But Bush and Clinton were involved in scandals in their second term, however, Clinton was still well liked during the whole thing. You want to know why? Because Clinton lied about a Fucking Blow-job and Bush lied about going to Iraq. Which of these things caused us more trouble? “Don't be the world's Police, stop messing with other countries" Said the republicans during Clinton’s years. People generally liked Clinton genuinely, people don't necessarily like Bush, they are just afraid they will be bombed and hate freedom or they hate science and reason ^_^. hahaha. It's nice to be all partisan for a while.
This makes me so angry. I am literally trying not to break something right now. With the highest respect for your mother, people who give away their vote should just stay home. In my mind, it equals voting fraud.
Bty, Did I mention I was 14 at the time and could not legally vote but was highly interested in Politics. So my mother, who is not informed, let me go in with her and pick who to vote for since I was not allowed to do it myself! Regardless, Americans have the right to vote however which way they choose, whether they sell their vote or what.
I gave up on fixing this about halfway through. The complete lack of proper sentence structure makes it nearly impossible to edit this post for grammar without also editing it for content. This is definitely one of the five worsts posts I have ever seen.
"Vote-wise" essentially means "in regard to the votes." If we use your definition, then we can also say that "Vote-wise, Kerry was significantly more popular than Bush."
Kerry received the Second highest amount of votes ever!! Elections
Actually, look at these vote counts more carefully. Look at the 1992 and 1996. You'll notice that the Republican's only gained 100,000 votes from 1992 to 1996. Ross Perot had 19 million in 1992 and in 1996 he only had 8 million. So you would assume that these 11 million votes would then have favored republicans (since your premise was that Perot was taking votes from the republicans and not the democrats) However, you'll notice between the elections Clinton picked up about 2.5 million votes. Now, Assuming all the same amount of votes (which technically should be increasing) where are these 8.5 million voters that should be scrambling towards Dole since they want to stop Clinton? Don’t see them? I figured you wouldn’t see them because they are not there. I guess they were ok then with Clinton or didn't care because there was no gain in votes in that election. The voters didn't turn out any more or less then before and Clinton also picked up votes.
Now look at the differences between 2000 and 2004. You can see right off the bat you have a different situation in the country. Both sides increased in the sitting president’s second term and voter participation was at an all time high. But I have to say, you didn't see Clinton and Dole (or Bush Sr) telling the world that if one or the other was elected it would be the end of America. Anyhow, I got other things to do.. Respond a bit.
But Bush and Clinton were involved in scandals in their second term However Clinton was still well liked by the media during the whole thing.
Fixed it for you.
You want to know why. Because Clinton lied about a Fucking Blow-job and Bush lied about going to Iraq and caused us more trouble.
Clinton lied under oath and denied a fellow American her day in court. His "blow-up" on FOX News shows his contempt for the common man. The underlying attitude behind his blow up was, "Who are YOU to dare ask a question of me, your superior!!!"
In that case Kerry also lied about going to war, as well as all the members of Congress who supported the war. The best "Intelligence" is still based on guesswork. Even Clinton was talking about what a danger Saddam was while he was president. Are we to believe that suddenly, because a Republican was president, all the intelligence went bad over night???
Lots of folks called Vietnam "Nixon's War" but Nixon did not start the war. Al Qaeda had been pricking our finger since the first World Trade Center bombing yet many like to refer to it as "Bush's War"... It's OUR war.
As for the big "leaked" NIE document... looks like cherry picking and massaging... Same things Bush was accused of before the continuation of hostilities with Saddam.
So, should the headline be: "Democrats and media massage NIE document in attempt to make Bush look bad" or should it be, "Suddenly, Democrats have faith in our Intelligence services again!"
