1. Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine, driving a stake through the heart of Hillary's presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do.

2. Obama killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - no more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.

3. Obama is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race. Evan Bayh had never lost a race. Byron Dorgan had never lost a race. Harry Reid - soon to be GONE! These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed. By the end of 2010, dozens more will be gone. Just think, in December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles, they had picked up 14 Senate seats and 52 House seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. However, in just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the House - if not the Senate - back to the Republicans.

4. Obama has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Sadly, every generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. Obama is bringing home the lesson very well:

Liberals tax, borrow and spend.
Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America .
Liberals want to take over the economy.
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone.
Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.

5. Obama has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year, he has rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and brought out to the streets millions of freedom loving Americans. Name one other time when you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America !

6. Obama, with his "amazing leadership," has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded, or moved off-shore.

7. In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not afraid of the economy, but afraid of the direction our country was going. I thought, Americans have forgotten what this country is all about. My neighbors and friends, even strangers, have proved to me that my lack of confidence in the greatness and wisdom of the American people has been flat wrong.

8. When the American people wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama has served to wake up these great Americans!

Again, I want to say: "Thank you, Barack Obama!" After all, this is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!!

9. You're the ones we were waiting for!

Lol!!!! Odumbacrats are out of touch with the majority of the people. Today is proof, and 2012 will be more proof! One term baby!

We are all screwed unless we start to understand that Obama is smarter then all of us and knows what is better for us then we do.

Funny let's see what the Republican'ts do now. Bitch, whine while getting zero done. Safe bet. I have yet to hear a single constructive idea from the GOP/Tea Party. All I hear from them is fear and hate. Tax cuts won't pay for the deficit amassed by Bush's war for oil.

Why didn't they 'wake up' when Bush-Cheney were running this country into the ground, left us with a 3 trillion dollor dept and on the verge of a, read this, DEPRESSION? Remember that?

He couldn't turn the Bush economy around in less than 2 years so everyone is running back to the people that "CREATED" this mess we are in now.

Do you actually think that if McCaine would have turned the economy around by now? That the foreclosure mess wouldn't of happened, and all the job losses? Really? Do you believe the earth was created in 6 days and a man in the sky is watching you constantly with a plan for your life?If you do, then that would explain that non-sense.

Obama is guilty of just being black,some people can't accept that. There is a war between "Reason" and "Insanity" going on here, most Americans are just not ready for the 21st century and want to go running back into that little hole in the ground that makes them feel 'safe'.

I've never seen a smarter harder working President in my life. Ive never seen anything so discusting as the Republican Party's effrot to destroy President Obama, in much the same fashion as they did Clinton, all they care about is being in power, at the expense of this country.

Your perspective Zrocks from what you posted seems to be based on hatred, and not logic, which sums up that particular view point of millions of people, who from my perspective are insane. Anytime you fly in the face of logic, truth and reason, there's is something not wired right in your brain.

Or just plain hate.

Jeremy, your just not ready for reality! The hate speech coms from guys like you. You hate Bush, he made some bad mistakes, but you want to blame him for everything. Bush has been gone for two years! There are plenty of Republicans/conservatives that don't like Bush, I'm one of them!!!

If you want the truth, Carter, Clinton, both Bushs, and Obama are trilateralist world banker member/puppets. You can't blame everything on bush, there are many factors, the powers that be, 911, dot com bubble, iraq war, borrowing from China and out of control spending. Oh and don't ever for get, Clinton signed NAFTA and free trade with China, that has destroyed our economy. Have you notice that Obama said he would do something about NAFTA and free trade with China, and has done nothing? Quit drinking the Kool-Aid and open your eyes!

According to Rachel Madow the losses are due to money and no other reason.

In fact, she just said, "If you can explain these losses, if you have a "thesis" (finger quotes) please share it" to some guy who said the Dems failed on jobs.

Olderman once again looked sick and was shaking his head - and then the prediction guy came on and announced a whole bunch of Republican leads - and Michelle Bachman's victory - then Olderman had to insult her appearance.

OMG this is so awesome!

