Subtle Political Messages?

“1. Go to Google
2. Enter the keyword Failure into the search box
3. Click the I'm Feeling Lucky link, which essentially takes you straight to the first hit that Google finds for the search.

Discuss.
last edited: 8/16/06 3:48:51 PM”

“well, its about as subtle as violin with a bag full of hammers”

“"Miserable Failure" works as well.

While you're at it try "liar".”

“Using goodsearch.com (which uses the yahoo engine) Bush is only #2 and Michael Moore is #3.”

“I'm pretty sure it's not Google that does that. But damn it's funny!”

“lol that is pretty funny.”

“Seeing as failure is not used anywhere on that page that ranking is due to massive backlinking using the word failure in the link.”

“yep someone was having themselves some fun twisting the search engines' data gathering.”

“We should celebrate George W. Bush's accomplishments during the first 6 years in office, which include:

Designated more wilderness lands, which is at an all time high.

Created the largest marine sancuary in the world.

The air is the cleanest it has been since the EPA has been measuring air quality.

25 million Afghans have been freed from tryanny.

30 million Iraqis have been freed from tyranny.

Brought freedom and democracy to the middle east.

The U.S. economy has kept expanding and is at an all time high GNP.

Unemployment is lower now than for the averages in the last 30 years.

More Americans now own homes than at any time in the Nations history, and minority home ownership is at an all time high.

Two terrorist supporting regimes, Iraq and Afghanistan, are now terrorist fighting allies.

Killed or captured over 3/4 of al Qaeda's leadership.

Not a single terrorist, despite a lot of trying, has been successful in killing a single American on U.S. soil since 9-11-01.

Got Kadaffi to give up their nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.

Bush has gotten the entire world community to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear bomb ambitions.

Bush has turned the entire region to actively push to get North Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions and missile systems.

Got the Patriot Act made permanent.


And, cut taxes.”

“Bush's No Child Left Behind helped push the ACT college entrance exam scores to the biggest increase in 20 years, and recorded the highest scores of any class in the last 15 years.”

“plug ins.”

“Not a single terrorist, despite a lot of trying, has been successful in killing a single American on U.S. soil since 9-11-01

as opposed to the thousands every year before 9/11”

“remember LPs and how they would skip?



A Google bomb or Googlewash is a certain attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous or political intentions. Due to the way that Google's algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page all use consistent anchor text. A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner. Google bomb is used both as a verb and a noun. The phrase "Google bombing" was added to the New Oxford American Dictionary in May 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb”

“tap tap tap
Is this thing on?”

“I believe It's a wiring problem”

“"Designated more wilderness lands, which is at an all time high."

But destroyed the roadless initiative. So the actual amount of wild areas has decreased.

"Created the largest marine sancuary in the world."

This is an area off the coast of Hawaii that had zero threat of development and was already under federal protection. So, this was good, but cost no money and was effectively meaningless.

"The air is the cleanest it has been since the EPA has been measuring air quality."

This, of course, is a completely subjective statement. Where was this measured? How many inspectors completed the tests? Were contradictory studies buried? Is this a lagging indicator based on the environmental successes of previous administrations?

"25 million Afghans have been freed from tryanny."

The Taliban is as active as it has been since the initial war and grows stronger. Osama remains free. The troops needed here were needlessly siphoned to fight in Iraq.

"30 million Iraqis have been freed from tyranny."

110 civilian political deaths per day is the average in Iraq. Bush: "Give them liberty and give them death."

"Brought freedom and democracy to the middle east."

Why do I have this vision of Jon Lovitz saying this?

"The U.S. economy has kept expanding and is at an all time high GNP."

And it has to grow at record rates to have any hopes of keeping up with the rapidly increasing public debt. BTW, this is another good thing.

"Unemployment is lower now than for the averages in the last 30 years."

Again, this is a completely subjective number. Why 30 years and not 20? Or 10? And why use averages? Maybe Bush doesn't compare well to Clinton? Maybe Bush has only recently entered positive territory on the job creation front?

"More Americans now own homes than at any time in the Nations history, and minority home ownership is at an all time high."

Again, this is great news. There is, of course, some concern about massive increase in rates of creative financing. Saying that Bush is responsible for interest only loans and ARMs is like saying Al Gore created the internet.

