McCain is suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and do the job he was elected to do there. Obama is going on (business as usual) with his campaign.
McCain wants to postpone Friday's debate until the current emergency is fixed. Obama says, business as usual.
Which candidate really has the best interest of the country at heart?
Harry Reid even went on the record to say that Obama wasn't needed at the meeting.. ( I guess they didn't need a "present" vote)
Obama caught so much flak about his statement ..that he did a flip flop ( like what else is new?) and now he made his little speech about how important it is for him and Senator McCain to be there .. blah blah blah..
He makes me sick!
Teresa remember:OBAMA WALKING EAGLE
I believe it was said that neither candidate was needed. Obama said he thought the debate should go on and that they both had planes that could get them there within hours if need be. I did listen to both of them and I listened to all they said. I hate to see everything have to shut down while we take care of one isssue.
This is a letter which was written by a friend and sent to Mr. McCain office.
I will share this, as he shared with me :
Dear Senator McCain:
Let me begin by saying that I have the utmost respect and gratitude for the service you have given, and continue to give, to this country. And while I agree with you that suspending the campaign and going back to Washington to help hammer out a solution to the economic mess in which this great country finds itself, I fear that it might have enormous costs, not only to your political career, but to the nation, as well.
I applaud you for your stance in voting for the troop surge saying, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war." That was a courageous and admirable stand, but a similar position on suspending your campaign at this time is a completely different kettle of fish. At this particular point, in this particular campaign cycle, this country can't afford the luxury of a candidate who is willing to lose this election, even if it's to do what he thinks is right. This country, Senator McCain, cannot afford for you to lose this election. The ascention of Barack Obama to the Presidency will, and I am not being dramatic here, destroy this country that you and I hold so dear.
Please reconsider and attend the debate on Friday night. For as sure as the sun rises in the east, the majority party in congress will never allow the economic situation to be resolved if that resolution means that you will be able to face Barack Obama in Mississippi Friday evening. These people have proven that, unlike yourself, they have the interests of themselves, their party, and their political agenda at heart, not the best interests of this country or her citizens. I fear that you may have played into their hands by suggesting that you will not attend Friday's debate if the economic bills before congress are not resolved by that time. If you are unwilling to pull yourself away from the work in Washington, I strongly urge you to send Governor Palin to Mississippi to face the junior Senator from Illinois in Friday night's debate. Afterall, the dems charge that she will be the one occupying the White House before the end of your first term, anyway, not to mention that I have every confidence that she will be able to leave Mr. Obama a bruised, bloody mess in the aftermath of such a debate.
Again, Senator McCain, I beg of you. This country cannot afford a Barack Obama Presidency. Not only is losing not an option in this election, it would mark the beginning of the end of this great country, as we know it.
Thanks for the laugh! It is so obvious that this comes right out of the Repub campaign! I had to laugh to keep from dirtying my shoes! LOL! :D :D
I agree SDM, I wonder do you get these sent to you from the RNC?
SDM and Jerry --- If your man (?) gets in -- you better hang on to your britches -- cause it will be a rough ride.
We are at war on two fronts, the financial world is in shambles, and we should be prepared for a rough ride should Obama win? My word, I wonder what you should call this current experience? Not to mention inflation out the wazoo. You are probably right though, I expect we will have a rough ride no matter who is elected, and should all start brushing up on our Chinese so we can explain why the United States is late with yet another payment! :'( :'(
Making assumptions on who I am voting for merely because I agreed with SDM and the fact that the statement appeared to be a talking point? :o :o
It is interesting that we can't disagree with the Republican's talking points without being branded a socialist/communist. And while I am at it, what is wrong with a socialist if one bothered to look up what it actually means instead of running off half-cocked in a very McCarthy fashion after us with an ax screaming Communist at the top of your lungs!