Change is here! Obama's chickens have come home to roost:)

Bachmann is a wacked out loon that managed to grab 11 million dollars in the new unaccountable "corporate" money - so we don't know WHO exactly bought her this time, but since she's always been available to the highest bidder, it's not much of a difference.

At least it looks like we may have kicked all the republicans that destroyed this state with Pawlenty. Good luck with him on the national scene - he sure did enough damage here!

Chill out, Joe... unaccountable "corporate" money went to Reps & Dems. But of course, in case of Dems... throw in the "Unions" millions.

IMHO, lack of transparency in contributions perverts political system just as well as all other corporate cash.

Here: Corporate donations

BTW, in the last presidential election:
Obama raised $745M
McCain raised $368M

And the backing for your last set of numbers?

You don't have to live with the bitch in your state, I won't chill out. Same crap as we had in the last cycle with Coleman who got almost all his donations from special interests out of state - and the proof of that was in the donor spreadsheets that got leaked from his campaign.

Looks like we're going into ANOTHER damn recount this time too.

Thanks, Dan. Great link.

There ya go... I fixed that for you.

Cheers,

Andrew K

I am much relieved that the republicans are now in power and well straighten out this mess Obama created. We can all relax now. After all he isn't even an American and is actually a practicing muslem.

Hey don't forget dude, 'W' got us into the Irac war, that didn't need to happen. To many things to mention, other than you guys voted him in twice. The damage done under his watch well last for many years.

It's RIGHT IN THE LINK HE PROVIDED...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

Perhaps you should have linked to the relevant pages. You're trying to imply that was all corporate donation - not quite.

Obama Donation Breakdown

McCain Donation Breakdown

88% of Obama's donations were from Individuals, compared to 54% of McCain.
Pac Money: Obama $1,830.00 McCain $1,407,959.00 - Who was bought off?

Nice try though.

Talk about "nice tries."

I'm not sure why you would want to continuously pursue this ill-advised attempt to suggest that Obama is somehow less "bought and paid for" than any other elected official.

He's owned by more special interests than ANY PRESIDENT, previously.

Just a few stats to consider:

In the last presidential election Obama raised $745M McCain raised $368M.

I don't see how you can argue that that doesn't mean Obama would "owe" a lot of people and special interest groups for having "bought" him his position, but...

Even if you want to argue the ridiculous notion that somehow, $400 Million from "mostly individuals" is somehow less pervasive than less than half of that sum from "non-individuals," we can take a closer look a the numbers:


Agribusiness:
Barack Obama $2,265,258
John McCain $3,289,774

Communications/Electronics business:
Barack Obama $25,487,934
John McCain $4,607,216

Construction business:
Barack Obama $5,465,083
John McCain $5,496,922

Defense business:
Barack Obama $1,034,697
John McCain $694,148

Energy & Natural Resources business:
Barack Obama $2,782,904
John McCain $4,090,435

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate business:
Barack Obama $39,663,073
John McCain $29,005,313

Health business
Barack Obama $19,507,812
John McCain $7,409,123

Lawyers & Lobbyists
Barack Obama $43,755,917
John McCain $11,153,996

Transportation Industry
Barack Obama $1,672,242
John McCain $2,690,078

"Miscellaneous" Business:
Barack Obama $37,006,524
John McCain $16,052,729

Labor Unions:
Barack Obama $534,711
John McCain $34,500

So, the ONLY business interests where McCain led Obama in campaign contributions are agriculture, energy and natural resources and transportation. Everything else - especially lawyers and lobbyists, finance and insurance, defense, tech industry - Obama took WAAAY more money than McCain - and way more than any candidate that preceded him.

Again, I'm not sure why you seem to be convinced that Obama's campaign finances were anything other than incredibly bloated and clearly derived from "special interests."

And as for "PAC money," I've already explained the Obama trick with that. You need to pay attention. His position is that he doesn't accept PAC money "DIRECTLY."

That last word is a VERY important qualifier.

It's simple: He has all PACs not pay "directly." Instead, they simply fund HIS own "Leadership PAC" (his "Congressional PAC" which is, ridiculously, not considered a particular "special interest PAC") and THEN he takes the money. ALL of it.

