HA! ^ Oh shi...Obama is indeed too PRO TIRE GAUGE. Fuck me but the daily tracking polls should dip 2-4% from that!

8/7/2008 10:46:39 AM

^again, skirting the issue. Id call him more pro-ignorance than pro-tire gauge.

8/7/2008 11:55:45 AM

No, it sounds more like you don't appreciate that he's pro-tire gauge. It's a big scandal and I expect the polls to drop out for Obama. TIGHTENING UP EH!

8/7/2008 12:22:32 PM

No I dont appreciate his views on wealth redistribution, among other things.

8/7/2008 1:12:08 PM

McCain is old! omg he's totally old! he should lose for being old! its dumb to say Obama is skinny, lets instead talk about how McCain is old

8/7/2008 1:28:01 PM

mccain is far more old, than obama is skinny.

mccain's oldness >> obama's skinniness.

8/7/2008 2:11:16 PM

In case anybody's interested, we're showing the film Senator Obama Goes to Africa at noon on Saturday at Galaxy Cinema and doing some voter registration after.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/voterregistrationdrive/443dv

8/7/2008 2:45:09 PM

watch out for angry 40+ year old men with guns

8/7/2008 2:50:06 PM

Quote :

"In case anybody's interested, we're showing the film Senator Obama Goes to Africa at noon on Saturday at Galaxy Cinema and doing some voter registration after. "

Neat, is this the trip he made where he campaigned for Odinga (and against Kibaki), who came from the same tribe his dad did and who is muslim? Then he claimed election fraud, imagine that, and promoted violence until he got to share power, even though he lost the election. The same Odinga that had a pact with muslim leaders to advance islam in kenya? I think only a thousand or so people died.

Great film, i hear he takes an AIDs test too...with Odinga right next to him.

seriously, enjoy your movie.

8/7/2008 3:45:00 PM

dude give it a rest for fuck's sake.

ok so this is nuts.. just on MSNBC and there was a breaking story about a man in Florida who has been taken into custody for threatening to assassinate Obama.

He made the threats during training in Florida. His automobile was found with weaponry, body armour, etc. Federal authorities have him in custody now.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason : 0]

8/7/2008 4:35:18 PM

^it was a partial joke with a little background of his trip.

Im glad they caught the guy

8/7/2008 4:51:13 PM

Is that movie supposed to be the 2008 version of "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? Because if so, I'm in.

8/7/2008 4:58:27 PM

I'm sure that everyone on here has seen the Exxon-McCain'08 website the Dems recently put up or have heard Obama speak about how McCain is in the pocket of big oil companies like Exxon.
http://www.democrats.org/page/content/exxon-mccain/

Of course, what fewer people have heard is that Obama has actually recieved more donations from the largest oil companies, including Exxon.

Quote :

"[B]ased on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election Commission on July 29, 2008, reports CRP: "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.""

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/exxon-hearts-ob.html
or here for more detail
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/oil-industry-leans-toward-mcca.html

Maybe they support Obama more because voted in favorof the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill, while McCain voted against it.

PS* McCain voted against it specifically because he said it gave too many tax breaks to big oil...interesting.

Quote :

""I want to take a minute here on this issue ’cause I think Sen. Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the president's energy bill and I voted against it." .... "It had $2.8 billion in corporate welfare to big oil companies and they're already making record profits as you know," McCain said of the 2005 energy bill. "Sen. Obama voted for that bill, and it's big oil giveaways. I know he hasn't been in the senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something -- voting for something means your support, and voting against something means you oppose it.""

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/07/1253667.aspx

PPS* These data are making me wonder why McCain has such a lead in donations from the oil industry. I mean, if it isn't the big guys, who is it? Is it gas stations and heating oil distributors? Either way, I think both of my points deflate the connection Democrats are trying to create.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 8:00:50 AM

Give me a break. The sort of contributions included in this study that attempt to discredit Obama (opensecrets.org) you reference are from low-level employees at, say, Exxon is hardly comparable to the sort of exec bundling for McCain that went on at Hess. Repeat after me: EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PACS.

