John McCain introducer David Bellavia disparages Tiger Woods (and Barack Obama)
It's very unfortunate that Tiger Woods has to face another racially insensitive remark (see Kelly Tilghman's remark for the most recent and then, of course, who can forget Fuzzy Zoeller's outrageous reception for Tiger at the 1997 Masters), this time on the day before the Masters by David Bellavia, a person chosen to introduce John McCain at a war rally.
Referring to Barack Obama, Bellavia said: "You can have your Tiger Woods, we've got Senator McCain....This is the real audacity of hope." It's also unfortunate that John McCain said nothing about this slam on Tiger Woods. Just because Tiger's black, his name is thrown out there as associated with Barack Obama, all in a disparaging way. The race card. Outrageous! Earl Woods, of course, was a Green Beret and Vietnam veteran, so to have his son's name invoked in an insulting fashion at a war rally apparently by another military man is appalling.
31 Comments:
Great catch. It will be interesting to see what kind of play this might get in the political (and golf) world.
Too bad you can't take the comment for what it really is. Isn't it odd that people who cry about racism are the ones stirring up the racist arguments? What is wrong with Bellavia's desire for his children to love a hero who risked his life for his country instead of someone who makes millions of dollars for playing golf? There is nothing wrong with Woods, of course, but since when is it not right for an American to choose who they want to honor?
if you want to contend the race card, tiger is 1/8 black and obama is half African. Of course, it is the both of them who play the race card to their full benefit.
It is very surprising how a person can be so insensitive and show their ignorance with no respect for a deceased vet's son while trying to uplift another vet. It wasn't ok!!!!!
G Bee
"Too bad you can't take the comment for what it really is."
It was designed to point out the fact that a highly intelligent, successful man of color is still and never will be the equal of a highly intelligent, successful white man.
What if he had said, "You can keep your Tiger Woods. We've got Phil Michelson!"
Yeah. Thought so.
His comment had nothing to do with race. The remark was a reference to Barack Obama's star power in the Democrat Party, and he was comparing it to Tiger Woods' star power in golf. It was also a comparison of ideology. You and people like you brought up the race card.
Get. A. Grip. Stop being so freaking sensitive.
"It was designed to point out the fact that a highly intelligent, successful man of color is still and never will be the equal of a highly intelligent, successful white man."
Really? Did you ask him that, and he told you that personally? Otherwise you have to take the comment for what it was, unless you claim you can read minds.
What if he had said, "You can keep your Tiger Woods. We've got Phil Michelson!"
Bogus argument. First, he didn't say that, and second, if you're comparing personality differences, there are those that would choose Phil Mickelson over Tiger Woods.
What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt before automatically playing the race card?
Oh Please...
Any chance "The Golf Blog" can start having posts about, oh I don't know, golf?
In case you were wondering, Tiger Wood's name being mentioned in a political rally introduction or who Michelle Wie is dating is not golf related.
That being said, you could take what was said in a number of ways. Personally, I took it as meaning in the bigger picture, what McCain has done and gone through is much more important and should be recognized as such than the media rock star treatment that people like Obama and Tiger experiance.
Does racism exist, sure. It you want to see what real racism is, search YouTube for James Meeks and Jeremiah Wright, two preachers that Obama has listed as spiritual advisors. Once I hear an uproar over the overt, blatant racism that those two unapologetically spout, then feel free to start digging for racism in a speech like this.
""It was designed to point out the fact that a highly intelligent, successful man of color is still and never will be the equal of a highly intelligent, successful white man."
Tom Blogical said...
"Really? Did you ask him that, and he told you that personally? Otherwise you have to take the comment for what it was, unless you claim you can read minds.""
Right back at you....How do you know that "taking it for it was" means taking it as a racial comment. You no more know it is racial then a comment about star power, intelligence, or anything else.
"Right back at you....How do you know that "taking it for it was" means taking it as a racial comment. You no more know it is racial then a comment about star power, intelligence, or anything else."
I took it for what it was because I do not automatically look for the worst in people, unless they have a proven track record that says otherwise. Given that presumption of innocence, and not guilt, that's how I came to that conclusion. So, I take it you automatically look for the worst in people, particularly when they differ with you ideologically? That happens to be a main general difference between conservatives and liberals, by the way.
