Unofficial Tex Murphy

Actually, you did. You just added more depth to your deciding factor.

No! A thousand times no! Voting yes, no or present on someone else's bill is one thing. Writing new legislation, including the process of organizing other senators to team with you to write it, and then trying to secure twenty to thirty other senators (including senators from the opposition party) to sign on as sponsors for your bill is VERY different process altogether.

Do you consider the act of voting to be roughly the same as running for political office, raising money for your campaign, going door-to-door to persuade voters, traveling around to make stump speeches, and assembling an army of volunteers for your campaign?

That's the difference between a voting record and trying to get a bill passed.

If you insist on arguing that they are the same, I will not even attempt to argue with you.

I read somewhere that in Illinois Obama had a Republican co-sponsor over 80% of his bills. That looks a lot different.

Is this coming from the same person who wasn't satisfied with more detailed voting data? Think about it. This gives far less information then I originally gave you. First of all, it is unusual not to have at least one sponsor from the opposing party. There are, typically, ten to twenty sponsors for a bill. One Republican sponsor means an average of about 15%. Compare that to my number, 13%. Now compare that to McCain's 55%.

You're argument that they might be "Let's name a post office" bills is desperate and wrong. I'll leave it to you to go to McCain's website and look at the bills with his name on them. You will learn more that way.

Still I don't think those numbers are accurate in making a judgement. It really depends on what the bill is.

As far as voting record goes, the 'depends' is built in. You see, there are Democratic and Republican organizations that analyze every single vote. What the bill is about, how important the bill is, how it relates to the particular ideology of each party and how each senator voted. So this analysis was all accomplished in order to get those figures. The analysis was in terms of 'official' Democrat and Republican platforms. If that's not good enough for you and you want to analyze it with a lotus_j platform, then you are free to go ahead and do it yourself. The numbers I gave you were not raw numbers. They reflect well-known party values.

Obama hasn't been in the Senate long enough to compare with McCain accurately.

Obama and McCain are both running for President of the United States. Both of their political careers are as U.S. Senators. It is primarily their function as U.S. Senators that qualifies them for their candidacy.

Well, what do we elect people to the Congress for? To write legislation and to vote on legislation. So how do we do we determine what kind of job they are doing or have done? We look at the kinds of bills they write, the kind of bills that vote for (or against,) and how well they play with the other boys.

You are suggesting that we shouldn't even consider Obama's Senate experience in evaluating his presidential potential. What in God's name do you suggest? The way he combs his hair? His nice smile. He11, I've got better hair than he does. Vote for me!

As far as corruption in politics goes, you're speaking to the choir.

I'm not voting for any of the evils. Party number 3 come on down!!

DrPaul wrote: As far as corruption in politics goes, you're speaking to the choir.

Wow. So you're saying that my caring about SPECIFICS of bills and making my judgement that McCain is not right as President of the United States is wrong, because I should be looking at some broad picture?

He voted for War in Iraq. He has stated that we'd stay there another 100 years if need be.

Those two things cancel out everything else he may have done. He is disqualified in my mind because of it. Period.

Nothing anyone can say about how he'd heal the divide between party lines means anything to me. For one I know it's a load of BS. He's been around 20 years in the Senate and has done nothing to heal the divide there. He has a reputation of being someone you can work with. That doesn't mean he's some Mesiah who can heal the BS that is out there.

You are right about one thing:

The political divide is BAD.

I'm voting for Obama because he's not for War in places we shouldn't be in. I have no other choice. There isn't a 3rd party candidate out there.

As for will Obama help with that Divide or not? I'm guessing he can't hurt it. He may help it. He definitely has the right background for it when you look at his entire life.

Plus he did better in school than McCain.

Wow. So you're saying that my caring about SPECIFICS of bills and making my judgement that McCain is not right as President of the United States is wrong, because I should be looking at some broad picture?

Where do you get this stuff?
I told you that the information that you presented (at least one Republican co-sponsor on 80% of Obama's bills) was much less specific information than the information that I had offered. I also explained that the figures I gave included careful analysis and specifics of each bill.

He voted for War in Iraq. He has stated that we'd stay there another 100 years if need be.

So did everybody. Are you aware that the vote was unanimous?

Since Iraq means so much to you. are you aware that in July, while negotiations were going on for a withdraw of U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama met with the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and asked him to delay the withdrawal until after President Bush leaves office? When Zebari refused to delay the negotiations, Obama went to the U.S. commanders and tried to persuade them to delay until after Bush leaves office. They declined.

Nothing anyone can say about how he'd heal the divide between party lines means anything to me.

