Ya, I heard Bob got in trouble over some kind of scandal with his Vietnam record. I don't know were to find the transcript (that site was kinda hard to use), but I remember Kerry speaking out for McCain-Feingold, but he didnt sponsor it. I do agree with him that it is better than what was allowed back then. I heard Feingold say it took away a significant amount of special interests from some parts of government.
Again, please provide me with some evidence, because I've been searching the Senate records and can't find anything. I don't know how to find the records, but if there is a transcript of what was said on the senate floor, he was begging the senate to pass McCain-Feingold. I remember his words were, "It
Ya, he was the father of Neo-Liberalism.
I hate it when conservatives and even some liberals get upset about expressing rage against something. No one has the right to tell another human being how they should feel about something. If you're pissed about the president showing up because you think he's been responsible for the death of many innocent people, then rally your ass off!!! Like Bill Maher said, we wana see some rioting!
I really don't care if you think my posts are condescending, smart ass, or not. You questioned me on the fact if I knew if the president does not propose legislation, which he really does. Most people here have been respectful of a different opinion, but I'm not gona respond to smartass posts like yours
What your talking about is the origanal version of the Bill and Kerry's name is nowhere on the Documents or any of the ammendents. I remember Kerry on the senate floor calling for congress to stop ALL soft money contributions and the republicans were saying it violates free speech, which is why most of
Not to mention the fact that the president doesn't write bills, he suggests legislation for congress to write and pass (What he is currently doing with McCain regarding 527s and disclosure). His best recourse, other than that, is to request for the FEC to change rules regarding 527s (already tried that). <br
You can't really argue with these points I put up, especially the one on NAFTA. Bill Clinton passing NAFTA would be like Bush signing gay marriage into law.
The winner take all system ruins it for third parties. The only way a third party could create a dent is if it raised enough money, like $200 million at least. Cuz money talks...
Actually, a lower income citizen getting involved in politics is incredibly easy. It depends on what issue your working on. In my state, elected officials have often done their best to keep us out of poliics. The best example of this is when we tried to get the Gov. Davis and the Regents to lower tuitio
I will use my mediphore again: It does not matter how mush the Oil Soaked Cross cost to make, Moveon.org is the one who put it up and struck the match. Do you have any brighter ideas of getting lower income citizens involved in politics? Or is it only reserved for those who have millions of dollars. Mov
Naaaa, wrong answer. George W. Bush submitted a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads. His request was denied. http://www.fec.gov/ If Bush really wanted to kill these ads he would propose legislation to kill them now so they would be dealt with once and fo
Which begs the question, if McCain finds these excesses so despicable, why didn't he take care of them when he had the chance. He co-sponsered the bill, right? The original version of the McCain-Feingold bill was to ban all soft money, but there were senators and reps who were using the excuse that it w
It's not an insult to the thousands that have been laid off, or the millions that don't vote because their opinions aren't voiced. NAFTA and Welfare reform were introduced by Reagan and Bush Sr., but it was Clinton that actually did those things.
So, if that's true, then just because someone built a oil soaked cross means that I'm not a racist when I put it up and light it on fire. Kerry did reject this ad, as I'm aware, and he rejected the counter ad to the swift boat ads immediately. Bush has not rejected the Swift boat ads. It wasn't until Mo
It would be a great idea for campaigns to be state funded, but it would probably never happen, as Wellstone proposed when he was senator. Both parties make out like bandits as it is. They use the "free speech" excuse, but at thousands of dollars a plate at a fundraiser it is hardly free. Also, I don't know how Americans would react to politics this way. 60% would be a God-Send. We live in a society where citizens are excluded from politics. To George B
Liberal media? If the media were really liberal, they would dismiss the Swift Boat ads right away. Instead, the CORPORATE news outlets are beating the Swift Boat issue which is changing the way undecided voters are leaning. Polls are showing that the ads are harming Kerry, ad the media coverage is adding to it. If the media were really liberal, the corporate outlets would be talking about the issues of the campaign like social security, health care, ed
doesn't eliminating all 527s effectively stifle free speech? Those multi-million dollar ads are hardly free.
The two party system is part of the problem. I know there are conservatives who can't stand McCain as there are liberals who can't stand Lieberman. In a winner-take-all system, manny voters are left choosing a candidate they don't feel strong about. What's John Kerry's strongest appeal to progressives? It's that he is not George W. Bush. Politicians need millions of dollars just to stand a chance of winning. This means holding fund raisers and
I wonder if there is a "Crackheads for Bush".
The problem with "illegal" immigration is that the media does not engage in discussions on how to prevent it, besides by militarizing the border. Most undocumented people do not want to leave their homes, but only do so for money. The consequences of corporate giants like Wal-Mart drive down wages in Mexico and kill Mexican based stores. Factories that are put into Mexico pay horrible wages, many less than a dollar an hour. Every night on O'Reilly or S
One of the biggest betrayals I have felt in the democratic party was the term of Bill Clinton. I don't understand how it is he was able to pass conservative bills and not be held accountable for them. What amazes me even more is how conservatives say he was a very liberal President. I'll sight a few accomplishments to help prove my point. 1) NAFTA This treaty was the most harmful international legislation to change Mexico, the USA and Cana
PolMach Forums