The thing is, Obama is going to end up getting more money from every industry. Because at the end of the day, he'll probably raise much more much money as McCain. If I were Obama, I'd twist it around and point out (as he undoubtedly has) that it's people making smaller-dollar contributions funding his campaign, while John McCain relies on millionaire oil executives funneling money through the Republican money machine.

For example, you say CHEVRON favors Obama. Really? I know when I contribute, I have to put down my employer (I give smaller donations, btw). Therefore, my contributions can be parsed as part of "my company". It does not necessarily follow that I am donating on behalf of my company or its interests. The data you provide in your spreadsheet doesn't break down whether it is 50 contributors giving $2300, or 2300 contributors giving $50. It makes a difference.

Let's look at Obama's contributor breakdown for Chevron, so people can honestly decide whether this represents the company, or people who work for the company, supporting Obama.

76 contributors (for $36,557)

- Three (3) $2300 contributions. Individuals could be considered "upper management"
- One (1) $1500 (Engineer)
- Nine (9) $1000 contributions (mainly middle mgmt. and engineering staff)
- Twelve (12) $500 contributions (middle mgmt. mostly, some IT staff and a lawyer)
- Ten (10) contributions between $413-$264 (IT workers, accountants, various middle and floor managers)
- Thirty-Nine (39) contributions between $250-$200 from various positions ranging from IT, to the graphic design staff, engineers, some middle management, and one retired

Repeat after me: EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PACS.

8/8/2008 9:04:00 AM

^ Kainen,

Do you know what a PAC is? ANY contributions that go to EITHER candidate from the "oil industry" or any other industry MUST come from EMPLOYEES. Repeat after me: CORPORATIONS CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACs).

That is why Obama ALSO uses these numbers. THERE IS NO OTHER GUAGE! In his most recent ad, he claims that McCain is in the pocket of "big oil" because he recieved $2 million dollars from, you guessed it, FROM OIL & GAS COMPANY EMPLOYEES!

Quote :

""Now big oil's filling John McCain's campaign with two million dollars in contributions", the ad's narrator said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080804/pl_afp/usvote_080804165155

However, Obama's 2 million figure is for the industry as a whole, not just "big oil companies". And even that number has turned out to be bogus. What a surprise!!!!!!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/factcheckorg-sa.html

Now I'm not saying that Obama has raised more contributions from the oil and gas industry as a whole. He has not. But these numbers really deflate Obama's argument that McCain is in the pocket of "big oil", especially the more specific Democrat claim that McCain is running as "McCain-Exxon'08". It just ain't so, my friends.

PS* It's also funny how you let Obama slide on voting for the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy bill while McCain openly resisted based on the fact it was essentially corporate welfare.

PPS* How can you say the Center for Responsive Politics, the folks that run opensecrets, is trying to discredit Obama? They are an unbiased group whose numbers are cited by members of the press as well as members of both parties. I am really convinced that you have no clue what you're talking about and I don't think we need to carry on this conversation unless you can show me otherwise.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM. Reason : A New Kind Of Politics]

8/8/2008 9:36:37 AM

It's actually called the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill.

Obama voted for the overall bill because the bill called for increase use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and offered incentives for development of alternative energy sources (such as wind and solar), tax breaks for hybrid cars, construction of more energy efficient buildings. Even he admits it was a tough compromise but he thought it was worth it.

US Senators are rarely faced with morally unambiguous votes.

These things happen, I could point out dozens of ridiculous votes McCain has put forth. Personally, while I feel Obama's vote was a mistake, I'm certain it's not one he would have chosen to make, and the bill did contain some minimal incentives for renewables and green building that made it slightly less godawful.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 9:51 AM. Reason : As a centrist I'm suprised you don't understand this...]

