Re: If the election was held today
 

I wonder if the imbeciles even know what the word judge means. What it means to be a judge. They would have been better served to just say "wants to appoint anti-abortion conservative judges."

[quote]v., judged, judg·ing, judg·es.

v.tr.

1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
2.
1. Law. To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.
2. Obsolete. To pass sentence on; condemn.
3. To act as one appointed to decide the winners of: judge an essay contest.
3. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.
4. Informal. To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose: I judge you're right.
5. Bible. To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

v.intr.

1. To form an opinion or evaluation.
2. To act or decide as a judge.

n.

1. One who judges, especially:
1. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness: a good judge of used cars; a poor judge of character.
2. (Abbr. J.) Law. A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law.
3. Law. A bankruptcy referee.
4. One appointed to decide the winners of a contest or competition.
2. Bible.
1. A leader of the Israelites during a period of about 400 years between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul.
2. Judges (used with a sing. verb) (Abbr. Judg. or Jgs or Jg) A book of the Bible. [/quote]

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=wilsowilso;474822]Isn't Sarah Palin running for President now? John who? Matt Damon might have put it best so far. Think about it? Are we really going to gamble the future of this great country in a matchup between Sarah Palin and Vladimir Putin. It's absurd. Palin seems like a fine politician, but John McCain is so desperate to win that he has really put our country into a real mess. He met this woman once. Bad news.[/quote]

Matt Damon has a point, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way I think he intended it.

If you're going to use the U.S. President vs. Putin scenario, the only one of the entire bunch (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin) I would feel comfortable having go against Putin is McCain.

Obama is like the little kid trying to look tough in that scenario, Biden is just another long-term senator, and yeah, Palin is about as inexperienced or ill-equipped as the first two.

If I have two parties, and only one party has at least ONE person I'd feel comfortable standing up to Putin, why would I vote for the other?

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=mheisig;475288]Matt Damon has a point, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way I think he intended it.

If you're going to use the U.S. President vs. Putin scenario, the only one of the entire bunch (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin) I would feel comfortable having go against Putin is McCain.

Obama is like the little kid trying to look tough in that scenario, Biden is just another long-term senator, and yeah, Palin is about as inexperienced or ill-equipped as the first two.

If I have two parties, and only one party has at least ONE person I'd feel comfortable standing up to Putin, why would I vote for the other?[/quote]


There's something to be said for not playing your trump card before you know how the game is going to end.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=saden1;474894]Having the the majority of people on the [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm"]planet wanting you as the president[/URL] of the USA is a good way to start don't you think? What about Biden or does he not count?[/quote]

It is a good start. Call me when Germany, France or any other country somehow factors into the U.S. election system.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Angry;475283]Like I said, I didn't write it nor do I know the original sender. If you will look you will notice that McCain's answers are on top and Obamma's are on bottom.

I dont fully understand the Judge thing either, nor do I really care. Correct me if I should.[/quote]

Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=saden1;475290]There's something to be said for not playing your trump card before you know how the game is going to end.[/quote]

Not sure I follow...

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=mheisig;475295]Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.[/quote]

I wasn't looking at that perspective, but It still does not change my mind abut the candidates overall.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=mheisig;475298]Not sure I follow...[/quote]

You seem to find the fact that McCain talks tough a virtue. There is wisdom in not showing your fangs from the outset. You can stare Putin in the eyes and smile at the same time. It can be interpreted as a sinister or friendly smile. In any case, you should go pick up the "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/1599869772/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221239297&sr=8-2"]The Art of War[/ame]."

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=saden1;475313]You seem to find the fact that McCain talks tough a virtue. There is wisdom in not showing your fangs from the outset. You can stare Putin in the eyes and smile at the same time. It can be interpreted as a sinister or friendly smile. In any case, you should go pick up the "[url="http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/1599869772/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221239297&sr=8-2"]The Art of War[/url]."[/quote]

Read "The Art of War" three times, but thanks for the recommendation.

You're correct in a sense, but it's not necessarily a universal truth that it's always, in every situation the best policy to take that approach.

