१३ सप्टेंबर, २०१२
"Voters think Obama would beat Romney in a fistfight."
Uh... remember that civility bullshit? No, of course not. That was some old joke from the past having to do with Sarah Palin, I think. She used the concept of "targeting" something. That was that. This is the idea of beating up old man Romney. Just pummel the guy into a pulp. That's hilarious.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
In honesty, I doubt either of them could punch themselves out of a wet paper bag.
But that is not what is about.
That really seems racist.
I mean, it's gotta mean that people think pencil-neck Obama would be hiding a shiv.
I was going to ask what idiots would ask such a question and then I saw it was Yahoo! News, the same outfit whose DC bureau chief thought it was so funny to say the Republicans didn't mind conventioning while a hurricane bore down on NOLA because "they’re happy to have a party with black people drowning".
I know this is not what you want us to talk about [you want us to talk about civility bullshit] but people really think President Mom Jeans could beat up Governor Football on the Lawn?
I mean, I don't think of Romney as a fighter--I picture him of the kind of guy who would ignore attempts at provocation until he was forced, more in sorrow than in anger, to level someone with one punch--but Obama strikes me as a weakling and a dork on every level. Romney seems like the kind of guy who is secure in his strength and doesn't need to make a show of it, but would surprise you when the time came.
Like One-Shot Finch.
Part of the media's effort to dim our image of Obama in mom-jeans.
Yeah, a minor missing 'it', for which, will I will be ever derided as an idiot. Fine.
Yea, Michelle does have the arms.
Ryan Vs. Barry AND Joe.
Even odds.
Then it gets worse. With stray words.
I think it may be a demon, bent on my destruction.
Oh wait, maybe I just make mistakes, no need to call on supernatural spirits, yet.
If Barry had long hair, I'd put my money on Romney and a pair of scissors.
Paul Ryan FTW. Tough Irish bastard.
I would so earn my vice presidential kneepads...if I were an immoral young ho.
Obama's a twig, looks like a stick with a big head and ears, Romney's thick, with one meat hook drop Zero in a second.
yahoo news the same outfit that bought Huffington Post and is a hugh Obama bundler.
Speaking of Huffington Post... If you want to know what MSM will report on the next day, just read Huffington Post, save you time.
From WSJ:
With few voters still undecided, President Barack Obama has built leads over Mitt Romney in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, three of the states likely to determine who wins the White House in November.
Mr. Obama's solid footholds in the three states come as his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, has struggled to persuade voters that he is better equipped than the president to grapple with the economy, the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist Poll surveys show.
Among likely voters, Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney by seven percentage points in Ohio and by five in both Florida and Virginia, the polls found.
Mr. Obama's support is at or near 50% in all three states, suggesting that Mr. Romney must peel off voters who now support the president to win. The pool of undecided voters is 6% of the electorate or smaller in all three states.
We Althouse blog conservatives seem to be missing something.
Lawd Amighty , but the conservative ladies are hot tonight! Maybe it's all the talk of fisticuffs.
Your harsh remarks about body types and twigs are very hurtful so I will divert the subject and rise your envy.
I keep asking these two birds that work in an office to go to lunch with me and they keep blowing me off with work-related excuses so today I brought lunch to them and they closed the door for privacy and we three had a sweet little lunch in there all to ourselves. And it was so fun we all intended to scarf half of our calzones and take the other half home but we ate them all. And the calzones are huge. A spontaneous episode that earned me the warmth of two ladies at once.
I see more and more of these junky polls that only have one purpose, to humanize president mom jeans. Lets face it there is a 50/50 chance obama even knows how to fix a flat tire. Can you imagine that pussy on the side of the road trying to read the manual as his spare tire rolls down the highway?I have no doubt Mitt can do it blindfolded. I guess its a testosterone thing. You can smell a candy ass a mile away.
I go, "You're supposed to ask me, is that a vintage ink bottle in my pocket or am I just excited to see you?" Then whip out the vintage ink bottle.
And I go, you're supposed to ask me why my face is half shaved.
So I can answer the charge ran out of the shaver.
So eine Schweinerei!
You know, that tire remark is also hurtful. It occurred to me I don't know where the spare is for the truck, nor what to expect by way of a jack.
Allie,
The boys should be fighting over the girls, not politics.
