I am not a Republican. Yes, I voted for Bush the first time....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: They are in office for the last 8 years right? - hang on a minute
and voted for him the second time because I did not think John Kerry was the right man for the job. If another Democrat had won the nomination I might well have voted Democrat the last round.
The democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years. Their involvement in the fannie/freddie thing and their total unwillingness to accept any of the responsibility has me voting a straight Republican ticket this year and I have NEVER done that before. Because the idea of Barack Obama AND a democratic majority makes NE nauseous. The country deserves better.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
My mom voted for the first time in 40 years
when he ran in 2000. She loves him. It is funny because I come from a very liberal state and my parents were both uber-conservative. I am more middle of the road. I voted for McCain in 2000 and was liking Guliani for a while.
I voted for Bush
The people who are campaigning are not the same people once they get into the white house. I voted for Bush. I also voted for Clinton. Both presidents turned out to be Bozo's but not until after they got into the position.
I think you need to stop accusing Sarah Palin of having no experience because that is going to backfire big time. Obama does not have any expereince either. The only two people expereinced are McCain and Biden. Also you want to talk about no experience think back to our forefathers. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams. Those people had no experience and yet they went on to be great leaders. Both Barack and Sarah do not have experience. The difference in my opinion is that Sarah is running for VP while Barack is running for President. Two candidates - both with no experience. Except that Sarah has balanced a budget, cut out wasteful spending, and stood up to the big oil people. She also gave money back to the citizens of Alaska who paid to much in gas/oil prices. I'll go for that over someone who did some community organization.
Just one opinion....I am Independent but I am voting Republican this time...
Do I think Bush is a good President?
In some ways, yes, I think he is. I think we had exactly the right President who was able to bring the country together in the aftermath of 9-11. I think he did a masterful job of that. I think he did a masterful job of not letting this country fall all to pieces in the days after whe nobody knew what was coming next. I don't think John Kerry would have been able to do it.
I think he has made huge strides to keeping this country safe, and I attribute no more attacks on our home soil directly to his terrorism policies, and the fact that he drew a line in the sand for the terrorists. You hit us, we are going to hit you harder. Frankly I think that is the only thing they understand. Obviously they do...they have not tried it again.
Of course I don't like all of his policies...he has been way to heavy on the spending. Way too heavy.
I think history will remember him more kindly than this generation will.
I think, overall, he is a good President all things considered. I know one thing, I will be forever grateful he was President on 9-11 and how he held this country together and protected it afterward and that is no small feat. I will always be glad about that.
Would I like 4 more years of that kind of leadership?
Well, I don't believe in cookie cutter images and I don't think all Republicans govern the same and all democrats govern the same. We have had not so good Presidents from both parties. And from what I research, and just watching McCain over the years, John McCain is not like Bush at all. They have polar opposite personalities. Bush has never bucked the Republican party. McCain has, and plenty of times, to the point of voting with democrats on bills he believed in. I like that. Obama has never bucked the Democratic party, and neither have the Clintons, at least not publically. When Bush made that comment about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a man yada yada, McCain said I look in his eyes and see KGB. Looking at Russia now I think McCain was much more correct on that issue. McCain and Bush are nothing alike. Yes, you see pictures of them hugging...Obama has made hay with that in ads. I have seen Obama hug Bill Clinton too, but I don't believe that indicates they are big buds...lol.
It is unfair to put all Republicans in the same bag and say another Republican will govern just like the last one. Not true with them, not true with Democrats.
Okay, there's my two cents. :)
The congress which raided the SS fund was republican at the time
and at the rate the republicans are carrying the country, in ten years, it will resemble Argentina (who also ended up in the same place, as a debtor nation).
Israel has the republican party as it stands in his back pocket as does corportate america. The republican party isn't conservative anymore. It is a giant siphon of American assets into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone can see this but the sheople who voted these clowns into office and didn't benefit from the tax cuts ::rolls eyes::.