"Two terrorist supporting regimes, Iraq and Afghanistan, are now terrorist fighting allies."

Please do some Google searches to see the Iraqi Prime Minister's positions supporting Hezbollah.

"Killed or captured over 3/4 of al Qaeda's leadership."

As if al Qaeda is a static, traditional organization. Perhaps someone made a list in the Pentagon in 2001. And maybe we've gotten 3/4 of those people. I'm sure it makes that list maker very happy. I'm not sure that it accurately reflects the dynamic and growing nature of that movement.

"Not a single terrorist, despite a lot of trying, has been successful in killing a single American on U.S. soil since 9-11-01."

Anthrax anyone? Los Angeles airport shooting anyone? Be aware also that after 9/11, terrorist incidents around the world actually increased. And also be aware that these terrorists use these acts for political gain. Bush is a terrorist's dream. Why stop him now?

"Got Kadaffi to give up their nuclear weapons program without firing a shot."

Except for allowing a dictator who kills his political dissidents and is responsible for the Pan Am bombings back into the warm embrace of the world community. Maybe we also should have forgiven Saddam for killing the Kurds?

"Bush has gotten the entire world community to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear bomb ambitions."

Oh, boy! We got the French to do something, finally! Wow! But we just lost a proxy war with Iran in Lebanon. I'd bet they are really scared now.

"Bush has turned the entire region to actively push to get North Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions and missile systems."

Please note that N. Korea just fired off a bunch of missiles and we did NOTHING.

"Got the Patriot Act made permanent."

This might be a good thing. But when did the existence of a law ever stop the Bush administration from doing anything?”

“skip, skip, skip”

“I'm broken. Please help:)”

“Reformed Lurker,

Bush's modernization of the roadless initiate allows for better local input and will allow more people to enjoy the wilderness.

You agree that his Bush's creating the largest marine sancuary in the world is good. How do you find fault that this will not cost the taxpayer anything?

The objective EPA measurements and records they are required by law to keep shows that the air is the cleanest. You falsely state this is subjective.

The Taliban is still out of power in Afghanistan, and the country still is a democracy.

Iran has had less civilian deaths since Bush freed that country than under Saddam Hussein's control. Perhaps you favor dictorships like Sadda. I think the world is better off with Saddam in prison.

You are right in pointing out the sharp increase in terrorist incidents world wide. Bush's policies have protected Americans 100%. The Anthrax incident was traced to an American source and is widely believed to be a domestic crime.

Reformed Lurker would prefer Khadaffi with nuclear bombs surrounded by the U.S. Navy instead of the current non-nuclear status quo. Anyone for Khadaffi exploding a nuclear bomb in New York?

What would you propose that Bush should have done when the long range missle North Korea fired off exploded within a minute?

At least we both agree that it is good that the Patriot Act is permanent.”

“In 1940 my Uncles best friend told of how his family voted against FDR. In 1942 they sat and watched as the US Navy was set up in Pearl Harbor....his father hated FDR, HE Hated FDR and felt FDR was dragging us into war in Europe.

In 1944 my Uncle's best friend won a Silver Star in battle in France. Until his death he HATED FDR but he also saw that our nation was engaged in a life or death struggle and Politics have to stop when the nation is in danger.

I would say there are few if any LibSoc members of society who hold even a SMIDGEN of that honor.”

“I once did a Google image search for the word "dumbass" and my own damn picture came up....

”

“Hey, Prosecutor! You are a good guy. And you give thoughtful responses. So, thanks!

Some of your responses place us in the "agree to disagree" category. And that's fine.

I will respond to a few.

"Bush's modernization of the roadless initiate allows for better local input and will allow more people to enjoy the wilderness."

I guess this is a personal preference thing. But I do think that, generally, more vehicular access to wild areas tends to diminish their wildness.

"You agree that his Bush's creating the largest marine sancuary in the world is good. How do you find fault that this will not cost the taxpayer anything?"

Hey, I'm all for things that don't cost much money. But I think that this was really a token gesture with no political cost or opposition. It was meant to mask the lack of other, more difficult environmental decisions. And, given that these waters were already federally protected, fairly inaccessible and not under any development threat made it virtually meaningless.

"The objective EPA measurements and records they are required by law to keep shows that the air is the cleanest. You falsely state this is subjective."