That's what really gets the girls in heat.
Ah, now you tell me Shouting Thomas.
Hey, Romney was a bully in high school, Obama was a puke in high school. The best Barry could do was to shove a girl in junior high.
I'm really not buying that a guy walking around in a sarong reading T. S. Elliot aloud after sex is going to go all MMA on anyone's ass. On the other hand, Romney has single-handedly fucked over the entire American steel industry (to hear Obama tell it) and lived to tell the tale. Who's the bad ass?
Mormons know how to do that mind trick thing, like in the movie "Dune". Ask Crack.
I know I wouldn't want to square off with Michelle over the last slice of pizza.
Who would look tougher standing next to Putin? That's a slightly better question.
Romney has single-handedly fucked over the entire American steel industry
Now I understand!
This must have been a poll of former GM bondholders, each of whom took a severe beating from Obama.
Yeah, but would Michelle and the girls beat Romney's sons?
It's not how tough *you* are... it's your allies.
*ahem*
Now, an interesting set of matchups would be the men vs. each other's wives.
I think Obama would have a pretty decent chance, esp. if Ann R's MS flared up.
Is this a new thing? If it is I say now is the time to try it. The winner gets to be president.
No question Mitt wins with a knock-out in the first round. Then he rolls over and goes back to sleep.
David,
So Obama is +7 in a poll that is +10 Dem?
Ok, if you want to brag about that, feel free.
What would've been the best presidential-candidate fights?
Lincoln v. Douglas? Nah. No contest.
Kennedy v. Nixon? Only if Sorensen was JFK's stand-in, with his bad back and all.
Reagan v. Carter? LOL.
Gore v. Bush? Now we're talkin'. Bush obviously fitter, but Gore with a huge weight advantage.
But I think the one I'd most want to see would be Johnson v. Goldwater: Two tough mofos from the West, with the entire welfare state on the line.
Instead of the theory claiming that folks like beating up oldies, Althouse could have concocted a theory that claimed folks are racists who assume the black dude is a gangsta killa who would crush any cracker, where age is not a consideration.
Silly conjecture, IMHO.
I think that this would be completely different if it were a conservative outlet that was saying "Our guy could beat up your guy."
Actually... I think that Romney would be a slapper. Obama is tall, and he plays basketball, so he'd probably try to stuff Romney, use his reach and aim for his head. I think that Romney would do a slappy thing... and then go low and probably kick Obama in the knee.
Football on the lawn? Yeah, he'd have the sweep down.
Oh, and the knee is a permanent crippling injury.
For nearly 50 years, the press has been waiting for a worthy successor to John Kennedy to become President. Those were cool times! Football and sailing at Hyannisport, dinner dates with Marilyn, drinks with Sinatra!
Until Obama came on the scene, no-one, neither Democrat nor Republican measured-up to the standards of Camelot. In those ways that really matter, Obama is the obverse of the Kennedy coin.
Of course the press is all-in on Obama. And they are not going to let Lee Harvey Romney get the better of them this time around.
Momjeans wearin', girl-throwin' Baraka winning a fist fight with Mitt?
Baraka doesn't even know HOW to make a fist!!!
When Baraka calls Mondale and McGovern on Election Night to jeer that HE , at least, didn't get beat as bad as they did...he will be acting entirely in character.
The girly-man truly believes that the Sun shines from his fundament. Reggie Love will doubtless agree.
I believe they're both 6'2".
It occurred to me I don't know where the spare is for the truck
I had to change my step-mother's Ford pickup tire with a small car jack on I-95 this spring. Had to dig an 8" deep hole in the shoulder to get the spare on. Found out later from a co-worker that the real jack is under the hood!
Good grief, who thinks like that?
BUT, it reinforces a comment I made on my blog: Obama is running on a platform of being totally cool, precious and adorable. He thinks all voters should find him cool, precious and adorable.
He is campaigning like a little kid called into the living room by his parents to show off for visitors. He doesn't do much -- scratch out "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" on the fiddle, perhaps. But he is doted on by those in his camp (or cult).
Thus, Obama tells us he makes "a mean chili." That's good old, accessible, down-home, friendly Obama talking. Just like folks.
Thus, Obama gets some shill in a pizza parlor to pick him up and bear-hug him. That shows us, everybody loves Obama, and we should too.
