The Democrats Single Greatest Problem As a Party

anyone who doesn't like what ever the Republicans stand for, become Democrats.

What I'm looking at in this post, is the possibility that the reason for many of the Democrats "favorite mistakes," is that they THINK they are the party of the have-nots, but they have trouble identifying exactly who the have-nots and haves ARE. They pass laws (when they are in the majority)

U.N. agrees to refine climate data
Feb. 24, 2010

By Jim Gomez And Frank Jordans, Associated Press

GENEVA — World weather agencies have agreed to collect more precise temperature data to improve climate change science, officials said Wednesday, as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged environment ministers to reject efforts by skeptics to derail a global climate deal.
Britain's Met Office proposed that climate scientists around the world undertake the "grand challenge" of measuring land surface temperatures as often as several times a day, and allow independent scrutiny of the data — a move that would go some way toward answering demands by skeptics for access to the raw figures used to predict climate change.

"This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent," the Met Office said. The agency added that "any such analysis does not undermine the existing independent datasets that all reflect a warming trend."

The proposal was approved in principle by some 150 delegates meeting under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization this week in Antalya, Turkey. It comes after e-mails stolen from a British university and several mistakes made in a 2007 report issued by the U.N.-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prompted public debate over the reliability of climate change predictions.

Skeptics claim scientists have secretly manipulated climate data and suppressed contrary views — allegations that have been denied by researchers and the climate change panel.

Nevertheless, the Met Office said current measurements were "fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken."

Ban Ki-moon urged environment ministers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, on Wednesday to reject attempts by skeptics to undermine efforts to forge a climate change deal, saying global warming poses "a clear and present danger."

In a message read by a U.N. official, Ban referred to the controversy over the 2007 climate panel report that drew widespread criticism and calls for the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign.

The report's conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 turned out to be incorrect, an error that bolstered arguments from climate skeptics that fears of global warming are overblown.

A U.N. conference in Copenhagen in December failed to achieve a binding deal on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. But Ban said it was important that the confrence set a target of keeping keep global temperatures from rising, and established a program of climate aid to poorer nations.

"To maintain the momentum, I urge you to reject last-ditch attempts by climate skeptics to derail your negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in the ... report," Ban said at the start of an annual U.N. meeting of environmental officials from 130 countries on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.

"Tell the world that you unanimously agree that climate change is a clear and present danger," Ban said.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said his country will hold an informal meeting of all environmental ministers and officials in Bali on Friday to discuss how to reach a binding treaty in Cancun later this year on greenhouse gas reductions.

A U.N. study issued Tuesday said countries will have to significantly increase their pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change.

Sixty nations — including China, the United States and the 27-member European Union— met a Jan. 31 deadline to submit pledges to the U.N. for reducing greenhouse gases as part of a voluntary plan to roll back emissions. Together the countries produce 78% of the world's greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

Countries set a target in Copenhagen of keeping the Earth's average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the levels that existed before nations began industrializing in the late 18th century.

Scientists believe global emissions must be cut in half by mid-century to avoid the melting of glaciers and ice caps, the flooding of low-lying coastal cities and islands, and worsening droughts in Africa and elsewhere.

After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement
12/10/09
By Brian Winter, USA TODAY


COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about?
Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.



"I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off," Weiss said, shaking his head as he watched conference attendees hurry by Thursday. "When you hear politicians tell you that they can measure these things, just because they passed a deal in Copenhagen, I think you should take that with a few grains of salt."

Most of the summit's attention has focused on exactly how much countries will commit to cutting emissions of gases that data suggest are causing the earth to warm. Yet some scientists, legal experts and delegates say the hardest part of any deal in Copenhagen will be measuring — and then enforcing — whatever politicians decide.

Those two issues are "the iceberg on which the entire conference could founder," says Peter Goldmark, a program director for the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group.

The Obama administration has proposed a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared with levels in 2005. Most European countries have offered more ambitious cuts, while China has pushed a target that would allow its carbon dioxide output to continue to grow with its economy, though at a slower pace.

In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested.

He says that monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen.

Todd Stern, a lead negotiator for the U.S. delegation, says he's pushing for a system that, after Copenhagen, "allows countries to look at each other and get confidence that everybody is doing what they said they were doing."