This administration - and all administrations, really - have a habit of bending facts to support a particular political viewpoint. One study is publicized. Another is released on a Friday night at 7PM or on Thanksgiving Day. New, more positive datapoints are added. Others are removed. But if it's true, then, God Bless George Bush and Bill Clinton and all the presidents who made it possible.

"The Taliban is still out of power in Afghanistan, and the country still is a democracy."

This depends a bit on how you view "out of power." Afghanistan has a very weak central government. Large sections of that country are still controlled by the Taliban. More of it would be "democratic" if we had more troops on the ground.

"Iran has had less civilian deaths since Bush freed that country than under Saddam Hussein's control. Perhaps you favor dictorships like Sadda. I think the world is better off with Saddam in prison."

I have no problem if they take Saddam and tie him to the back of a pickup and drag him all around Baghdad. But the current average daily death rate for civilians (outside normal deaths) is 110. That equates to 40,150 per year. The initial invasion - depending on your source - was between 15,000 and 100,000 dead. And the civilian death rates are increasing. We could probably argue all night long about the pre/post death rates and what are credible sources of info. on this, but let's just say that this is not an issue on which to hang a defense of the Iraq War.

"You are right in pointing out the sharp increase in terrorist incidents world wide. Bush's policies have protected Americans 100%. The Anthrax incident was traced to an American source and is widely believed to be a domestic crime."

You don't comment at all about the Los Angeles airport shooting. And that was just one incident that I pulled from the top of my head. 3 dead there.

"Reformed Lurker would prefer Khadaffi with nuclear bombs surrounded by the U.S. Navy instead of the current non-nuclear status quo. Anyone for Khadaffi exploding a nuclear bomb in New York?"

My disagreement was not with the current state of affairs in Libya. In fact, U.S. management of Libya has been a bright spot Reagan through Clinton through Bush. But Qaddafi is and was a dictator who killed Americans via terrorist attack. And the Bush administration has normalized relations with him. It was a diplomatic success. And we know that the sanctions regime against Saddam also worked to end his nuclear program. Instead, we let our "friends" in Pakistan give safe harbor to Osama and develop their arsenal of nukes.

"What would you propose that Bush should have done when the long range missle North Korea fired off exploded within a minute?"

Bush didn't have many options. All of the troops are stuck in Iraq. There is no credible threat of force against Iran or North Korea. He put the United States in a position in which we can do nothing about North Korea's missile program.

"At least we both agree that it is good that the Patriot Act is permanent."

The best defense against terrorism is good police work, as evidenced by this week's London investigations. Much of the Patriot Act is probably good in this regard.

Let's convict the terrorists, throw them into supermax and make them wait for the 70 virgins.”

“The Los Angeles airport shooting was an isolated criminal incident unrelated to terrorism against the U.S. according to the Los Angeles Mayor and the FBI. One of the three dead was the criminal.

If you want to characterize a designation of a marine santuary as "virtually meaningless", that is your right. The action was universally praised by the liberal media and environmentalists.

Afghanistan has free elections. The elected government still checks your passport upon entering the country, not the Taliban. To say the Taliban still controls the country is like saying the Klu Klux Klan still controls the south.

Reformed Lurker, you claim Bush could not do anything to North Korea because "All our Troops are stuck in Iraq" Actually only about 133,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq out of about 680,000 soldiers and marines on active duty, 342,918 in the Army National Guard and 204,134 in the United States Army Reserve. 32,700 of those soldiers and marines are already in Korea. Are you proposing Bush should invade North Korea for a failed missile test?”

“"The Los Angeles airport shooting was an isolated criminal incident unrelated to terrorism against the U.S. according to the Los Angeles Mayor and the FBI. One of the three dead was the criminal."

Yup. An Egyptian stands by the counter for El Al and starts shooting. Not a terrorist attack at all. This is one of the problems with this whole war on terror. It was not convenient to anyone to call that shooting a terrorist attack. So everyone just called it a crime and forgot about it. Let's call a spade a spade.

"If you want to characterize a designation of a marine santuary as "virtually meaningless", that is your right. The action was universally praised by the liberal media and environmentalists."