8/8/2008 9:50:41 AM

^ Bush-Cheney bill sounds better (though I can see why you want to have a more nuanced conversation now ahahaha). It was also given the name because of the role the P&VP played in its development and the great amount of support they gave the bill.

But that's beside the point, how can Obama say that McCain will continue the "Bush-Cheney energy policy" when McCain actually voted against the largest fixture of Bush's energy record, while Obama in fact voted for it????

Even if you want to start getting more nuanced (when the chips are down anyways) your candidate is hoping that no one digs into the details of his bogus, negative claims.

A New Kind Of Politics!!!!

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 9:57:04 AM

Kainen is actually teaching me some more lessons. just one page ago, his biggest contribution to the thread was posting politically charged pictures. I found him one of the most depressing features of the board.

Now, that his candidate is having to go on the defensive, he's wanting to get into a more nuanced discussion of policy. Apparently, I can nag everyone like an annoyed den father until I'm blue in the face, but if you really want people to talk policy you have to go on the attack. You have put them on the defensive so that they actually get something out of talking about the details of any given policy.

I'll have to remember this in the future. Attacks = More Nuanced Policy Discussions. Apparently competition DOES work! Maybe so does negative campaigning? This is really changing my view of political discussion.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 10:05:26 AM

Dude, that post has no substance in it...only suggestion. I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the facts..after all, isn't that what your friends on the right always say?

8/8/2008 10:05:29 AM

Quote :

"Neat, is this the trip he made where he campaigned for Odinga (and against Kibaki), who came from the same tribe his dad did and who is muslim? Then he claimed election fraud, imagine that, and promoted violence until he got to share power, even though he lost the election. The same Odinga that had a pact with muslim leaders to advance islam in kenya? I think only a thousand or so people died. Great film, i hear he takes an AIDs test too...with Odinga right next to him. seriously, enjoy your movie. "

Wait a minute... Obama is not white?

8/8/2008 10:05:33 AM

Quote :

"Kainen is actually teaching me some lessons. just one page ago, his biggest contribution to the thread was posting politically charged pictures. I found him one of the most depressing features of the board."

lol. Don't take everything so seriously my man. Sometimes I like to have fun and sometimes admittedly I go on a tangent. Doesn't everyone?

8/8/2008 10:08:38 AM

^ Kainen, those are the facts my friend. Obama has made claims that McCain will continue the "Bush-Cheney energy policy" (whatever that is). However, THE FACTS, tell another story.

Obama has also made claims that McCain has recieved $2 million from "big oil" (whoever that is). However, THE FACTS, tell another story.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 10:10 AM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 10:09:31 AM

No, the facts are as follows...

---------
The Obama campaign said it cobbled together its $2.1 million figure by adding one total from a report in the Washington Post, which said oil and gas donors gave $1.1 million to McCain in June, and an older total from CRP, which put the McCain campaign's total at just over $1 million through May 30. However that 1 mil did not directly give an accurate figure for money that went directly to "John McCain's campaign," as the ad puts it.

Much of the money given in June went to a joint fund raising venture of the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and several state GOP committees, an unknown portion of which was passed through to the McCain campaign itself. Which to me and many other laymen, sounds no different than $ going straight to the campaign itself. Loophole.

Based on CRP's figures, McCain's oil and gas donations account for just 92 cents out of every $100 he's raised. Obama's oil and gas total comes to 12 cents per $100. That's a significant difference between the two candidates, and it's clear that the industry is favoring McCain with its donations. Whether that puts him "in the pocket" of the industry is a judgment we'll leave to our readers.
-----

(Source taken from Factchecks.org and Newsweek)

8/8/2008 10:41:43 AM

^
Exactly, that number assumes all that is going to John McCain when it mostly likely is not. That is exactly why Jake Tapper of ABC said the number could be called "bogus" (using the exact sources you're using).
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/factcheckorg-sa.html

Obama also portrays ALL of these donations as coming from big oil companies and that simply isn't true--he's using INDUSTRY TOTALS. So either way he's being intellectually dishonest. He is not using the correct way to calculate donations and he is conflating the entire industry with "big oil".

