snood wrote:Which are you?
I win without guilt and I lose without resentment. I'm immune to the Rev's charms.
How about you?
I still cant figure out, why Sharpton is called "Rev"!
What amazes me is that he is on national TV every night. I find him sickening and a total sleaze, but not nearly as bad as is Bush.
He is worse than Bush. But thankfully he is not in the position to do the damage that Bush can.
Sharpton would not have defrauded the country into invading Iraq, given massive deficit tax breaks to the super rich, damaged governmental programs through terrible appointments, instituted torture, illegal wiretaps, etc.
Sharpton's damage would not have approached that accomplished by Bush.
au1929 wrote:He is worse than Bush. But thankfully he is not in the position to do the damage that Bush can.
If he keeps working his mouth, he'll cost Obama the election, assuming obama has any chance at the Presidency.
Miller
Sharpton is not supporting Obama's can candidacy.
AU, that is old news, and a pin prick compared to all the damage caused by Bush.
My comment related to a Sharpton presidency. He would be a thousand times better (as bad as he is) as president compared to Bush's actual performance.
Advocate
With Sharpton as president we would not have to go out of country to fight a war. The war would be on the streets of America.
A Sharpton presidency would be 1000 times better than the Bush presidency. Wow.
I suppose someone you like would be a million times better, or maybe a billion times better, or even a gazillion times better.
I get it. You don't like Bush and you think as a president he is really really bad, but can you please try and be more specific and founded in your criticism? If this isn't possible, can you at least be a bit more literate? These sort of comments are akin to the bellowing of an angry bull (or maybe the buzzing of an annoying fly).
If you can't enlighten us, at least entertain us.