Let's compare this non-issue with Michael Richards' incident at the Laugh Factory. Now that's what I call a racist, disparaging diatribe. The introduction for John McCain isn't even close. The fact that I had to show you the difference is abominable.
Let me ask the question once again, what ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt before automatically playing the race card?
As is usually the case, the race card gets played and used as a weapon in an attempt to control what someone can and cannot say. It's used in an attempt to shield someone from any type of criticism or any other comment deemed "inappropriate". The "inappropriateness" of the comment or criticism, of course, is always dictated by the person playing the race card.
I'm with andrewsdad. How about we focus on something here we all agree on--GOLF. Otherwise, this blog becomes more of a personal opinion blog than an general golf blog.
Come on folks. At a minimum it was a boneheaded mistake. It amazes me how hard it is for so many otherwise decent Caucasion Americans to have some sense of what might be considered insensitive. Here's a hint: it's not necessary to compare Black people only to Black people. That would keep you out of trouble, because the underlying read will always be "they're basically all the same or it's us vs. them." It's really not that hard nor is it asking too much. This is not a case of playing the "race card." Reasonable people might say "jeez what was THAT all about?"
Tiger Woods is by any measure an outstanding individual. He is a model of what we can aspire to be as sportsmen and Americans. If the statement was not meant to be disparaging or at least devisive why on earth would he put Tiger in another camp. Why would we want to "keep our Tiger Woods?" I would! I want to be on Tigers team the real question is who wouldn't.
Are you guys kidding me? I was there. Bellavia was saying that his kids will grow up to admire real heroes who serve their country and not sports figures who make millions of dollars. This has nothing to do with race. NOTHING. Why does everything have to be about race? I assure Bellavia is not a racist.
Wow! It's amazing that some of you try to deny this as a racist statement. Overt racism (if that's what you want to call Rev. Wright's preachings) are much better than covert in that at least you know what you're getting.
This person clearly made the analogy to point out that Tiger Woods was the first man w/ black blood (even 1/8) to become a sensation in the golf world. Barack Obama was the first black (1/2) to become a phenomenon in the political realm, at least running for presidency. Duh!!!
It's the people like some of you, not Rev. Wright or Meeks, who perpetuate racism because you fail to confront it!
No he didn't "clearly made the analogy to point out that Tiger Woods was the first man w/ black blood (even 1/8) to become a sensation in the golf world" I and others have stated they thought he was making the point that someone like John McCain was the real hero, not those who have done less important things but have been turned into superstars by the media.
Watch the Bellavia video and then watch this video of Meeks
Unless your definition of racism is something other than treating people differently based on the color of their skin, how anyone could possibly say that Meeks is not the racist here is mind boggling.
And by the way, Meeks he also hates gays.
Picking Tiger Woods was way too conspicuous. If it was about picking a sports hero, obviously there are a pantheon of white sports heroes he could have picked. It may not have been racist, but it WAS about race, at least on a subconscious level. Way too many people in our society think race first - that goes for whites and blacks.
The problem in this case was that the context was one of at least slighty disparaging Barack in order to pump up the crowd for McCain. If he wasn't being derogatory then this wouldn't be a big deal. Picking Tiger is tantamount to saying "He's just another Black superstar." At least that's how fairly reasonable people could interpret it.
By the way, it doesn't mean that he's a fundamentally bad guy. He just did, very publically, what a lot of people do in their thoughs: Black guy = Black guy.
To begin with, David Bellavia received the Silver Star for valor above and beyond the call of duty in a much more dangerous sandtrap than anything on the PGA tour. He has not only earned our gratitude for risking his life for all of us, you owe him the respect of the benefit of the doubt that he'd say something openly racist at a presidential campaign rally.
The remark wasn't racist, nor a slam at Woods' remarkable talent and accomplishments. Bellavia was giving an abbreviated form of the speech he's been giving for Vets For Freedom, where he's regularly compared sports and entertainment heroes to the men and women he served with. He wasn't disparaging Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods, nor Obama. He was simply saying that soldiers are more heroic than sports stars.
In Kansas City, his speech regarding the same theme, included noting various athletes and Hollywood stars from Tiger Woods to Tom Cruise, among several, that people call "heroes" when, in fact, he served with real heroes and was on tour with some real heroes.
This person clearly made the analogy to point out that Tiger Woods was the first man w/ black blood (even 1/8) to become a sensation in the golf world.