I spent three years as an inner-city cop and have had an experience or two with talking to people in high-stress, hostile situations. Sometimes it's good to play nice, be gentle and sweet talk them. Sometimes you have to be polite but firm. Sometimes you have to look at them like you're the devil and if they say one wrong thing you're going to fuck them up like they've never experienced.

It's dependent on the situation and it's incredibly naive to assume that one approach works under all circumstances

I'll freely admit there's little to base the opinion on, and it's just that, an opinion. My general feeling of Obama, Biden AND Palin is that none of them have any experience dealing with hostile situations and I there's no way of telling one way or another if any of them have the balls to make the tough calls when the situation calls for it. My general impression of Obama and Biden is that they'll pussy-foot around and might end up putting the country in severe danger because they're trying to play so nice and make everyone like us.

McCain hasn't been tested in the executive sense either, but his experiences as a POW lead me to believe he has the character to hold up, make tough calls and deal with the consequences.

The other three are simply unproven in ALL respects.

Again, totally just my subjective impression of Obama. Frankly I'm not sure anyone can argue with any certainty how anyone will perform for sure in a given future situation.

Unless you're Nostradamus, of course.

Re: If the election was held today
 

The latest smear ad from the fish

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/12/mccain_paints_obama_as_disresp.html]McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com[/url]

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Angry;475281]In no way am I claiming that this information is mine or that I know the original sender. My mother forewarded this to me earlier today and I believe that it provides a simple explanation on each candidates views. Of coarse you have to dig deeper into each issue to get a full understaning of why each candidate supports or opposes a certain issue. Some issues are not as simple as yes or no answers, but this email makes is seem like there are.[/quote]

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Angry;475224]Statistically a Dem pres is always best for the economy. I just threw that out ther so that you guys know what to do during the elections 2 years from now, (Put some Reps. in Congress!) But you are correct in your thinking. You want a Dem Congress if you have a Rep President.[/quote]

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Mattyk72;475351]The latest smear ad from the fish

[URL="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/12/mccain_paints_obama_as_disresp.html"]McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com[/URL][/quote]

Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=12thMan;475386]Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.[/quote]

I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Schneed10;475467]I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.[/quote]

you're essentially right with how the leases work. the research the leases most likely to provided oil first, and they have a (flexible) budget for doing x leases per year, but some of those leases would cost more to research and drill than the potential oil needed to cover costs and meet their revenue targets.

the offshore stuff is appealing to them because they know with good certainty that the oil is there, and that there's enough of it to be worth setting rigs up immediately.

that said, the amount of oil there isn't amazing, but the intention to drill drives down the rampant oil speculation (see colbert for a GREAT piece on how that worked).

Re: If the election was held today
 

the race is too close to call.i just hope there is'nt a two month wait that requires a supreme court vote that will determine the winner.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Schneed10;475465]Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.[/quote]

I just thought this latest smear was particularly troubling as McCain seems to be kicking up the smear ads to new levels. Or as [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html"]factcheck.org[/URL] states it: [SIZE=2]

[/SIZE][quote]The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_celebrity_cred.html"]criticized[/URL], with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, [I]but then goes down new paths of deception[/I].[/quote][SIZE=2]

Are most people intelligent enough to look past this garbage from both sides? I hope so. But if it wasn't having an impact on [I]someone[/I], why are they doing it?

Here's some Obama mistruths too if it makes you feel better:

[URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html"]FactCheck.org: School Funding Misleads[/URL]
[/SIZE]

Re: If the election was held today
 

i was always convinced the American people are way smarter then anyone in government gives them credit for. but after seeing the McCain camp skirt around the issues, and basically switch their campaign strategy in mid season. they have taken mud slinging to a new level. can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=dmek25;475529]can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?[/quote]

McCain has been willing to depart from the party line on numerous occasions. That's why so many conservatives were so upset about McCain securing the nomination. He's shifted to the right since 2000, but he's still fairly independent minded as far as most politicians go. For her part, Palin repeatedly publicized the "wrongdoings" of fellow republicans in powerful positions. You can disagree with their politics and they are not totally independent minded by any means, but, as far as Washington goes, they are mavericks.