And thus, the campaign degenerates into who would win in a fistfight.
Are we really capable, as a people, of governing ourselves? When we elect a transparent phony, straw man, grifter, and Mussolini for Morons like Obama, don't we really need a keeper? Maybe England will take us back!??...
Obama ????
A fistfight ???
His pants would fall down.
BUt would it not be more age balanced to have MR fight JB and BHO PR (or Jack as Obama would say)
Keep in mind, the Romster actually has had to fight for things in his life; Zero has had it all handed to him and, so far, is only tough with a gang at his back to do the dirty work.
AllieOop said...
Lawd Amighty , but the conservative ladies are hot tonight! Maybe it's all the talk of fisticuffs.
And Oop's pet wussy is starting to twitch.
""Voters think Obama would beat Romney in a fistfight.""
First. Obama would have to ask Michelle for his balls, and then ask if he could cross the street.
Really? Romney looks like he's in pretty decent shape, and Obama looks kind of thin and wiry. I think it'd be close if it come to the ol' fisticuffs.
Romney was a gay basher in high school so he could probably take Barney Frank, but that would be the extent of it.
Considering that A) Romney doesn't remember the story and B) The victim is now dead and no one in his family remembers hearing anything about it and C) The people making the claims had no corroborating evidence, to call Romney a "gay basher" is to decide that proof isn't required.
Par for the course for Lefties.
(I used a golf analogy; is that now racist?)
I've seen Obama throw a baseball. The old thing Obama could beat Romney in is a cocksucking contest.
Notably, Romney never categorically denied the reports of gay bashing. GIven his propensity for lying that would seem to be pretty much an unqualified admission of guilt. He must know there are multiple witnesses.
I tried to think of something pithy to say that would not get me banned.
Fail.
"He must know there are multiple witnesses."
-- And yet, the reporter was unable to find any except for the other people who allegedly did it, most of whom are hostile to Romney or indifferent. In short, you're willing to claim someone is a bigot on hearsay.
Just remember: at a school someone was expelled for -smoking-, five students were able to assault another with a deadly weapon, cut his hair while pinning him to the ground in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and no one suffered a single consequence or produced any written evidence at the time that this happened. Not a single trip to the principle's office, not a single complaint. Nothing.
Unless he can throw a better punch than a baseball I think our President would lose. Uncle, he would cry, uncle.
The victim was also so traumatized that he completely forgot it, never mentioned it to anyone. The other co-conspirators were so torn up with guilt that they couldn't say anything until Romney was running for President. Well, for when Romney was assured the nomination for President. When he ran for governor, president and Senator, they apparently were still traumatized by the assault he allegedly led them in, that they could not speak up.
But, yeah. Totally legit and believable.
Is that the standard of proof we need to slander people running for public office? Because, if so, then well, crazy.
Althouse boy mittens can't catch a break. Fortunately for willard, (2) more days and his nightmarish week will be over! :)
Much like this election is already over!
Thanx for playin' everyone, please drive safely ...
Obama is younger, so that is an advantage. Romney is smart though and reasonably fit. He would work Obama's weak skinny abs till the president drops his guard. Then a few jabs to Obama's glass jaw and the fight is over!
Obama, trying to end it early, will start on Romney's head and do no significant damage, but maybe open a cut over the governor's eye in one of the early rounds.
So why didn't Romney simply deny the gay bashing? All we got were weasel words. How hard would it have been to say,"this never happened." We all know why.
"How hard would it have been to say,"this never happened"
-- Because even if he denied it, people like you would just call him a liar. Better to just say: "I don't remember this happening, but if it did, it was terrible."
Anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills could look at this and say: "There was no reason to run with this. There's not enough proof to prove anything." The only reason it was printed was to damage Romney. So, he looked at it, said: "Well, this is stupid. Let's just move on." He killed the story dead with his response as opposed to fighting a he said, she said battle that he would never win, despite the fact that there was no proof what-so-ever.
But, you seem to hold Romney to a higher standard than others. Which is good; our leaders -should- be held to a higher standard. The only problem is, even if we had a video tape of Romney's entire life that showed you this never happened, you'd still assume that we had somehow just missed it.
You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to persuade others, ante up some proof.
