if obama doesn't do this, i will immediately become a full member of the "NWO CFR PANIC" committee.

I'm curious to see the ppl he makes up as his cabinet. Will he go a full CFR/Trilateral makeup like Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush did?

... or will he truly bring change?

Great speech he had last night though.. it was pretty cool.

8 hours? Try over 12 hours for me. Of course I live in Wyoming, and we're pretty low on the CFR Internet Overlords' priorities list.

*promote the Obama goodness

btw.. if he says there is no evidence.. then why the hell has congress debated these issues, and with the confirmation of the existence of union deals being made between the US, Canada and Mexico (www.spp.gov)?

Also the CFR lists Obama as a member and he's spoken at CFR meetings and events several times. How could he not know if he were a member or not? Oh.... I'm sorry.. did I wake you up.. go back to sleep.

So.. has any of you wondered why Bob Barr (whom is on the Presidential ticket) is not allowed to join in on the debates.. do you think that's fair? Oh wait.. he's not a CFR member is he?

GOP is not true republican.. it's good that they are using their correct label... an alternate name they could also use is NeoCon.

Maddow here is a media mudslinger.. she really doesn't get it or if she does then she's participating in the Us vs Them campaign that the CFR urges the media to partake in. This would mean that she is part of the problem as well.

Wow, I don't know what to say. I actually don't watch Nightline, but I do watch Frontline. I don't actually wake up early to watch Sunday talk, I Tivo it and use my Sunday mornings the way God intended: sleeping off a hangover.

I am trying to make a difference though, and I hope I have helped people reach some sort of conclusion about this election -- at a minimum that it's important.

I appreciate the responses I've gotten, from both those who agree and disagree -- the latter category, ironically, have been the best part. You guys keep me on my toes, and help me keep at least some tie to objectivity.

Now to respond to some of your baseless smears and accusations:

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Congrats netrunner.. you may be a CFR candidate propaganda pusher but you're ok in my book.

Shh, I'm part of their inner circle. There will be one world government, and I will be its shadowy puppet master. Dick Cheney's got nothing on me.

>> ^rottenseed:
yay netrunner...way to capitalize on our unfortunate political climate. can't you just post some nice kitty vids?

I think only someone in the pocket of Big Kitteh would suggest such blatant pandering to the lolcatz agenda.

>> ^blankfist:
The big 5-0-0. Great work. Yay! Keep it up. I do enjoy our private debates.

If we keep it up, we'll be Master Debaters.

>> ^firefly:
Way to go, 'Runner.
But whatever will you do after Nov. 4 ?!

Other than sleep? Well, if McCain wins, I'll be looking for advice which country would be good to seek refuge in. If it's Obama, I'll probably find the time to sift non-political things, though I doubt politics will stop being interesting -- there's a lot to fix after Bush is gone.

>> ^deedub81:
Cheers.
I'm curious,though. How many votes do you have if you take out all the Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin videos?
Big ups!

Probably still at least a 100-star -- unless you take away all my politics videos entirely, then I'm probably barely a bronze star.

I'm sorry ladies and gentleman, my staffers tell me that's all the time we have for this press conference.

Now you can go back to talking about McCain suspending his campaign due to the polling economic crisis. I'm hoping he just puts Country First and concedes right now.

Congrats netrunner.. you may be a CFR candidate propaganda pusher but you're ok in my book.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Sounds silly. The media would be talking about how Obama flunked his first executive decision and his candidacy would be over. Biden seems fine.


^ It would be wrong of the media to do that though since one cannot base a candidates success or falure because someone became too ill. In fact it might have been part of the plan... Obama did meet with Hillary in secrecy to work out something with her after she dropped out of the race.

It would be ultimately a positive move for Obama given the fact that there are many diehard Hillary fans out there with their glazed over eyes as they profess that no other candidate could ever compare to her (in their mind). It's a cult following that I could forsee being tapped into in such a manner.

Think tanks don't exist for nothing in the politcal arena of CFR candidates. This is being played like a game of chess.

Would you trust her to be your VP if you were running for president after she implied to the media in the past that something fatal just might "happen" to you which would give her the eventual lead? He is either forced to take her or he is extremely forgiving and trusting of her despite what she said. Personally I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her but that's my opinion.

