No we did NOT.  Remember Bush's initial election was based on a humble foreign policy.  One of NOT nation building.  Remember that?  The 2000 election went to Bush because he LIED and promised SMALLER GOVERNMENT not larger government.

When the immigration bill came before Congress, Congressmen were directly threatened by their constituents, to the point where many of the supporters withdrew their support, and voted against it.  Now they are back-dooring it as riders on spending bills, because they know the people HATED that Amnesty Bill.

No, we want a smaller, more controlled government, NOT an intrusive government making evry decision that affects our lives for us.



NO, the President would have NEVER been allowed to nuke Iraq.  Remember, this whole time we have invaded and occupied Iraq, this administration has said time and time again, this is about liberating Iraq, helping the Iraqi, not against the Iraqi.  You can't leberate a country and spread freedom, win the hearts and minds of a people by nuking them.  He would have NEVER been given any kind of authorization to go to war against the country and the people of Iraq.

Now, the rest of this comment is weird.  Bush and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.  I know he said he talks to God, and that God told him to attack Afganistan and Iraq, but he is a LIAR.  A puppet spouting out crap like you would expect in your typical puppet show. 

Are you going to deny that Gore won in 2000?  That the Supreme Court simply upheld that Florida cast its delegates for Bush, and it doesn't matter that the count was wrong?  I don't know who voted in 2000 to steal elections, but it was clear that an effort was made by a few to hand the election to Bush despite the Gore win.

In 2004, you were given a choice between Bush and Kerry?  Not really any different that the choice you will be given when Hillary and Obama team up and run against what ever loser you pick from the top tier of the Republican side of the aisle.  Kerry could NOT have done a poorer job of running for President.  Almost as if, a group, like Bilderberg, or the CFR, asked him to poop on his election bid.  I doubt very seriously, however, if religion had anything to do with the Bush 2004 win.  Especially, when you consider that people are in prison, right now, after pleading guilty to charges of RIGGING THE ELECTION FOR BUSH!!!!!

And the BIG LIE is my point.  I guess you are still lost in the game.  The FALSE LEFT RIGHT PARADIGM.  No, the 2006 elections were NOT more important.  Just ike in 2000 and 2002 and 2004, in 2006 people voted to change things because they did NOT like the way things were going, the government, however, refuses to listen. 

The government refusing to listen to it's people, in a country where the PEOPLE are supposed to control the government, Fanatisism will develop.  This is NOT about Republicans ignoring people or democrats ignoring the people, it is about GLOBALISTS on both sides of the aisle ignoring the average American citizen!!




Ohh is that what GLOBALISM is about?  Community?  Well, yea, I am NOT a Communist, so I don't believe that what is best for the entire community should be forced on the individual.  I don't believe that the community determines what is best for me and the people I work to support.  I don't believe that the government is better able to determine ANYTHING in my best intrest.  The government should be limited to NATIONAL DEFENSE and SECURING OUR BORDERS.  This nonsense of getting involved in every aspect of life and making rules and regulations about every aspect of doing business, making decisions at federal levels about things that affect only the local community, does absolutely nothing to benefit the AVERAGE AMERICAN. 

Name one thing that our federal government does good.  The very idea of a buracracy is equivelent with red-tape, and inefficiency.  Yet the GLOBALISTS seek to add another layer of government, which we don't need, to the regulation and enforcement of policies that will do nothing more than add more and more levels of buracracy red-tape and inefficiency to an already complex set of laws imposed on us by other GLOBALIST leaders.

And no, I don't want the government of MEXICO with all their narco-terrorosts and child sex traffickers to have any say, whatsoever, on how we do business, on how we trade, on how we traffick consumer goods into our country, on ANY ASPECT OF MY LIFE WHATSOEVER, not one iota of input into the workings and goings on in my life.  Do you?

is that your idea of community?  Giving the drug dealers and the pimps a right to determine policies that affect your life?

FreeinTX

The court was absolutely correct in striking down an over-reaching, Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did that with a 7-2 vote.

Yeah, the Florida Supreme Court broke their own rules trying to rig it for Gore. But the bottom line is the real count said Bush was the winner, hence the reason the real court decided in his favor.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

I can post links too!!

http://fraudfactor.com/ffef2kcountways.html

One solution is to raise the minimum wage. If you receive 500-600$ per month on wellfare, I don't believe you would want to work just to get 1000$ per month, do you? I will enjoy my free whatever government donation and let the suckers work for peanuts money, or let the illegal mexicans do the job 
You have to try thinking as poor people think, if you really want to help them.
But, as always, the blame will be shifted to the lazy, poor people, not to the fucking greedy few.
Welcome to America, land of opportunity (to win Lottery....one day....maybe...work harder sucker, you are just a slave with the "free man" sticker on your head).

How did this thread go from a question about statistics, to agenda wielding BS?

Voltaire, some don't appreciate a point one tries to convey, however you must be careful about those who are readily available to debunk simple holes in arguments.
The asterisks used I believe indicate dollars in real terms? 

In proving that the middle class is dieing, all you were able to provide is that the same quintile of people have a relatively stagnant income.  That doesn't mean the middle class is dying. 

However if you looked at the real averages as well you would have noticed that there has been a significant increase in real income. 

What does this mean?

This explains the polarization, and the support for your argument that the middle class is dying.  What basically is happening is that the poor is staying on the bottom with relatively small change in income while the rest are getting ahead by receiving higher incomes.

However, it is also important to note that relative to the real value of income, many conservative foundations have found that the poor of this country (poverty line is around 17,000 I believe) have all the comforts that a highly industrialized nation has: microwaves, multiple TVs, washers and dryers, bigger homes and other household durable items as well as abundance of food, clothing, household staples like cleaning supplies and even entertainment products.

So there ya go, I filled the holes to your argument.  Now what does this mean...

Notice in my analysis that it does not include debt accrued by low income families, amount of savings accrued by low income families, health benefits, government subsidies that are otherwise not factored in, etc...