However, governments in India and China — which is the world's biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data.

Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish economist, says the problems reflect a "failed strategy" in the last two decades of international environmental talks.

"Conferences like Copenhagen allow the politicians to go back home and say 'We've got a deal!' but then the targets are almost never kept," says Lomberg, who advocates more research and development of clean energy sources to solve environmental problems.

Even if governments sign a legally binding treaty — which Stern says could happen "soon" after Copenhagen — there is disagreement among countries about how to enforce any deal.

The Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 framework under which many countries (not including the USA) agreed to emissions cuts, contains no financial penalties for governments that fail to meet their goals.

The Obama administration is advocating a "sunshine policy" in which countries would not face serious consequences for non-compliance with emissions goals, says Stephen Porter, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law .

Stern declined comment when asked about the U.S. position on Thursday.

"There's no hammer, no nothing," Porter says. He says China would be unlikely to agree to such a condition, and the U.S. may not currently be in a position to pressure its biggest creditor for more concessions.

That may not be enough to please those in the Senate, which is deliberating an energy bill that would implement whatever emissions cuts Obama promises in Copenhagen. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., is among those who say any deal must carry strong enforcement measures as a way to protect U.S. industry from its competitors overseas.

One possibility would be "border adjustments," a provision that would allow countries to impose tariffs or other penalties on trading partners who fail to meet their environmental promises, says Duncan Hollis, a Temple University law professor and former attorney for treaty affairs at the State Dept. However, Hollis says such a provision would likely be years away.

"From a lawyer's perspective, or even as a parent, for God's sake, unless you set a set of rules, your kids won't respect them," Porter says. "This summit is no different."

Nope, not there... not one word... no mention of "usurp"... not even in the slightest.

No point in addressing any of the other irrelevant, knee-jerk nonsense of that post since you are attempting to 'rebut' a point that was never made.

Though looking back on it, the congruence between the B.S. Hamilton was addressing from the right-wing whackjobs of his time and the B.S. of today's right-wing whackjobs is even more striking than on first reading.

Now... What was your point?

You see, when Hamilton wrote this he was referring to the NECESSITY of a trained and organized militia, not arguing for an armed populous.

It's not really selective to point out that the current president receives 3xs as much.

Europe is socialist?
Whered that come from?
Many nations there have conservative governments at the moment.

And anyway isnt the American sysytem loosely copied on the French model?

Many condemn the west for its fuel use but much of that supports humanity in the third world in many ways, not simply food and famine relief. As a result of this support, third world population growth is often far faster than can be supported. This leads to starvation, wars, environmental destruction, and mass migration to western societies. In the mean time, the industrial societies that enable the over abundance are themselves self restrained in population growth.

One popular citation of global warming is glacial retreat. A report from an expedition of tourist "scientists" visited a melting glacier to prove global warming. They had some problem actually identifying when they were on the glacier because of what appears to be mostly volcanic dust on its surface making it very dark. Although the term was not used in any of the often repeated reports, it's called aging. Over many centuries, glaciers grow and in that growth, dust accumulates. It is distributed throughout the ice. As long as the glacier is growing, it has no effect. When the growth stops, sublimation and melting begins. The dust slowly accumulates on the surface making the glacier appear darker meaning it now absorbs sunlight instead of reflecting it thus increasing the heat that is causing the sublimation and melting. Again, it's a runaway asymptotic acceleration up until the point the glacier cannot get any darker then it simply continues to melt and accelerate until new snow covers it to restart growth or the glacier is gone. Depending on the glacier's location, the cycle could be impacted by man made dust, volcanic dust, and/or local climate changes due to say the ocean currents and the sea ice melt. All natural cyclic processes recorded in the geological record.

Dust From Global Warming Increasing Speed Of Mountain Snow Melt
June 29, 2009

WASHINGTON — Dust in the wind is rewriting the cycle of life in the mountains. Throughout memory the warmth of spring has begun the mountain snowmelt, bringing life-giving water to greening plants so they can blossom and renew their species.

But now, scientists say, the timing is being thrown off by desert dust stirred as global warming dries larger areas and human activity increases in those regions.

