Daiy Kos caught smearing Hillary: Factcheck determines "photo darkening" claims "unsubstantiated"

[ada chupitos perez]

The independent website "factcheck.org" analyzed claims by the pro-Obama site Daily Kos, that Hillary Clinton's camp had darkened Obama's picture, or video, in order to make him 'blacker", and determined the claims are "unsubstantiated".

This will be top news on the internet for a few days:

(Translation: The Daily Kos wanted to play the race card yet again.)

These are the independent website's conclusions:

From the website:

Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama's image in a Clinton attack ad.

Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:

* The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.

* However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

* Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

* Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_dar...

[maddiejoan]

1. Thanks

As a graphics pro --I've been saying this too

Thanks for the post!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. And you just KNOW there will be ten threads about the debunking

This was not team Obama's proudest day

[rodeodance]

46. with 100's of hate filled slime by posters here on DU!!

[KittyWampus]

29. not only was it darkened, it was widened.

[maddiejoan]

31. Nope

http://www.factcheck.org/video/clintontruecmagcodeddown...

[Hoof Hearted]

49. By whoever put it on you-tube. READ the post. Or this one:

The Obama “darkened face” myth debunked.

Here is a shot of the you-tube video clip that started all the hype:


Here is the high-quality video as it actually appeared and was broadcast on television:



Here, if anyone wants to cry “racism” is how the same clip appeared on MSNBC’s website:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_dar...

[thunder rising]

2. Your facts do not agree with you title.

[hedgehog]

3. Hmmm..... would the You-Tube be the original ad and the one now up

on Hillary's web site be the 'ooops- someone figured out what we did better fix it quick" version?

[Hoof Hearted]

51. You usually have much luck stretching one piece of bubblegum to the moon?

Can't blame you for trying I guess, even in the face of hard evidence. Hate is such a hard habit to break.

[EmilyAnne]

4. Good to know. I didn't believe she or her campaign would do something like that.

Especially when it would be so hurtful to so many democrats AND so easy to discover. Puhlease.
I understand daily kos seeing an "irregularity" and wondering about it. That's ok to ask questions when something looks weird. Its just not helpful to jump to the most sinister conclusion first.

[Tarc]

6. Another day, another spurious charge from the Obama camp punctured

[apocalypsehow]

57. Yeah, right: clink those beer mugs together with your now tombstoned buddy, the trolling OP....

Another day, another example of how HRC fans love to link arms with disruptor's if it helps bolster their "cause"....

[rodeodance]

74. hate is not a good thing to live by.

[apocalypsehow]

106. Neither is buddying up to disruptor trolls - but you go right ahead and keep at it.

n/t.

[rodeodance]

108. what is disrupting about the OP. ??

[apocalypsehow]

110. He/She/It has been tombstoned, genius. Figure it out for yourself.

n/t.

[rodeodance]

118. hey sweetie--I asked about the OP--not the poster.

[backscatter712]

7. Sorry, I still smell a rat. n/t

[okasha]

37. Get your nose out of your . . . . .

underarm.

[ada chupitos perez]

8. Rupert Murdoch's NY Post ran this Daily Kos non-story/smear today

You know your story is crap when Murdoch runs to tell the world.

By BILL SANDERSON


March 5, 2008 -- A prominent left-wing Web site is questioning whether Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is playing the race card - by darkening the tone of Barack Obama's skin in a new TV attack ad.

The commercial, which began airing Monday in Texas, used footage from last week's Ohio debate in which Obama admits that a Senate subcommittee he has led since early 2007 hasn't held any hearings on Afghanistan because he's been too busy campaigning.

"Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial" than it appeared in the debate, wrote J. Thomas Cronin, who blogs on the Daily Kos Web site.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/news/nationalnews/...

[Political Heretic]

9. I didn't need factcheck to tell me how stupid that was.

I opened that thread, rolled my eyes and promptly closed it.

