First of all my only argument was that the article was negative towards John McCain. I never said it was unfair or inaccurate. What i was doing which you are unwilling to digest is that i was making a comical comparison of liberals addressing negative articles and threads about Obama. This gets me to thinking though. Surprisingly all of a sudden you have this amazing eye for fairness and accuracy. The only problem is that you only have this skill when it comes to defending democrats. Answer this one question. If John McCain sat in Reverand Wright's church for 20 years do you think that it would be a fair and accurate to use that against McCain? After all your trying to be fair and accurate afterall aren't you?
Ahh... well if your point was that the facts are negative towards John McCain, then you're right. The article didn't really contain any bias (oddly enough) but yes, the facts are negative towards John McCain. I think the liberals only get upset about articles which show blatant bias and unfairly malign. Well, again, there's a difference between an article about facts, and the facts being negative towards a candidate, than an article which uses logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks or guilt by association. Well McCain did actually enthusiastically accept Pflegers endorsement -- even after he made the brutal comments that he had. Obama, by contrast, did not accept Wright's endorsement.
For the Obama campaign today, Dick Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving. Hours after the vice president announced that he was endorsing the McCain-Palin ticket, the Illinois Democrat offered a tongue-in-cheek congratulations to his opponent. "[H]e really earned it," said Obama, "That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it." Now Joe Biden is picking up where Obama left off. In remarks prepared for an appearance tonight in Bowling Green, Ohio, the vice presidential candidate takes a swing at, what really is, low-hanging fruit. "If you ever had any doubt that John McCain would continue George Bush's policies -- you can put those to rest. Just today, Vice President Cheney came out and endorsed John McCain. Do we need any more proof? I'm not surprised. Dick Cheney has been wrong on everything else the last eight years. He's on a roll." The McCain camp - which, one would think, had advanced word of the endorsement - is nevertheless doing its best to try and distance itself from the toxic figure. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the Senator, actually made the argument that it was Obama, both in genetics and politics, who actually stood closer to the vice president. "Barack Obama and Dick Cheney aren't just cousins, they've shared support for the Bush energy policy and the out-of-control spending that John McCain has fought to oppose," he said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/biden-on-cheney-backing-m_n_140053.html
This is confusing, when did Bush ever vote? Does he mean that of all the bills the senate and Mccain sent to Bush he signed 90%. I am sure there are some democrats who have high percentages. In fact many of the congress run on their record of getting bills passed. Every time you hear about a congressman bragging about some bill or new law they passed it would only be with them "voting" with bush 100% of the time. Every bill that Obama claims to have authored only became law because Bush supported it. Where the f*uck is McCain, why can't he fight these idiotic semantic statements.
For nearly the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, Bush hardly ever exercised the VETO power he had... Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04 President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections. It ain't about semantics, it is about the truth that McCain rubber stamped Bush supported bills close to 95% of the time...
The statistic is from congressional quarterly which stated that he voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007. Where is McCain? Here's McCain: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uThoBMfcFRc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uThoBMfcFRc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What's ignorant? You wondered where the number came from, I told you the source. As well, John McCain has bragged about voting with president Bush more often than most of his Senate colleagues (his words, not mine.) You should have John McCain on ignore.