All the DEMOCRATS that voted with Bush for war
nm
Yeah except she said she voted for BUSH
right on target.
She said she voted for Bush&Mccain.
NM
The Dems voted right along with Bush. Things go
nm
McCain voted 90% on Bush's side...
That tells me - OH, YES, all over again. Palin is just a sideshow. They put 'em in office and big business runs the country - puppets - just like Bush. They don't care about the country - they care about MONEY, POWER, GREED.
Bush is not really a republican - he's in his own circle
To bash or criticize the republican party because of Bush? There are factions in these parties. Bush is not part of the republican party that cares about the people. He's in a whole different group. Not fair to lump all republicans in the same group as Bush. That would be like me judging all the democrats because of Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton. Totally unfair. Bush doesn't care about the American people. There are a lot of decent republican senators and congress people that do care about America and the people and are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately now we have a dictatorship in there so doubt anything good will happen for the American citizens. At least before this last election we had checks and balances. Now it's all one side. WAY not good!!! Would you like it if everyone was a republican and no democrats had any input into anything? I don't think so. We need an equal balance. We do not have it here and it's getting worse and worse with each day.
Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and,.sm
for the last 2 years we had a republican president, who was always threatening to veto, and a democratic congress by a very small margin. You can't blame everything on the democrats for the last 2 years.
Right! Bush leadership and republican congress tanked us
nm
Anger at Bush is well justified - he and his Republican Congress put us in this mess...nm
r
A Republican response to all that oppose Bush and admin....Dems are a bunch of Nuts...
 but read Lurker and Imagine! Just IMAGINE!
You mean like to got behind Bush in time of
nm
The one time Bush was probably actually HONEST!!
Bob Woodward asked him how history would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
That pretty much sums up the depth of this man.
That's the first time I've seen Mr. Bush
He's the man who's supposed to be in charge of this country at the present time. Blaming the individual Presidential nominees for this is ridiculous. They are one of how many? The entire gov't is responsible for it and Bush is at the top. This mess started when he was in office and he should be responsible for cleaning it up. Perhaps he should give up his salary/pension. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the gov'tal leaders mistakes?
I think politicians should start having to carry malpractice insurance. Doctors are made to be responsible for their errors, so should the politicians.
yes, they will, but not for a long time, thanks to Mr. Bush. NM
x
article from baltimore sun..time for bush to go
From The Baltimore Sun: After Katrina fiasco, time for
Bush to go
After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go
By Gordon Adams
September 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to
Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment
and ideological blinders that should lead to serious
doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed
to continue in office.
When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40
billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years
for homeland security but the officials at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own
hands in broad daylight for four days while New
Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown
and die, it is time for them to go.
When funding for water works and levees in the gulf
region is repeatedly cut by an administration that
seems determined to undermine the public
responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite
clear warnings that the infrastructure could not
survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is
playing politics with the public trust.
When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas
and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign
assistance waits at airports because the government
can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use
the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in
charge, it is time for the administration to leave
town.
When President Bush stays on vacation and attends
social functions for two days in the face of disaster
before finally understanding that people are starving,
crying out and dying, it is time for him to go.
When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are
thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention
center - where people died and were starving - and
fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the
Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the
president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New
Orleans last week.
When Mr. Bush states publicly that nobody could
anticipate a breach of the levee while New Orleans
journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic,
academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had
been doing precisely that for decades, right up
through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed
over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor.
When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear
that tens of thousands of people would be unable to
evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both
money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort
before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to
safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking
papers.
When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in
Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding
while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing,
jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless
insensitivity that should banish him from office.
When the president of the United States points the
finger away from the lame response of his
administration to Katrina and tries to finger local
officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the
culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this
administration to speak truth and hold itself
accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution
of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have
some excuse for failure other than their own
misjudgments.
We have a president who is apparently ill-informed,
lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil
baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and
right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed
officials who give incompetence new meaning, who
replace the positive role of government with expensive
baloney.
