T1B

What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote? What skeleton would have to flop out of his closet for you to jump off the bandwagon?

And before you go predictibly IKYABWAI, I'm not voting for McCain.

B-Monica?

Babshice?

Trotskyfelice?

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote? What skeleton would have to flop out of his closet for you to jump off the bandwagon?

Who is this Onogga you speak of? A 3rd party candidate?

He's the one whose cock has your lips stretched tight.

Cuda, shouldn't you call him Euronogga? He is half YOU in case you have forgotten.

Coods has not a drop of pussy Euro blood.

He's 100% red blooded Amoronican.

Vic, the left wants to maintain the illusion that he's a schwartzer. He could be an octaroon for all they know

Pick Hillary as a running mate.

I'm fine with a Dem in the WH, but not the Socialist Dream Team.

At the same time, I can't see myself voting for McCain either. Probably the only thing that he could do better than Bush is run the military ops in Afghanistan and Iraq more efficiently. For me, returning the US military to the stature as the #1 group of badass motherfuckers on the planet is on the list of things I'd like to see, but It's probably about #5 on the list.

Maybe I'll vote for Pat Paulsen this year.

Invictus wrote:Cuda, shouldn't you call him Euronogga? He is half YOU in case you have forgotten.

Good one. RACK. A year ago black editorialists were questioning whether or not Obama was "black enough".

Now everyone is gushing about and parsing his "blackness", do we really have the first "black" or the first "Bi-Racial" candidate.


CUE Dave Chappelle's "Race Draft" reset.

Invictus wrote:Cuda, shouldn't you call him Euronogga? He is half YOU in case you have forgotten.

I think Why'denogga is a better fit.

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote? What skeleton would have to flop out of his closet for you to jump off the bandwagon?

He'd lose my vote if it came out he was a regular poster here.

There is no group of people that I interact with that I trust less with social, economic and military issues than the people who post here.

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote?

Reverse his stance on campaign finance reform (public funding), embrace Reaganomics and decide to continue our current foreign policy that includes more bullying than anything.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote?

Reverse his stance on campaign finance reform (public funding), embrace Reaganomics and decide to continue our current foreign policy that includes more bullying than anything.

He is going to break away from public funding of this campaign. But, unless you eliminate 527s from the mix, I don't see how he can go any other way.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote?

Reverse his stance on campaign finance reform (public funding), ........ and decide to continue our current foreign policy that includes more bullying than anything.

Don't worry, he won't do that until after he's in office.

just so long as campaign finance reform gets done

no need for congressmen to whine for their careers to oil companies to finance their campaigns just so the congressperson can work more for the oil company and less for the costituents.

none of the issues staring america down will be properly addressed so long as deep pockets are calling the shots.

If Obama truly believes he is going to rid DC of all the lobbyists, then he is in for a tough term should he be elected. He won't be able to get anything done.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Cuda wrote:What would Onogga have to do or say to lose your vote?

Reverse his stance on campaign finance reform (public funding),.

He's already bailed on his public funding promise. He made it before he knew how many dumbfucks were willing to charge $100 or more on their mom's VISA card and send it to him.

RumpleForeskin wrote:If Obama truly believes he is going to rid DC of all the lobbyists, then he is in for a tough term should he be elected. He won't be able to get anything done.

Nobody with any sense is saying that DC should be purged of all lobbyists. People have a right to petition their government. However, the power of single issue and corporate lobbies needs to be curtailed. That's what Obama is attempting to accomplish.

mvscal wrote:Be specific.

Sorry to hear that your search engine is broken.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: However, the power of single issue and corporate lobbies needs to be curtailed. That's what Obama is attempting to accomplish.

What power would that be and what steps is Ocarter proposing to curtail this alleged power?

Be specific.

They must be busy trying to find one of BHO's accomplishments while holding office.

Sirfindafold wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: However, the power of single issue and corporate lobbies needs to be curtailed. That's what Obama is attempting to accomplish.

What power would that be and what steps is Ocarter proposing to curtail this alleged power?

Be specific.

They must be busy trying to find one of BHO's accomplishments while holding office.

Nope, just waiting for a worthwhile post to respond to.

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

mvscal wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:For me, returning the US military to the stature as the #1 group of badass motherfuckers on the planet

What do you mean return? We are the #1 group of badass motherfuckers on the planet.

Of course we are. Just a poor choice of words on my part.

I was referring to the perception that the enemy, allies and other shit-stirring nations have of our troops. The Bushies' constant bungling, including letting the Taliban re-take areas that we had previously cleared them out of, failure to catch OBL after five years, and the David's and their IEDs rigged with cell phones kicking the shit out of Goliath in their unarmored (at the time) Humvees. All of these things, and many others, have made the US military not only look vulnerable, but ultimately beatable in a long-term war. We can't be beat, as long as we have the stomach to continue the fight, but an enemy who thinks they can't defeat us gains motivation other than putting the wood to 73 smelly, bearded, arabic virgins.

