|
|
Fuck Obama and his excessive, nonsensical government spending! He's run this country into unrecoverable debt and has ruined our economy!
...and I, Paul Ryan, promise to spend billions to send people to Mars.
|
On September 23 2012 23:45 Saryph wrote:It is really hard to take Ryan complaining about Obama's cuts to NASA seriously when his own most recent budget proposal cuts it six percent more than Obama. Link
Thanks for the link!
|
I really think this is going to come down to the First debate, Romney must crush him in debates, and if he doesn't that's the ballgame.
romney is being too passive i think in attacks on actual record
|
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election.
|
On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election.
LOL some version of "Africans own white dudes".
EDIT: he'd still win. Something terrible needs to happen for him to lose.
|
On September 24 2012 05:12 EnderSword wrote:
I really think this is going to come down to the First debate, Romney must crush him in debates, and if he doesn't that's the ballgame.
romney is being too passive i think in attacks on actual record
I don't think Romney is articulate enough to compete with Obama in a debate setting. He can't even seem to get anyone to dislike Obama with half-truths in commercials, why would he be better at it when there is Obama is ready to defend himself?
On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election.
Basically, this.
|
On September 24 2012 05:16 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election. LOL some version of "Africans own white dudes". EDIT: he'd still win. Something terrible needs to happen for him to lose.
Bill Maher compared the leaked video of Romney to a video of Obama highlighting passages out of the Communist Manifesto and cackling menacingly.
|
On September 24 2012 06:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 05:16 coverpunch wrote:On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election. LOL some version of "Africans own white dudes". EDIT: he'd still win. Something terrible needs to happen for him to lose. Bill Maher compared the leaked video of Romney to a video of Obama highlighting passages out of the Communist Manifesto and cackling menacingly.
Something like that except that half of the country or a bit less is still voting for him. Bill Maher is funny though :-)))
|
On September 24 2012 07:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 06:14 Defacer wrote:On September 24 2012 05:16 coverpunch wrote:On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election. LOL some version of "Africans own white dudes". EDIT: he'd still win. Something terrible needs to happen for him to lose. Bill Maher compared the leaked video of Romney to a video of Obama highlighting passages out of the Communist Manifesto and cackling menacingly. Something like that except that half of the country or a bit less is still voting for him. Bill Maher is funny though :-)))
Is there a video link to that?
|
Romney's lead with older voters crumbles.
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks - since just after the Democratic National Convention - support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.
Daaaaamn, that's bad news for Romney.
|
Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters:
In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead.
Source.
|
On September 24 2012 05:13 rogzardo wrote:
Obama would literally have to shit his pants and say 'fuck whitey' during the debates to blow the election.
He might still win..our country has pretty much been reduced to a state of idiocracy.
|
On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: Show nested quote +In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source.
Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-)
|
On September 25 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source. Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-)
Actually, the polls are what help Obama supporters sleep at night, which actually would make it that much more entertaining if Romney wins.
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New voting laws in 23 of the 50 states could keep more than 10 million Hispanic U.S. citizens from registering and voting, a new study said on Sunday, a number so large it could affect the outcome of the November 6 election.
The Latino community accounts for more than 10 percent of eligible voters nationally. But the share in some states is high enough that keeping Hispanic voters away from the polls could shift some hard-fought states from support for Democratic President Barack Obama and help his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
The new laws include purges of people suspected of not being citizens in 16 states that unfairly target Latinos, the civil rights group Advancement Project said in the study to be formally released on Monday.
Laws in effect in one state and pending in two others require proof of citizenship for voter registration. That imposes onerous and sometimes expensive documentation requirements on voters, especially targeting naturalized American citizens, many of whom are Latino, the liberal group said.
Nine states have passed restrictive photo identification laws that impose costs in time and money for millions of Latinos who are citizens but do not yet have the required identification, it said.
Republican-led state legislatures have passed most of the new laws since the party won sweeping victories in state and local elections in 2010. They say the laws are meant to prevent voter fraud; critics say they are designed to reduce turnout among groups that typically back Democrats.
Decades of study have found virtually no use of false identification in U.S. elections or voting by non-citizens. Activists say the bigger problem in the United States, where most elections see turnout of well under 60 percent, is that eligible Americans do not bother to vote.
Nationwide, polls show Obama leading Romney among Hispanic voters by 70 percent to 30 percent or more, and winning that voting bloc by a large margin is seen as an important key to Obama winning re-election.
The Hispanic vote could be crucial in some of the battleground states where the election is especially close, such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida.
For example, in Florida, 27 percent of eligible voters are Hispanic. With polls showing Obama's re-election race against Romney very tight in the state, a smaller turnout by Hispanic groups that favor Obama could tilt the vote toward the Republican.
