This is just too rich, isn't it?

All the Obama detractors claiming that he doesn't stand on his principles, but because of his anti-527 stance, Move On, the posterchild of rightwing ire, shuts down its 527 and instead will raise money in small chunks by having bake sales!

But, but, but, WAIT! John McCain says he can't control the rightwing 527's, so he won't even try!

Therein lies the difference between real leadership and the same ole', same ole'. That bump you feel is McCain getting run over again by the Obama Express!

Tony,

Before November comes the Obama Express is gonna back up and run over the Doubletalk Express a few times.

Hey McBush, when you hear the beeping you better get the hell out of the way you lying sack of shit.

Yes no more same ole same ole:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is abandoning public financing for his presidential campaign, reversing his earlier stance in bold certainty he can raise millions more on his own as the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal.

That bump you feel is BO followers getting put under the Obama Express bus - just like his grandma and pastor - sorry "ex" pastor.

E90 did you realize that you psoted a self-retorting retort?

Yes no more same ole same ole:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is abandoning public financing for his presidential campaign, reversing his earlier stance in bold certainty he can raise millions more on his own as the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal.

Posted by ELCIDCE90

Since he's the first to ever do this, how can you call that the "same ole same ole"?

TFD, do you relize what posted was facetious? Not taking public money will require reliance on more special interests.

Some $85 million in public money is available to each major party nominee during the fall campaign if they agree to forgo other contributions.

Not to mention he said he would take it earlier. Politics as usual - or same ole same ole if you like.

I hope they make more Alex commercials though...

Nothing funnier then seeing an ugly mother whine and cry that she's worried about her giant head fat tounged retard kid getting drafted when he's 6 years old...

YEAH!

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And again the Bush Fake Plastic "conservative" Wingding Bastards cry all Broke Dick about being denied another opportunity!

Now let's see if Mccunt, the man who hugged the guy who questioned his patriotism, attacked his daughter and impugned his service record ------ will keep his word on this!

El squid-so what's McSame doing about election funding that has the FEC investigating him?

Po' ElCid!

Trying to get some traction with his weekly reichwing talking points and he ends up just spinning his wheels.

Most people when they look at Obama's decision to go with the 200+ Million raised by a large number of small donations rather than restrict himself to the 85 Million he'd get under the public system applaud his savvy and respect the way his campaign has managed to impact so many people so significantly.

The choice between the two men could not be clearer by this point.

McCain is old and busted.

Obama is new and hawt.

McSame is same old, same old.

Obama is the next big thing.

G08ama!

Be Well.

/It's no secret that the GOPhers have a larger war chest fer the upcoming election than the Dem Party and that's largely due to the fact that the GOPhers are more corrupted and co-opted by the corporations than the Dems.The GOP runs on corporate over-influence and corruption. The Dems, and especially Obama, run on people power.

Well--at least we can see where folks are comparing these two candidates on. New/Old--great insight!

Instead--what a thought--why not actually compare the two candidates on their positions on the issues.

Maybe then you might--just might--get your head out of the clouds.

Politics as usual - or same ole same ole if you like.

Posted by ELCIDCE90

You still haven't answered how doing things differently than has ever been done before is the "same ole same ole".
As far as I know, most of his money is coming from small individual donors (including my $33).

Good links there KBM

TFD, by not accepting public money he will rely more on donations from special interests - ie same ole same ole. Additionally he changed his stance on accepting public donations - ie same ole same ole for politicians -

"most of his money" - but not all. Don't get me wrong, McCain is beholden to special interests also - different ones to be sure but nontheless beholden. Obama is no different than any other politician - accept it and move on. Vote on his issues if you like but don't fall for the "change" bait and switch.

He relies on tons of small donations from individual donors, Elcid. You think Elenor from Wisconsin is going to get much from Obama for her $40 donation?

SPUD - not poor me, poor you. The blanket is over your eyes not mine. I have no misconceptions over who McCain is. He is flawed just like every politician. BO followers are fools to believe he is doing anything differently than any party nominee before him. Wake up the coffee is ready - or should I say beer for you in the great white north?

He relies on tons of small donations from individual donors, Elcid. You think Elenor from Wisconsin is going to get much from Obama for her $40 donation?

Posted by mOntecOre


Yes, no doubt. However, you do not become the nominee of your party without accepting funds from special interests in some capacity. By not accpeting public funding he is open to accept more "private" donations. He should have kept his promise and it would be a non issue. Same ole same ole politics as usual.

If money is supposed to be on the same level as Free Speech. Doesn't the limiting to only public funds without being able to use thse Private donations tantamount to quashing Free Speech?? Just curious.

Larry Mohr

So i guess now our votes aren't enough.

he could've done me a favor and stayed with his public financing pledge.

He still could've told big donors to F off even if he did take their money, you know.