Honestly as a liberal (generally favors Democrats but sometimes votes for other (like Specter))(well I'm registered Republican but that's a different story) I've always had faith in the rank and file of the intelligence industry. You'll notice CIA continues to lose people
I however do not have faith in the political hacks that are in charge of it. To massage the data as you say. It's like the guy at NASA telling scientists to change the wording of their papers because they do not agree with the president's view. NASA Scientist says he was silenced
Look the war resolution that they passed in congress, it pretty much said "As our last option we will attack Iraq" You can't say we were at our last straw with Iraq, at that time. We had Iraq contained rather well ever since Bush Sr. You hear repeatedly about how intelligence agencies were trying to say there wasn't much of a threat out of Iraq. Bush Ignored CIA
Look at the time the war resolution was passed the people of the United states stood behind their president and believed he was telling the truth. A politician voting against a president requesting war powers, in a situation where the public and the flawed evidence is pointing towards a problem would seem irresponsible to not give the president further reaching power for a short time to handle the threat. Face it the Senate and House do not get the same level of intelligence that the president gets.
I hereby present you with a formal citation for grammar abuse. Your posts are so horrendous that I am forced to ask myself whether or not you have passed grade school English. It does seem that you know how to use the spell checker, bravo. However, you seem to be completely oblivious to the existence and proper use of my good friend Mr. Comma. Your overabundant use of sentence fragments and run-on sentences leads me to doubt you even know what a proper sentence looks like. Perhaps, as others here have suggested, you should purchase and study The Lively Art of Writing, Eats, Shoots & Leaves or an elementary grammar text. Of course, I may be making a mistake by assuming you can read better than you can write.
For the sake of sanity, preview your post and edit it until it contains only sentences. Then, at least, I will not be forced to abandon correcting the rest of your grievous errors.
yea, I give you a big... :-p on the comma. I was told to contribute to the political discussion.. and in a ranting and raving fashion I did so. :-p
There is no need to worry about comma's in a raving statement.. To do so would be against the nature of raving.
By the way for your information I passed AP English with a B and also passed two English classes in College. What does that say about public schools? If I do things this way, it will be less work for me. Also, it gives you a chance to compare and learn.Yeah, I give you a big :-p on the comma. I was told to contribute to the political discussion, and, in a ranting and raving fashion, I did so. :-p
There is no need to worry about commas in a raving statement. To do so would be against the nature of raving.
By the way, for your information, I passed AP English with a B, and I also passed two English classes in college. What does that say about public schools?
While I grant you that, my above posts were completely off the deep end in terms of grammar. The statement found in this block however is not in anyway hard to read or illegible by the lack of a few commas or the presence of a few “…†or a randomly capitalized word.
Comments
Bush has higher Approval rate then Nixon....However
But Bush and Clinton were involved in scandals in their second term, however, Clinton was still well liked during the whole thing. You want to know why? Because Clinton lied about a Fucking Blow-job and Bush lied about going to Iraq. Which of these things caused us more trouble? “Don't be the world's Police, stop messing with other countries" Said the republicans during Clinton’s years. People generally liked Clinton genuinely, people don't necessarily like Bush, they are just afraid they will be bombed and hate freedom or they hate science and reason ^_^. hahaha. It's nice to be all partisan for a while. Bty, Did I mention I was 14 at the time and could not legally vote but was highly interested in Politics. So my mother, who is not informed, let me go in with her and pick who to vote for since I was not allowed to do it myself! Regardless, Americans have the right to vote however which way they choose, whether they sell their vote or what.
I gave up on fixing this about halfway through. The complete lack of proper sentence structure makes it nearly impossible to edit this post for grammar without also editing it for content. This is definitely one of the five worsts posts I have ever seen.
-Mr. Period.
Edited slightly to make it less painful.
Actually, look at these vote counts more carefully. Look at the 1992 and 1996. You'll notice that the Republican's only gained 100,000 votes from 1992 to 1996. Ross Perot had 19 million in 1992 and in 1996 he only had 8 million. So you would assume that these 11 million votes would then have favored republicans (since your premise was that Perot was taking votes from the republicans and not the democrats) However, you'll notice between the elections Clinton picked up about 2.5 million votes. Now, Assuming all the same amount of votes (which technically should be increasing) where are these 8.5 million voters that should be scrambling towards Dole since they want to stop Clinton? Don’t see them? I figured you wouldn’t see them because they are not there. I guess they were ok then with Clinton or didn't care because there was no gain in votes in that election. The voters didn't turn out any more or less then before and Clinton also picked up votes.