They rode into office in a highly contested election,
spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to
undermine the federal government in every way but
defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland
security). One with Grover Norquist, they were
determined to shrink Washington until it was small
enough to drown in a bathtub. Katrina has stripped
the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing
the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind
it.
It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly,
troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich
lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their
strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden
gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and
returned to their caves, clubs in hand.
Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at
the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University, was senior White House budget
official for national security in the Clinton
administration
Bush busted again for the second time in 2 months...
by the courts for criminally violating the US Constitution. When are they going to impeach him? We get 24/7 front page JonBenet coverage (very sad story), but nothing on the crooks in the White House. All the drama with Watergate and Clinton IMO pales in comparison to what is on this President's mantle. What a mess. 
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/082105LINDORFF.shtml
Bush, "The Decider" still has time
to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.
I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).
More Double-0 Bush spying, this time on our computers
NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet WriterThu Dec
29, 7:24 AM ET
The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict
federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist
complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency
officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue
raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a
major concern, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy
and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. But it does show a
general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even
following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until
2035 — likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie
use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary,
permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web
browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies
already on.
After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies, he
said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet
browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For
instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that
require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even
if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits
federal agencies from using persistent cookies — those that aren't automatically
deleted right away — unless there is a compelling need.
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them
must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier
version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague
assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not
sufficient.
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said
mistakes happen, but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say
anything about doing it accidentally.
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it
authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court
orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this
month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the
eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from
American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of
domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve
the surfing experience and not to collect personal user data.
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions
whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great
for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does
not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional
visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures
that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track
computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a
congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its
sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
It's "phase"...... time to stop blaming Bush
@@
That was just ignorant. Bush did steal the election but THIS TIME WE WON HAHAHAHAHAHAHA NM
NM
Evidently you forgot Bush has been releasing terrorists for some time.....
Releasing Gitmo prisoners carry risks
Andrew O. Selsky ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, January 29, 2009
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico | The re-emergence of two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners as AL Qaeda terrorists in the past week won't likely change U.S. policy on transfers to Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon says.
More than 100 Saudis have been repatriated from the U.S. military's prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia, where the government puts them through a rehabilitation program designed to encourage them to abandon Islamic extremism and reintegrate into civilian life.
The online boasts by two of these men that they have joined al Qaeda in Yemen underscore that the Saudi system isn't fail-safe, the Pentagon said Monday. A U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington confirmed the men had been Guantanamo detainees. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose that fact on the record.
Another two or three Saudis who had been transferred from Guantanamo cannot be located by the Saudi government, said Christopher Boucek, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. sees the Saudi program as admirable.
"The best you can do is work with partner nations in the international community to ensure that they take the steps to mitigate the threat ex-detainees pose," he said. "There are never any absolute guarantees. There's an inherent risk in all detainee transfers and releases from Guantanamo."
The deprogramming effort -- built on reason, enticements and lengthy talks with psychiatrists, Muslim clerics and sociologists -- is part of a concerted Saudi government effort to counter the ideology that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers and that has lured hundreds of Saudis to join the Iraq insurgency. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis, as is the mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden.
A total of 218 men, including former Guantanamo detainees, have gone through the reintegration program, according to the Saudi Ministry of Interior. Nine were later arrested again, an "official source" at the ministry said in a dispatch from the official Saudi Press Agency. The report said some of the nine were former detainees, but did not give a breakdown.
The Saudi Interior Ministry official said most of the graduates "resumed their natural lives and some of them voluntarily contributed to the activities of this program to help others return to natural life."
Frank Ciluffo, a researcher on security issues at George Washington University, said a program that doesn't work all the time is better than none because the alternative is an extended prison sentence, which only further radicalizes a person.
Dems voted for it, Biden voted for it....
Bill Clinton signed it into law. Plenty of blame to go around. McCain asked for regulation of Fannie/Freddie in 2005. Dems blocked it. The Dem record is slightly worse in the regulation/deregulation arena.