It would be nice if we could have a idea discussion without branding those that we disagreed with "titles" to vindicate our ideas and positions. Perhaps, we should state our opinion and what we would like to accomplish and justify what we saying with facts, figures, and other methods instead of vilifying the opposite side. It is interesting that this election has had a lot of posts in this forum screaming for the need to end partisan politics, when in truth a good number of those posting are perpetuating the cycle.
Yes, I am a liberal. Yes, I typically vote Democrat. Yes, I am planning on voting for Obama. This doesn't make me anything other than an American choosing whom is worthy of my vote the same as every other voting American. This doesn't make me anything else and i refuse to have titles attached to me as a result.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/litehope/smilies/pirateshipsmilies.gif)
Lol, come in with both barrels blazin next time Jerry!
Sorry, I avoided posting for a long time in the politics b/c I had such divergent views from a good chunk of what is posted. My last post wasn't just a response to Jo but also to some of the other statements made about democrats or liberals (obviously :D)
Y'mean you do not wear pink underwear? According to some here, if you even look at a democrat candidate you are communist! If you should read a column in DKos you are communist. Never mind if you also visit right wing sites or middle of the road sites, you still are communist. I thought we were all Americans, not just Dems or Repubs, but partisan keeps showing up in every right winger post. Of course that makes any liberal thinking person defensive/offensive, and I have certainly participated in that! Guilty as charged, but anything that I have posted has been respectful for the most part, (I think), and truthful concerning the republican candidate, unlike the continuous flow of bilge coming from the right about Senator Obama. 'Nuff said, and I wear white underwear BTW!
Jo's a nice lady, she's just on the other side from y'all.
There are a lot of people who are scared of Obama, for various reasons and it's human nature to go into defense ! We may be civilized but the ol fight or flight instinct is still VERY alive and well in most people lol.
Personally my butts gettin sore from ridin the fence, but I'm waitin for clover and all I see is johnson grass! lol
Good Lord --- I guess your toes were sticking out farther than I realized and I stepped on all 10 --20 of them, huh?
Sorry -- but I don't think my post "branded " anyone, but if you feel branded, guess that is just the way it struck you.
We, as free, proud Americans can vote and support whomever we choose.... I as well as youl.
As as Forrest Gump said " And that is all I have to say about that".
Jo
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 26, 2008, 11:41:40 AM
Making assumptions on who I am voting for merely because I agreed with SDM and the fact that the statement appeared to be a talking point? :o :o
It is interesting that we can't disagree with the Republican's talking points without being branded a socialist/communist. And while I am at it, what is wrong with a socialist if one bothered to look up what it actually means instead of running off half-cocked in a very McCarthy fashion after us with an ax screaming Communist at the top of your lungs!
It would be nice if we could have a idea discussion without branding those that we disagreed with "titles" to vindicate our ideas and positions. Perhaps, we should state our opinion and what we would like to accomplish and justify what we saying with facts, figures, and other methods instead of vilifying the opposite side. It is interesting that this election has had a lot of posts in this forum screaming for the need to end partisan politics, when in truth a good number of those posting are perpetuating the cycle.
Yes, I am a liberal. Yes, I typically vote Democrat. Yes, I am planning on voting for Obama. This doesn't make me anything other than an American choosing whom is worthy of my vote the same as every other voting American. This doesn't make me anything else and i refuse to have titles attached to me as a result.
There has been a lot of so-called branding and name calling by both sides. This is a forum and people can post whatever they want, if I see something I don't like I just pass it and go on. I hope everyone will continue to post what they want and not let post like yours ruin the forum. Politics has always been a touchy subject and always will be. I personally think Barack Obama, if elected, will be the worst President ever, that is my right and it is your right to disagree.
Quote from: ELK@KC on September 27, 2008, 07:58:58 AM
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 26, 2008, 11:41:40 AM
Making assumptions on who I am voting for merely because I agreed with SDM and the fact that the statement appeared to be a talking point? :o :o
It is interesting that we can't disagree with the Republican's talking points without being branded a socialist/communist. And while I am at it, what is wrong with a socialist if one bothered to look up what it actually means instead of running off half-cocked in a very McCarthy fashion after us with an ax screaming Communist at the top of your lungs!
