Lucky...

I really can't wait to hear you address the issues, but I won't wait too long.

I dont know. But this scenario scares the hell out of me Meaning that you fear the Dems will win. Yes, that is what I meant. I think Obama has a much better chance with Hillary than Biden. That is all I meant. They have Hillary in their corner. HHhmmmm, that would make a good topic. I have a hard time thinking the Clintons want to wait 8 years instead of 4 for her to try again. so the question remains, Is she really? Does it really matter in teh 08 election? Obama/Biden want to retain any Clinton females that may have strayed by Palin's presence, so Biden ate a little crow to be humble - real simple.

>>>>>>>>>>>First, a little fun with nitpicking: Then you won't mind my counter-nitpicking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>VP Agnew wasn't under criminal investigation for bribery (while Gov. of Md.) until after the 1972 election. This ref for many quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew During his fifth year as Vice President, in the late summer of 1973, Agnew was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Baltimore, Maryland, on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. In October, he was formally charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000, while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, governor of Maryland, and Vice President of the United States. On October 10, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President. Agnew is to date the only Vice President in U.S. history to resign because of criminal charges. Ten years after leaving office, in January 1983, Agnew paid the state of Maryland nearly $270,000 as a result of a civil suit that stemmed from the bribery allegations. It appears it wasn't until after the 72 election when he was probed for charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. I recalled having read it was right before the 72 elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.He resigned in October 1973. Yep. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Watergate break-in occurred during the 1972 campaign, but the shit didn't hit the public fan until after the '72 election, either (specifically, in March, 1973, when convicted Watergate burglar James McCord wrote a letter to his trial judge blowing the lid off the White House cover-up. The scandals began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972. Investigations conducted initially by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and later by the Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the press revealed that this burglary was one of many illegal activities authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff and loyalists. They also revealed the immense scope of crimes and abuses, which included campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations.[1] This secret fund was also used as hush money to buy silence of the seven men who were indicted for the June 17 break-in.[2][3] Well, I disagree with you here, it appears obvious that there was quite a bit here, the voting public should have known something. This exemplifies my point; the voting public is stupid. June to November is quite a while to rethink about voting for a liar, cheat, thief, Republican. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That being said I agree with your remark: "Isn't the public genius when voting for pres?" I mean, look at the past 8 years, especially the 2004 election. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. With the exception of the 2000 election, which was crooked. But I agree, it shouldn't have been that close. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Nixon was certainly well-known as a complete prick by November '72, and his strategy for "peace with honor" in Vietnam had been exposed as a facade to ramp-up combat, especially aerial bombing, and the public's realization of that was tearing the country apart. Yet he was reelected by the largest margin in history, although largely because the McGovern nomination, and campaign, was a fucking disaster. A lot of moderate-to-conservative Democrats who voted for Humphrey in '68 voted for Nixon in '72, mainly because they couldn't bear voting for McGovern. (These in large part were the same Democrats who would go on to vote for Carter in '76, but for Reagan in '80.) I agree. Some of that was probably overspill from the civil rights acts signed by LBJ and the anger from the Yellow Dog Dems? Yes/no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Frankly, the USSR still was a threat when Reagan took office in January 1981. At that time, its leader was still Leonid Brezhnev, who was pretty hostile to the West, strategically speaking. Brezhnev was succeeded by Konstantin Chernenkno, and then Yuri Andropov, also both hard-liners. The moderate and conciliatiory Mikhail Gorbachev didn't become General Secretary until 1985. I dunno, I think they were more bark than bite at that time. Their fiscla infrastructure was already broken, just waiting to break and we should have known that.

I dont know. But this scenario scares the hell out of me Meaning that you fear the Dems will win. Yes, that is what I meant. I think Obama has a much better chance with Hillary than Biden. That is all I meant. They have Hillary in their corner.

Exactly. Who has been arrogant? Congress and the POTUS. Who has grossly mismanaged? Congress and the POTUS. Who has been greedy? "We the People" have been greedy. All of us with our hands out. Where did those trillions go? Right to the American people - most of it. And plenty of American people want more. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and GHWB did at the end too, these worked. The other trash had their ass handed to them, or shoud I say they had our ass handed to them.

Bush didn't veto anything for the first 5.5 years, so he is liable for it as well as the Republican Congress. Love when YOUR party tanks, you try to make it a systematic problem. Compare the fiscal outcome fromfascist Ronnie, GHW Bush, Clinton and the current turd and try to make me believe that it's everyone and it all comes out the same. Would you like me to post data for you?

