The audacity of hope

[Lerkfish]

Obama campaigned on HOPE, on CHANGE you can believe in. Most of us elected him based on those and other things.

We all knew he was going to have a rough time of it.

But I guess I don't understand why we should automatically be lowering the bar for him whenever the going gets tough.

Either Hope and Change were were honest goals that we were fools to believe were possible, which means Obama was not as up to the challenge as we thought...
or it was rhetoric intended to get elected only, by leading us to believe change was a priority when it never was.

either way, I believe we have a right to hold the bar as high as possible, since he campaigned on raising the bar....

If some things aren't possible, ok. But that doesn't mean we should settle, or makes excuses, or act like politics as usual is ok with us.

Because if we do, then we are no better than the people we complained about when Bush was president, those supporters who kept lowering and lowering the bar until our collective learned helplessness paralyzed a nation.

[NJmaverick]

1. The problem is every time the President steps over a bar

you try and raise it in an effort to trip him.

[Lerkfish]

2. I directed my OP to all of us.

[Raine1967]

11. I don't think you really did.

I really have to disagree with that premise when, in your OP you stated:

Either Hope and Change were were honest goals that we were fools to believe were possible, which means Obama was not as up to the challenge as we thought...
or it was rhetoric intended to get elected only, by leading us to believe change was a priority when it never was.

You are setting up a personal framing of a lot of things -- and while you are entitled to your opinion, you really should not be assuming that this is truth.

This is the bar you set for yourself. When you saw "we" I think you mean yourself.

[BeFree]

16. He's correct

WE is correct. The WE that got him elected against great odds. You may not be with WE but WE have our standards and Obama needs to reach those standards.

And this crap: 'raise the bar to trip him' is about as idiotic as can be.
WE want Obama to succeed. To win. To be the best.

Like I say, not everyone is with WE.

[zipplewrath]

3. You mean like these?

Cadillac taxes
Mandates
Public option
Closing Gitmo (not just changing the address)
Torture photos
DADT in the first 100 days
Iraq in the first 16 months


He's the one moving bars around.

[NJmaverick]

6. Those would be some of the examples

There are plenty more where those came from. It's pretty apparent that some people simply refuse to give the President the proper credit he deserves for all of his very impressive accomplishments.

[zipplewrath]

10. But who is moving the bar?

That was the original question. Should we hold the "measure" on this accomplishments "high" or "low"? Even more so on accomplishments which were vaguely defined in the campaign. You see to want to set it low. The "anything for a win" category. Which is roughly equivalent to some variation of GOP lite. The "better than Bush" standard. The OP was suggesting holding he bar VERY high. You quipped that he/we somehow move the bar after the fact. But the reality is that in many cases, Obama "moves" the bar by changing his position from campaign promises (and even trying to deny he made them). But even beyond that, he virtually brags that he avoids setting the bar "too" high and seeks to set a bar low, relative to the ideal.

[NJmaverick]

14. The president's critics

For example the President promised to bring health care to those that were lacking. He does fulfill his pledge only to have some accuse him of not coming through on the public option (which while nice, was not critical to the bill).

[zipplewrath]

18. He promise many things

Including no mandates and no cadillac taxes. Just because he accomplishes one thing, doesn't mean his critics are raising the bar by pointing out the other.

(And technically he failed on the one you mention. He didn't bring them health care, he brought them health insurance. And even his administration will tell you that 25 million people will STILL be uninsured after full implimentation. See, THAT'S moving the bar.)

[NJmaverick]

19. He made over 500 promises and has kept 113 of them, has another 253 in the works

stalled on 82 of them and only broke 19 of them while having to compromise on 34 of them. So it seems the facts in no way shape or form support your assertions

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[zipplewrath]

22. So all promises have equal weight?

That is what his supporters want to imply. That some how all prommises are of equal importance or weight.

[NJmaverick]

27. Well by your standards every broken promise cancels out at least 50 promises kept

then again you are just looking for reason to attack, rather than making a reasoned, balanced a fair assessment.

[zipplewrath]

32. Ah I see

It must help to be clairvoiant. You can read my mind I see.

