So....ummmm....back to some issues. I found this. It's a report from Citizens Against Government Waste. It shows how senators voted on issues of pork barrel spending in fiscal year 2007 and then over his/her career in the senate. The results are given in percentages and are given from the perspective of the taxpayer. Therefore if a senator has a 55% rating it means that he voted "for" (in the interest of) the taxpayers.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/....pdf?docID=3242

Our candidates/VP candidate (Palin does not vote in the US Senate so there is no data here) stand as follows:

McCain

2007 100%

Lifetime 88%

Biden

2007 0%

Lifetime 22%

Obama

2007 10%

Lifetime 18%

Interesting. Specific Bills are listed in the report.

CAGW is hardly non-partisan. Alan Keyes used to be it's president.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...overnment_Waste

CAGW is hardly non-partisan. Alan Keyes used to be it's president.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...overnment_Waste

It's not non-partisan at all. Few of those so-called "think tanks" are. It shows McCain with 100 percent where other reports show that he supports pork barrel for his districts with the same energy as any other senator supports it for their state. Earmarks are such a joke of an issue. Every highway is an earmark, a lot of defense contracts are in earmarks, NASA researching spending is in earmarks. If you look at university budgets, a lot of the research dollars comes from earmarks.

Senators support earmarks for other states because they want other state senators to support their own earmarks.

Studies like the one above are selective about issues they elect to include in their ratings.

On issues, I could not stand the Contract for America, but the reason Newt was so successful is that it was a focused issue-based plan.

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by Jess

CAGW is hardly non-partisan. Alan Keyes used to be it's president.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...overnment_Waste

Most of the data found online is not non-partisan. I followed a link here that took me to the "Marxist Online Resource". I am merely providing data that I find as I look up specific issues. You can count or discount the source as you see fit. I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm just taking you guys along for the ride in my quest to make my Decision 2008. hehe

This particular report cites specific bills, the vote and the record. That's all I'm providing.

^^^^ You're right, Jess.

Interestingly enough, when I looked at the report, there were no Dems that got above the "threshold" of 55%. That's when I did some checking of my own.

Most of the data found online is not non-partisan. I followed a link here that took me to the "Marxist Online Resource". I am merely providing data that I find as I look up specific issues. You can count or discount the source as you see fit. I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm just taking you guys along for the ride in my quest to make my Decision 2008. hehe

This particular report cites specific bills, the vote and the record. That's all I'm providing.

NP, wicca. I don't mind going for a ride with ya!

I say that because for MONTHS all the media could talk about was Obama's "radical" minister. Then talk of him being "exotic". Then (I know I keep mentioning this) The New Yorker cover. Then the Repubs questioning his faith and his not wearing a [!@#$%^&*] flag pin. How is this relevant to anything?

I mean, enough already. Any voter who would be gullible enough (and they exist) to swallow all of this bullshit has been swayed. And not by the issues. By the media and the opposing party running with anything that hits the news wire that's the least bit controversial.

Now they are saying that personal issues are off limits? GMAFB.

I pretty much agree. I know in the case of the New Yorker cover they say it was satire and as to whether it worked as satire or not depends on what percentage of people took it that way. But the overall point is that people that are now saying we should be looking at the issues, etc., weren't saying that when Obama was being raked over the coals and they probably won't say it if he gets raked again either.

The Repblicans have free reign to spread lies via the media because their lies get airplay every time a news outlet repeats it, even if the outlet tries to be balanced and points out the other side's view. People don't always hear the whole story and since the news tends to focus on the negative, they hear mainly the inflammatory parts. People listening to the news' version of the lipstick comment will probably only hear that the Republicans were outraged over Obama's comment. People who are familiar enough with the comment are more likely to put two and two together and understand that he was attacking McCain's policies and not his running mate. It's now up to Obama and Biden to recognize that the use of any word associated with women may result it hysteria by the Republicans and the media by extension.

Ugh, I'm listening to political radio right now at work, and the host is BLASTING Obama for the lipstick comment, and won't let anyone who tries to bring up McCain's comment speak.

USATODAY compares the candidates on energy issues

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...nterstitialskip

So I sent him an IM during the show, which he read and attempted to blast me for. I said this:

Ryan [10:29 A.M.]: Harry I have to ask...how is Obama's comment about putting lipstick on a pig any different than when McCain said it?

Harry [10:31 A.M.]: Is it because Palin in a speech recently made that joke about hockey moms and pit bulls?

Ryan [10:32 A.M.]: McCain himself used the exact same phrase to describe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan just last year. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," McCain said in October of 2007, describing Clinton's universal health care plan when she was running in the Democratic primary.

Ryan [10:32 A.M.]: He also, in February 2007, used the phrase to describe conflict over a resolution on the Iraq War. "It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don't," McCain said at the time. "You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it's still a pig, in my view."

