faith-based decision making

[happythoughts 0]

You hear a lot about that.

Faith is believing without a rational foundation.
"I haven't seen it. I have no physical proof. I believe it."
It is usually applied in a religious context.

TV evangelists go pay $300 for a good hairstyle and sing.
It's good entertainment to some, important to others, avoided by me.

Cool is important too. TV is used to sell a lot of products. Cars that are cool, clothes that make you cool, politicians.

Bill Clinton got on MTV and played the sax. No substance there, just cool. Nice haircut too.

Both parties yell Change! So? My friends parakeet can say "pretty bird".

So, instead of faith-based voting, there should be some facts.
What bills have they sponsored? What bills did they co-sponsor? What is their voting record?

What is important is what they DO.

Open Congress

This website contains links for every senator and their voting record.

The sad part? I've never met anyone who has actually read the voting records of any candidate. Their candidates say, "pretty bird, pretty bird" and they repeat it as true.

Many of the resolutions have "cool value", but are otherwise valueless. "A resolution to say that we are against bad stuff and we like fluffy bunnies." Uh... thanks.

Quote

When I'm watchin' my TV and a man comes on and tell me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me

[happythoughts 0]

An interesting feature of OpenCongress is the comparison feature.

It has been mentioned that McCain voted 90% of the time with his party. Nobody has mentioned Obamas record.
He followed the party vote 96% of the time.
A slacker compared to Hillary, 98% of the time.

Perhaps voting independently over 4% of the time does make you a maverick.

The H and O team seem to be party puppets.

Also, you can compare senators to each other.

The attached voting chart is a comparison of Obama and Hillary. Obama is the green color. Hillary is the tiny orange sliver.

So, what are the actual FACTS?
It turns out that they voted the same way 96% of the time.

So, it turns out that there isn't any difference between a vote for Hillary and a vote for Obama, except, as Hillary said, experience. However, The Hillary Experience is a painful one.

[happythoughts 0]

I think I've found it.

The same people who argue against Creationism, because it flies in the face of facts, will now put their hands over their ears and merrily sing, "Flintstones...meet the Flintstones..."

Ignoring the puppetry when it does not favor Your Faith in the Anointed One?

What is the punishment for 21st century heresy?

After the election, all the denizens of Hollywood will have to go back to being Scientologists and waiting for L. Ron to clear their Thetans.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

An interesting feature of OpenCongress is the comparison feature.

It has been mentioned that McCain voted 90% of the time with his party. Nobody has mentioned Obamas record.
He followed the party vote 96% of the time.
A slacker compared to Hillary, 98% of the time.

Perhaps voting independently over 4% of the time does make you a maverick.

Your post only makes sense if you think party positions are randomly arrived at and support for them is mindless.

I view it more as supporting GOOD or EVIL. For example, if McCain voted 90% of the time for EVIL, and Obama voted 96%% of the time for GOOD, would you say that McCain was better because he showed more independence from his party's line?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

An interesting feature of OpenCongress is the comparison feature.

It has been mentioned that McCain voted 90% of the time with his party. Nobody has mentioned Obamas record.
He followed the party vote 96% of the time.
A slacker compared to Hillary, 98% of the time.

Perhaps voting independently over 4% of the time does make you a maverick.

Your post only makes sense if you think party positions are randomly arrived at and support for them is mindless.

I view it more as supporting GOOD or EVIL. For example, if McCain voted 90% of the time for EVIL, and Obama voted 96%% of the time for GOOD, would you say that McCain was better because he showed more independence from his party's line?

You do realize that you are one of the Old White Guys that Hillary is trying to remove? She is looking for a woman professor as I type.

Take a look at her voting record and see if she is currently on Womens Issues - Resolution 4024, or Helping Old White Men In Power - Resolution 1.

Obama voted in sync with Hillary 96% of the time, according to the previously attached chart.

That makes a vote for Obama into a vote for the Hillary surrogate. "Good" isn't my general reference for her.
I prefer the more accurate - Shrieking Blue Robot.

(I didn't see a lot of help for me in Obamas voting record either)

All us old white guys are rich and powerful.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

All us old white guys are rich and powerful.

How does your 401k look?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

All us old white guys are rich and powerful.

How does your 401k look?

I'm a techie. I buy what I know. I own a lot of Cisco.
The whole company is getting outsourced, so... good.

Besides, this isn't about facts or my opinion, it's about perception.

Perception -
-1- Obama criticizes Hillary for calling herself D-Punjab.
-2- Then, he says that he will do the "Kerry thing", he will remove the tax benefit for outsourcing.

Fact -
USINPAC (the Indian Political Action Committee) donates $4 million to his campaign.

What should we expect?
What does $4 million buy these days?

Oh wait... we haven't heard the "removing the tax break" speaking-point lately.

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

I own a lot of Cisco.

I can feel your pain.