So Bellavia is a racist for thinking that risking your life is more heroic than dropping a putt, but you're not disrespecting great golfers like Lee Eldred, Charlie Sifford, and Calvin Peete?
Woods being a sensation has absolutely nothing to do with his being black (ironic in light of his multiracial roots and rejection of race). Woods is sensational because he may be the greatest golfer ever, easily in the top five and most likely in a class by himself. Actually, I don't think there's ever been an athlete in any sport as good at their sport as Tiger is. I'm sure that David Bellavia would agree.
If anything is clear, its that we've become a nation of babies. We'll continue to have this non-issue nonsense on the front page of our papers and in segments on FOX news everyday while the country continues to be ripped apart by an instigating "politically-correct" media and a government that has completely failed its people.
"I and others have stated they thought he was making the point that someone like John McCain was the real hero, not those who have done less important things but have been turned into superstars by the media."
Of course you did...always find a way to rationalize and excuse it. That's what's mindboggling. I'll come back to Meeks in a minute though.
"So Bellavia is a racist for thinking that risking your life is more heroic than dropping a putt, but you're not disrespecting great golfers like Lee Eldred, Charlie Sifford, and Calvin Peete?"
Seriously??? Ok, if this is not a statement about race, then why would Tiger Woods be compared to Barack Obama? What do they have in common other than their multicultural roots? Why is someone in the sports world being compared to a politician? Why not another politician? And most importantly, who is "they" and who is "we"? "They can keep their Tiger Woods"...that is what he said right???
Again, CLEARLY, if this was just about a sports hero, then why not make the comparison of Obama to a white athlete?
Some of you will never cease to make excuses. Like I said, this world would be a much better place if EVERYONE(yes, blacks included) confronted their prejudices head on and admitted to making them.
I'm sure he's not a bad person, but I'm also sure that this wasn't a mere coincidence of randomly bringing up someone in the sports world to compare to Obama.If you truly believe that, you're completely in denial.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad at the comparison. I happen to agree w/ the analogy part of it. Both men of multicultural roots have entered a mainly "whites only" arena, and done exceptionally. & it's actually a compliment to Obama. Tiger Woods is a wonderful golfer and a stand-up guy! I'll take em both!
By the way, about Meeks and Wright. My definition of racism consists of two parts: 1) it involves one believing in the superiority of their race and their right to rule based on it; 2) the hatred or intolerance of another based on their race. What you said, "treating others differently because of the color of their skin" is called "discrimination". Therefore, some blacks have been guilty of only the 2nd part (such as Wright), so reverse racism can only exist to a certain part, which Meeks and Wright are guilty of. Some whites have been guilty of both parts, as well as the discrimination. Blacks generally don't even have the "power" to discriminate against anyone, and neither Meeks nor Wright has preached that blacks are superior to and/or should rule over whites. That's the full extent of racism. So why should Wright and Meeks apologize for being angry about treatment they received growing up when most whites won't admit to their prejudices?
I do respect your opinion andrewsdad, but I disagree.
As far as grace goes, I wasn't even going to touch her comment, but I just have to ask...when has Tiger Woods EVER used the race card to his benefit??? Wow...what an amazingly "different" comment.
Ok, if this is not a statement about race, then why would Tiger Woods be compared to Barack Obama?
First off, the Olbermann show used two small edits from Bellavia's introduction to make him look as bad as possible. The took the Woods remark way out of context then juxtaposed it with the "real audacity of hope" introduction to make it seem like he was somehow associating Woods with Obama and comparing them negatively to McCain.
You should be mad at Olbermann for manipulating you, not at Bellavia, who is a noble human being.
He wasn't comparing Woods to Obama. He was comparing sports heroes to real heroes. He never even mentioned Obama. As I said before, it's part of his regular speech he gives for Vets For Freedom where he compares "heroes" from the sports and entertainment world to true heroes.
Why is someone in the sports world being compared to a politician? Why not another politician?
If he's comparing an athlete to any politician, the politician is McCain not Obama. Bellavia was introducing McCain. He adapted his normal speech that already talks about the brave men and women he served, because McCain, after all, was a war hero and POW.
And he does actually compared McCain to another politician. That's why he used Obama's "audacity of hope" tagline when finally introducing McCain.
And most importantly, who is "they" and who is "we"? "They can keep their Tiger Woods".
"They" are the people that would disregard the true heroism of someone like John McCain.
