Barack Obama or John McCain?

[Guardsman Bass]

Keep in mind, though, that earmarks are small pennies - what was the total amount spent on earmarks and pork for fiscal year 2008, 18.3 billion dollars? That's tiny; the amount we spend servicing the national debt dwarfs that by more than a factor of ten.

That's not to mention that earmarks can have beneficial roles as well. They channel relatively small amounts of federal money to state projects where it can help, whether that's building a museum, a library, or something else. Obviously, at the same time, you see patronage politics at play, but it doesn't change the overall value of having some earmarks.

I'm honestly not sure how public I want them to be. I'd like to think that requiring that all earmarks be listed and spoken out loud in the passing of a bill would help tamp down some of them, but then I remember what happened with executive salaries once it became required for them to be listed. They exploded rather than shrank, because now other executives could compare what they were getting to their betters, and demand more.

[Gustavo]

Guardsman Bass, Thanks for that. I think we see this alot differently. I think many of the problems we have in the US are connected to corruption. The earmarks are a currency of corruption IMO. If we got rid of them and then focus on term limits, no golden parachutes, no lobby jobs, no relatives get lobby connected jobs, amongst a host of other changes in our legislative branch, we could begin to live really well.

Keep in mind, though, that earmarks are small pennies - what was the total amount spent on earmarks and pork for fiscal year 2008, 18.3 billion dollars? That's tiny; the amount we spend servicing the national debt dwarfs that by more than a factor of ten.

I don’t think any amount would be too small to care about. These earmarks are a way for politicians to buy votes, jobs, special favors, etc. 18 Billion is not much? This is bribe money. If a politician cant get his important pet projects, for his constituency, on a bill to be voted on, he isn’t doing his job. This ties right in to another highly corrupt operational standard in congress. If you have just arrived as an elected representative, regardless of house, you cant get your bills or amendments through unless you tow the line and vote as someone else tells rather than how your constituents would want you to. How is that equal and proper representation? A junior Senator should have as much right to present bills and amendments as one who has already been there. They (WE) need to change that too.

That's not to mention that earmarks can have beneficial roles as well. They channel relatively small amounts of federal money to state projects where it can help, whether that's building a museum, a library, or something else. Obviously, at the same time, you see patronage politics at play, but it doesn't change the overall value of having some earmarks.

The original intent of the constitution and which was specifically spelled out, was that all treasury dollars (the peoples money) spent would be voted on. That means exactly NO EARMARKS! The forefathers already knew then that without that vote, transparancy and propriety would be lost. Earmarks are payoffs. Libraries and museums, schools, bridges, infrastructure are exactly the things that most glaringly should NOT be paid for by earmarks. These are basic infrastructure of a society and should be part of what our taxes pay for. Personally I think libraries and museums and schools should be a States issue rather than Federal.

I'm honestly not sure how public I want them to be. I'd like to think that requiring that all earmarks be listed and spoken out loud in the passing of a bill would help tamp down some of them, but then I remember what happened with executive salaries once it became required for them to be listed. They exploded rather than shrank, because now other executives could compare what they were getting to their betters, and demand more.

I fail to see how secret earmarks are a good thing in any stretch of the imagination. I believe a move like that would encourage extreme corruption.

Best,

Gustavo

[puridalan]

Okay, I don't know where 'fully' I am suppose to put this but here it goes.

A few days ago I had another one of my 'blank stares' so it would be in the month of August 2008 that I saw this about like I said a few days ago. I've already heard about and people 'sensing' Obama winning the election, though the thing is that isn't what troubles me. I thought of first the assassination attempt on him, then the actual assassination like Bhutto. But I think he will get assassinated, it was the thought even behind that, that made me go geshh!

So, now in the future I think neither Obama or McCain will really be president...could be totally wrong

But I got the craziest subconcious feeling that it would be Vice President that Obama picks as the successor...how come no one else has been thinking on it?