If you think that two-step process is really "not taking PAC money" or that it - in ANY WAY - diminishes the special interests that fund him and he "owes" political favors to, you need to re-think it.

54% of his funds were from $200 or LESS donations.
Just because this site goes back to where the individuals work doesn't mean he's bound to their employers. I guess my donations show up in technology/electronics too - so what. I don't expect that has any influence whatsoever.

He "took" more money, because he raised more in donations than anyone else (and McCain was limited because he took 80 Million + in PUBLIC FUNDS because he knew he couldn't raise them any other way)




Donation Size Breakdown

You want to be fair? Give every candidate 12 hours of air time on Public broadcasting and do not allow any more money into the campaigns.

It is a public service job.

If you don't want to be fair, quit your whining.

Jeremy, if you believe that then you have not been paying attention to any post I have made.

This was a repost that I received that points out the problem with extreemist views and candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I certainly don't hate President Obama. I do not agree with his policies. I did not agree with many of George Bush's policies either.

I think insanity might be better demonstrated by refusing to enjoy the World Series because the network aired a few seconds of two former Presidents and former First Ladies. One of the former Presidents was a part owner of one of the baseball clubs competing in the series, thus the sports connection to a private citizen.

I hope you can get help with your seemingly all-consuming hatred, you are missing a lot of life.

Right On!

HA!.... good luck on getting the Republicans to sponsor that bill!!

I'll try zrocks. But your first post did come off as angry, and narrow minded.

I would suggest that if McCain won, everybody would be voting Democratic now because NOBODY could have turned the economy around in less than 2 years. We would all be complaining about McCains policies. This situation was set in motion many years before Obama even came into office.

I just can't understand this, it makes no sense. Obama has nothing to apolojise for. He has this mess to deal with and republicans doing everything to obstruct his efforts to turn things around, they want him to fail, which means the country fails. It's a hopeless mess.

If you celebrate a man who is responsible for the deaths of over 4000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent men women and children, you are one sick fuck. I'm not interested in watching an event where they do that.

He wanted the job. His party has controlled Congress for 4 years. Much of his agenda has been put into place. What's the beef?

No one was celebrating anything but the baseball game. Even though the Braves were eliminated, I enjoyed the series.
If you wanted to be fair about it, consider that people are still dying. All Obama has to do is call the troops home. Using your logic, Obama is responsible for every death since he took office. In fact, the Democratic Congress has funded the effort, thus making them more responsible than Bush because without funding, it just couldn't happen. In other words, both parties play politics while trying to blame each other for their deadly actions.

I think a fair assessment is that all incumbents are to blame. If you voted for an incumbent, then you, by your action, don't want things to change - no matter what you may vocalize.

Which is sick again?

Wow.

Talk about trying to squeeeze lemonade out of lemons!



I'm not entirely sure an individual's contribution is tied to their employer's "industry" unless they are made in the name of the employer or the industry/PAC in all of those charts. But regardless, donations of LESS than $200 are NEVER specified so, the fact that Obama took way more REPORTED money from industries like lawyers and lobbyists CLEARLY means he's bound to those employers/industries.

I'm not sure how your citing the fact that he took a lot of un-reported funds as well indicates, in ANY WAY, that he didn't take WAY more REPORTED money from special interests - more than ANYONE else ever did.

And I don't understand why this is supposed to be something that makes Obama anything less than a campaign funding whore:



Wait, are you talking about how Barack, "New, Transparent Washington," "I don't take PAC money DIRECTLY" Obama completely reversed his public promise to limit himself only to public campaign finance money - AFTER he realized he could raise a lot more - from special interests - than McCain could?

You REALLY want to say his blatantly lying to the public about having a fair campaign with equal and limited funds - and instead turning around and taking MORE special interest money - is somehow a virtue, that means he's somehow less "bought and paid for" than a publicly funded candidate?!?!?!

I'm kind of intrigued to see what's the next argument to try and support the notion that Barack Obama isn't THE biggest campaign-funding-bought-and-sold politician that ever occupied the Oval Office.

For once I agree with zrocks.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court just ruled in the opposite direction. It was one of the worst decisions they've ever made.

At some point you got to stop beating the dead horse.

Fixed.



