T1B

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:16 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Funny how Mr. Fresh Change for Hope selected a Bilderberger to head up his VP search team.

Crunch that tinfoil hat down tighter over your head, mv.

Oh yeah, holograms hit the WTC too.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:26 pm**

Are you able to ingest all of Hannity's talking points through his semen?

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:35 pm**

mvscal wrote:You're right, Marty. The Bilderberg Group is a mere figment of the collective imagination. There are no agendas set there.

Wow. Your brain has finally cracked.

My warmest regards to OCmike, okay?

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:40 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:Are you able to ingest all of Hannity's talking points through his semen?
Who?

.

You know. The guy who's radio show is on every fucking time you start a new thread.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:49 pm**

mvscal wrote: Now that we have dispensed with irrelevancies...answer the question.

The only time you asked a question was when you said "who?"

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:49 pm**

mvscal strikes me as a lot more hardcore than Hannity. I think Hannity is one of Dan Vogel's old college roommates. He has yet to see the ballsack that he doesn't want to suck dry..."YOU ARE A GREAT BALLSACK."

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:02 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:
mvscal wrote: Now that we have dispensed with irrelevancies...answer the question.
The only time you asked a question was when you said "who?"

On...igger presents himself as an "Agent of Change" yet he chooses someone who could not be more firmly entrenched in The Establisment to lead the search for his Vice President.

Explain.
You may begin at any time.

There's nothing to explain. You can't have it both ways that you get to play the lack of experience card and then bitch when he relies on experienced individuals to help him in his decision making. If he hired nothing but Washington outsiders, you'd be here bitching about how not only is Obambi inexperienced, but how he's surrounded himself by a bunch of fucks that don't know shit about shit.

There is nobody invloved in politics that you can't find some dirt on. Its just a simple fucking fact. There's nobody that isn't connected to some lobbiest, and McCain's still got Lobbiests running his campaign.

Once again, its nothing but fake partisan bullshit outrage. Nobody is really outraged by Johnson leading a comittee to look at potential Vice President candidates. It couldn't be more inconsequential to the job at hand. The guy got a loan at a discount because of who he knew and he was a part of a team to help advise Obama on who to pick for his VP. I can't think of anything that I'm less concerned about.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:14 pm**

RACK MVSCAL

Oh shit .... noooooooooooo

Obama will bring change to Washington, a new order.
The World needs, NEW order

I feel so extraordinary
Something's got a hold on me

Obama will bring change to Washington, a new order.
The World needs, NEW order

I get this feeling I'm in motion
A sudden sense of liberty

Obama will bring change to Washington, a new order.
The World needs, NEW order

GOD BLESS THE BILDERBERGERS

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:15 pm**

mvscal wrote: Funny how Mr. Fresh Change for Hope...

I don't think anyone other than D_U/Daily Kos retards really buy that "restore hope"-type bullshit that he spews. Anyone with a shred of common sense would know that BO is totally bought and paid for, like any other political candidate on the national stage.

I remember wanting to fucking vomit when they were televising Clinton's victory speech after the 1992 election. They had the chorus of "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" playing on an endless loop and they were interviewing fruitloop democrats who were saying crap like "Today is the beginning of a new era of change.", "We finally have restored hope", etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera. *ROWLF*

Only the idealistic, bleeding heart, head in the clouds, overly-philosophical dipshits actually buy into the "retore hope and faith" and "change you can believe in" bullshit.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:25 pm**

JaySuck wrote:

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:47 pm**

JayDuck wrote: Once again, its nothing but fake partisan bullshit outrage.

Well yeah, but it's only fake because most Republican voters have the sense to not get caught up in the emotional bullshit like Democrats do. I don't know how the hell I'm going to make it to November, because if I have to hear one more "How dare he..." over-reaction I think I'm going to wish pancreatic cancer on myself.

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, this cheap home loan story will be old news in a few days, but that McCain "gook" comment is going to be around for a long time. They're going to be playing up the "Is McCain a racist?" crap thru the election, especially with a minority opponent.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:53 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:54 pm**

_Porter_ wrote:
Well yeah, but it's only fake because most Republican voters have the sense to not get caught up in the emotional bullshit like Democrats do. I don't know how the hell I'm going to make it to November, because if I have to hear one more "How dare he..." over-reaction I think I'm going to wish pancreatic cancer on myself.

I'm not arguing that the fake outrage on either side is good. Its all bullshit.

Despite going for Obama, this election, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independant and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I identify with Libertarian party's stated ideals much more than either Dem or Rep, but would never vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:54 pm**

Well, we still have Caroline Kennedy on the vetting posse.

Just what is it, she's known for again, besides being a president's kid. I guess I gotta atleast rack her for not being a family embarassment like a good number of her cousins.

You would think the dems have had enough president's kids by now, but, I guess it just depends on who the president was.