Now look at the differences between 2000 and 2004. You can see right off the bat you have a different situation in the country. Both sides increased in the sitting president’s second term and voter participation was at an all time high. But I have to say, you didn't see Clinton and Dole (or Bush Sr) telling the world that if one or the other was elected it would be the end of America. Anyhow, I got other things to do.. Respond a bit.
In that case Kerry also lied about going to war, as well as all the members of Congress who supported the war. The best "Intelligence" is still based on guesswork. Even Clinton was talking about what a danger Saddam was while he was president. Are we to believe that suddenly, because a Republican was president, all the intelligence went bad over night???
Lots of folks called Vietnam "Nixon's War" but Nixon did not start the war. Al Qaeda had been pricking our finger since the first World Trade Center bombing yet many like to refer to it as "Bush's War"... It's OUR war.
As for the big "leaked" NIE document... looks like cherry picking and massaging... Same things Bush was accused of before the continuation of hostilities with Saddam.
So, should the headline be: "Democrats and media massage NIE document in attempt to make Bush look bad" or should it be, "Suddenly, Democrats have faith in our Intelligence services again!"
I however do not have faith in the political hacks that are in charge of it. To massage the data as you say. It's like the guy at NASA telling scientists to change the wording of their papers because they do not agree with the president's view.
NASA Scientist says he was silenced
Climate researchers feel the heat
Look the war resolution that they passed in congress, it pretty much said "As our last option we will attack Iraq" You can't say we were at our last straw with Iraq, at that time. We had Iraq contained rather well ever since Bush Sr. You hear repeatedly about how intelligence agencies were trying to say there wasn't much of a threat out of Iraq. Bush Ignored CIA
Look at the time the war resolution was passed the people of the United states stood behind their president and believed he was telling the truth. A politician voting against a president requesting war powers, in a situation where the public and the flawed evidence is pointing towards a problem would seem irresponsible to not give the president further reaching power for a short time to handle the threat. Face it the Senate and House do not get the same level of intelligence that the president gets.
Report on pre-war intelligence and what went wrong
There was sooooo much spin!
Sorry for the rambling...
I hereby present you with a formal citation for grammar abuse. Your posts are so horrendous that I am forced to ask myself whether or not you have passed grade school English. It does seem that you know how to use the spell checker, bravo. However, you seem to be completely oblivious to the existence and proper use of my good friend Mr. Comma. Your overabundant use of sentence fragments and run-on sentences leads me to doubt you even know what a proper sentence looks like. Perhaps, as others here have suggested, you should purchase and study The Lively Art of Writing, Eats, Shoots & Leaves or an elementary grammar text. Of course, I may be making a mistake by assuming you can read better than you can write.
For the sake of sanity, preview your post and edit it until it contains only sentences. Then, at least, I will not be forced to abandon correcting the rest of your grievous errors.
There is no need to worry about comma's in a raving statement.. To do so would be against the nature of raving.
By the way for your information I passed AP English with a B and also passed two English classes in College. What does that say about public schools?
If I do things this way, it will be less work for me. Also, it gives you a chance to compare and learn.Yeah, I give you a big :-p on the comma. I was told to contribute to the political discussion, and, in a ranting and raving fashion, I did so. :-p
There is no need to worry about commas in a raving statement. To do so would be against the nature of raving.
By the way, for your information, I passed AP English with a B, and I also passed two English classes in college. What does that say about public schools?
While I grant you that, my above posts were completely off the deep end in terms of grammar. The statement found in this block however is not in anyway hard to read or illegible by the lack of a few commas or the presence of a few “…†or a randomly capitalized word.