Do you have anything other than: Some people said a thing, and Romney denied it weakly?
Romney is the most dislikable candidate for president since Gore, and before that Nixon. Gay bashing is not simply consistent with his personality it represents a core strain of his personality. He is a transparent bully.
Doubtful. The winner in a fist fight is the guy who isn't afraid to get hit.
"Romney is the most dislikable candidate for president since Gore, and before that Nixon. Gay bashing is not simply consistent with his personality it represents a core strain of his personality. He is a transparent bully."
What the hell?! Romney stayed with a dying boy to comfort him as he died; closed his business to find a missing girl who was no relation to him; took his sons and himself out onto a lake to rescue drowning people. Romney has been eminently respectful to Obama and his campaign, who have accused him of being a felon and for contributing to the death of a woman he in no way impacted.
If you honestly believe that Romney is unlikeable (as opposed to merely hard to connect with; they are different things. Gore was simply hard to connect with, but likeable if you were able to get beyond the awkwardness, same with Romney), then you're an idiot and in no way "reasonable."
Matthew Sablan said...
"There was no reason to run with this. There's not enough proof to prove anything."
You are obviously a lawyer. The rest of us expected a clear, unequivocal denial.
This incident is in fact one of the things that people are factoring into their assessment of Romney. To pretend it didn't hurt him with the general public is delusional.
Remember, also: In Obama's autobiography, he writes about disapprovingly about one of his black friends dating a white person. Should I infer from that that casual racism is part of Obama's character? I mean, we're not given a lot of detail about why Obama disapproved, but if we're going with your level of "proof," then I'm on even more solid ground than you are. Now, in all honesty, I doubt Obama is racist (or meant what he said in his autobiography in that manner), but that's because I give people the benefit of the doubt and honestly try to see the best in people. As opposed to tribal hatred that consumes you.
But, no, of course not. Because Obama is "likeable" you would be unwilling to even entertain the thought he might have said or done something imperfect. Take five, go learn more about Romney, then try and approach politics reasonably.
"You are obviously a lawyer. The rest of us expected a clear, unequivocal denial."
-- No. Just like I don't expect Obama to issue a "clear, unequivocal denial" about the guy who claims to have sold Obama cocaine and had gay sex with him. Remember: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If all the proof they have is opportunistic people who dislike Romney say something outrageous, that's not enough.
All this blather doesn't obfuscate the core problem. Romney failed to deny the gay bashing incident.
I didn't particular dislike Romney, until his comments on our diplomats the other day. I agree Gore is like Romney, consumed with ambition to the exclusion of all other human qualities.
"This incident is in fact one of the things that people are factoring into their assessment of Romney."
-- But there are no facts that even prove this "incident" happened. Or, is this "fake but accurate?"
"All this blather doesn't obfuscate the core problem. Romney failed to deny the gay bashing incident."
-- Romney said he doesn't remember doing it. That's enough of a denial for most "reasonable" people. His apology, by the way, was a general one for all pranks he pulled in high school, this one, of course, which he cannot recall.
"I didn't particular dislike Romney, until his comments on our diplomats the other day."
-- Which comment? The one that the Obama administration tacitly agreed with by turning to the embassy and telling it to pull it down? The one Hillary Clinton agreed with by being furious that it went out over her objections?
Are you even passingly familiar with current events?
"AReasonableMan said...
I agree Gore is like Romney, consumed with ambition to the exclusion of all other human qualities."
Seriously? Not only would I disagree with this but the poster child is Obama.
Also, it is a flat out lie that you liked Romney until a few days ago. Unless, of course, you think gay bigotry is the bee's knees and acceptable. If you honestly believed Romney was the sort to abuse someone for their sexual preference/sexuality, whatever term you want to use, and thought: "I like that!" then, well, that says a lot about you.
But, you know what? I don't think you liked Romney. It's just a convenient dust storm to throw up so that you can pretend to be extra offended by a more recent comment. The only problem is that, sadly, you paired that comment in the same thread that someone can see that you honestly believe Romney is a bigot who would assault gay people solely for their sexual orientation.
So, yeah. I'm calling bull shit.
-- Edited for properness.
Shiloh. I know you are a country boy but dont you read newspapers up there in Appalachia? Mittens not only called it correctly but the London papers are reporting that there were ignored warnings about attacks on the embassy. Security breaches galore. Obama in Vegas.