How partisan do you have to be, to go out of your way to assert that only "Republicans" would not support a complete overhaul and true limitation of campaign financing, like that?


Christ, we're f*cked when everyone sees it that way and feels the need to say it that way...

We were f#@ked when this country elected Bush for a 2nd term. Equal air time is the least of our problems... but if the Repubs put together that kind of proposition... I'd be a convert. But they never will. It would be too equitable.

Got a cite to the Democrat-sponsored Bill on the proposition for us? They've had 4 years of complete control of both houses - and on the heels of a promise of a "new, more transparent Washington," natch.

Anything?

No?

So again, I'd ask why do you feel the need to single out Republicans - uniquely - as not being "equitable enough" to put it together?

You don't have bother answering. It's painfully clear.


Good luck trying to mend the country as long as you perpetuate the thinking that: "My Party - Good, Other Party - Bad."

Enjoy the "Bush-Free" Kool Aide!

Because I believe they are predominantly more self centered and not as equitable as Democrats. I also believe they are not as inclusive as Democrats. These are, of course, generalizations and there are always exceptions, but this is the general impression I get when I talk to self proclaimed Republicans.

I'm not saying Dems are perfect... they are far from it. But give me a bleeding heart over a hawk any day.

Cheers,

Andrew K

No Z, did you see the beginning of the game? The announcer said "and now, to introduce 2 very special Texans" before W and his dad were golf carted into the stadium in front of everyone on national tv, if that is not celebrating a person, what is?

I changed channels at that point.

But the question wasn't "why do you feel the need to single out Republicans - uniquely - as not being 'equitable enough.'" Full stop.

It was, specifically in response to your assertion that Republicans - uniquely - wouldn't ever agree to real campaign PR/finance reform.

The question was: "why do you feel the need to single out Republicans - uniquely - as not being 'equitable enough' to put [real campaign PR and finance reform] together?" ...when Democrats haven't done ANYTHING in this regard, themselves?

So, you can now move off-topic and say that it appears to you that Democrats are "more equitable" and "more inclusive" and "less self centered," - but none of that does a thing to address the specific issue that was being discussed: Will POLITICIANS - of ANY stripe - ever agree to real, meaningful campaign finance reform?

And the answer - that we actually have on that - is that the "equitable" and "inclusive" and "less self interested" Democrats have not moved on that any faster than the "inequitable" Republican's have.

And so on the issue that was being discussed - there's NO DIFFERENCE between the parties.

But yet, you felt compelled to assert that there IS a difference on how they would address the specific issue - when there clearly isn't.



Embracing that type of knee-jerk, unsupported, party-line mentality (from EITHER Republican OR Democratic party side supporters) is a HUGE problem.

But, as this Message Board serves to show, most people actually believe we should discuss these types of issues along strict party lines, instead of just thinking a) let's just try to do what is "right" and b) no one/one party is "right" about everything.


Cheers,

Knife

Liberals tax, borrow and spend.
Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America .
Liberals want to take over the economy.
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone.
Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.

For once you agree with zrocks Nick, really?

Let fear and ignorance rein. What do you say Nick, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Here's a garbage can so we can collectively vomit into it.

Damn... once again... Unfair and unbalanced Faux News!

Is this for frigging real? Is Obama really this arrogant or just plain stupid? I'm starting to feel sorry for this guy... who the fig is advising him? After the Michelle's Spain fiasco, elections... ?

-By Anthony Watts:

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, wrote in January 2010 in the Huffington Post that President Barack Obama is “the greenest president ever.”

Well … maybe not. You see, today we have these headlines:

The Daily Mail: Forty planes and six armoured cars: Obama visit to India the ‘biggest ever by a US President’

NDTV: US to spend $200 million a day on Obama’s Mumbai visit

About 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists, are accompanying the president on his trip to India. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies have been there for the past week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

Of course, we know that US presidents don’t travel lightly, and they need security details and armored cars. But 3,000 people and forty aircraft?

Let’s do the carbon math:

Estimate of the carbon footprint of President Obama’s trip to India

We are constantly told how bad air travel is for the planet. For example, the UK has a whole organization, called “Plane Stupid,” dedicated to the issue. It is groups like this that enable us to calculate the carbon emissions of air travel using the handy dandy Terrapass web page.