But...plenty of blame to go around.
Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people
on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.
A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.
Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.
He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.
He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.
He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.
And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:
"We will drill..."
"We'll drill..."
"More drilling..."
McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.
But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican
Yep, but it was straight time. No time and a half
DHL is GERMAN OWNED. And, company was located on Snotsdale, I mean Scottsdale, AZ which means. Labor laws in Arizona suck. Right to work state. Basically a company can do whatever they want to do with you and if you do not like it, then quit and find another job.
Think again - nothing has been voted on yet
I guess you really don't get it, do you. I don't care if McCain or Obama is ahead but these polls mean absolutely nothing. Nothing has been settled yet. If Obama wins on 11/4 then that's fine. If McCain wins on 11/4 then that's fine, but for pete's sake stop acting like children spinning that your candidate has already won and they have more this or that. I've been watching the news on every station and reading all the websites and I have not found anything yet to say one has more votes than the other. Polls mean diddly. The real thing will happen on 11/4. Til then it would be a good idea to put a lid on your arrogance.
Like I say either way I don't care. Whoever gets in gets in. Either way the country is really really screwed! The question now is do you want someone to tell you your screwed to your face or do you want some to hide it in fluff and make you feel good while your being screwed.
They all voted against us
No one in Washington is standing up for us. You are being pitted against each other by CNN and Fox. There is no difference between the two candidates at all. They are both wimps.
Had he done so I would have voted for him most likely
x
but he could have voted against it -
He did not have to sign that bill; even if it was for show because he knew it was going to pass, he could have not signed it just to prove the point that he does not support any pork barrel spending. Just goes to show, he is going to do whatever he wants to do when he gets in office - no matter what he promised. If he wants something done and he has to give away a lot of money to get it, he is going to give away a lot of money. He's no different than anyone else.
He voted against it, and he said why...
he said he was afraid that people would use the bill to somehow circumvent abortion rights. And for that he was willing to sacrifice even those babies who survived that heinous procedure. Does it matter WHY he voted against it? Does that change the fact that he DID?
i voted against O, however...
i strongly opposed obama in the white house. however, i do believe that now he is pres-elect, that we should be respectful and supportive in as much as possible. he may well surprise even me and change some of his positions and prove to be a much better leader than i would expect. i for one, will be praying for his wisdom and judgment.
or maybe he voted the way he said he voted
nm
Why they voted for him...
obama fan: "I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage because if I help him[Obama], he’s gonna help me.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Any questions? Get a grip, I am happy not to be associated with voters like this.
Like I said, the ones who voted for him
either think he is their precious EVERYTHING, were too scared about the economy and were willing to vote for ANYTHING, or the ones who just voted for him because he is BLACK! Not too much of an intelligent vote either way!!
Flame all you want!
You mean he voted something besides
Who knew?
I do believe that it was voted
on whether or not we went to war in Iraq and I do believe that many Dems were on board at that time as well as many Americans. It only became a problem with some when they realized how much money it was costing.
Personally, I feel we should leave the middle east alone and let them kill each other. However, when they strike on US turf.....they best get ready for a strike back.
As for the stuff that Obama has been handed.....I know his job can't be easy and I wouldn't take it no matter how much money I was offered......but I still cannot condone what he is doing. Taking the rights away from Catholic hospitals and making them perform abortions or lose their funding. The continued bailing out of banks with big bonuses being slipped in there. So many people in our government who have been appointed to positions and getting caught for not paying taxes but getting a get out of jail free card.
Obama not crooked? I'm sorry but look at the state he comes from. Illinois is full of crooked politicians. His associations alone make me question his morality. His attendance to a church of hate was overlooked as nothing. There are just so many things stacked against this man and yet so many people refuse to see it or just let it slide like it is nothing.
Obama has had enough free passes. This is my country and I have a right to question my government. To me this is not the time to be going to other countries and telling them how arrogant the US is and how everything is our fault. Just like every time Obama opens his mouth about his spending....he continually brings up Bush's spending instead of admitting his own excessive spending.