Spoken like a true open mind. I guess I just won't say anything else to you.

You know, I try not to take my own conspiracy theory about the dangers of democracy seriously, but world events keep on fueling it with strange events and arguments no one else seems to notice!

Just last night, on the national debate, John McCain said the Permanent Security Council was ineffective, and he would rather build, and I quote, a "League of Democracies" to deal with world affairs. This league, still according to him, would include France, UK, Germany, and every other democracies that share his values.

First of all, where did that come from? No seriously, where?

Most importantly, that would be a hell of a step towards my much feared institutional dictatorship. I swear, this system is looking more and more like Skynet, and developed an existence and an agenda of its own!

What's the quote again? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you?

Yeah

Paranoid people are just the one's with all the facts.

-Fred

DrPaul wrote: So did everybody. Are you aware that the vote was unanimous?

WHAT?!?!?! The vote wasn't unanimous. I know Ron Paul didn't vote for it as well as other people. They had 70 some odd percent of the vote. That isn't everyone.

Since Iraq means so much to you. are you aware that in July, while negotiations were going on for a withdraw of U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama met with the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and asked him to delay the withdrawal until after President Bush leaves office? When Zebari refused to delay the negotiations, Obama went to the U.S. commanders and tried to persuade them to delay until after Bush leaves office. They declined.

Which must be why my cousin and everyone else came home. Wait. We're not withdrawing from Iraq. There is no plan and there definitely was no negotiation. This is just a lie. Don't believe it. That is like believing the story that Reagan and Bush negotiated a deal for the hostages to NOT be returned until their first day in office during the election. It's a neat conspiracy theory. Doesn't make it true.

McCain is old school. He's part of the problem.

The vote wasn't unanimous.

You're right. My mistake. There were a number of resolutions to authorize spending for the war which were unanimous. But the 2002 Iraq War Senate Resolution was 77 in favor with 21 against. However, Barack Obama was not one of the senators voting against.

There is no plan and there definitely was no negotiation. This is just a lie.

Don't take my word for it. How about the words of Obama's national security spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi? I quote:

"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a 'Strategic Framework Agreement' governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office."

That was in July. So Obama was indeed asking the Iraqis to delay at least six months before coming to an agreement for a troop draw-down.

DrPaul wrote:

You're right. My mistake. There were a number of resolutions to authorize spending for the war which were unanimous. But the 2002 Iraq War Senate Resolution was 77 in favor with 21 against. However, Barack Obama was not one of the senators voting against.

Of course not. He wasn't in office! Was he against it according to a speech he gave before the vote in the state of Illinois? Yes.

Don't take my word for it. How about the words of Obama's national security spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi? I quote:

"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a 'Strategic Framework Agreement' governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office."

That was in July. So Obama was indeed asking the Iraqis to delay at least six months before coming to an agreement for a troop draw-down.

That's just SMART. Why make an agreement that would INCREASE forces in Iraq (the Bush plan) when in 7 months or so a New President may change it all?

Now if you're going to try and convince me that Bush wants to leave Iraq when he says "we will stay there as long as it takes," and McCain says "we will stay there 100 years if necessary," then you're not being realistic.

Where is the Oil McCain claimed we'd receive by "liberating Iraq," in 2002? Iraq isn't sending us any! McCain repeated that statement in 2003, and 2004. Where is it?

I've changed my mind about another thing too. The biggest problem in America ISN'T the bipartisan BS, it's that America won't accept the fact that all the problems of today aren't the fault of Bush, Congress, or anyone else in the Government but OUR OWN FAULT.

Why?

Because we elected the idiots who've destroyed our economy, limited our rights, and made America a dirty word in foreign countries. Everyone who voted. It's all their faults. No matter whom they voted for. As long as we keep having a choice of a lesser of two evils for an office, it's OUR FAULT.

No one currently in office should be re-elected. Look at our economy. When fear and intimidation are used to shape public opinion we're the problem. We should be better than that.

It's funny how, when Obama wants to delay the troop draw-down, all of a sudden it's the SMART thing to do.

Now, if only Obama had said, "We will stay as long as it takes," then maybe you could suddenly see how SMART it is to say that. Or, to put it another way, how DUMB it is NOT to say that, regardless of your intentions. But you are too blinded by hatred to see and I am afraid you will never see. That's too bad.

I don't think it is possible to carry on a rational discussion with all your hatred. A few posts back I said I wouldn't say anything else to you. I should have kept my promise. I'm outa here. Please just let this post die (after your obligatory statement that I'm the one who's all screwed up and not you, of course.)

