Oh, sure. The left always claims election are stolen,
Posted By: yet are fine with ACORN. Please.nm on 2008-12-03
In Reply to: blackwell - potato
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Isnt it pitiful? Talk about stolen election!. I am in
nm
Dems have stolen/manufactured votes for Franken in this election...wonderful stuff
Stolen, just like in 2000
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
Right, so that is not a "cut",but free money stolen
nm
2 elections stolen? baloney. Meaningless war? Go
nm
everyone claims to have
abandoned this place and return monthly just to see if the posts have changed. Did all y'all coordinate to arrive on this date to check it?
Dodd claims he did not put that in there -
at least, I read that he said the date he had included was changed so that those bonuses would still be paid. He said his date would not have allowed those bonuses to be paid. ???
Validation on your claims
Okay, name all these supposed lies that Fox is telling. What exactly is the "garbage" you keep referring to. Do tell me. Then, tell me all the great things that MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington Post and other liberal rags are saying that is supposedly the truth.
Claims and Facts: The War in Iraq
Rep. John Murtha (from Huffington Post)
Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there. -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. [National Journal, 8/9/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
CLAIM: We found the weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush, 5/29/03
CLAIM: We know where the WMDs are. - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
FACT: A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]
FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
War on Terror/Bush Doctrine
CLAIM: All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.
Pre-War Cost Estimates
CLAIM: Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this. -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.
FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.
Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.
Post-War Planning
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process in which officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq. [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]
Length of Military Operations
CLAIM: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. -- President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after major combat operations supposedly ended than before.
Troop Deployment Needs
CLAIM: What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03
CLAIM: The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish. -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03
FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take several hundred thousand troops.
FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.
FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.
FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.
Insurgency Strength
CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its last throes. -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05
CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency. [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]
FACT: Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased. [Newsweek 7/4/05]
FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]
Troop Withdrawal
CLAIM: Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training. - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04
CLAIM: Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. [NY Times, 6/29/05]
CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]
FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]
Situation on the Ground
CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Meet the Press [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going very, very well.
FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.
FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]
FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]
FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]
What part of you have to back up your own claims
Otherwise, the claim is discredited. That's the way it works.
I would be fruitless. He claims to be all-knowing
Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but a very large portion of what you read on the internet is skewed, inaccurate, erroneous, and flat-out false.
Dubious claims? Are you a crackpot?
Or just on crack?
And just what claims are those prey tell.....-see message
That we want the country to succeed? That we want the constitution enforced? That we don't want to be taxed so that we can no longer afford to live? That we don't want the spending of money that hasn't been printed yet, or printing so much money that inflation hits? That we want him to keep his campaign promises (that he hasn't yet)? That we want equality for all people? That we want the WA thugs to pay taxes like we have to? That we don't want him lining his pockets or those of the 1% wealthiest (his friends) while the rest of us pay for it? That we don't like viewing his @ss while he bows to our enemies? And also that we don't like him lying to us about it? That we don't want him giving our jobs to overseas companies? That we don't want our children drafted? If those are ridiculous to you, and if you call turning our country into a socialist/communist state, then I do believe you would find a better home in Cuba.
Rush said -
"This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail they proclaimed it a failure.... They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html
Seeing as you purposely distorted the truth it needed to be posted.
So you are allowed to say you want Bush to fail, but people can't say they want Obama to fail? Double standards - nice...NOT.
WND same source that claims Mohamar Ghadaffi is
rasberries
White House denies Bush God claims (name of article)
White House denies Bush God claims
James Sturcke
Friday October 7, 2005
A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were absurd.
In the BBC film, a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, says that Mr Bush told a Palestinian delegation in 2003 that God spoke to him and said: George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan and also George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.
During a White House press briefing, Mr McClellan said: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments.
Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour.
However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said.
Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.
The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.
Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war.
He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.
'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America.
History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.
That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.
When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him.
The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said.