That's why Obama is hoping that you and other "laymen" don't pay attn to the details. This is not the first time he's talked down to you in this manner either. Remember when he bragged about not taking donations from oil companies? Because, you know, NO ONE can. He was being just as misleading as he is now. THOSE are the facts.

But don't let me stop you from eating it up with a spoon. >_>

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : A New Kind Of Politics!!!]

8/8/2008 11:59:23 AM

The funny thing about all of this is I really don't give a shit who takes more oil money. Thats not the criteria at which I'm voting for one or the other, not even close.

But socks you can reposition and pivot all you want, but the ratios remain constant. McCain takes more oil money than Obama does any day of the week. Do what you must to spin your arguments and chip at Obama's politics...who doesn't make blanket statements in campaign ads even though frankly we all know where that other 1.2 mil was going....but the point you made is fine, but here's the thing. If you wouldnt mind....do me and others a favor...don't talk down to me like i'm some ignorant spoon fed idiot who "buys everything 'the one' as you call him says". The whole messiah/moses meme has gone on long enough I can't stand it.

To be completely clear and honest with you....it's aggrivating, insulting, and quite frankly the type of tact that makes me not want to even listen to your points. You are nobody's guiding light nor den father, but you're starting to come off like a pretentious debater and that's not fun for anyone.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason : -]

8/8/2008 12:14:12 PM

^^ Haha, do those mental gymnastics ever tire you out?

I'm pretty sure that

Quote :

"Based on CRP's figures, McCain's oil and gas donations account for just 92 cents out of every $100 he's raised. Obama's oil and gas total comes to 12 cents per $100."

is the point of Obama's ad. If you were to guess which of the 2 candidates were picking their energy positions based on their own interests or everyone's interests, who do you think would be most biased?

When all your arguments boil down to semantic bickering, you should realize that there's something wrong with your position.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 12:17:22 PM

^ moron,

Then why is it that McCain actually opposed the 2005 Bush-Cheney Enery Bill Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gave $2.8 BILLION in tax cuts to fossil fuel producers when Obama voted for it!?

Why has Obama dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, saying it won't be a deal breaker???? Why has he actually received more donations from Exxon, BP, etc than McCain?

If you want to play this "where there's smoke there's fire bullshit", you'll actually have to come up with something better than the fact that less than 1% of McCain's donations come from oil & gas company employees. It's really kind of a pathetically weak argument.

Of course, I actually don't expect you to come up with something better. I figure you'll try and make semantic excuses for Obama without ever supporting his initial claim--that McCain is "in the pocket" of the oil companies (or at least more likely to be so). So I'll just sit back and chill.

8/8/2008 12:33:38 PM

^ Do you realize McCain was staunchly against off-shore drilling before he was for it? And flopped over a MUCH shorter time span for no apparent reason other than he was sagging in the polls?

And EVEN LESS of Obama's donations come from the energy industry than McCains. And I'M not the one that's making an issue out of this, YOU ARE. There is no truth or meaning to be found in who the campaigns claim donate to whom, because things are more complex than that. I've never claimed McCain was in the pocket for big oil, and I actually have never heard this claim outside of this thread (probably a side effect of me not watching TV or reading political blogs). What I do know though is that if there's no basis for this claim against McCain, there's OBVIOUSLY (by the same sources you are posting) even LESS basis for the claim that Obama is actually the one in the pockets of big oil.

8/8/2008 12:40:02 PM

^ you mean that Obama has even less donations from the industry AS A WHOLE, but from its biggest players (Exxon, BP, etc) he has recieved even more than John McCain.

Now I say that not as an argument that Obama is actually in the pocket of the oil industry, only to show that Obama's argument that donations are the same as influence can lead to some uncomfortable (and actually ridiculous) conclusions.

