Lucky...

Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on? I can't seem to find it ANYWHERE, for some odd reason... Sure, I can. Even tho Bill answer it correctly, I'll steer a little off of that. By Bush signing ALL bills before him for the first 5.5 years, he essentially voted for them all. He has a veto pen, a pocket veto pen if applicable, he could have simply exercised those. Signing is essentially voting for them. Since the new congress in Jan 07 he's vetoed 12 as I count, so he's voted against those.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, ignore the actual welfare and government programs. Oh, all the Military Industrial Programs, or just the ones you want to ignore? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ignore the nationalized health care plan. What plan? Even Obama has no plan for that, he wants to leave everyone alone with their plan who currently has insurance and extend typical government plans to other who don't, that's no where near uni-care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ignore tax hikes for anyone above middle class. Obama proposed tax hikes starting at 250k/yr, that is waaaaaaaaaaaay above middle class unless you have like 13 kids and an annoying mother in law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Those are all made up by my mom and the neo-cons. HUH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We've had the military spending argument several times. As a function of GDP, the US is around #37. If you think that's too much then fine. Over spending in the military does not equate to socialism. If we equate several things, including your narrow version of welfare, we can justify all spending. Where does SS fall in line with the GDP? I'm sure puny. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wow. Talk about oversimplifying. I'd really like know what you think a corporation is made of. You paint a picture of the Monopoly guy bouncing around a penthouse smoking a pipe. When a company like Boeing gets a government contract it employs thousands of people. There have to be people on the assembly line putting the shit together. In order to eliminate government contracts to civilian compaies, the military would have to produce all of their own equipment. That would mean, gasp, drastically increasing the size of the military. You call this oversimplification after I called your example the same (imitation is pure flattery): 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. It may not be the minority welfare mom based socialism the RW likes to display, but it could be argued that it is collectivist for the military, for the greater good, etc. That is, unless you think like me that a huge military that spends 8 times that of #2 unnecessary. The actual definition of Socialism is where the means of production is controlled by the people, versus by the government in Communism or by the elite in Capitalism. Since corporations benefit the most with M.I.C., I would say that renders gross over-spending by the military more of corporatist fascism than Socialism, but it basically has components of both. Try not to oversimplify Socialism is that pregnant Mexican illegal with 5 kids running around her, it is simply RW rhetoric to scare people into voting Republican and outright dishonest. Well Boeing is the best example of welfare you could exhibit. Boeing IS the government, they can’t fart w/o the government approving. At the same time, they are an example of fascism too, as the government allowed (probably encouraged) them to suck up all the smaller aircraft companies and then actually Douglas!!! If you were in the industry that was HUGE. The government used to like to keep the military contractors at arms length, several of them for better bids, somewhere in the late 80’s they realized that a fascist approach to consolidate them and bring them closer to the government was a good idea. The government could control a lot of things with the corporations, esp labor with fewer corps that were extremely close to the gov, unlike many more corps competing for contracts, the former American way. So yes, we are not only corporate welfare advocates that trickles down to conventional welfare, but we have become corporatist fascist in the process. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the pregnant Mexican with 5 kids you speak of is in fact a drag on the economy... assuming she's drawing welfare, sending her kids to public school, and soon to be enrolled in free healthcare. That’s the rhetoric the RW wants to convey; mission accomplished. Look at the stimulus bill, they gave all those billions to people to piss away, guess what the well off people did? They saved it. Guess what the poor did? They pissed it just like they piss away everything they have, stimulating the economy. Your boy GWB did nothing when Greenspan lowered the interest rate to numbers that were way too low, too long. The purpose of lowering the int rate is to entice people with money and credit to spend. Obviously it didn’t work and canalized the mortgage mess we’re in. Point is, conventional social welfare does many things, it extends help to those that need it to rise above it, I believe it reduces crime, and it stimulates the economy. Another way to look at it is that I’m sure you’re for the war as most RW people are, guess where they go when they need people to die for it? It’s not the rich sector. BTW, sending her kids to public school? I almost missed that one. Most of the people on this board went to public school I would venture to say. Kinda defined your argument with that one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So Obama's voting record is the fault of republicans. No, his is contrary to that of the Repubs, which is why he’s popular. Where did I say that? Obama voted for the bailout Bill likely due to it needed to be done to avoid another Republican depression. If he didn’t can you imagine what the hype would be? If he didn’t eventually vote for Iraq funding, can you imagine what the hype would be? The RW would say he’s trying to protect the insurgent forces. He’s kinda stuck. As I wrote, we get your party out of there, give us time to repair as did Clinton, then blame us for misgivings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The D's have an approval rating roughly half of Bush's. No, Congress does. The House is strongly Dem, the Senate is basically a wash, So that entire body is not well-viewed. Again, Bush didn’t veto a thing for 5.5 years, since then, he’s vetoed 12 bills for which 4 were shoved back up his ass, a pretty steep ratio for having your vetoes overridden. Not too spineless as you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I too am anxious (ie. nervous) to see what will happen when they're in total control. Unlike assured and confident with an all Republican government from Jan 01 to Jan 07. Yea, it’s been a real treat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>McCain wants to cut taxes and cut spending. All projections based upon their 3 debates are that they will go into the hole, McCain more than Obama since he wants to cut taxes. You’re wrong here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama wants to shift taxes to anyone above middle-class and increase spending. You have a very interesting view of MC. This probably addresses it: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_there_a_standard_accepted_definition_of.html The middle class, as objectively defined, is no more than 75k/yr. Bur then nut job Romney says: He defines "middle class" as anyone with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000 – and acknowledges that such a proposal would affect "over 95 percent of American families." I would say 250k/yr is upper middle class, so he wants to raise taxes on people above the upper middle class. But keep redefining it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He doesn't want to distribute wealth. He wants to redistribute. Big difference. HUH?