He still could've told big donors to F off even if he did take their money, you know.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine


Yes, and he still might - but I am a bit cynical when it comes to politicians so I won't count on it. Again, vote for his policies if you like - just don't belive the rhetoric - you will be far less dissapointed if he is elected.

SHELL GAME.

I think the Madrid Myth (El Cid) wants to say that "all" politicians Do It, and thus O'Bama MUST Do It. Cidney baby, I just sent a $25 check to President Barney, will send more as time goes by and if my social security pittance permits. I expect no ambassorship in return. herm

just don't belive the rhetoric
Posted by ELCIDCE90

right back at you.

El,

I'm a huge Obama supporter and partisan Democrat. I have no illusions at all that his election will result in a magic wand being waved and birds will sing, butterflies appear and beer will be free for all.

What I DO believe is that Obama is the only candidate that can begin to put America back on the right track, establish new ideas and policies that will benefit all Americans not just certain segments(or sects).


Perhaps you're not aware that he's directed the DNC not to take lobbyist money for this election. He is a smart politician and the vast majority of his fundraising has been and will continue to be nickels and dimes X millions of Americans. McBush certainly can't make that claim, he has BushCo out on the rubber chicken circuit getting his money. Just as long as McBush doesn't have to appear with them he's cool with that.

Too many of you spend way too much time thinking...as I once did. It's obvious that the Obamessiah has started a trend and many of you are afflicted.

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then -- just to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.


I began to think alone -- 'to relax,' I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't help myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir, Confucius and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, 'What is it exactly we are doing here?'

One day the boss called me in. He said, 'Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job.'

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. 'Honey,' I confess, 'I've been thinking...' 'I know you've been thinking,' she said, 'and I want a divorce!' 'But Honey, surely it's not that serious.' 'It is serious,' she said, lower lip aquiver. 'You think as much as college professors and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!'

'That's a faulty syllogism,' I said impatiently. She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama.

'I'm going to the library,' I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors. They didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye, 'Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?' it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers Anonymous poster. This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was 'Porky's.' Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I took the final step............ I joined the Democratic Party.

And just one more little point on the subject. Within just a couple of days of Obama becoming the presumptive nominee he issued a challenge to McBush. Essentially it was this: John, if you'll agree to accept public financing and agree to limit what the RNC and 527's spend on your behalf, I'll agree to the same.

Now I know that McBush is older than Dog but when he'd made no response after several weeks, Obama made a decision and put it out publicly.

HERMIE- what about the "wright has a better understanding of the subtleties of race relations" in terms of the US government and AIDS question?

Jest,

That's as old as McBush. You could at least provide attribution when you steal someone's work.

And just one more little point on the subject. Within just a couple of days of Obama becoming the presumptive nominee he issued a challenge to McBush. Essentially it was this: John, if you'll agree to accept public financing and agree to limit what the RNC and 527's spend on your behalf, I'll agree to the same.

Now I know that McBush is older than Dog but when he'd made no response after several weeks, Obama made a decision and put it out publicly.

Posted by Reagan58

BS:
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 19, 7:27 PM ET

...Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But since clinching the Democratic nomination earlier this month, Obama has not broached the subject with McCain. The only discussion occurred about two weeks ago between Obama's and McCain's lawyers,

Obama lawyer Robert Bauer said he discussed the public financing issue for 45 minutes on June 6 with McCain counsel Trevor Potter. In interviews and e-mails, both Bauer and Potter agree that Bauer raised concerns about McCain having a head start because he had secured the nomination in early March and Obama did not until June 3. Potter said he told Bauer that given Obama's fundraising "I was sure there would be no McCain advantage by the end of the summer."

That meeting, Potter said, "was not part of any negotiation" on public financing.

"There was no aggressive pursuit of negotiations with the McCain campaign, there was no pursuit, period, of negotiations with the McCain campaign," Potter added later in a conference call with reporters.

why not actually compare the two candidates on their positions on the issues.

YEAH!

Ok, Wake us up when McCain finally arrives at some (consistent position on issues)!

Ok, Wake us up when McCain finally arrives at some (consistent position on issues)!


Posted by Redneckville


Well we sure know BO's "change, change we can believe in , hope and change"

why not actually compare the two candidates on their positions on the issues.

YEAH!

Brought to you by the crew who in 2000 and 2004 encouraged people to vote for the one they "Would Like to Have a Beer With"!

But I guess that's not an option this year, considering at mccains age his liver is only marginally functional and he is always preoccupied with concern and anticipation over his next bowel movement!

I have no misconceptions over who McCain is. He is flawed just like every politician. BO followers are fools to believe he is doing anything differently than any party nominee before him.

Lemme get this straight...

All politicians are flawed and they don't ever do anything different?

If you feel that way why bother voting fer anyone?

They are all the same according to you.

S'rsly.

