I think I was mistaken about the "I'm out too" post. That might have been in the Todd Young thread (to which you also returned). But why is it so important to you to "prove them wrong"? They've been giving their side as to why it's not just about looks but you seemingly ignore what they've said about that.
Might want to take another look at the context of post #526 in which he was replying to bwframe and his subsequent post #545 that followed up about her political appeal to him in addition to her looks. Once again, I will reiterate my position that it goes deeper than just her looks.
I know what her positions were back then, heck I've brought them up in other threads. I know the one poster stated they didn't know, but that's to be understandable. She stated she changed her position but not exactly how regarding the 2nd Am.
Not sure but I think he may have been referring to another location "drooling".
I think you are so infatuated with her that you can't stop drawing attention to her in hopes you can reply about her knowing that everytime you read and respond to a post about her you form a mental picture of her for mental masturbation purposes.
Here is a perfect example of what I'm talikg about. It seems to me that indiucky did indeed have an opinion about Gabbard that he found appealing besides just her looks.
Donald J. Trump. Messiah? Poopiehead? Discuss...
And arguably an anchor baby. She simply has too many things working against her to be a serious candidate. Again, maybe. I'd still strongly consider it. I'd vote for her before Trump or Clinton, without a doubt. And before just anybody else that was on either main stage. But I know that's...www.indianagunowners.com
For the record KG1 said that, I just pointed out the oldest post refrencing Tulsi was mostly pictures of her.
well, if occupy democrats tells me to do it, then...