So, got me thinking we should really be reading into the vice president...em at least I'll think I'll go do some research on him ^^

[Homer]

I didn’t vote on this poll because I’m undecided, but I will put in my two cents anyway.

First between the two major parties:

I don’t support McCain because although I think he has good character, in my opinion he seems to lack good judgment. It doesn’t matter to me how much experience one has if one lacks the ability to make good decisions.

I don’t support Obama because although I think he is intelligent and would make better decisions than McCain, there is something about him that raises a red flag. Something I can’t put my finger on. Not so much as something he’s said or done, but just something about him that I don’t trust. I mean, he can’t even finish a single term in the Senate before running for President. What’s he got up his sleeve? That’s not to say I trust McCain, but his apparent lack of intelligence makes his untrustworthiness more transparent. Unless, of course, that he’s so clever that he wants us to think that…

If someone put a gun to my head, I would probably vote Obama over McCain…

But my conscience clearly says to vote for someone who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected(I’m exercising my right not to disclose a name).

Like someone has already posted, I can’t believe this is what we’re stuck with.

[Guardsman Bass]

That is one thing that has bothered some people about Obama. If you read through articles about his past on the NY Times and the like, one thing that repeatedly comes up is that he doesn't really get too "attached" to any of his positions on his way up. I suppose you might be able to spin that as a good thing (you could say that he learned from these positions without becoming too associated with them), but it turns some people off.

I don't necessarily trust McCain, though. The guy has more or less pulled off one gigantic flip-flop on his stances in a number of areas since the last time he ran, including coddling up to the Christian Right and the late Jerry Falwell (who he called an "agent of intolerance" in 2000).

I am, however, planning to vote for Obama, since at the very least he's going to probably focus on Democratic policies, and he removes the automatic veto-stamp that Bush has had in the past two years on many pieces of legislation.

[Lt_Ripley]

I am a Libertarian at heart and Republican by registration. Bob Barr is good but this isnt about making a statement. If it were I would vote for Barr. Unfortunately a vote for Barr equates to a vote for Obama since most Libertarians would vote Republican rather than Democratic. Therefore I am voting for McCain.

One very rarely mentioned factor, which to me is the biggest thing to be said in US politics in as long as I can remember is the fact that McCain hasnt added any earmarks the last couple years. He and a small BIPARTISAN group of Senators, have realized that the corruption in our government is facilitated through earmarks, yes folks thats how they grant favors. The constitution said no treasure will be spent that has not been voted on. Well back in the day when the corruption won and they made a rule to allow earmarks our country became a whole new level of corrupt. This is HUGE! McCain will not sign a bill with earmarks... GET IT? This is HUGE!!! It is the only way to begin stopping the corruption. This is a more long term problem than almost anything else. Remember Mr Smith goes to Washington? That was made in 1939 and the subject is this exact thing. My point is McCain is the first to say he is dismantling it. Contrast that with Obama who is all for earmarks just like 95% of these politicians. We all must vote for McCain if we care about ending the corruption in Washington.

Best,

Gustavo

McCain not sign a bill with earmarks? Please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has inserted them in bills. what makes you think he suddenly won't pass them !! because he says so ?? lmao . He hasn't written any of late since knowing he'd run for president ! it's lip service. wake up. and he's still tied to lobbyists .......

I like some of what Barr stands for. now if we could melt him with Obama and a dash of clinton ( since she really has balls but the ability to negotiate well ) then I'd vote for that candidate.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[puridalan]

But see what if Obama or McCain aren't here for much longer

Anyone tell me this what do you think of Vice President of Obama...I think we all should research him more, but that's just me.

[Gustavo]

McCain not sign a bill with earmarks? Please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has inserted them in bills. what makes you think he suddenly won't pass them !! because he says so ?? lmao . He hasn't written any of late since knowing he'd run for president ! it's lip service. wake up. and he's still tied to lobbyists .......

I like some of what Barr stands for. now if we could melt him with Obama and a dash of clinton ( since she really has balls but the ability to negotiate well ) then I'd vote for that candidate.