Re: If the election was held today
 

Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=12thMan;475386]Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.[/quote]

I never said that any of them was a yes or no talking point. I fully agree that you have to delve deeper into each candidates theories to truly understand what his stance is on each issue. My posting of that nonsense was a blunder that I had already appologized for. No need to revisit that.

Personally I believe that we as a nation should tap into every fuel resource possible so that we are not overly dependant on a single one. In other words I do not mind if we drill for more oil, but we had better be also Building Nuclear power plants, setting up windmills, mining for coal, expanding usage of natural gas etc.etc.etc.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Schneed10;475462]I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.[/quote]

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=Angry;477703]Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.[/quote]
The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=firstdown;477725]The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.[/quote]

I would argue that it may not have a large impact, but it certainly does not help. Remember that every little bit counts.

If you go to the store 10 times and throw down just $100 to get some necessities you just went through a grand. It may not impact your financial spending at the time, but long term it gets expensive.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=NM Redskin;477696][b]Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick?[/b] A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.[/quote]

:doh:
How many times do people have to correct this before people listen? This is why there is political propaganda because people like NMredskin don't listen when the truth comes out, and they will believe any crap they see.

Since you've either clearly missed, or ignored it NMredskin, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time only 1 year out of the 8 Bush has been office. Wasn't even close in the other years. We won't even get into the massive percentage Obama has voted with his party lines. The left threw up some junk, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

Re: If the election was held today
 

mccain voted with his party about 85% of the time, obama voted with his 97%.

so yeah, in relative terms mccain is a maverick and obama is someone who hasn't really reached across party lines. that doesn't guarantee future voting patterns, but it is an indication.

Re: If the election was held today
 

Maybe if Republicans had any sort of issues worth voting for he would have [URL="http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"]voted more[/URL] with Republicans?

Re: If the election was held today
 

[yt]8TLD3Z6sJWA[/yt]

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=jsarno;477752]:doh:
How many times do people have to correct this before people listen? This is why there is political propaganda because people like NMredskin don't listen when the truth comes out, and they will believe any crap they see.

Since you've either clearly missed, or ignored it NMredskin, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time only 1 year out of the 8 Bush has been office. Wasn't even close in the other years. We won't even get into the massive percentage Obama has voted with his party lines. The left threw up some junk, and you bought it hook line and sinker.[/quote]

Get your facts straight, it was 95% of the time in 2007 and voted with his party 90 % of time. [url=http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html]FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?[/url] ITs so funny how the evil "left" is always trying to get the poor "right". Its not fair, the mean media.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=NM Redskin;477848]Get your facts straight, it was 95% of the time in 2007 and voted with his party 90 % of time. [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html"]FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?[/URL] ITs so funny how the evil "left" is always trying to get the poor "right". Its not fair, the mean media.[/quote]
So your saying that McCain voted 90% over the Bush term?

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=firstdown;475112]I believe the polling booth is rigged by Matty because everytime I clicked McCain it switched my vote to Obama.[/quote]

Same here except when I selected mccain the vote total just didn't change.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=skinsfanthru&thru;477939]Same here except when I selected mccain the vote total just didn't change.[/quote]

Well it's a permanent penalty for voting Republicans to make up for 2000.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=NM Redskin;477696][b]Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick?[/b] A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.[/quote]

Is this not what you said?
Funny how you try to use a link to prove yourself right, when in fact you proved yourself wrong.
"However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001)."

I messed up when I said 90% when I should have put 95%, I've read that link on fact check about 10 times. So with the exception of that mess up, my last quote was right on.

Re: If the election was held today
 

[quote=NM Redskin;477848]Get your facts straight, it was 95% of the time in 2007 and voted with his party 90 % of time. [url=http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html]FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?[/url] ITs so funny how the evil "left" is always trying to get the poor "right". Its not fair, the mean media.[/quote]

Yes, I was incorrect with the 90%...I mixed the numbers up as my last post attests to, however, do not tell me to get my facts straight, when your "facts" are waaaaay off.
1- this post is not what you said in your previous post.
2- You are still missing the point that McCain did not vote with Bush as much as you think. (your own link would have taught you that if you read it.)