lmao@barak, biden and pallin.

[thesightless]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

lets rip on the dumb idea from mrs pallin, but votre for it TWICE. idiots the 3 of them.

[sammwalk]

Re: lmao@barak, biden and pallin.

Because congressional bills only ever address a singular issue and are all perfectly absolute, and everyone voting for or against any item perfectly agrees or disagrees with said item, and said votes have no relation to any type of precedent or consequence, and every bill voted on by any particular person is, in and of itself, a perfectly sufficient representation on that person's qualifications and political position, and all bills exist in perfect uniquity, with no other existing bills already addressing the same issue in a better or different way, right?

[thesightless]

Re: lmao@barak, biden and pallin.

that line can be used for EVERY critique of ANY governmental official EVER, except for hteh vote to war in iraq, which kuchinich only has claims to disagree with.

imm copy paste it to every thread.

but when you rip into something, you should know what you voted for at the time. clearly, our potential candidates dont know shit. all 4 of em.

much like pallin going on the newsroom and talking about how she agrees with barak's energy plan, when her votes are polar opposites.

[sammwalk]

Re: lmao@barak, biden and pallin.

Well, my point is exactly that- no one should be throwing around commentary on senate votes, neither side. Any bill can be made to look bad, like Kerry and his "voted for it before I voted against it" or the Obama sex-education thing. There are better things to argue about, like policy, plans, qualifications, achievement, etc.