McSame votes 100% with Bush in 2008

cawacko said:
Yeah, seven votes. 7 for 7 is still 100% I'm not questioning that. But 7 votes? That's pretty funny.
Click to expand...
I was just about to come in here and ask exactly how many votes were there in 2008. They pick the current year before there really have been many and then say this? This means that they found no other year that this has happened, and know that it is unlikely to happen this year either so they'd better jump on the wagon now while they can mislead people.
 
Damocles said:
I was just about to come in here and ask exactly how many votes were there in 2008. They pick the current year before there really have been many and then say this? This means that they found no other year that this has happened, and know that it is unlikely to happen this year either so they'd better jump on the wagon now while they can mislead people.
Click to expand...

Sure; it's pretty misleading to say 100% of his votes were with Bush in 2008 if 100% of his votes were with Bush in 2008.

Those stinkin' liars....
 
Damocles said:
I was just about to come in here and ask exactly how many votes were there in 2008. They pick the current year before there really have been many and then say this? This means that they found no other year that this has happened, and know that it is unlikely to happen this year either so they'd better jump on the wagon now while they can mislead people.
Click to expand...

Click through. You'll see the stats dating back to 2001. Twice he was less than 90% (89% and 77%). Really, these numbers in the abstract don't sway me that much unless I see how other Senators who aren't so-called "mavericks" voted. My sense, based on an analysis I read in one of the Arizona papers is that McCain votes with Bush and his Republicans friends very very often.

As for the seven votes, there'd be more if McCain bothered to show up for work once in a while.
 
Onceler said:
Sure; it's pretty misleading to say 100% of his votes were with Bush in 2008 if 100% of his votes were with Bush in 2008.

Those stinkin' liars....
Click to expand...
LOL.

I'll bet I could find times where even Teddy voted 7 times in a row "with" Bush. This is really sad. Desperate really. They can't find in any of the past 7 years any single time where all of his votes went with Bush so they pick the smallest possible number and use that one...
 
Dungheap said:
Click through. You'll see the stats dating back to 2001. Twice he was less than 90% (89% and 77%). Really, these numbers in the abstract don't sway me that much unless I see how other Senators who aren't so-called "mavericks" voted. My sense, based on an analysis I read in one of the Arizona papers is that McCain votes with Bush and his Republicans friends very very often.

As for the seven votes, there'd be more if McCain bothered to show up for work once in a while.
Click to expand...
He shows up more often than Obama for the important ones...

And I agree. Yet they pick this one year because they know that he never "always" votes with Bush and this is the one that would make it "seem" like he is "the same" as Bush.
 
Damocles said:
I was just about to come in here and ask exactly how many votes were there in 2008. They pick the current year before there really have been many and then say this? This means that they found no other year that this has happened, and know that it is unlikely to happen this year either so they'd better jump on the wagon now while they can mislead people.
Click to expand...

:crybaby::cry:
 
McSame? Boy this soundslike a fair argument. You need to stop sounding like Olbermann or all the moderates and rational republicans will think you are just another Moveon.org version of Glenn Beck.
 
Damocles said:
He shows up more often than Obama for the important ones...

And I agree. Yet they pick this one year because they know that he never "always" votes with Bush and this is the one that would make it "seem" like he is "the same" as Bush.
Click to expand...


1) Liar.

2) They pick this year because it shows that he actually is the same as Bush. Unlike Republican half-truth bullshit, it has the benefit of actually being true.
 
Dungheap said:
1) Liar.

2) They pick this year because it shows that he actually is the same as Bush. Unlike Republican half-truth bullshit, it has the benefit of actually being true.
Click to expand...
BS. Nobody skips the controversy like Obama. Again, only because of the few number of votes. Unlike, say, our Senator, McCain has never spent a year voting "with" Bush. They only use this one, which isn't even over and has had only 7 votes, because they couldn't say that about any full year of McCain's record while Bush was in office.
 
Damocles said:
He shows up more often than Obama for the important ones...

And I agree. Yet they pick this one year because they know that he never "always" votes with Bush and this is the one that would make it "seem" like he is "the same" as Bush.
Click to expand...


The argument that the Obama campaign will make through November is that McCain basically represents a 3rd Bush term. Given McCain's public positions on the issues of the day, I don't see where that argument is very misleading.
 
Basically this is exactly equal with the 'Most Liberal Senator' claim. Only easier to see through.
 
Damocles said:
BS. Nobody skips the controversy like Obama. Again, only because of the few number of votes. Unlike, say, our Senator, McCain has never spent a year voting "with" Bush. They only use this one, which isn't even over and has had only 7 votes, because they couldn't say that about any full year of McCain's record while Bush was in office.
Click to expand...


Whaaaaambulance.

And by the way piss-lips, if you follow the you can see McCain batting average for each year of Bush's term. Quit whining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top