Cheney accuses Russia of Brutality in Georgia?!

[jreeves]

I'm sure he would treat each situation differently. Least it's not something along the lines of this.

YouTube - Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Something of substance against McCain personally? No I respect the man for his time as a POW, cancer survivor, and of course serving his country.

McCain doesn't have an independent record, least not anymore. I love how Republicans are saying this man is a Maverick against his own party, he's not anymore because he wouldn't of got the nomination otherwise.

He voted with Bush this % of the time:
In 2001: 91% of the time
2002: 90% of the time
2003: 91% of the time
2004: 92% of the time
2005: 77% of the time
2006: 89% of the time
2007: 95% of the time

That results in voting with Bush: 89.2% of the timeLeast according to this: Media Matters - AP "FactCheck" distorted Dems' claim that McCain voted with Bush "90 percent of the time"

And this: FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?

He doesn't sound like no Maverick to me.

Oh and his record against earmarks?

McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin - Los Angeles Times

An Old Earmark of McCain's Surfaces | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Think Progress McCain Falsely Claims He Has ‘Never Asked For A Single Earmark Or Pork Barrel Project’ For His State

View attachment 5797

And one last thing on the "Maverick" myth:

MilkandCookies - Daily Show: John McCain: Reformed Maverick

Now go, and never darken my towels again.

So he voted for Bush on alot of issues as did the Democrats....That doesn't prove anything.

While Obama has voted the party lines 100% of the time.

 

[Modbert]

So he voted for Bush on alot of issues as did the Democrats....That doesn't prove anything.

While Obama has voted the party lines 100% of the time.

Have you conceded your point about earmarks then?

There's a difference between alot and 90% of the time on voting issues.

Obama has voted 100% of the time on party lines according to you. Are you saying it was the Democrats who messed up this country?

Because I recall a Republican controlled White House for eight years and a Republican controlled Congress for six of those eight years.

 

[jreeves]

I'm sure he would treat each situation differently. Least it's not something along the lines of this.

YouTube - Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Something of substance against McCain personally? No I respect the man for his time as a POW, cancer survivor, and of course serving his country.

McCain doesn't have an independent record, least not anymore. I love how Republicans are saying this man is a Maverick against his own party, he's not anymore because he wouldn't of got the nomination otherwise.

He voted with Bush this % of the time:
In 2001: 91% of the time
2002: 90% of the time
2003: 91% of the time
2004: 92% of the time
2005: 77% of the time
2006: 89% of the time
2007: 95% of the time

That results in voting with Bush: 89.2% of the time

Least according to this: Media Matters - AP "FactCheck" distorted Dems' claim that McCain voted with Bush "90 percent of the time"

And this: FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?

He doesn't sound like no Maverick to me.

Oh and his record against earmarks?McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin - Los Angeles Times

An Old Earmark of McCain's Surfaces | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Think Progress McCain Falsely Claims He Has ‘Never Asked For A Single Earmark Or Pork Barrel Project’ For His State

View attachment 5797

And one last thing on the "Maverick" myth:

MilkandCookies - Daily Show: John McCain: Reformed Maverick

Now go, and never darken my towels again.

Citizens Against Government Waste: Earmark Requests 2007

McCain, John S. (R-AZ) Did not request earmarks

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW's mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government. Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, CAGW is the legacy of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission.

A little more credible than leftist blogs aye?

 

[jreeves]

Have you conceded your point about earmarks then?

There's a difference between alot and 90% of the time on voting issues.

Obama has voted 100% of the time on party lines according to you. Are you saying it was the Democrats who messed up this country?

Because I recall a Republican controlled White House for eight years and a Republican controlled Congress for six of those eight years.

I am saying that both Republicans and Democrats have messed up this country, Bobo...excuse me I mean Robert. Mccain tends to vote his beliefs most of the time. While Obama votes party all of the time. There is a big difference...

 

[Modbert]

Citizens Against Government Waste: Earmark Requests 2007

McCain, John S. (R-AZ) Did not request earmarks

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW's mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government. Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, CAGW is the legacy of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission.

A little more credible than leftist blogs aye?

So he didn't request earmarks for 2007? I'm talking about in his history, not one year.

And why is it every blog or website I find is a leftist blog but a article from Fox News is a okay for you?

 

[Modbert]

I am saying that both Republicans and Democrats have messed up this country, Bobo...excuse me I mean Robert. Mccain tends to vote his beliefs most of the time. While Obama votes party all of the time. There is a big difference...

Your admitting to admit that Politicans of all parties have messed up this country, hurrah!

Trust me, I don't believe the Democrats are perfect. Far from it actually since I don't believe that Harry and Nancy don't have a backbone to save their lives.

McCain may of USE to vote with his beliefs. Obama may vote party all of the time but it's a scary thought if 95% of what Bush said/thought in 2007 is what John McCain believes in.

 

[jreeves]

So he didn't request earmarks for 2007? I'm talking about in his history, not one year.