It would be nice if we could have a idea discussion without branding those that we disagreed with "titles" to vindicate our ideas and positions. Perhaps, we should state our opinion and what we would like to accomplish and justify what we saying with facts, figures, and other methods instead of vilifying the opposite side. It is interesting that this election has had a lot of posts in this forum screaming for the need to end partisan politics, when in truth a good number of those posting are perpetuating the cycle.
Yes, I am a liberal. Yes, I typically vote Democrat. Yes, I am planning on voting for Obama. This doesn't make me anything other than an American choosing whom is worthy of my vote the same as every other voting American. This doesn't make me anything else and i refuse to have titles attached to me as a result.
There has been a lot of so-called branding and name calling by both sides. This is a forum and people can post whatever they want, if I see something I don't like I just pass it and go on. I hope everyone will continue to post what they want and not let post like yours ruin the forum. Politics has always been a touchy subject and always will be. I personally think Barack Obama, if elected, will be the worst President ever, that is my right and it is your right to disagree.
The problem with democrat now days, is their progressive mantra that they have espoused for several years now.
That mantra is nothing more than communism in sheeps clothing. Destroy industry through demonizing business and regulation and taxation. Saw it years ago for what it was and have been against it ever since. Socialism/communism cannot exist without capitalism and business. So when you demonize and regulate and tax a business to oblivion, you kill them. I guess we didn't learn from how the USSR imploded on itself.
Elk...I agree.
The worst president ever----Sorry, Cw but that title has already been won by G W Bush. :-[ :-[
Uh...that DEregulation thing ain't workin too good either......here's an idea... COMPROMISE, meet in the MIDDLE, but that would be too easy and neither side will go for it, which is why we just keep rollin down the hill like a snowball headed for hell like the song says :P
As for the worst president ever, the world ain't ended yet so that title will still be up for grabs lol
Only history can judge a president's performance.
Results of a Wall Street Journal Poll of 78 scholars in 2000 asked to rank the presidents performances.
Five is the highest possible score.
1 George Washington 4.92
2 Abraham Lincoln 4.87
3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.67
4 Thomas Jefferson 4.25
5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.22
6 Andrew Jackson 3.99
7 Harry Truman 3.95
8 Ronald Reagan 3.81
9 Dwight Eisenhower 3.71
10 James Polk 3.70
11 Woodrow Wilson 3.68
12 Grover Cleveland 3.36
13 John Adams 3.36
14 William McKinley 3.33
15 James Madison 3.29
16 James Monroe 3.27
17 Lyndon Johnson 3.21
18 John Kennedy 3.17 A
19 William Taft 3.00
20 John Quincy Adams 2.93
21 George Bush 2.92
22 Rutherford Hayes 2.79
23 Martin Van Buren 2.77
24 William Clinton 2.77
25 Calvin Coolidge 2.71
26 Chester Arthur 2.71
27 Benjamin Harrison 2.62
28 Gerald Ford 2.59
29 Herbert Hoover 2.53
30 Jimmy Carter 2.47
31 Zachary Taylor 2.40
32 Ulysses Grant 2.28
33 Richard Nixon 2.22
34 John Tyler 2.03
35 Millard Fillmore 1.91
36 Andrew Johnson 1.65
37 Franklin Pierce 1.58
38 Warren Harding 1.58
39 James Buchanan 1.33
A few of those presidents did not receive the most popular votes but all were duly elected President of the United States by electors properly appointed by the sovereign states.
William Henry Harrison was president for only thirty days and is not included. James Garfield was president for only six months and is not included. Grover Cleveland is counted only once.
Popular performance ratings bestowed by the public when a president is in office began with Roosevelt.
One might note that George W. Bush ranks in the vicinity of Harry Truman when it comes to the highest and lowest ratings from the public.