[Hoof Hearted]

54. You inspire me to clean out my "buddy" list, which I have been using as a tombstone watch

and fill it with sane and gracious Obama supporters. All this is going to be over one day, and the truth is, we need each other.

[rodeodance]

66. Thank you--good to hear from an obamafolk

[zulchzulu]

10. "Clinton ad makers may have darkened the Obama images intentionally, to some degree"

The article admits that the production did use darkening techniques. When the video was uploaded to YouTube and converted to Flash video from MP4 format (standards used by YouTube), that was closer to the digital source used. The video used by the TV station is washed out due to the file being converted to Windows Media to be used on the news streaming section on their web site. Windows Media is not broadcast quality and the conversion process usually is lighter and the sound louder.

YouTube frame with graduated background on left



Windows Media version also enlarged to larger size as well as faded graduated background

Besides all this, the video of Obama WAS darkened as per the article. That's the point.

I've been doing digital video production for years and can talk about codecs, formats, conversion standards all day long.

[Hoof Hearted]

85. "Had the bloggers compared the CMAG version of the ad to the MSNBC version of the debate"

Our conclusion: Had the bloggers compared the CMAG version of the ad to the MSNBC version of the debate, they would have a far less compelling case for intentional darkening in the Clinton ad. To our eye the Clinton ad has a noticeably less reddish hue, but whether it looks darker or not depends on which version of the ad is being compared to which version of the original debate footage.

[kwenu]

11. Did they say anything about Hillary's campaign creating the "He's a muslim" e-mail????

[rodeodance]

50. Stay focused or go start your own thread please

[joshcryer]

12. Just goes to show who the real race baiters are.

Same in SC.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. just because the whole picture is darker & not just his skin doesn't mean the intent wasnt' the same

[Beregond2]

14. Just because...

Exactly!

[rodeodance]

123. listen to your vile. shameful!

[Bread and Circus]

15. I'm sorry but I don't think factcheck has some extra sensory powers the rest of us do not.

I've watched both videos (Clinton's commercial and the original debate clip) and it's very clear that it's been doctored.

factcheck.org is highly over rated as it is. Rarely do I come away from that site knowing more than when I went to it.

Their position is that is the artifact of the youtube video that makes Obama darker and wider. However, why doesn't this artifact of darkness extend to his shirt (which is actually whiter) or to Hillary herself? It only seems to affect Obama's visage...strange indeed.

[ada chupitos perez]

16. hmm, let's see. A team of video experts vs. a DU'ers called 'bread and circus'

tough choice.

[zulchzulu]

18. The "team of video experts" failed to mention the sources were from different video formats

Besides, the article DOES admit that the Hillary camp DID darken the video. That's the point.

[Bread and Circus]

19. go look for yourself...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/...

and tell me why the letters and logos weren't desaturated, darkened, and widened?

In that youtube video Hillary has good color and proper proportion.

If this was a "youtube" technical artifact, everything would be distorted, not just the black guys face.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. The "widen" is a fucking HOAX

How can you disseminate lies like that?

The "widen" picture is not taken from the actual TV ad, it is taken from an internet posting of the ad where the entire ad is stretched to wide-screen format in the little playing window.

The actual TV ad was not "widened." It is 1:1.33.

The little picture there is taken from the original 1:1.33 ad stretched to wide-screen 1:1.66.

That is a malicious hoax... the image shown is NOT FROM THE TV AD.

You have been royally punked, and yet you keep spreading this.

[Bread and Circus]

53. Again you are asking me to not believe my own eyes...when Obama's image

in the ad is the only thing that is distorted. Not the lettering. Not the logos. Not Hillary's face either. Some how the aspect ratio only applies to Obama's face. I'm not talking about still shots, I'm talking about the videos.

Watch the videos, freeze the frames, move your eyes back and forth from one image to the other. You will see in the Clinton ad Obama is darker, desaturated of natural color, and wider. It's easy to see.

Of course, this could be "youtube" artifact, but then everything else should be darker, desaturated, and wider. But it's not.