Funny how they are still trying to squeeze mileage out of a one term (almost) dude, who's crowning political achievement was failing to duck.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:58 pm**

You mean McCain refered to the VC as gooks?

Color me shocked.

If he didn' t refer to them as gooks he'd be the only nam military vet to do so.

If you ask me, McCain has earned the right to call them fukks anything he wants to. 5 years of torture will do that to ya.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:01 pm**

JayDuck wrote: I'm not arguing that the fake outrage on either side is good. Its all bullshit.

Despite going for Obama, this election, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independant and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I identify with Libertarian party's stated ideals much more than either Dem or Rep, but would never vote for a 3rd party candidate.

You and I sound fairly similar in our views. I crack on Dems a lot, but mainly because they provide the most material to work with.

I still don't know who I'm voting for this year. I'll be "the decider" when I determine who had the most creative smear campaign against the other, or one of them does something epoch like f-bomb a reporter on live tv.

Smackaholic, I don't have a problem with him using the term in 1968. But he's gotta be smarter than to drop that word while running for president in 2000, dontcha think? Hell, that'd be great with the White Power and Aryan Nation crowd, but last I checked felons still can't vote.

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:04 pm**

mvscal wrote:\ These rich and powerful individuals simply gather together annually to talk baseball and exchange recipes. There is no dicussion of politics or economic policy.

Last year's World Series was fucking fixed!

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:06 pm**

Cuda wrote:
mvscal wrote:\ These rich and powerful individuals simply gather together annually to talk baseball and exchange recipes. There is no dicussion of politics or economic policy.
Last year's World Series was fucking fixed!

...Rummy doesn't like baseball!

Posted: **Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:12 pm**

Labor union leaders criticized the move, and said that “Rubinomics” focused too much on corporate America and not enough on workers.

Don't city maintenance workers in every town make $37.50/hour to lean on a shovel? :? I think it's definitely time to focus on something other than union losers.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:18 am**

smackaholic wrote:Well, we still have Caroline Kennedy on the vetting posse.

Just what is it, she's known for again, besides being a president's kid. .

Chain-smoking & making NYC coffee houses chic.

Scritti probably would have made her famous as a bluescreen/muse/ravurgurl if only she'd lived in Pittspurgh

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:46 am**

smackaholic wrote:Well, we still have Caroline Kennedy on the vetting posse.

Just what is it, she's known for again, besides being a president's kid.

Successfully avoiding an untimely death?

SO far....

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:51 am**

At least JAJ knew to jump before the train wrecked.....

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:52 am**

mvscal wrote: Funny how Mr. Fresh Change for Hope selected a Bilderberger to head up his VP search team. Even funnier that some of you dopes actually think this clown is going to change anything at all in Washington.

Time to face facts, he's just another Ivy League patronage whore for sale to the highest bidder.

Just curious here, but who better to vet a Veep than a Washington insider?

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:22 pm**

mvscal wrote: Funny how Mr. Fresh Change for Hope selected a Bilderberger to head up his VP search team.

Bush had a number of Bilderberger attendees as members of his Administration (s'up Powell, Rumsfeld)-you didn't seem to have a big problem with that

why the outrage now?

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:37 pm**

Well further surrender to a New World Order, is technically "change". Being a lawyer I suppose his "you can believe in" means ... it's inevitable. Kind of like "I'll bring change, you can count on it".

Whether or not we like the change, remains to be seen.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:14 pm**

mvscal wrote:
This has nothing to do with Bush, you fucking moron. He isn't running. More to the point, he isn't running on a platform of "change you can believe in."

then why bring up the whole Bilderberger red herring? Look, it's not like Johnson is dictating foreign policy, he was simply offering input on potential running mates for Obama-why you have a problem with that is simply beyond me

the reality of the situation is that you unabashedly hate the guy-now why you despise him so much is up for debate, but the fact is there is nothing the guy could do or say that will ever change your underlying hatred....that's pretty fucking sad bud

I guess I can take you out of the "uncommitted" category

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:22 pm**

Most, if not ALL TRUE, conservatives are anti-Bilderberg. Viewing the Bilderberg as furter entangling the U.S. into World Affairs which requires a larger government. Constitutionalists like Ron Paul, seek to limit the power of the Fed - as the Constitution was designed to do - and allow states to govern themselves. Lincoln squashed that and the trend has been a continual curve towards a larger FEDERAL government, and inevitably a larger WORLD government. That view can range from practical to the perceived "extreme" i.e. The New World Order.

Unfortunately, the only people we get offered up seem to be in bed with them in some way shape of form. Was it an issue with Bush ? Sure it was. The point in bringing it up in Obama's case is that his rhetoric of "change" is simply chaffe to throw off his true connections and agenda.