George W had a high of 92%, the highest of any rated president, and a low of 19%, the lowest of any rated president.
Harry had a high of 87% and a low of 22%.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on September 27, 2008, 09:25:22 AM
The worst president ever----Sorry, Cw but that title has already been won by G W Bush. :-[ :-[
If you think so, then you must be too young to remember Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton...both were supposedly the best that the Democratic party had...and if their judgement is anything to go by, then Obama must be cut out of the same cloth.
Quote from: pam on September 27, 2008, 09:28:31 AM
Uh...that DEregulation thing ain't workin too good either......here's an idea... COMPROMISE, meet in the MIDDLE, but that would be too easy and neither side will go for it, which is why we just keep rollin down the hill like a snowball headed for hell like the song says :P
As for the worst president ever, the world ain't ended yet so that title will still be up for grabs lol
You are so right, Pam!
Quote from: Catwoman on September 27, 2008, 11:20:12 AM
Quote from: sixdogsmom on September 27, 2008, 09:25:22 AM
The worst president ever----Sorry, Cw but that title has already been won by G W Bush. :-[ :-[
If you think so, then you must be too young to remember Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton...both were supposedly the best that the Democratic party had...and if their judgement is anything to go by, then Obama must be cut out of the same cloth.
UHmm
Clintons could rip obama and carter to shreds and come out smelling like a rose.
Steve, you just hit the nail on the head...it's surprising that no one has compared the Clintons to the Mafia yet...maybe call them the Hillbilly Mafia??
Yup, Jerry was right about the name calling alright! ;)
Aw, come on...just little, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease????????
Quote from: Catwoman on September 27, 2008, 04:16:07 PM
Aw, come on...just little, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease????????
LOL well you know, go for it. both republicans and democrats earn the names. :)
I'm neither as i believe we should go back to the original government set by our forefathers.
And in all reality, todays campaigns are quite tame compared to those they ran back then. :)
You are so correct...I went online to find out what happened to the original founding fathers AFTER they signed the Dec. of Ind., and found out that they were basically the victims of a witch hunt. You wouldn't believe what they put those guys through. They literally, in some cases, laid down their lives on the altar of Freedom.
Quote from: Catwoman on September 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
You are so correct...I went online to find out what happened to the original founding fathers AFTER they signed the Dec. of Ind., and found out that they were basically the victims of a witch hunt. You wouldn't believe what they put those guys through. They literally, in some cases, laid down their lives on the altar of Freedom.
You need to rent the movie Adams. It is about the founding fathers.
Yes they laid their very lives down for freedom. Freedom comes with a terrible cost. And that cost is also represented by
the flag that drapes those that pay that terrible cost. That is why i hold the flag to be sacred, not above God or anything but it
is sacred in that it represents a whole lot of blood shed for our freedom.
I am glad that someone other than me feels that way. I, too, hold the flag as being a secularly sacred object...the entire world sees it and knows that it stands for freedom, whether or not they agree with it. That alone tells you the importance of the object...no one would bother to burn it or stomp it into the dust if it weren't such a hugely important symbol in the world. Those that treat it shabily (allowing it to fly during inclement weather, not lighting it at night, allowing it to drag on the ground) demean its place in this nation. I have long wondered why there is not a course taught in school about flag etiquette. We've had those who were up in arms over whether or not the Pledge was being said...how about something even more basic...the flag we wave?
SDM, That is funny coming from you, since you are the number one name caller on the forum. Instead of just disagreeing with the subject,You seem to enjoy putting down people that disagree with you. Besides I can't think of any thing you can say about Bill Clinton that is bad or that he doesn't deserve, certainly Hillbilly Mafia is something the majority of Americans would agree with. I thought it was a pretty neat suggestion.
I get tickled by this stuff. Clinton, Carter, Bush 1, Reagan, FDR or Kennedy for that matter. They are ALL part of the past, they were all just men, they all had faults, they all had and have skeletons.
