Ha!

You're a silly little guy. As a Brit you should understand the reference I gave.

I got the Soros reference.

What does it have to do with the lies....from FOX and you??

[epicSocialism4tw]

I got the Soros reference.

What does it have to do with the lies....from FOX and you??

What did Fox "lie" about?

[tnedator]

You're kidding! You mean EpicFAIL once again uses distortions to get people to think badly about the media? How ODD!

Ok, at least I now know who you were referring to in the other thread as Epicfail.

[DenverBrit]

What did Fox "lie" about?

You didn't watch the video??

[epicSocialism4tw]

You didn't watch the video??

What did Fox "lie" about?

[DenverBrit]

What did Fox "lie" about?

Already covered.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3207715&postcount=92

[TonyR]

Stephanopolous to Bachmann: The Media's Coming After Your 23 Foster Kids...

Do you gargle this stuff before you swallow it?

[cutthemdown]

Nappy headed hoes!