This dust darkens the surface of winter snows, warming it by absorbing sunlight that the white surface would have reflected. That causes the snow to melt earlier than in the past, running off before the air has warmed enough to spur plant growth, researchers report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"It is striking how different the landscape looks as result of this desert-mountain interaction," Chris Landry, director of the Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies in Silverton, Colo. and a co-author of the report, said in a statement.

The researchers established test plots in the San Juan Mountains in Colorado. Some plots were left alone to collect snow and dust naturally, others had extra dust added and a third group had naturally arriving dust removed.

On average, according to the study, cleaning away the naturally arriving dust delayed snowmelt by 11 days compared to the plots that were left alone. Adding dust speeded up the melt by 7 to 13 days.

Overall, dust levels in the mountains are about five times greater than they were prior to the mid-19th century, due in large part to increased human activity in the deserts, the researchers said.

And, the researchers added, climate change is likely to result in greater dust accumulation in the mountains as the Southwest warms and dries further.

With the change in timing of snowmelt and plant growth the composition of alpine meadows could change as some species increase in abundance, while others are lost, possibly forever, according to lead author Heidi Steltzer, a research scientist at Colorado State University.

The research was supported by the British Ecological Society and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The ones who worry me are the people who buy themselves a gun for "self protection" and never bother to get any credible training. They can't use their guns effectively, and if they don't store them properly, the guns can wind up in the wrong hands. Unlike a gun in the hands of a trained and responsible adult, those guns are disasters waiting to happen.

Just let me ask you this. Would you feel safer knowing that everyone else who is also carrying has been trained and is as responsible as you? Or, would you feel safer in the long run knowing that many/most of them might not be?

Obama immediately realized what he'd done, and he made amends.

All the money and lives we spend/spent ... in and on Iraq ... are a waste.

The war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities, including 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers

Because Bush is a person like this we have spent $300 million a day on a war

Bush and all of his supporters spent $300 million per day on a war that they knew ahead of time was based upon lies

$300 million a day! Do you know how easily we could have avoided Katrina's devistation if we had spent just a small portion of a month in Iraq on those Levies?

$300 million a day! do you know how easily we could have converted ourselves from oil dependency to solar and wind technologies on less than a year of War spending with Chaney's cronies?

By 1968, the Vietnam War was costing 66 million dollars a day. As a result. President Lyndon B. Johnson increased income taxes and cut back on his programme to deal with poverty.

$1.00 in 2008 had about the same buying power as $0.16 in 1967.
Annual inflation over this period was about 4.64%.

1) He ran roughshod over the constitution.
2) He misled the American people over issues of war
3) He bungled Afghanistan because he was so focused on invading Iraq
4) He horribly bungled Iraq which led to even more bloodshed
5) He put cronyism over competence and experience
6) His administration completely bungled the response to Katrina
7) His administration's complete failure to enforce regulations paved way for the financial crisis
8) He took a surplus and turned it into a record budget deficit
9) His deregulation ideology created an environment where Wall Street could run wild.
10) His anti-intellectualism was an embarrassment
11) He routinely butchered the English language
12) He just wasn't that smart

Katrina is a result of a lack of attention to maintaining the infrastructure of this country. Bush and all of his supporters spent $300 million per day on a war that they knew ahead of time was based upon lies ... Bush lied for war.

No, it is more like nobody actually knows the exact figures, despite the claims of people like Coulter.

Any statistic that states only 15 percent of the problems are from two-parent families, and 85 percent of the problems are the responsibilty of single parent families, is a statistic that is complete BS.

Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

Non-Teenage Single Mothers Face Financial Hardships

The out-of-wedlock birthrate among teenagers has declined in recent years, but it continues to rise among women 20 and older. By 2003, three out of every four unwed births were to women aged 20 and older (National Center for Health Statistics, 2005). A 1998 paper studied the economic status of this large but sometimes overlooked group of mothers.