Presidents make suggestions......Congress passes or doesn't pass laws. Presidents can veto bills, but Congress can override them.
Y'all want to point fingers at who's to blame for the fix we find ourselves in, point your fingers at EVERY REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, or INDEPENDANT ever elected to Congress. More than a few of whom were corrupt, greedy, irresponsible, and downright stupid.
Y'all want somthin to get done right quit electin CAREER politicians! A career politician is the ULTIMATE salesman, his job depends on makin you think he has YOUR best interests at heart. Only interest they have at heart is their own!
Everybody has their favorite president and their president they blame for everything, but in reality WE are to blame. We elected the bums, ALL of em. WE never stood up and said wait just a friggin minute when they did things we didn't like. All anybody ever does is sit around and piss and moan and call anybody who doesn't agree with em stupid or worse lol.
Quote from: ELK@KC on September 28, 2008, 08:07:10 AM
SDM, That is funny coming from you, since you are the number one name caller on the forum. Instead of just disagreeing with the subject,You seem to enjoy putting down people that disagree with you. Besides I can't think of any thing you can say about Bill Clinton that is bad or that he doesn't deserve, certainly Hillbilly Mafia is something the majority of Americans would agree with. I thought it was a pretty neat suggestion.
S000 ---when did I call someone a name? I am calling you on this one! >:( >:(
Pam, you are so right. We have a limit on terms for President, but our congressmen get in and stay for 20,40 years or life.
Yeah GG, some of em stay way past the time when they would have already relegated us to the old folks home for diminished mental faculty lol, but people keep reelectin em.
I am going to step in the hot water here, but if the people continue to elect them, then I think they should be able to run again. If the people are unaware enough to continue to vote for people that are not serving their interest, then that is the risk we take in a democracy. Furthermore, I don't think the Presidency should be term-limited, once again if the people vote to elect the person then that is the action to override the term limit. You want a democracy, take with it the risks and allow the people to decide.
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 11:52:15 AM
Furthermore, I don't think the Presidency should be term-limited,
You have got to be kidding ! ! ! ! !
The presidency was not term limited until FDR was elected for the 4th time. It didn't seem to hurt us then and I don't seem to remember why it was thought that there should be a term limit.
Quote from: Wilma on September 28, 2008, 01:10:30 PM
The presidency was not term limited until FDR was elected for the 4th time. It didn't seem to hurt us then and I don't seem to remember why it was thought that there should be a term limit.
I agree Wilma, I agree!
If I remember correctly, the idea, or suggestion of terms limits goes all the way back to Washington and Jefferson, who were afraid a long term president would be too much like a king. Roosevelt stayed on because the war was still raging and then he died. It was then decided to make two terms official.
There is something to be said for unlimited terms though; it is quite a turmoil that the country goes through every election cycle. Washington must reinvent itself so to speak and congress has to go into a different mode from the last president. And it trickles down to the people who experience the upheaval also. However there is something to be said for throwing all the bums out after a certain time limit. It would probably be best for everybody to go at once, if it is intended that should give a clean start to government. ;)
Quote from: flo on September 28, 2008, 12:33:55 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 11:52:15 AM
Furthermore, I don't think the Presidency should be term-limited,
You have got to be kidding ! ! ! ! !
No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not. I realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic. So we either honor that choice, or term limit politicians and do the job of the people for them. I am sorry, but tradition is fine and it is true that two-terms was the traditional limit however, it should be noted that we should allow the people to make that choice and trust in their decision or amend the constitution and do away with elections since we don't believe that the people can properly limit a persons term in office. If the people want to vote for the person, why do we prevent them? :(
You are talking about the presidency. At the state level they are different and mixed. Not all states have limits on federal House and Senate seats, and the ones that do, are different from each other.That should provide a good mix and stirs the pot quite often.
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 01:55:28 PM
No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not.
Sorry but were a Republic based on the rule of law. We're not supposed to have to trust anyone in government, we have laws that restrict them.
