/n1/ - News » Thread #669330

[82 / 10 / ?]

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:06:00 No.669330 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>670016

Obama has no specifics about his change blah blah blah I repeat things that other people say that seem to go against the status quo from my perspective.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Now will you please shut up. Click the links to see more in depth explainations and more than just "change"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:08:00 No.669339 Report

Quoted By: >>669353

A vote for Obama is a vote against the white race.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:09:00 No.669342 Report

Quoted By:

While I agree, keep it to one thread, please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:09:00 No.669343 Report

Quoted By:

blah blah blah, here comes storm/ronfags

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:11:00 No.669350 Report

Quoted By: >>669353

I'm gonna vote for Obama cuz I think he's the only one that can really bring about change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:12:00 No.669353 Report

Quoted By: >>669372

>>669339
>>669350
same person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:20:00 No.669372 Report

Quoted By:

>>669353
Clinton voter!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:34:00 No.669429 Report

Quoted By:

ASIANS DON'T LIKE OBAMA! ASIANS ARE RACIST!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:35:00 No.669435 Report

Quoted By:

I'm gonna vote for Obama cuz he's my nigger.

FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs

FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs Sat 09 Feb 2008 08:36:00 No.669441 Report

Quoted By: >>669654

A vote for Obama is no different than a vote for Clinton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 09:46:00 No.669630 Report

Quoted By: >>669643

I've always said that Obama and Clinton are issues clones. What boggles my mind though is Obama people claiming that he's somehow a world of difference from Clinton and that Clinton's policies are Nixonian and will destroy this country. What a crock of shit. They increasingly remind me of Paulfags frothing at the mouth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 09:52:00 No.669643 Report

Quoted By: >>669649 >>669682

>>669630

His major difference is on health care. Hillary wants mandatory universal health care, an initiative she tried to push through as First Lady, but it was crushed by the Senate. The problem being it's an enormous expense.

Obama's policy just helps people pay for health care through tax credits. This save the government a gigantic fortune of money AND it makes it easier for people to get health care. It's good for everybody.

The other major differences are that she voted to approve military action in Iraq and then lied about it. That's two separate issues. One, she was pro-war. Which was bad. But then two, she lied about, which is even worse. This means she thinks people are too stupid to catch her in such an obvious lie on an issue that is so easy to verify. And that seals the deal for me. I'll vote Obama because Clinton's policies both financial and moral, disqualify her from consideration in my book.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 09:54:00 No.669649 Report

Quoted By: >>669675

>>669643
Her New York constituency at the time of the Iraq War vote didn't really give her much wiggle room. Obama wasn't in the senate at the time so that's why he didn't vote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 09:56:00 No.669654 Report

Quoted By: >>669712

>>669441
A vote for Obama is a vote against the white race.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 09:57:00 No.669655 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:02:00 No.669675 Report

Quoted By: >>669698

>>669649

To me, it's not even the fact that she voted FOR the war, it's the fact that she LIED about it. Everyone at the time voted for the war, it's what people thought they wanted. But she lied to me and every American about her stance on it. Rather than explain why she did it, she just lied.

I can't tolerate that in my President. It's un-Presidential and we shouldn't allow politicians to get away with this kind of shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:05:00 No.669682 Report

Quoted By: >>669686

>>669643
Still not the "world of difference" Obamafags keep screaming their heads off about.
Seriously, you're exaggerating trolls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:06:00 No.669685 Report

Quoted By:

PS Obama voted to fund the war every time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:07:00 No.669686 Report

Quoted By: >>669696

>>669682

There's a world of difference between a health care plan that will bankrupt the nation and one that won't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:10:00 No.669696 Report

Quoted By: >>669704

>>669686
Are you willing to admit that that itself is an over exaggeration of A SINGLE issue? You don't have anything else to back your belligerent attitude toward everything Clinton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:11:00 No.669698 Report

Quoted By: >>669707

>>669675
She lied? When? She's skittish about it because, in her mind at least, admitting that the war vote was evil and wrong means auto-political-suicide. She may be right, I really don't know what that would do to her chances of becoming president, but she never lied. I don't know where you're getting this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:12:00 No.669704 Report

Quoted By:

>>669696

Clinton sucks. She really does. It boggles my mind that people hate GWB but like Hillary. They're like-minded politicians, political twins if you will. If you hate GWB, you have to hate Hillary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:13:00 No.669707 Report

Quoted By: >>669722

>>669698

In the CNN debate she said that she did not know that she was voting for the war. Then in his response Obama pointed out that the resolution was titled Approval For Military Action in Iraq.

