I just find sunb1ind to be annoying. :DOriginally Posted by Charla
I just find sunb1ind to be annoying. :DOriginally Posted by Charla
I watched part of one pre-exclusion debate, so call me a slave of the media if you want. But if you assume that the nominations were decided (or at least narrowed to 3 possibilities) well before voters had anything to say about it, then that sort of begs the question of what the debates would accomplish anyway. I mean, if 5/8 of the candidates don't count in the first place, then it only makes sense to exclude them from debates in which they would attempt to appeal to an electorate that's already incapable of voting for them anyway, right?
edit: I find a lot of people annoying too, but it can still be fun to argue with them.
It's irritating trying to debate/argue with someone who is seemingly completely devoid of rational thought.Originally Posted by Charla
Debates are set up for entertainment, its similar to American Idol, but not as funny IMO(those auditions are stupid funny). Its like how when the Iraq war started, that shit was broadcasted like a football game with all those maps and graphics the news used. The other reason why debates kick ass are the parties they throw with them. Everyone knows politicians party the hardest man.Originally Posted by Charla
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8141/cpartywm9.gif
A little, but you sort of get used to it after talking to people in online games long enough. And Republicans. youseewhatididthar?Originally Posted by Norelco
My thoughts are irrational? My friend, if you think me ranting about the 3 companies who censor our news or the fact that Clinton and Obama carry no fundamental differences, then please lock me up in a fuckin nuthouse. I am not in my right mind to think like that.![]()
You have failed to provide any real argument against me, rather than the usual "I don't like you" crap I get on here. If anyone should be angry, it would be me. However, I am used to these types of comments, so I really don't take it personal anymore.
When you're running for the democratic party nomination it's hard to expose a whole lot of 'fundamental differences' between yourself and your rivals. In the end you don't get to construct your own platform from whole cloth. The party runs your election. Welcome to the United States of America. Maybe when you get to that chapter in your civics texbook it'll make more sense to you.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/ ... index.html
anyone catch this? Basically at a rally McCain had this radio person open up for him, and he was throwing the typical conservative "vote for us or die" thing. He also threw out Obamas middle name several times (its Hussein) in an attempt to make him lose support because of that. McCain later told him he went to far and now the radio host is bashing McCain.
Bill Cunningham's a twat. I wish someone really would throw him under a bus.
I dunno, would you vote for Obama or anyone else if his middle name was Hitler? Hussein isn't a name that many people trust here in the US, rational or not.Originally Posted by sephir
You don't sound any more intelligent with that comment by disregarding my argument on corporate censorship. That's a truly irrelevant view on Gravel's decision to run as a Dem. That civics book you're reading from sounds horribly out-of-date, best get a new one.Originally Posted by Correction
Fixed that for youOriginally Posted by Correction
![]()
Mussolini's probably a better example (and one that doesn't invoke Godwin's law). I'd vote for someone whose middle name was Mussolini.
ok guartz Jr. Keep championing the cause of your loser nominee. I'll be over here concerning myself with the real world.Originally Posted by sunb1ind
I'm begging for godwin's law ittOriginally Posted by Charla
But I'd vote for somebody with the last name Hitler if the person was as well grounded and intelligent as Obama.
That show is so fake, its all about that Laguna Beach.Originally Posted by Correction
Vote for Obama!
Yes.. vote for Obama.... vote for Obama....Originally Posted by sunb1ind
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4...pnobamaox8.jpg
Hehe.. found this over at dailykos today. Snarky way of sayin' F/U to all the people who slam Obama supporters and accuse them of blind faith.
Well, even though these good people have the right intentions, it really is blind faith. How is it not, when you judge him solely on the way he gives speeches? They can literally only discuss what Obama stands for or what Obama proposes to change America. He has no political accomplishments whatsoever. You could say that contributing in the invasion of Iraq or the future invasion of Iran is an accomplishment, depending on your sanity.Originally Posted by Olo401
If this phony leader is elected, he will do nothing to stop the possible start of a 3rd World War from happening. Whoa, wait a minute, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. Maybe it is, but how do you think Iran will respond to an attack? Better yet, how will Iran's allies like Russia react? This isn't just another simple war for oil brewing up, Iran is a whole 'nother ballgame kids.
If you actually look into his records in the IL state legislature and in the US Senate, at the proposals he has made on his website and in the 21 primary debates, his work as a constitutional lawyer and as a church-based community organizer, you'll know that your comment is, basically, pulling a Clinton talking point out of your ass.Originally Posted by sunb1ind
Yup, totally phony leader. No accomplishments whatsoever. It's not like he's been a career politician for 12 years or anything. And what can a President do to stop a war, anyway? If the military-industrial complex wants unprovoked aggression, no wet-behind-the-ears 40-something baby is going to stop them. He'll get totally steamrolled by a Democratic Congress and we'll all be looking at WW3 in a few years.
So what's the weather like over there in Bizarro World, anyway?
NPR “All Things Considered” profile on Gravel and 1968.
Mr. GRAVEL (in 1968): The proposal that the United States leave
Vietnam unilaterally is an unsound one and I think a very immature
one.
KASTE (NPR): The thing is, even as he was making these ads, Gravel
privately shared Gruening’s dovish position on Vietnam. He was
simply telling Alaska voters what they wanted to hear.
Mr. GRAVEL: I said what I said back in 1968 because it was
to advance my career.
KASTE: It worked. Gravel beat Ernest Gruening in the primary
and won the Senate seat in the fall. Since then, he’s been
quite frank about how he passed Gruening on the right. But
what’s important, he says, is what he did with the Senate
seat after he won.
Mr. GRAVEL: I now become opposed to the war, as vigorously as
Ernest Gruening was. I released the Pentagon Papers in my efforts.
Are you starting to get it yet?