My Pet Goat har har lol nuf said har lol lol lol.
Matthew Sablan said...
Also, it is a flat out lie that you liked Romney until a few days ago. Unless, of course, you think gay bigotry is the bee's knees and acceptable. If you honestly believed Romney was the sort to abuse someone for their sexual preference/sexuality, whatever term you want to use, and thought: "I like that!" then, well, that says a lot about you.
Reading comprehension not a strength?
I said I didn't particularly dislike him. I don't like most politicians. Again, all your blather is just obsfuscation. You have to be a lawyer.
Your linking of Romney with Gore actually captures much of the problem with both men. These are rich kids, private school educated, brought up in overtly political households by successful alpha males who have then gone out of their way to emulate their father's accomplishments, apparently desperate to exceed them. So, you already know that they are obsessively competitive, with daddy issues and with little empathy for common people. Because they chose politics at a young age, literally every aspect of their public persona is likely to be bullshit. Their woodeness is a result of the fact that their public persona is a complete fabrication, which needs to be constantly held in check, because it is so out of alignment with their actual thoughts and feelings.
The only difference between the two men is that Romney has an all comsuming love of money. It is literally incredible that he could not get his tax returns in order for the ten years preceding this second run at the presidency after years of political life as a governor. Money to Romney is like sex for Clinton, a window into their soul.
And finally, next time you call bullshit on me get your facts straight asshole.
Ah, so a man who'll abuse gay people is someone that's moderately acceptable. About as worthy of dislike as anyone. Nothing particularly loathsome about bigotry.
Seriously: If you thought Romney went out of his way to abuse a kid because of his sexual orientation and the most dislike you could get up for him is: "Eh, he's a politician," that says a lot about you. Why do you find the abuse of homosexuals normal and acceptable?
PS: Romney did not choose politics at a young age, gave up much of his inheritance and gives huge chunks of change to charities (along with tithing at church.) So... uh, yeah. "Love of money" is not one of his faults. There is no need for him to show his tax returns; they are as immaterial to the election as are Obama's college transcripts.
But, let's focus on why you don't seem outraged about assaults on homosexuals. (Except, of course, when you are. That's the problem with inconsistency; it is fine across threads, because people won't see it. But, in the same thread? To flip about like this? It exposes you to some very hard questions. Like: How many other groups could Romney attack viciously before you decided to dislike him as much as him simply saying something that the Obama administration ultimately agreed with? Was saying something damaging to Obama MORE offensive to you than the abuse of another human being? Why?)
The only difference between the two men is that Romney has an all comsuming love of money.
like there's nothing at all all consuming about Algore
It is literally incredible that he could not get his tax returns in order for the ten years preceding this second run at the presidency after years of political life as a governor.
how would you know? have you or someone else criminally accessed his returns?
As a note, when I say "attack viciously," I mean in the literal, physical sense, not just with words.
Matthew Sablan said...
Seriously: If you thought Romney went out of his way to abuse a kid because of his sexual orientation and the most dislike you could get up for him is: "Eh, he's a politician," that says a lot about you. Why do you find the abuse of homosexuals normal and acceptable?
I am starting to feel sorry for you. Your are an old man caught out in public forum lying about another poster. It must really sting to be exposed in such a public way. And in response you've got ... nothing.
A majority of these politicians are really dislikable people. If I were going to apply my personal ethical standards to these people I couldn't read a newspaper or a web page without exploding in rage. As I said (for the reading impaired), I didn't particularly dislike Romney. Obviously (again for the reading impaired), I did dislike him, just not particularly (again for the reading impaired) relative to many others of his ilk.
Until recently I had in fact anticipated that he would be elected president, given the electorate to whom he is appealing a gay bashing or two in his background didn't seem to be much of an impediment. I am now having second thoughts on both his electability and the acceptability of such an outcome.
Matthew Sablan said...
Seriously: If you thought Romney went out of his way to abuse a kid because of his sexual orientation and the most dislike you could get up for him is: "Eh, he's a politician," that says a lot about you. Why do you find the abuse of homosexuals normal and acceptable?
I am starting to feel sorry for you. Your are an old man caught out in public forum lying about another poster. It must really sting to be exposed in such a public way. And in response you've got ... nothing.