She shot him an evil look.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:14:00 No.669712 Report

Quoted By:

>>669654
He's got my vote then. :D

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:14:00 No.669714 Report

Quoted By:

I'm voting fo rObama because Kevin Pereira donated to his campaign and Olivia Munn supports him

I want to be just like them

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:18:00 No.669722 Report

Quoted By: >>669735

>>669707
I would categorize that as a half truth not an outright lie. If she said, "I didn't vote for the authorization" that would be a lie.
Besides it is not that big a problem to me, which makes her politically-motivated half-truth rather innocuous. I am positive that Obama, had he been there at the time, would have voted for it as well. Remember, he voted to fund the war every time. No one ever talks about that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:21:00 No.669732 Report

Quoted By: >>669738

Gb2/kitchen/ you fucking lesbian cunts

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:21:00 No.669733 Report

Quoted By: >>669744 >>669746

Also, he is cool. Like James Dean.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:22:00 No.669735 Report

Quoted By: >>669747 >>669806

>>669722
well, I think a vote to fund the war is different than a vote to authorize it... very different.

and in any case, he gave a pretty scathing (and extremely accurate) speech denouncing the war. I think that's a better gauge of what he would have done had he been in the senate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:23:00 No.669738 Report

Quoted By:

>>669732
No girls on the internets. I am merely a sober Democratic voter, on whom emotional appeals alone make no big impact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:24:00 No.669744 Report

Quoted By: >>669750

>>669733
fuck, he's so cool

Is it gay that I kind of want to date him?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:25:00 No.669746 Report

Quoted By: >>669750

>>669733
not homo or anything but i'm just sayin if i was a gal i be all over that shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:26:00 No.669747 Report

Quoted By: >>669756

>>669735
>well, I think a vote to fund the war is different than a vote to authorize it... very different.

>I am positive that Obama, had he been there at the time, would have voted for it as well.

>and in any case, he gave a pretty scathing (and extremely accurate) speech denouncing the war. I think that's a better gauge of what he would have done had he been in the senate.

I simply disagree with that. One's sheer presence in the Senate heavily influences one's decision-making process. This is the reason nearly all Democrats voted for it. They were in a bubble. He would have been in the very same bubble that made him vote for the war all those times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:27:00 No.669750 Report

Quoted By:

>>669746
>>669744
wtf gay for Obama hivemind!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:28:00 No.669752 Report

Quoted By:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/2374

lol wut?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:30:00 No.669756 Report

Quoted By: >>669760 >>669763

>>669747
did I misunderstand something? I thought you were taking his votes to fund the war as evidence that he would have voted for it. I was merely saying that those are two very different things, and you should take one to suggest the other.

if you weren't using it as evidence, what are you using as evidence? nothing? some gut feeling you have about the senate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:31:00 No.669760 Report

Quoted By:

>>669756
shouldn't*

obviously

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:33:00 No.669763 Report

Quoted By: >>669776

>>669756
Please read my post again. Yes, that is exactly what I was saying in both my posts. In the second one I simply fleshed that out further. What about my post confuses you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:36:00 No.669768 Report

Quoted By: >>669777

the difference between hillary and obama:

obama is a nice guy, have you ever been to his rallies? and clintons rallies? its a world of difference.

hes a regular guy, like you or me, shes a supremist bitch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:40:00 No.669776 Report

Quoted By: >>669779 >>669785

>>669763
that you responded to my point about those votes being very different by simply reiterating how certain you were about what his vote would have been (the very reason for my intital point - you simply restated what I was responding to)

The latter part of your post isn't "fleshed out" as much as it is ad hoc BS'd. Some vagies comments about a bubble and what other senators did says little to nothing (actually nothing) about what Obama would have voted for.

The only information I have about his feeling about going to war is the speech he gave. You have no information (save about funding - which is a totally different issue), except for vague assertions about the senate and the action of other senators - neither of which tell you anything about what Obama would have done.

so... what are you basing your claim on... I guess is my confusion

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:40:00 No.669777 Report

Quoted By: >>669782

>>669768
>hes a regular guy, like you or me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:41:00 No.669779 Report

Quoted By:

>>669776
sorry, that should read "vague"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:43:00 No.669782 Report

Quoted By:

>>669777

Has such WIN been a normal occurrence on /n/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:43:00 No.669785 Report

Quoted By: >>669792

>>669776
I said "I simply disagree with that." What more do you want? I just want you to be aware that others have a different view on his point that he has "better judgment", and that not everyone is as convinced by it as you seem to be. I have nothing more to add to this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:48:00 No.669792 Report

Quoted By: >>669802

>>669785
I understand that you disagree. I'm just not too sure why. Neither of us can be sure about what he would have done had he been in the senate. I am basing my conclusion on his state of mind at the time, as evidenced by his words and actions. That is, I am trying to use the (admittedly incomplete) information that I have about Obama to come to a conclusion about what he would have done. You seem to be ignoring the information about Obama in favor of your feelings about the senate to form your conclusion.