As I've tried to explain to you before, you're going to see vastly more posts from me on issues with which I disagree, than on ones where I agree. I'm not much of a cheerleader. But representing that as "only looking to attack" is a false premise. The fact that my posts have a "self selection bias" has more to do with the nature of the forum than my larger opinions.

My "assessments" are based upon his actions, relative to the subject, and in the larger context of his campaign. He made some promises that were extremely important to me, and to a certain section of his supporters. Those are definitely going to be vastly more important than issues upon which even some republicans could agree. Issues upon which he reverses himself are a particular concern. One thing to not achieve something, another thing to achieve the opposite. That's effectively a "double down". Not only didn't he do what I had hoped, or what he promised, he did exactly the opposite. So in essence your "19" becomes a "38".

[mochajava666]

93. Well said.

[freddie mertz]

76. Are you pointing that list at people again?

Isn't that the one where his claim that he "never campaigned on the public option" was (generously IMHO) evaluated as "barely true"?

Yes, I think that's the one...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/

"Obama's new claim is, "I didn't campaign on a public option." We will stipulate that it was not a particularly prominent part of his overall platform for health care. But we find that the public option was part of Obama's campaign materials, and that counts. So we rate his statement Barely True."

Also, I found this:

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

Promise Broken.

Though they do admit that congress had a lot to do with it.

[laughingliberal]

82. +1000 nt

[freddie mertz]

83. 100,000 at least.... LOL! nt.

[mochajava666]

92. +1

[Nedsdag]

5. +1

[uponit7771]

84. They CONTINUE to try to act as if there is no progress despite reality

[eleny]

4. The audacity of expectations

Sounds reasonable to me. I posted a long time ago that I expected to disagree with him after he got elected.

[Jennicut]

7. There is a difference between setting expectations high and

challenging the President and deciding he simply will never fulfill that bar. Many on DU fully expect him to let BP get off the hook. Talk about self defeating prophecy.

[JuniperLea]

70. A lot of people on DU are pissed about what they think or expect Obama to do...

Rather than what he's actually done.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. So what is your solution Lerkfish?

I don't think a president has been hit with so much at once?

He did say that he could not do it on his own and I don't see many people getting out there to help change, only type hot air on Twitter?

There's also something called Congress. He is not the King.

[donco6]

9. We're seeing it on DADT repeal right now.

We have people suggesting that, in order to allow gays to serve openly in the military, we MAY HAVE to restrict certain postings to straights-only until the military can work out "processes and procedures" that will address any concerns that arise out of the "study." So, here we go again. Yes, you can serve openly, except when you can't. Is that what we're satisfied with? Is this a lowering of the bar? I think so.

[Teaser]

12. a shaddupworthy post

.

[FrenchieCat]

13. The Audacity of Hope

wasn't supposed to be the Audacity-to-get-everything-you-want-exactly-when-you-want-it.

I don't think that is the platform that Candidate Obama ran on,
although some might not want to notice the difference.

[volvoblue]

15. It is so tiresome to hear the whining because Obama

did not wave a magic wand and do all overnight.
Oh, he did not put my pet issue at the top over economic collapse and 2 wars, ect. Really. some people need to grow the hell up.
some of these people heard the agenda Obama wanted to tackle but, went deaf when he repeated warned it would not happen overnight, that it would be a long hard slog and in fact, would most likely not be completed by the end of his first term. What happened to the ears when he was cautioning people to not expect instant results.
but, because all was not nirvana by Feb 1, 2009, the whining and criticizing went into mode.

[SunsetDreams]

17. +1 sure wish I could K&R a response

[jonnyblitz]

37. sure wish i could UNREC it.

:puke:

[zipplewrath]

21. When he started to do things he said he wouldn't

I suspect people would have stayed more patient if he had "stuck to the script". But when he started moving right and doing things he said he wouldn't (mandates, cadillac taxes) denying that he said things (supporting the public option) and announcing he would continue Bush era activities that many democrats were on record opposing (indefinite detentions without trial, suppression of torture photos) it set people to the mind that if he wasn't working on something in the short run, there was a good chance he wouldn't do it at all.

Throw in how his "looking forward" thing tends to pan out and honoring Rick Warren on day one, and you have alot of people who basically don't trust him at this point and will demand to see the actual results prior to assuming it will be accomplished.

