Rick Reuben wrote:

Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:Will you ever shut up about this?

Screw you. You're the dope who makes regular drunken 'Fuck America' threads when you can't even formulate a coherent argument against who fucked America up for us. You don't name names, and you protect villains. Your fake anarchy bullshit is stale crap, a bunch of grandstanding nonsense.

And the pot meets the kettle.

Rick, you don't trust anyone. Your view of the world is that everyone in power is evil. Even if that's true, what the hell are you going to do about it? Show us more graphs?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:Will you ever shut up about this?

Screw you. You're the dope who makes regular drunken 'Fuck America' threads when you can't even formulate a coherent argument against who fucked America up for us. You don't name names, and you protect villains. Your fake anarchy bullshit is stale crap, a bunch of grandstanding nonsense.

Geez, what liberal media puppet shit in your Cheerios this morning?

Rick Reuben wrote:

caix wrote:Jeez Rick... when will you ever shut the fuck up?

Blah blah blah. Don't make the 9/11 official myth the backbone of your entire rant against the state of affairs in this country when you know that if you tried to support the 9/11 myth on the evidence, you'd fail miserably. If the 9/11 myth is the foundation for your political views, your house is sinking into a quicksand of discarded propaganda.

What the fuck is the 9/11 myth, Rick?

caix wrote:

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:Re: funding
I wouldn't qualify it as 'outrage' but the problem is that Barack is trying to portray himself as holier than thou, while he's just as two-faced as anyone else trying to get elected. I don't have a problem with his decision as much as his hypocrisy.

I fail to see the hypocrisy. I thought his point was to move away from big donors.

In March of last year, the Obama campaign stated that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" if he won the Democratic primary election. But the campaign backed away from those statements as Obama's popularity increased and the campaign contributions started flowing in.

It has nothing to do with his huge fundraising advantage over McCain though, right? According to Obama, the public financing system is 'deeply flawed'. Sure. Couldn't he at least be honest about why he's backing out of his pledge? Could have been, but wasn't.

caix wrote:When he talks, he doesn't sound like a bullshit artist, which I think is extremely refreshing in 2008. Also, he puts up a good fight against the other side, which is also extremely refreshing in 2008...

You don't think he sounds like a con man? Every time I hear him speak, it's the most transparent, fed with a spoon rhetoric. About him putting up a good fight, I can't help but wonder what, if anything, is genuine opposition. There's no way the democrats, particularly Obama with his sights set on the office, would jeopardize anything within the status quo, about america's relationship with Israel, not taking military involvement off the table regarding Iran, impeachment of Bush, etc. Needless to say, the democrats are spineless pussies concerned with nothing but themselves. Republicans, it's obvious why I don't have to bring them up. It's pathetic. Mindless infotainment bullshit.

Rick, Google should hire you to replace their indexing server technology. Your search and recall abilities are obviously far beyond theirs.

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:

In March of last year, the Obama campaign stated that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" if he won the Democratic primary election. But the campaign backed away from those statements as Obama's popularity increased and the campaign contributions started flowing in.

It has nothing to do with his huge fundraising advantage over McCain though, right? According to Obama, the public financing system is 'deeply flawed'. Sure. Couldn't he at least be honest about why he's backing out of his pledge? Could have been, but wasn't.

Thanks for posting that.

I still don't care, actually. I like the fact that he's made it possible to fund a campaign on small donations. I think it goes well with his message. I don't see that as hypocrisy.

Skronk wrote:

caix wrote:When he talks, he doesn't sound like a bullshit artist, which I think is extremely refreshing in 2008. Also, he puts up a good fight against the other side, which is also extremely refreshing in 2008...

You don't think he sounds like a con man? Every time I hear him speak, it's the most transparent, fed with a spoon rhetoric. About him putting up a good fight, I can't help but wonder what, if anything, is genuine opposition. There's no way the democrats, particularly Obama with his sights set on the office, would jeopardize anything within the status quo, about america's relationship with Israel, not taking military involvement off the table regarding Iran, impeachment of Bush, etc. Needless to say, the democrats are spineless pussies concerned with nothing but themselves. Republicans, it's obvious why I don't have to bring them up. It's pathetic. Mindless infotainment bullshit.

The democrats failed. I can't disagree with that. But no, I don't think Obama sounds like a con man. I try to be skeptical, I just found that I couldn't disagree with what he says and he's very intuitive and thoughtful.

I don't think any politician would ever be trusted. Who's to say Chris Dodd isn't fighting against FISA just because he wants political points with his constituents? After all, he's the longest serving senator in Connecticut history. Any skeptic can make an argument against him. Just sayin'...

caix wrote:

Skronk wrote:

caix wrote:When he talks, he doesn't sound like a bullshit artist, which I think is extremely refreshing in 2008. Also, he puts up a good fight against the other side, which is also extremely refreshing in 2008...

You don't think he sounds like a con man? Every time I hear him speak, it's the most transparent, fed with a spoon rhetoric. About him putting up a good fight, I can't help but wonder what, if anything, is genuine opposition. There's no way the democrats, particularly Obama with his sights set on the office, would jeopardize anything within the status quo, about america's relationship with Israel, not taking military involvement off the table regarding Iran, impeachment of Bush, etc. Needless to say, the democrats are spineless pussies concerned with nothing but themselves. Republicans, it's obvious why I don't have to bring them up. It's pathetic. Mindless infotainment bullshit.

The democrats failed. I can't disagree with that. But no, I don't think Obama sounds like a con man. I try to be skeptical, I just found that I couldn't disagree with what he says and he's very intuitive and thoughtful.

I don't think any politician would ever be trusted. Who's to say Chris Dodd isn't fighting against FISA just because he wants political points with his constituents? After all, he's the longest serving senator in Connecticut history. Any skeptic can make an argument against him. Just sayin'...

at least dodd is doing the right thing. or feingold. i honestly think they care more about their impact than their careers. kuncinich is a case in point.

regarding public financing: i'm pretty sure that mccain threw down the gauntlet to obama about two & a half months ago, but obama didn't respond to the offer. he should have just said what's at stake & why he can't afford not to take the money he needs to get the word out or something.

anyways personal advancement trumps institutional change. see it everywhere everyday, but don't sell it to me as the revolution.

jimmy spako wrote:at least dodd is doing the right thing. or feingold. i honestly think they care more about their impact than their careers. kuncinich is a case in point.

i believe they're honest, too. unfortunately, many people disagree with us.

jimmy spako wrote:regarding public financing: i'm pretty sure that mccain threw down the gauntlet to obama about two & a half months ago, but obama didn't respond to the offer. he should have just said what's at stake & why he can't afford not to take the money he needs to get the word out or something.

anyways personal advancement trumps institutional change. see it everywhere everyday, but don't sell it to me as the revolution.

fair enough. i never really saw it as a revolution, though. i don't really see how it matters. maybe i'll be proven wrong at some point. i hope not.