so how about this election

[40daws]

In a debate...far, far away, at the Hofstra system. Darth McCain and Jedi Obama meet once again. With the economy still in shambles, this seems to be a fight to the death. With key states in the balance both McCain and Obama scramble to fortify a strong hold for the votes of the people...Behind the scenes, the Empire has come up with a plan to reinvent their Death Star weapon, by turning the Republic into a socialist state. But the Jedi council has met and once again they are trying to keep a new threat from the bounty hunter BoBa Rush from spreading the word on his EIB network, about their secret of stealing the Death Star blueprint...

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Originally Posted by RJF

Well, Congress authorized the military action.

Check your facts.

They authorized military force yes, ONLY if the president could provide proof that all peaceful attemps at solving the situation have been used up. The president provided no such proof and authorized a war! He authorized a war saying justifying it with Weapons of mass destruction and iraq is harboring terrorist. Well i was there personally there was no WMDS! there were terrorist, no terrorist camps, and when we'd pull id's and pappers on terrorist we'd capture a huge majority of them were from neighbooring countries, they would come from syria to fight us! we are extremely hated by several middle eastern countries. the ones that were natural to iraq were iraqi military doing what there supposed to fight for theyre country and theyre beliefs, they werent terrorists!

So in short there was ZERO justification to be in iraq, there is ZERO justification thousands of troops and my friends are dead. The one and only good thing to come out of it is that sadaam is dead and his regime is out, but that needed to be done years b4 in desert storm!

Mccain stated to obama last night "i am not president bush" blah blah well your exactly like him you support damn near all his policies and look where thats gotten us.

Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing wtih those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

^^ theres your FACTS!! ^^

the so called proof Bush provided was a fukin LIE just to go to war, and in FACT he provided no less than a statement that there were terrorist and wmds no hard evidence no pictures of wmd/s or nuclear activity. Like i said I was in Iraq TWICE and on both counts found ZERO evidence to justify bush's war. The same war Mccain supports. My duties there were 1st to secure several oil fields/refineries. 2nd to drive all over iraq and CATALOG any and all weapons and military equipment. There were lots of small munitions, mass piles of 500 pound bombs (which is perfectly fine for him to have) although he lacked the equipment needed to use most of the bombs he had stockpiled.

back to the point tho If you want more of the same vote Mcain, if you want change vote obama. Obama may be lacking in experience but its obvious he has a plan that even in is short time in politics compared to mcain obama shows great leadership and the kind we will need to lead our country back onto the right track. thats just my 2 cents.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

I love McCaint's palling around with terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, who was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention while Bill Ayers was still in whatever group he was in and Obama was 8 years old.
Funny thing, here, is that Liddy RAISED FUNDS for McCaint to run for the senate in 98 and actually had Granddaddy McCaint on his syndicated radio show as recently as last year, where McCain said he was "proud" of Liddy and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Specifically, what McCain said was:

"principles and philosophies"?
Word?
Which do we speak of, here?
Advocacy of break-ins?
Firebombings?
Assassinations?
Kidnappings?
Taking target practice with figures nicknamed Bill and Hillary? (let the record show that I actually agree with the "Hillary" one)
While we're on the subject of shitty associations with people who have "palled" around, as in meeting in person, as the rules have been precedented, how about Liddy's instructions to anyone who would listen on how to shoot ATF agents "who want to take your guns," and to "shoot in the head because they have on bulletproof vests."
Not to say that Liddy is any less of a "terrorist" than Bill Ayers is, but Bill Ayers has not been parading his terrorism about over the last 3 elections as standard republicanism, and is not a sponsor.

Did Liddy bomb Government buildings and kill people? No

Plus he actually served prison time for his Watergate involvement. Ayers got off on a technicality.

When you have information on McCain having lunch with Timothy McVeigh (also bombed Government buildings and killed people) then you can make the terrorist comparisons.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by MaD ViLLaiN

They authorized military force yes, ONLY if the president could provide proof that all peaceful attemps at solving the situation have been used up. The president provided no such proof and authorized a war! He authorized a war saying justifying it with Weapons of mass destruction and iraq is harboring terrorist. Well i was there personally there was no WMDS! there were terrorist, no terrorist camps, and when we'd pull id's and pappers on terrorist we'd capture a huge majority of them were from neighbooring countries, they would come from syria to fight us! we are extremely hated by several middle eastern countries. the ones that were natural to iraq were iraqi military doing what there supposed to fight for theyre country and theyre beliefs, they werent terrorists!