[rodeodance]

64. Your own eyes see thru the lens of HATE!! your credibility is ZERO

[seabeyond]

79. rodeodance. i expect more out of you. nu uh. i dont hate. anyone

but i do like truth. i want truth.

[rodeodance]

105. this posts are terrible--thread after thread!! and you know that!

[seabeyond]

107. no. i know that something is up with the picture. i want to know why

if hillary doctored the film then she had to do it with the expectation that someone might notice and might have to explain herself. i am asking why. i dont want it to be the reason that is obvious. blogslut cam up with another plausible reason. but it is important to know why.

i wont do another four years of this type of politics.

[rodeodance]

112. yes. IF doctored. but to ASSume it came from hill camp even before you

know is stupid. In addition--'all things clinton" have gotten attached to the vile comments.
enough said.

[seabeyond]

77. this is what get me. it is visible. you are looking at it and hillary suppporters

insist there is nothing to see. kinda like that nothing to see all, move along..... when looking at it say uh hu.

[k8conant]

17. "And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads."

It says it right there. I rest my case.

[NMMNG]

20. No way!

Next thing you know you're going to tell me Hillary doesn't eat kittens.

[Catherine Vincent]

21. The Obama supporters that are jumping on this are fools.

That's all I have to say.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Okay, smartass. Explain this then:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-ni...

[LisaL]

24. Oh dear lord.

How long are we gonna be subjected to this?
The letters are on the pajamas because it says "good night."
Get a clue.

[Sparkly]

40. This IS a joke, right??

Btw, I hear if you play a Clinton ad backwards it says "Obama is a black man. Pass it on."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. ACKKKKKKK!!!!! GOOD NIGHT PAJAMAS!!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!! THE HORRRRRRRRORRRR!!!!!

Get 'em away! GET 'EM AWAY!!!!!!!!!

[Hoof Hearted]

86. oooooooooo noooooooes!

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Would this be the factcheck.org mentioned here?

In defense of Allen, Cal Thomas cited FactCheck.org's already-debunked criticism of Vote Vets ad
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280002

Ignoring change after Kerry rating, FactCheck.org claimed National Journal has used same "rigorous process ... since 1981"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140013

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610300009

Media Still Using Debunked FactCheck.org Analysis to Discredit VoteVets Ad in Senate Contests
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280011

FactCheck.org...Wrong on the Facts
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220012 ?

From the annals of pseudo-analysis
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060404.shtml

Meanwhile, partisans link to the stories they like. On Tuesday, Eric Alterman said that ABC was “lying for Bush” and summarized Robinson—thereby offering an account of the facts which strongly cut against Bush. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan—saying there’s “not much there”—linked to an absurdly Bush-friendly account produced by Brooks Jackson at factcheck.org, a brand-new Annenberg operation. How absurd is Jackson’s account? He lavishes time on those two Bush friends—friends who recall Bush saying he was pulling Guard duty. But incredibly, other evidence sleeps with the fishes. Incredibly, Jackson doesn’t mention the May 1973 report in which Bush’s superiors at Ellington air base said he’d been absent for the whole year. It’s simply astounding that this report was produced by a man who was, until recently, CNN’s ballyhooed fact-checking star. Annenberg should be embarrassed to have this laughable report on its site.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020504.shtml

Factcheck.org explains who is right about social security:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050405.shtml

They don't exactly have a clean record on "fact checking"

Sorry, I'm waiting for the definitive answer from Uncle Cecil or snopes.com

[ada chupitos perez]

26. Out of thousands of fact-checks, you cherry-pick counter-criticism that we don't know to be fair

And you determine by this "analysis" that the website has no credibility? ha!

Factcheck.org is the top fact-checking site in the United State.
It defended Kerry from the Swifties, too.

[Diane R]

38. Good work.

[mmonk]

47. Yeah, factcheck has had its own issues and it is known.

I haven't participated in the darkening drama either here or at Dkos. I frankly don't care at this point. There are many claims and counterclaims. I worry more right now at the massive increase of personal attacks in the media on the frontrunner Obama with little real "there" and the power politics and deliberate misinformation to try to crush the Obama voters.

