Drew Dowdell

call me out then.... show me links where I am wrong. Go ahead. Give me a link for each bullet and show me I'm wrong. Sorry to disappoint you OCN, but I deal in facts. I'm not the SMK of the political thread. 1. Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006. As for conservative rating, McCain missed too many votes to get a rating. 2. Palin TAXED big oil. 3. Palin tried to get Harry Potter books banned from the library and threatened to fire the librarian who opposed her. 4. Palin abused her power to try and get a state trooper, who used to be her brother in law, fired. It is also now coming out that she may have illegally accessed his personnel records. 5. McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time. 6. Sarah Palin's speech at the convention was written by Bush's speechwriter and was partially written even before SP was selected. Summary, if looking like the current administration is the criterion for being a "traditional conservative", then Palin and McCain fit that bill. 6. Jesus was a community organizer. Pilot was a Governor. 7. How do you come to the conclusion that Obama wants to lose the war? He suggested a timetable for withdrawal over a year ago and got shouted down for it. Guess what? Bush and Maliki have been hammering out a time table for withdrawal. Obama suggested talking to our enemies and was shouted down as an "appeaser". Guess what? Bush has been sending emissaries to Iran to work out an agreement. Just wanted to correct some of your "facts"

Vote for McCain/Palin, and that's what you're getting. Voting with Bush 90% of the time does not a reformer make. Are banning books and abusing power your social values? Like McCain being on Leno about 7 times? What is suddenly wrong with community service? Again, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Not the credentials of a reformer. Obama has sponsored "131 bills since Jan 4, 2005.[2] This figure does not include bills to which Obama contributed very substantially as cosponsor, such as the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 or the Lugar-Obama Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, which were formally sponsored by Senators Coburn and Lugar, respectively. They also exclude amendments to other bills, although these in the Senate are not required to be germane to the parent bill and can therefore effectively be bills in their own right.[3] Obama has co-sponsored 619 bills during the same time period. Progressive energy policy does not include cruise missiles or troop numbers. You'll get more money back under Barack's tax plan than McCains...... unless you are in the top 1% income earners. If you think McCain is doing this out of the kindness of his heart, I have a bridge to sell you..... a bridge to nowhere... which Palin was for before she was against. Palin took on big oil by TAXING them! Palin had, along with Ted Stevens, one of the biggest earmark requests for her state.... something even McCain called her out on.

Kennedy was a two term congressman and one term senator. Lincoln was a one term congressman. Truman was a two term Senator and Vice President for just 4 months before becoming President. Eisenhower had zero political experience at all.

Incorrect. You CANNOT go by the government's numbers, they are fudged. In terms of money supply, we're in the midst of a major contraction in this country. GDP will likely be revised downward and we'll discover that the recession started back in the late winter.

You've taken it out of context. The "cling to ____ " comment was in reference to the economic situation in many(most?) rural areas. The implication is that when you have no job and no money you "cling" to what you do have.

Really? WTF? Did you get that from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: OBAMA OSAMA IS A MUSLIM@Q!!@!!!!!! email or something?

When you have no resume of your own to run on you have to convince voters that your opponent is someone they have to run from.

The strongest foreign policy expert in the Senate going up against a 2 year Governor who's foreign policy experience is "she's near Russia".

1. Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006. As for conservative rating, McCain missed too many votes to get a rating. 2. Palin TAXED big oil. 3. Palin tried to get Harry Potter books banned from the library and threatened to fire the librarian who opposed her. 4. Palin abused her power to try and get a state trooper, who used to be her brother in law, fired. It is also now coming out that she may have illegally accessed his personnel records. 5. McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time. Summary, if looking like the current administration is the criterion for being a "traditional conservative", then Palin and McCain fit that bill. 6. Jesus was a community organizer. Pilot was a Governer. 7. How do you come to the conclusion that Obama wants to lose the war? He suggested a timetable for withdrawal over a year ago and got shouted down for it. Guess what? Bush and Maliki have been hammering out a time table for withdrawal. Obama suggested talking to our enemies and was shouted down as an "appeaser". Guess what? Bush has been sending emissaries to Iran to work out an agreement. Just wanted to correct some of your "facts"

Given my demonstrated knack for minor details..... do you think I was serious? To paraphrase Biden, every sentence John McCain says is "Noun, Verb, POW"

including the pregnant teenager who is choosing to keep the baby and the newborn down syndrome one which she didn't abort...... and BTW, did you know that McCain was a POW?