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya. I just heard the bill to save the economy thingy they were trying to legislate, the help-care package deal, it didn't pass. Due to the republicans voting against it. George Bush is disappointed, it says here.

So I'm thinking... did they vote against it... on PURPOSE? To really muck things up? I sense evil schemery and plottage!

My spider-sense be tinglin' an' $#it

-Fred

It wasn't just the republicans Fred. 95 dems voted against it too. Thank goodness, because it was very bad plan.

DrPaul wrote:It's funny how, when Obama wants to delay the troop draw-down, all of a sudden it's the SMART thing to do.

Now, if only Obama had said, "We will stay as long as it takes," then maybe you could suddenly see how SMART it is to say that. Or, to put it another way, how DUMB it is NOT to say that, regardless of your intentions. But you are too blinded by hatred to see and I am afraid you will never see. That's too bad.

I don't think it is possible to carry on a rational discussion with all your hatred. A few posts back I said I wouldn't say anything else to you. I should have kept my promise. I'm outa here. Please just let this post die (after your obligatory statement that I'm the one who's all screwed up and not you, of course.)

What is rational? Calling someone names and then saying "I'm outa here?" For such an educated man it's interesting to me that you can't hold a rational discussion with someone who isn't angry or full of hate. Cynical I might be. Full of hate? Nope. I'm just educated. I've researched things and formed an opinion. Where is the hate and irrationality in my arguments?

I haven't made my decision on Obama yet. I just know I won't vote for McCain. I've made that judgment. The man is incredibly stupid, easily bought, and is like a fanboy when you put a star near him. These aren't opinions. They are factual. McCain didn't have the grades to get into the Naval Academy. He only got in because his father was an Admiral. McCain finished 5th to last in his class at the Naval Academy. McCain has shown on plenty of occasions the ability to change his mind on a subject when a company spends money on him. As to the last bit, that's pretty much public knowledge.

My saying there is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise, is not a statement of ignorance like you take it. It's a statement that means: I've researched it and nothing can overcome his flaws. He was for war in Iraq. He helped misinform the public and other members of the Senate. He was loud in his opinion on the war. He helped spread what have since been shown as lies and helped cover up the truth that there were no WMDs. He was wrong. He was the biggest proponent in the Senate for De-Regulation. Have you seen today's stock market? He was wrong.

I'm also not going to fall for regurgitated misinformation. You continue to imply that Bush wants to leave Iraq and that Obama doesn't want him to. This is baloney. There has been no talks to withdraw from Iraq. There has been talks of INCREASING presence not in reducing presence. There are talks of another Surge (see pay off) and troop increases. There are no talks of a withdrawal. It is TRUE that Obama asked for those talks to be suspended. That is factual. What is misinformation is the implication that those talks were to withdraw.

If there was a plan to withdraw from Iraq by Bush it would be all over the news. The fact is he and McCain have said the exact opposite. So I'll believe them. When Bush says "we're close and need to increase our presence," back in June I take that to mean increase troops not decrease.

We have no reason to be in Iraq. We went there to stop the manufacturing and hoarding of WMDs. There were none. We went there to stop Saddam. He lost his head. We're done. Mission accomplished. Why are we still there? OIL. What haven't we got out of this yet at all? OIL. Nothing can convince me that losing any American life and BILLIONS of tax payer money is worth being there. If we're worried that the country will be in chaos due to our actions, maybe we should have thought of that before destroying their country. It's inevitable so better now than later.

The problem in our country right now is the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S FAULT. We voted in the people that have tried hard to destroy our country. We're too stupid. We allow fear to control us. We allow a Media to misinform us.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The 9/11 report said so. Yet, in 2002 polls said that nearly 60% of Americans thought he did (same time we invaded Iraq). In 2003 the same polls were around 55%. In 2004 even after the report came out, over 50% thought he had something to do with it. In 2007 polls showed 46% believe it.

As long as we are as a public whole misinformed, we will never be able to elect a good government. We're the problem. We need to be opening up political debate about the people being wrong and not calling politicians stupid. Anyone can do that as I proved above.

Right, and with that said.... who's up for ice cream?

-Cub. =o)

P.S. Fred, is it also no surprise that the market suffered the biggest fall in history (even more so than the one that triggered the depression) within hours of the bill not being passed? To all those millions more who will be facing foreclosure in the coming weeks; this ice cream is for you too!

Yeah. We got all flavours.

Cub, pass me the vanilla with the chocolate chips in it. That's my favorite.

-Fred