I never said McCain hasnt had earmarks in the past but for the last couple years he hasnt. What about Obama, well he signed up for over $90 million last year and Hillary was around $350 million. These are the players we have to choose from minus Hillary of course but the point is Earmarks=Corruption regardless of who says so. All these politicians are tied to lobbyists and Im against that too. Loudly. Laughing your *** off huh? Thats silly. Wake up huh? Brilliant. Do insults make it seem like you made your point better?

We all have our issues that are important to us and for me the corruption in Washington is the oldest most important issue. I care about all the other issues too but I am talking about this one now because McCain is the first as far as I can recall to say he wouldnt sign any bills with earmarks and I dont think he is lying just because you say so. If you are out to stand for whats right then you should agree with the idea of getting rid of earmarks. That doesnt mean you have to vote for McCain but he is the only one saying he wont sign a bill with earmarks. So I take it you arent voting for president at all? That will only help McCain in this case.

Actually I want you to vote along with me and the other people who still exercise this right.

Gusto

[BlindMessiah]

I wouldn't say Hillary isn't a player. She's still protesting the nomination and stirring trouble at the upcoming convention. I think she may end up on that ticket. I have no doubt that if she doesn't Obama will not become president.

[Homer]

I am, however, planning to vote for Obama, since at the very least he's going to probably focus on Democratic policies, and he removes the automatic veto-stamp that Bush has had in the past two years on many pieces of legislation.

Based on the likelihood that the dems will have an even stronger hold of congress with the next election, Obama does have the apparent edge in achieving greater legislative accomplishments than McCain.

I’m curious as to what people think Obama or McCain will actually accomplish, considering they will have to go through congress, as opposed to what the candidates are proposing to accomplish. Comparing the candidates on what is realistic might have people looking at the election in a different light.

If there is any Supreme Court justices about to retire, their replacements just might be the single biggest factor in the decision making process.

[IrishAidan07]

Obama... And the only party in our country that wallows in corruption, hatred, and complete bull **** is the Republican Party. They play to peoples ignorance. They bring God into every damn discussion, trying to liken their corrupt asses with poor folks who bust their *** for a living and sit in a Church pew giving out their last 5 bucks on Sunday. The Republican Party is the biggest joke in the history of the world. They are so corrupt it's not even funny.

An example of playing to people's ignorance: How long have Republicans been yackin' that they want to do away with abortion, which I would absolutely love if they did? They had the White House, Both Houses, and the Supreme Court, and did they overturn Roe v. Wade? Nope. Why? They need it as an issue to get elected.

The Republican Manifesto:

Hate Queers.

Kill The Mentally Ill.

Give Tax Cuts To The Rich.

Start A War To Get Reelected.

Fear Monger.

Lie.

Cheat.

Lie Some More.

Use God and Pervert His Words.

Visit a Prostitute on Sunday.

Cheat On My Wife on Monday.

Give Tax Cuts To The Rich.

The Democrats have their corruption - sure. But nothing rivals the Republican Party. Not even close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdLv_Hj_cOg

And that about sums it up.

Edited August 23, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Lt_Ripley]

I never said McCain hasnt had earmarks in the past but for the last couple years he hasnt. What about Obama, well he signed up for over $90 million last year and Hillary was around $350 million. These are the players we have to choose from minus Hillary of course but the point is Earmarks=Corruption regardless of who says so. All these politicians are tied to lobbyists and Im against that too. Loudly. Laughing your *** off huh? Thats silly. Wake up huh? Brilliant. Do insults make it seem like you made your point better?

We all have our issues that are important to us and for me the corruption in Washington is the oldest most important issue. I care about all the other issues too but I am talking about this one now because McCain is the first as far as I can recall to say he wouldnt sign any bills with earmarks and I dont think he is lying just because you say so. If you are out to stand for whats right then you should agree with the idea of getting rid of earmarks. That doesnt mean you have to vote for McCain but he is the only one saying he wont sign a bill with earmarks. So I take it you arent voting for president at all? That will only help McCain in this case.