I think that the creation of the marine sanctuary was a good idea. But it's the kind of thing that a president who is weak on the environment does to cover his ass. This is a minor criticism against Bush. We have bigger fish to fry than the environment at this point.

"Afghanistan has free elections. The elected government still checks your passport upon entering the country, not the Taliban. To say the Taliban still controls the country is like saying the Klu Klux Klan still controls the south."

Here's a link that describes how the Taliban ran the government out of two southern towns in July and how the Taliban works freely through much of southern Afghanistan. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-17-taliban_x.htm

BTW, Afghanistan is a winnable war and the troops there are doing great work. There should be more troops there, even if it means a draft.

"Reformed Lurker, you claim Bush could not do anything to North Korea because "All our Troops are stuck in Iraq" Actually only about 133,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq out of about 680,000 soldiers and marines on active duty, 342,918 in the Army National Guard and 204,134 in the United States Army Reserve. 32,700 of those soldiers and marines are already in Korea. Are you proposing Bush should invade North Korea for a failed missile test?”"

There is a reason why we have had thousands of troops stationed in South Korea since the 1950s. That war never technically ended. And I think that we did have a credible threat of force operating against N. Korea until the multiple wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror.

Wars cost money. They cost troops. They suck up political energy and opportunity. The old axiom was that our military should be able to fight two major regional wars simultaneously. Well, we've got that already and then some. That's why we encourage Israel to take on Hezbollah/Iran in Lebanon rather than pressuring Iran ourselves. And that's why North Korea can feel justifiably safe doing whatever it pleases.

Also, a response doesn't have to be an invasion. We could have done some large scale military maneuvers nearby. We could have blockaded their waterways. We could have done a lot of things. But we had too much going on in Iraq and ignored it.

One of my major arguments with Bush is that he doesn't use sufficient force in Iraq or Afghanistan. The troop levels that you cite are a bit misleading because you can't have most troops in that country permanently. We cycle them out so that they can have wives, kids, and lives.

If there is a surplus beyond that, it's an even more damning statement about the president. We are currently shifting troops from much of Iraq into Baghdad in a last ditch hope of controlling that city. It's a triage approach that even our commanders there admit will leave other areas of the country in worse shape.

If we have so many extra troops, why don't we send them to Iraq so that we can control both Baghdad AND the countryside.

Or is Bush too weak-kneed to do that?”

“You peeps need to get out more.
Politics isn't everything.”

“Well Reformed Lurker, you mentioned multiple times that Bush should use greater military force in three different areas of the world. The Democrats want to use no force. The choice is clear. Support Bush, because he is going in the right direction.”

“Thanks Stovie! :)

Prosecutor!

I am in a bit of a dilemma, no doubt. But I think that the Republican Party doesn't have any credibility. For the only time in my life, I agree with Assad in Syria that there is no real hope for positive change in the Middle East until Bush (and the political mix that he represents) is gone.

So, one part of me is anti-incumbent. The biggest problem is the political logjam we find ourselves in and ANYTHING that breaks it is good. The Iraq War Debacle, the stagnant war on terror and the stalled Israel/Palestinian issue are all corollary to the main problem of a United States leadership that is adrift.

Of course, the other part of me believes strongly that, although I didn't initially support the War in Iraq, that we have to see it through.

And I believe that there are Democrats who have taken moderate war positions who COULD provide a fresh start in the Middle East.

And be aware that a Democratic President or Marginal Democratic majority in either the House or Senate is likely to be checked heavily by the institutional strength of the Republican Party.

So, you won't get a crazed, liberal government. You'll get a check on the out-of-control neocons.

Oh, finally, I don't necessarily believe the Peace Democrats. I think that once they get into power, they'll rethink their peace positions a la' Nixon and the pullout from Vietnam.”

“Reformed Lurker, do what I do. Don't vote for the party. Vote for the best person.

You condem the entire Republican Party because George Bush has not excercised his military muscle enough for you. Vote for the person who is more fiscally conservative, and vote for the person who is more of a hawk on the war on terrorism. And I will join you in not voting for George Bush for President again.”

“Last Tuesday, I voted for a Republican who was the best person for my local Congressional seat, Democrat or Republican.

But the money required to win a seat greatly diminishes the individual abilities and choices of individual candidates.

We live in a time of party loyalty, especially on the Republican side.