McCain is the singularily most uninspiring and weakest candidate you've put up in Spud lifetime and he's advocating a series of economically ruinous and morally bankrupt policies

Obama is the singularily most inspiring and strongest candidate the Dems have put up in Spud's lifetime and he's advocating a series policies designed to reverse the gains made by the corporate world and the hyper rich under BushCo. To bring health care to millions who don't have it now. To bring back some level of accountability and dignity to the office of President. Maybe even investigate BushCo th eway they NEED to be investigated.

If you can't see the differences tween 'em then yer not really looking very hard, are ya?

It's true that all politicians at the national level are corporate whores to one extent or another, ...or they simply wouldn't be there.

Sad truth.

That sed, in Obama's case, Spud believes Barack's motives and methods are far superior to that of his competition and that precisely because he is less bought/less corporately co-opted than John "Older than Dirt" McCain he is more inclined towards (and capable of) bringing the real change that is so needed here and now.

If you believe that McCain actually wants to do anything other than entrench the status quo, that he is either inclined towards or capable of achieving any type of real change then you are a very foolish individual indeed.

08ama.

Be Well.

Actually spud he was already the nominee by the time I got to vote so I did not "put him up".

I definately see diferences between them spud. I see BO wants to raise my taxes and give my money away. Among other policy differences. I see BO wants to treat terrorists as criminals instead of soldiers. I see BO taking his daughters to a church esposing racism - yes I definately see differences.

As to achieving any type of real change, The US has done very well over the last 230+ years and broad sweeping change is not necessary. Changing from Bush to someone else will be enough.

"The move could also make it tougher politically for John McCain and the GOP to benefit from 527s, which can raise money in unlimited sums, on his side. While he has generally disapproved of such activity, he recently said that he couldn't control negative ads by such groups."

How will this hurt McCunt?

McCunt will simply attack Obama and lie to the people, saying that Obama is using 527's all while McCain himself is the one doing it. It's been happening all along.

"McCain is the singularily most uninspiring and weakest candidate you've put up in Spud lifetime"

uhm... unless you're 11 years old, remember Bob Dole?

By the way spud, some of us are self motivators and do not need the BS BO slings around to get us excited about doing great things for the country - actions speak louder than words as it were - McCain is inspirational in his own way. Waiting around for someone to lead you along and motivate you is the lib way.

I'm as liberal as they come here. I'm not one of the Obama fans screaming and pulling my hair out like a 16 year old seeing the Beatles at Shea Stadium 1964

But can you admit Obama was nothing more than a pawn attracting young and minority votes when he spoke at the DNC Convention in 2004? If not does anyone believe he would even have been a presidential candidate had he not read a speech? He certainly wouldn't have been a frontrunner based on his experience or accomplishments as a Senator.

By the way spud, some of us are self motivators and do not need the BS BO slings around to get us excited about doing great things for the country

Well, the majority isn't so inclined, so the fact that millions have become a part of the elective process and feel invested in its outcome is a tremendous positive for the Party and this nation.

You are nothing but another self-centered, myopic mope trying to rain on everyone else's parade. But don't stop, you're as entitled to your opinion as we are to our own, but you're not changing anyone's mind using the same discredited drivel the GOP dredges up every four years to maintain their "spend and no-tax" deficit enhancement which undermines the worker's economic well-being while the oligarchs haul in buckets of dough, many from the taxpayers themselves..

The fact is Obama represents the common sense ideal that intelligent and wise people should be able to accomplish mutual goals if the vitriole of partisan politics is left at the door when compromises need to be made. Obama has been nothing more than a rational voice in a sea of hysteria and finally America is reawakening to the notion that we share one community in which we all have a stake. Your reliance on "me-ism" is simply being swamped by the tidal wave of "us-ism", finally after far too many years of fear and division.

According to all the DATA Spud has seen the only people who are gonna be hit by Obama's proposed tax plan are the upper end of the spectrum. The people on the bottom to the middle class (up to 112,000 per year) actually are getting more tax breaks than under the McCain plan.

G08ama.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud

Exactly, he is going to raise MY taxes - so why would I want that? No matter how much you make, why would you want the government to take more of it - no matter who is in charge! I know better what to do with my money than BO or McCain!

And yes, in recent history the pubs do not have a glorious record of small govnt. I still hold hope for the "investment" in Iraq. - gonna take a beating for that comment here. But like the BO followers - I have hope.

Your reliance on "me-ism" is simply being swamped by the tidal wave of "us-ism", finally after far too many years of fear and division.

Posted by tonyroma

Wow, really. The "My generation" is trying to accuse me of "me-ism"? Self reliance-yes. me-ism - no. If we as a country would embrace that idea instead of the victim mentality we would go a long way to limiting government and lowering expenditures (60% of tax dollars) on entitlements.

"Today I took the final step............ I joined the Democratic Party."