Actually I want you to vote along with me and the other people who still exercise this right.

Gusto

ah yes the ear marks the last couple of years .... for things like health care for poor kids and more funds for vets ..... trying to get things passed that Bush would normally veto. yes , corruption.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Guardsman Bass]

Based on the likelihood that the dems will have an even stronger hold of congress with the next election, Obama does have the apparent edge in achieving greater legislative accomplishments than McCain.

I would hope so. Obviously, this depends on the degree of Democratic domination in Congress; I doubt they'll get a filibuster-proof 60 Senate votes, but if they could just get at least 53 or 54 Senate votes, then they could reduce the problems the Blue Dog Democrats are probably going to cause Obama when he tries to do his major initiatives like health care and education.

I’m curious as to what people think Obama or McCain will actually accomplish, considering they will have to go through congress, as opposed to what the candidates are proposing to accomplish. Comparing the candidates on what is realistic might have people looking at the election in a different light.

Like I said, this depends on the edge the Democrats have in Congress come 2009. If they have an edge in both houses of Congress, then I could see Obama trying to get the rudiments for his health care plan in place, or at least beginning the negotiations on a health care bill. This assumes that he doesn't get ambushed by a major economic or foreign policy crisis.

If there is any Supreme Court justices about to retire, their replacements just might be the single biggest factor in the decision making process.

This is a big reason why anyone with even the slightest left-leaning tendencies should vote for Obama. Odds are that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Ginsburg are getting close to retirement, and if the Democrats can win Congressional control as well as Presidential control, then we can avoid the possibility of a truly conservative-dominated Court (although said Court would still be dependent on Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote, at least until he retires).

[Homer]

Obama... And the only party in our country that wallows in corruption, hatred, and complete bull **** is the Republican Party. They play to peoples ignorance. They bring God into every damn discussion, trying to liken their corrupt asses with poor folks who bust their *** for a living and sit in a Church pew giving out their last 5 bucks on Sunday. The Republican Party is the biggest joke in the history of the world. They are so corrupt it's not even funny.

An example of playing to people's ignorance: How long have Republicans been yackin' that they want to do away with abortion, which I would absolutely love if they did? They had the White House, Both Houses, and the Supreme Court, and did they overturn Roe v. Wade? Nope. Why? They need it as an issue to get elected.

The Republican Manifesto:

Hate Queers.

Kill The Mentally Ill.

Give Tax Cuts To The Rich.

Start A War To Get Reelected.

Fear Monger.

Lie.

Cheat.

Lie Some More.

Use God and Pervert His Words.

Visit a Prostitute on Sunday.

Cheat On My Wife on Monday.

Give Tax Cuts To The Rich.

The Democrats have their corruption - sure. But nothing rivals the Republican Party. Not even close.

Come on IrishAidan, don't sugarcoat your feelings...tell us how you truly feel

[Incorrigible1]

Hate Queers.

Queers, in your quoted context, wouldn't be capitalized.

BTW, do you hate queers, yourself? Your posting would certainly indicate that leaning.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Incorrigible1

[BlindMessiah]

Hate Queers.

The fact that you are calling a group of a certain sexual orientation queer says quite a bit about you. So all conservatives hate them right? Ok...

Kill The Mentally Ill.

I think it's absurd to say either side want to kill mentally ill. But being the pro-life party, the party that tried to save Terri Shiavo, I think it's even more foolish to say this.

Start A War To Get Reelected.

Bush did not start the war to get reelected. That's rediculous. The war may be wrong, and he may be a liar, but he didn't need Iraq to get reelected.

Fear Monger.

"If you vote for John McCain, you'll get 4 more years of Bush." What do you call that?

Lie.

Clinton lied under oath. His wife lied in a speech. Obama has distorted plenty of things. Politicians lie, nothing to do with party affiliation.

