REAL OFFICIAL Pre-Election Poll :) [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : REAL OFFICIAL Pre-Election Poll :)

pOrk

10-22-2008, 10:58 PM

Here we are, a poll with more then 2 Candidates. Who would have thought?

My vote is in for Baldwin

Russ Jerome

10-22-2008, 11:44 PM

Im with you, only cuz Ron said too.

pOrk

10-22-2008, 11:55 PM

I really wish Ron was still in it, he had a far better chance and a hell of a following.

10-22-2008, 11:59 PM

Is Ross Perot running again?

HITMAN

10-23-2008, 12:00 AM

Is Ross Perot running again?

Yeah....:durr

Russ Jerome

10-23-2008, 12:29 AM

I really wish Ron was still in it, he had a far better chance and a hell of a following.

The only bad thing I can think of had he won was being
worried there would be a grassy knoll in his future, guy
truly comes off decent and truthfull..there would be a
lot of career (corrupt) people in DC pissed at him.

I think we have a chance at seeing a smart person in
the white house, as the economy hits bottom in the
next few years I expect the brainwashed general
public will wake up and realize they were riding a
doomed ship with the "bought and paid for" present
candidates. All their 401k money gone, there spouces
unemployed and loosing there house's we can say
"ya know we been trying to get you to vote outside
the box for a while".

Russ Jerome

10-23-2008, 12:32 AM

Polls are coming in!

66% of people look forward to a depression and supporting
other countries while the USA is flat broke...woohooo!

fivonut

10-23-2008, 12:59 AM

Polls are coming in!

66% of people look forward to a depression and supporting
other countries while the USA is flat broke...woohooo!

who's fault is that again??

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline has been over $4.00 a gallon & who knows where it's going;
3) Unemployment is up to 6.1%
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is looking at another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

Or try this one...

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-05-1.html

But, I don't expect you to understand.....

Cjburn

10-23-2008, 03:53 AM

You can't pick sides in this debate, both have had a hand in it.

SSDude

10-23-2008, 05:20 AM

Cjburn You can't pick sides in this debate, both have had a hand in it.
The democrats party has been the major contributor to our financial crisis.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

by Orson Scott Card

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

The whole story //www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

Facts Do Matter http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter?page=full&comments=true

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

07ROUSHSTG3

10-23-2008, 08:25 AM

yeah.....throw your vote away on a no name candidate. that will help turn the country around for sure.

as much as i hate the fact that as a conservative i have no candidate running, i hate more the idea of a socialist terrorist running our country. wake up guys.

Karps TA

10-23-2008, 08:36 AM

Hate to get off topic, but I gotta get this straight.

If we have a Democratic President and a Democratic run congress everything that happens is the Dems fault

If we have a Republican President and a Democratic run congress it's the Dems fault that bad stuff happens cause the President is powerless to pass anything.

If we have a Republican President and a Republican congress it's the Dems fault for bad stuff that happens cause they still somehow have all the power.

If it's a Democratic President and a Republican run congress, it's the Dems fault when things go wrong because the President has all the power.

Cause that sure seems to be what I always read. Now I'm an independant myself. Had up until this election voted Republican my entire life, but the last 8 years made me want no part of either side. But I don't get how the Right can blame the Left no matter what the situation is. When they were trying to put regulation of Freddie and Fannie (2005 before the "change"), the Republicans had control. And they couldn't get the job done. Why because a bunch of them were getting bribes to not support it. http://newsok.com/freddie-mac-republican-firm-arranged-stealth-campaign/article/3313300

Both sides left and right are destroying this country due to greed and pushing their own agendas. Voting for either side is just saying you're okay with how they are running things.

Crawlin

10-23-2008, 10:03 AM

Russ Jerome

10-23-2008, 10:07 AM

But, I don't expect you to understand.....

Good read....if I understood it correctly.

Mr Twigbert

10-23-2008, 10:11 AM

Here we are, a poll with more then 2 Candidates. Who would have thought?