You're seeing ghosts. There is no racism in Bellavia's remarks.
"Some of you will never cease to make excuses. Like I said, this world would be a much better place if EVERYONE(yes, blacks included) confronted their prejudices head on and admitted to making them."
Speak for yourself. You are presuming everyone has the same prejudices as YOU have. If you have these prejudices and feel guilty about them, then do something about it. But don't sit there and project YOUR prejudices onto everyone else.
This goes back to my comment about giving the benefit of the doubt to people, unless they have a proven track record otherwise, instead of just presuming the worst in people.
Apparently, you're admitting you have a track record, and you're lumping everyone into the same category to make yourself feel better.
Don't you think people working in a presidential campaign on either side of the aisle would've been smart enough to make sure a person with a track record of racist remarks would never introduce their candidate?
Now then, when you actually have proof Bellavia is a racist, come back and comment then. Otherwise, you're seeing ghosts, as A.R.W. Editors said.
Accusing Bellavia of racism is ludicrous. Why is the media twisting this into something it is not?
David Bellavia responds http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/8628/
I personally think that Tiger Woods would be proud to shake David's hand and took this comment just as it was intended. For most of the people in my generation race does not matter. Those who are maliciously manipulating words need to remember the "Golden Rule"!
Mr. Bellavia implied you can have your mixed race candidate we have our all white McCain. Senitor McCain was right behind Bellavia when he made the statement and never denounced or rejected the comments. Would it be OK for Hillary’s people to say you can have your George Burns we have Hillary Clinton or Can Barack’s people get away with saying you can have your typical white woman we have Barack Obama?
"You are presuming everyone has the same prejudices as YOU have. If you have these prejudices and feel guilty about them, then do something about it."
Oh is that what I'm doing? Did you ask me that, as you said to someone else they should do to Bellavia? Your holier than thou attitude appalls me! I'm not assuming everyone has the same prejudices as me. But at least I'm woman enough to admit I have them. I bet you do too. Didn't you say something about a difference between conseratives and liberals??? And I quote, "So, I take it you automatically look for the worst in people, particularly when they differ with you ideologically? That happens to be a main general difference between conservatives and liberals, by the way." Hmmm sounds like a prejudiced, categorical statement to me, lumping all conseratives and liberals into your own distinct categories...racial or not...but YOU look for the best in ALL people right??? Yep, didn't think so.
"Apparently, you're admitting you have a track record, and you're lumping everyone into the same category to make yourself feel better."
I don't need anyone to make me feel better about myself. I generally judge people not by how they look, but by what they say and do. But, I have no problem admitting that I think some things are more characteristic of certain races than they are of others. For instance, it's more common for blacks to have a soul food dinner every Sunday, just as it's more common for whites to attend a hockey game. That's not to say that whites don't have soul food dinners, especially in the south, nor that blacks don't like hockey. Have you ever seen the movie Crash? Well your comments remind me of Ryan Phillipe's character...he was such a stand up guy about racial equality, and he helped the black guy out and everyone loved him. But as soon as the black guy reached in his pocket he shot him b/c deep down he assumed he had a gun. He was really a good person and "tried to find the good in everybody," (like you right) but he harbored certain prejudices. That's all I'm saying while you're getting so sensitive. People have prejudices whether they admit them or whether they themselves are in denial about them.
"Now then, when you actually have proof Bellavia is a racist, come back and comment then."
How dare you tell me when I can and cannot comment on a blog? Who do you think you are? Bellavia probably isn't a racist, but he made a comment based on race...period. Was he speaking on Tiger's star power in golf compared to Obama's star power in the Democratic party like you said...yep! Was the comparison made b/c of a multiracial athlete breaking barriers in golf such as a multiracial politician breaking barriers in the democratic party...yep! Like I said before, it was certainly a good comparison, both of them are exceptional men, so it was nothing to be pissed about, but it was based on race. Now then, when YOU actually have proof that his comment wasn't based on race, YOU bring it to this OPEN forum where i have the right to say whatever I please!~
"Oh is that what I'm doing? Did you ask me that, as you said to someone else they should do to Bellavia?"
Did you, or did you not, say this in your comment?
"Some of you will never cease to make excuses. Like I said, this world would be a much better place if EVERYONE(yes, blacks included) confronted their prejudices head on and admitted to making them."