The Jester took a Demo joke which was a bit moldy when Eisenhower was neglecting the nation, pasted in Demo for Repub, and thinks he's the cat's pajamas. Or is it the bee's knees? herm

HERMIE - again the question - wright - US - AIDS - racial relations?

I did answer Billy El Cid on Wright somewhere, but will not resurrect it now. As I understand his post about O'Bama being inspirational and McWho being dull, he asserts that the dullness an asset because dull people make you think for yourself. Well, why not? herm

I did answer Billy El Cid on Wright somewhere, but will not resurrect it now. As I understand his post about O'Bama being inspirational and McWho being dull, he asserts that the dullness an asset because dull people make you think for yourself. Well, why not? herm

HERMIE - you never did. Show me the post and I will apologize. I like Billy El Cid though!

But can you admit...
Posted by crispee_oc

Yes, I can admit that. Doesn't change anything though.

And Cid, I'm gonna get burned by Obama's tax plan too... I'm already at 40% tax rate and when all is paid, I'm gonna have less in my pocket than alot of people who make less than me pre-tax.
I still like him better than mccain.

Since when do we have a 40% tax rate?

/It's no secret that the GOPhers have a larger war chest fer the upcoming election than the Dem Party and that's largely due to the fact that the GOPhers are more corrupted and co-opted by the corporations than the Dems.The GOP runs on corporate over-influence and corruption. The Dems, and especially Obama, run on people power.

Posted by dethspud

Source please.

that's largely due to the fact that the GOPhers are more corrupted and co-opted by the corporations than the Dems.The GOP runs on corporate over-influence and corruption.

Oops, what I meant was I wanted a source for that portion.

"HERMIE - you never did. Show me the post and I will apologize."

POSTED BY HERM AT 2008-06-20 02:29 PM | REPLY

$85 Million in Katrina Aid Just Being Delivered

"Cidney baby, AIDs may have been a bit of 400-years-of-slavery hyperbole, just as was the charge that the FBI introduced crack cocaine into the ghetto to eliminate the Black Panther 'menace.' Maybe not. There is some conspiracy buff in all of us. But Cidney, baby, if you STILL don't think that Jeremiah Wright understands the underlying principles of American race relations, YOU have not been reading the papers and there is no hope for you. herm"

Why do I waste my time looking for posts for righties who've never shown an ability to read. Guess I'm thinkin' of that apology. herm

Oops, what I meant was I wanted a source for that portion

~SG2

Try using yer senses.

Cheney allowed the energy industry to write it's own policy behind closed doors.

Both sides have their scandals but the GOPhers are more consistently the one caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Corporate contributions to the GOP are legion.

Look at the Oil lobby alone they contribute to both sides of the duopoly but they contribute more to the GOP consistently.

The EPA was staffed with former lobbyists who used to fight the EPA.

The War Profiteering that has gone on in Iraq alone...

If you got an alternate picture that paints the Dems as somehow worse than all that then Spud is all eyes.

G'head Rembrant.

Sketch it out.

Be Well.

FTFA: Republican leaders threatened a freeze-out of business lobbyists who dared hire a Democrat or ignored the names on the leadership's private hiring tip sheet.

Pay-to-play became the insider mantra during the Republican reign. But "extortion" was how many CEOs described the annual shakedowns by committee chairmen with jurisdiction over their industries.

The article you cite basically sez that the GOPher's greedy and open corporate corruption has so pissed off the business community by this point (along with their reckless spending no doubt) that many corporate donors are backing the Dems moreso than the GOPher this election cycle.

This basically confirms Spud's contention that both sides are corporately over-influenced but that it is the GOPhers who are far more open and greedy and quite frankly stupid than the Dems.

In terms of corruption Spud is speaking of how policy is shaped to the advantage of corporations and the oligarch class to the detriment of the majority. By that light, the GOPhers, particularily under Cheney and his pet chimp, have been poster boys fer "You're not doing it right" fer almost eight years now.

Be Well.

No, Dethspud, it actually cuts against your argument. It shows that corporate lobbyists were beholden to Republicans. So it doesn't confirm your statement, it shows the opposite relationship.

In terms of corruption Spud is speaking of how policy is shaped to the advantage of corporations and the oligarch class to the detriment of the majority. By that light, the GOPhers, particularily under Cheney and his pet chimp, have been poster boys fer "You're not doing it right" fer almost eight years now.

Oh, and I don't meant to trumpet for Republicans. I think both parties pay far too much attention to corporations. But I think it's a bit self-serving, partisan, and ignoring reality to act as if Republicans are SOOOO beholden to corporations compared to Democrats.

And even if that were true, which it's not based on the apparently non-partisan article (and the data it references) I gave you, it would NOT justify any questionable Democratic corporate associations. It is time to move beyond the, "well the Republicans are worse" justification, and fix the problem. I think both parties (the actual voters I mean) agree corporate entanglements can be very problematic.