Visit a Prostitute on Sunday.

Spitzer was a republican?

Cheat On My Wife on Monday.

Cheat on my wife in the oval office...

The Democrats have their corruption - sure. But nothing rivals the Republican Party. Not even close.

Really...

[IrishAidan07]

Queers, in your quoted context, wouldn't be capitalized. And the rest of your question is answered below.

BTW, do you hate queers, yourself? Your posting would certainly indicate that leaning.

It would be capitalized if I were trying to draw attention to it. Like, say, if it were part of a mock manifesto. It's quite acceptable on a web-forum.

The fact that you are calling a group of a certain sexual orientation queer says quite a bit about you. So all conservatives hate them right? Ok...

First of all, I used that word to describe homosexuals intentionally. It wasn't a Freudian slip or a word I typically use to describe homosexuals. It's a word I took right from the mouth of Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul), a former conservative Republican. If you didn't notice, it was part of the mock "Republican Manifesto". So, the fact that you attempt to use that against me tells more about your debating skills than it does my feelings towards them. As to your rhetorical question, quite obviously not all conservatives hate homosexuals. I wasn't speaking about conservatives, but rather, Republicans; hence the big, bold letters: "Republican Manifesto." I don't for a minute believe the "conservatives" who, in general, encompass the Republican Party as we know it are true conservatives.

I think it's absurd to say either side want to kill mentally ill. But being the pro-life party, the party that tried to save Terri Shiavo, I think it's even more foolish to say this.

Foolish?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/09/tex...e.execution.03/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...d=439&scid=

And the list goes on. The majority of those 34 people were executed in states where the governor was a Republican; not all, but most.

Bush did not start the war to get reelected. That's rediculous. The war may be wrong, and he may be a liar, but he didn't need Iraq to get reelected.

I don't believe the "WMD" BS for a minute. If nothing else, it was to do with oil or revenge. Either way, equally wrong.

"If you vote for John McCain, you'll get 4 more years of Bush." What do you call that?

Candor? And weren't you the one that said in another thread you don't want "Bush III," referring to John McCain?

Clinton lied under oath. His wife lied in a speech. Obama has distorted plenty of things. Politicians lie, nothing to do with party affiliation.

That is a lie, so thank you for proving my point. During the Paula Jones deposition, which I'm sure you are referring to, the term "perjury" was thrown around awful liberally. "Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts."

There is quite a difference between lying, misleading, and evading. They asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, and he didn't. He had oral sex with her, which does not legally fall under the definition of sex, as the question was asked by Mr. Starr. Which was, as was defined by both sides, "For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Oral sex is clearly not mentioned. There has been a huge debate over this, and I've read both sides, and it's open to interpretation. One thing is certain, however, Clinton did not CLEARLY lie. He was no found guilty of it, remember. He struck a deal to get it over with, and case closed. But comparing one man against an entire political party shows how far you are grasping. The Republicans lie constantly and you know it. As for your bit about Obama, elaborate. As for the Clinton bit, perhaps she was confused. I don't know.

Spitzer was a republican? & Cheat on my wife in the oval office...

No, but that is why I made sure to include my bit about the Democrats at the bottom. But some Republicans that come to mind are: Newt Gingrich, Bob Livinginston, David Vitter, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dick Morris, JOHN MCCAIN, Rudy Giuliani, Dan Burton, Ted Haggard (with a man), Larry Craig, (attempting to get a man in an airport bathroom), and the list goes on. All of those Republicans I named either cheated on their wives or were caught with a prostitute. And yes, all of these individuals admitted to it. I didn't include slapstick, rumor, or hearsay.

Really...

Yes, really. The Republican Party, I say again, is the biggest joke in the modern world. They are liars, hypocrites, and downright evil b*******, in general. Are there good Republicans? Sure. Mike Huckabee, for one. Ron Paul, for two. But in general, most of them fit into the categories above.

