I voted for that cocklicker twice and I fully admit it.

I voted for him once because I despised Al Gore so much (even though I'm still bitter at what Dubya did to McCain, my favorite in 2000). I voted for him in 2004 because I thought he should see this bullshit through (greater scheme in mind, all that yadda yadda, boy was I wrong) and because I despised John Kerry so much.

Damn, come to think of it, the Democrats need to nominate someone who isn't such a fucking putz. At least they didn't go for Hillary this time around, I'll give them that. I may disagree with Obama but at least he presents himself as if he cares about something more than himself.

jlauro, can I have some abortion number sources please?

A lot of people will admit it just because they don't want to admit that they're wrong. Bush is still pretty popular in backward states like Alabama, Mississippi, Utah and Idaho.. although most of the country hates him.

Come on, people, you're not looking at this correctly: When you have an abortion, you're killing something that theoretically could breed in a couple decades. When you start a pointless war, you are killing people that could be breeding RIGHT NOW! Much more efficient, and immediate, population control, with none of the guilt of a moral gray area like abortion, since you can blame all the dead American teenagers on "the bad people".

It's called the big picture, people. Take a look at it.

Oh, that reminds me, being a Democrat, I'm only one more abortion away from filling my punchcard and getting the 11th one free! It's all the fun of the old Subway stamps, with the delicious satisfaction of killing theoretical people!

So if someone disagrees with you, especially if they're from a "backwards state", they're automatically wrong?

Way to be open minded... 

 My sentiments exactly.  I'm not very fond of Bush and particularly the way he handled the Iraq war but if I could do it all again I'd still vote for him both times over the other choices....Gore and Kerry were just terrible candidates.

I could write a list of the things I like and dislike about Bush but both sides are about equal...perhaps a bit more in the dislike column.  But when I compare that to Gore or Kerry it wins in a landslide.

As for this election...I completely agree with Obama that we need to focus on the issues.  The problem is the only things I've heard about his positions are either so vague that I don't really know what he actually wants to do or I disagree with him...which again leaves me looking at the republican..this time McCain and when I look at his list of likes and dislikes I find that, like Bush, they are about equal in length. 

'Douche' and 'Turd Sandwhich' indeed.

As for congress...they just make me laugh...how can a group of people with a lower approval rating than the Bush not just wither in embarrassment? With the disdain and disgust that gets spit at Bush every day in editorial columns(some deserved, some not) around the country it boggles my mind that congress, the group of people who control the purse strings of the nation, get a free pass on things like the economy among many other issues.  Its such a joke...the whole damn thing is just such a joke.

I'm honestly more shocked that people are still willing to associate themselves with the two political parties than I am that people admit to voting for Bush.  If this were a video game I would have hit the reset button a long time ago....

Just my 0.02 VG$

Eh, I don't see why that's hypocritical.  After all those unborn babies technically would be Americans.

Now the fact that pro-choice people also seem to be against helping the homeless and really do the least to help single mothers politics wise.

That you could call hypocritic.

Caring about the iraqi people... not so much.  Though a good portion of those republicans actually still do believe america was helping iraq... or at least should stay their to help iraq. 

Hell, most Iraqi's thought America was helping iraq until they saw what a fuck up job Bush did securing the country.  Had they planned correctly and stopped the pillaging of shit and had a better plan for splitting power in government there is a good chance we would of helped people, but everyone went off half cocked without a fucking plan in a war we didn't need to start in teh first place. 

Gore: Wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.

Bush: Did go to war in Iraq.

Kerry: Wanted to scale back the Iraq war in a move towards getting the hell out of there.

Bush: Uh, yeah. Look where we are now.Sticking around and escalating it has just worked out AWESOME.

The war has been the biggest issue to me, even though it seems like the U.S. as a whole has basically decided to forget about it at this point. Obama has said he wants to put a movement in place to scale back troops. McCain has basically said that what we've done has been fine, and wants to "win" the war (You know, since "if we leave, we're just admitting defeat") without having any actual goals in place that would signify "winning". Is it when the new government we (and the Iraqis) seem disinterested in building is in place? Is it when there's no more Iraqis left alive to fight? By all means, I'd love to know what has to happen for there to be "victory" in Iraq. I have family over there currently, and friends who have already done two tours, and are being sent back for a third.