[Hoof Hearted]

25. THANK YOU for bringing this here. It was effin ridiculous in the first place.

Like stretching one piece of bubblegum to the moon.


(Translation: The Daily Kos wanted to play the race card yet again.)

Indeed.

Bookmarking, kicking and recommending.

[ada chupitos perez]

28. It is the "race war" that has brought Obama to his position as front-runner

Remember that a lot of African Americans, though still a minority, supported Hillary before claims of racism surfaced after Hillary criticized Dwight Eisenhower for not doing enough for civil rights (Obama supporters never told us this part, because Hillary bashing a white guy doesn't fit the script), praising Lyndon B. Johnson for doing his part and regretting that JFK had not been able to do anything about it because he died.

Even the "fairy tale" comments about Obama's war record was strangely labeled as "racially insensitive".

[Hoof Hearted]

33. Not too long ago the right was throwing accusation of Bill fathering black babies as a way of

illustrating without actually coming out and saying "Hey, these Clinton's like black people just a little too much."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Can you blame anyone for suspecting Hillary of such shenanigans . . .

given all the other crap she's pulled? I sure don't.

[ada chupitos perez]

32. They suspected her of Whitewater. They suspected her of Vince Foster

Can you blame anyone for believing these new accusations are part of the bullshit?

[Medusa]

36. We have eyes. We can see this.

We have ears. We know what we heard in SC. We know what we heard and saw on 60 minutes. Keep denying it exists if you'd like but this is now getting media play.

[rodeodance]

43. lame --hundreds of slime posters all feeding on HATE--that is what was 'seen"!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Yes, I Absolutely Can.

This accusation was beyond absurd and anyone thinking clearly should've been able to see it for what it was in a friggin heartbeat. But so many have lost the ability to think clearly, and instead just knee jerk without any scrutiny or common sense whatsoever, that this story actually got life to it and tons of people were running around making fools of themselves.

This should've been a no brainer right out of the gate, period. The accusations were not only beyond stupid, but beyond distasteful and melodramatic. Common sense easily should've been able to dismiss this out of hand.

[DeepModem Mom]

34. K&R

[TheWebHead]

35. ohh, okay, if they darken the entire ad

then it's okay to darken up the black candidate. That entire Time magazine cover was darkened up too, so I guess factcheck.org is okay with that too. I'm sure republicans will note this for future reference.

[JimGinPA]

39. In Their Totally Subjective Opinion - They Have No Idea

[seabeyond]

52. and of course that clears hillary and all of us fools, cause we can clearly see the color

change. hillary, just give us the friggin answer and we will be done with it. and none of us have to play the game anymore.

[Lord Helmet]

41. So, they darkened the entire ad for what purpose?

racist a-holes

[Liquorice]

44. Haven't you ever seen

an oppositional campaign ad? They're almost all dark like that. It's nothing new.

[seabeyond]

42. wtf... you make it sound like it clears them, yet reading stating there was darkening

where are you seeing hillary cleared on this.

[ada chupitos perez]

45. It says attack ads are darkened, and that Hillary's face is also darkened

And that the somber, dark mood of the ad is justified.

But of course, you have to cherrypick facts in order to justify the smear.

[seabeyond]

48. oh bullshit. i want the truth and i am tired of having to work thru words

and mislead and untruths and denials and excuses and justifying to find the truth

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. You Mean, There's A Common Sense Explanation That Any Reasonable And Rational Person Already Knew?

I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

Chalk this up as a no brainer...

[apocalypsehow]

59. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! myself, that you're buddying up with another tombstoned disruptor.

Well, not really...

[laugle]

60. I knew it was bogus, and so is the claim that the

Hillary camp put out the photo of Obama in Kenya, like you can really believe the "SLUDGE/DRUDGE" report!