Edited August 24, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Vampwitchenstein]

The Lesser of Two Evils; Obama.

Does it really matter? Aren't they all Reptilians anyway...?

[BlindMessiah]

The fact that you are calling a group of a certain sexual orientation queer says quite a bit about you. So all conservatives hate them right? Ok...

First of all, I used that word to describe homosexuals intentionally. It wasn't a Freudian slip or a word I typically use to describe homosexuals. It's a word I took right from the mouth of Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul), a former conservative Republican. If you didn't notice, it was part of the mock "Republican Manifesto". So, the fact that you attempt to use that against me tells more about your debating skills than it does my feelings towards them. As to your rhetorical question, quite obviously not all conservatives hate homosexuals. I wasn't speaking about conservatives, but rather, Republicans; hence the big, bold letters: "Republican Manifesto." I don't for a minute believe the "conservatives" who, in general, encompass the Republican Party as we know it are true conservatives.

Of course I knew what you were doing. It's still offensive language.

I think it's absurd to say either side want to kill mentally ill. But being the pro-life party, the party that tried to save Terri Shiavo, I think it's even more foolish to say this.

Foolish?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/09/tex...e.execution.03/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...d=439&scid=

And the list goes on. The majority of those 34 people were executed in states where the governor was a Republican; not all, but most.

x/34 doesn't represent every republican.

Bush did not start the war to get reelected. That's rediculous. The war may be wrong, and he may be a liar, but he didn't need Iraq to get reelected.

I don't believe the "WMD" BS for a minute. If nothing else, it was to do with oil or revenge. Either way, equally wrong.

Didn't say he didn't lie. I said he didn't lie to get reelected.

"If you vote for John McCain, you'll get 4 more years of Bush." What do you call that?

Candor? And weren't you the one that said in another thread you don't want "Bush III," referring to John McCain?

Well I used the term in reply to someone else, but yes. I do think they do have similar views. Truth has no bearing in fear mongering. Christians use fear mongering over hell to win converts. Whether or not their religion is true, it's still fear mongering. The same with McCain. Even though he is similar to Bush, it is focusing on your opponent's negatives to instill fear rather than your own positives to instill hope.

Clinton lied under oath. His wife lied in a speech. Obama has distorted plenty of things. Politicians lie, nothing to do with party affiliation.

That is a lie, so thank you for proving my point. During the Paula Jones deposition, which I'm sure you are referring to, the term "perjury" was thrown around awful liberally. "Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts."

There is quite a difference between lying, misleading, and evading. They asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, and he didn't. He had oral sex with her, which does not legally fall under the definition of sex, as the question was asked by Mr. Starr. Which was, as was defined by both sides, "For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

If I may call BS here. Oral sex is still sex, whether or not it reaches the dictionary definition. I think most anyone would agree.

Spitzer was a republican? & Cheat on my wife in the oval office...

No, but that is why I made sure to include my bit about the Democrats at the bottom. But some Republicans that come to mind are: Newt Gingrich, Bob Livinginston, David Vitter, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dick Morris, JOHN MCCAIN, Rudy Giuliani, Dan Burton, Ted Haggard (with a man), Larry Craig, (attempting to get a man in an airport bathroom), and the list goes on. All of those Republicans I named either cheated on their wives or were caught with a prostitute. And yes, all of these individuals admitted to it. I didn't include slapstick, rumor, or hearsay.

Really...

Yes, really. The Republican Party, I say again, is the biggest joke in the modern world. They are liars, hypocrites, and downright evil b*******, in general. Are there good Republicans? Sure. Mike Huckabee, for one. Ron Paul, for two. But in general, most of them fit into the categories above.

You're missing my whole point. I don't support the republican party... but for the same reasons I don't support the democrats. Neither party is interested in the common good of mankind. It'd be just as easy to poke fun at democrats and make a manifesto. Reason being: our system has become a joke. The blame does not rely solely on republicans, nor democrats. It lies on every elected official who has abused the system.

