So, if someone posts an article in the NY Times that is favorable to OBama you kick it.

[xultar]

But, if the same poster posts an article by the NY Times that is not favorable to Obama you let it sink. Why even come to OU then, why not just go to the Obama campaign website where only good shit is posted. Seems to me that is where you'd want to be cuz there is no chance anything negative/critical, or bad polls about Obama will be posted.

Dare I say ignoring news articles that you don't agree with is the most ignorant ass stupid shit I've ever heard. That's like the fuckers who are ignoring the science on Global Warming. They just ignore or don't read shit that says Global Warming is happening. They are saying to themselves that if they don't read the science then Global warming does not exist to me. All is good.

Ignoring news stories that you don't like is like a Bush voter ignoring the fact that the guy they are voting for is an idiot.

It's also like all those fucking ignorant ass voters who ignored the news in 2k4 and voted for Bush over Kerry.

So, is that what intelligent people do, they just pretend shit isn't going on so they can live in a world where they only hear and read shit they like?


ROFFPNMFPLMFAO

[leftofcool]

1. Kind of like ignoring Florida and Michigan

But, hey, Obama doesn't need them to win, or Ohio, or Texas.....

[stillcool]

23. Kind of hard to ignore this...

don't you think. 48 states abide by the rules, and 2 defy them. I am sick of people twisting this.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html
January 9, 2008
By Peter Slevin
CHICAGO --
A fresh poll suggests that running nearly unopposed will not mean winning nearly 100 percent of the vote.

The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.

"People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can't cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots," said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers's chief of staff. "We know we've got to educate the voters in a hurry."
Following Michigan law, local clerks are allowing voters a chance to redo their ballots.

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

[papau]

37. DNC past threats not inforced - rules cut delegates 50% - Dean demanded 100%

[stillcool]

42. No. If you look at the articles..

the DNC made it perfectly clear what would happen if those 2 states, out of 50 chose to break the rules. And the penalty for breaking the rules was known in August. The time to raise hell was back then, but nobody did. The Republican Party's penalty for moving the date up was 1/2 the delegates.

[xultar]

2. x

[NNN0LHI]

3. Ain't enough Democrats in the whole world to account for the so many supposed Obama supporters here

I noticed that soon as I started posting to this board.

Something is funny. Not the kind of funny that makes me laugh either.

Don

[xultar]

8. It's the same group that was for Dean last year. The % is high cuz it is DU is OU now.

I can understand why it is happening, because when Obama is crowned the Nom I think some feel that OU will be the centre of all things OU. The funny thing is once Obama moves to the GE, he has to move to the center which means that he cannot acknowledge OU. Because it has the stigma of being the Progressive version of FR.

[robbedvoter]

14. Move to the center from where he is now? How can one move to the center from this:

""By the way, I would reach out to the first George Bush. You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us 20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people. So I want a bipartisan team that can help to provide me good advice and counsel when I'm president of the United States"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/20/lkl.01.html

[xultar]

16. Well, he'll have to pull the fake shit off. Now that he knows he's got the nom

his fake left is already starting to fade.

[Teaser]

4. only way to avoid conflict and keep the peace

I tried to get people to pledge civil debate. Got bupkus. So I'm now totally on board with ignores and letting it sink.

If each camp only reads our own stuff, at least we won't kill each other.

[xultar]

13. Isn't that dumb too. Wanting each camp to only read stuff that appeals to them?

[Teaser]

21. Dumb don't enter into it.

I'm not telling people not to read things they disagree with. I'm just telling them not to engage the other side. Why?

Because this isn't a place where minds are changed anymore.

My only interest, at this point, is to defuse further fighting. And since DU has proven it is not mature enough to handle adult debate,
the only alternative is not to engage.

If I were an HRC supporter, I'd be doing the same thing.

[tabasco]

5. You're the one complaining.

Why don't you go somewhere else?

Maybe a nice Hillary echo chamber where you and your friends can have fun in Pretend World.

[xultar]

10. I'm not complaining. Just saying ignoring news stories that you don't agree with is stupid.

Scratch that, ignorant as fuck.

And I also asked a very important question, if you don't want to hear criticism about your candidate don't you think you'd be happier on a site where only glowing positive shit is posted?

Being here is giving me great insight into some shit to use for my next standup routine.

[kid a]

35. Just because one doesn't read the news here on DU doesn't mean one doesn't read the news.

I read everything I can get my hands on - away from DU and with the vehement slant that many posters use.

Your head is wrapped around DU too much, or OU as you slant it.

You assume WAY too much in your broad stroke complaint.
Hey - I say, whatever makes your DU experience enjoyable - MORE POWER TO YOU!!!

If I have 30 people on Ignore, yet read every fucking news article out there - I don't think I'm missing anything.

[Barack_America]

6. It's a transition phase.

Barack Obama WILL be the nominee. There's really not much use in fighting about it any longer. But Hillary may not drop out for sometime, meaning that threads slamming Obama will *technically* be allowed at DU.

Thus, letting those threads "sink" is a way of self-policing and hopefully returning some unity to the site.

[xultar]

15. Sorry, the whole let it sink thing is stupid. sorry. It's not a trasition, it is just dumb.

Plus every time someone posts into a thread as a signal to let something sink, they are actually kicking it in the process, which is...dumb.

