Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nice try.. there are things that Bush DID stand for that I agreed with... the economic spending platform was not one of them...
You see.. my principles are to vote for the candidate that best matches up to my stances on my scorecard... for example, in the most recent election McCain scored favorable on 8 stances out of 20 that I had on my scorecard... Obama scored a whopping ZERO (even worse than Gore or Kerry did on my scorecards for those elections)... unfortunately, as a conservative, I have not had a candidate score a passing grade of 60% in any presidential election since I started choosing my votes in this way... hate to admit that when I was a young and naive 19, I did not look into things as well and just blindly cast a vote for Dukakis... learned the scorecard method as a soldier in 92
Again... YOUR PERSONAL feelings and conclusions do not make them fact, peepers
What you have posted is complete, unsubstantiated bullshit
No you didn't. You misrepresented and twisted information - which in your worldview does qualify as sources. But that doesn't work for rational grown ups.
You don't see the PEW research study as a valuable opinion? There are millions of websites out there that say the same thing, millions of articles. Do you not REMEMBER the elections of 2000 and 2004? I do. And it was ALL about the evangelical vote.
War costs may total $2.4 trillion
Nice try.. there are things that Bush DID stand for that I agreed with... the economic spending platform was not one of them...
You see.. my principles are to vote for the candidate that best matches up to my stances on my scorecard... for example, in the most recent election McCain scored favorable on 8 stances out of 20 that I had on my scorecard... Obama scored a whopping ZERO (even worse than Gore or Kerry did on my scorecards for those elections)... unfortunately, as a conservative, I have not had a candidate score a passing grade of 60% in any presidential election since I started choosing my votes in this way... hate to admit that when I was a young and naive 19, I did not look into things as well and just blindly cast a vote for Dukakis... learned the scorecard method as a soldier in 92
What did you agree with Bush on? I'm curious.
Then you clearly didn't bother to look at third party candidates. You really shouldn't complain about what candidates are offered up each election season if you're willing to play sheep and go along with it.
Ugh, it's useless to argue with stupid corporatists. You guys cannot see beyond your expected yet never forthcoming "trickle". What you ultimately want is to bankrupt this country and turn it into a true third world country. If you keep doing the bidding for the 1% that control 90% of everything, and no one stops you, that is exactly what you will get. Mark my words. Don't believe me? Many others can see the writing on the wall. This was in my Irish online news today.
Is America becoming a third world country? | New, Next, Now! | IrishCentral
Again... YOUR PERSONAL feelings and conclusions do not make them fact, peepers
What you have posted is complete, unsubstantiated bullshit
That can be backed up by reliable sources, numerous books, etc. RIIIIGHT.
I have looked at third party candidates in the past... including, GASP, Perot... a 3rd party candidate would have to knock my socks off to get a vote, as the chances for a 3rd party candidate winning at this time are between slim and none (closer to none)
In 2000, Bush was only 4th in my scorecard when I was getting ready for the primary.. hell, I even had Forbes higher.. as for what he did line up on me with...
Foreign policy (remember this was pre-9/11 and ran on a platform of getting away from huge troop uses in non-war situations, etc... a policy with simple workings with allies and not being the world's money pot)
Charity (having a stance that charities, not government, should be the major player in 'help' and calling for incentives for charitable contribution)
Education (mainly on testing standards and some sort of change in how the fed had standards for education... though did not agree with tying it to any federal funding)
Experience (actually having experience as a chief executive as governor)
Taxation (cutting taxes... though not to a flat tax that I have supported to some time)
Strengthen military/national defense (remember I am a vet that lived thru the hell that Clinton put on military support)
He basically got a 5.5/20 with taxation being a half a point since he had cuts but not equalization of tax rate... if I am not mistaken, Gore scored a 3 with things like (believe it or not ) closing law loopholes, reducing federal workforce, and some of his stances on education...
hell, I would have to go back and look in my old computer files specifically... but if I am not mistaken, that is ~about how it came out
Ugh... it's useless to argue with blinded people who only support selective equal treatment by government, as well as a governmental policy of wealth redistribution
Ugh... it's useless to argue with blinded people who only support selective equal treatment by government, as well as a governmental policy of wealth redistribution
Wealth redistribution has been going on since the 70's. To the top. Middle class wages have been stagnant for all of that time and are now in the decline, meanwhile the working poor are being pushed into full-on poverty. Meanwhile, the uber rich get richer and richer. I am not blinded to anything. I read your drivel, contemplate it, and nope - still just GOP talking points.
I have looked at third party candidates in the past... including, GASP, Perot... a 3rd party candidate would have to knock my socks off to get a vote, as the chances for a 3rd party candidate winning at this time are between slim and none (closer to none)
In 2000, Bush was only 4th in my scorecard when I was getting ready for the primary.. hell, I even had Forbes higher.. as for what he did line up on me with...
Foreign policy (remember this was pre-9/11 and ran on a platform of getting away from huge troop uses in non-war situations, etc... a policy with simple workings with allies and not being the world's money pot)
Charity (having a stance that charities, not government, should be the major player in 'help' and calling for incentives for charitable contribution)
Education (mainly on testing standards and some sort of change in how the fed had standards for education... though did not agree with tying it to any federal funding)
Experience (actually having experience as a chief executive as governor)
Taxation (cutting taxes... though not to a flat tax that I have supported to some time)
Strengthen military/national defense (remember I am a vet that lived thru the hell that Clinton put on military support)
He basically got a 5.5/20 with taxation being a half a point since he had cuts but not equalization of tax rate... if I am not mistaken, Gore scored a 3 with things like (believe it or not ) closing law loopholes, reducing federal workforce, and some of his stances on education...
hell, I would have to go back and look in my old computer files specifically... but if I am not mistaken, that is ~about how it came out
You're missing the point. If you want real change, you stop voting for candidates because you think they have no shot but because you care about your principles in terms of what you believe.
So you basically voted for Bush for nothing really concrete. Sure, he made a good number of vague statements that he ended up totally flipping on, but nothing that makes you go "Wow, this guy has a plan."
War costs may total $2.4 trillion
And here we have your proof - it's SPECULATION.
The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a "very speculative" projection, though it's not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute.
As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
The figures in the graph in the OP are as of 2010. Please learn to read for comprehension.
Ugh... it's useless to argue with blinded people who only support selective equal treatment by government, as well as a governmental policy of wealth redistribution
Wealth redistribution has been going on since the 70's. To the top. Middle class wages have been stagnant for all of that time and are now in the decline, meanwhile the working poor are being pushed into full-on poverty. Meanwhile, the uber rich get richer and richer. I am not blinded to anything. I read your drivel, contemplate it, and nope - still just GOP talking points.
War costs may total $2.4 trillion
And here we have your proof - it's SPECULATION.
The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a "very speculative" projection, though it's not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute.
As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
The figures in the graph in the OP are as of 2010. Please learn to read for comprehension.
ahh yes the same specualtion used in the projected Obama defecit charts that are so popular among the right.
Tell us again how Obama's plan to improve the economy has worked out.