I just saw the Alex commercial during Hardball, and it was no longer sponsored by Moveon.org. It was some collection of letters I didn't have time to catch.

My first thought was that moveon was hiding their involvement b/c of their name recognition, but this could also be a reason.

Anybody else seen this/know anything about it?

Since he's the first to ever do this, how can you call that the "same ole same ole"?

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2008


he gave his word that he was going to use public financing.......his word must not be worth very much......

of course he said he didnt know anything about his preacher for the last 20 years and I guess like DODD......who didnt KNOW he was getting VIP treatment from countywide.....AND WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF HIS COMMITTEE......
I guess they either arent as smart as you libs or they are all just lying again......

For instance, the Independent Community Bankers of America gave 67 percent of its donations to Republicans and just 33 percent to Democrats during the first three quarters of 2005.

Today, Democrats get the lion's share -- 53 percent -- compared with a Republican take of 47 percent. The association's spokesman, Bill Grassano, declined to comment on the reasons for the shift.

Yes, the article talks about a shifting of corporate donations but as the article rightfully asserts a lot of that had to do with the Democratic takeover of Congress.

A lot more has to do with the fact that they see the writing on the wall that Obama will be POTUS and are lining up to try and influence him.

That's DC, innit?

The article also talks quite plainly of the GOPhers strongarm tactics and open style of "pay to play" corruption.

Spud believes that Obama is far better equipped to withstand their blandishments than John "Bought and Sold" McCain.

That's essentially wot it boils down to.

And if you think you've proven with that Politico link that there is more corporate corruption amongst the Dems than the GOP then you really oughta think again.

Unless you can find instance of the Dems committing War Crimes in order to advance corporate agendas you wouldn't really have a case.

Be Well.

$85 Million in Katrina Aid Just Being Delivered

"Cidney baby, AIDs may have been a bit of 400-years-of-slavery hyperbole, just as was the charge that the FBI introduced crack cocaine into the ghetto to eliminate the Black Panther 'menace.' Maybe not. There is some conspiracy buff in all of us. But Cidney, baby, if you STILL don't think that Jeremiah Wright understands the underlying principles of American race relations, YOU have not been reading the papers and there is no hope for you. herm"

Why do I waste my time looking for posts for righties who've never shown an ability to read. Guess I'm thinkin' of that apology. herm

Posted by herm

Your kidding right? Hyperbole? Do you really believe that or are you just trying to save face. I hope for your sake it is the latter. I doubt anyone would agree he was using hyperbole in that "sermon". You sir are a lost cause. You life outside the US right? If so, stay there, my children will thank you.

Don't see that apology on the horizon HERMIE. Keep looking for the post though - when you find it I will.

I figgered youse wuz an out and out liar from the moment I saw the ridickerlous pen name. Indeed, I doubt very much that you have any idea what hyperbole is. One more big mouth ... herm

Yes, the article talks about a shifting of corporate donations but as the article rightfully asserts a lot of that had to do with the Democratic takeover of Congress.

Yes, I pointed that out in a post above to you.

A lot more has to do with the fact that they see the writing on the wall that Obama will be POTUS and are lining up to try and influence him.

No, you can see the trend beginning in 2007 before anyone thought OB was going to be POTUS.

That's DC, innit?

Well, if DC = politics then yes. Which again is why I say you're being partisan and blind to reality to merely point blame at Republicans. Again, that article points out that the Democrats are sold out to Big Business to a larger degree than Republicans. Sorry, but that's the truth.

The article also talks quite plainly of the GOPhers strongarm tactics and open style of "pay to play" corruption.

Yep, which again cuts against your argument. You said that Republicans are "co-opted" by corporations, but your own posts show the corporations are "co-opted" by Republicans which is the opposite relationship.

Spud believes that Obama is far better equipped to withstand their blandishments than John "Bought and Sold" McCain.

Kudos to you. I don't fault you and you're entitled to that opinion. But don't be so partisan as to believe that having OB elected solves the problem.

That's essentially wot it boils down to.

Yep, Democrats getting more money from Big Business is exactly what it boils down to.

And if you think you've proven with that Politico link that there is more corporate corruption amongst the Dems than the GOP then you really oughta think again.

Okay, still awaiting a source from you. Do you dispute the FACT that Democrats NOW receive more money from Big Business than Republicans??? Partisan partisan... yaka yaka yaka.

Unless you can find instance of the Dems committing War Crimes in order to advance corporate agendas you wouldn't really have a case.

Did the war in Bosnia NOT benefit the industrial military complex??? Ouch. How about the missiles we shot into Iraq in 1998??? Double ouch.