I'm tired of the government giving CEOs crap for having private jets when government officials waste more taxpayer money on planes, etc. It is just ridiculous. It is like the whole lot of them preaching "do as I say and not as I do." Absolutely ridiculous.
I just hope that come election time, we get some of these people out of office.....Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid........
They may have voted for what some
people want, but not everyone agrees with SSM.
we actually voted in 2004....SM
http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm
state by state, counties too..........
I voted in our primary
on Tuesday. As soon as I put the card in the electronic machine it said invalid card even though I watched the woman run it through her little machine to clear it and saw it say clear twice. It took 3 people about 5 minutes to figure out how to get the card out of the machine. Then I got a new one. Everything went along fine until one choice. There were 4 people on the ballot; it would let me vote for 3 of them but not the 4th which was the one I wanted to vote for. I told them about this but nothing will happen. I think we should either have a paper trail or write them out long hand. Even if these machines were not suspect to begin with as far as tampering goes, just plain not working makes a huge difference in the vote.
I know that Bush did not win Florida in 2004. Thousands of African Americans did not stand in lines for hours to vote for Bush. You can take that to the bank and bet the farm on it too. My personal favorite though is a county that counted something like 10,000 votes for Bush and there are only 5,000 registered voters in the entire county !!! Go figure.
I never voted Democrat, but...
For one thing, Clinton WAS impeached. He just was not convicted. The Republicans caved. Shame on them! With that being said, while Obama did not actually "change" the seal, his campaign thought it would be cute to copy it for the meeting, Isuppose they did not have sense enough to realize what a firestorm it would cause. Well, duh, folks. Not everyone in the US is mesmerized by Obama the Pied Piper. The man is not nearly as eloquent without prompters. Can't think on his feet really well. Someone has their hand up his back pulling ALL the strings. I am tempted to think the initials are GS. THAT being said, I agree whole-heartedly about the Jeremiah Wright thing. I don't think I want a man as President who sat in the pew for 20 years and never heard the man "preach like that." Either he wasn't paying a bit of attention (which is highly unlikely as intelligent as he is supposed to be, right), or he was lying through his teeth (I vote for that one). But, just on the offchance he really "missed" that kind of preaching over 20 years, if he does get elected, my suggestion is someone else attend the cabinet meetings to take notes so he actually realizes what went on. lol. Not to mention security and intel briefings. I can't WAIT, if he is elected, to see who is his chief of staff and cabinet are. That will tell the tale I am thinkin, but by then it will be too late for buyers remorse. lol.
A lot of dems voted for the war too....
including Kerry and Hillary and untold others...including your VP candidate, Biden. Can't you tell the truth? What about the truth is so scary to you? You can go on line and see the roll call vote. Many, Many D's there. No war can ever be waged without a 2/3 vote of Congress. War is not a "conservative" thing. What a ridiculous lie. Do you ever go research anything or are you afraid lightning will strike you if you stray from Dem talking points??
so every single pub voted for it and no pub
I've answered several of your questions. Now try 2 of mine. Did every single pub vote to pass it and did no pub receive any type of benefit from this situation?
So would those 94 democrats who voted no.nm
nm
Yes, and 94 Democrats voted no. So why not...
11 more democrats voting yes instead of 11 more Republicans?
No, most of the Republicans voted against it...
because their constituency were 99 to 1 against it. The senators added the extra stuff hoping to entice some of those Republicans to vote yes instead of no. Plus to woo the 95 democrats who voted against it.
It is silly on its face for the Democrats to whine so much...if they would stop worrying about voting in the majority with George Bush, they could pass the thing themselves. They have the majority. But they want it to be "bipartisan" so if it does not work, they don't have to live out their congressional terms with "they voted with George Bush and crashed the economy" over their heads.
Politics first, constituents second. And so it goes.
he was voted in - she was chosen... nm
x
You have already voted for communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
|