I simply did not understand why

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:56:00 No.669802 Report

Quoted By: >>669806

>>669792
>Neither of us can be sure about what he would have done had he been in the senate.
This is my only point, really. You seemed pretty convinced as to what he would have done until I came along and offered a differing perspective.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:59:00 No.669806 Report

Quoted By: >>669893

>>669802
you are confusing me with another anon
my first post was>>669735

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:03:00 No.669820 Report

Quoted By:

"If Obama gets the nomination, we're doomed." --Rush Limbaugh

If Hillary wins, the most easiest shoe-in election of all time for the Democrats will be lost. I can't believe how so many democrats can't understand this. Republican's dont even try to hide the fact, yet these stupid motherfuckers still cant comprehend. Its unbeleivable.

Its either Obama, or another 8 years of war thanks to Johnny

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:04:00 No.669823 Report

Quoted By: >>669906

Hillary Clinton Caught in her own lies

Keith Olbermann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuBDDzu1yl0

Finally someone calls her out on her bogus reasoning behind her votes. It should be brutally apparent that she made the decision on the Iraq war the same way she makes all her decisions, not by what is best, but what she thinks people want her to do. Remember at the time opposing the Iraq war was pretty politically risky even for a democrat, given all the reports about WMD's being circulated. Obama saw through the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and made a brave and ultimately correct decision to oppose the war. I really don't know how anyone who understands Hillary's record on the war can still support her over Obama...

Olbermann always tracks down the truth. People need to know about this; Clinton basically lied in front of the whole country during a debate. Nothing new, I know...but we're getting down to the wire, she had an opportunity to tell the truth and she refused to do it. Not a great thing to do heading into the final week of Super Tuesday. I guess now the question is, will Clinton supporters buy the lie and move forward or realize what they're seeing? Americans have spent too much time buying into lies...it's time to turn the page on leaders who will lie to America with a smile on their faces.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:07:00 No.669832 Report

Quoted By: >>669842 >>669905

Barack Obama's 2009 Pakistan War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:10:00 No.669842 Report

Quoted By:

>>669832
sage. no war will be fought come 2009 in the democratic party that isn't apart of a UN/NATO alliance driven campaign. only a threat to surrounding countries will wars be fought under democrats. none of this solo-dick-run wars like iraq (brits are a different side of the same coin)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:21:00 No.669893 Report

Quoted By: >>669933

>>669806
Ok, I'll try to explain it again. I am simply saying that given his purportedly principled stance against Iraq as displayed in his now famous 2002 speech, he probably should have translated that moral fervor into actual votes against the war in the Senate. I am taking this as evidence that the Senate environment is a much heavier influence on Senators' individual decisions than most give it credit for. This is why I believe he may likely have voted for the war if he were in Hillary's shoes. I am not 100% certain of this, but I am certain that no one should be eating up his rhetoric that he would have been the one Democrat in the Senate with all the good sense in the world. Like I said, his subsequent Iraq-related votes do not support this claim.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:25:00 No.669905 Report

Quoted By:

>>669832
LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:25:00 No.669906 Report

Quoted By: >>669919

>>669823

I fucking hate this guy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:26:00 No.669912 Report

Quoted By:

On the radio today I heard Clinton's strategist calling Obama the "establishment" candidate and basically saying the political bigwigs were all behind him. Lol, people will believe this shit, that's what is sad. Atleast NPR called them on their bullshit, although not as much as they should have, and indicated that this is a complete switch of positions and a complete change in tone from the Hillary campaign. The woman is political scum and I'll be damned if she gets my vote, 4 more years of republicans or no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:28:00 No.669919 Report

Quoted By:

>>669906
>LEAVE O'REILLY ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:30:00 No.669933 Report

Quoted By: >>669999

>>669893
and I was trying to explain to you that I don't think that a vote to fund the war and a vote to authorize it initially are sufficiently related to take evidence of the one from the other

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:51:00 No.669999 Report

Quoted By: >>670018

>>669933
And I just explained to you that that's not at all what I was doing. I am not explaining it a third time because you can't catch up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:57:00 No.670016 Report

Quoted By: >>670022

>>669330
>Obama has no specifics about his change blah blah blah I repeat things that other people say that seem to go against the status quo from my perspective.