Posted by DethSpud

I love how you Obambi's get your panties in a twist whenever anyone says anything bad about Barry Hussein, but you are first in line to call John McCain every name in the book (always with some prejudice against his age). You people are pathetic. Oh, and a new flash boys: You will NEVER get to suck that black/white dick of his no matter how much you crave it.

Did the war in Bosnia NOT benefit the industrial military complex??? Ouch. How about the missiles we shot into Iraq in 1998??? Double ouch.

To compare Bosnia to Iraq and Afghanistan only shows how meaningless your point is. More weaponry is used in PRACTICE than was used in Bosnia. The costs of the Bush Wars alone have been calculated to be in excess of $3 TRILLION by the time all post-war expenditures will have been completed.

Do contributers increase their funding to the party in power? Of course they do. Does this mean they get everything they want, including the placement of industry insiders with anti-regulatory/anti-public's interest motives into government regulatory positions? Only if they're Republicans doing the placing. The rest is moot without specific examples.

I love how you Obambi's get your panties in a twist whenever anyone says anything bad about Barry Hussein, but you are first in line to call John McCain every name in the book (always with some prejudice against his age). You people are pathetic. Oh, and a new flash boys: You will NEVER get to suck that black/white dick of his no matter how much you crave it.

I love how you sore-Loserman, pro-Hillary crowd can't tell the difference between defending and dick-sucking. Ignatz, McCain is the OPPOSITION to Obama, not someone who compares favorably in any way unless the metric is McCain's ability to continue the disastrous policies of George the 43rd.

PS: Never sucked a dick in my life, but I'm damn sure glad I won't have Hillary trying to backdoor me with her strap-on. Obviously, thats something you quite enjoy....

Jest...

Thats cool, but the Party I see is quite different than the one defined by the author. He misses the pragmatism which Obama has always been guided by. He's never said we should immediately withdraw from Iraq, he's always based any final decision upon conditions on the ground. And how dare any Republican talk about wasteful government spending after the orgy of the Bush years.

I see it as just another case of wishful thinking. They call Rahm Emanuel an example of "New Democrats". Obviously, the man writing wouldn't know a Democrat from a donkey. Rahm is as hawkish as Obama is pragmatic. See, I think I know the TRUE fear of those on the right as it pertains to Obama's candidacy: If Obama's correct, and the American people are through with gridlock and 50 + 1 politics, and Obama's style is proven successful in application, they know the GOP will face the same game-changing proposition the Democrats did when the Reagan Revolution took hold. They either stand in opposition to what the people want, (look at the latest Newsweek poll which shows 86% opposition to this country's current direction) or they become facilitators in their own political demise when compromise and conciliation are shown not only to work but also as dynamic game-changers, altering the landscape of national politics in the favor of the Democrats.

The future holds the key to the end of this story and we'll have to wait and find out.

"And how dare any Republican talk about wasteful government spending after the orgy of the Bush years."

Can't argue with that. Remember...I see myself as a conservative, not a Republican.

"Obama has shown plain enough for anyone to see that he's a liberal."

He's not a "liberal." He's a leftist-socialist. I agree with this paragraph from the article:
"When Mr. Clinton left, so did the most prominent New Democratic voice. Party liberals have been reasserting control ever since. Howard Dean's 2004 consolation prize was the Democratic National Committee. Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker in 2006, and gave back committee chairs to the old 1960s liberal bulls. And now comes Mr. Obama, the party's most liberal nominee since Hubert Humphrey."

"The future holds the key to the end of this story and we'll have to wait and find out."

If, I say IF he's elected, I dread to see a return to the old 60's "liberalism."

Really there are only two dangers that Obama poses to conservatives -- one, perhaps he can turn huge new numbers of Americans into liberals by sheer force of personality, and two, perhaps he can do the same by actually winning arguments with conservatives on the merits.

TonyRoma/Andrew Sullivan

As a conservative, a Republican, a one-time Bushie and now an Obama supporter Sullivan has made the journey that so many of us have made since BushCo took over our government. He, like the vast majority of us is sick to death of the incompetency and dishonesty Bush and Cheney have afflicted us with.

Sullivan wants change and so do we. His background positions him well to point out the danger for conservatives in all this is. His ability to disseminate this through his blog, being one of the most widely read and influential out there, is further bad news for the Republicans this fall.

Bush has turned conservatism into a dirty word. This is a tragedy for real conservatives but they have only themselves to blame for standing by and letting it happen.

"Bush has turned conservatism into a dirty word."

What Bush has been practicing is by no stretch of the imagination conservatism. Just as the Democratic Party has not practiced liberalism since JFK. It's more like socialism. What's a true conservative or liberal to do nowadays?

"What Bush has been practicing is by no stretch of the imagination conservatism. Just as the Democratic Party has not practiced liberalism since JFK. It's more like socialism. What's a true conservative or liberal to do nowadays?"