1. If one assumes that all 3,000 people fly commercial from Washington, D.C., to New Delhi and back (and nowhere else), their cumulative carbon footprint can be calculated according to Terrapass at http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/#air.

Here’s the info on their calculation methodology.

So here’s what we get for the maximum number of people, ten, that we can select at one time on that website. Note that Bombay, India is now called Mumbai, but the airport code is still BOM in Terrapass:


Multiply 62,238 lbs of CO2 for ten people times 300 (to make three thousand) and we get 18,671,400 lbs of CO2, or 8,469 metric tons.

To get the per capita figure in metric tons, divide that again by 3,000 people, which gives us 2.823 metric tons per person for the trip.

2. The Brookings Institute did a survey in 2008 ranking major US cities by their per capita emissions. You can read the full report here. If we were to compare his trip to the city table:


Obama’s trip comes in between Memphis and Raleigh on a per capita basis.

3. Caveat: Of course, this calculation excludes the carbon footprint for also traveling to Indonesia, South Korea and Indonesia as part of this Grand Tour, as well as any other activity while in those places. Plus vehicles and other forms of travel.

If we figured in all the travel, it would well be higher.

The message? Travel lightly but carry a big hockey stick.

4. If Obama wanted to offset the carbon using the tool of choice of his buddy, Al Gore, the Chicago Climate Exchange, he could do so pretty cheaply since carbon offsets there are selling for five cents per metric ton.

So with 8,469 metric tons of CO2 emitted for the Washington-to-Bombay roundtrip, he could buy a carbon indulgence for a mere $423.45. That’s chump change when you are blowing a cool $200 million per day to keep everybody traveling in style.

Mr. Watts operates the most visited blog on climate science in the world, www.wattsupwiththat.com now with over 57 million visits. He has spent 30 years on air in radio and television as a weather forecaster, and still does daily radio broadcasts. In 2007, he founded the surfacestations.org project, which with the help of volunteers nationwide found that only 1 in 10 of the weather stations used for monitoring climate in the USA met the government’s own standards for station siting quality. He also operates a weather technology business, embraces energy efficiency with solar power on his home and drives an electric car.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/03/obamas.../#ixzz14MqvvXb4

Reality! Obumacare is Not free!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aarp_health_plan

Here is the kind of change we have been getting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXmZ5sOGzE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OD9Fov2_Us&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SbYYYl3TDQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXjQQOzIw5Y

Are we being cowed?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/barry-soetoro-aka-barack-obamas-political-dynasty-crashes-and-burns.html

Or you can listen to someone other than Ignoramous Bachmann and her merry band of Faux news supporters....

The real story

When will they ever learn that people aren't that stupid (or at least some of us aren't!)

Joe, you know that the article was more about the carbon footprint than anything else. BTW, as you can see I didn't pull it out of Fox or Bachmann.... I have the Fox on most of the time, but haven't heard a word about this from them yet. I didn't even hear about Bachmann saying anything until now.... I don't really care if it costs $200M or $20M... it's OTT regardless.... especially at this time. The article was about the number of people and planes, A SHIP and the carbon footprint.... I'm sure you've not miss that.

Yeah, I know CNN is trying to be totally unbiased.... I watch them a lot. So I'm puzzled/disappointed as why did they run a hit piece on the Tea Party every 4 hours around the clock the whole weekend before the election. Why not ... perhaps the next weekend? Btw, I don't think you're stupid... to the contrary, so don't take it personally. I don't believe everything I read either... far from it.

So how do you reduce the carbon footprint - do away with security? The process this administration takes is the same as every past president. The SS don't change their procedures based on WHO they're protecting - they're protecting themselves too - they will be the first ones dead when something goes wrong, so they have an interest in doing what is EFFECTIVE.

If you think that he SHOULDN'T continue trade missions, and international affairs, I don't see any other president restricted from doing so. At least is isn't spending most of his time in office on vacation like past presidents.

Want to care about carbon? Why not call the champion of the environment - Bono - and ask him what HE is doing for the environment these days. Maybe somehow he can explain how having 3 sets of 80 semi's to move his stages around for their current tour is HELPING the environment. There's someone to get pissed about!