If only more people were as smart as you...yes, I saw that too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:59:00 No.670018 Report

Quoted By: >>670038

>>669999
no, it is
you just don't understand it. You are assuming that being against the war means he should have voted against the funding, and that the same pressures that led him to vote for the funding would have led him to vote for the war. I am (yet again, sadly) trying to explain to you that funding a war is quite a different issue from authorizing it to begin with. There is no reason to think that there was any senatorial pressure at all causing him to vote for the funding - or at least you shouldn't assume pressure from the fact that he was against the war to begin with. THEY ARE EXTREMELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. His stance on one doesn't imply anything about his stance on another (no matter which issue you choose to start from)

do you understand yet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 11:59:00 No.670022 Report

Quoted By:

>>670016
>I am smart. I'd kiss myself if I knew how.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:05:00 No.670038 Report

Quoted By: >>670072

>>670018
>You are assuming that being against the war means he should have voted against the funding
I am not assuming. I am SAYING that being as PRINCIPLED an Iraq war detractor as he painted himself to be, he SHOULD have voted against the funding, and the fact that he didn't suggests to me that he is not in fact as principled an Iraq war detractor as he would like everyone to believe he is, and therefore, that he would not have taken as hard a stand against it if he were there during the Iraq authorization vote as he did being outside the Senate.
There, I spelled it out for you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:08:00 No.670053 Report

Quoted By: >>670057 >>670260

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:09:00 No.670057 Report

Quoted By:

>>670053

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:14:00 No.670072 Report

Quoted By: >>670109 >>670141

>>670038
now you are just conflating things. Suddenly, being against the war and being against its funding is turned into some mushy "Iraq war detractor." You are confusing yourself. If you think being an "Iraq war detractor" means that you have to vote against the authorization and the funding, then he is not an "Iraq war detractor." You go from there to then assume that, not being an "Iraq war detractor," he would have voted to authorize the war. The problem with that is that "Iraq war detractor" has two facets - a vote to authorize and a vote to fund. By saing that someone who votes to fund isn't an IWD and that an IWD will vote to authorize, you are assuming that anyone who votes to fund the war would have voted to authorize it (this follows, both from what you have laid out and what is clearly in your mind, which I have been trying to dispel). I have been trying to explain to you (for fucking ever) that those are two distinct issues, and that a vote for one implies nothing about the other

did you understand any of that?
It may have been too much for you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:21:00 No.670109 Report

Quoted By: >>670118 >>670129

>>670072
>then he is not an "Iraq war detractor."
Then I guess he is not what he says he is, but you keep right on believing it anyway.
Good for you. We need more blind followers like you in this world.
*sigh* anyway, he also voted for the border fence. Do you still trust him? Do you still believe he is this bizarro world "apolitical politician"?
I realize I'm wasting my time here, so I'm going to stop speaking to a wall now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:24:00 No.670118 Report

Quoted By:

>>670109
lol
did you not understand the function of those quotation marks?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:27:00 No.670129 Report

Quoted By: >>670154

>>670109
also,I take it you didn't understand my last post

I just think that that, along with your egregious misunderstanding of the meaning of the part of my post that you quoted is laughable

I suppose they don't call Obama the candidate of the intellectual elite for nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:30:00 No.670141 Report

Quoted By: >>670160

>>670072
I would also like to point out that there weren't any outright implications in any of what I'd said but merely suggestions. One action SUGGESTS another may have taken place in another scenario.
It is what I believe might have happened. I am not ruling it out as you clearly are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:33:00 No.670154 Report

Quoted By: >>670174

>>670129
>I am moar smarter than u.
I don't know what to say except *rolls eyes*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:36:00 No.670160 Report

Quoted By:

>>670141
and I'm just saying that I think you area associating the two things too closely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:38:00 No.670169 Report

Quoted By: >>670172

obama hussein, raised as a child in a wahabi school,the 2.5lbs of brain matter in his head the deadliest bomb the islamofascists could send.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:39:00 No.670172 Report

Quoted By:

>>670169
wut

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:40:00 No.670174 Report

Quoted By: >>670239

>>670154
>I am not explaining it a third time because you can't catch up.
uh, this is what you said... and unprovoked I might add

and it's especially ridiculous that it turned out you were completely wrong, and you were, in fact, the one who misunderstood what you yourself were saying.

but anyway...*rolls eyes*?
oh wait, I showed you why you were completely wrong...
that's what smart people do

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 12:41:00 No.670178 Report

Quoted By:

> a time for change
seems that others have taken up his phrase just as easily.

what do you expect from parrots?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:02:00 No.670239 Report

Quoted By:

>>670174
.......OK

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:10:00 No.670260 Report

Quoted By: >>670284

>>670053
actually, Hillary gets the uneducated vote. Obama's supporters are in general, of a higher education bracket. Aka, smarter. Aka, dumb, uneducated people support Hillary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:12:00 No.670266 Report

Quoted By:

STREETS OF CHICAGO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:18:00 No.670284 Report

Quoted By: >>670288

>>670260
>>Obama's supporters are in general, of a higher education bracket who are registered Democrats who voted in the Democratic primary.

FIXED. Also nice logic, nigger-lover. if you use wealth as a baromter, then the average republican voter - who is wealthier than the average democrat - is smarter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:19:00 No.670288 Report

Quoted By:

>>670284
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:19:00 No.670289 Report

Quoted By:

Demagogy at its finest

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:20:00 No.670292 Report

Quoted By:

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches