EL the Famous

i get what you're saying, i just challenge every post is meant only for 'discussion' from the get go.

a thinner bill clinton w/ a tan and a sweet fade cut? seriously though, i do think clinton did a remarkable job and is the most immediate example that spings to mind. cousin tupelo's detailed response is pretty deadon as well. there may be issues in someone's interpretation of 'the center'...maybe mine is a simple theory that aligning more to a central viewpoint is more reflective of the greater population than leaning to far towards the left or right.

if my interpretation of the clip is correct, i vehmently disagree relative to jesse. i hardly finding asking individuals within the african-american community to take more accountability for their lives/the lives of their families, especially african-american males/fathers, 'talking down to black people'. that's the part that bothers me 100X more than the balls comment. compared to the divisive and, IMO, oft-coddling rhetoric of both jackson and sharpton...if anybody should check their balls, it's them. i've said it before, both are doing just as good of a job in keeping the black man down as

i could not agree more. maybe it's just me, but a move closer to/completely to the center is a HUGE change over the past two terms...i also think a more cenrist presidency is exactly what this country needs or at least, it's what i'd like to see relative to my current worldview. another reason i'm still extremely enthused about his candidacy.

smigel's SNL TV funhouse featuring obama/jackson/sharpton immediately sprung to mind... Third Video Down...Too Funny.

i'm altruistic as a motherfucker.

You think the two (Act 1 and 2) are mutually exclusive? jnick, i'm not going to argue w/ you changing the basis of the comparison from one of intent to one of proportion. i don't agree w/ our presence or rationale for being there at all...i just can't go as far in comparing it to an al qaeda suicide bombing.

i like when he used the decriptor: 'beady-eyed'. not that i was or ever will be of the man and his politics, but i also like how coauthoring a bill authorizing $600 million for international AIDS relief efforts and publicly dennouncing his former stance on the issue is glazed over into 'somewhat relaxing his equally stubborn and reactionary opposition'...fairness obliged.

good one.

in the words of peak oil theorist, Mathew Savinar, we all do. don't let anybody tell you different. as far as the whole altruistic obfuscating banter and double-talk thing...no, i will not make out with you.

good god no...i was merely commenting on how i found it funny that in one thread our military actions are unequivocably 100% ('don't kid yourself!') all about oil (which i actually agree is the biggest reason for our presence there) and then in another thread they are based on a religious agenda. that said, i really do like the concept melding the two into a holy army of mindless pawns being duped/controlled by an sinister 'upper 10%' illuminati comprised of old dudes that probably look and act exactly like lex luthor in a quest for oil. somebody call stan lee! i agree w/ matt, there is a hu

but...

well, it is more scientifically tangible than a skygod.

yes. that's exactly what i said. jnick, what jude said...are we god's army on a crusade to convert those who don't believe or are we there for absolutely no other reason than oil?

yes. it's exactly the same.

dark knight will be out while we're on vacation, but i'll be damned if there isn't an imax in town...that's going to be the diggity.

after several more listens, i think i can fully endorse this as a good album. it's lean and focused.

it really is a double-edged sword. the value of the free marketing exposure is mind-numbing, but i can see an artists concern over quality control or, really, control over their product in general. the other issue i have w/ viacom...a lot of the content i would watch on youtube, is because they refuse to release it in any sort of format that i might even pay for, happily.

i'd take this to PM, but C.T. sent me one yesterday and when i tried to respond: 'This member has chosen not to be contactable by the board Messenger'. rather than let my original flippant response hang out there, here is my attempt at more civil response: i think any villification and/or blacklisting towards any politician or otherwise over their opposition to the war is unjust. that said, villification...blacklisting...even incarceration...isn't the same as a gas chamber. i'd also submit, that someone (even though they weren't an elected official at the time) who vocally opposed the war is

i get where you are coming from, but for a lot of folks it's hard to seperate the two. when you throw his name out, it's the supremacy agenda that will immediately spring to mind for most and then shut them down to the overall message you are trying to esconse, a message i agree w/ for the most part. i can't disagree at all that complacency is extremely dangerous and that this current administration has benefited from it. however, militancy/militias, equally scare the fuck out of me. i'm not telling you that you or anyone else doesn't have the right to make the comparison. (literally) go nut

Dear Mr. Cous N. Tupelo, 'Carry on with your childishness. I'm done with this thread.' Lovingly, El Sociopath