My vote is in for Baldwin

Way to make a 2nd poll of names that won't win and will have no effect on the election..

pOrk

10-23-2008, 10:14 AM

Way to make a 2nd poll of names that won't win and will have no effect on the election..

Its sad when a public servant has such a negative attitude when it comes to something his opinion differs on. Educate yourself on the candidates before you make your opinion.

It clearly has an effect, notice how they are getting votes. DURRRRR

Karps TA

10-23-2008, 10:24 AM

Funny....

as of late(meaning the past 5-6 years), it's the Dems blaming the republicans for everything going wrong, and blaming it all on Bush...

so I fail to see the point you are trying to make when all that is happening is finger pointing at Bush.

We've heard all of this "CHANGE" talk before. What was it, '06??? Right... they wanted CHANGE. American people wanted CHANGE. So we believed them, and voted them into Congress. What happened to all that talk of "we'll stop high gas prices and oil companies". Well, they got in and we saw a rise in gas prices that equals no other time period. We've had the highest prices ever. What's been done to CHANGE our economy? What's been done to CHANGE the way things have been going now that Congress can pass laws/bills/etc.. and over turn the President's decisions. What has happened? The answer would be... the country has gotten WORSE

Just like a QB on a football team, he gets too much credit when things go good and too much blame when things go bad.

My point was mostly directed at the Freddie/Fannie comments.

Truth be told though what has happened has more to do with what has been going on for the last 15 years, more then the last 2-8. It just finally came all to a head.

Both sides spend 95% of their time pointing their fingers at the other side. That's the biggest reason why I want a third party. So maybe 2 of the 3 sides can agree on something and try to get things fixed. This do nothing but show blame accomplishes nothing IMO.

pOrk

10-23-2008, 10:32 AM

Has anyone seen a positive campaign commercial this election? All I see are HUNDREDS of Obama Bashing McCain ads, and plenty of McCain bashing Obama ads.

PonyKiller87

10-23-2008, 10:32 AM

You need to add a line for other for those of us writing in Ted Nugget, lol.

Car Guy

10-23-2008, 11:31 AM

Rocket Power

10-23-2008, 12:50 PM

RON PAUL...!!! :banana1:

Also, the claim that “you are throwing away your vote if you don't choose Obama or McCain” is FU€KING RIDICULOUS x 1,000,000! My brain can't even process that statement because it’s beyond my understanding of stupid, and I'm not kidding.....:)
See if you vote for someone that will get .003% of the vote, they won't win. Thus your vote is meaningless in the grand scheme. Unlike 92 when Perot had a big following and got 19% of the vote, then I could see voting for the third party. Understand now?:goof

VroomPshhTsi

10-23-2008, 12:50 PM

fivonut

10-23-2008, 12:59 PM

The problem is that a third party vote typically takes votes away from Republicans not Democrats. So for anyone who definitely does not want a Democrat in office it's a lose lose situation.

Sprayaway Fox

10-23-2008, 01:06 PM

Mr Twigbert

10-23-2008, 03:13 PM

Its sad when a public servant has such a negative attitude when it comes to something his opinion differs on. Educate yourself on the candidates before you make your opinion.

It clearly has an effect, notice how they are getting votes. DURRRRR

It's sad when someone thinks a public servant isn't allowed to have 'a negative attitude'..

I suppose you think because you pay 'a public servants' salary that that person should think and feel the way you do?

Educate yourself before making your opinion.. DURRRRR :loser

SSDude

10-23-2008, 04:33 PM

I dont understand why perot didnt win. A regular dude work his way threw the ranks and he even used easy charts and graphs to follow then everybody cutz him down. My vote was with Huckabee but now not voting for any cause I dont feel any of them are ready to lead. The others on the ballot dont get the media coverage as the big 2 hmmm could this mean special interest is pumping money into THERE canidates so they get the media coverage that the rest of them cant? You bet your ass. Didnt both canidates say they were gonna stop "special interest?" :confused Say one thing do another just like the rest of them.