Researchers considered 2,613 births to 1,615 women between 1980 and 1990. They examined the economic status-as measured by the income-to-needs ratio, poverty-class status (poor or middle class), and welfare usage-of the mothers in the year before and the year after birth. They found striking similarities in the income measures of the non-teenage (“older”) single mothers and the teenage mothers. However, among the older women, they found significant differences between the married and single mothers. For example, 36 percent of the older single mothers, but only 5 percent of the older married mothers were poor. Older single mothers also were the most likely to be on welfare. In the sample, 59 percent of the older single mothers received welfare in the year after birth, compared to 41 percent of the teenage mothers and just 9 percent of the older married mothers.

These findings suggest that non-martial childbearing at any age, including among 20- and 30-somethings, creates financial hardships for mothers and their families.

with all respect the "New Deal" did not work. After six years of tax code changes and public works spending, unemployment in the U.S. was still hovering around 25%. What ended the great depression was WWII.

The issue is whether there is a correlational statistic or a causal statistic and I do not see that she has ... or anyone on here ... has proven the causal statistic of single motherhood. Only that there is a correlary sometimes.

Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing: Cause or Symptom of Poverty?

Some contend that many of the women who have babies as unmarried teens would have ended up poor and on welfare even if they had married and delayed childbearing. The argument is that they come from disadvantaged families and neighborhoods, have gone to poor schools, or faced other adverse influences that make having a baby at a young age as good an option as any other. There are few men with jobs for them to marry, and given their own lack of skills, welfare seems like a relatively good alternative. Moreover, earnings for less skilled men have plummeted over the past 30 years.



Although such arguments cannot be dismissed entirely, they are only a small part of the story. To begin with, the drop in marriage rates, which has been especially pronounced among African Americans, has been much larger than any economic model can explain. Second, early child bearers are much less likely to complete high school, leading directly to poor long-term employment prospects for the young women involved. The children in such families suffer even greater adverse consequences, including poorer health, less success in school, and more behavior problems.

Finally, the argument that declining earnings has made marriage less viable is a curious one. Two adults can live more cheaply than one, and by pooling whatever earnings can be secured from even intermittent or low paid employment, they will be better off than a single adult living alone. These arguments are doubly true once a child enters the picture and one parent either needs to stay home or shoulder the extra expense of paying for child care.



One can grant that the earnings prospects of poorly educated, inner city residents are not good and have deteriorated in recent decades, and that better schools and more support systems for low-income working families would help. Still, early out-of-wedlock childbearing greatly compounds the problem. Even well-educated individuals in their twenties have difficulty living on one income these days, and most middle class families have two earners. Yet, for some reason, it is assumed that if the men in low-income communities can't command a decent wage, they are not marriageable. But fathers are, or should be, more than just a meal ticket. And although two minimum wage jobs will not make anyone rich, they will provide an income (....) well above the poverty level for a family with two children (Figure 3). In short, marriage and delayed childbearing have the potential to solve a lot of problems, including assuring a better future for the next generation.

If you compare out of wedlock birth statistics from the 50's to the stats of today, the increase has been pretty dramatic. the link between poverty and single motherhood is pretty damning. but i suppose that isn't something that is imparted during today's "sex" education classes.

Family Structure and Welfare Dependency

Rising divorce rates combined with a huge increase in childbearing outside of marriage have led to a situation in which most children born today will spend some time in a single parent family. And since roughly half of these single parents are poor (Figure 1), large numbers of children are growing up in poverty as well.

Indeed, the growth of single parent families can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970 (Figure 2).

The growth of female-headed families has also contributed to the growth of the welfare rolls. According to the Congressional Budget Office, welfare caseloads would have declined considerably throughout most of the 1980s if it had not been for the fact that the growth of single parent families continued to push them upwards. Moreover, this factor was more than twice as important as the economy in accounting for the roughly one million increase in the basic caseload between 1989 and 1993.


It is not just the growth of female-headed families but also shifts in the composition of the group that have contributed to greater poverty and welfare dependency. In the 1960s and 1970s, most of the growth of single parent families was caused by increases in divorce or separation. In the 1980s and 1990s, all of the increase has been driven by out-of-wedlock childbearing. Currently, 32 percent of all children in the United States and more than half in many large cities are born outside of marriage. Unmarried mothers tend to be younger and more disadvantaged than their divorced counterparts. They are overwhelmingly poor (Figure 1) and about three-quarters of them end up on welfare.

