• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who Do You Plan to Vote For?

Who Do You Plan to Vote For?

  • McCain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Obama

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided at this point

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No plans to vote at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
I found this poll running on another chat site-And in my normal tendency to like to stir :twisted: - I thought it might be interesting here......

The results from that site were:

Who Do You Plan to Vote For?
1. McCain
35% [ 7 ]
2. Obama
25% [ 5 ]
3. Other
20% [ 4 ]
4. Undecided at this point
10% [ 2 ]
5. No plans to vote at all
10% [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 20
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
What's "Stirring" about that? :roll:

I figured it might bring up some snide or irrelevant comments from those that like to attack messengers and get off the subject because they can't argue the facts-or face reality - and it worked... :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
What's "Stirring" about that? :roll:

I figured it might bring up some snide or irrelevant comments from those that like to attack messengers and get off the subject because they can't argue the facts-or face reality - and it worked... :wink:

Argue the facts of WHAT?

Messenger of WHAT? A simple little poll you placed on here with a few measely votes from who knows where?

Face reality of WHAT?

I ask again because you simply cannot comprehend.. I care nothing about the poll itself, just your bragging implicit statement that it should stir us.

It doesn't me and that's why I ask.................................



What is "Stirring" about it? Why should it "Stir" us?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Obama

As evidenced by the past 7.5 years, in comparison to the 8 years prior to that, the Republicans have proven themselves incapable of managing anything effectively. They do not have the leadership to justify their presence in Washington.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Obama

As evidenced by the past 7.5 years, in comparison to the 8 years prior to that, the Republicans have proven themselves incapable of managing anything effectively. They do not have the leadership to justify their presence in Washington.

Maybe you need to look at the changes Clinton made when in office that later led to the problems we have today. Seldom do you pass a legislation and two days later it changes things. There is a period before things kick in. Just like how it took the 8 years of Clinton leadership before a Recession hit as he left office. Just like Clinton avoiding confronting Al Qaeda which escalated to 911.

Just like his vetoing drilling for oil, and now we have a backlash in Supply and demand. Just like him allowing the merger of oil companies.

Just like his lack of any kind of energy plan to help us in the future. Just like him not doing anything about illegal immigrants.

Look at his dealings with China and now how that outsourcing and relationship is coming back to haunt us.

Look at how he dealt with North Korea and how that is now coming back to haunt us.

What really did Clinton ever do? Except scoot in and take credit for any good economics that were set in place years before with Reagan and GB 1?

Clinton also had a Republican congress that was proactive in making changes in Washington, and Yea I know the republican congress with Bush lost sight of that goal, and they paid for it in losing seats. But look how bad and how little got done once the Democrats got control 2 years ago! Sure the Republican Congress under Bush was a bad one, but the Democrat congress under Bush has been a worse one!

The reality is the effectiveness of a President can be more seen in the years that follow his term than the actual years he served. So you Libs that do not like what is happening now need to go back and look at Clinton and see how much of it resulted from decisions he made while in office.

Another example is the economic boost Clinton received while in office due to the fact that Reagan ended the cold war. No more cold war allowed Clinton to cut military spending. If Reagan would not have did his job then Clinton would have had a hard time in office, much like how Clinton did not do his job and now Bush is having a harder time.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
Obama

As evidenced by the past 7.5 years, in comparison to the 8 years prior to that, the Republicans have proven themselves incapable of managing anything effectively. They do not have the leadership to justify their presence in Washington.

Maybe you need to look at the changes Clinton made when in office that later led to the problems we have today. Seldom do you pass a legislation and two days later it changes things. There is a period before things kick in. Just like how it took the 8 years of Clinton leadership before a Recession hit as he left office. Just like Clinton avoiding confronting Al Qaeda which escalated to 911.

Just like his vetoing drilling for oil, and now we have a backlash in Supply and demand. Just like him allowing the merger of oil companies.

Just like his lack of any kind of energy plan to help us in the future. Just like him not doing anything about illegal immigrants.

Look at his dealings with China and now how that outsourcing and relationship is coming back to haunt us.

Look at how he dealt with North Korea and how that is now coming back to haunt us.

What really did Clinton ever do? Except scoot in and take credit for any good economics that were set in place years before with Reagan and GB 1?

Clinton also had a Republican congress that was proactive in making changes in Washington, and Yea I know the republican congress with Bush lost sight of that goal, and they paid for it in losing seats. But look how bad and how little got done once the Democrats got control 2 years ago! Sure the Republican Congress under Bush was a bad one, but the Democrat congress under Bush has been a worse one!

The reality is the effectiveness of a President can be more seen in the years that follow his term than the actual years he served. So you Libs that do not like what is happening now need to go back and look at Clinton and see how much of it resulted from decisions he made while in office.

Another example is the economic boost Clinton received while in office due to the fact that Reagan ended the cold war. No more cold war allowed Clinton to cut military spending. If Reagan would not have did his job then Clinton would have had a hard time in office, much like how Clinton did not do his job and now Bush is having a harder time.