Why would you leave the US, the greatest country in the world? Well it certainly wouldn't be for good. Not renouncing my citizenship or anything. However I do feel it would be a good thing to spend some time overseas. Especially in the country my mom came from. Hell! At least in Thailand they have the balls to kick their corrupt politicians out of office. They seriously do not tolerate any sort of bullshit out of their leaders. Are you refering to GWB?

Choosing Obama over McCain because you don't want more socialism is hard to figure out, yes. Throwing 100s of billions at the military, as you put it, is not socialism. Maybe you think it's wasteful spending, but it's not socialism. The bailout bill was terrible but both McCain and Obama voted in favor so that was a poor example to differentiate the two. Got anything else to try and prove why McCain is more socialist than Obama? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Throwing 100s of billions at the military, as you put it, is not socialism. Maybe you think it's wasteful spending, but it's not socialism. Really? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. It may not be the minority welfare mom based socilism the RW likes ot disply, but it could be argued that it is collectivist for the military, for the greater goood, etc. That is, unless you think like me that a huge military that spends 8 times that of #2 unneccessary. The actual definition of Socialims is where the means of production is controlled by the people, versus by the government in Communism or by the elite in Capitalism. Since corprorations benefit the most with M.I.C., I would say that renders gross over-spending by the military more of corporatist fascism than Socialism, but it basically has components of both. Try not to oversimplify Socialism is that pregnant Mexican illegal with 5 kids running around her, it is simply RW rhetoric to scare people into voting Republican and outright dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The bailout bill was terrible but both McCain and Obama voted in favor so that was a poor example to differentiate the two. Well, like the war, if anyone didn't vote for goping, they were a terrorist, so until the D's are firmly in control will we see what they can/will do, as with Clinton. We saw what he did with the fiscal nature of the US and what this POS did after, so I would like to roll back to that. >>>>>>>>>>>Got anything else to try and prove why McCain is more socialist than Obama? I just think they are different Socialists, McCain is Socialist in that he wants to cut taxes and spend money to be earned somewhere in the 22nd century, Obama wants to be Socialist and distribute wealth.

What...? Aside from the typical 'throw 100's of billions at the military industrial complex' that righties do so well, essentially corporate social welfare, now they've moved to bailing out the mortgage complex, that is what Bill is talking about. Is that hard to figure by what was posted?

Good, cause all those liberals that left 4 years ago will come back and need a place to stay.

All of the media is liberal, they're out to get the RW, haven't you figured that out yet? The RW is here to put fear in you and to save you from that liberal misinformation.

The show did nothing to sway you, you were going there anyway..... I like what Colin Powell said about the idiocy behind the smears associated with the fantasy that Ayres is somehow connected to Obama. In general, it beats addressing the issues. It's akin to the pictures, real or fake that associated Clinton with Jane Fonda circa VN era. Or.................. we could talk fiscal policy and how exactly McCain wants to deviate from Bush, but McCain never wants to do that, which is why he will lose. If he would have admitted he fucked up by voting with Bush 90%+ of the time, outlayed Bush's errors, and then layed a platform of how he would deviate from Bush he could have had a chance. Apparently he was too proud so he's done.

Yea, it seems Capitalism is working so well.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>One of the reasons I would worry about a McCain presidency; we don't need even more socialism. Yes we do, as the only industrialized nation to not have socialized med, as well as the richest country by far....yes we do.