Well, the majority of America claims a Judeo-Christian faith
and being set up as a democracy/Republic the majority view holds. No one is stopping the minority from having their beliefs, but our country was founded on Christian principles, and one of those Christian principles was to allow anyone to practice their religion, but that does not mean we have to mullify our beliefs to appease the minority. Separation of church and state was started to keep the state out of the church and not the church out of the state. Forty-nine of the states start their preambles with God in the title, and to toss all of that aside just to please a very small minority of those who either don't believe in God period or don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God would be beyond ridiculous. Immigrants to this country have to assimilate to our culture. It's not for us to change our culture to accomodate them or any minority religion or race who CHOSES to live in this country. We are a Judeo-Christian founded country no matter what the left in their recent history rewriting campaign tries to tell you. The documentation is there to prove it.
you mean left wing....it's a left wing ding website on the messiah....the right wouldn't bothe
Not about the election.
As I have stated before, I am pro-life, but am just appalled at the things that extremists do--on both sides of this issue. I went to my OB/GYN the other day for a prenatal exam and my 2-year-old son found a business card with pictures of bloody pieces of fetuses on it that said that anyone who has an abortion will go to...well, you get the picture. While I am not entirely sure that this is not true, I am disgusted that someone would leave such a thing lying around where small children can find it. Luckily, my son just turned two and really did not realize what it was he was seeing, but just think if an older child had found such a thing. Sometimes I think that people get in their own ways when trying to make their points. I am sure that I am guilty of this, as are many others on this board. I actually just wanted to vent a little. Hope everyone is having a good afternoon!
No way did JFK's dad buy the election
I live in the same town as the Kennedys and they are notorious for not paying for things.
Election Day
A large group of my neighbors will be walking down the street together at 7:00 a.m. Tuesday morning to cast our votes for Barack Obama. It will probably end up being like a little block party in celebration of Obama.
No matter who wins this election, it will be a thrilling race and a shocking result!
LOL! Maybe next election!
*
One day before the election. This is so sad.n/m
x
election
If you mean McCain and Palin and "best man and best woman", I don't think so. Not unless you are super rich or, if middle class, you would care to get stomped on again, like we have been for the last eight years?!
Another example....if the election had gone the other way....
would you just have dropped all your concerns about McCain and started supporting him on this board? Of course you wouldn't. Don't act like you would. Geez. LOL.
What are you saying here? Before and after the election and
x
LOL...the dow has been going down since before the end of the election (nm)
x
When they come up for re-election
we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election. How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country? And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play?
Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent. Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name. Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them. Nobody can unseat them without party approval. And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.
Same theory as they use in product advertising. Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay. See? All the hard decision-making has been done for us!
Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them. Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds. So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me). And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.
Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve. We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that.
I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system. Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what? More party clones? I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have.
the election is
Unless you own an oil well, I would not get too worked up about it.
So will the next election when we
xx
Were you like on Mars during the election? SM
Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred. You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little. All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable. KnowwhatImeanVern?
2000 election
Yes, Bush did win only one election. The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five. If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote.
Election my foot.
You still believe the last 2 elections were legit? Oh of course you do. You still can't get it through your thick head that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Go back to your board. You people cannot stay off ours - why is that? Scared?
Kerry would win if election was now
Poll: Kerry Would Top Bush Today
NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2005
 President Bush delivers his speech after being sworn into office for a second term, as Sen. John Kerry looks on, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 22, 2005. (AP) |
|
(CBS) If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all. IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters) John Kerry  41% George W. Bush 36% Someone else 13% Not vote 6% In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn’t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won’t say for whom they voted. If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn’t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%. IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters) In 2004, voted for: Kerry John Kerry 81% George W. Bush - Someone else 13% Not vote 4% In 2004, voted for: Bush John Kerry 3% George W. Bush 84% Someone else 7% Not vote 3% In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote John Kerry 34% George W. Bush 11% Someone else 23% Not vote 16%
For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.
i'm so sorry to hear that. Maybe after this election
you will be an INSURED American :)
Well, I try. I did it all through the election process
and I still have many questions on his election, his "pals", etc., but until I find (or should I say the news media finds) some really stick-to-his-rib issues, I'm still willing to give it a try. I also don't think he's really on the up and up, but.....I try keep an open mind, and let me tell you, it's been very hard. 
