No sir. You may have inferred it, but I neither said it, nor implied it. FranchiseBlade lied. What does it say about your argument when you have to cling to such a ridiculous position? Revealing... Face it, none of you would be arguing until you were red in the face if you didn't think Michelle Obama was capable of this sort of racist outburst. ... and you aren't arguing against the alleged comments, you are arguing the timing of the release... And that, in and of itself, tells me all I need to know. GOOD DAY
ouch! strong post! man TJ, your getting pummeled left and right these days... so where is this so called "explosive" news?
This just gets better and better. You know TJ, people might not pile on so much if you could just admit once in a while that you might be wrong and that you got out ahead of yourself a little bit about this. But you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Any rational person would just say, “yeah I made a mistake.”
Wrong, please tell us why you included information about a specific day "bumping it for tomorrow" if you didn't mean to imply the info would be out that day. Why did you mention the "news tomorrow" when talking about the supposed tape, if you didn't mean to imply that the info would be out? Why did you mention "Explosive stuff out today" if there was nothing explosive out, and you were talking about the tape. You are making it appear that you don't understand a thing about words, how they are used in either reading or writing. If you think that makes you look less foolish than admitting you were wrong, go ahead keep at it.
FranchiseBlade, you lied. Your argument is that I said the tape would be out yesterday, I never said that. You admitted that I never said that. So your argument fails. Period, end of story. You lied. The info did in fact come out yesterday. Information about Farrakhan, information about Michelle Obama. Information about racist comments. If it didn't come out, why then, did the libs mount such a vigorous defense against it? Ouch. You lied.
Wrong. The information didn't come out. RUMOR of what the information was came out. The information never came out as you put forward.
I must admit that it is impressive that TJ is getting you guys to argue this with him. And you guys are being really serious about it, too.
I've just skimmed this thread and will take a crack at the original question since no one, including the OP, is discussing it. My guess is for either of the major parties they are locked into their candidates after the convention, and barring death or some injury that prevents them from fulfilling the office, they can't just remove the candidate. My guess is that if a scandal were to break out post convention the party would work to apply a lot of pressure to the candidate to withdraw and then the VP candidate would take the front of the ticket or an emergency convention would be convened to declare a new candidate. Another wrinkle to the situation would be whether the states have printed their ballots and given the different rules regarding early voting and absentee ballots there might be a problem with getting the person's name off of the ballots. In those cases, or if the candidate refuses to withdraw, what the party might do is push for an all out write in campaign for another candidate.
rimrocker: Did you clean your room? 5 yo daughter: My room is not messy. rimrocker: OK, let me look... oh dear, your room is not clean. 5 yo daughter: I never said I cleaned it.
More devastating developments out today folks. No promises of anything, but tomorrow could be huge. Brace yourselves, friends. This thread will explode. I'm serious.
Ah man, great entertainment. I love the bolded words and the HO HO HO even tho I don't really understand what it means. I'm laughing out loud right now and I"m not sure at what. T_J is a comedy
The Boy Who Cried Wolf There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!" The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces. "Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill. Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away. When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!" But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more. Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!" But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come. At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping. "There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?" An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village. "We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"
i'm not saying there's a fire, but there sure is a lot of smoke. First, Farrakhan did receive an award from Trinity, and spoke at the church. then there's this: again, i ain't saying there's something there, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of believability.