Want to hear another funny one I noticed on MSNBC last night, they had two really nice pictures of Hillary and Obama, and then I noticed they had doctored-up his ears. His ears were flat and it looked like they had put someone else's ears on him. More likely they just air-brushed them. I wonder if anyone else noticed?

There seem to be a lot of people creating mischief...........

[apocalypsehow]

61. *Kick* for all the HRC supporters to come back in and lavish praise on the OP, their newest hero

in the DU GD: P wars....

[apocalypsehow]

62. This OP got 19 "recommends" on a very bogus basis. I'd be interested in hearing the justifications

for those "recommends" from an obvious troll, HRC supporters - if you have an ounce of integrity or self-respect left. I won't be holding my breath.

[gustapof]

65. Since you can't criticize Fatcheck.org's argument, go after the OP!

Shooting the messenger is a bad way to win an argument. You didn't even shoot the REAL messenger, which is Factcheck.org, but instead shot the guy who copy and pasted Factcheck's findings. I don't blame you though. There is nothing to justify the Daily Kos' attempted smear.

[apocalypsehow]

68. I didn't "go after the OP" - the mods did. And it looks like they got him/her/it...

n/t.

[gustapof]

70. You went after him/her too

And listen to your logic: "The OP who linked to Factcheck.org was banned, therefore Daily Kos was right".

LOL. No one plays dumb like an Obama supporter.

[apocalypsehow]

72. Cry me a river.

n/t.

[seabeyond]

83. huh? someone got banned over this thread. ??? geez, blink and miss something. n/t

[rodeodance]

119. i wonder if it was over this or something else? No one is being clear about this issue.

[apocalypsehow]

63. The silence from the Hillary Clinton supporters who slobbered love over this OP is deafening....

n/t.

[gustapof]

67. wow, you just posted 4 messeges in a row. Are you that angry?

And why do you keep ignoring Factcheck.org, focusing instead on a DU'er? Was the DU'er who analyzed the video?
I thought it had been analyzed by a team of video experts from factcheck.org.

[apocalypsehow]

69. "ada chupitos perez," is that you?

n/t.

[gustapof]

71. apocalypsehow, wanna talk about Factcheck.org? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

73. Cry me a river.

n/t.

[gustapof]

76. Can you say that 5 or 6 more times?

It works as a "kick" to the thread.

[apocalypsehow]

81. And this *WAS* your thread originally, wasn't it?

n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Ah, and now *YOU'RE* gone from our fine forum, too. AGAIN. But you made many HRC supporters happy

with your smears, right up until the moment you were TOS'D. Telling, that. And quite pitiful.

[rodeodance]

78. your posts are shameful. As were posters conjuring up hate on this issue!!

[apocalypsehow]

82. Go ahead and support your tombstoned buddy the OP some more - I'll leave it to DU's legitimate

members to sort out who has been "shameful" or not.

[rodeodance]

122. Not my buddy. You are foolish to ASSume that.

[jsmirman]

80. Whoa. All of a sudden the website's "video team" is a "team of video experts"?

That's quite a transition you're working there.

I think that- as it was from the first this ad was brought up- the issue is still unclear.

I would very much like to know the source of the frames that people are using to show the "non youtube" version of the ad. Because if it's Hillary's website, well, that would make it a useless reference point.

[gustapof]

84. Yes, they are video experts, unlike the Daily Kos anonymous diarists and Obama hacks

Including the obscure guy who posted the smear.

Factcheck only hires experts. It is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The Daily Kos is a website where ANYONE can create a post and spew the most baseless accusations, including this one.

Do not compare one with the other. It's prestrige vs. bias:

http://www.factcheck.org/about/

[apocalypsehow]

87. False - your OP here has been proven phony. Why would any legitimate DU member believe you?

n/t.

[Motorolaman]

93. Has Factcheck.org been proven phoney? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

99. And another disruptor bites the dust...HRC supporters, you must be real proud, huh?

n/t.

[jsmirman]

97. how exactly was the OP proven "phony"?

I missed this.

