Obama gets peace prize for not being Bush!

[ucodegen]

Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.

Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.
[/quote]

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.

Again here are the non-voting records for the 110th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes (more than one-half.

Obama missed 46.3%.

Here are the non-voting records for the 109th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

Mc Cain missed 58 votes or 9%.

Obama missed 11 votes or 1.7%

———-

ucodegen, if your research is correct, maybe this is a gotcha moment for you. You can inform FOX that the Washington Post lied and you’ll be famous. You can then go on the talk circuit making speeches to conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.
[/quote]

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.

Again here are the non-voting records for the 110th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes (more than one-half.

Obama missed 46.3%.

Here are the non-voting records for the 109th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

Mc Cain missed 58 votes or 9%.

Obama missed 11 votes or 1.7%

———-

ucodegen, if your research is correct, maybe this is a gotcha moment for you. You can inform FOX that the Washington Post lied and you’ll be famous. You can then go on the talk circuit making speeches to conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.
[/quote]

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.

Again here are the non-voting records for the 110th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes (more than one-half.

Obama missed 46.3%.

Here are the non-voting records for the 109th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

Mc Cain missed 58 votes or 9%.

Obama missed 11 votes or 1.7%

———-

ucodegen, if your research is correct, maybe this is a gotcha moment for you. You can inform FOX that the Washington Post lied and you’ll be famous. You can then go on the talk circuit making speeches to conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.
[/quote]

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.

Again here are the non-voting records for the 110th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes (more than one-half.

Obama missed 46.3%.

Here are the non-voting records for the 109th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

Mc Cain missed 58 votes or 9%.

Obama missed 11 votes or 1.7%

———-

ucodegen, if your research is correct, maybe this is a gotcha moment for you. You can inform FOX that the Washington Post lied and you’ll be famous. You can then go on the talk circuit making speeches to conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Typical, come to expect nothing less. I suggest you go back through his actual voting record and find out how they came up with 63.9%. I got mine by actually counting through the voting record… and had views of Obama’s and McCain’s records on my screen at the same time. Go through the entire election period.. not just 2008.
[/quote]

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.

Again here are the non-voting records for the 110th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes (more than one-half.

Obama missed 46.3%.

Here are the non-voting records for the 109th Congress:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

Mc Cain missed 58 votes or 9%.

Obama missed 11 votes or 1.7%

———-

ucodegen, if your research is correct, maybe this is a gotcha moment for you. You can inform FOX that the Washington Post lied and you’ll be famous. You can then go on the talk circuit making speeches to conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.[/quote]

OK, ucodegen. Didn’t conservatives claim that McCain/Palin was a formidable ticket.

Right after the Palin selection, conservatives claimed that with the support of the “Real America” McCain would trounce Obama.

In my opinion, Obama had to work that much harder to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.[/quote]

OK, ucodegen. Didn’t conservatives claim that McCain/Palin was a formidable ticket.

Right after the Palin selection, conservatives claimed that with the support of the “Real America” McCain would trounce Obama.

In my opinion, Obama had to work that much harder to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.[/quote]

OK, ucodegen. Didn’t conservatives claim that McCain/Palin was a formidable ticket.

Right after the Palin selection, conservatives claimed that with the support of the “Real America” McCain would trounce Obama.

In my opinion, Obama had to work that much harder to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.[/quote]

OK, ucodegen. Didn’t conservatives claim that McCain/Palin was a formidable ticket.

Right after the Palin selection, conservatives claimed that with the support of the “Real America” McCain would trounce Obama.

In my opinion, Obama had to work that much harder to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]

Obama had a more difficult campaign.

No, no easy out. Unproven and unsupported statement. Remember, Obama was the media’s darling, except for the far right media.[/quote]

OK, ucodegen. Didn’t conservatives claim that McCain/Palin was a formidable ticket.

Right after the Palin selection, conservatives claimed that with the support of the “Real America” McCain would trounce Obama.

In my opinion, Obama had to work that much harder to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. [/quote]

I think that Germany has coal. I believe the Germans invented the liquification of coal.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472816,00.html

Maybe it’s just me, but if the Europeans don’t want us to preemptively defend them from Iraq, we shouldn’t do it then bitch that they don’t appreciate it.

[quote=ucodegen]
Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.[/quote]

Britain is part of the EU, but not part of the Euro-Zone.

France has a pretty good military as well, perhaps even as good as the Brits.

The European military umbrella that includes the USA is NATO, not the UN.

As far at NATO is concerned, we contribute the most (25-30% as I recall) but not the bulk of the defense organization’s budget and troops.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. [/quote]

I think that Germany has coal. I believe the Germans invented the liquification of coal.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472816,00.html

Maybe it’s just me, but if the Europeans don’t want us to preemptively defend them from Iraq, we shouldn’t do it then bitch that they don’t appreciate it.

[quote=ucodegen]
Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.[/quote]

Britain is part of the EU, but not part of the Euro-Zone.

France has a pretty good military as well, perhaps even as good as the Brits.

The European military umbrella that includes the USA is NATO, not the UN.

As far at NATO is concerned, we contribute the most (25-30% as I recall) but not the bulk of the defense organization’s budget and troops.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. [/quote]

I think that Germany has coal. I believe the Germans invented the liquification of coal.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472816,00.html

Maybe it’s just me, but if the Europeans don’t want us to preemptively defend them from Iraq, we shouldn’t do it then bitch that they don’t appreciate it.

[quote=ucodegen]
Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.[/quote]

Britain is part of the EU, but not part of the Euro-Zone.

France has a pretty good military as well, perhaps even as good as the Brits.

The European military umbrella that includes the USA is NATO, not the UN.

As far at NATO is concerned, we contribute the most (25-30% as I recall) but not the bulk of the defense organization’s budget and troops.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. [/quote]

I think that Germany has coal. I believe the Germans invented the liquification of coal.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472816,00.html

Maybe it’s just me, but if the Europeans don’t want us to preemptively defend them from Iraq, we shouldn’t do it then bitch that they don’t appreciate it.

[quote=ucodegen]
Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.[/quote]

Britain is part of the EU, but not part of the Euro-Zone.

France has a pretty good military as well, perhaps even as good as the Brits.

The European military umbrella that includes the USA is NATO, not the UN.

As far at NATO is concerned, we contribute the most (25-30% as I recall) but not the bulk of the defense organization’s budget and troops.

[Author]

Posts