"Re-create 68"

tvb wrote:LOL at using world net daily as a source. WND - famous for suggesting that immigration policy should be in favor of white's only, that soy turns kids gay, and that 9/11 was caused by God upset at the morality of the US and NYC in general. Do you also cite the Weekly World News?

Please point out what is untrue in the article. Should I use the great reporting of the NYT?

It was Florida state law that attempted to keep those ballots from being counted. The article you cite even says that and nowhere in there does it include claims that the Democratic party was responsible for writing Florida State law which originally mandated the exclusion of those ballots.

tvb wrote:It was Florida state law that attempted to keep those ballots from being counted. The article you cite even says that and nowhere in there does it include claims that the Democratic party was responsible for writing Florida State law which originally mandated the exclusion of those ballots.

The dems went to the Fl supreme court to over rule the decision. Every vote must count? Come on, especially the military fighting overseas for our freedom to vote. You should be ashamed.

Ashamed? What in the world for? For agreeing with others here that the current regime is a bunch of buffoons? That's nothing to be ashamed of - that's simply common sense.

And again, show me where in your fine source article where it says anything about the Democratic party. It's not there.

Speaking of being ashamed, this is really shameful:

The day Bu$h took office
Real GDP growth: 4.09% over 8 years.
Today, after 7 years of Bu$h
Real GDP growth: 2.65% over 7 years.

The day Bu$h took office
National debt: $5.7 trillion
Today, after 7 years of Bu$h
National debt: $9.2 trillion

The day Bu$h took office
Budget surplus: $431 billion
Today, after 7 years of Bu$h
Budget deficit: $734 billion

The day Bu$h took office
Americans in poverty: 31.6 million
Today, after 7 years of Bu$h
Americans in poverty: 36.5 million

The day Bu$h took office
Median household income: $49,163 ($6,000 increase in 8 years)
Today, after 7 years of Bu$h
Median household income: $48, 023 ($1,100 decrease in 7 years)

Yeah I really liked NAFTA....thanks BJ boy. I don't care about stats that have no bearing on my life personally. I lived through Carter as our World collapsed before our eyes, I spent many nights camped out at gas stations on EVEN days. I watched in horror as militant Muslims held our citizens hostage for 444 days. Our country was ridiculed and shamed by bunch college students, under a Democrat President. I saw how Reagan reformed this country. I had a mortgage of 13% under Democratic rule, I have a 5% rate now. I saw the Internet Bubble burst, I see record unemployment. I watch how the Libs keep crying about Bush and OIL!, BullSh!t, that’s a cop out and anyone with an IQ above a apple knows full well Wall Street is driving up the costs of OIL. It's not the Shareholders that are crying, it's in most everyone’s 401K or other retirement accounts, they pay 40% on their profits. Exxon alone pays more into the treasury than 1/2 of all the citizens of the USA pay in personal income tax.
Then we have.....DRUM ROLL PLEASE......Last week, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic run House passed H.R. 5351, a bill that will jack up the prices that you and I pay at the pump for gasoline through the imposition of an $18 billion dollar tax increase!
Then they turned around and EXEMPTED HUGO CHAVEZ'S STATE-RUN OIL COMPANY, CITGO, FROM THE TAX!
Does anyone think for one second that the cost of gas is not going to go up because of this? Right smack in the Working mans wallet.
I'd be wicked ashamed, actually I am, for Liberals.

tvb wrote:Ashamed? What in the world for? For agreeing with others here that the current regime is a bunch of buffoons? That's nothing to be ashamed of - that's simply common sense.

And again, show me where in your fine source article where it says anything about the Democratic party. It's not there.

"Gore troops surrender on military ballots"
http://archive.salon.com/politics/trail ... index.html

Sorry I couldn't find a more left leaning publication. Please research before you post unless of course you don't think Algore is part of the democrat party.

Hell, I lose my electricity for 26 hrs and you guys get all nasty with each other!

TVB, all of those dates where you want to blame Bush for the economic problems we have, lack of GDP growth etc,,,

Are all overshadowed and completly explained by this date:

ON 09/11/01 THE UNITED STATES WAS ATTACKED AND OVER 2000 CIVILIANS LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE HEART OF NEW YORK CITY. THE ENEMY THAT BILL CLINTON REFUSED TO TAKE CARE OF, BROUGHT THE WAR TO OUR COUNTRY.. WE WERE AT WAR AND ARE STILL AT WAR.

George W Bush did the most important thing: he took the war back to their land, and preserved our homeland and for the most part our economy..

The damage done by Bill Clinton's NAFTA has cost me my retirement job, my retirement and my financial future.. I live in the state that is taking the brunt of the negative financial effects of NAFTA, and the effects of too strong unions who keep strangling the company they work for till the company goes bankrupt or moves out of state..

Greg L

C'mon Greg, you're much too smart to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA. That's a GOP idea all the way.

Then why did he push it so hard once he got in office?? He wheeled and dealed it into passing.. If he was for the middle class like the democrats claim and the unions claim, then he would have vetoed it or let it die...

Greg L

I just read several supporting articles on this, but my scanner is dead, and they are on paper.

GL.\\

Oh please. Clinton and Gore both were cheerleading NAFTA. Maybe they were triangulating and didn't really like the idea themselves, but Clinton advocated it, Gore pushed for it, and President Clinton signed it. The Clinton administration also worked to strike most favored nation trade status with China, finally getting it enacted in 2000. Most recently, Hillary (along with Obama) supported the Peru FTA, in the midst of an free-trade axious democrat primary season no less.

Perhaps these were all "republican" ideas, but President Clinton and Senator Clinton both have a remarkably pro-trade track record that can not be dismissed by simply tagging it as a republican agenda. You're too smart for that, aren't you?

If superdelegates are suppose to do the "will of the people" somebody forgot to tell John Kerry & Teddy Kennedy. Both are superdelegates & endorsed Obama but Clinton won 56 percent of the vote to Obama's 41 percent in Massachusetts.

BTW Spitzer (the love gov) is/was a superdelegate.

Guys please start a "NAFTA" topic. Thanks.

At least they came out with their support for Obama before the primary in their state. I have no real problem with superdelegates going against their state's voters when they are out front about it. When they wait until the convention or the delegate math to get worked out through primaries, so they can "be important" and get courted by the candidates (including campaign contributions from the presidential campaigns, which just smacks of unethical behavior), well I have no respect for that. And if they end up deciding to vote against their state's voters, then they earn some active enmity in my book. Some may genuinely make the late decision against the grain on principle, but they should have been engaged enough to stand on that principle before their state's voters or at least announce on the same night.

Kerry & Kennedy's support for Obama didn't sway the voters of Ma. which was their intent. Even these two politically powerful superdelegate's couldn't sway the primary. We the people said no to John & Teddy's endorsment, but they know
they won't get hurt politically by endorsing Obama, they could endorse Elmer Fudd & get re-elected.