I would argue that we only infrequently vote for an individual in any of these races. For the most part, we are voting for parties.

And I think it is naive to view an individual Congressional race or Presidential contest in isolation. That one seat, even the president, is just one cog in the wheel.”

“I wish I could get out more.”

“Hey, Bear, I just feel that this is the most important issue that we've faced in my lifetime. Sorry if I'm passionate about it.”

“Please. No need to apologize. Especially to me!”

“You have two choices:

1. Vote for the best person.

2. Vote for the worst person.



I will always take choice number one.”

“"I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid! I know best! You're stupid!"”

“Nigal,

I like Prosecutor because he (I hope I'm right on that) gets me to think. He doesn't personally attack the person making the post. He doesn't seem to reject a position without a response of some depth.

So, I may not agree with everything that Prosecutor writes, but I respect and learn from him.

And I grew up in a family where we would debate kind of like this. Throw your best stuff out. Everyone else slams back. The ideas that make it through are the best ones.

If you don't like that, go do something else.”

“Prosecutor!

I think that there are several considerations to look at when voting.

1) What does that person appear to stand for? What are their current ideas? What is their history? This is most of what we get in elections today. It's easily transferred to TV.

2) What is the political climate in which that candidate runs? Localities and Congressional districts have particular demographics that change a candidate. In Michigan, for instance, almost every candidate supports the auto industry. Sometimes the personal feelings of the candidate, however, are different from the position that they are forced to take in a particular district or situation. This is important when the deals are made.

3) How will that candidate's stated or unstated beliefs work within a political system? If you have a government that leans heavily to the right and you are a moderate, the best vote might not be for a moderate candidate. The government will be somewhere between hard right and moderate.

However, if you vote for someone who is hard left, they'll make a deal with the hard right and hopefully end up somewhere in the middle - the position you actually want.

None of these races are run in isolation. My current Congressman, Joe Schwarz, is a moderate Republican. He speaks Bali-Indonesian. He's a former CIA operative. He's just about the perfect kind of guy for the times. But he's not a party line Republican. The party purity enforcers - Club for Growth, etc. - came in and took him out in the primary because he doesn't always vote with the Republican majority.

Do I think that the new guy - Tim Walberg - is going to be able to vote any way other than party line for the next two years? Not a chance. A vote for him was a vote for a party, not an individual.”

“The most important consideration in a candidate is honesty and integrity. It is a diservice to vote for a crook because he supports your positions.

The second most important consideration is how the candidate votes on issues, especially when the votes are close. Some disingenious elected representatives will give lip service to one side, yet vote the other way when their vote counts. When such an elected Representative knows the bill will pass or fail by a large majority anyhow, he will vote on the side of his/her lip service to be able to falsely convince that constituancy that he is on their side.

Previous deals between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress often end up looking like an elephant designed by a committee. It may have three large legs, and one shrew leg. A long trunk, big elephant head, and a long giraffe neck. In short, the compromise doesn't work as well as either plan.

Both sides buy and sell their vote too much for earmarks, those little spending perks in their district that in taken together, is a budget breaker.

Often the real action to elect good candidates is in the primaries. If bothe sides field good candidates, the public wins. If the dominate side fields a crook, everyone loses.”

“You know, Prosecutor, I think that we probably agree more than we disagree.

I am always amazed, though, by how good the government was during two periods. When Reagan was president and the Democrats controlled Congress. And when Clinton was president and the Republicans controlled the Congress.

And I am amazed by how badly run the government was during the Carter years of Democrat dominance AND I am constantly amazed by how badly the current president/Congress work.

I just think that split government distills the most important goals from each side. And the excesses get blocked. And, of course, government tends to run better when the opposition has subpoena power.”

“Oh, and I am in total agreement that honesty and integrity is the most important thing.”

“i for one will NEVER vote for george bush again for president”

“Reformed Lurker, the current Congress cannot accomplish anything because of obstructionist minority Senators that put a filibuster hold on everything important, and there is not a majority of 60 Senators to bring it to a vote. The voters should throw out those Senators who will not allow the will of the majority of people to prevail.


Moonglo, 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

“Prosecutor, that is one of many, many institutional obstacles to any political move.

Redistricting skews representation. Voting laws skew representation. Court cases skew representation. And, of course, the filibuster rule skews representation.