Perot was a quirky little millionaire that a lot of people couldn't get comfortable about. I know a number of people who always vote liberal cause that how they were brought up and the don't want to be bothered with taking a real live look at how the democrats have been infiltrated by the socialists. Nor will a third party ever be anything more that a irritant in future elections because of how people have been brainwashed. take a good look at the brainwashing going on in our schools today.:fire

Hucklberry would be doing worse than McCain because the dem's would have had a field day with his religion. I don't have a problem with it but they do.

Special interests are not a bad thing because if you realize it or not you may belong to one. Special interests are groups like SEMA, AMA, NRA, AARP, etc.
You may not like some of those groups but it is a way for people of the same interests to be collectively heard on issues they care about.

You might want to look at your vote as one of the lesser of two evils. I firmly believe that having a president, senate and house all controlled by democrats will unleash the greatest expansion of government and spending this country has ever experienced. Even worse than what anyone will say we've had to date.:thumbsup

Better legislation comes through compromise, as when neither party has total control.

BOSS LX

10-23-2008, 04:41 PM

Way to make a 2nd poll of names that won't win and will have no effect on the election..

I have to agree. There is a better chance of me winning a trillion dollars in the lotto, then anyone but Obama or McCain getting into office. And I don't even play the lotto. :thumbsup

Of course I am voting for McCain. :headbang

Larrygto

10-23-2008, 04:44 PM

I'm voting for Chuck Norris!!!

Nick

10-23-2008, 05:01 PM

You need to add a line for other for those of us writing in Ted Nugget, lol.

Is that some kind of new value mean at McDonalds?

Maybe Ted Nugent would be a better choice? :rolf

lordairgtar

10-23-2008, 05:16 PM

No choice for Chuck Norris...why not? But anyway, I think a third party has to start getting into the little local elections and work their way up through the State slots and then into the House and Senate. You just can't pop up and say "I wanna be Prez" and expect people to jump on your bandwagon no matter how good your platform is. I myself am considering a run for a school board position here in my town.

Russ Jerome

10-23-2008, 05:31 PM

I think people are trying to say "your candidate definitely won't win" which is true but I disagree if they say "you are throwing away your vote" because that is false. No third party rises to power super fast and wins an election, they just need a certain percentage of votes to gather enough money/support to be a real threat.

Im glad to see that Im not going crazy and others have a grasp on
reality! Well said and 100% correct.

On the other hand:
"Oh Im gonna die of cancer so I may as well smoke and eat bacon"

"Oh Im not voting for that guy, he can win" Meaning I refuse to
pick a loosing side just to save face, hey you picked the (idiot) winner!

The point keeps getting skipped over by McCain/Obama fans, these
two blundering idiots dont know the capitol of some states, hell they
dont even know how many states there are if you listen to Obama.
McCain? Holy crap have you ever listend to this idiot speak? Your
arguing over two complete idiots (thats not debatable, if you think it
is Im not even commenting) who are politicaly placed puppets.

McCain fans, stupid or not?
iWX5u69hmzY
Obama fans, idiot or not?
xJCgeQsjFeU

Hello? These are the people "you" plan on putting in office, there is
no debating the fact these are probably the two stupidest people
who have ever campained for this office!

Russ Jerome

10-23-2008, 05:36 PM

Im sorry but I had to watch both those clips again, how many people here
would be fired or simply laughed at till you left work if you came stumbling
in talking about things these guys say? Hell I know Im going to the clinic
for a drug test if I said any of the above crap at work. Those are funny
little clips, both McCain and Obama have hours of "miscues" on AM radio,
pretty scary stuff about foreign relations and religeons.

STANMAN

10-23-2008, 05:40 PM

Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and
two small children.
Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife
comes
around the corner, locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds
before he reaches you and your family. What
do
you do?

................................................. ........

THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:

Democrat's
Answer :

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does
the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that
would inspire
him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife
think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club
and knock
the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind
of message
does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be
happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would
he be
content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold
on, could my
family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call
9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have
paint and weed day and
make this happier, healthier street that
would
discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to
debate this with
some friends for few days and try to come to a
consensus.

................................................. .................................................. ..........

Republican's
Answer:

BANG!

................................................. .................................................. .........

Redneck's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG!
BANG !
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG!
BANG! Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those
the
Winchester
Silver Tips or Hydrashocks?! '
Son: 'Can I shoot the next
one?!'
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist

Reverend Cooper

10-23-2008, 06:40 PM

democrat, a republican, or a redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and
two small children.
Suddenly, an islamic
terrorist with a huge knife
comes
around the corner, locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a
kimber 1911 cal. 45 acp, and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds
before he reaches you and your family. What
do
you do?

................................................. ........

Think carefully and
then scroll down:

Democrat's
answer :

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does
the man look poor or oppressed?
Have i ever done anything to him that
would inspire
him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife
think?
What about the kids?
Could i possibly swing the gun like a club
and knock
the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am i carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind
of message
does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be
happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would
he be
content just to wound me?
If i were to grab his knees and hold
on, could my
family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should i call
9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have
paint and weed day and
make this happier, healthier street that
would
discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to
debate this with
some friends for few days and try to come to a
consensus.

................................................. .................................................. ..........

Republican's
answer:

Bang!

................................................. .................................................. .........

Redneck's answer:

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!bang! Bang!
Bang !
Click..... (sounds of reloading)
bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!
Bang! Bang!
Bang! Click
daughter: 'nice grouping, daddy! Were those
the
winchester
silver tips or hydrashocks?! '
son: 'can i shoot the next
one?!'
wife: 'you ain't taking that to the taxidermist

i shoot him in his fvcking face

Feature Pony

10-23-2008, 07:59 PM

dude you forgot Mickey Mouse thats who I'm voting for as a write in!

STANMAN

10-23-2008, 08:11 PM

I just noticed this, I am suprised one of you other gun freaks on the board hadn't caught it. A Kimber wouldn't go "BANG" 9 times:rolf

Rocket Power

10-23-2008, 09:36 PM

dude you forgot Mickey Mouse thats who I'm voting for as a write in!

Seems legit. ACRON registered him:rolf
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece

10-23-2008, 10:07 PM

We could always vote Socialist...

http://www.sp-usa.org/

SSDude

10-23-2008, 10:17 PM

We could always vote Socialist...

http://www.sp-usa.org/

Or CPUSA endorses:thumbsup

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

HITMAN

10-24-2008, 05:44 AM

When they were trying to put regulation of Freddie and Fannie (2005 before the "change"), the Republicans had control. And they couldn't get the job done. Why because a bunch of them were getting bribes to not support it. http://newsok.com/freddie-mac-republican-firm-arranged-stealth-campaign/article/3313300

Might want to read this before you put too much blame on the Republicans...

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

by Orson Scott Card

October 09, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means. That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe –and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

link to actual article:http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/orson.10.09.08.html

BTW, Card is a self desrcibed Democrat, albeit a conservative one.

Both sides left and right are destroying this country due to greed and pushing their own agendas. Voting for either side is just saying you're okay with how they are running things.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Partisan politics are a good thing, but as of late it has gotten out of hand. This country has become so divided that it probably would take much of a push to bring on some real anarchy.

T-Bag

10-24-2008, 10:12 AM

I'm going with the comedy write-in option

That_Guy

10-24-2008, 11:41 AM

to bad this poll doesnt account for acorn

10-25-2008, 12:11 AM

I went to other forums to see how they were voting. Looks like the VWVortex people will be voting leftie. You will be able to spot these people at your local polling location by their popped collars.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4013140

Or CPUSA endorses:thumbsup

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

Seriously, Obama is NOT a socialist. Calling Obama a socialist is an insult to the real socialists.

nismodave

10-25-2008, 10:55 AM

Most VW enthusists are dim bulbs anyway, so its no surprise to me.