Tax rev collections are but just 1 part of the picture. Furthermore, welfare to teh poor gets spent immediately, whereas corporate welfare often gets stashed away, slowing the economy, so your theory is incomplete at best. Let's look at what has had what kind of result over the last 3 decades and we can see that neo-con fiscal polices haven't worked; care to disagree?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You conveniently bring that up, yet apparently don't have enough pride to say where and with whom you served? Thta's your twisted inferrence. Of course you seem to be a neo-con, so privacy issues are deemed an obstacle. I served 1 term in 1 of teh 4 major branches, no big deal, not pretending to be a lifer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you ashamed of your service? I don't understand why. No, just my country. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Generations before us have ensured that the ones that followed them be held in much higher regard. Which explains why the guy that you voted for twice refused to bring forward his military service record - DD214 - and other records until cornered, then brought forward some 1/2 ass blacked out document. He is teh 1st president that has military service to not bring forward his records willfully. Clean your own house first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Combat? No? No big deal. Where, when? Show some pride or does it mean that little to you? Step up!! Isn't it just like a neo-con to make this about the poster, not the issue..... how new. Check the thread title. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Me? I'm with 1 Bn, 506th IN, 101st Airborne, US Army (2004-present). I know some jaded warriors that don't have as low opinion about the world or their country as you do. About teh world, more neo-con lies, the world is great, life is great, the US is trash via its current domestic and foreign policies, but of course you would rather talk about me than any issues

Why not, we're in everyone else's business. You can be his welcoming party at the airport and I'll arrange for your dual-armchairs. Oh no, I served 1 term, I am not a spectator as most neo-cons seem to be.

Seriously, Bush needed his rest all of August and we need ours on our ill-fated day.

Apparently quite a few people agree. http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35417520080910 Right, we impeach a president for a BJ and subsequnt lie, ignore Bush's incompetence after taking off the entire month of August 2001. The world laughs at us.

R U serious? ATC could pin it to a nat's ass.

Fixed it.

More consorship from the right, the party of freedoms/liberty.

Why not, we're in everyone else's business.

I take it that your capitalization is a measure of your respect for both? Joking aside, the President, all by himself, represents roughly 1/3 of the entire power in Washington DC. Each of your Senators from your state represent about 1/100th of 1/2 of 1/3 and your Congressmen each represent about 1/435th of the other 1/2 of 1/3. All of the nine Supreme Court Justices (nominated by Presidents and confirmed by Congress) represent the last 1/3. Tell me again who's the most important person to pay attention to? Oh, that's right, some of you guys think it's the wife. My bad. Who makes the bills that create laws? Not the President. Your analogy is a bit askew. He can veto them, so that is part of the legislation process. Furthermore, he can urge Congress to write them, his cronies will follow suit. The 3 branches do overpal, sometimes quite a bit. {residents do write legislation, but in a backdoor fashion.