Goodness AHole....you sure have a crush on Clinton don't ya?

You can't make a single post and NOT mention Clinton.


So now quit being a hypocrite to OT when he, or I even, bash Bush.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
Obama

As evidenced by the past 7.5 years, in comparison to the 8 years prior to that, the Republicans have proven themselves incapable of managing anything effectively. They do not have the leadership to justify their presence in Washington.

Maybe you need to look at the changes Clinton made when in office that later led to the problems we have today. Seldom do you pass a legislation and two days later it changes things. There is a period before things kick in. Just like how it took the 8 years of Clinton leadership before a Recession hit as he left office. Just like Clinton avoiding confronting Al Qaeda which escalated to 911.

Just like his vetoing drilling for oil, and now we have a backlash in Supply and demand. Just like him allowing the merger of oil companies.

Just like his lack of any kind of energy plan to help us in the future. Just like him not doing anything about illegal immigrants.

Look at his dealings with China and now how that outsourcing and relationship is coming back to haunt us.

Look at how he dealt with North Korea and how that is now coming back to haunt us.

What really did Clinton ever do? Except scoot in and take credit for any good economics that were set in place years before with Reagan and GB 1?

Clinton also had a Republican congress that was proactive in making changes in Washington, and Yea I know the republican congress with Bush lost sight of that goal, and they paid for it in losing seats. But look how bad and how little got done once the Democrats got control 2 years ago! Sure the Republican Congress under Bush was a bad one, but the Democrat congress under Bush has been a worse one!

The reality is the effectiveness of a President can be more seen in the years that follow his term than the actual years he served. So you Libs that do not like what is happening now need to go back and look at Clinton and see how much of it resulted from decisions he made while in office.

Another example is the economic boost Clinton received while in office due to the fact that Reagan ended the cold war. No more cold war allowed Clinton to cut military spending. If Reagan would not have did his job then Clinton would have had a hard time in office, much like how Clinton did not do his job and now Bush is having a harder time.



Goodness AHole....you sure have a crush on Clinton don't ya?

You can't make a single post and NOT mention Clinton.


So now quit being a hypocrite to OT when he, or I even, bash Bush.

Sorry I can not help that the political facts come back to Clinton so much, it is a fact that 5 to 10 years after a president leaves office is when the fruits of their service can be seen most.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Maybe you need to look at the changes Clinton made when in office.
No, what YOU need to look at is the failure of the Bush administration to do anything right before you go vote for the third Bush term.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I won't vote for McCain or Obama because I'm a conservative and there is no conservative candidate. McCain is a liberal and Obama is a socialist.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
I don't answer polls they are so lame and prove nothing.

So I take it Larrrrrry, you weren't a participant in any of these either-Eh :???:


Obama Builds 12-point Lead Over McCain in LA Times Poll

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:40 PM


Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has built a yawning 12-point national lead over Republican John McCain, according to a new poll published by the Los Angeles Times Tuesday.


The LA Times/Bloomberg survey conducted over the weekend said that in a head-to-head contest, Obama had 49 percent support against 37 percent for McCain.

On a four-man ballot including two minor candidates -- consumer champion Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr -- Obama had an even bigger lead over McCain of 48 percent to 33.



It was the second major poll to give the Illinois senator a double-digit margin, after Newsweek on Friday had Obama ahead of McCain by 51 percent to 36 among registered voters nationwide.

Previous polls last week had Obama winning by four to five points, but the Democrat now appears to be enjoying a post-primary bounce after seeing off the dogged challenge of his party rival Hillary Clinton three weeks ago.


The great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll suggested, with only 11 percent of the New York senator's backers planning to defect to McCain.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_McCain_Times_poll/2008/06/24/107150.html
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
aplusmnt said:
Maybe you need to look at the changes Clinton made when in office.
No, what YOU need to look at is the failure of the Bush administration to do anything right before you go vote for the third Bush term.

I have no problem realizing what the future will bring as a result of Bush being in office. I have no doubt illegal immigration will be wore in 8 years because he did not do anything just like Clinton did not and it is worse now because of it. I have no problem realizing that government spending was out of hand under Bush and as a result the next president will have to deal with it.

I am fair and balanced (you like that slogan? :lol: ) I can see the plus and minus of what Bush has done and how it will play out 5 years down the line.

Why can you not accept that much of today's problems are a result of Clinton's actions? Why do you think we outsource so much to China now? Do you think that all just began because Bush is president? Why are the oil companies so big? Why was Bin Laden able to play 911, shouldn't he have been dead a long time before 911?

Why is Global warming such a problem now, but under Clinton and GORE it was not a blimp on the radar? Why did not Gore do more to promote saving the planet as VP could it be because he could not legally make that 100 Million dollars that he made once he lost the election? Is it possible that Katrina would never have happened if Al and Bill would have did more 10 years earlier to stop Global Warming?

Come on surely you are smart enough to realize the trickle down affect of what one President does affects the next one.
 
Top