View Poll Results: Vote for the 2008 President.
McCain/Palin
20
35.09%
Obama/Biden
33
57.89%
Nader/Gonzalez
4
7.02%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll
Who are you voting for? McCain, Obama, or Nader
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,250
From: Yea, you like my JDM backside. Quit staring ^^
Car Info: A crazy ass wagon ! Voltex and 18x9.5 +22 FTW !
And all McCains talk is scare tactics... all scare tactics just like GW BUSH AGAIN so yea hes nothing like him. Im waiting for the code orange and red to come out again,im surprised McCain hasnt broken those out yet... scare tactics ...
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
Are you kidding me?? So the fact that hes voted with Bush policies 90% of the time means he totally different right !? And please dont give me the old hes voting with the party not G W Bush speach, because Mr. Self proclaimed MAVERICK man here wouldn't be so MAVERICKY if he was just going with the flow of the rebuplican party. I'm a Maverick, im here to change things up, get a different take on issues.... yea uhhh whens that gonna start??? So he differs with Bush on Global warming. Cool i like that, hes finally realized the obvious! And a different stance on Iraq !? what !? Are you kidding me??? So your telling me Bush is trying to make plans to get us out of Iraq ASAP right?? Last time i checked Bush wasn't making any efferts to get us out of Iraq, just like McCain who is basically calling any American who wants a timeline, unpatriotic and trying to "lose the war" Even the new Iraq government wants a timeline.
And his pretty girl Mrs. Alaska running mate... wow .. yea shes ready to lead this country when the old guy doesnt make it through his campaign
And his pretty girl Mrs. Alaska running mate... wow .. yea shes ready to lead this country when the old guy doesnt make it through his campaign
Originally Posted by www.factcheck.org
Q:
Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?
The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?
A:
Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:
Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. 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).
Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.
Is 95% "Significant"?
As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.
When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.
The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
And so . . .
So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.
- Emi Kolawole
Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?
The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?
A:
Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:
Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. 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).
Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.
Is 95% "Significant"?
As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.
When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.
The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
And so . . .
So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.
- Emi Kolawole
take your moveon.org crap out of this thread.
"One of the most important areas where McCain differs from Bush, believe it or not, is on the war in Iraq. McCain has acknowledged his distaste for the war, and his belief that faulty intelligence got us into it. Now that we're there, however, McCain realizes there are no easy answers for extrication from that war-torn and ravaged part of the world. For whatever reason, we're there. The only path is to finish the job. Obama has no military experience, and neither does Hillary Clinton. I know McCain's 5 1/2-years as a prisoner-of-war is an old tune, but the reason it continues to be sung is because he is the only candidate who is familiar with the ravages of war, and subsequently, he is the only candidate who understands the minds of our military men and women. I certainly don't, but I don't pretend to, either. Americans -- and more importantly American troops -- want ... no...they need a commander-in-chief who understands combat and the constant stress of fighting a war."
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
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).
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
I'd prefer that they just reject all part affiliation and think for themselves, but this will have to do for now.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
"One of the most important areas where McCain differs from Bush, believe it or not, is on the war in Iraq. McCain has acknowledged his distaste for the war, and his belief that faulty intelligence got us into it. Now that we're there, however, McCain realizes there are no easy answers for extrication from that war-torn and ravaged part of the world. For whatever reason, we're there. The only path is to finish the job. Obama has no military experience, and neither does Hillary Clinton. I know McCain's 5 1/2-years as a prisoner-of-war is an old tune, but the reason it continues to be sung is because he is the only candidate who is familiar with the ravages of war, and subsequently, he is the only candidate who understands the minds of our military men and women. I certainly don't, but I don't pretend to, either. Americans -- and more importantly American troops -- want ... no...they need a commander-in-chief who understands combat and the constant stress of fighting a war."
He was a pilot, like 50 years ago, that gives him a rapport with the troops, but a general or secretary of defense he is not. His heart is definitely in the right place, but I don't like his view of how he feels we need to "win" this war as anything else would consist of "losing" or "defeat". Those words are great for an ego, but it shows a stubbornness that he's not willing to withdraw until he sees fit and no one will convince him otherwise. That's not who I want as a commander and chief.
Last edited by Superglue WRX; Oct 31, 2008 at 02:43 PM. Reason: "rapport" not "report"
How is that different then Bush? That's insinuating that Bush does not want to "win" the war and just felt like throwing away $10 billion a month as it continued. That's not different.
He was a pilot, like 50 years ago, that gives him a report with the troops, but a general or secretary of defense he is not. His heart is definitely in the right place, but I don't like his view of how he feels we need to "win" this war as anything else would consist of "losing" or "defeat". Those words are great for an ego, but it shows a stubbornness that he's not willing to withdraw until he sees fit and no one will convince him otherwise. That's not who I want as a commander and chief.
He was a pilot, like 50 years ago, that gives him a report with the troops, but a general or secretary of defense he is not. His heart is definitely in the right place, but I don't like his view of how he feels we need to "win" this war as anything else would consist of "losing" or "defeat". Those words are great for an ego, but it shows a stubbornness that he's not willing to withdraw until he sees fit and no one will convince him otherwise. That's not who I want as a commander and chief.
That about sums up the reason why I officially changed from Rep to Ind...
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
Bush contunued the policies
GW bush is the worst president ever when it comes to spending and growing the government in size.
Last edited by Max Xevious; Oct 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM.
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
also
The U.S. Treasury website that tracks the U.S. National Debt proves there was never a surplus because the national debt went up every single year, and Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings said the same thing in the Senate on October 28, 1999 . This article simply explains why/how people claim otherwise for political reasons.
the article is huge but if you would like to read it.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
small excerpt
there was no surplus.
The U.S. Treasury website that tracks the U.S. National Debt proves there was never a surplus because the national debt went up every single year, and Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings said the same thing in the Senate on October 28, 1999 . This article simply explains why/how people claim otherwise for political reasons.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
small excerpt
... The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion...
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion...
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
also
the article is huge but if you would like to read it.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
small excerpt
there was no surplus.
the article is huge but if you would like to read it.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
small excerpt
there was no surplus.
I completely understand Reagan's deficit, but not either of the bushes.
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
Yeah right. Just cause the numbers don't match up doesn't mean he didn't have a surplus. No one questioned it then, why now? He was able to run some sort of surplus for a few years, and that's pretty good, better than a deficient like Bush has has going each year.
I completely understand Reagan's deficit, but not either of the bushes.
I completely understand Reagan's deficit, but not either of the bushes.
Code:
Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
I never really "liked" Bush 41, he didn't do anything but make us read his lips, and he was wrong.