[muffin1]

23. Right.

We want magic wands, Obama in a wetsuit, and Nirvana right now. Give me a break.

And we all know what 'pet issues' is code for. Equal rights is not a pet issue. It is the bedrock of what this country is supposed to be about. We are all the same. None is more important than another.
There is no excuse for his inaction regardng the rights of the GLBT community.

You know, I don't like to use caps lock, so just imagine all caps if you would.

He is the one who promised REAL change. Where is it?
We escalated the war in Afghanistan, we've moved the goalposts for leaving Iraq, we are still doing renditions. He consented to more drilling just a couple of months before this disaster in the Gulf. The health care reform is a sham - no fight for the public option, single payer not even on the table. DADT repeal looks like it will be just as watered down - if it ever happens. He is in no way a FIERCE advocate for GLBTers. His education policy consists of blaming teachers for everything.

He appoints Geitner, Duncan, Salazaar (among others), and he support bluedogs while mocking liberals.

Color me unimpressed so far. And I was a huge Obama fan.

[azmouse]

54. +2

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

20. No, refusing to lower yourself where necessary is just being unmerciful

and mean - leave that to the right wing. Look at the unexpected things that happened. Also, this is politics, the cooperation of others is always needed, and cannot always be counted on. I dislike the attitude that may work in business but does not work here - and I still dislike it - maybe it works in sports, but not in real life. We have to be reasonable towards ourselves and others.

[Lerkfish]

40. not sure I understand what you mean by "refusing to lower yourself"

[muffin1]

24. K&R

He told us to hold his feet to the fire, and I intend to do just that. I get that things were screwed up beyond belief when he took office. I don't expect miracles, just movement in the right direction.

[saracat]

25. Accountability is paramount no matter who is President.

I have been shocked at the amount of justification offered when disagreement over presidential actions takes place. The President is accountable to the people, ALL the people. He works for us .He is just an employee. We are the boss. Some forget that.We ALL have equal rights to applaud his service or disapprove of it. Those who disapprove are as entitled to express their opinion as anyone else.

Dissent was discouraged in the previous administration and it did not move the nation forward. Those that wish dissent quashed in this administration are equally mistaken. It is through dissent and diversity that progress is made.

[NJmaverick]

28. Just ignore the 113 promises kept and the other 253 in the work

and focus only on those 19 promises that were broken

[ProSense]

29. "He is just an employee. We are the boss. "

That is absolute nonsense.

Republicans are people too, and some of them voted for him. He is not your employee. You voted for him to use his judgment, knowledge and skills to run the country.

[saracat]

30. If you do not think he is our "employee" you do not understand democracy

ALL elected officials are nothing more than our employees, and the President most of all. We the people elected him and his is accountable to us. ALL of us. That is the way it works. Not all of us will agree with him on all things but he always owes us an accounting.This isn't particular to any president.It applies to them all.

[ProSense]

31. "ALL elected officials are nothing more than our employees"

You obviously have no understanding of what a democracy or an employee is.

[Lerkfish]

33. um, actually, he's right and you're wrong on this one.

elected officials ARE our employees. It's where the term "public servant" comes from.

[ProSense]

35. No, actually

you are completely wrong.

A public servant does not mean that the person is your employee.

[Lerkfish]

38. I see. so, do you think they are the aristocracy and we are the serfs?

:shrug:

[saracat]

42. Odd, I feel anyone whose salary I pay is my employee. You may think differently.

We pay the salary of these folks and we get to decide wether they get to keep their jobs. That is an employee relationship. That is also the reason that we do not use titles for our officials that seperate them from the people."We" either through removal from office by those we have voted to represent us, or by the vote( not reelecting them), can "fire" the president or any other of our elected officials.

[ProSense]

43. You own the infrastructure

Your money went to pay for it. Whenever you decide you want to destroy it, well, you paid for it. See how ridiculous that is?

The President is not your employee. His job is to work in the interest of the public for the common good. He is not beholden to the whim of every single American, regardless of whether or not they voted for him. You may choose not to support him in the next election, but the is your employee.

