olyclimber

JayB, I know you might not have the time, but I would love to hear your critique of what Obama has to say here. It would seem that here is a candidate that should appeal to a person who is grounded in reason and rationale. How does he compare to the other candidates in your opinion. I think there are many unknowns, and it might be that because the current president lacks oratory skill that makes Obama seem so smart. maybe it is because of 8 years of mangled english and what i perceive as illogical thought (i could make a list, but you probably know what i'm talking about). but this guy just seems logical, pragmatic, and everything you would want in a president. I want to hear a reasoned, rational argument as to why Barack would not make a good president. This is a pretty long video but it does provide quite a bit of insight. I know there are the usual divisive arguments that could be made (he'll be pro-abortion, he will "surrender to the terrorists", etc), but this is some of the more sound thinking i have heard myself (its a long speech, and then a Q&A), including the idea of a fiscally responsible government. It seems like a return to reason to me. I don't care if you list the basic divisive arguements if that is all you have, but curious to hear from someone who appears to be a "thinking conservative".

i don't care what the others are saying about you KaskadskyjKozak, i care about you. but then i care about most people, and in particular I care about family of people that post on this board. but i also care about what you say about me. i don't mind being told my ideas are bullshit (not that i won't defend them), but you go out of the way to label and categorize me so that you can hurl these insults you gathered that fit your definition of what is wrong with the country or with politics you oppose. i see you posting challenges to people on this board with political ideas possibly opposed to yours, and its the same vocabulary, its the same schtick, time after time. of course you are not the only one the is guilty of this (it happens all over the political spectrum here), but you are the only one attacking me for simply refuting a your dismissal of an interesting and controversial fact. i challenge you to find an instance where i have labeled or categorized you. i might point out an idea that is contrary to your "POV", but I guarantee that anything that be construed as a personal attack was something that was done in jest. This would be the closest I have come to insulting you, but I gave you a way out: or maybe this and for the record I apologize for the above statements, even if they are not direct, baseless insults but rather responses to your barrage. it would be nice if that will result in you admitting that you have not only miscatagorized me, or that you have also undeservedly attacked me for the crime of changing the conversation, but frankly given your record i don't expect it.

i'll be here on the internet for you, when you're ready. i realize you may need to heal more before this can start.

if you want i can gather up all you posts were you so unfairly insulted me and we can start the healing process as you apoglogize for each. i'm fairly certain we can figure out what is wrong with you so you don't have these episodes.

of course i care what you think and i retract that i said it in the first place. i'm a walking nerve.

we need to heal as a nation, and as internet users.

i need this.

i'm here so you can apologize now. go ahead.

m4yVlPqeZwo

did the balloon get a hole?

i won't be able to sleep!

don't leave me hanging.

i care. so much.

crickets. well i'm waiting for you to recant the shit you said about me...

I'm not changing the conversation, the thread forked at what Matt posted, which I found infinitely more interesting than the thread topic before that. Please go back and review every thread in spray...it happens in almost every thread. The conversation goes to another topic. I have nothing to say about what happened previously in this thread. Get over that. I fail to see how I'm being partisan here. I'm actually concerned about the elections, regardless which political party it applies too. How is that partisan? How is that "leftist"?

i really don't care what you think of my point of view. i didn't claim any "facts" other than douche counting the republican votes wrote what matt said he did, which you dismissed as "its on a blog, why should i believe that". i am being balanced in that I think the Republicans in Washington deserve to have their votes counted, and its obviously from that article that Esser is douchebag who doesn't care about fairness...only about winning. Obviously he isn't the only one with that problem. What I don't understand is what problem you have admitting that Esser wrote that article or admitting that his vote counting pratices are questionable in what was a close race for WA repubs. I just don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss that. i'm perfectly willing to be humble and admit where I'm wrong. but I don't need to do that in this case, because, I'm not wrong. How is it "one-sided, myopic, black-and-white-my-side-right-good-and-swell-your-side-bad-evil-wrong as can be."? Do tell me of the virtues of Esser! I'm all ears and prepared to humbly admit I was wrong. But unless you produce, you're full of shit and I don't appreciate your baseless name calling.

someone being dense, that is true. but its ok, run away and hide. actually, it does make a pretty good point for several sides, one of them is Mr. Huckabee...he has good cause for his lawsuit with a fucknut like this in charge of the voting. that is FACT. as for your licksack comment, its pretty well documented that tired phrase only makes you look like an idiot, but continue using it if you want to drive that point home.

uh...so you're saying that dipshit didn't write that in the UW Daily? Its a fact. FACT. EAT IT! FACT.

but facts are easily dismissed with a wave of the fingers, so no worries

facts sting, don't they.

the truth hurts you, doesn't it?

Is a college newspaper (the UW Daily) better than a blog? OMG I READ IT IN INK IT MUST BE TRUE.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g5iG-pbWi7Ea1rXRYpjWh5hmzQuQ

well they won't know their politics unless that information is gathered and tabulated by homeland security. maybe we can have some sort of national id barcode tattoo system to determine proper firefighter coverage based on if you paid for your firefighter coverage or not. Actually it would be easier to just set up a government program funded to have arsons burn down the houses of all registered republicans and take all the guessing out of the equation for the firefighters. The land could then be confiscated and auctioned to pay for government health care, needles for heroin addicts, porn in libraries, and, well all kinds of great stuff! why do you always have to be over the top? we're trying to have a meaningful discussion here.