So in short there was ZERO justification to be in iraq, there is ZERO justification thousands of troops and my friends are dead. The one and only good thing to come out of it is that sadaam is dead and his regime is out, but that needed to be done years b4 in desert storm!

Mccain stated to obama last night "i am not president bush" blah blah well your exactly like him you support damn near all his policies and look where thats gotten us.

Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing wtih those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

^^ theres your FACTS!! ^^

the so called proof Bush provided was a fukin LIE just to go to war, and in FACT he provided no less than a statement that there were terrorist and wmds no hard evidence no pictures of wmd/s or nuclear activity. Like i said I was in Iraq TWICE and on both counts found ZERO evidence to justify bush's war. The same war Mccain supports. My duties there were 1st to secure several oil fields/refineries. 2nd to drive all over iraq and CATALOG any and all weapons and military equipment. There were lots of small munitions, mass piles of 500 pound bombs (which is perfectly fine for him to have) although he lacked the equipment needed to use most of the bombs he had stockpiled.

back to the point tho If you want more of the same vote Mcain, if you want change vote obama. Obama may be lacking in experience but its obvious he has a plan that even in is short time in politics compared to mcain obama shows great leadership and the kind we will need to lead our country back onto the right track. thats just my 2 cents.

I suggest you find better, less biased sources of information.

Read the Law that was passed. There were no preconditions. Plus Iraq had chemical weapons. Saddam used them on his own people.

Congressional Resolution attached.

[Antihero983]

^lol like you are in ANY position to talk about finding/reading/using unbiased sources and information.

HAHAHAHAHA

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by ESmorz

Corporations and Lobbyists run this nation.

If you see how much power they have over both parties and the entire legal system, there is no way you can think Obama is some rogue, awesome, changeling candidate. He has been accepted. Just like the rest of them.

He and McCain are two peas in a very fucked up pod we call whats left of our nations Republic.

Ok, it's one thing to say that special-interest money has an effect on policy decisions, as that's quite plainly true. Each interest pulls and tugs at their respective targeted politicians vis-a-vis lobbying efforts and campaign donations. Sometimes these efforts pay off with favorable legislation and sometimes they don't.

If you are saying that there is some mass collusion betwixt all these varied and disparate interests that is somehow meeting, coordinating, and running the country, I'm gong to recommend that you get some medication. That is, as I mentioned before, "conspiracy theory bullshit".

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

It honestly doesn't matter what any of us say on here, Obama will be the next president of the US. His lead is just too far for McCain to overcome. I just don't understand why Americans always want to go from one extreme to the other.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by Mi Beardo es Loco

It honestly doesn't matter what any of us say on here, Obama will be the next president of the US. His lead is just too far for McCain to overcome. I just don't understand why Americans always want to go from one extreme to the other.

It's political momentum. When the incumbent has made an undeniable fool of themselves, the opposition will benefit by fielding a candidate as opposite as possible to said incumbent.

Thus, the Democrats will actually fair BETTER with a farther-left candidate when Bush is unpopular than they will with a more centrist candidate. We've seen this made manifest in the Democratic primaries, as despite her populist rhetoric, Hillary Clinton is much more centrist than Barack Obama is, and yet he clinched the nomination.

I'm not convinced she'd necessarily be the better President, but her politics more closely represent "the average" than do BO's. He is, however, the more appealing and obvious contrast to Bush 43, and thus he'll probably be sitting at that desk at 1600 Penn Ave come January.


Bush 41 was just "somewhat unpopular", and so the Dems got away with fielding someone who was "somewhat different" (i.e. Big Willie). Bush 43 is profoundly unpopular, and thus this translates into requiring someone who is profoundly different.

I think BO would be a good President. I'm not sure he'll be as good as Bill Clinton was, at least not in the strict policy-wonk sense, but he may end up being a more important President just because of what he represents and what he inspires in people both here and abroad. He also seems to genuinely know his shit, which is commendable, even if his conclusions are sometimes a little left of where I stand.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by RedEvilRPS13

^lol like you are in ANY position to talk about finding/reading/using unbiased sources and information.

HAHAHAHAHA

OK, so the House Joint Resolution from Congress is biased. My bad.

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Are you serioiuse?!?! I am a ARMY COMBAT VET IVE SEEN SHIT WITH MY OWN 2 EYES! biased info?!?! when kerry was running against him he was saying the same thing!!and kerry was on that same seat in congress telling him to produce proof b4 you go to war! and because obamas friend did some things doesnt make obama a suspect, im not saying its not fishey, but it doesnt mean obama cant run a country, and it definately doesnt mean hes a terrorist or supporter of one! but when thousands of poeple have died and are still dieing and our nation is now ran by fear of terrorist attacks that are funded and aided by our own government thats alot different!

sadaam used chemical weapons on his own people years b4 we came in. And who are we the fukin world police?!? we are not so if that backwords ass country wants to kill it self then let it.because the many years weve been there has changed absolutly nothing and ive seen it with my own eyes. those people are happy sadaam is out and theyve said it every fukin day now go home america you did your job we can take it from here! what are we still looking for WMDs? nope... theres no reason to be there and have more american lives lost.

you wanna talk about being in a bed with a terrorist. who created and funded al queda?!? USA did. we trained them we gave them money and weapons. bin ladin was an allie!

you wanna talk corruption how did bush get elected when gore clearly won the vote, hmm they demanded a recount in florida i think twice even, hmmm whos governer of florida Bushs brother, wow a bit of a coincidence there. not to mention all the vans full of lost ballets. not to mention the overseas military votes that werent ever counted on his 1st and 2nd election.

these are not biased facts. but only true facts. if you do not see it then you must be blind or completely brainwashed by bush and think that in the last 8 years we as a country have continued on a path to greatness and that bush and his crew have been a sucess. that we have moved forward and not light years backwards! that while bush was in office some of our rights were not violeted with wiretaps and etc... that our economy is not failing big time, that the war was not about oil. that 9/11 and the thousands that died and are still dieing as a result of it was not organized by our government and bush and his people let it happen!

What more evidence would you need to see that to elect mcain and continue down this same self destructive path that bush has us on, is the absolutly wrong thing to do??!!

[Antihero983]

Originally Posted by RJF

OK, so the House Joint Resolution from Congress is biased. My bad.

It can be and you know it.

99% of shit you post is anti obama, and you act like McCain has done NOTHING WRONG ever in his political career.

im not saying obama hasnt made mistakes, trust me.

but I would love for you to post something that isnt so fucking one sided for once.

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Originally Posted by RedEvilRPS13

It can be and you know it.

99% of shit you post is anti obama, and you act like McCain has done NOTHING WRONG ever in his political career.

im not saying obama hasnt made mistakes, trust me.

but I would love for you to post something that isnt so fucking one sided for once.

exactly!! ^^

and if the governement can cover up something like 9/11 well shit why would parts of congress not do so as well if theyre on the payroll?! not to mention i think not sure but more than half of congress are republican bush supporters anyhow! not to mention i dont think the spinless group of congress we have at the moment would stand up and do whats right now, cuz that would be admitting they fuked up and that therefore our system is fuked up and investigations and the whole 9 yards would follow, so they stay the course that theyre on, unfortunately...

nowa days its hard to believe any official document that comes from the government while bush is still in office because there integrity is so hugely tarnished! cuz like i stated b4 the 9/11 official pentagon report omitted and changed so many of the eye witnesses reports. why would your provided document not be touched by the same dirty hands.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by RedEvilRPS13

It can be and you know it.

99% of shit you post is anti obama, and you act like McCain has done NOTHING WRONG ever in his political career.

im not saying obama hasnt made mistakes, trust me.

but I would love for you to post something that isnt so fucking one sided for once.

*cough*
Keating 5
*cough*
goddamn, it's dusty in here... I think I will walk around the corner and vote early while this clears.
I expect that someone will have responded to say that John McCain was an angel in that as well.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

*cough*
Keating 5
*cough*
goddamn, it's dusty in here... I think I will walk around the corner and vote early while this clears.
I expect that someone will have responded to say that John McCain was an angel in that as well.

*cough*
Exhonorated
*cough*

The Senate Ethics Committee's investigation began on November 17, 1989. It focused on all five senators and lasted 22 months, with 9 months of active investigation and 7 weeks of hearings. The committee was composed of three Democratic senators, Howell Heflin (chair), David Pryor, and Terry Sanford, and three Republican senators, Warren Rudman (vice chair), Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms. Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett was appointed as special outside counsel to the committee, tasked with conducting the investigation.

Initially the committee investigated in private. On September 10, 1990, Bennett submitted a confidential report, which soon leaked, that recommended that the committee continue its investigation of Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, but take no action against Glenn and McCain, as there was insufficient evidence to pursue the latter two

[aziankingz]

i vote for joe the pumbler or was it joe diploma? that shit was funny.. rambling on about this joe..

[Matej]

Originally Posted by RJF

Plus Iraq had chemical weapons. Saddam used them on his own people.

How did that affect me?

[Antihero983]

Originally Posted by RJF

*cough*
Exhonorated
*cough*

The Senate Ethics Committee's investigation began on November 17, 1989. It focused on all five senators and lasted 22 months, with 9 months of active investigation and 7 weeks of hearings. The committee was composed of three Democratic senators, Howell Heflin (chair), David Pryor, and Terry Sanford, and three Republican senators, Warren Rudman (vice chair), Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms. Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett was appointed as special outside counsel to the committee, tasked with conducting the investigation.

Initially the committee investigated in private. On September 10, 1990, Bennett submitted a confidential report, which soon leaked, that recommended that the committee continue its investigation of Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, but take no action against Glenn and McCain, as there was insufficient evidence to pursue the latter two

and?

It still happened and that's the point. fuck even OJ was found innocent, it doesnt mean that it didnt happen.

and again I find it a hypcritical that you piss and moan about people posting biased info from biased sources, but yet that's all you do.....

[Phlip]

Did anyone notice last night that McCaint is southpaw too?

We are totally and absolutely irretrievably fucked on this one, no matter who wins, we get a lefty president...

... again...
Take note:

Gerald Ford - C'mon, Gerald, how the FUCK could you pardon Nixon?!!?
Ronald Reagan - "Reaganomics," anyone? "The war on drugs," anyone else (which was more a war on class)? nothing has gotten any better to this day... Rot in pieces, fucker.
George H.W. Bush - Apparently not good enough a man to be re elected, not to mention his failure in the handling of Saddam 12 years short of his boy's completely fucking the whole country in pursuit of finishing the job.
Bill Clinton - [apply GOP fans' hate here]

That has been 4 of the last 5 presidents that were left handed, and each has left their indelibly shitty mark on the country...

-ALTHOUGH-

None left a mark as shitty as the past 8 years with the current right hander, which has perfectly paved the way for the failure of WHOMEVER wins this time. Nothing is saving us from this quagmire.
Me, I am seeing a girl who is fluent in Spanish now, I will look into moving to Europe, nice knowing you all, see you on the other side!

[RJF]

Originally Posted by RedEvilRPS13

and again I find it a hypcritical that you piss and moan about people posting biased info from biased sources, but yet that's all you do.....

What's biased about that? Those are the facts from the Senate Ethics Committee or I guess three Democrats and three Republicans are biased.

Originally Posted by aziankingz

i vote for joe the pumbler or was it joe diploma? that shit was funny.. rambling on about this joe..

Liberal media stricks again:

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

http://www.timesleader.com/news/brea...nfounded_.html


.

[Antihero983]

^liberal media? thats not one sided posting at allllllllllllllll

i'm saying ALL of your fucking posts are one sided RJF.

[RJF]

I'm just stating facts.

Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real
Zogby International

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

That has been 4 of the last 5 presidents that were left handed, and each has left their indelibly shitty mark on the country...

I'd love to hear your breakdown of Presidents in regards to who was left or right handed and who left a shitty mark versus a good one.

Ronald Reagan buried this country financially. He was great in our standoff with the Soviets, but he was a subpar President in most other respects. He had great "perception factor", but that doesn't get shit done.

Bush 41 was the most brilliant foreign policy mind in the White House since the latter Roosevelt, but his forced marriage to the supply-side "voodoo economics" that he so personally detested ultimately doomed him. Great man though, I admire him a great deal.

Bill Clinton was the most fiscally conservative President in the postwar period and possibly in the entire 20th century. He cut real spending, drastically slashed accumulation of debt, and pumped up the dollar. No Republican President in the postwar period has ever seriously endeavored to cut real deficit spending, only Bill did.

I won't start on GWB. His philosophical issues mirror those of Reagan, but his inability to execute anything competently place him in another class altogether.


Don't get me wrong, despite my Obama endorsement this go-round I'm still essentially a fiscal conservative. I just can't stand the modern GOP idea that you can spend money and not tax. "Trickle Down" doesn't work anymore, it still trickles, but it trickles to Bangladesh and China, not to Americans. Supply-Side economics is dead (if it was ever alive), time for us to actually go back to waiting to spend money until we've got it.

It's just that, since the Reagan Revolution, the GOP has been horribly off-track in economic terms.

Show me a GOP President who advocates cutting spending FIRST and then maybe cutting taxes (or better yet, paying down the deficit) and I'll show you my vote.



EDIT: All this nonsense about Ayers, Lewis, Wright, and for that matter the Keating Five or Cindy's pill-popping is fucking irrelevant. Americans don't care to hear about it anymore and whichever campaign is forced to focus on this drivel for lack of better material is in bad shape indeed. McCain KNOWS people don't want to hear about this shit (outside of his oft-obnoxious base), but he has to go with it for lack of having anything better to present. He's better than this. I mean, I still hope he loses, but it'd be nice to see him treat himself and his own legacy a little better than this. Negativity is one thing, it happens in campaigns, but he's just demonstrating poorly conceived politics.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

Show me a GOP President who advocates cutting spending FIRST and then maybe cutting taxes (or better yet, paying down the deficit) and I'll show you my vote.

That would be John McCain.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by RJF

That would be John McCain.

I'm not sure how you can say that.

We're presently running a deficit in the budget, thus it is irresponsible to be proposing ANY tax cuts at all. If anything, we quite obviously need higher taxes unless we can demonstrate seriously lower spending.


I said cut spending BEFORE cutting taxes, but that's not what McCain is proposing at all. He is proposing a $300 billion tax cut to corporations and wealthy individuals.

The point is that tax cuts are immediate but spending cut promises are just that, promises. He needs to DELIVER on the spending cuts BEFORE even promising any tax relief, otherwise he's just another deficit spender.

Obama is a spender too, but at least he's willing to raise tax revenues in some hope of making the whole thing balance. He's not just spending borrowed money like the GOP does.

[MaD ViLLaiN]

[Antihero983]

Originally Posted by RJF

I'm just stating facts.

Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real
Zogby International

YOU aren't stating shit.

you are doing nothing more than copying and pasting shit that favors your opinion.

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

Ok, it's one thing to say that special-interest money has an effect on policy decisions, as that's quite plainly true. Each interest pulls and tugs at their respective targeted politicians vis-a-vis lobbying efforts and campaign donations. Sometimes these efforts pay off with favorable legislation and sometimes they don't.

If you are saying that there is some mass collusion betwixt all these varied and disparate interests that is somehow meeting, coordinating, and running the country, I'm gong to recommend that you get some medication. That is, as I mentioned before, "conspiracy theory bullshit".

I am merely saying that with as much political pull as special interest groups and corporations have in this country. It would be virtually impossible for some "radical" to get into office. They will do anything to protect themselves and their money.

Not some conspiracy, not some secret meetings with Lee Raymond and a bunch of other CEO's in a torch lit cave wearing cloaks and making all the worlds decisions.

It's just common sense that they are the major barrier between you and the White House. Don't agree with them... well fuck you buddy. Have fun on the PTA.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by RedEvilRPS13

YOU aren't stating shit.

you are doing nothing more than copying and pasting shit that favors your opinion.

So now Zogby polls are biased? Guess Obama isn't leading then.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Fuck all this horseshit.

Does everyone know that if a third party gets 5% of the popular vote then that party shall receive equal government funding, creating a viable third party for the next election?

‘Bob the Builder’

While Obama and McCain seek to put patches on leaks, Bob Barr hopes to rebuild America



"'Joe the Plumber' doesn't need Senators Barack Obama or John McCain'" says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. "He needs 'Bob the Builder.'"
"While Senators Obama and McCain seek only to put government patches on today's problems, 'Joe the Plumber' needs a leader who will rebuild our government into one that serves the interests of the people; not the interests of Washington," says Barr. "Senator McCain wants to make 'Joe the Plumber' responsible for his neighbor's mortgage, and Senator Obama wants to tax 'Joe the Plumber' for being successful. Both Senators Obama and McCain want to spend 'Joe the Plumber's' tax dollars on wasteful projects, such as the $850 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street."
"Senators Obama and McCain are no friend to 'Joe the Plumber,'" says Barr. "But 'Bob the Builder is.' 'Bob the Builder' says that Joe should be able to keep the fruits of his labor, and shouldn't be responsible for the mistakes of other people. 'Bob the Builder' says Joe shouldn't be asked to shoulder Wall Street, and shouldn't have his son sent off to die in a war that should have never been started. 'Bob the Builder' wants to build a government that is limited to its Constitutional authority, spends less of Joe's money and stays out of Joe's life."
"America needs a builder, not a patch-job," says Barr. "Senators Obama and McCain are a part of our problems—they are not the solution. America needs a leader with the vision and the courage to stand up against government, and truly reform it, where it once again begins serving the interest of every Joe and Jane across America. America needs Bob Barr."
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.
The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

....I'm just saying

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

YouTube - 30 Second Television Ad - A New Direction

Yes we can