Yep...happens every election cycle...
but seems worse this time.
Still time before election
to migrate to alaska. Ms. Palin will be returning there in Nov permanently. They have been expecting a massive Rapture-induced influx of people, so they probably won't shoot you unless you are wearing a fur coat. You might as well go, coz you are gonna be totally miserable for the next 4 years as Barack begins the long journey of righting the sinking ship called U.S.
Has the election already been held?
And the answer is - Most definitely NOT. You and your pompous dems that say Obama WILL be the next president. You don't know. Me, I don't care. Whoever gets in gets in. If its Obama fine, if its McCain fine. But the truth of the matter is the election has not been held, we still have a few weeks and nobody knows. This election is very very close. Are you planning to do something personally that is illegal that will throw the election to Obama? Even the guy who is in charge of polls (Mr. Rasmussen) said because the polls are so close that goes to show you that anything can happen. So with that said - No election yet, no winner yet!
You may say your going to write in Lou Dobbs, but I believe that is just a smoke screen to make people think you are not for Obama, but your message shows strongly who you want to win.
It's the Obama supporters who are saying he WILL be the next president, he has WON already. Then you bash McCain while in the same breathing saying McCain supporters are picking on you.
So once again let me repeat myself....no election yet, no winner yet.
What if they gave an election and nobody came?
Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year? Voter registrations are waaaay up this year. (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.)
It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s. There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.
I know there's been a massive push to register young voters. Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate. My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights. But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?
And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote. I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals?
What do you all think about it?
In your mind - the election is not over - sm
Well everyone can definite tell you are a democrat. I'm sure before the debate even began you had decided that Obama had won.
I think McCain did quite well. If you believe the slick lawyer talk of Obama then so be it but a lot of us are not fooled. McCain was strong. He finally listened to the people who told him to be strong, stand up for us, point out what is wrong with Obama's policies - you know that little tidbit Obama talks about called "redistribution of wealth". It also did not help Obama that he told the plumber guy that he needs to pay more in taxes so that the person who doesn't have anything will have something. Socialism at its finest!
Well, you're right about the election almost being over...sm
but the hatefest will continue, regardless of who gets in the White House. I mean, doesn't it always? If Obama wins, Republicans will be going on for four years about what he's doing wrong or not doing at all and if McCain wins, Democrats will go on for four years about how nothing has changed and it's Bush's third term, so on and so on. It's sad, but it's true - this board will just see more of the same.
If anyone is trying to steal this election, it's O's
nm
Tell me the last election that a person who is not
a natural born citizen ran for president. I was born in 1960 so maybe there were some before my time, but I thought every election the candidate was a natural born citizen.
Election 2008
This is a great post. The facts speak for themselves. These are the facts. Sarah Palin is out for herself and her family. Does anyone really think she cares about the country when she is busy charging the state for her trips to ritzy hotels with her children. How many of us can do that? Some of these were $200.00 per night hotels. There are kids in this country going to bed hungry. Here the majority of us are cutting coupons to make ends meet. John McCain owns over 7 expensive homes. Cindy McCain wore a $300,000 dollar outfit to the convention. Do you really think the McCain/Palin ticket has empathy for struggling American families?
I'm so old I just hope I'm around next election. LOL
x
If you think all that's gonna end after the election,
.
Election's over. You lost.
Get over yourself. This is dead-end rhetoric.
Don't they know the election is over and OBAMA WON?
HOW FUNNY!
Are we far enough removed from the election
I wish this was original (I'm not this smart) and I'm sorry if you've all already received it in your email but I thought it was great (you KNOW I'm a republican--you may not know that I love Condoleeza Rice and would have taken to the streets to support her in a bid for the presidency).