[apocalypsehow]

100. Your inability to keep up is not my problem, genius.

n/t.

[jsmirman]

109. Uh, this is definitely a sign of the need for deep breaths around here

I'm someone who has- after a period before my primary of being undecided- lined up behind Obama.

My posts on DU could probably be characterized as "trying to remain civil to Hillary supporters and occasionally failing."

But I was asking a question, and you seem to be running a bit ahead of yourself, tonight.

[apocalypsehow]

113. Peddle it elsewhere - I'm not interested.

n/t.

[jsmirman]

115. I'm a poster WHO FAVORS OBAMA (caps, since you're slow on the uptake)

Good lord, you are a jack***.

This is a new one for me in internet debates. Friendly fire, lol. Wow, the level of discourse here is pretty busted sometimes...

[apocalypsehow]

116. As I said - peddle it elsewhere. Your special pleading doesn't interest me. Thanks.

n/t.

[jsmirman]

95. Fair point that it's a reputable organization, still not sure

that I'm seeing a "team of video experts" there, as the closest thing I can find on their staff is a former PA for Bill Moyers. Now, the funny thing is that my sister worked for Bill Moyers a lot longer than that woman did, and the idea of calling her a "video expert"

There are facts and non-facts.

Your point is not without legitimacy, but it just doesn't establish the credentials of the people who supposedly came to this conclusion.

And I still believe that it is a legitimate question to insist that they spell out exactly how they sourced their video images.

[seabeyond]

90. yes it is unclear. we look and see doctoring. do we know

wtf it is about... no we dont. we are left guessing. but clearly we can see it. then hillary supporters come on and call us all kinds of names, that we are stupid, hateful and all kinds of things as we clearly look and see the change in the picture. all we are asking is why the fuck was the picture changed.

so answer hillary

then we can move on.

[berni_mccoy]

75. HA! WRONG! FACT CHECK CAUGHT POSTING DOCTORED FILE! SEE HERE === >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Hoof Hearted]

88. You just linked TO YOURSELF?

This is why I have my ignore list on hold. Sometimes it's just too fucking entertaining.

[berni_mccoy]

91. I linked to a post I made that DEBUNKS this b.s. story the OP posted.

[seabeyond]

94. bah hahah, to the bah hahahh of the poster that linked to your other post

but in confusion found such humor in thinking you posted to self, which you did post to self, but just aother self, not this self. lol lol

i think it is time for bed,

was a day today

[DemBones DemBones]

89. Obama supporters take their cues from Obama: lie, lie, lie,

distort, distort, distort. Accuse your opponent of racism. Did he do that to Alan Keyes, too???

[seabeyond]

92. no, we look at a doctored picture and say wtf. we want to know why

instead of name calling, pretending picture was doctored, ignoring or dismissing, just tell us why it was doctored.

[bitingforest]

98. Attack ads are often made darker to give a somber tone

Factcheck explained that and it is a well-known fact in the graphic design and advertising world.

[seabeyond]

104. i dont want fact check to guess why hillary darkened obama....

that is not a satisfying answer, not is it necessarily a correct one. it is their guess...

[rodeodance]

120. good gawd. anyone trying to reason with you is doomed.!!

[apocalypsehow]

96. Just keep cuddling up to your buddy the OP - he only seems to be able to answer through sockpuppets

n/t.

[emilyg]

114. You must enjoy living with so much hate.

[apocalypsehow]

117. You must enjoy living with so many disruptor's, misdirected freepers, and outright trolls....

Thankfully, the DU Admin & Mods do not.

[springflower]

101. Daily Kos diarist applied the "Clinton rules" described by Krugman

Krugman (February 11, 2008):

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.htm...

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

111. Thanks for facts.

[rodeodance]

121. i note facts did not appy to obamafolk who choose to just hate for sake of hating.

[Hoof Hearted]

124. I forgot to say. I have thought KOS was full of shit since before '04.

So I have the conscience of being consistent.

[maddezmom]

125. locking

The OP is no longer with us.