And all identified spurious donations have been returned or given to charity. The fact that they were accepted in the first place, and that it took 6+ months and a watchdog organization to shine some light on it is the real matter there. Yeah, that's great that they gave it to charity...do we know which one, I wonder if ACORN got any of that... I think they gave it to a worthy cause like the wealthy Republicans welfare fund, so their bratty kids can have that new beemer.

Because the landslide is already happening. This endorsement, plus the $150 million flowing to Obama in September, more than half of it from NEW donors. As they say, "follow the money". 'Follow the money' like the $800k he gave ACORN, or 'follow the money' like the donations from 'Edrty Eddty' ($250) and 'Es Esh' ($250)? Or maybe the donations from 'Good Will' ($17,375) or 'Doodad Pro' ($19,500) - well over the maximum allowable of $4600 between the primary and general election. Or, perhaps the approximately $39 MILLION dollars that have come in from overseas sources? Yeah, let's follow THAT money!! Yeah, follow all that money. The money he promised not to take. The money he said causes special interest to have too much influence. What a true reformer! Oh, but then he found out how much money he could raise by reneging on that promise. A real reformer, that one. The really stupid thing is that the money doesn't sway many or any people. If McSame was on TV and radio for the last 4 years, I would be less inclined to vote for him.... of course that would put me in negative numbers

Because the landslide is already happening. This endorsement, plus the $150 million flowing to Obama in September, more than half of it from NEW donors. As they say, "follow the money". 'Follow the money' like the $800k he gave ACORN, or 'follow the money' like the donations from 'Edrty Eddty' ($250) and 'Es Esh' ($250)? Or maybe the donations from 'Good Will' ($17,375) or 'Doodad Pro' ($19,500) - well over the maximum allowable of $4600 between the primary and general election. Or, perhaps the approximately $39 MILLION dollars that have come in from overseas sources? Yeah, let's follow THAT money!! Yea, follow it to the WH .... that's where it's gpnna be come Jan

Riiiiiight You got the point.. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yea ............. just funnin

Uhm, not yet. Will it become breaking news? Remains to be seen. Especially with the bleeding heart liberals in media. Oh, the same liberal media that featured a current dem running for sheriff against the most prolific Repub sheriff of all time? That ad featured this sheriff as a jack off artisst on county time, but they're all liberal huh? The media, the same ones that ran the Clinton imeachment and reply the lie about not having sex....... yea, learn that the media is a business and they will run whatever pays.

My, that is breaking news

Which one, the one that lives under McCain's bed?

Exactly, he knows all. So we go straight to default judgment or perhaps a summary judgment id the facts are that clear and now we have to collect. Perhaps a debtor's exam to find God's employer so we can garnish his pay. Isn't he paid in souls? How much is a soul worth? We've got some motions to write; better get busy.

Why not do like they did with L. Ron Hubbard ? If he doesn't respond, or appear in court, have him declared legally dead. Of course we would havw to subpoena Jesus to ask about his dad's whereabouts. We could sub-serve the Pope, then when Jesus didn't show the courts would then issue an arrest warrant. Talk about the ultimate martyr.

Isn't it semantic to wonder about a time statute? Point is, remind the R's you know that whatever the truth then vs now, that the R's pointed out their whining. And the think is that the 00 Florida election deal WAS a game changer, this one likely will not be, whatever the truth about ACORN.

There are even still some R's that believe that the Bush Administration's coming to power in 2001 has been good for America and the world. There are some of us that are not fooled so easily. Most of those R's are as closeted as Senator Craig tho..... at least as closeted as he used to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this moment in time I just do not think that John McCain even knows who in the hell he really is. Yea, he makes Reagan look competent. McCain is just living off the past in his own shadow, he is really out to lunch.

This just hit me as ironic. You and I are voting for different candidates for similar reasons. You= fewer abortions. Me= fewer wars. Precisely, the RW wants fewer abortions so there are more peole to die on the cross in the name of Jesus..... go figure.

I don't get it, he is the executive, or will be in January, so he has limited legislative powers and indirect judicial power. The SCOTUS legalized abortion, it will take them to illegalize it. Obamas stance means little. Experience? - Head of his class Ivy League Univ law school - Taught law school for 12 years: Constitutional law - State Senator for 8 years - US Senator for 4 years - A myriad of of other duties and public services Not sure how that is not presidential Versus rotting in the Senate for what, 3 decades or whatever it is? That's a real diverse resume

>>>>>>>>>>>>If it was Obama vs Powell it would be a tough call, but I think I'd go with Powell. Not me, I'd vote for the black guy.