It has been suggested that if we really wanted to tick-off the dems, the party should get GWB to step down, now, as president, leaving Chaney as president. Chaney could then could ask for Condoleeza Rice to serve as his vice president (certainly not out of the question, given her position). Then CHeny could step down, thus producing the first Black Female president---and she'd be a republican!!!!
What a stitch!
We WILL have an election in 2012 - that is what most go by
The audacity to automatically assume Obama will serve until 2017 is what is going to get you in trouble.
Since you don't understand the simple concept let me explain it for you. Please read slowly so you can grasp reality.
Since America has had it's first president we have had elections every four years. Therefore, seeing as we have just had an election in 2008 and Obama takes office in 2009, our next election will be in 2012.
Your antics and rhetoric of just assuming that Obama will be in there for a second term I would say is a bit premature. Let's let him at least get sworn in and see what kind of a job he does as president. A lot can happen in four years. If he survives then in four years he can think of running again. If Bill Clinton had done half the stuff he did in his second term when he was in his first term he might have not had a second term. We don't know yet if Obama will be keeping his campaign promises or what kind of President he will be.
Here's some reality for you. Obama may turn out to be an absolutely fantastic president. We can all hope for that. So...he could turn out to be a good president and then again he may not be a good president. We won't know until after he has served in the role. Also, you are assuming that because GW was not a good president that every single other living republican would not be a good president and that is just not true. If you believe that then you have a very distorted viewpoint of politics. There are some very good republicans and there are some very good democrats. Just like there are some very bad republicans and there are some very bad democrats. Obama is too new and we don't know what category he falls into yet.
The truth of the matter is that we WILL have another election in four years. Which means the republican party has got four years to really get it together and pick someone that is decent to run against whoever the next democratic nominee will be, whether it is Obama or if he doesn't last whoever else they are going to put in there.
Also we have the congress/senate/house to think of - you know all those people who vote on issues and who have gotten our country in the trouble it is in now (I'm not blaming either side alone - there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides). No, sorry to burst your bubble but GW didn't crap on this country all by his little ol self. The people in the senate who vote on issues did that. So...if for the next four years we see a continuation of the decline of our country, America will probably say, enough with the democrats, we need to bring back a republican president. Not very many people are keen on the idea that every single thing is now being run by one political side. We do need a balance to our government.
One other factor to think about is all the people that Obama is appointing to his cabinet. I'm seeing on this board by a lot of posts that there are a lot of people who, while they are enthusiastic and excited that Obama was elected, they are way not excited that he keeps bringing the old Clinton people back and people who have no experience. Those were the same people who made a mess of things back then and now he's bringing them back in. What he owes them I have no idea but for him to campaign that he is the ONLY candidate who can unite the two parties and he will hire both sides to evenly balance things, that is the first campaign promise he has broken.
Lastly, without any doubt there are some scandals looming about. These are not fabrications. It's just the truth. People he was involved with and are still involved with. Who he owes favors to, the BC thing (whether or not it will get resolved is another story). There is just too much to be ignored. I do understand the loathing that people have for Bush and they would have rather elected a dog rather than another republican, therefore most were saying, so what and tried to bebunk a lot of the issues, however, the issues are real and will not be going away. Not saying that GW doesn't have his share of issues, but I'm not writing a post about GW. Anyway...with the issues that Obama has, one just doesn't know what the next four years will bring for us.
So, taking all that in account, a better approach would be to just say you hope Obama is a good president (as we all do because we want to see our country succeed) and in four years if he turns out to be good then he will be up for re-election. However to just say that its a fact that he will be in for 8 years is a bit arrogant (and nauseating).
Of course there will be an election in 2012
and with the GOP ensconced in this kind of denial and its party still in shambles, the results are a foregone conclusion. Thus, the 2929 count continues. The OP is the only prescription the GOP has to even hope to have a noticeable presence in 2012.
|