And I am not making a big issue out of this--Obama is. I have only repeated Obama's specific claims and I presented evidence for why they are wrong.

If you actually disagree with what Obama is saying, you don't have to defend him you know. It's not like he's your Dad. If you agree that Obama's claims are wrong-headed and donations don't equal influence, you can openly say that. They aren't going to drag you away in the middle of the night. I say bad things about John McCain all the time and no one has beat me up. Of course, McCain is only my candidate, not my Idol. Maybe that's the difference.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 1:04:19 PM

Quote :

"If you actually disagree with what Obama is saying, you don't have to defend him you know. It's not like he's your Dad. If you agree that Obama's claims are wrong-headed and donations don't equal influence, you can openly say that. They aren't going to drag you away in the middle of the night. I say bad things about John McCain all the time and no one has beat me up. Of course, McCain is only my candidate, not my Idol. Maybe that's the difference."

I don't know what Obama is saying. Do you have a link to Obama saying it?

I disagree with what YOU'RE saying because it seems like you're jumping through a lot of hoops to make a really weak or non-existent point.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_contrasts_celeb_Obama_with_average_Americans.html

Here's a good mccain ad though. He's trying to imply that Obama will crush you under taxes where the FACT is most people will get as much if not a little MORE back under Obama than McCain.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 1:10:39 PM

Quote :

"McCain is only my candidate, not my Idol. Maybe that's the difference."

see this is the bullshit I'm talking about socks.

8/8/2008 1:18:01 PM

^ It's a bit ironic isn't it?

8/8/2008 1:18:50 PM

moron,

I posted the links as I went. You'll have to back through and find them because I won't repost them (or try google).

Kainen,

*shrug* I call 'em like I see 'em. I hear a lot of people talk about how they are not part of cult-Obama. But, I don't see any of his supporters on this board criticizing his positions in the way I have criticized McCain's. Look at moron. He has never even seen the ad we were talking about, but that doesn't stop him from coming to Obama's defense (even though he apparently disagrees with the argument Obama was making). You have to admit, you can't buy that kind of loyalty.

Quote :

"I don't know what Obama is saying. Do you have a link to Obama saying it? I disagree with what YOU'RE saying because it seems like you're jumping through a lot of hoops to make a really weak or non-existent point. [But now let's talk about how McCain sucks]"

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM. Reason : I can't even get a dog to play fetch]

8/8/2008 1:39:39 PM

That's not true, take the other day for instance I was blasting his sagging (apparently squandered) position on nuclear energy. That really has me puzzled and not happy, and I said as much. When's the last time you've criticized McCain? Except of course I forgot, back in the primaries where you accused even him of 'rockstar' status without good ideas. My how things change.

It's no different with anyone defending their own candidate. People just pissing over one another from sound bites, gaffes, pouring over little shitty instances, actions, and votes and judging them through the teeth. I'm no dreamer, both parties are engaged in a structure that's based around voters that know very little and special interests that know quite a lot in terms of rent seeking. But I definitely take issue with the denigration you've been throwing out there only lately (may be argumentative fatigue, I don't know) of Obama supporters around here though.

8/8/2008 1:50:38 PM

If we really want to discuss irrational feelings towards Obama, then what's up with your Obama hate?

You've gone from Edwards to Hillary to McCain.

The singular commonality between those three are that aren't Obama.

8/8/2008 1:56:21 PM

Kainen,

Yesterday. I wondered whether McCain was too old to be President and concluded he needs to release more up-to-date medical records (i think he still only has 2000 era, i could be wrong) to put my fears to rest.
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528606

You're right, I do remember some people quietly complaining about Obama's lack of support for nuclear energy. So that is one example, but I don't think that's enough to claim hard-headed appraisal of the candidate. Especially not after the swoon-fest that errupted here this spring.