For being the candidate with military experience, and that being in a war so eerily similar to this one in its unwinnability, McCain's stance on it strikes me as preposterous. My dad is also a Vietnam vet, (and one of the smartest political and military minds I know) and thinks we need to get out ASAP. Not leave Iraq entirely to itself, but scale back the deployments to a bare minimum. At some point, the Iraqis have to step up and take control, and that likely won't happen until they know it has to be done. If we keep "surging" troops, it's not exactly putting any pressure on them to take the reins. If we start scaling back with the intention of keeping a small maintainence force there, it would be a giant step in the right direction. Obama is at least talking about it. McCain is talking about the exact opposite, which is why he won't be getting my vote.

Yeah. That doesn't seem right. There are around 800,000 abortions a year in the US if I remember correctly. While the estimates of dead Iraqi's alone was like... a million. Though to be fair that number does seem greatly exagerrated as it counts lots of things like people missing... etc who you have no clue if they actually died during direct military measures.

Of course if your counting abortions you probably should count deaths that weren't caused directly by military means, but rather wouldn't of happened if we weren't there. Minus the ammount of deaths that would of occured under Sadam. Which is a tough thing to figure, since who knows what we would or wouldn't of done.

Then you've got to argue over whether enemy combatants count and Sadam counts etc.

Overall though i'd say that It'd take atleast a year for the abortion death count to beat all of iraq if you consider abortion murder.

Of course... if you actually do see an abortion as murder and every baby equal to a person i can't even see how someone could live in the country. I mean.. it'd be like the holocaust all over again in every pro-choice country... and the best most people do is hold the occasional rally and put obnoxious bumper stickers on their car.  I mean shoot. 

I mean... damn. Of course people stay though. The US is nice... I mean... what even is the nicest Pro-Life country in the world? El Salvador?

McCain has given his definition of vicotry. Which is a working Iraq government and working army that can handle itself vs insurgents. Basically when the government troops can take over what the US is doing. Either way he seems dediated to having the whole thing over and almost no troops their within 5 years.

He isn't trying to conquer iraq, or kill everybody. Just fix iraq to the point of where we can be sure it isn't going to collapse in a bloody civil war/genocide/invasion.

It's a position I respect more then the democrats who went from "Oh the poor iraqis" to "Fuck the Iraqis! it's actually hurting us to try and fix our mistake."

It's really not that far off from Obama's 18 month plan.

Keep in mind his plan allows for a strikeforce to stay in Iraq to attack terrorists. (Or at least that's what he said in the deabtes) So if he pulled out most of the troops and things got worse he'd probably end up putting more US troops right back in there.

With either president i'd practically gurantee there will still be some troops in Iraq by the end of their first term.

If that's your whole reason for voting, you need to do more research, as their isn't a lot of difference in their actual plans. They both want a stable iraq first, and both plan to keep troops in iraq after it's stable. McCain wants troops to protect american intrests like our embassy and a military base while Obama wants a unilateral anti-terrorist task force... which i gotta think he's going to back off the unilateral part at first. I mean he said he was going to send troops in to pakistan to take out terrorists even against pakistan's wishes. Either way... that task force is likely going to need a military base... I assume he'd want troops to guard the embassy as well.

If you wanted troops actually out of Iraq you should of voted for Hilary while you had the chance.

I don't get the "force them to take the reins" comment either... as if the Iraqi's didn't want a safe stable country and wanted the US to watch over them like a mamma hen or something. The idea is ridiculious... they hate having us there. The only thing they hate more is the thought of a massive civil war. It's just Bush fucked up by disbanding the entire bathist army instead of interviweing and keeping on the less extreme bathists and the people who were just their to feed their famlies.

The only real differences I can tell between the two cadidates is that McCain wants to stop Ethanol subsidaries and Wants to veto all Earmark bills while Obama wants to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts and Wants to institute universal healthcare for children. (by fining the parents if they don't get their kids health insurance.)

Even then you gotta wonder if McCain actually has the balls to veto every earmarked bill... sure he had his arms and legs broken in vietnam... but i mean getting between senators and their BS free money for worthless state projects?

You also gotta wonder whether Obama is willing to go through with that healthcare plan at a time when our economy sucks and people are going to be stretched so think that they can barely afford food and gas, let alone health insurance. (and to fine them for not having it no less.)

So which do you find more important? Getting rid of Ethanol subsidaries that actually cause more damage to the enviroment then good and are helping cause the global food shortage? Or getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts?