A Complete Waste of Space

http://news.yahoo.com/candy-crowley-sel ... ghestRated

We the people noticed, that is why osama Obama continues to slip in the polls.

Fixed the link

HH

Fuck!.... dude you are really stupid!

Any link with Aleister Crowley?

Nic

nicolas10 wrote:Any link with Aleister Crowley?

Nic

He he he, nice to think she might be

HH

no agenda for Mr. Bozell and company, right?

http://archive.mrc.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp

find us a real news source. Crowley did fine, and actually her step-in saved Mitt from digging himself a deeper hole.

If you're too stupid to see that she was biased then that's your stupidity, and I'm not just talking to Slick. It it what it is though and people are hammering her for that. Hell, TMZ was given an internal memo that said said Obama got more time cuz "he speaks more slowly". Hahahaha. Are fecking kidding me? And before you come out to slag TMZ, they do break stories before anyone else in their genre. That they were given this memo gives them credibility beyond the scope of their paparazzi based news. Either way, the memo exists and regardless of who broke the story it's a fact. As for Candy, you'd think that somewhere in the liberal media you'd find one person who wasn't a retard and you very well might. But when they offer up Candy as their spokes-cunt then expect to be looked upon as a dolt. That goes for Obama as well. And if ya'll don't believe that let's say that NAMBLA decided they were publicly going to come out in support for Obama. You don't think that would get some play and with the telling and re-telling of that story that somewhere down the line Obama is going get tarnished?

The reason that you aren't believable Slick is that if the tables were turned you'd be saying much the same thing as I am. But since it's "your team" that this happened to it's all good. I don't know if that is a reflection of what kind of person you are or if you just think politics should be as fecked up and shitty as they can be. As long as you can talk shit about the side you don't agree with. IIRC you stated that you did some criminal shit in the past and I may very well be right that your level of morality is lower than the kind of people I prefer to be around. I know I ususally call you a D-Bag and such, but the above is an honest impression and in this case I'm not making the statement to incite you or get a "reaction". It's an observation and if I'm correct you truly are one of those people that I could never call a friend.

I am a better person than that, I've proven it every day even by the way I conduct my business. Everyone else is using cheap (illegal alien) labor and I refuse to hire them. Cuz it's illegal. And bad for this country. I make less profit than I would had I gone the other direction, but I truly sleep well at night. I have little respect for other contractors who use illegals. I am better than them, not only is my product superior but I'm more honest and honorable. That's how daddy lives his life, even if it costs me less income. Hell, I'm better than 99% of the rest of humanity.

actually, my point is exactly what it is: When Obama does poorly in a debate, I DON'T blame the moderator. He was off in space in the first one, and wasn't anyone's fault but his own. On these debates, the moderators all did ok, and I have minor quibbles with all of them,too. In the first debate, the old guy from PBS(name eludes me) had too little control over the flow. In the Veep debate, choosing a foreign policy wonk to moderate was a poor choice when Ryan was chosen explicitly for domestic economic issues(I figure the moderator was picked before Ryan, but don't know for sure). Crowley was overly aggressive trying to steer both candidates, yet still didn't get all the questions in. That's my take of the negatives, but the format, coupled with the tendency of all candidates to try and steer back to canned stump speech material, limits the outcome. Let's face it, you aren't going to see the Lincoln/Douglass debate in this day and age, and if you did, it would go over the heads of 90% of the electorate anyway, as they are as dumb as stumps. On the other hand, we modern types have the advantage of real-time fact checking, and still the voters accept most of the lies if their guy tells them.

HappyHappy wrote:He he he, nice to think she might be

HH

I googled just for giggles and I found this:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.fr/2006/04/g ... h-and.html

ruggbutt wrote:If you're too stupid to see that she was biased then that's your stupidity
The reason that you aren't believable Sick

No shit! That's why I blocked him.

HH