A majority of these politicians are really dislikable people. If I were going to apply my personal ethical standards to these people I couldn't read a newspaper or a web page without exploding in rage. As I said (for the reading impaired), I didn't particularly dislike Romney. Obviously (again for the reading impaired), I did dislike him, just not particularly (again for the reading impaired) relative to many others of his ilk.
Until recently I had in fact anticipated that he would be elected president, given the electorate to whom he is appealing a gay bashing or two in his background didn't seem to be much of an impediment. I am now having second thoughts on both his electability and the acceptability of such an outcome.
Hey, you're the one who said you didn't hold him in any particular dislike. You're the one who seems to think it is more acceptable to beat up a gay kid than it is to insult the President of the United States. I'm just asking: Why did Romney saying something mean about the president bother you more than your belief he beat a gay kid?
I mean, like, if I believed a politician went out of their way to beat someone for being different, I'd think that would be much more defining of what I think about them and much more likely to cause me to be vocal in my dislike than if they had you know, a policy disagreement. I can't figure out why the policy difference is more important to you than the person you believe he rallied a group of people to assault and traumatize.
How many other groups could Romney attack viciously before you decided to dislike him as much as him simply saying something that the Obama administration ultimately agreed with? Was saying something damaging to Obama MORE offensive to you than the abuse of another human being? Why?)
Romney attacked out diplomats, while they were under fire, in order to try to score political points on Obama. Again you don't have your facts straight. His behavior was beyond the bounds of normal political behavior, as was acknowledged by multiple Republicans.
What is curious to me is that you seem to have conceded the point on Romney regarding his assault on a gay youth. I don't have any doubt about this either. Does it make me dislike him more, no, I already had factored that into my assessment of him. It was a signifcant factor in my existing dislike of him.
"Romney attacked out diplomats, while they were under fire, in order to try to score political points on Obama."
Incorrect. His comment, in fact, was so dead on, that Hillary Clinton and Obama BOTH agreed, by pulling the offending statement.
Also, I haven't conceded the point. I have agreed that this is a belief you have. One that seems inconsistent with how you are acting. So, I can come up with a few reasons:
1. You think beating humans isn't that big of a deal
2. You think beating gay people isn't that big of a deal
3. You really think politics is more important than hurting people
4. You have always disliked Romney, a lot, and are a liar
There are others, but those are the most inflammatory.
But, I'm really going to be done here. You're clearly not reasonable, consistent nor worthy of my time any more in this thread. Per usual, I give people the benefit of the doubt in each new thread though. So, hey, next time.
Matthew Sablan,
To maintain your idiotic rage over this issue requires that you to pretend that did not see gay youths bashed while you were in school. Based on mine and my son's school experience this is very unlikely. We all saw shit like this when we were at school. It is not the end of the world. If Romney had come out and sincerely apologized for his behavior I could have forgiven him. I did some things in school that I also regret. The weasel words that he provided confirmed for me that a) he almost certainly did this and b) he doesn't feel particularly remorseful. Hence, not someone I would rush to vote for.
Matthew Sablan said...
But, I'm really going to be done here. You're clearly not reasonable, consistent nor worthy of my time any more in this thread. Per usual, I give people the benefit of the doubt in each new thread though. So, hey, next time.
Again, you really just have nothing other than recycled nonsense from talk shows. Learn to think for yourself and you will do better next time.
"Again, you really just have nothing other than recycled nonsense from talk shows. Learn to think for yourself and you will do better next time."
I had made a comment and then decided that my headache was talking and I deleted it. But when you scold someone else for not thinking for themselves I have to say that *this* is the most retarded chain of logic I can imagine.
"Notably, Romney never categorically denied the reports of gay bashing. GIven his propensity for lying that would seem to be pretty much an unqualified admission of guilt. He must know there are multiple witnesses."
If he denies he lies.
If he doesn't deny he *double* lies, extra special with frosting on top.
How do you know? Well, because he's a liar.
Maybe you'd be better off listening to some talk shows and stop trying to think for yourself.
Romney had two options, a simple categorical denial or he could have admitted he did it and apologize. Lot's of people did stupid and reprehensible things in high school.
Instead he used a lot of weasel words.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा