kwall

not only that, but several dirty looks were exchanged.

"somewhat inaccurate" is putting it mildly.

i guess i'm out of the loop with regard to dirty-look-gate. did i miss something?

a friend of mine and his wife were at disneyland that day with their two small kids. they evacuated the park which forced them to spend the rest of the day at the hotel. as much as they were dying to watch the tv coverage, they couldn't until the kids went to sleep because they didn't want them to be affected and they had to entertain them somehow. the next day, disneyland was open again so they went back. they said they felt like they were the only ones there. luckily, they had driven down there and not flown or they would've been stranded as well.

she played the stinky dildo card on you.

so go ahead and talk it. i'm all ears. give me the straight facts.

obama should have picked a white moderate racist as his running mate to secure this obviously key demographic.

i refuse to believe that obama would ever be anything but completely honest and truthful. stop it. this hurts my eyes.

you had suggested that the mccain ad featuring white children was a small piece of evidence of racism. so, i guess i should have asked if you thought that all political ads must now contain a member of every race in order to avoid being called a small piece of evidence of racism. i stand corrected.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

then he's even less accomplished than advertised. agreed.

i don't consider this even a small one. are you seriously suggesting that all political ads must now contain a member of every race in order to avoid being racist? not when deciding if a particular ad is racist, no. i'm glad you find it interesting. i'm quickly losing interest myself. so when it does come up, i can remind you that it is dirty politics and you will agree? not really.

i'm still waiting for obama to bring up the "i hate the gooks" quote from mccain. i guess he's waiting until october.

if their "noticing" consists merely of noting that an ad has only white children in it, yes. but it has nothing to do with their party affiliation.

so it's ok now? because everyone does it?

it's ok to go racial if you're a liberal because everybody knows that their intentions are good.

agreed.

i think the thing is is that the voters who pay attention to "the issues" have long since made up their mind about who they are going to vote for. there's no point in campaigning for these voters. they're set. it's at these "swing" voters, who seemingly are not swayed by the issues and who seem to change their mind every other week, where the personality contest is aimed because it's them who will decide the election.

agreed. i don't have a problem with what he said. i didn't mean to say they were the same thing. i meant to say that they're both being misrepresented by their respective opponents. i was merely putting in my two cents. this doesn't constitute "jumping" on you. so what? you won't see this? oh well.

she probably meant "No one knows what war is like more than my family." just as obama probably was not calling palin a pig. you can't attack one of these statements and defend the other. i mean, clearly you can, as we see, but you wouldn't be being intellectually honest.

excellent. you've all fallen right into the trap. muahahahaha!

this is a good example of leaving such things up to the states.

the point is that it is not unconstitutional for the government to place restrictions on what you do with your own body. and no one would claim that the constitution describes a right to sell your kidney, although the reasoning used in roe v. wade would support such a claim.

ok, that's cool. i would like to point out, though, that you're the one who challenged my position on child-abusers, wife-killers, etc, and then when i bristle at being lumped in with them, i'm being unreasonable.