Zogby International FAQ

Yea, poll results are very accurate. How do you like the anology? Isn't the blood that circulates in your body all the same? So, people are all the same?

 

So who is this "reliable source" that's less Liberal than Fox you are referring to? I assume it's not USA Today.

Don't we have a "Regime Change" policy with North Korea? We're doing a lot on that front..

You think Iran has a Nuke yet? Talk about WMD's!

Don't get me wrong. I'm ALL for kicking some butt if we need too. We SHOULD be still in Afghanistan kicking Taliban A$$ with 130,000 troops. It makes me sick we're still talking about them and Osama Bin Laden.

Who seriously though Iraq was a Threat to the US when we invaded them. Especially in comparison to Iran and NK...

 

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

 

Heh heh.. Good one!

We all know what they just voted for this weekend though...

 

And we also know why. I think they might finally get the President to veto something. It's about time. I hope his pen hasn't dried up.

 

This would be his second Veto.
He vetoed the stem cell research bill last summer.
He is very proud that not a single stem cell has died during his presidency.

 

Some facts about stem cell research:

-The Bush administration has not banned stem cell research.
-The Bush administration actively funds stem cell research on the 60 existing stem cell lines, and is the first administration to fund stem cell research.

What the media calls a "ban" isn't a ban at all. The federal government simply isn't going to pay for certain types of stem cell research. Private industry and the states are free to do what they want. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-1.html :

This is repeatedly wrongly reported in the US media as a federal ban on stem cell research.

Grim

 

Wow this thread was a great read with a few facts thrown in. You know I love ya guys but this towing of the GOP line is a bit too much for me.

Iraqis wanting us there, deposing Saddam was a primary reason, Iraq had WMDs, pulling out of Iraq is surrendering to the extremists, pork spending tied to surrender, etc.

I'd suggest for all my "conservative" friends a subscription to the American Conservative, unlike that Neo-con rag the Weekly Standard. They stay true to the conservative ideals with no regard to political affiliation. They just did an article on the "faulty" intelligence about WMDs. You'd be surprised how it was intentionally doctored up by Neo-Cons with an agenda. If it didn't violate their copyright I'd scan it for ya.

 

Whoa, slow down chief.
I don't think I used the term 'ban' or 'Federal ban'.

I was merely replying to Odin's post about Bush's veto count.
After six years in power he'll have a total veto count of two.

The first, to protect embryos that haven't hatched.
The second, to sacrifice embryos that have hatched.
Kind of ironic.

Let Bush have his little veto.
The US will be out of Iraq in '09, because even if a hawk like McCain wins the Whitehouse, he'll be facing a 67 seat Democratic senate and that will be all she wrote.

Presidential vetos:

• 78 Reagan
• 66 Ford
• 44 GHW Bush
• 43 Nixon
• 37 Clinton
• 31 Carter
• 30 Johnson
• 1 GW Bush

 

Yet people's biggest gripe about him is that he is hard headed and won't work with the Congress. Judging by your list, it seems quite the contrary.

 

I stand corrected. I'm surprised that they didn't try and piggyback stem cell research on this bill as well. That would have cemented the deal.

 

Bush hasn't found a bill, spending or otherwise, he doesnt like.

I bet he shakes the ink loose in that veto pen now what with Congress finally questioning him on the war.

I swear I almost believe a back room deal was cut, "fund my war and I will sign your legislation"

 

I am confused.. all you people against the Iraq war, how has this affected you personally? Have you been drafted? The economy is booming because of GW tax cuts.. and we need more tax cuts. Unless you have a loved one who died there... sorry if you have, That is a hard pill to swallow and I morn with you. But lacking that, how has this war affected you? It seems to me your getting all reved up because of the media bias always showing negitive. Fact is we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 in America. The only places that have had attacks have copitulated, like spain and france and england. And don't give me this crap that iraq isn't part of the war on terror. It is and will be for a long time to come. we are using the terrorist resorces in iraq instead of here. I'll take that any day. Plus an eventually piecefull government in the middle east is a very good thing. That is in our national security because iraq is sitting atop the second largest known oil reserve.

 

Well men, I am headed to Iraq in 22 days, so I can tell you this whole thing does affect me. I will miss my daughter crawling and her first words, heck she just may be walking by the time I get back. I think the only problem the military have with this war is the fact that we are no longer taking it to the enemy. We merely make nice with the Iraqi people and wait for an IED to go off, then we scramble and try to find the trigger man. After we do find the man we shoot them just to have CNN there to try to manipulate the situation and try to send some Sgt to jail for excessive force. Oh well I am done, I know that I raised my right hand and i was not forced to join, but that doesn't mean that this drug out war isn't taking its toll on us. we are only human, no matter what people think about us. I only hope that I can still acess this site from the desert...my name is Chris and I am an addict...

 

So, some of you agree with the democrat position of surrender?

Should we surrender to the gang bangers in thugs that terrorize us on the streets of our own cities and towns?

Should we surrender to the drug dealers that push the substances that drive people to commit violence to obtain? The drug pushers who form the gangs and create the thugs that terrorize us here in our own country?

Should we surrender to the rapists who for whatever reason feel it necessary to violate people, sometimes children? These people terrorize innocent people right here in the cities and towns that we live in.

Should we surrender to the murderers that terrorize us right here in the cities and towns that we live in? The ones that sometimes commit violent sexual acts to thier victims before brutally killing them? The ones that terrorize us as they invade our homes then kill us to keep us from identifing them? The ones that terrorize us because they feel it necessary to "mark" their territory with a hail of bullets in a drive by, not even caring about the innocent people, often children, that they kill in the process?

Should we end the funding to our law enforcement here at home because people are continuing to be terrorized? Should we set a time line so that law enforcement has a date set to get our "domestic terrorists" under control? If they cannot do this then we just pull the law enforcement officials out of the cities and towns where violence and crime run rampant?

We, the people of this country, are not like the blood circulating through our individual bodies. Polling might give us some insight, but I don't believe for a second that it's results tell us what the people of this country think. At least I hope it doesn't. I hope that the people of this country don't want us to surrender in Iraq, or here at home.