Is Coulter specifically addressing those women who choose to become single mothers?

Or those women who were abandoned by the fathers of their children?

Women who were victims of incest or rape, where a child was the result?

She shouldn't talk about subjects she doesn't understand. My mom was a single mother after my father died. Shall I blame god for taking my father away from me before I ever knew him? There will be a lot of single mothers as a result of this war in Iraq, which she loves. If those children end up in prison, can they blame the government for sending their fathers to war? NO. And you can't blame mothers for what their child does when that child is an adult.

One of the greatest concerns regarding births to young, single women is that the children of these women are more likely to be reared in poverty. In 1995, 32% of female heads of households with children under 18 years old and no husband present were below the poverty line. In addition, teenage mothers, particularly those who are single, often have a very difficult time in pursuing their education or job training because of the costs and responsibilities of caring for their children.


In 1994, the median income for a two-parent household was $45,041. In contrast, the median income for a single-parent household led by a woman was $19,872. (For black and Hispanic female heads of households, the median income was $14,650 and $13,200, respectively.)


The number of birthst to all teenage mothers decreased from 656,000 in 1970 to 500,000 in 1997; however, the number of births to single teenage mothers increased from 200,000 in 1970 to 390,000 in 1997. In 1970, 30% of the teenage females who had children were single; but by 1997, this percentage had increased to 78%


Despite the large number of single teenage mothers, the majority of single mothers giving birth in recent years were 20 years old or older. In 1997, there were 3.9 million live births to females of all ages in the United States. Single mothers of all ages accounted for 32% of these 3.9 million births; about 10% of all births were to single teenage mothers, while 17% of all births were to single mothers ages 20 through 29


Between 1970 and 1997, births to single white women increased by 355% resulting in 25.8% of all white births in 1997 being to single women. During the same period, births to single black women increased by 93%, resulting in 69.1% of black births being to single women. Most of this increase occurred during the 1980s. More recently, between 1994 and 1997, births to single white and black women have stabilized, increasing very little. These long-term trends are linked to delays in marriage, declines in birth rates for married women, and increases in birth rates for unmarried women.

I say that the media and society has created a monstrous idea that casual sex which results in single motherhood, is responsible. Making it more shameful to be found pregnant at 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even 18 would be better than the alternative of abortions and children raising children. The norm these days is when a girl is having sex, gets pregnant, she is rewarded with a monthly government check, food stamps, section 8 housing, and the opportunity to go and do it all over again. There is no deterrant for unwed mothers anymore. She hasn't found love in the home, so she decides to bring a baby into the world, hoping it will give her the life she's fantasized about her whole life. Of course, when the child interfers with her social life, the child gets pushed aside, and mom's needs are met before the childs. If it's lucky enough, a grandparent is around to step in and give it the attention it is not getting from it's mother. And so the cycle repeats itself. Children are not being taught to abstain from a mindset of always having pleasure on demand, regardless what it is.

I want to know where the hell he is getting his number for creating 2.5 million jobs, no wait, 3 million.....NO........$ MILLION JOBS and he figured this out in a week, Yeah I'd like to see this happen, but it ain't, he is lying already.

Not around here. Ken Blackwell ran for governer here in Ohio in 2006. He is an African American right wing Christian conservative...mirror image of the most right wing Republican you've ever known, & he got about 40% of the black vote. That percentage of the black vote usually tops out at around 10% for ANY GOP candidate in Ohio.

He lost to present governor Ted Strickland...a MODERATE pro-gun Democrat.

Actually, the AK is probably not the better hunting rifle. Don't assume the damage it does to a deer is going to resemble that done to a watermelon.

Also, the 30-06 is more likely to kill quickly, reducing the suffering of the animal, and the distance it must be tracked while it's dying

Technically, any rifle can be used for hunting purposes. But I'd not use an AK-47 for hunting unless I was a REALLY awful shot. Well...maybe if a Bear was the target...those critters are VERY difficult to stop, even with a heart/lung hit.

The second amendment isn't about hunting. It's about the security of a free state.


And it's not under attack regardless.