QuoteI realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic.
Ok were a democratic republic i agree with that but we are not a democracy.
Hmmmm I am not sure what else your trying to get at on that. The constitution is structured to control government not the people.
Jerry,that was a point I was trying to make. People get so radical about the presidential election and yet they seem to be perfectly content to never worry about not showing much interest in learning very much about those running for the legislator.
Quote from: srkruzich on September 28, 2008, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 01:55:28 PM
No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not.
Sorry but were a Republic based on the rule of law. We're not supposed to have to trust anyone in government, we have laws that restrict them.
QuoteI realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic.
Ok were a democratic republic i agree with that but we are not a democracy.
Hmmmm I am not sure what else your trying to get at on that. The constitution is structured to control government not the people.
Let me see where I start on this...
The people I was referring to are the people... voting. The people should make the choice to limit a term was the point of the statement. What I was stating about the electorate was that in general they are uninformed but since are laws don't require a certain knowledge of the candidates and their positions (not that that would be feasible), you shouldn't be restricting whom they can vote for. That is the point of the entire statement, i realize we are not a pure democracy, we are a democratic republic, which by the way means we grant more power to those that are elected than a pure democracy would. I wonder if that makes you more or less comfortable with our government, sorry nvm.
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on September 28, 2008, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on September 28, 2008, 01:55:28 PM
No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not.
Sorry but were a Republic based on the rule of law. We're not supposed to have to trust anyone in government, we have laws that restrict them.
QuoteI realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic.
Ok were a democratic republic i agree with that but we are not a democracy.
Hmmmm I am not sure what else your trying to get at on that. The constitution is structured to control government not the people.
Let me see where I start on this...
The people I was referring to are the people... voting. The people should make the choice to limit a term was the point of the statement. What I was stating about the electorate was that in general they are uninformed but since are laws don't require a certain knowledge of the candidates and their positions (not that that would be feasible), you shouldn't be restricting whom they can vote for. That is the point of the entire statement, i realize we are not a pure democracy, we are a democratic republic, which by the way means we grant more power to those that are elected than a pure democracy would. I wonder if that makes you more or less comfortable with our government, sorry nvm.
Actually i would be more comfortable if our government were returned back to the constitutional government it was setup
to be. Todays government has exceeded its authority granted by the constitution.
I recognize that democratic principles are involved here but those are under this Republic which is ruled by law not by mob rule.
We place a certain amount of powers in the hands of our leaders but that power should be accounted for in everything they do.
One thing that we should definately go back to is appointing our senators not electing them as well as restricting government to it's chartered duties instead of becoming nanny government it is trying to become.
Quote from: srkruzich on September 28, 2008, 05:33:36 PM
Actually i would be more comfortable if our government were returned back to the constitutional government it was setup
to be. Todays government has exceeded its authority granted by the constitution.
I recognize that democratic principles are involved here but those are under this Republic which is ruled by law not by mob rule.
We place a certain amount of powers in the hands of our leaders but that power should be accounted for in everything they do.
One thing that we should definately go back to is appointing our senators not electing them as well as restricting government to it's chartered duties instead of becoming nanny government it is trying to become.
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj216/marshalette/thumbnailaspx-1.jpg)
Body count.
In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago........... 221 killed in Iraq.
Senators Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
House leader Mike Madigan,
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan,
Mayor Richard Daley...
our leadership in Illinois...all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.
He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics? ::)
So if conservative republicans had the chance, how would they fix that awful death toll in Chicago?
Well Diane... lets vote some of them in and we will see............... ;)
since I am NOT running for a political office.. I really don't have a plan.. LOL
BUT............... I thought that this was interesting.
Whether you are rep..or dem.. this makes sense.
http://www.jhhuebert.addr.com/articles/chicagoguns.html
Lets' see--- wasn't Rudy Juliani the mayor of New York for some time? ;D
I modified my post while you were posting.. and yes he was.. and that is why i DIDN'T want him for President.