[IrishAidan07]

Of course I knew what you were doing. It's still offensive language.

So is the word "Republican" but that is still allowed.

x/34 doesn't represent every republican.

True. Which is why I said throughout my bit, numerous times, "in general." There are quite a few Republicans I like and believe to be honorable men. But most of them, I believe, are crooks.

Didn't say he didn't lie. I said he didn't lie to get reelected.

Well, I think he fear-mongered to get reelected. Perhaps I should have said that instead.

If I may call BS here. Oral sex is still sex, whether or not it reaches the dictionary definition. I think most anyone would agree.

I think it's sex, too. But not legally. He didn't technically lie.

You're missing my whole point. I don't support the republican party... but for the same reasons I don't support the democrats. Neither party is interested in the common good of mankind. It'd be just as easy to poke fun at democrats and make a manifesto. Reason being: our system has become a joke. The blame does not rely solely on republicans, nor democrats. It lies on every elected official who has abused the system.

I'm not missing your point. I know you aren't a Republican. I can tell by some of the things I've read you wrote. But my point is that its the Republican Party that is weakening the fabric of this nation with their lies and corruption. Sure, I could create a manifesto for the Democrats, but it would be harder. Democrats, I think, at least try to help the common man, clearly after helping themselves. But the Republicans I don't think even try. They lie to the common man to help themselves and the rich. That's what I believe.

Edited August 24, 2008 by IrishAidan

[IrishAidan07]

And personally, I once thought Ron Paul was a wacko. But after listening to him a little more, I wouldn't mind if he was elected president. I think the type of change he supports (reverting back to Constitutional principles) is real change. Obama I think is change too, but I think it's more of the same. Hard to explain. I just think we should go back to the way the Founding Fathers intended. We haven't tried that yet, at least not in my lifetime. Obviously because I'm a liberal I am concerned with the welfare of those less fortunate, and I actually heard Ron Paul say that you can't just let those people fend for themselves. That coupled with some other things really turned me into a supporter of his for awhile. Now it's a lost cause, I feel.

Edited August 24, 2008 by IrishAidan

[BlindMessiah]

And personally, I once thought Ron Paul was a wacko. But after listening to him a little more, I wouldn't mind if he was elected president. I think the type of change he supports (reverting back to Constitutional principles) is real change. Obama I think is change too, but I think it's more of the same. Hard to explain. I just think we should go back to the way the Founding Fathers intended. We haven't tried that yet, at least not in my lifetime. Obviously because I'm a liberal I am concerned with the welfare of those less fortunate, and I actually heard Ron Paul say that you can't just let those people fend for themselves. That coupled with some other things really turned me into a supporter of his for awhile. Now it's a lost cause, I feel.

Yes, I'm a fan of Ron Paul. We need to turn back to our constitutional foundations. He was never viable though. The media and his own party decided he was a wacko and that he was not allowed to be president.

[IrishAidan07]

Yes, I'm a fan of Ron Paul. We need to turn back to our constitutional foundations. He was never viable though. The media and his own party decided he was a wacko and that he was not allowed to be president.

Yeah, that's a shame.

[ninjadude]

If I may call BS here. Oral sex is still sex, whether or not it reaches the dictionary definition. I think most anyone would agree.

What most anyone thinks and what is in the dictionary do not really apply in the court room. It is a world unto itself. If you read the posters quote, both sides agreed to a definition. And that is what was testified to. You can cry about it all you want, but that is how courts work. Most people have no idea of how our legal system really works.

[AROCES]

What most anyone thinks and what is in the dictionary do not really apply in the court room. It is a world unto itself. If you read the posters quote, both sides agreed to a definition. And that is what was testified to. You can cry about it all you want, but that is how courts work. Most people have no idea of how our legal system really works.

The bottom line is oral sex has been understood by all that it is a sexual engagement, or having sex with someone.

Then Billy boy got in trouble, so he simply put a new meaning to his act and knows his worshipers will do the arguing for him.