Like I said though, surrendering more and more to organizations like the Bilderbergs, is technically "change". But I don't think it's the kind of change the hardcore lefties sporting a chub for Obama are thinking.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:30 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Because Onogga has predicated his entire campaign on CHANGE and breaking with the status quo, you fucking twit.

so I guess you'd prefer he go to the "man in the street" approach in finding a VP candidate rather than asking people with expertise in economics, foreign policy, etc.

great idea-we tried that once before and it was an unmitigated disaster

btw slapnuts, I'm not all that enamored with Obama-but compared to "Asleep at the Wheel" McCain, I'll take the "lesser of two evils" route

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:40 pm**

mvscal wrote:But Tom, don't you want to feel that thrill run up your leg like Chris Matthews?
I know I do.

Give me some of that good, old time HOPE and CHANGE!!! CLAP YOUR HANDS EVERYBODY!!!! EVERYBODY!! LET ME HEAR YA SING!! OH MY LORD....LORD, LORD, LORD!!!

No shit dude. On the scary side of things, don't you think the Bilderbergers KNOW the only Hitleresque kind of "leader" this country would tolerate would be a black guy ? With mouthpieces like Chris "Cucky" Matthews willing to eat a cream pie made by Obama and Mrs. Matthews, and have shit run down their leg there's not a chance in hell of anyone calling him on his shit.

The stage is already set:

Assertion: I will not vote for Obama - Counter: You must be racist.
Assertion: Obama is not qualified - Counter: You must be racist.
Assertion: Obama's policies aren't good for the U.S. - Counter: You must be racist, why do you hate CHANGE ?

The media has already made this guy UNTOUCHABLE waaaaayyy before the primary. What do you think they'll do when he's the President ?

Just admit mvscal, the emperor has a great new set of duds on and ....

CAN YA FEEEEEEEEEEEL IT'AAAH ?

OPEN UP YOURSELF AND ACCEPT IT'AAAAAH - like Matthews apparently has.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:41 pm**

Once again, its just not even a sincere position taken my mvscal and, because of that, not worth serious discussion. He wants to play both sides of the argument, but he can't have it both ways.

You've spent most of the last year saying how the country would go to shit if Obama was president because he would change things in a direction you don't want to go. And you also want to argue that he won't change shit.

He ran on a platform of changing the direction of the country. Its obvious that his policies will be different than Bush's. That's change, by definition. If you want to argue that you don't think he'll change it enough, its just a disingenuous argument coming from you, since you wouldn't want things changed in a left-wing direction in the first place.

If you think that everybody that is voting for Obama actually believes that things are going to wholesale change, across the board and that, once he becomes president, he'll kick every Washington insider out of D.C, replace his head on the Lincoln monument, and make over the country in his own image, then its you who is believing all of the bullshit. Despite the 2004 election results, most voters aren't quite as dumb as you would like to believe. Honestly, the way the people that are against Obama have been talking about how fast this country will tank, how blacks will enslave whites and how everything's going to go to shit when Obama is elected, clearly they believe he's capable of much more significant change than those than are voting for him do.

The people that are voting for Obama don't care if there isn't a complete reboot and reformat of the country. They are sick of Bush, and they want significant change, from Bush. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:46 pm**

JayDuck wrote:They are sick of Bush, and they want significant change, from Bush. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And I think mvscal's point is that the only thing that MIGHT change will be the appearance that things are "changing". But nothing will CHANGE. Keep in mind, mvscal doesn't have a dog in this race. Obama's preaching change, but there will be none - foreign policy wise - and probably change domestically IF that happens, that involves an even bigger, more bloated Federal Government.

Quite frankly, that is precisely what happened with Bush. He touted "change", "Washington Outsider", and we all know what happened. Bigger government, Patriot Act, entangled in a foreign war. These things will remain intact and possibly get larger under an Obama OR McCain administration.

Pointing those facts out, is just simply stating what one sees not necessarily taking sides.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:06 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Keep in mind, mvscal doesn't have a dog in this race.

Yea sure he doesn't.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:19 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Keep in mind, mvscal doesn't have a dog in this race.
Yea sure he doesn't.

As message board posters go, mvcal's integrity and fortitude lead the list. He speaks his mind, he does so as objectively as possible. When he says "I won't vote for McCain". I believe him.

You on the other hand could say "Water is wet" and I'd still have to run my hands under a flowing faucet to make sure.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:21 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Keep in mind, mvscal doesn't have a dog in this race.
Yea sure he doesn't.
As message board posters go, mvcal's integrity and fortitude lead the list. He speaks his mind, he does so as objectively as possible. When he says "I won't vote for McCain". I believe him.

You on the other hand could say "Water is wet" and I'd still have to run my hands under a flowing faucet to make sure.

In an election, being against one candidate is quite the same thing as "having a dog in the fight", whether you like the other guy or not. Most voters are voting for what they consider the lesser of two evils in the first place.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:29 pm**

mvcal's integrity and fortitude lead the list.

The Alliance has been trying to take him down since 1998. No go.

T1B

That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...

Re: That's not the James A. Johnson I knew...