Vote for Obama and hope, just as most of us did in 1980 when we voted for Reagan.

Bush and Cheney and their poltical machine have fed off various forms of fear just to keep themselves in power. We've had enough of it. Real conservatives now have a very reasonable fear that the country might go through some FDR-like swing to the left. That may happen and if it does they have only themselves to blame for allowing Bush to retain the presidency in 2004. There were enough signs back then about what a disaster he would ultimately be for them but they all marched in lockstep into the voting booths, bleating in fear like sheep about Kerry, gay marriage, terrorism and Iraq.

Probably what scares most conservatives most is that Obama will bring forth a successful liberal agenda and cause our economy to prosper and grow. Conservatives hate the very engine that tends to make them wealthy because it also raises the living standard of the working class and because of the mean spiritedness which, I believe, is really at the heart of conservatism, they will vote for McBush who will continue the failures of Bush. They understand that those policies aren't good for themselves but at least they also aren't good for working class people either. Conservatism is really negativism. I can't think of any period during which the working class's living standard rose while conservatives governed. Virtually all improvements in the lives of most Americans resulted from Liberalism and people need to start remembering that.

Having been exposed and shamed as a liar of the first (at least second) water, has the rigid rightie who fancies himself a Spanish hero (El Cid) withdrawn from posting activity? herm

Danni, we're in a full recession now and will be in a full-scale depression by the end of the year, and that doesn't even begin to factor in the major inflation that Bush's warrantless war and his fuel profits will cause. We will need social programs that dwarf even FDR's New Deal just to stop Bush destruction in its tracks. So President O'Bama will have his detractors. Even on the old DR they're already preparing their "Impeach" clothing. They won't win. herm

If, I say IF he's elected, I dread to see a return to the old 60's "liberalism."

Shows you refuse to actually learn how Obama's brand of politics have historically worked. Obama's no fire-breathing liberal, but he's obviously a member of the camp which believes neo-conservatism is bankrupt and counterproductive to the overall health of our society and the globe.

The core principles Obama espouses are hardly "leftish", at their foundation they're very much based on classic Burkean conservatism, though he obviously doesn't tout this fact very loudly to his base. Why do you think so many true conservatives are backing him over McCain this cycle? They trust that his pragmatism will win out over the pull of counterproductive liberalism when it wouldn't be prudent. Obama's core message is a conservative one: Everyone has a responsibility for their own lives and the health of their own communities. He puts the onus on the individual's role and responsibility BEFORE he might tout how government can be a tool to foster a healthier result with its influences, instead of remaining either an instigator or facilitator of what we all think is a bad situation made worse.

Personally, I'll be interested to hear why Obama supports the telecom immunity legislation making its way through Congress. I've seen no reason they should be given a pass for capitulating to Bush's illegal usurpation of unconstitutional powers. But it does plant him firmly on the right's side of this particular issue.

Tony has appointed himself as a priest who speaks for god. Too much.

Conservatives like Hannity, Savage and Levin love Obama. You can tell by how much they bitch about him.

Did the war in Bosnia NOT benefit the industrial military complex??? Ouch. How about the missiles we shot into Iraq in 1998??? Double ouch.

To compare Bosnia to Iraq and Afghanistan only shows how meaningless your point is. More weaponry is used in PRACTICE than was used in Bosnia. The costs of the Bush Wars alone have been calculated to be in excess of $3 TRILLION by the time all post-war expenditures will have been completed.

No one made a comparison.

Do contributers increase their funding to the party in power? Of course they do. Does this mean they get everything they want, including the placement of industry insiders with anti-regulatory/anti-public's interest motives into government regulatory positions? Only if they're Republicans doing the placing. The rest is moot without specific examples.

Source please.

Posted by tonyroma

Tony has appointed himself as a priest who speaks for god.

Not even remotely Ray. I express my informed opinion based upon the information I've been made privy to, nothing more, nothing less. In most cases I don't care who's speaking on the topic, I care about how they make their point and the facts and logic they use to support their views.

And you continue to base your criticism of Obama not on what he's done or said in the past, but upon your own belief that no one in politics can be what they claim to be or not become slaves to the corporate masters. Arguing about the future is futile because it hasn't even happened yet. There will be plenty of time for debating who and what Obama is in 2017, or perhaps how he failed as early as November this year.. See ya then.

Arguing about the future is futile because it hasn't even happened yet.

When you've been around as long as I have, it's reasonably predictable. I know enough about him to predict he'll fuck up everything he touches. He might even make Bush look good. And there you'll be apologizing for him week after week.

And don't think McCain is any better. This is a personality contest.

Danni, I can only speak for one conservative - me of course, and I truly hope that if BO is elected the country will prosper more than under any previous president. Not because he is BO but because cheering for failure to make oneselve or ones party look better is weak. Apart from rhetorical arguments, I believe very few citizens - dems and repubs alike - actually cheer for any US defeats.