[saracat]

44. You really need to do some reading on represntative governmemt.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/27547688

[ProSense]

51. Maybe you need to read it again

The first paragraph alone refutes your claim. The President "functions on the authority transmitted" to him "by the electorate" and "people can withdraw it through critical opinion and the reelection process."

That doesn't say the President is your employee. You can criticize and withdraw support, but his function is still that of a public servant, meaning he must act in the public interest.

[saracat]

53. perhaps you would care to explain why the "public" is not the employer of the President or its

representatives when they are "employed" to act in our interest? What is the definition of employee to you and why is the term, apparently offensive? "We the people" pay the salaries and also "elect or "hire" the public servants. We can "impeach, remove from office, or refuse to re-elect them. They work for us. The term " servant of the public" and "employee of the public" are not mutually exclusive.

[JuniperLea]

66. I see where you make the mistake...

You aren't everyone... he's working for all, not any individual or individual group of people. He is president to all, not just you. And not everyone agrees with you.

[saracat]

68. Excuse me? I said his employer is "We the people". ALL of us.

and we may not always agree with him.Or ANY president. ALL presidents work for "we the people"

[JuniperLea]

69. Well I'm glad you got that part...

Because not all of us want to fire him... not all of us thinks he's fucking up...

And the thing is, we're not like a regular boss. I can go to an employee's desk and say, give me x, y, and z. With a president, we're given a choice. Most of the time our votes "hire" the president based on a campaign wherein beliefs are discussed. I can do an employee review every six months; the American people only have that option every four years with a president, barring any law-breaking. Even at that, how many presidents have been removed from office in your lifetime?

[saracat]

78. I am not specifically talking about THIS President.I am talking about ALL presidents

Some folks can't separate. And as a nation we send messages in bi elections as well.Unfortunately for Congress, we vent our dislike of an administrations policies on Congress as well.We often "punish" presidents by making them lame ducks. And I have seen many of those in my lifetime. And actually , most presidents are created by the media and have little to do with any belief system being discussed. People believe what they "want" to believe.They buy a president just the way they buy cereal or a new pop star.
Clinton, Bush, and Obama were media sensations. Clinton and Obama were rock stars, and we can't forget how Bush was the guy to have a beer with who looked so"believable and heroic" in a flight suit. If you believe the average American votes the issues or follows politics , you have never volunteered for a candidate or canvassed a district.

[freddie mertz]

72. K & R. And best to you, Lerkfish.

:thumbsup:

[saracat]

48. George Washington referred to himself as a"'servant of the people" but I am sure you would know more

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

50. "'servant of the people"

Do you not understand that is not the same as saying he is your employee?

Yes, you are "the people." Yes, the President is a public servant. No, he is not your employee.

[saracat]

52. Something about the word "employee" bothers you. Sorry. "We, the People" employ the president and

the Congress. We pay their salaries and they work for us.

This reminds me of the scenario that took place between Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson during a visit to LBJ's ranch. Bobby was looking for dirt on how LBJ treated the people who worked for him and couldn't find any.For the most part, they liked him. RFK admitted to LBJ that he had been speaking to his "servants" about him and LBJ replied "And that is the difference between us Bobby.You have servants and I have employees".

The presidents is "The Servant of the People" but he is also our employee in that he "works" for us.
And I am glad to note you actually realized the difference between "civil servant" and "Servant of the People". Perhaps the definition of "Public Service" may come next.

[JuniperLea]

67. Servant of the people...

I believe that to mean ALL people, not just a few, not just certain groups... this is where people don't get it. What's good for one group of Americans may not be so hot for others... it's a hard line he's taking, this fair, even-Steven, president to ALL AMERICANS... very hard. It might be even harder to understand, for some, this idea that he is the servant of ALL the people... ALL Americans. He's going to walk down the center and do what he thinks is right for most... That's why I voted for him.

[saracat]

79. "Walking down the center" That translates as "all things to all people, and I would hope that isn't

what this president or any president would do.The hard thing is to do the right thing, and that indeed would be to do what is best for ALL Americans and that isn't necessarily walking the center.That is taking a stand and making a real commitment because there are some whom you can NEVER please and going to the center will never satisfy them.It is as futile as bipartisanship.

[JuniperLea]

86. "all things to all people" ... um... no...