And why is it every blog or website I find is a leftist blog but a article from Fox News is a okay for you?

ThinkProgress....hardly nonpartisan

 

[Modbert]

ThinkProgress....hardly nonpartisan

I'm talking overall here, not just this. Not every website out there is so leftist or hell bent on taking out republicans as some would make it seem.

By the way, your not trying to make it seem that I'm saying that every source I find is leftist are you? I'm just stating what you and a few others seem to think.

 

[jreeves]

Your admitting to admit that Politicans of all parties have messed up this country, hurrah!

Trust me, I don't believe the Democrats are perfect. Far from it actually since I don't believe that Harry and Nancy don't have a backbone to save their lives.

McCain may of USE to vote with his beliefs. Obama may vote party all of the time but it's a scary thought if 95% of what Bush said/thought in 2007 is what John McCain believes in.

What's a scary thought is over-generalization something Democrats have decided to try. Besides we all know how effective the 2007 Congress was...

“The American people are looking at this Congress and saying, where’s the legislation?” Mr. McConnell said. “What are you going to do to make America better?”


One thing that apparently won’t be voted on is a new call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials for “misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, did not seem ready to jump into that fray.

“The president already has the mark of the American people that he’s the worst president we’ve ever had, and I don’t think we need a censure resolution in this Senate to prove that,” said Mr. Reid on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

While House Democrats are still plotting some anti-war votes before breaking for August, Senate Democrats seem content to let things stand where they are until September, after Republicans last week filibustered a troop withdrawal proposal.

“We want all of the members of the Senate to go home having cast their votes either for the president’s policy or against it, speak to their voters and return, reassess the situation in September,” said Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, also appearing on CNN.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/in-congress-a-rush-to-legislate/

So Democrats tried about a million ways to include troop withdrawls to spending bills....MCcain voted against them....Wow that's a big revelation....

 

[Modbert]

What's a scary thought is over-generalization something Democrats have decided to try. Besides we all know how effective the 2007 Congress was...

“The American people are looking at this Congress and saying, where’s the legislation?” Mr. McConnell said. “What are you going to do to make America better?”


One thing that apparently won’t be voted on is a new call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials for “misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, did not seem ready to jump into that fray.

“The president already has the mark of the American people that he’s the worst president we’ve ever had, and I don’t think we need a censure resolution in this Senate to prove that,” said Mr. Reid on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

While House Democrats are still plotting some anti-war votes before breaking for August, Senate Democrats seem content to let things stand where they are until September, after Republicans last week filibustered a troop withdrawal proposal.

“We want all of the members of the Senate to go home having cast their votes either for the president’s policy or against it, speak to their voters and return, reassess the situation in September,” said Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, also appearing on CNN.
In Congress, a Rush to Legislate - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

So Democrats tried about a million ways to include troop withdrawls to spending bills....MCcain voted against them....Wow that's a big revelation....

He just didn't agree with him on that and you know it.

Besides, I already said Harry Reid has no spine. If he did, he would of impeached Bush or tried to by now.

 

[jreeves]

He just didn't agree with him on that and you know it.

Besides, I already said Harry Reid has no spine. If he did, he would of impeached Bush or tried to by now.

Well maybe besides just trying to post an over-generalized label on somebody, you could point out which positions of Bush that he supported that were on the wrong side of the issue. But I'm sure the label is a whole lot easier to try and link someone with an unpopular President than actually showing it, huh?

 

[Modbert]

Well maybe besides just trying to post an over-generalized label on somebody, you could point out which positions of Bush that he supported that were on the wrong side of the issue. But I'm sure the label is a whole lot easier to try and link someone with an unpopular President than actually showing it, huh?

I could point which positions of Bush he supported, 95% of them in 2007 and 89.2% of them since 2001. There's good odds you could throw a dart at a list of issues since that time and whatever you hit, they agreed on.

Besides, what's this whole "wrong side of the issue" since what we both consider "wrong side of the issue" is different in many aspects. It would only lead to more arguing then now.

We're already going in circles because no matter how much McCain votes with Bush you will say he is a Maverick and that Obama votes with party lines 100% of the time. Those are lines from you that keep getting repeated.

This is really pointless since neither of us is going to change the other's minds.

 

[jreeves]

I could point which positions of Bush he supported, 95% of them in 2007 and 89.2% of them since 2001. There's good odds you could throw a dart at a list of issues since that time and whatever you hit, they agreed on.

Besides, what's this whole "wrong side of the issue" since what we both consider "wrong side of the issue" is different in many aspects. It would only lead to more arguing then now.

We're already going in circles because no matter how much McCain votes with Bush you will say he is a Maverick and that Obama votes with party lines 100% of the time. Those are lines from you that keep getting repeated.

This is really pointless since neither of us is going to change the other's minds.

Like I said the labels are alot easier, good choice!

 

[Modbert]

Like I said the labels are alot easier, good choice!