Joe,

Wish he was as concerned about MY security as he is about his own.

I guess he hasn't talked to Al Gore about his new invention, the internet. Obama could conduct the country's business in his underwear from the oval office via skype.

First, Obamas trip to india is a very expensive trip at the tax payers expense at a time when the government needs to conserve. Instead of facing the country and rolling up his sleeves and really getting to work on the country, he runs away. We all know the U.S. has lost many jobs to India, but of course he wants to pervert the truth with more lies and say, that it is not true, India is creating American jobs. Yeah, we can train indians for a while to do our jobs, and how to steal our technology. How stupid does he think we are? You can B.S. some of the dumb people some of the time, but you can't B.S. the smart people most of the time.

Another con-job and a photo opp. to make it look like he is actually doing something. Putting my medical records on a computer server in India does not appeal to me! Quit dodging the real issues and try doing something domestic that will actually help OUR country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_asia

"THEY" say that the deals struck at the very first day will provide 50,000 new jobs here in USA!

That would be GREAT! As long as THEY will not outsource them (and then some) to Taiwan two months later.

We'll see.

I believe I covered that:



Equal air-time would be something equitable. Republicans would probably call that socialist and against freedom of speech.

But I'm flattered that you care so much about what I beleive

Cheers,

Andrew K

No, you didn't cover it.



And so, why haven't the "equitable" Democrats pursued this?


Cheers,

Knife

"equitable" Democrats? I said "more equitable".

Why do you have this propensity to see everything as back or white? You seem to lack the ability or be unwilling to see things in degrees. Nothing is absolute... except for maths. In my opinion, this is one of the problems with a lot of the Tea Party followers and the right wing movement (granted, Demos can be that way too... but it seems almost pathological in the case of many self-proclaimed Repubs I've talked to).

So.. I'm not saying it's impossible for the Repubs to pass this... I'm just saying it will never happen. Just like I'll never sleep with you... It' not impossible... but it will never happen. So, I'm sticking with my original statement:



Cheers,

Andrew K

I find this kind of curious:



especially after YOU said:



And I responded by changing it to:



Now, somehow, I'm the one that sees things as only binary?!?!?!

Okaaaaaaaaaaay...





No one said you said it was "impossible," as opposed to "not likely to happen." You can stop trying to parse your words to deflect a quarrel that no one is having about them.

Your point - as stated - was that REPUBLICANS, ONLY, would not ever let that type of legislation pass. You had a clear opportunity to include Democrats, to say "politicians" as a general group or, to not say anything at all. Yet you decided to make a very pointed statement: that ONLY REPUBLICANS would never pass that type of legislation.

And I said that type of legislation wouldn't be - and indeed hasn't been - passed by ANY politicians in office.

Now, you want to say YOU see things as nuanced by degrees and not strictly along party lines?

good for you but, if that's the case, you have a VERY confusing way of articulating your sense that these things are not strictly about party affiliation.

So, I'm sticking with my original response:



and pointing out that by naming only one political party in your response, you only serve to perpetuate the black and white way of thinking about these issues.

Cheers,

Knife

No Knife, no mater how hard you try... I will not sleep with you!



Where did I say that? I don't seem to remember saying that.



Here... let me fix that for you....



Kisses,

Andrew

Like I said: You had the opportunity to include Democrats, or anyone else, to say "politicians" as a general group or, to not say anything at all about who would support that type of campaign reform.

But you made a very pointed statement: ONLY naming "REPUBLICANS" as a the single type of people that would never pass that type of legislation.

I appreciate your capitulation, but I still don't agree that it's "especially Republicans" that won't agree to that type of legislation. Democrats, in may respects, have MORE to lose in supporting any reform like that.

Not that you will agree with that - because to you, Republicans "seem more self-interested," - but it's true and it's why Democrats have staunchly resisted any type of reform that would cut into their ability to access media.

Look it up!

Big Hugs & Kisses,

Knife

Wow... I can't believe you caved so fast. I expected more.

xoxo,

Andrew K

Nope.

Just looking for the hugs...