Chilly

Yup. Sticking to his original promises and actually being honest by taking public financing would have negated the impact of the bundlers, and would have represented actual change, as he could have easily raised that money from individual contributors and the matching program. I would have been pretty damned impressed if he had actually done that. Instead, he creates a bull sh-- argument how his rejecting public financing is somehow a better publicly financed campaign.

I need 2 mens XL and 1 womens small.

I dunno, that chaise lounge is pretty damn hot. See the tongue on that thing? Imagine the possibilities.

It does say this at the top: "Mr Lynch and his Attorney Michael P. Cafferty, after completing their investigation and after conferring at length with the District Attorney's Office, make the following statement:" I think that clearly says "Marshawn and I".

Get this for a better browser: http://www.operamini.com/

My point is that he hasn't done anything to remove undue influence from politics, he's just shifted how it gets done, and embraced the other way, to make it appear as though he's done something to remove undue influence.

Yet you continue to miss the point. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say.

Oh, you're talking about this type of change:

Newsflash: All politicians in one way or another are about "change". There is a huge difference between some small, specific changes to the system or policy issues and a large, grandiose vision of change for the entire governmental system.

Thats because its not "Powered by Hope" like the Obama site. You mean like the 96.5% of the time he voted with the Democrats in the current congress? You know why people are holding him to those standards? Because he's making "sweeping statements of change in his speeches." Those are the standards that he, himself, is laying out in his speeches. I know its not realistic, you know its not realistic, and he knows its not realistic. The problem arises when you contradict your platform of honest government with dishonest language. The difference between us is you call his dishonesty being a shrewd politician, I call it bull sh-- and "more of the same".

It would have been had you actually gotten my point.

From what I've seen and am familiar with, on a small platform of governmental reforms and an appeal to issues in the middle. Here's the difference: - JohnMcCain.com - Barack Obama

There's a big difference between: 1.) Stating that you are completely, positively against something, winning votes from it, and coming to a compromise that doesn't jeopardize these values (honest way) 2.) Stating that you are completely, positively against something, winning votes from it, and then once the political capital you gained from doing so runs out, coming to a compromise that completely throws these values under the bus (dishonest, old way) Obama was campaigning as #1, his actions are #2. EDIT: What GG said.

Do you notice the difference between these two websites? And I quote, which you can read from scrolling up in this very thread: "I would like for it to happen here as well. "

And a swing and a miss

Maybe typing it in all caps will work: OBAMA'S "CHANGE" ISN'T SIMPLY DIFFERENT POLICIES, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIFFERENT FORM OF POLITICS ALTOGETHER. If you want to talk about McCain, start the frickin thread.

:wallbash: McCain: Doesn't have much of a following, and people understand he's a typical politician, so him acting as a typical jackass doesn't really make for much discussion. Obama: Has a ton of people who believe he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself because of his anti-typical politician ways.

First album I ever bought was Barenaked Ladies - Stunt

Then do it. Most people on here from what I've seen don't love McCain because of his image, but there are a lot of people here that :wallbash: Obama and view him in an incorrect way.

You don't think thats happening in more important places than this?

There is a huge backlash from people like me because Obama has convinced a multitude of morons to vote for him simply because of his "honest, open, and post-partisan" image, which isn't supported by any evidence.

What I don't like, specifically, is that after saying he wouldn't support any bill with retroactive telecom immunity, he's decided to go ahead and do just that. Who gives a flying !@#$ if there is a provision to investigate what happened? There is still no liability here if a crime was committed. A real candidate of change would have had a backbone and stood up for what he had previously said he believes in.

Its okay that he's manipulating his positions for political reasons because the other guys do it too. More of the same.

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007 "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." - Barack Obama, Jun 25, 2008

He has a high horse. My buddy had one of those, but the cops arrested him.