Labels are easier but I could really get a whole bunch of links for you to call leftist and spin in a fashion to suit you. That be just a big waste of time though.

I could have pictures of McCain, Palin, Bush, and Cheney all laughing at the middle class, saying how they all tricked and fooled everybody while partying with their friends at the oil company and you'd still support them to the death.



Honestly jreeves, you don't even want to admit that this argument has been and will only continue to go in circles? Or is that what you want to do?

Also, I do research into the issues many times when somebody on here says something. Do you the same? Or do you just want that person to get a bunch of links supporting their statement or they are wrong?

 

[DiveCon]

Labels are easier but I could really get a whole bunch of links for you to call leftist and spin in a fashion to suit you. That be just a big waste of time though.

I could have pictures of McCain, Palin, Bush, and Cheney all laughing at the middle class, saying how they all tricked and fooled everybody while partying with their friends at the oil company and you'd still support them to the death.



Honestly jreeves, you don't even want to admit that this argument has been and will only continue to go in circles? Or is that what you want to do?

Also, I do research into the issues many times when somebody on here says something. Do you the same? Or do you just want that person to get a bunch of links supporting their statement or they are wrong?

maybe you should avoid the radical leftist sites
and stick to major media or try and find a Fox News report, or a WSJ, IBD.

those might be a lot harder to be dismissed
i know when i look for things i try to find a source that isnt so easy for leftists to dismiss

 

[Modbert]

maybe you should avoid the radical leftist sites
and stick to major media or try and find a Fox News report, or a WSJ, IBD.

those might be a lot harder to be dismissed
i know when i look for things i try to find a source that isnt so easy for leftists to dismiss

Ok, if you guys want to call certain sites leftist then I'll call Fox News a biased right-winger news outlet.

It's BS for you to sit there and accuse these sites of being biased but think Fox News is "fair and balanced." Unless you actually drink that much kool-aid that you believe that BS now a days.

I know when I look for things, I try to find a source that is least credible or makes sense that is backed up with facts/more links/or evidence.

 

[jreeves]

Labels are easier but I could really get a whole bunch of links for you to call leftist and spin in a fashion to suit you. That be just a big waste of time though.

I could have pictures of McCain, Palin, Bush, and Cheney all laughing at the middle class, saying how they all tricked and fooled everybody while partying with their friends at the oil company and you'd still support them to the death.



Honestly jreeves, you don't even want to admit that this argument has been and will only continue to go in circles? Or is that what you want to do?

Also, I do research into the issues many times when somebody on here says something. Do you the same? Or do you just want that person to get a bunch of links supporting their statement or they are wrong?

I think you could ask Care4all(I would say is left leaning) and a few others, I have admitted that Republicans are far from perfect. If you show that you are right, then I will admit it. But simply offering a label to prove something, is a far cry from evidence of anything. Then your attempt to say that I call all of your links leftist is completely wrong. I just don't see how 'ThinkProgress' is anything but a leftist attack engine. I will post from those type of sites but I try to refrain from using them as 'evidence'. Now question is do you want to debate the issues or labels?

 

[Modbert]

I think you could ask Care4all(I would say is left leaning) and a few others, I have admitted that Republicans are far from perfect. If you show that you are right, then I will admit it. But simply offering a label to prove something, is a far cry from evidence of anything. Then your attempt to say that I call all of your links leftist is completely wrong. I just don't see how 'ThinkProgress' is anything but a leftist attack engine. I will post from those type of sites but I try to refrain from using them as 'evidence'. Now question is do you want to debate the issues or labels?

I don't know why your making a big deal of this one site I used. If you notice, most of the time I tend to use youtube as people can see the evidence for themselves with their own two eyes. I try to avoid blogs or news articles unless I can't.

I'm always debating the issues. I think I least deserve some credit for continuing to stand my ground on what I believe is right and my points.

I'm just not spazzing off saying things that just don't make sense. You may think I am on some things because it's all a matter of opinion on issues.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't know why your making a big deal of this one site I used. If you notice, most of the time I tend to use youtube as people can see the evidence for themselves with their own two eyes. I try to avoid blogs or news articles unless I can't.

I'm always debating the issues. I think I least deserve some credit for continuing to stand my ground on what I believe is right and my points.

I'm just not spazzing off saying things that just don't make sense. You may think I am on some things because it's all a matter of opinion on issues.

when something is on youtube, it isnt youtubes work
its the person that actually uploaded it
so while some things posted to youtube are total bullshit, other things can be right on

 

[DiveCon]

Ok, if you guys want to call certain sites leftist then I'll call Fox News a biased right-winger news outlet.

It's BS for you to sit there and accuse these sites of being biased but think Fox News is "fair and balanced." Unless you actually drink that much kool-aid that you believe that BS now a days.

I know when I look for things, I try to find a source that is least credible or makes sense that is backed up with facts/more links/or evidence.

again, i'll tell you, FNC isnt all that right wing
they do have right wing comentators but their reporting isnt
they just dont spin the news the way the LAMEstream media does