BSmack wrote:BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

If by record you mean frame, then I would agree.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

BSmack wrote:BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

If by record you mean frame, then I would agree.

No, I mean their pre-Presidential record. Now go back to keg stands or whatever you have to do to forget Jabba the Rumple.

BSmack wrote:

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

He started a war and saw it to a successful completion, and he ended slavery?

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

He started a war and saw it to a successful completion, and he ended slavery?

Read the post above dipshit.

I wish Obama was a communist.

But he's not. He's a lobbyist-heavy, AIPAC dick-sucking imperialst running dog lackey.



Vote McCain, you pussies.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

He started a war and saw it to a successful completion, and he ended slavery?

Read the post above dipshit.

The post above dipshit is _Porter_'s. I don't see a correlation.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

He started a war and saw it to a successful completion, and he ended slavery?

Read the post above dipshit.

started before you, ended after. Got a phone call.

So Lincoln was a successful lawyer for 23 years prior to his presidency, trying over 5,000 cases, and was involved in several landmark decisions cited by other US courts or looked upon as ground breaking for the time.

Obama worked as an associate attorney during the summer for 7 years between 1995-2002 , focusing on discrimination and voting rights. Before that he was a teacher.

Hows that comparison again?

Nice diversion to dodge the request too:

However, the power of single issue and corporate lobbies needs to be curtailed. That's what Obama is attempting to accomplish.

What power would that be and what steps is Ocarter proposing to curtail this alleged power?

Mister Bushice wrote: Hows that comparison again?

I'm thinking he's either going to do the "stop, drop 'n roll" or respond, "Uh, quagmire, Bush lied, people died, hanging chad, Ted Haggard, OUT!"

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

BTW: Obama's record is easily the equal of Abe Lincoln for one.

He started a war and saw it to a successful completion, and he ended slavery?

Read the post above dipshit.

l to r: Babshice, B-Monica

Cuda wrote:

l to r: Babshice, B-Monica

not pictured: Wolfman waiting on his money

Cuda wrote:

Cuda, where are the other pics in this series?

~ reaches for lotion ~

RACK Cuda and RF!

Papa Willie wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:just so long as campaign finance reform gets done

no need for congressmen to whine for their careers to oil companies to finance their campaigns just so the congressperson can work more for the oil company and less for the costituents.

none of the issues staring america down will be properly addressed so long as deep pockets are calling the shots.

Amen.

Proof that Bacey isn't a liberal.

I'm just curious where in the course of human history the "deep pockets" haven't called the shots.


SECOND the RACKS add one for Marty

C'mon people just think.....

If Obama-rama is elected....

A "Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles" on every corner!

ADAM wrote:C'mon people just think.....

If Obama-rama is elected....

A "Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles" on every corner!

Have you ever had Roscor's Chicken & Waffles? Its some good shit.

Papa Willie wrote: You've got a point, but I'm thinking that in England, each person running gets like $10k in campaign money. THAT is how you do it. Let about 8-10 people run and make people actually use their fucking heads as opposed to letting CNN do it for them.

I've felt the same way for a long time, but the courts already ruled on this. They said that in the good 'ol USA, the first ammendment protects campaign contributions as "free speech". That's right, now money = words. Brilliant!

where have you been ?
$$$ = advertising (you know--all those annoying political ads that we see on TV, read on billboards, listen to on the radio, etc.)
Advertising allows a candidate to promote their ideas and ask for your support/votes.
I say let them spend all the freaking $$$ they want (it generates jobs and even tax revenue)
BUT
--and it is a big BUT--
Make every penny of it public record so the voters also know the source of the money.
That way you can decide if you want to support the "deep pockets" or the "shallow ones" !
BTW--
the last time I knew-- the UK has a parliamentary form of government and they can keep it
-- big difference from the USA.

_Porter_ wrote:They said that in the good 'ol USA, the first ammendment protects campaign contributions as "free speech". That's right, now money = words. Brilliant!

Let's get the strict interpreters on the bench to limit contributions to the previous limits of three negresses, a goat cart of sound construction and ten pinches of snuff.

And wolfman, part of what Obama wants to do is make the campaign contributions very, very transparent. I personally don't think thats enough.

Let's get the strict interpreters on the bench to limit contributions to the previous limits of three negresses, a goat cart of sound construction and ten pinches of snuff.

Expecting the SC justices to give the nod to limiting contributions, when they were appointed by a President who benefitted from that system, is like expecting Mount Rumplewife to bypass the nacho bar at Hometown Buffet on mexican night.

And wolfman, part of what Obama wants to do is make the campaign contributions very, very transparent. I personally don't think thats enough.

It's not enough. We already know that they're bought off and for the most part, who's doing the buying. How will proving what we already knew really change anything? What will the first exciting revelations of Obama's new plan produce, that Bush/Cheney took $$$ from big oil and defense contractors? Nothing will change until contributions are limited to something like $100 or a politician is actually thrown in the slammer for completing his end of a quid pro quo.