"Hmmm sounds like a prejudiced, categorical statement to me, lumping all conseratives and liberals into your own distinct categories...racial or not...but YOU look for the best in ALL people right??? Yep, didn't think so."
I also said,
"I took it for what it was because I do not automatically look for the worst in people, unless they have a proven track record that says otherwise."
Have you, or have you not, assumed the worst in Bellavia right off the bat, without any evidence otherwise? The prevailing liberal attitude is to assume the worst in people. There is a proven track record. Obama just put down a bunch of Pennsylvanians last week for clinging to religion and bigotry in small towns recently, for example. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, and you're not one of them.
"How dare you tell me when I can and cannot comment on a blog? Who do you think you are?"
I think you're blowing what I said out of proportion, which obviously, is par for the course for you. I should have added, "...unless you want to make an idiot out of yourself." There, that's better.
Come back and make an idiot out of yourself whenever you like. I won't mind.
"Now then, when YOU actually have proof that his comment wasn't based on race, YOU bring it to this OPEN forum where i have the right to say whatever I please!~"
By the way, I forgot. In a country where people are innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you and others to prove Bellavia's supposed "guilt" in this non-issue.
Good luck with that, because at the moment you're failing miserably.
Bellavia probably isn't a racist..."
Well, if he "probably" isn't a racist, then it isn't a stretch to assume he "probably" didn't have race in mind with his comments.
Unless you're trying really, really hard to inject race into the conversation. As a person like yourself would.
"The prevailing liberal attitude is to assume the worst in people. There is a proven track record. Obama just put down a bunch of Pennsylvanians last week for clinging to religion and bigotry in small towns recently, for example. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, and you're not one of them."
You can TRY to justify YOUR prejudice however you want, but ASSuming ALL liberals are one way and ALL conservatives are another, is a PREJUDICED assumption. You're no better than anyone, even though by the way you talk you obviously think you are.
By the way, you know NOTHING about me. You probably assume I'm some angry African-American woman...well I'm neither angry nor African-American. I'm not even close to being a racist. Racism is defined as HATING another race and/or thinking yours is superior to and/or should rule others (much like you think the mindset of conservatives is superior to that of liberals, which is no surprise coming from "a person like yourself"). I think neither. I love all people. I, however, recognize that there are differences (and admit them). And, I recognize that some people don't always say things out of the goodness of their heart, as much as we would like to believe they do.
And the same way you're taking Obama's words out of context are the same way you're accusing others of taking your precious Bellavia's words out of context. But I guess it's ok when a conservative does it, right? Obama wasn't trying to put anyone down, he was simply stating a fact, albeit phrasing it improperly (which he admitted to, unlike many conservatives out here who never admit to their faults...like you). People are pissed off, mad, and yes BITTER about the course of their lives, mostly due to the messed up government and conservatives such as Bush who were running it! The economy is basically in a recession, and we're about to be in a war for "maybe the next 100 years" killing off innocent people because of Bush and conservatives...like you...who agree with his methods.
"Come back and make an idiot out of yourself whenever you like. I won't mind."
Calling me names now...that's very mature. NOT. That's the conservative way though huh. You obviously can't have a debate without resorting to name calling because I disagree w/ you. Sounds a lot like McCain's proven track record...several senators will agree (yep, conservative ones). Yeah, you can keep him. As admirable as being a war hero is, that doesn't put you first in line to be president of the U.S.
"In a country where people are innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you and others to prove Bellavia's supposed "guilt" in this non-issue. Good luck with that, because at the moment you're failing miserably."
Give me a break. You're in denial. As I said before, and I repeat, "was he speaking on Tiger's star power in golf compared to Obama's star power in the Democratic party LIKE YOU SAID...yep! Was the comparison made b/c of a multiracial athlete breaking barriers in golf such as a multiracial politician breaking barriers in the democratic party...yep! Again, like I said before, it was certainly a good comparison, both of them are exceptional men, so it was NOTHING TO BE PISSED ABOUT, BUT IT WAS BASED ON RACE."
"As a person like yourself" would do, you try to deny it when someone injects race into anything, unless of course it's coming from the other side of the fence, and you can claim it only exists one-sidedly now, and that it's not your side. I don't need to prove anything to you. You're going to believe what you want anyways, and that's your right. Just as my opinion is my stated opinion, and as it goes, you're defense of him is failing miserably. At least I have the decency to disagree respectfully without calling you names.
