Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Unless you are a Republican. See, e.g., article above.

I don't see what's so funny about Peace, Love and Understanding.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't see what's so funny about Peace, Love and Understanding.

It's the Catholic in you. Let it go.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It also makes me all the more curious why he's has taken the opposite side of almost all of these issues in the Senate.

If you look into some of his endorsements in Illinois state and Chicago/Cook local races, you'll see that there's a lot of apparent go along to get along in the man.

I'm curious why you are so negative about a dem who is openly negative about the lefty nuts in the party.

[LessinSF]

to win the Primaries:

SEN. MCCAIN (AZ) 33 38 +163
RUDY GIULIANI 21 26 +284
GOV. HUCKABEE (AR) 17 22 +354
MITT ROMNEY 10 14 +614
REP. RON PAUL (TX) 3 6 +1566
FRED THOMPSON 2 5 +1900

SEN. CLINTON (NY) 47 52 -108
SEN. OBAMA (IL) 46 51 -104
AL GORE 1 4 +2400
JOHN EDWARDS 1 4 +2400

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought he was supposed to be against government spending.

Got me thinking that the Emancipation Proclamation was one hell of a regulatory taking. Puts Kelo v. City of New London into a new light -- freeing the slaves was just a taking for private benefit, when it comes down to it. Vote Paul for market-based freedom!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I'm curious why you are so negative about a dem who is openly negative about the lefty nuts in the party.

Uncanny valley hypothesis?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I could post a grand dragon Byrd picture.

It had been so long that I was hoping you had forgotten how.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't see Obama as a darling of the Lefty Dems, and his win was decisive. Maybe I'm being naive, but he seems to be a realist.

Obama worries the lefties, who think he's too interested in appealing to independents and Republicans.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It had been so long that I was hoping you had forgotten how.

when i look back on all the posts I regret from the past, I realize this was my nadir.

Two reasons.

First, Hank had never posted a "Byrd in the klan" pic; we all knew it was Penske, but Hank's persuasive arguing could only be dealt with by such cheap deflection techniques. We all lacked the intellectual firepower to deal with him straight up.

Second, clearly GGG was the one resorting to trollish behavior, yet I'm forced to read myself attacking Hank, that beloved poster that newbers started calling Papa about 2012. Why did my younger self lack the integrity to attack the one who deserved the attack?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Ty@50
when i look back on all the posts I regret from the past, I realize this was my nadir.

Two reasons.

First, Hank had never posted a "Byrd in the klan" pic; we all knew it was Penske, but Hank's persuasive arguing could only be dealt with by such cheap deflection techniques. We all lacked the intellectual firepower to deal with him straight up.

Second, clearly GGG was the one resorting to trollish behavior, yet I'm forced to read myself attacking Hank, that beloved poster that newbers started calling Papa about 2012. Why did my younger self lack the integrity to attack the one who deserved the attack?

Responding to this post would make me schizophrenic, wouldn't it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Responding to this post would make me schizophrenic, wouldn't it?

none of my business really, but at some point the two psyches will mind meld, I mean if this is all true, and at that point the two of you should pretty much agree. i take it we're not there yet?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
none of my business really, but at some point the two psyches will mind meld, I mean if this is all true, and at that point the two of you should pretty much agree. i take it we're not there yet?

I'm pretty certain that I'll never hit 50, so this whole exercise presents interesting questions.

[SlaveNoMore]

Cletus Miller
I'm curious why you are so negative about a dem who is openly negative about the lefty nuts in the party.

Tyrone Slothrop
Obama worries the lefties, who think he's too interested in appealing to independents and Republicans.

"Obama the Candidate" - is rather appealing, in a WJeffClinton-without-the-sleaze way.

The problem is that "Obama the Candidate" is currently nothing more than a projection; a possible myth; a PR dream.

"Obama the Senator" - the one with the actual voting record- the actual word and deed - is the guy that worries me.

The Left is worried he'll actually become Obama the Candidate. I'm pretty confident he'll remain Obama the Senator.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Got me thinking that the Emancipation Proclamation was one hell of a regulatory taking. Puts Kelo v. City of New London into a new light -- freeing the slaves was just a taking for private benefit, when it comes down to it. Vote Paul for market-based freedom!

This is good stuff.

In all honesty, you should teach law school. Drive the fucking kids nutz with this stuff.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Got me thinking that the Emancipation Proclamation was one hell of a regulatory taking. Puts Kelo v. City of New London into a new light -- freeing the slaves was just a taking for private benefit, when it comes down to it. Vote Paul for market-based freedom!

Maybe because the slave owners were all enemy combatants, they didn't have rights?