(Editing by Christopher Wilson)
The only voters I want to suppress are illegal aliens, non-U.S. citizens and dead people. Sadly, the most disenfranchised group of voters will be the armed service members overseas.
|
On September 25 2012 01:36 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote:On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source. Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-) Actually, the polls are what help Obama supporters sleep at night, which actually would make it that much more entertaining if Romney wins.
You realize you just said the same thing as me in reverse, right?
|
On September 25 2012 01:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New voting laws in 23 of the 50 states could keep more than 10 million Hispanic U.S. citizens from registering and voting, a new study said on Sunday, a number so large it could affect the outcome of the November 6 election.
The Latino community accounts for more than 10 percent of eligible voters nationally. But the share in some states is high enough that keeping Hispanic voters away from the polls could shift some hard-fought states from support for Democratic President Barack Obama and help his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
The new laws include purges of people suspected of not being citizens in 16 states that unfairly target Latinos, the civil rights group Advancement Project said in the study to be formally released on Monday.
Laws in effect in one state and pending in two others require proof of citizenship for voter registration. That imposes onerous and sometimes expensive documentation requirements on voters, especially targeting naturalized American citizens, many of whom are Latino, the liberal group said.
Nine states have passed restrictive photo identification laws that impose costs in time and money for millions of Latinos who are citizens but do not yet have the required identification, it said.
Republican-led state legislatures have passed most of the new laws since the party won sweeping victories in state and local elections in 2010. They say the laws are meant to prevent voter fraud; critics say they are designed to reduce turnout among groups that typically back Democrats.
Decades of study have found virtually no use of false identification in U.S. elections or voting by non-citizens. Activists say the bigger problem in the United States, where most elections see turnout of well under 60 percent, is that eligible Americans do not bother to vote.
Nationwide, polls show Obama leading Romney among Hispanic voters by 70 percent to 30 percent or more, and winning that voting bloc by a large margin is seen as an important key to Obama winning re-election.
The Hispanic vote could be crucial in some of the battleground states where the election is especially close, such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida.
For example, in Florida, 27 percent of eligible voters are Hispanic. With polls showing Obama's re-election race against Romney very tight in the state, a smaller turnout by Hispanic groups that favor Obama could tilt the vote toward the Republican.
(Editing by Christopher Wilson) The only voters I want to suppress are illegal aliens, non-U.S. citizens and dead people. Sadly, the most disenfranchised group of voters will be the armed service members overseas.
The saddest part is there is more effort to suppress vote in the first place when, Activists say the bigger problem in the United States, where most elections see turnout of well under 60 percent, is that eligible Americans do not bother to vote.
Increasing voter turnout by even 1% would likely drown out every single instance of voter fraud, even in the case of absentee voter fraud.
|
On September 25 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source. Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-)
I'm sticking with my prediction until I see what happens at the debates. As long as Romney appears to be a plausible alternative to Obama, he'll be fine.
|
On September 25 2012 01:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote:On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source. Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-) I'm sticking with my prediction until I see what happens at the debates. As long as Romney appears to be a plausible alternative to Obama, he'll be fine.
And that seems to be what he's having trouble with right now. 
|
On September 25 2012 02:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 01:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote:On September 25 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Here's something that should cause some mass tightening of democratic sphincters: In most all things, I try to follow Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is particularly important to remember when looking at polls, Sometimes, however, one must wonder.
As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied. Even so, a number of people have noted that there are some odd assumptions in that poll, and others. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talked about it recently. Asked if the polls were, in his opinion, a fair representation of the electorate, Schoen said:
“The simple answer is no John. The bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That’s from the exit polls and that’s about as accurate as you can get….President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it’s about one point off the margin.”
Schoen pointed out that the Pew poll was based on Democrats sampled for having an 11 percent voters registration edge over Republicans. He further added, “saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
In fact, Rasmussen keeps a running monthly poll of party identification. In the latest poll, released September 1, they found:
During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002.
Other polls — including Gallup — apparently have similar assumptions (called “turnout models”) in their polls.
There is a new website, called unskewedpolls.com, that basically reweights the data to fit the Rasmussen party identification. Their results are quite different, giving Romney somewhere between a five and eleven point lead.
Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Basically, they claim (by the site name) to be an unskewed poll. In fact, they’re just a differently skewed take on existing polls. Instead of taking their numbers over, say, Gallup, though, what it should tell us is that even if the polls are being heavily weighted to Obama, Romney’s still essentially tied. Any difference in Romney’s direction in real turnout from the pollster’s assumptions would bring Romney into a lead. Source. Whatever helps you sleep at night until the election, xDaunt ,-) I'm sticking with my prediction until I see what happens at the debates. As long as Romney appears to be a plausible alternative to Obama, he'll be fine. And that seems to be what he's having trouble with right now.
Well, there's a difference between hearing stuff about a guy and then actually seeing the guy in person on TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
