Yeah, but you seem rather keen to hop on the Rev. Wright anger-wagon. Neither of these things are an issue. Can you agree with me on that?

_________________

I will agree, because you pointed out that he went that to church for the connections to power.

Obama: "I went to that church, but I didn't inhale..."

Now if we can get Sparky to agree that Wright speaks in racist overtones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw

_________________
Both Democrats and Republicans are "liberals"! The Republican ideology is classical liberalism, while the Democrats is welfare liberalism.

Have you noticed that the RomBot is stocking his campaign with Bush retreads and other neo-cons? Something tells me if they don't go the Rubio route (which doesn't make sense when you REALLY think about it), they will go Jeb.

_________________

Jeb better than the others, but please no more Bush's!

I'm not sure what is worse, Neocons or this:

Incompetents like Holder and Martha Johnson.

OR

Nutcases like Van Jones and Al Armendariz.

_________________
Both Democrats and Republicans are "liberals"! The Republican ideology is classical liberalism, while the Democrats is welfare liberalism.

I dunno, I'd much rather have a guy like Holder around than Gonzalez. He was a nut. I find it hard to believe a sensible guy like you would consider the average war-mongering supply-side economic touting neocons anywhere near as bad as the worst in the Obama administration.

_________________

Obama has Neocon tendancies too:

Libya was a Neocon adventure.

Cutting Social Security withholding and borrowing the difference.

Handing out bailout money to a few favored companies and the sending bill to taxpayers.

_________________
Both Democrats and Republicans are "liberals"! The Republican ideology is classical liberalism, while the Democrats is welfare liberalism.

Holder? Ha! A racist, ego-centric, ultra leftist born from the lungs of the deepest and darkest parts of the Chicago political machine, just like the guy he serves?

_________________
I tell things like they are.

Nor was it an issue about Obama with Ayers, Dohrn, Bell....all of that was just swept under the rug as insignificant things that happened in the past that doesn't matter anymore.

If Romney greeted a grand wizard decades ago, then he'd be drummed out of politics forever.

See the pattern here?

_________________
I tell things like they are.

Yeah... You depend on conjecture and illogical arguments to attempt to make points.

_________________

Any proof to back up anything you say here? Has he even been to Chicago? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but Dev, you NEVER seem to know what you're talking about. At least audio isn't throwing random stuff he pulls from his ass.

_________________

Fair criticism. He also was willing to place SS/MEDI on the chopping block, too. Obama has done little to garner favor among the left, don't get things twisted. There is no Bernie Sanders running, and among the two we have, it appears Obama is the safer bet. But again, we should be legitimately concerned about someone who is willing to bring in people from the Bush Admin. Can you legitimately say that you would rather have Bush people patrolling the halls of the White House over Obama people? You're brighter than that.

_________________

Where is the neither button?

_________________
Both Democrats and Republicans are "liberals"! The Republican ideology is classical liberalism, while the Democrats is welfare liberalism.

In Austrailia. Ed Joseph found it.

_________________

Oops, you're right.

For some reason I was thinking of Emanuel when I typed this, but if you look at it, it's the same thing. Emanuel epitomizes everything that's wrong with Chicago and the government. The fact that he was Obama's right hand man makes it worse. If you look at the shit that Holder says, it's stunning how none of it comes up in the media. Fast & Furious? Yeah, I don't know anything about it. Who can I pin my fuck up on? And I do know what I'm talking about, it's just that you (with all due respect) fail to see the big picture like most Liberals. It's ok, I get it.

_________________
I tell things like they are.

Sir, if you look back at my posts, you will see that there is a logical, intelligent flow to my ideas. Disagree with me you may, but you cannot say I do not ground my points in fact. To suggest I do not think big picture is silliness. I would further argue that the majority of policies championed by liberals are fundamentally big picture. Often that is the argument of conservatives against liberals, that they are big picture. Much of this post you throw here sounds like the rantings of some conservo-clone like Hannity. You want to rail on Obama, when all the while he has, as audio so astutely pointed out, been rather center-right in how he has governed. A conservative couldn't ask for more out of a dem and if you are honest with yourself you either know that or do not know what is going on.

_________________