^ Easy to fix if more people paid attention. It's not as if they disinvited Paul from every debate (though they did once he flopped in the Iowa caucus).

I think Paul also failed to use his campaign funds properly. Did he hire a campaign strategist? Did he flood the airwaves in Iowa? Had he been making appearances there nonstop for the 6 months beforehand?

If he'd won the Iowa caucus, he'd have been taken seriously by the media -- no laughing him off would be possible then. Heck, even a 2nd place finish would've kept him in the media spotlight.

I think the traditional right-wing noise machine would've ripped him apart because he's not part of their pro-corporation, anti-citizen agenda, like they did with Huckabee and McCain. Doesn't seem to have worked on McCain, unfortunately.

I also think you're overestimating the Republican base's committment to real conservative philosophy. I think most of the base thinks it's all about babies, guns, and jesus, and talking in simple, absolute terms. Small government just means tax cuts -- domestic wiretapping is okay. Refusing to testify before Congress is a sign of strength, and they want a strong leader.

In short, I think there's a better case for the CFR theory if you follow the campaign of John Edwards, rather than Ron Paul.

He beat Hillary for 2nd spot in Iowa, but the media completely ignored him, and his numbers fell sharply after that.

Back to the economics, I'm in agreement with Paul about the need for the losers in charge of these companies, and their shareholders to pay a price for the failures they've wrought. I'm thinking he's painting too rosy a picture about what would happen if the companies outright failed, though. I'm pretty sure in the short term that would be seriously ugly, though in the long term (decade-scale) it'd probably make the recovery faster.

Question is, do you want a sharp, short downturn that makes people lose their homes, or a longer, wider one where people can keep them, but are just moderately worse off for a longer period of time?

There's probably more area under the 2nd curve, but isn't there a case to be made that it's better for people to have the shallower, broader downturn?

"Tell me again why he isn't the Republican presidential candidate?"

Because the media is pwnd by the CFR and they were told to suppress positive coverage of Mr. Paul and lie about the polling stats. If you look at the Fox news front page (the most blatant of the violators) you'll see they have a poll listing that has not changed in many months that shows Ron Paul at 6.5% with Huckabee and McCain leading with much higher percentage points. However whenever they would run polls that they couldn't falsify so quickly they would show Ron Paul in the lead EVERY time.

MSNBC would suppress any talk about Ron Paul. Olbermann would rarely ever mention him (often choosing to cover Paris Hilton instead (at the time)). In fact I would watch him each day hoping he'd talk about Ron Paul, Kucinich and Gravel but he never did. CNN rarely would speak of him at the time choosing instead to focus on Hillary/Obama/Edwards and Giuliani/McCain/Huckabee.

Basically.. they would only focus on the candidates that are in the pocket of the CFR. There are vids out there that will show statistics of the media coverage of the debates on the Republican and on the Democratic sides.

They did the same thing to Kucinich and Gravel too. We've been once again force-fed CFR candidates with catchy slogans and bad policies because my friend.. the game is rigged.

@CPatriot:
Is there any really, really good information about the validity of CFR? I've looked and looked and looked, and still haven't found convincing, documented info that's worth even considering.

Maybe it's my limited scope, maybe it's the outlandishness of some of the claims, but I'd be appreciative of any sorts of empirical sources.

^ If you're a single-issue CFR voter, do you really think the non-CFR candidates would stay free of their influence if they were polling competitively?

I'm thinking any organization that's kept the US government under their thrall for a century, in secret, won't let go of that control just because people decide to vote 3rd party.

For that matter, what makes you think they're bothering to count the votes, if they wield that kind of power?

^Ron Paul is a Senator Congressman. (I guess I had a temorary loss of memory there. What was I thinking )

As for the others, there are not many.. most seem to follow like lemmings.. and don't think that the dems are uncorruptable as well.. many of them are CFR also that play the game as they are told.

^Maybe it's because we see that he's a CFR player that is deceiving the oblivious masses with slogans of non-descriptive "Change" and "Hope" and "Yes we can!".

I would have choosen him over McCain - however, knowing what I know about Obama and his CFR/Bilderberger peppered campaign party, I would walk away from the election poll puking from the disgust of selling out my vote, my country, our Constitution for the "lesser of two evils" - which is still evil.