> The media gushed "9/11 changed EEEEVERYthing" until they had her vote
> on the quagmire then after the quagmire soured they hype her vote on
> the quagmire.
Clearly, the Clintons, both Hitlery and Slick were in
favor of the invasion. Slick defended the invasion as
late as 2005. Hitlery has already stated her intention
of keeping US forces in Iraq forever, though perhaps
in lower numbers, eventually.
> Then they pump and dump Obama so the McCain can keep the U. S. in Iraq
> for another 8 years.
So, you're saying that on the subject of Iraq, Papa Smurf
McCain and Hitlery are on the same side. Tweedle-dumb
and Tweedle-dumber, eh? This prompts the question:
why is Bret against giving voters a choice on the issue of
Iraq? This leads to the obvious answer: because Iraq
matters to him about as much as Zimbabwe or Darfur
or a moose turd in the glaciers of Canada or a rats ass.
What matters is getting the US back to that high-tax
Jimmy Carter economic stagflation boom.
So, there you have it: the only dime's worth of difference
between Methuselah and Hitlery: taxes. So, if I'm given
that choice, maybe I should vote for McCain, since
everything else would be the same. I certainly don't need
higher taxes. I have an ex-wife to pay for. But I just can't
stand that enemy of Free Speech, McCain. Not that
Hitlery's much better.
> The pump and dump doesn't require any journalists to flop flop. The
> billionaires have one set of journalists who can hype one way then,
> later on, another set who hype in the opposite direction.
Hmm. Why limit this to journalists. Don't the billionairs have
one set of politicians who can hype one way and on the other
hand, another set of politicians who hype in the opposite direction,
allegedly. I mean as long as you're being a paranoid commie,
why stop at fascist half-measures?
> One more thing about Obama. I don't think his skin color is getting
> him very many black votes. Most U. S. blacks wonder about and even
> distrust African Africans.
Now, that _is_ an interesting claim. Sounds like the stereotype
of the self-hating Jew. Anyway, all you have to do to check your
claim on this is look at the polls.
> He attracts those who are disenfranchized
> or inexperienced at federal level government.
Note: Obama doesn't attract Cahill, implying that
he things he is enfranchized and experienced at
the federal level. All because of some ridiculous
nuisance lawsuit over his right to post graffiti at
the unemployment office. Talk about your delusions
of grandeur.
> Were Obama white he wouldn't be getting many less black votes.
Please, please, cite this claim, would you? I mean, if you
can't figger out how to provide a cite, find some mentally
retarded 12 year old to help you out with that computer stuff.
> Hillary isn't an inclusive type person, and doesn't pretend to be.
Well, she certainly doesn't include any of the ideas of
the anti-war crowd in her agenda. Yet, note how Cahill,
allegedly an anti-war guy doesn't give a flying rat about that.
> That's her worse weakness up against Obama, not being divisive or
> polarizing.
Her worse[sic] weakness is being perceived as a tax
hiker.
> It sure would be nice if we had a close race between two candidates
> campaigning on ideas.
They why would you want to have a close race between
Hitlery and McCain, who are about as similar as Tweedle
and Twat? Certainly when it comes to their obtainable
objectives, they are.