[Hutzpa]

7. LISS

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

22. guess the OP went over your head. Head in sand is your logic

[parasim]

9. Just because someone doesn't kick a story doesn't mean it's being ignored.

I, as an Obama supporter, do read the negative stories about Obama. If I highly disagree with them, I might post a rebuttal. But if I don't think the story is anything more that politics as usual, I move on. I certainly am not going to give it a kick. and I do take offense to being considered and idiot for not doing so.

I don't see many Hillary supporters kicking the latest story about her Bosnia trip thing...

[xultar]

12. maybe for the first 10 seconds it stays on the front page of GDP, that is the

whole reason...not to keep it on the page so people don't have to see it or read it

[parasim]

20. What, so you think there is some coordinated effort by Obama supporters to sink threads?

Wow, that's getting just a tad paranoid, doncha think?

[xultar]

27. Did you miss the let it sink thread as OU's answer to yes we can?

[parasim]

31. Ok, I guess I see what you are saying...

Sorry, for not getting it. You see, I read DU pretty much strictly through the Latest page, which typically has all new posts posted to DU up to about the last hour, so I don't usually miss new threads. I rarely ever go to a topic's main page.

I can see where someone would miss a new thread if you only went to a particular topics page. and I can see where somebody could certainly throw up a bunch of inane threads to knock one off of that first page. I agree, that's pretty stupid.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.


on edit: Of course, you do realize that this very thread could be accused of doing the exact same thing, don't you? What if this post and it's replies/kicks are trying to sink a story that you don't like?

[xultar]

34. No prollem. I just think as 'adults' it's pretty silly to have such a coordinated effort.

Clinton supporters are out numbered like 4 to 1 here. it makes no sense to wipe what little opposition you have off the map.

Seems to me Obama supporters would be lulled into a false sense of security and be shocked as shit when things don't go their way. It just doesn't seem right that 8 people can post positive shit about their candidate and when the opponent's 2 supporters post a critical thread, they go ape and all answer back with 8 negative threads about the opponent.

[parasim]

36. Right, and I could be offended by you characterizing me as an idiot...

or that I'm not an adult or trying to "wipe what little opposition" I have off the map when you refer to "Obama supporters". But I'm not really because I'm used to broad-brush techniques in politics. so, I usually just ignore them.

I hate the game of politics, that's one reason why I only visit the Latest (and sometimes Greatest) pages here at DU.

But rest assured, I do read the negative stories about my candidate.

(btw, I added an addendum to my previous post)

[sandnsea]

11. So now you're the thread kicking nanny??

People don't have to kick threads if they don't want to. I don't see you kicking Obama threads. Does that make you a fucking ignorant ass too??

[Bonobo]

17. So I have to respond to OPs like: "Some Think Obama's Racist Remarks Will Hurt Him in the GE"

What the fuck does that have to do with ignoring Global Warming!?

:wtf:

[xultar]

25. You know, your reading skills need work. I didn't say you have to respond, but a coordinated effort

to sink posts because someone posts shit that you don't like is STUPID.

YOur little coordinated effort was used in a post where a person posted a tracking poll. What is the point of letting a poll sink that you don't like while kicking polls you do...

That's dumb. It's almost as if you only want to hear the good stuff which is totally Republican lockstep shit.

[Bonobo]

28. As for me personally, the only shit that I "suggest" people ignore is flamebait. n/t

G-G rubbing isn't just for Bonobos btw.

[xultar]

18. Better proposal than let it sink, just put the OP on ignore. You don't like the aricles they

post, just put them on ignore, and the people who post positively to the post you don't like...put them on ignore too.

[rodeodance]

19. So many see Anti-Hillary vs Pro Obama. They include nasty photos of Hillary

in there tx rather than positive pics of obama.

[xultar]

26. Who cares, The game is totally blown. Just have fun with it.

[donheld]

30. Who cares, The game is totally blown. Just tear each other up over it.

Sad thing is it's not a game. Too many see it that way.

[xultar]

32. I think having fun over it is much funner.

[donheld]

38. And tearing each other apart is even more fun isn't it.

[Lefty-Taylor]

41. You mean "their" not "there." I wouldn't nitpick about your grammar except that I'm tired

of your content, too, rodeodance. (I've been here six years, post only occasionally, but must say your posts are old to many of us.)

[rodeodance]

24. REC

[SunsetDreams]

29. I'm sorry...

I haven't done my job in giving RW smear threads the time of day.

I don't have to kick a thread if I don't want to.

I can ignore a thread if I want to (see DU rules)


So what is your purpose of posting a negative thread anyway?

You want attention, sorry I'm not giving it to you.

I've read some of the threads, it doesn't mean I have to waste my fingers in typing a response.

Peope can choose to read, can choose to reply or not...that's the breaks.

:eyes:

[bridgit]

33. um, yes, yes that is correct

and i've said for a while now that BO supporters are too much like the blind bush supporters of what we hoped would be yesteryear :shrug:

[kid a]

39. I didn't know DU was the only place to get news - if i ignore it here, i've probably read it already

[Lefty-Taylor]

40. Sorry, xultar, but your post lost credibility with its sour tone, poor presentation and over-use of

profanity (and I'm no prude; I say use "fuck" and other strong obscenities judiciously and strategically and they carry more weight).