I agree! Which plans do you plan on cutting? I have about 20 off the top of my head that I would love to see get flushed. Cut the pork would be a great start. Let's see, Clinton cut the military, raised taxes and all did well, esp the rich. Your party of boobs has done the opposite and it's led to 2 recessions..... figure it out. I guess that's why all those corporations moved overseas during that time, because they were doing SO well, hmm? Corporations leaving the country isn't a partisan thing, it's the American way. Disagree? Corp exodus occurred under Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_stretching_the_truth_3&printer=1;_ylt=ApZhJMyion4rdA8C.KH_Fb9h24cA John McCain's campaign keeps telling voters that Sarah Palin opposed a federally funded Bridge to Nowhere that, in fact, she originally supported. It accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Barack Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims. That voter reaction could help determine who wins this presidential election and influence the strategies of future campaigns. Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, conceded she had not come under sniper fire in Bosnia after a batch of debunking articles subjected her to ridicule during her primary contest against Obama. McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable. Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. He even apologized to journalists for his own reluctance to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag at South Carolina's state Capitol in a bid for votes. When the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked the military record of Democrat and fellow Navy officer John Kerry in 2004, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable." Now, top aides to McCain include Steve Schmidt, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Bush's premier political adviser in 2000. McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of fact-checking news reports. Day after day she said she had told Congress "no thanks" to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a rural Alaska project that was abandoned when critics challenged its costs and usefulness. For nearly a week, major news outlets had documented that Palin supported the bridge when running for governor in 2006, and she turned against it only after it became an embarrassment to the state and a symbol in Congress of out-of-control earmarking. The McCain-Palin campaign made at least three other aggressive claims this week that omitted key details or made dubious assumptions to criticize Obama. It equated lawmakers' requests for money for special projects with corruption, even though Palin has sought nearly $200 million in such "earmarks" this year. It produced an Internet ad implying that Obama had called Palin a pig when he used a familiar phrase, which McCain also has used, about putting "lipstick on a pig" to try to make a bad situation look better. McCain supporters said Obama was slyly alluding to Palin's description of herself as a pit bull in lipstick, but there was nothing in his remarks to support the claim. Obama accused the GOP campaign of "lies and phony outrage." The lipstick wars were fully engaged when the McCain campaign produced another ad saying Obama favored "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. The charge triggered the sort of headlines becoming increasingly common in major newspapers and wire services monitoring the factual content of political ads and speeches. "Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy," was the headline on a New York Times article Thursday. "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive," The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" article said. Major news outlets have written such fact-checking articles for years. "But in the last two election cycles, the very notion that the facts matter seems to be under assault," said Michael X. Delli Carpini, an authority on political ads at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. "Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don't back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact." With Palin giving McCain's campaign a boost in the polls, Obama supporters are nervously watching to see what impact the latest claims will have. Surveys already show that most people believe Obama would raise their taxes — a regular McCain claim — even though independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under his proposals. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds defended the campaign's statements. "We include factual back-up in every one of our TV spots," he said Thursday. Obama, of course, has made exaggerated or questionable assertions as well. Earlier this year, for instance, he repeated a claim that more black men are in prison than in college, after news accounts refuted it. He also used a McCain remark about having troops in Iraq for "100 years" to exaggerate McCain's proposals for being fully engaged militarily in that country. In general, however, Obama has been quicker to react to news accounts challenging his accuracy. Faced with skeptical reports this year, for instance, he stopped saying he "worked his way" through college, and instead credited hard work and scholarships. Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now teaches politics at the University of Southern California, said McCain and Obama learned they must stretch the truth "when staying on the high road didn't work out to their benefit." McCain, he said, "tried it his way. He had a poverty tour and nobody covered it. He had a national service tour, and everybody made fun of it. He proposed these joint town halls" with Obama, "and nothing come of it. Through the spring and early summer, that approach didn't work. You can't blame him for taking a step back and reassessing."

And I think any REAL President™ puts his country in front of EVERYTHING for the period of time he holds the office. John McCain has proven he puts his country first. Has Barack??? Well, McSame puts the rich part of the country first.

I believe they had the ear of the President (perhaps other body parts, perhaps not), but a LOT of people have the EAR of the President. Ultimately, the President makes the decision. So Bush was right about addressing himself as the decider?

I don't have to. The "First Lady," just like the "First Child" or "First Dog or Cat," is not, nor has she ever been, a factor for me in any election I've ever been a part of. Unless we're talking Reagan, she was his memory and the changer of his diapers.

I just read a thread about Republicans and racism, is this an example? Also, aren't you the guy that refused to further address my post due to me hurting your feelings with stuff like this? Good to see you've changed.

Isn't the public genius when voting for pres? VP Agnew just resigned due to personal tax evasion, Nixon was under scrutiny for Watergate and people still voted him in....... aren't Americans brilliant? Don't be so sure that McSame will win even with possible successor Palin wanting to war with Russia, after all, there are still genuises thinking Russia was a threat when Reagan took office.

You ever folloewed the national media? that created perception is what he is moving away from, not any facts. Have you compared Bush's and Congress approval ratings lately? By the way, the media labeled McCain a maveric, not McCain, he is just trying to keep that lable now. And if Obama is change, why did he pick Biden? >>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you compared Bush's and Congress approval ratings lately? Approval ratings are secondary reactions at best. Any body could be doing well and receive a low approval rating. Look at GHWB before and after the Gulf War, then after his largest tax increase ever, so popularity ratings mean nothing, other than how people whimsically feel that day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.By the way, the media labeled McCain a maveric, not McCain, he is just trying to keep that lable now. Who cares who labeled him how? Does it change results?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.And if Obama is change, why did he pick Biden? Obama is fairly new to Washington, and somewhat left. When choosing a running mate, he had to sensibly choose someone to fill teh gaps where he might receive criticism, so he chose experience and someone a little more conservative. Obviously McSame chose to try to steal Hillary votes, so he chose a woman which is fine, but he could have chosen someone closer to the middle, that's where he fucked up. People will say he shored up the far right conservatives by choosing her, that is simply ridiculous since the far right, even if they dislike McSame would have to go with him not Obama. It was desperation as he was behind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, so what is reasonable? You speak in genrealities of what? 8 more years of the same? WTF does that mean? It means that McSame has voted 95% the same as Bush and that all his plans are right in-line with Bush's, can you disagree?