How many Obama supporters have openly wondered whether Obama was up to the job? Whether he had the credentials? Whether his reluctance to take a position and stick to it might lead to results they don't like? EVER? And trust me, there are legit reasons to question his abilities. And you can still ask those questions and still support the candidate. I have done that of John McCain. Heck, I even made a whole thread asking whether he was still worth voting for.
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=514509

The truth is that if you don't have doubts about your candidate, you're not thinking hard enough. And Obama supporters seem to prefer to do things the easy way.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 2:14:10 PM

Haha. Too funny. This one is for Kainen.

8/8/2008 3:04:01 PM

im not one to play the race card, but I'm gonna have to guess that Socks`` hates Obama so much because he fears the Black Man

i mean really.

because goddamn if I just dont see what any real platform differences existed between his #1 Gal Hillary and Obama.

theres just no reason i can see why someone would go from Hillary to John McCain in a bat of any eye like that.

it *must* be a White Thing.




[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 3:13:59 PM

Let's not play the race card.

More like the MILF card. AMIRITE?

8/8/2008 3:15:44 PM

Wait, if I am afraid of blacks....does that mean I am secretly black myself?

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : latent afrosensability?]

8/8/2008 3:18:47 PM

^^^ Then you haven't been paying attention--which should come as a surprise to no one. I mean, there are actual facts that might contradict your Left Coast ideology outside your far-left coffee klatch's echo chamber.

http://hillaryvotersformccain.com/

And way to race bait, you douche bag.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2008 3:21:29 PM

a. they're voting for McCain in protest. Socks dot dot has never said anything about making his vote a protest vote.

b. judging by the forum, the whole Hillary voters for McCain thing is really kicking off, eh?


srsly tho. I still don't believe Socks is for real. His refusal to explain his odd candidate choices only reinforces my hunch.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : /]

8/8/2008 3:27:48 PM

race has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's really unfair to socks...as much as it pains me to say so. that's beyond a mental shortcut, it's pretty redunkulous.

but what IS fair and in like kind. this one's for you socks:



[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM. Reason : -]

8/8/2008 3:36:25 PM

I really don't know why everyone thinks I was gun-ho for Hillary. I guess popular narrative stick well.

I didn't get behind McCain earlier because I seriously thought there was no way he would win the nomination. By the time the Edwards dropped out and Hillary was falling apart, McCain had proven that he had a real shot. So...I picked the guy I liked.

8/8/2008 3:36:56 PM

So it really doesn't have anything to do with policies, then.

Because... I'm not sure Edwards and McCain have a single thing in common, policy-wise.


Socks, were you that staff member?

8/8/2008 3:38:42 PM

^ not sure what you mean. I picked the candidate I liked best from the options given. I did not consider McCain among the likely options. When it became clear he indeed had a shot, I switched support. How close they were in terms of policy is irrelevant.

Do you honestly believe one has to agree with everything a candidate says to think they would make a good President?

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ``]

8/8/2008 3:57:16 PM

Quote :

"How close they were in terms of policy is irrelevant."

It's not irrelevant. It's a 180, policy-wise.

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe one has to agree with everything a candidate says to think they would make a good President?"

No, but I'd assume you would believe in most of what they say. Edwards and McCain are far too different for one person to agree with both of them.

8/8/2008 4:06:11 PM

^ it would only be a 180 degree turn if i agreed with everything they say. If someone puts vanilla and butterscotch ice cream in front of me, I will pick butterscotch. But, if someone later puts chocolate in front of me, i will drop my butter scotch and take the chocolate.

That isn't a flip-flop, it's an illustration of preference.

8/8/2008 4:33:53 PM

Then explain to me how one could prefer Edwards, then Hillary, then McCain?

8/8/2008 4:49:18 PM

^ edwards tastes like butter scotch, hillary tastes like vanilla (obviously), and McCain is very chocolaty (i wonder what Obama is like though-- no homo).

8/8/2008 4:55:29 PM