<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scientific Proof That John McCain Sucks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:58:51 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Brownstone</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6868</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Brownstone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6868</guid>
		<description>The HRC doc says they double-weighted the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would explain McCain&#039;s score.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The HRC doc says they double-weighted the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would explain McCain&#8217;s score.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MH</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6867</link>
		<dc:creator>MH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6867</guid>
		<description>Okay, I&#039;m VERY late here, but I just have to upbraid you, Greg, on a particular item on this otherwise excellent post.
&lt;br /&gt;
The low LCV rating you show for Kerry is due to the fact that LCV cuts absolutely NO slack for missing a vote - a  &quot;not present&quot; counts the same in their scorecard as voting the wrong way. Considering that he was on the campaign trail much of 2003 and pretty much all of 2004, and the Republicans controlled the schedule for votes (and often made a point to schedule votes so as to inconvenience Democrats, especially the Democratic presidential nominee), the 44% for Kerry is far lower than his previous years&#039; scores, and not representative at all of his overall record on the environment. Let&#039;s look at those &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=298&amp;congress=1091&amp;lvl=C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prior year scores&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;107th Congress (2001-2002) 	92%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 	94%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 	88%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 	94%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 	100% &lt;/blockquote&gt;

All I&#039;m saying is that you should&#039;ve pointed this out. (Especially since you admonished your readers to &quot;read the footnotes.&quot;) Too many people these days are dogging Kerry irresponsibly - please don&#039;t be part of it. (It&#039;s okay to dog him when he really deserves it, btw.) Otherwise, excellent post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, I&#8217;m VERY late here, but I just have to upbraid you, Greg, on a particular item on this otherwise excellent post.<br />
<br />
The low LCV rating you show for Kerry is due to the fact that LCV cuts absolutely NO slack for missing a vote &#8211; a  &#8220;not present&#8221; counts the same in their scorecard as voting the wrong way. Considering that he was on the campaign trail much of 2003 and pretty much all of 2004, and the Republicans controlled the schedule for votes (and often made a point to schedule votes so as to inconvenience Democrats, especially the Democratic presidential nominee), the 44% for Kerry is far lower than his previous years&#8217; scores, and not representative at all of his overall record on the environment. Let&#8217;s look at those <a href="http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=298&#038;congress=1091&#038;lvl=C" rel="nofollow">prior year scores</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>107th Congress (2001-2002) 	92%<br />
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 	94%<br />
107th, 1st Session (2001) 	88%<br />
106th Congress (1999-2000) 	94%<br />
105th Congress (1997-1998) 	100% </p></blockquote>
<p>All I&#8217;m saying is that you should&#8217;ve pointed this out. (Especially since you admonished your readers to &#8220;read the footnotes.&#8221;) Too many people these days are dogging Kerry irresponsibly &#8211; please don&#8217;t be part of it. (It&#8217;s okay to dog him when he really deserves it, btw.) Otherwise, excellent post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tbag</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6866</link>
		<dc:creator>Tbag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6866</guid>
		<description>Late getting in on this, but I think alot of folk don&#039;t see McCain as a &quot;moderate&quot; but as a &quot;rational, reasonable conservative.&quot;  There&#039;s a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Late getting in on this, but I think alot of folk don&#8217;t see McCain as a &#8220;moderate&#8221; but as a &#8220;rational, reasonable conservative.&#8221;  There&#8217;s a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JS</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6865</link>
		<dc:creator>JS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6865</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d like to see this over several periods, say, back to the 103rd Congress, to pick up the Clinton era. Any takers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to see this over several periods, say, back to the 103rd Congress, to pick up the Clinton era. Any takers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pyrrho</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6864</link>
		<dc:creator>pyrrho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6864</guid>
		<description>right you are.

the funny thing is that people just assume you fit the &quot;spectrum&quot; from left to right, and if you show up sometimes on the oposite side, you  must be coming from the center.

McCain is straight forward and really is a traditionalist conservative... he&#039;s quite conservative, he&#039;s just honest enough to apply that all the time, he doesn&#039;t like the way they are spending money, he doesn&#039;t think you should trash veterans, etc, etc, none of those make him liberal in the least... it just means he has an ideology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>right you are.</p>
<p>the funny thing is that people just assume you fit the &#8220;spectrum&#8221; from left to right, and if you show up sometimes on the oposite side, you  must be coming from the center.</p>
<p>McCain is straight forward and really is a traditionalist conservative&#8230; he&#8217;s quite conservative, he&#8217;s just honest enough to apply that all the time, he doesn&#8217;t like the way they are spending money, he doesn&#8217;t think you should trash veterans, etc, etc, none of those make him liberal in the least&#8230; it just means he has an ideology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JCP</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6863</link>
		<dc:creator>JCP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6863</guid>
		<description>I was just asked to contribute to an effort to remove Nancy Peolsi from the Senate.  I think that is an admirable goal.   BUT   I am not happy with the Republican party.  They act like they did not win the last election.  Bill Frist comes across as weak, with a &#039;can we get along?&#039; attitude.  The Republicans have been backed into the need for a Marriage Amendment and to kill the endless judicial Filibusters (because of the atrocious behavior of the Democrats).  However, they failed at both since this party is full of compromising spineless un-principled people.  I decided NOT to contribute at this time.  What am I really funding?  On another note, what score do the Republicans get for &#039;lowering&#039; government spending???  Also, how about some dialogue re outsourcing skilled jobs overseas?  The Republican Party scores few points at communicating their plan to really tackle these and other issues.

Jeff of NH</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was just asked to contribute to an effort to remove Nancy Peolsi from the Senate.  I think that is an admirable goal.   BUT   I am not happy with the Republican party.  They act like they did not win the last election.  Bill Frist comes across as weak, with a &#8216;can we get along?&#8217; attitude.  The Republicans have been backed into the need for a Marriage Amendment and to kill the endless judicial Filibusters (because of the atrocious behavior of the Democrats).  However, they failed at both since this party is full of compromising spineless un-principled people.  I decided NOT to contribute at this time.  What am I really funding?  On another note, what score do the Republicans get for &#8216;lowering&#8217; government spending???  Also, how about some dialogue re outsourcing skilled jobs overseas?  The Republican Party scores few points at communicating their plan to really tackle these and other issues.</p>
<p>Jeff of NH</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Becky</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6862</link>
		<dc:creator>Becky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6862</guid>
		<description>Republicans want to keep government out of our lives when it comes to poor working conditions and adequate salary (Walmart), corporations paying taxes (Cayman Islands) and lynching black people (the God fearing and misunderstood south). But when it comes to any kind of sexual activity they not only want to dictate the rules; they want a hidden camera in every bedroom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans want to keep government out of our lives when it comes to poor working conditions and adequate salary (Walmart), corporations paying taxes (Cayman Islands) and lynching black people (the God fearing and misunderstood south). But when it comes to any kind of sexual activity they not only want to dictate the rules; they want a hidden camera in every bedroom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hamilton Lovecraft</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6861</link>
		<dc:creator>Hamilton Lovecraft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6861</guid>
		<description>When we say &quot;moderate Republican&quot;, what we mean is that we would, in fact, piss on him if he were on fire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we say &#8220;moderate Republican&#8221;, what we mean is that we would, in fact, piss on him if he were on fire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erin</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6860</link>
		<dc:creator>Erin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:56:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6860</guid>
		<description>yep, greg great post.  very informative. although i still think he&#039;s a charmer- he no longer has my support either...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yep, greg great post.  very informative. although i still think he&#8217;s a charmer- he no longer has my support either&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jim marquis</title>
		<link>http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-6859</link>
		<dc:creator>jim marquis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1804#comment-6859</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the info. I have to admit I&#039;m one of those Democrats who have been charmed by McCain in the past. Now I know better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info. I have to admit I&#8217;m one of those Democrats who have been charmed by McCain in the past. Now I know better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