But the NRA has specifically accused Obama of wanting to making hunting weapons and ammunition illegal, so they must think it's about hunting, among their many other lies and distortions

109th Congress / Senate / 1st session / Vote 219
Question: On Passage of the Bill
Bill: S 397
Vote description: Passage of S. 397, As Amended; Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Democratic Party Voting NO

Max Baucus, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar Daniel Akaka, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Richard Durbin, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Barack Obama, Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden Dianne Feinstein

S.AMDT.1615 to S.397
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (introduced 7/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2005 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1615 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 31 - 64. Record Vote Number: 217.

Democratic Party Voting YES

Daniel Akaka, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Richard Durbin, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Jack Reed, Jay Rockefeller, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Kenneth Salazar Dianne Feinstein

Is that why Enron folded?

Bush Attempts to Give Tax Breaks Worth Hundreds of Millions to Corporations (DPC and Citizens For Tax Justice Corporate Annual Reports)
Bush tried to repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Had he been successful in repealing the AMT, corporations would have received the following retroactive tax breaks:

* $1.4 billion to IBM
* $371 million to United Airlines
* $1 billion to Ford
* $254 million to Enron
* $833 million to General Motors
* $241 million to Phillips Petroleum
* $671 million to General Electric
* $184 million to American Airlines
* $608 million to Texas Utilities
* $155 million to IMC Global
* $600 million to Daimler Chrysler
* $144 million to Comdisco
* $572 million to Chevron Texaco
* $136 million to CMS Energy
* $102 million to Kmart

I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed Independent, after listening for 5 minutes about how she would never toe any party line I got the discussion turned to issues and voting history. Turns out that her ultra conservative appearance is merely a façade for a Kumbaya singing-Birkenstock wearing-granola chewing-tree hugger who thought the term “liberal” was a dirty word, and preferred to disassociate herself from the "kooks" (her word), by adopting the Independent mantra, even though she has demonstrated the absence of desire or ability to act “independent” of the two party system by never having voted in any manner other than for Democratic candidates.

Since the 1992 election, where Perot made a valiant stab at breaking the two party system, the percentage of voters not choosing a Democrat or Republican candidate has dwindled (1992 - 20%, 1996 - 10.05%, 2000 - 3.75, 2004 - 0.99%).

One could argue that the other candidates have effected the outcome of the election (i.e. Nader in 2000) but have never had a serious chance at winning the election. IMHO the other candidates are there as spoilers only (in reality, not in ideal).

When the wheels really fall off of this thing we call the economy, perhaps everyone will finally be prepared to vote third party -- probably in 2012.

Meanwhile, in your earnest attempts at illustrating how opinions are favoring MCCain, Mcain is losing ground in CO, NV, MI, MS, NC, VA, AND FL.
WE obviously would disagree where the middle is, as I am considered by many to be a centerist.

I'm afraid I gotta agree here, I've been called uneducated, a bigot, a neocon, a piece of s@@t, an idiot, an a@@hole, a right wing religious wingnut (that one really hurt , I'm an agnostic!!!) and so many other things I've forgotten what they are.

West Virginia is full of wonderful people. It's a big part of the reason I live here. But unfortunately racism is still alive and well here among too many folks, and that was my point, countering yours that racism is a non-issue.

Democrats do not support the religious, gun-toting, pro-life, racially motivated, or big-business ventures the neo-nazi conservatives do. Sorry, I, and millions of other fellow democrats, would strongly disagree with that skewed mentality.

It creeps me to see a 72 yr old man who can't lift his arms above his shoulders. I know, he was tortured, but it's still creepy

MCCain doesn't have the best interest of average, ordinary, middle class citizens at heart. Even though a majority of middle class, zealous religious followers, miltary supporters, gun rights advocates and abortion advocates support him, they do so with singular agendas and have lost the ability to comprehend the devastating effects his plans would have on middle class, the backbone of this nation.

It creeps me to see a 72 yr old man who can't lift his arms above his shoulders. I know, he was tortured, but it's still creepy

MCCain doesn't have the best interest of average, ordinary, middle class citizens at heart. Even though a majority of middle class, zealous religious followers, miltary supporters, gun rights advocates and abortion advocates support him, they do so with singular agendas and have lost the ability to comprehend the devastating effects his plans would have on middle class, the backbone of this nation.