That's just the way it is. And it has been that way for generations. That didn't stop many of the improvements of Reagan's term and Clinton's term.

And the Republicans have a greater share of the House and Senate than they've had in a generation. They are as strong today as they will ever be in what is essentially a 50-50 nation. If they can't pick off one or two Democrat Senators or they aren't smart/committed enough to use procedure effectively, then the idea is probably not strong enough to be worth it.

And the Republicans have had 25 years to skew the procedures their way. The filibuster exists because Republican Senators ultimately want it to exist. Do you really think that John McCain would give up his filibuster rights?

But it's scapegoat politics. The Republicans have no ideas. All they can do is look for someone to blame. They blame the New York Times. They blame the small minority of Democrats in Congress. They blame the UN. I saw a columnist blame the Reuters news agency the other day for the Lebanon mess.

Reuters didn't decide to invade Iraq or Lebanon.

But that's what happens when a party runs out of ideas.”

“The Democrats have a platform of raising the minimum wage. Yet 158 House Democrats voted against raising the minimum wage.



So the Democrats speak out of one side of their mouth, but vote for higher taxes and vote against a higher minimum wage. Higher taxes are nothing new to the Democratic Party.

In 2001, over 71% of the Democrats Congressmen voted against the income tax cut. Over 90% of the Democrats voted against a bill that eliminated the marriage tax penalty. Over 71% of Democrats voted against a bill that would have permantly eleiminated the death tax that is slowing causing the extinction of the family farms. More than 71% of Democrats voted against a bill that doubled the child credit. In 2003, more than 96% of the Congressional Democrats voted against other tax cuts. And this year, during the budget debate, Democrats tried to increase taxes to the tune of $173 billion.

The choice is clear. If if you want your government to take more money out of your pockets, and you want a lower minimum wage, vote Democratic. If you want the government to take less money out of your pocket and a higher minimum wage, vote Republican.”

“Higher spending isn't new to either of you dudes parties.”

“Amazingly neither party notices that proposing ideas that LESSEN government control always seem to be popular...Reagan (in the absence of the Demo and Blue Blood Rep congress) the Contract with America...and each major campaign (Fair Tax draws HUGE support.
But this means giving up their control and that is horrifying to the government types.”

“Of course, you know the political background on the minimum wage issue.

The Democrat Party was putting that issue on the ballot in state after state to drive up participation in the fall election, kind of like the gay marriage bans that the Republicans used in 2004.

So, the Republicans looked at the polls and caved to try and take the issue away.

It wasn't because the Republicans believed in a higher minimum wage. And the Democrats who voted against it either did it for principled reasons - they wanted a better bill or state control - or they wanted the voters to have their say on this issue. And, of course, it would help the Democrat Party turnout.

But make no mistake, if you are in favor of a higher minimum wage, it wasn't the Republicans who brought it to you.

I do want you to help me understand the logic, however, of cutting taxes at the same time that the federal reserve is/was tightening monetary policy.

Why throw money into the economy when the fed is/was going to take it right back out?

I also want you to help me understand the logic of cutting taxes at the same time we created a gigantic new entitlement program inside Medicare and projected our military forces abroad.

On one hand, it's stealing from our children.

On the other hand it has forced our military to fight its wars on the cheap.

If they had the money, they could fight more effectively.”

“Salebored, I agree with you that there is much dysfunction within the two major parties.

And if a viable third party came into existence, I would seriously consider it.

But there are many ways to achieve goals. One of the best is the citizen initiative or referendum. Start your own PAC. Game a local primary.

But I still think that the best way to change things is sustained involved within the current system.”

“But make no mistake, if the higher minimum wage does not become law, it was because the Congressional Democrats who voted against it.


Good point about the Third Parties, Reformed Lurker. For those who disagree with Bush's policies, I also encouraging you to vote for any of the following parties which fielded candidates for President in the last election:

Independent (also Reform Party)
Libertarian Party
Constitution Party
Green Party”

“With the dissatisfaction the country is now showing for the Republican Party, getting others to vote Libertarian, Green or what ever, is their last grasp at holding on to power.

But Pros knows that. It's about spin, and he's a spin master.
last edited: 8/20/06 5:24:50 PM”

“Mtnsteve would rather third parties be barred from the ballot.”