"Unless you're trying really, really hard to inject race into the conversation. As a person like yourself would."
I didn't have to try that hard to see the connection, at least not as hard as you're trying not to. You don't have to be a racist (i.e. hating another race) to make a comment based on race. He doesn't have to hate African-Americans or multiracial people to say he'd rather have McCain. He probably just loves McCain and people like McCain more so than he does Tiger, Obama, and people like Tiger and Obama...you know, those irrelevant sports heroes and democrats. And that's fine, you all can keep who you want, as an Independent I can do the same, and it's certainly not McCain.
"You can TRY to justify YOUR prejudice however you want, but ASSuming ALL liberals are one way and ALL conservatives are another, is a PREJUDICED assumption."
It's not an assumption or a prejudice. I backed it up with an example. Obama meant every word he said, and the only people that are angry in this country are those who expect--no demand--that the government interfere with everyone's lives. Conservatives don't feel entitled to things in life. Liberals do. It's a fact, deal with it.
"By the way, you know NOTHING about me. You probably assume I'm some angry African-American woman...well I'm neither angry nor African-American."
I see you're now erecting straw men for arguments by putting words in mouth. Once again, you've proven my point. You presume too much with me, just as you did with Bellavia. You know nothing about me either.
"Calling me names now...that's very mature. NOT."
I'm calling it as I see it...and you're backing my point up very nicely with this diatribe and the rest.
Apparently, you didn't read Bellavia's rebuttal. So, now I guess you think he's a racist and a liar. Now that's the epitome of assuming the worst in people.
Have fun fighting ghosts. BOO!! (Gotta be careful. Those ghosts are everywhere.)
The bottom line is this Natalie. You're excusing Obama for what he actually said, and trying to explain what he should have said. On the other hand, you're excoriating Bellavia for what he didn't say, and trying to explain what he "really" said.
Your squishy-independent jedi mind tricks will not work with me.
By the way, McCain may on the Republican ticket, but that doesn't mean I'll be voting for him. I may be writing in my candidate, depending on how insane the rest of the country is in November. He's definitely left of center, but not nearly as far left as Obama or Clinton--they're our Socialist candidates, and they're not even attempting to disguise it.
I can't continue this ridiculous "discussion" any longer. Have fun twisting my comments into your goofy reality. You're really good at it.
"Obama meant every word he said, and the only people that are angry in this country are those who expect--no demand--that the government interfere with everyone's lives. Conservatives don't feel entitled to things in life. Liberals do."
If this is true, I would like to know why the conservatives waged a war & are spending billions of dollars/month in a different country & have interfered in the lives & government of a multitude of people that have nothing to do w/ America? Everyone w/ a lick of sense in America should be bitter than the conservative government of America cares more about the concerns of very distant neighbors than it does them. If the people of Iraq are worth billions/ month, then the people living on the street, can't get health care, etc. in America should be angry.
By the way, it's interesting that you say that conservatives, who mainly consist of rich, privileged white males w/ silver spoons shoved down their mouths their entire lives don't feel like their entitled to things in life. Those who have everything generally say that.
"It's not an assumption or a prejudice. I backed it up with an example."
So you can say something about an entire group of people because you can back it up w/an individual example? Sounds a lot like prejudice. What if I said, "all republican men are closet gays who aren't man enough to come out of the closet" & backed that up w/ an example of Senator Craig, or that "all Democratic males cheat on their wives w/ prostitutes" and backed that up w/ an example of Governor Spitzer? You're blowing hot air, and I certainly have no problem telling you where you can put it.
"I'm calling it as I see it...and you're backing my point up very nicely with this diatribe and the rest."
If I look like an idiot, what does that make you look like? A hypocrite perhaps? Or maybe just a blind, privileged, stubborn, Senator Craig type who isn't man enough to accept when someone disagrees w/ him. Been to any airport bathrooms latetly?
"Have fun fighting ghosts. BOO!! (Gotta be careful. Those ghosts are everywhere.)"
Was that an attempt at humor? Wow, even more dull than I imagined. Bet you laughed at that huh? LOL you're a joke.
"Your squishy-independent jedi mind tricks will not work with me."
I wasn't trying to play mind tricks, I was simply stating my opinion. If you can't accept that, move on. Get over yourself, you're not the only person in America entitled to their own opinion! Wait, I guess only liberals feel that they're ENTITLED to one!
Post a Comment
<< Home