SG...

Don't make blanket statements and then ask someone else to do the research for you. If you claim there's no difference between the parties, where is your source? When people ask for sources over commonly written about and debated topics it usually means they don't know what they're talking about.

Yep, and if you spent a little time reading the discussion between DethSpud and I, you would see that I was asking HIM to substantiate a claim he made. But, what statement did I make that you find to be a "blanket" statement? I can substantiate but you must tell me which statement.

Over 100 high-level officials appointed by the Bush administration now oversee industries they previously represented as lobbyists, lawyers, or company advocates. Many of those appointees have pushed for more favorable policies for their respective industries from within the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, and other agencies. Six have been the subject of ethics investigations or have resigned due to conflicts of interest.

www.commondreams.org

Again, you need to read the discussion between DethSpud and I if you truly want to participate. He said that Republicans are MORE beholden to corporate interests than Republicans, and I made the point that Democrats receive MORE money from big business than Republicans. The cite with this information is provided above in the discussion between DethSpud and I. Note, as I told DethSpud, but which you likely did not read, I'm not trying to trumpet the Republican cause; rather, I'm making the point that to only call out Republicans is partisan and ignores reality.

I express my informed opinion based upon the information I've been made privy to, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by tonyroma at 2008-06-21 02:01 PM |

All I see is the same fuzzy meaningless bullshit that politicians are notorious for.

All I see is the same fuzzy meaningless bullshit that politicians are notorious for.

And we see the opposite type of meandering bullshit from a curmudgeonly tyrant that doesn't respect the fact that disagreement with you isn't a sign of idiocy.

Some see an effort to move politics in a different direction for the common good. All you see is the perpetuation of the status quo. As I said before, you're not omniscient, nor am I. The future will play out as it does regardless of what we predict.

Yeah sure, attack the messenger without answering the charges. Specifics Tony. Specifics! The term "common good" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Obama is a Leninist/Fascist and no amount of fuzzyheaded logic can hide it.

I know the history of men obsessed with political power. They bring nothing but war, poverty and misery.

"Obama is a Leninist/Fascist "

You're crazy, and a McCarthyite to boot. You just lump together everything you don't like in a deliberately dishonest manner. You might just as well call him a Leninist/Fascist/Nazi/Klansman for all the sense that made. You make a mockery of any serious political discourse.

"Leninist/Fascist"

A ratio of orthogonal variables vanishes.

Or, more accurately, their dot product vanishes.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-21 07:12 PM

This is no game. This political system of ours has gone out of control. We are entering dangerous times and you, like the other sheep, are feeding yourself to the wolves.

"This is no game. "

Then stop treating it as a game. When you want to get serious, and speak like an adult, and use political labels and categories in an intellectually honest way, let me know.

You don't think I take you seriously?

As a case lesson, I was long bothered why the Jews in Nazi Germany didn't see it coming. We had the benefit of hindsight; they didn't. Now I see the parallels in the nationalistic and socialist fervor that dominates common beliefs.

These are people dangerously obsessed with power and don't care how much they destroy to get it. I see it clearly because I know what it means to be free. Your Marxist perspective clouds your judgment.

You have to ask where is all this going? You haven't looked beyond what you want to see.

"You don't think I take you seriously?"

I don't care whether you or anybody else takes me seriously or not.

I do care whether people use political rhetoric in an informed and intellectually honest manner. You don't.

As soon as someone says, "Obama is a Marxist," or "Bush is a Nazi," the argument is over. There's simply no point in debating such dishonest people.

There's simply no point in debating such dishonest people.

I hope you mean that.

Monitoring this thread again after a sweltering afternoon of registering black voters in the park, I see that the poster who fancies himself to be "El Cid" is indeed back, somewhat contrite with his tail between his legs, hoping to Danni (that's ALMOST hoping to god) that President O'Bama will do a good job. But still no apology! NEVER believe a Republican. herm

As soon as someone says, "Obama is a Marxist," or "Bush is a Nazi," the argument is over. There's simply no point in debating such dishonest people.

Posted by nullifidian

Kudos Nullifidian -- so many around here argue that "Republicans" or "Democrats" are the problem... the real problem is the BS that they pull. Both are in love with $$$ with little regard to you and I.

May the best man win.

Probably what scares most conservatives most is that Obama will bring forth a successful liberal agenda and cause our economy to prosper and grow. Conservatives hate the very engine that tends to make them wealthy because it also raises the living standard of the working class and because of the mean spiritedness which, I believe, is really at the heart of conservatism, they will vote for McBush who will continue the failures of Bush. They understand that those policies aren't good for themselves but at least they also aren't good for working class people either. Conservatism is really negativism. I can't think of any period during which the working class's living standard rose while conservatives governed. Virtually all improvements i