He has flipped flopped on gun ownership for years.. ( now of course he is 100% 2nd amendment and 100% NRA.. ::) *whatever*........
Read the article above in my last post.. I still say an unarmed person is setting themselves up to be a victim. And the same is with a city or a state or a country..
Unarm the nation and that nation will be setting ducks.
Wow i have to say what a discussion. this race to the white house has become a no holds bared gloves off street fight. and may the best alley cat win. but i think the statement about the congress is correct they are more concerned about what they want instead of what our country needs. i want someone in office who wont back down from a fight and say what they mean and not change it the next second to make someone else happy. but reality is they all say what they think you want hear so they can move into the bighouse on the hill. democrat or republican and we are still free to choose thanks to people like my husband who put their lives on the line daily. well enough said for now just wanted to pop in and say hi and say to teresa ive now officaly posted
catcha later
I am getting ready for my yard sale today..and I was listening to the radio show Sean Hannity all afternoon. There was a caller that said her 16 yr old ( who doesn't look 16) was approached when he was in the mall, by the College Democrats Association. ((later to be found that it was part of Barack's Old ""ACORN"" crowd)
They ask him if he was registered to vote. He said No. They ask how old he was. he told them, and they told him that he could register and vote. They gave him all the paperwork *right then and there* he filled it all out and went home to tell his mom. She said that he couldn't vote. It was "illegal" because he wasn't 18. He argued with her that they did all the paperwork and they informed him if he went to the polls he was able to and could vote. What is going on here?
Hannity's crews were on the streets in PA and the major swing states and were doing interviews with people ( in the back alleys.. wino's etc) and they said that a group of people for Obama had helped them do their paperwork to register to vote and *through the slurring and bad language and slang talk* said that they were going to go out and vote and were also told that "someone" would be coming through again with absentee ballots in case they couldn't make it to the polls on that day for Obama... Part of them couldn't even tell you why.. oh yeah.. one jive talkin' man said ..He wanted to see Obama kick some white ass..
Makes me sick..but it just is a small taste of the underhanded way things are done with the Liberals ..Media and this campaign.
Won't this child have to present identification to prove who he is before he can vote? Isn't a new registration investigated? Don't absentee ballots have to be requested and sent out from the election officer? Am I wrong in what I have thought all these years?
That's the way they do it here Wilma
They are sayin as of now Obama has 250 electoral votes and McCain has 163 with 125 still a tossup, what do yall make of THAT?
I am saying that it is too early to call it. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. AND.........why do the pollsters think that we need have a day to day update? Are they trying to influence us and isn't that against the law? It was much easier when all we heard was what we read in the paper or on a fifteen minute news broadcast twice a day.
I think "They" have been slurpping too much of grandma's cooking sherry.
Quote from: Wilma on October 02, 2008, 08:59:23 AM
I am saying that it is too early to call it. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. AND.........why do the pollsters think that we need have a day to day update? Are they trying to influence us and isn't that against the law? It was much easier when all we heard was what we read in the paper or on a fifteen minute news broadcast twice a day.
I agree with you Wilma on that.
Thank you, Pam.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Any time you have a poll of any kind, it is only as good as the sample taken and the group it was taken from. In other words, you can prove anything with numbers just by manipulating the samples. We had a retired Chief Warrant Officer USMC as our statistics instructor and he started his course with the statement ' Ladies and gentlemen, statistics is a process by which any damn fool can prove any damn thing with numbers'. He was about one of the most 'real world' people I have ever known. And no, I do not think it is against the law to give incorrect or manipulated polls, just as it is not against the law to spread rumors or call people names on the internet.
There is something to be said about having information 24/7, in that there are no longer the big newspaper 'machines' that could either make or break a candidate or legislation. There is now always somebody somewhere to dispute just about everything. It probably makes it more difficult to get things done, but may in the end behave as a filter for the truth. IMO