Obama didn't write the nsa bill. McCain criticizes bills he himself wrote.

That's a sharp looking car.

She's a shoe in for President of the PTA.

Men behind the curtain? Dick Cheney who? Karl Rove who? Donald Rumsfeld who? Bush couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag and he was re-elected despite 4 years of proof of that. Bush fiddled while Rome burned <played the guitar while New Orleans flooded>. More than executive experience <a good chief of staff will handle that part>, I'm looking for sound and reasoned judgment. Someone who can change direction in the face of new evidence. Someone who is willing to use diplomacy first and weapons only as a last resort. Someone who doesn't include cruise missiles and troop numbers in an energy policy. If being a Senator doesn't count for experience, then John McCain has none, Joe Biden has none, and Barak Obama has none.... the only person with "experience" on either ticket is Sarah Palin.... which is scary because she governed, for 2 years, a land area larger than California and Texas combined yet had a population smaller than that of Pittsburgh, PA. McCain can't even make up his own mind on his own policies. John Kerry gave a brilliant speech on John McCain during the DNC but the networks hardly covered it. I suggest you look it up on youtube.

You probably now know more about Sarah Palin than McCain did when he picked her. Not "selected", for that would imply a reasoned judgement. McCain decided a woman would get him Hillary's vote. Giuliani was willing to wear a dress, but it's not quite the same.

Instead we got "Noun, verb, POW"

How much is your healthcare contribution each month? How much does your employer kick in? You're being forced to take a 5% pay cut.... guess which way your premiums will be going in January. You're already paying for healthcare now.... all that would change is where the check is sent.

Actually the real enemy is the income disparity. Read my sig. It's not that the wealthy need to be taxed more, it's that they need to stop outsourcing jobs to the point that Americans can no longer afford to buy their products. Real income has been stagnent since the 70s. The only reason we seem wealthier these days is because of the massive expansion of credit. Credit is collapsing fast. While I don't think we'll enter another great depression, we are precariously close to the same situation in wage disparity, credit contraction, deflation, and unemployment as we were in 1929. It's not that I think that the wealthy need to be taxed more... its that cutting their taxes will do nothing to help the situation in this country. edit: cut the taxes on the people with the most propensity to spend.. the ones that have been hit most by the economic situation.... the middle class.

McCain is a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy who won't change his mind later even when presented with new evidence. McCain admits he knows nothing about economics. McCain's tax policies continue to favor the rich at the expense of the middle class.

What, exactly, did I post that was incorrect?

Bush has spent $600 billion dollars on the Iraq war. $600 Billion would build enough algae ethanol refineries to completely replace gasoline as a transportation fuel source in this country PLUS pay for enough wind generation to power every household in the U.S and there would still be a few billion left over to completely overhaul Amtrak.

Calculate your own Obama tax cut. Keep in mind that Bush raised your taxes and McCain will raise them again further. Oh the dollar amount of your taxes might be lower, but the value of your dollars is lower as well. Wonder why the price of oil is double what it was 4 years ago? There are twice as many dollars chasing it. Bush has <and McCain will> raised your taxes by the huge debts he has created, you just haven't gotten the bill yet. If you're against government spending, that's fine, but don't pretend that the Republicans are in any way, shape, or form, fiscally conservative. My opinion is, if you're going to spend trillions of dollars of tax payer money, at least spend it domestically on things like infrastructure, education, research, etc.

After 7 years of GOP tax cuts guaranteed to produce a rising tide of increasing wealth for all, the median income is lower than when Bush started making it better. More kids got left behind in poverty. The rich got richer. But this data was before the economy went to pot; maybe we need to cut taxes on the rich a bit more.