You don't have to say it, we see it all the time.

[quote]They have passed legislation such as increase in minimum wage.

Of course no one said anything about him vetoing it and agreeing to it as well. This was all Democrat and no one else right?



Yes, because he and many others do not want money from tax payers to pay for research that Pharmaceutical companies have enough money to fund themselves which in return will be the ones to benefit from the profits of the medicines derived from the research. Makes total sense to me, saving lives, yes, making the Pharmaceutical companies more money out of my pocket, no. The research is not banned, they can still research, just not with our money.

[quote]They are trying to pass a law that would give health coverage to poor kids that Bush has threatened to veto.[quote]

Yes, the same law that has already given health benefits to some adults and will also benefit middle-income families. The programs is called CHIP or SCHIP, the C in this name means children. The program was designed to help children in lower-income families who made too much to qualify for Medicaid. It was not meant for adults, especially those who are childless as the program has already helped, and middle-income families. Sad that a program meant for children is being politically used to get that thru back alleys instead thru normal means. Shame. This is as much Democrats fault as it is Bush's.



Because it was not what the people wanted. That was proven time and time again, the outcry was so loud on this bill that the Mars Rover heard it. And how exactly was this hard because of Bush's veto power?



Again, one that gives more than necessary. And then they complain about the Deficit. Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouths. They wanna shrink the deficit by spending more many than necessary. What a f_cked up political system we have. A dictator would be less of a sneaky jerk, he would at least screw you in the face not behind your back.

nah I just wanted to rattle some cages.


.

As I you, and shades and several other dems that shall go unnamed because I don't want to!.

Politics should never get in the way of loving someone.! ever!

Which 11 Senators are up for election in November then?

The 15th of September (the date that Larry used above) is 7 plus weeks from the first Tuesday in November (this year, that's Nov. 6th). That's a heck of a lot closer to two months than one.


shades isn't a dem...I might be a liberal, but I do not subscribe to party politics.

I would care for you if you were a martian.

and I just might be one

Ah yes, Fox News is biased and the rest of media has no libeal slant.  LOL.

I guess reporting on fake documents, withholding stories until election times are closer, and creating news against repbulicans is just "the usual".

Why should the republican candidates go on a debate run by the media with a severe liberal bias? They don't have to. Maybe they should only have Republican debates on Fox News. I wouldn't care or fuss about it.

I am glad that at least one democrat has partially acknowledged that the vast majority (versus the vast right wing conspiracy) is liberal.

But to address the broader question - it is cowardise to only preach to the choir.  ANd is one of the reasons Kerry lost.  He did not want to hear negative feed back, and the press willingly obliged.  However, the Public wants to know, so while Kerry was ignoring the negatives of his campaign - since the MSM was not reporting them - the populace was seeing them - and not liking what they saw.

If John Edwards is afraid to face a bunch of hostile reporters, imagine what he will be like facing a bunch of hostile heads of state.

Yes, I am sure that he will be under the desk in the oval office curled in the fetal position and sucking his thumb.

after he has it remodeled to encompass 45 thousand square feet.

and gotten a really good haircut   

of course all this would be done at the expense of the TAXPAYER!

No the haircut was paid for by campaign donors. He paid for the home himself.

Reply By: LocamamaPosted: Friday, July 27, 2007 of course all this would be done at the expense of the TAXPAYER! No the haircut was paid for by campaign donors. He paid for the home himself.

"Yes, I am sure that he will be under the desk in the oval office curled in the fetal position and sucking his thumb.

after he has it remodeled to encompass 45 thousand square feet."

Not his home, remodeling the oval office. Pay attention Amy. smooch!

details, details   

i switched my registration affiliation from indedpendant to democratic rather than continue to let my vote go to waste in california's primaries.. if the presidential election were held tomorrow, however, i'd be voting for the only goldwater conservative in the race: ron paul. my point being i'm a dino at best and able only to speak for myself when responding to your question.

before doing so, i gotta point out that by your own standard you've validated our faith in bill clinton who seemed to have no qualms about going face-to-face with fox propaganda whore chris wallace--one of several fox blathering heads whose well-documented previous political povs shifted 180 degrees the moment rupert murdoch started plying them with checks---nor did bill shrink from providing wallace with the kinda bitchslapping for which that simpering lil weasel always seems to beg.

i apologize for replying to a question with a question but i'm wondering which is worse (and by how much):

a. candidates who decline to jump through hoops for a "news" organization that clearly uses more of its non-citizen funder's money buying loudmouth "personalities" who offer opinions rather than report facts than it does to hire legitimate journalists

or

b. seated elected officials who make a determined effort to speak only to prescreened groups of approving supporters

you may be right about the first group being less likely to fight 'any kind of war'. the second group has clearly demonstrated they're capable of doing just that. call me weird but i'm much more likely to vote for someone who declines to fight anything but an unavoidable war--and then only if he or she is capable of wisely prosecuting that war utilizing a bonafide strategy rather than wishfully glib sloganeering at the expense of our troops.

100 years from now, who'll remember whether a candidate chose not to participate in a debate of dubious integrity.
you think the same can be said of a self-proclaimed war president who did everything in his power to avoid being seen with caskets containing those he sent into battle to fight the worst kind of war?