That is a bizarre extrapolation from what I said, and it's patently false on many levels.

Walking down the center means exactly that... the "right thing" to you isn't necessarily the "right thing" to me. You don't know what's best for ALL Americans, you have an opinion as to what you feel would be best. If you take my opinion, hold it up to your opinion, find opinions somewhere in the middle... that's the center. That's how we remain (or become, whichever the case may be) open minded and learn.

What you want is all or nothing... you clearly want him to be just like Bush and run roughshod over everyone and just do as he damn well pleases... "for the good of all Americans." Yep, that's what Bush did too.

[saracat]

87. Now who is superimposing what they want on my words? Don't put words in my mouth.

Walking down the center isn't taking a position. And there is nothing that will make "everyone " happy. The GOP are NEVER going to be happy with a Democrat. I believe a Democratic president has an obligation to support his party platform at the minimum. As A Democrat, I naturally believe Democratic policy is what is best for ALL Americans. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be a Democrat! "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

[JuniperLea]

88. Nice try... I don't think you can shut down this discussion with that BS

I said something, you screwed with it... I explained my own words, not yours.

You don't have the right to foist your own opinions or beliefs upon anyone. Thank Goddess Obama understands that.

Try again...

[saracat]

89. Your words are not mine and I am not the one foisting anything but I do actively endorse

and pursue Democratic ideals and principles and I do not find compromising them for anything acceptable. I am sorry if we differ.

[JuniperLea]

90. LOL!

Yes, we do. You should really go back and read the convo... :rofl:

[freddie mertz]

71. Your Wiki link really has no answer to this question.

"Public servant" means, in the case of elected representatives, that they serve by the will of the people.

They are elected and can be removed from office in the next election, or by other means like impeachment.

That makes them very much "our" public employees, in the collective sense.

We get to hire and fire them.

And more importantly, under the Constitution, we are fee to criticize them and demand accountability through various means (petition, demonstration, etc).

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

26. "Either Hope and Change were were honest goals that we were fools to believe were possible"

Are you saying absolutely nothing has changed, that everything is the same as Bush left it? Did people really believe that President Obama was going to change everything that's wrong with America, and do it all within his Presidency, let alone 16 months?

There are things that President Obama has changed that predate Bush (and Clinton). Overlooking the change that has already been achieved and focusing on the things that haven't in order to proclaim that "Obama was not as up to the challenge as we thought" is simply hyperbole.

[Lerkfish]

34. see, that would be "lowering the bar".

"Did people really believe that President Obama was going to change everything that's wrong with America, and do it all within his Presidency, let alone 16 months?"

that would be an example of bar-lowering. Not that everything needs to be changed, but that you are giving him a pass on not changing enough things because he can't change everything.

not sure I'm explaining that as well as I'd like, but hopefully you get my point.

[ProSense]

36. "that would be an example of bar-lowering. " What?

"Not that everything needs to be changed, but that you are giving him a pass on not changing enough things because he can't change everything."

Oh, I get it: he isn't changing enough.


Ludicrous.

[Lerkfish]

39. Has torture ended? is Gitmo closed? is DADT repealed? Are we out of Afghanistan?

Iraq? Are we starting another war in Pakistan?

yes, he isn't changing enough of the things that matter to me.

[ProSense]

41. "Has torture ended?"

Can you show me where the Obama administration issued a policy condoning torture?

[TheKentuckian]

45. What do you really think is happening at Bagram?

Get real. You're hanging on to plausible deniablity and it doesn't seem all that plausible. I'd also say that it doesn't matter if we ship off victims to be tortured by someone else under rendition.

You don't have to issue a policy condoning a damn thing if it is permitted to go on, under any guise.

[ProSense]

49. "You're hanging on to plausible deniablity and it doesn't seem all that plausible. "

Has the President issued a policy condoning torture?

Bad stuff is happening all over the world. Unless you can prove that the President condones torture, then your claims are baseless.

[TheKentuckian]

73. You've been answered and chose not to discuss what was stated

I'm not talking about bad stuff but rather bad stuff done by or in the name of the USA.

You can cry baseless all you want but I didn't say what I said lightly. You've got no proof your grandaddy is your momma's father but that don't mean he ain't. She still might look dead like him and that'll work for me if he don't have a twin around.