Harry [10:32 A.M.]: Because Obama was clearly speaking about Palin and you kow it ... and his audience knew it and roured. McCain was speaking about an issue ... not a person

Harry [10:32 A.M.]: you know that

So right after that exchange, he reads our convo on the air, and says I tried to get him. I said:

Ryan [10:33 A.M.]: I wasn't trying to get you. Just trying to understand how associations and true intentions are assumed in one case, and completely different in the other. Had you read the entire quote, you would see he was referring to McCain/Palin talking about change, but Sarah Palin personally. Even though you attempted to mock and ridicule what I said, I still love your show and respect your opinion. However you might want to look in the mirror when you talk about the "left media bias" when you yourself, have become less "open minded" and "independent" as you claim, and more of a Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly type personality. That is said with no disrespect, just an observation.

Harry [10:35 A.M.]: Thank you very much. I disagree with you. My attitude may seem like that, but it's not true.

Ryan [10:36 A.M.]: It's alright. My friends and I discuss politics a couple times a week and we all take different stances, but agree to respect each other in the end. I'm not criticizing but you have shown a lack of respect towards your callers who don't share your opinion.

Harry [10:38 A.M.]: Duely noted.

Ugh, I'm listening to political radio right now at work, and the host is BLASTING Obama for the lipstick comment, and won't let anyone who tries to bring up McCain's comment speak.

I can give this sort of thing credit for my taking news with a grain of salt attitude which has been building over the years. It made me more keenly aware of how not even half the story is being put out there.

Except for when I'm tuning in for specific guests, talk shows that are just about the opinion of the host doesn't really work for me. Generally on radio shows the hosts only like to talk to people who share their opinions or they make fun of callers who don't.

The Republicans are doing a fantastic job painting Obama as someone to be feared and now to boot he is a sexist. I don't know quite how being a sexist jibes with the image of his angry militant wife but maybe she doesn't care as long as he's not that way with her.

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by Wales2004

LOL! I love you Obama supporters and how quickly you back up your opinions, and debunk the naysayers arguments. Well done. How silly for Mc Cain to get so bent out of a shape from a comment he once used himself. LOL!

USATODAY compares the candidates on energy issues

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...nterstitialskip

wiccachick, I've tried to revert the discussion here back to the issues. It doesn't work.

When I ask how Obama will give tax rebates to companies that "invest" in America and on the other hand raise corporate, capital gains, income, and windfall profits taxes, I get ignored. By the way, now Obama says he may not raise taxes initially. Wostwebmaster brought up the question, why not? No one answered.

If I bring up Obama's voting record and stance on abortion, it gets ignored.

When you point out that Obama "says" he wants to ramp up millitary action in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but has also said he wants to reduce millitary spending, it too gets ignored.

These are issues that are important to me, and I am trying to develop an understand as to where Obama supporters stand on these issues. No one answers. Maybe we have not only have differences of opinions in the candidates, but also which issues are important.

The Repblicans have free reign to spread lies via the media because their lies get airplay every time a news outlet repeats it, even if the outlet tries to be balanced and points out the other side's view.

I guess Democrats cant spread lies. This is only a Republican trait. What about Hillary and the media attacking Obama during the primaries? Remember that all of the juicy details about Obama's past did not come from Republicans, but from his fellow Dems. I also would like to point out that it was the Hillary camp that "painted" Obama as "exotic", so if you want to blame someone, blame them.

I ask you though, who is spreading lies about Palin? It's not Republicans.

People who are familiar enough with the comment are more likely to put two and two together and understand that he was attacking McCain's policies and not his running mate. It's now up to Obama and Biden to recognize that the use of any word associated with women may result it hysteria by the Republicans and the media by extension.

It most certainly is up to Obama/Biden to realize that (if they want to win the election). First not picking Hillary and now attacking Sarah Palin. They are not making many friends out of many many women in this country.

No one can tell me that Obama is a niave person. He knew full well who he was talking about. As did the crowd, his comments were met with thunderous applause and laughter. The crowd put two and two together and realized the correlation that he was drawing with "lipstick" and an animal. I dont care how old the comment is, Obama should have realized how the comment would be preceived. He was playing to the crowd and will now have to pay for the backlash.

I will agree that McCain making the comment is a little hypocritical, but when he made his comment most agreed that he was not talking about Hillary, only her healthcare plan.

Hillary had not recently made a joke about herself being a pitbull with lipstick. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by Casey008

^^^^

Thanks for the USA Today article, wicca. I haven't been on this thread since the beginning, but I haven't seen anyone not wanting to discuss issues or being ignored.

No one can tell me that Obama is a niave person. He knew full well who he was talking about. As did the crowd, his comments were met with thunderous applause and laughter. The crowd put two and two together and realized the correlation that he was drawing with "lipstick" and an animal. I dont care how old the comment is, Obama should have realized how the comment would be preceived. He was playing to the crowd and will now have to pay for the backlash.

I will agree that McCain making the comment is a little hypocritical, but when he made his comment most agreed that he was not talking about Hillary, only her healthcare plan.

Hillary had not recently made a joke about herself being a pitbull with lipstick. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Wow.....so because the crowd laughed and "put two and two together" that means Obama was referring to Palin?

I guess had he said "if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck" then he would have been making racist remarks about Ducks?

McCain was "obviously" referring to Hilary when he mentioned lipstick, because Hilary wears lipstick. If I were a woman, I would be offended.

I mean seriously, wow....

*note, that was me getting on my "left-wing conspiracy agenda soapbox*