SSDude

10-25-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDude View Post
Or CPUSA endorses
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

Seriously, Obama is NOT a socialist. Calling Obama a socialist is an insult to the real socialists.
I was only pointing out that the Communist Party USA is endorsing Obama:thumbsup

88Nightmare

10-25-2008, 11:13 AM

nismodave

10-25-2008, 11:14 AM

Terrorists for Obama!!!!

10-25-2008, 11:50 AM

I was only pointing out that the Communist Party USA is endorsing Obama:thumbsup

I guess Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Most VW enthusists are dim bulbs anyway, so its no surprise to me.

Really? I always assumed that they were soon-to-be-yuppies. I mean, there are alot more v-dubs around UWM than Camaros, Mustangs and 240s.

T-Bag

10-25-2008, 01:03 PM

Heres what I don't understand:

A candidate can win the popular vote, but lose in the electoral vote.... therefore he loses the election.

If a candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral vote, he wins the election. Our votes aren't part of the electoral college, so you can vote for whoever you want.... how does your vote make a difference in the end?

and btw im not trying to be a naysayer and say im not voting, because I am, I've decided I want to vote for mccain, but like I said. If I vote for him and obama wins the electoral college votes, how did my vote even matter?

You've answered your own question; your vote doesn't mean jack shit in the presidential election. Period.

Look what happened the last election.

I'm voting obviously...but going in knowing that my vote doesn't really mean anything. Welcome to the republic...but then again its a good thing too because most people are too retarded to vote for themselves...look at the south or the people just voting because obama is black.

Russ Jerome

10-25-2008, 02:47 PM

Heres what I don't understand:

A candidate can win the popular vote, but lose in the electoral vote.... therefore he loses the election.

I never knew until recently it was true for the electoral vote, pretty
scary. Thats a topic Ron Paul covers on his web page, says its against
the constitution or something....but who would vote for Ron Paul right?

America: Home of the upright bipod Lemmings, we will follow anybody
even if they tell us.

Russ Jerome

10-25-2008, 02:49 PM

look at the south or the people just voting because obama is black.

I thought he was Iraqian or some middle Eastern..

Rocket Power

10-25-2008, 03:31 PM

I never knew until recently it was true for the electoral vote, pretty
scary. Thats a topic Ron Paul covers on his web page, says its against
the constitution or something....but who would vote for Ron Paul right?

America: Home of the upright bipod Lemmings, we will follow anybody
even if they tell us.
Schools are slipping if they didn't teach about the electoral college. We learned about it in elementary school.
Actually he's wrong then , it is part of the constitution and was modified a bit in 1804 in the 12th amendment.

Rocket Power

10-25-2008, 03:32 PM

Look what happened the last election.

????????
Bush won the popular and electoral vote on 04. I assume you meant the 00 election?

T-Bag

10-25-2008, 03:59 PM

I thought he was Iraqian or some middle Eastern..

+ african american

oh yeah I forgot that was the Gore election.

Russ Jerome

10-25-2008, 04:33 PM

Schools are slipping if they didn't teach about the electoral college. We learned about it in elementary school.

I didnt pay attention in school till I was 16 (note my
inability to spell check) and on my 16th birthday I
moved out and got a job :( Stay in school or you
kids will be an old dumb @$$ mechanic with no life!

Seriously I meant the electoral part up until what we
would call super tuesday, I neven knew it effected the
closing votes when "regular people" (non corrupt gov
employees) voted. More I learn the sadder the whole
thing is.

SSDude

10-25-2008, 10:05 PM

I guess Obama is the lesser of two evils.:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rol f:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rol f:rolf:rolf
Really? I always assumed that they were soon-to-be-yuppies. I mean, there are alot more v-dubs around UWM than Camaros, Mustangs and 240s.
:thumbsup