Much in life makes sense and hasn't a link to be found. It's important to use some deductive reasoning when facts just aren't going to be served on a silver platter. If I had links galore, I'd be talking about a hell of a lot more than some burning questions.

[Lerkfish]

55. ok

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=obama+administration+and+torture&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CNA6DrWAFTOaYOoLCNcLYjZQIAAAAqgQFT9AhLvU

now, keep in mind this is a google search with 3,910,000 results. I do not get to pick the order of how they are listed, nor do I claim all the links are valid.

[ProSense]

56. Right,

the first two are propaganda and the third: Barack Obama releases Bush administration torture memos

The rest are blogs.


Obama ends policy on torture

"keep in mind this is a google search with" 5,060,000 results

Now can you show where the President condones a policy of torture?

[Lerkfish]

58. grief, swarm and lock

lather, rinse, repeat.

[ProSense]

59. Here, let me help you out:

EXECUTIVE ORDER - ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

[freddie mertz]

77. Well, if it's a google search... it has to be true....

:wtf:

[namahage]

63. Again with the "proof by Google search"?

With 682,000,000 results (given, of course, I can't pick what order the results are listed, or their veracity), how much more "true" is this?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=1%2B1%3D3&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[VMI Dem]

46. Didn't he lay out some solid reasons for opposing gay marriage in that book?

Very progressive.

:sarcasm:

[ampad]

47. Unrec

With enthusiasm.
reason: Grandstanding .I believe you speak for a select group of people, most of them post here at DU.

[Lerkfish]

57. thanks

I'm glad you do it with enthusiasm.

Do you also enthusiastically approve, then, of torture, keeping Gitmo open, delaying the repeal of DADt, Offshore drilling (obama's position right before the spill) continuing and expanding the illegal war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the newly minted conflict in Pakistan? Are you enthusiastic about busting teacher's unions?


:shrug:

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Proudly UNREC.

...and the daily thrashing continues.

[Lerkfish]

61. very appropriate avatar!

if we all just clap our hands loud enough, Obama will turn into a liberal president!

[Bobbie Jo]

62. Thanks!

Perhaps you should consider.....



Then we could be "appropriate" together. :think:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

64. Maybe the problem is people think hope and change means whatever they want it to mean.

That's not to say he hasn't been a disappointment in some areas, but when you have people furious that hope and change didn't mean legalizing pot (a recent thread here), then you know some people are just nutty and grasping at straws.

Obama is a moderate/slightly liberal moderate, which is essentially how he campaigned if you looked at his positions on the issues. It's not his fault people use him as a blank slate because we didn't get a liberal utopia that he never claimed he would bring about.

[JuniperLea]

65. Bingo, SA...

Yep... expectations were not met... so much was projected onto Obama. He's pretty much as I expected. I even expected the heavy pushback from the RW... I really didn't expect it from "us" however. I thought we were all paying attention.

He never claimed he was going to do a lot of things he's being bashed with now... "We" disgust me.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

75. Looking through a DU lens, sure.

Of course, this is a website that thinks Kucinich is a viable candidate, so of course Obama looks like a conservative. Hell, JFK would look like a conservative by DU standards.

And Obama has been extending unemployment benefits for quite some time now. It's too bad so many obstructionist Republicans keep trying to prevent him from doing so.

[uponit7771]

85. BINGO 2!!!

[laughingliberal]

81. K & R nt

[dflprincess]

91. Perhaps we were mistaken when we thought he was speaking to us

when he spoke about "hope & change"? :shrug:

Or maybe he meant we'd still be hoping for change.

[mochajava666]

94. Well said

I wish he was half the man he describes himself as in his book, or at least somewhat like the man he was as a candidate.

[polichick]

95. Where's Lerkfish? Not in User Profiles...

:shrug:

[tekisui]

96. He's been banned. Look at the profile in the OP.

[polichick]

97. Wow - that's awful. Why? nt

[tekisui]

99. Who knows?

Him and Echo in Light got banned after the significant flamebait thread by a certain poster a few days ago.

[polichick]

100. Thanks :)

[dionysus]

98. sleep well, brave prince.

:rofl: