"The Presidents Pension currently is $191,300 per year until he reaches the age of 80.
Assuming the next President reaches the age of 80.
Sen. McCain would receive zero pension as he would reach age 80 at the end of 2 terms as President.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years and after 2 terms would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore it would make economic sense to vote in McCain in 2008"
Hows that for non partisan thinking?
Assuming the next President reaches the age of 80.
Sen. McCain would receive zero pension as he would reach age 80 at the end of 2 terms as President.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years and after 2 terms would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore it would make economic sense to vote in McCain in 2008"
Hows that for non partisan thinking?
and the VP's?
I think it's worth paying it, if the person does a better job. Bush cost us 3 Trillion on a neverending conflict, has nearly bankrupted the country and McCain wants to continue his policies. NO THANKS. I'll pay obama the 5 Million. Shit, I'd pay him 10 Million. It's chump change in comparison to what these idiots are spending.
-D-
P.S. Cool thought though.
-D-
P.S. Cool thought though.
whats in a name ?
don Q something or other from back east.( think late 2006 )
and our own 2008 know it all......
hhhmmm
don Q something or other from back east.( think late 2006 )
and our own 2008 know it all......
hhhmmm
Yes, the same could be said of your passion in defending your own candidate. As much as I campaign for my guy there you are and those like you. So spare us all the hypocritical remarks. 
-D-
-D-
WASHINGTON
You know all i can do is vote and the outcome is out of anyones controll who knows what is going to happen Obama or Mcain, so i dont worry about much with our Elections.
And there is nothing we can do about this bail out so i think it is realy kinda pointless to Complain about something that cant be controled.
Its up to the librals and Dems in Congress
And there is nothing we can do about this bail out so i think it is realy kinda pointless to Complain about something that cant be controled.
Its up to the librals and Dems in Congress
Chris&Carrie that is no surprise about the WMD's I have said all along WMD's were there however;the public will never know the full truth until years down the road when this info is declassified. GW could have taken a lot of heat off from himself but he sacrificed his popularity in order to maintain National security MCcain will do the same he will also make sure that information that could hurt national security will be kept classified.
Norm
Norm
One fact that is overlooked all the time in debates over a presidential election is that the popular vote has not elected a president in over 200 years. In 1804, the Electoral College was enacted by the 12th Amendment (no popular vote to allow the Amendment), the electoral college concept was set up because Congress felt that the general public was too easily swayed by a charismatic candidate. Loosely translated, that means that the congress of the time felt the American public too stupid to make a properly informed decision.
Supposedly, a state's representives are "pledged" to vote for the candidate that that state's population voted for. But here's a kicker on that, it only requires the majority of the votes so if there are even 3 candidates on the ballot then less than 50% can still give a majority.
There have even been cases where the popular vote went with one candidate but the electoral votes went to the other major candidate.
From:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm
"In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president."
How scary is it to think that only 5 votes seperated the candidates in that election? How much scarier is it that the American public as a whole didn't want to have GW in the white house to begin with? Just goes to show that it doesn't really matter who we vote for, the electoral college has the final say anyway.
Supposedly, a state's representives are "pledged" to vote for the candidate that that state's population voted for. But here's a kicker on that, it only requires the majority of the votes so if there are even 3 candidates on the ballot then less than 50% can still give a majority.
There have even been cases where the popular vote went with one candidate but the electoral votes went to the other major candidate.
From:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm
"In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president."
How scary is it to think that only 5 votes seperated the candidates in that election? How much scarier is it that the American public as a whole didn't want to have GW in the white house to begin with? Just goes to show that it doesn't really matter who we vote for, the electoral college has the final say anyway.
CHRISANDCARRIE,
That was already debunked. They found an old 155 shell containing a little bit of degraded mustard gas. Then found some degraded pre 1990's stuff.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."
""This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
<hr>
...and that's from Republican Fox Network.
That was already debunked. They found an old 155 shell containing a little bit of degraded mustard gas. Then found some degraded pre 1990's stuff.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."
""This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
<hr>
...and that's from Republican Fox Network.
The definition of Politics: "Poli" in Latin meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking parasites."
To succeed in politics it is often necessary to rise above our principles.
Henry Adams said.."Practical politics consists of ignoring the facts."
Will Rogers said..."If you were ever to inject truth into politics, there would be no politics"
To succeed in politics it is often necessary to rise above our principles.
Henry Adams said.."Practical politics consists of ignoring the facts."
Will Rogers said..."If you were ever to inject truth into politics, there would be no politics"