NationStates Jolt Archive

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

Clinton is hardly the best Democrat out there. She's a Republican in Democrat's clothing. She's too hardline for your average Democrat and frankly scares the pants off me.

There are better choices for the Democrats. Same with the Republicans.

Guiliani is not the best choice for them either. Having him and Clinton run against each other would result in a pure pissing contest.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!
My poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) says differently.
The only important poll is the one they conduct November 4, 2008.

Guiliani is not the best choice for them either. Having him and Clinton run against each other would result in a pure pissing contest.

Which is probably why it will happen. Or Romney against Clinton. Either way, it'd be a terrible election.

Clinton is hardly the best Democrat out there. She's a Republican in Democrat's clothing. She's too hardline for your average Democrat and frankly scares the pants off me.

There are better choices for the Democrats. Same with the Republicans.

Guiliani is not the best choice for them either. Having him and Clinton run against each other would result in a pure pissing contest.

And New York imploding in on itself.

Guiliani is not the best choice for them either. Having him and Clinton run against each other would result in a pure pissing contest.

Despite being the savior of the earth on 9/11, his pro-abortion stance will screw him over with the Republican hardliners and no one really likes Clinton so if Bloomberg (or even if Obama thought he had a shot after Clinton is nominated and dropped to independent), they would have a decent shot at winning.

My poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) says differently.
The only important poll is the one they conduct November 4, 2008.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Silly how we can get so worked up about popularity polls even months in advance of the first caucus and primary, isn't it?

Clinton is probably the worst current Democratic candidate. Loathe that pandering bitch.

Give me Obama/Edwards. I don't care for Hillary nearly as much as those other two.

Which is probably why it will happen. Or Romney against Clinton. Either way, it'd be a terrible election.

The whole 2008 election will be muscle flexing, asinine promises and mundslinging of the highest calibre. The primaries will see the worse of the worse elected to run.

If you believe in polls, that is:
52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.Despite your trollish thread title.
Best news ever. Like we need more republicans, yes Mit, Hillary is a Republican who pretends to be a democrat. I'm suprised you haven't realized it yet.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.
Rudy/Condi '08! Condi?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*Breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Ha...
Heh...
Okay I'm done now.

Any US election will be muscle flexing, asinine promises and mundslinging of the highest calibre. The primaries will see the worse of the worse elected to run.

Fixed.

I'd love to see Obama on the ticket, unfortunately I don't see prejudices letting up enough to allow it to happen. I won't even consider voting for Hillary.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

Given that 40-50% probably won't vote for anyone at all that poll could effectively mean anything from a landslide for Clinton or a landslide against (if it was an electional run off between the two) even though it says likely voters that's most probably them asking people and people saying yes, I am skeptical at the least.

If you wanted to spin it another way she is second in voter favourable recognition levels.

Lies, Damn lies, and statistics.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

I wouldn't either. So FAIL.

Is 'Donkocrats' the new 'Democrat Party'?

what ever happened to all the other parties?

The whole 2008 election will be muscle flexing, asinine promises and mundslinging of the highest calibre. The primaries will see the worse of the worse elected to run.

It's the American way.

I don't think we're supposed to bastardize party names like this. There was a ruling against it a while back. I deleted my post.
I do not endorse this bastardizations, I was if anything making light of them. Still, I'll follow your lead and delete the post.

what ever happened to all the other parties?

What other parties?

what ever happened to all the other parties?

Such as? The Greens, Libertarians, Constitution, etc. parties exist but very few people vote for them.

So? They said the same thing when she announced she was running for Senate in New York. She polled very negatively at the outset.

The funny thing is that Hillary has huge name recognition, but people tend not to know very much about her actual policy stands: they just seem to be programmed with an "I hate Hillary Clinton" prejudice.

But the really funny thing is that all the research so far backs up what her own strategists have been saying: when she really gets out there in the course of a campaign, her image improves dramatically. Interesting.

Also, the latest polls actually testing hypothetical races (e.g. "If the election were between Rudy and Hillary, who would you pick?") are essentially neck-and-neck with a slight lead for Hillary.

what ever happened to all the other parties?

In America? There have never been "other parties." None that matter or arn't a few fries short of a happy meal.

In America? There have never been "other parties." None that matter or arn't a few fries short of a happy meal.

Oh, give us a break. With the Republicans, it's lights on, no one home. Democrats are no better; wheel is turning, hamster's dead.

Did anyone else look at this title, read the OP, and think "What in the hell do election polls months before they're even remotely relevant have to do with our lord and savior Donkey Christ?"?

Democrats are no better; wheel is turning, hamster's dead.
Some Democrats are powered by a zombie hamster?
Democrats win!

People, people! Do I even have to mention what should be already known just by my presence?

Some Democrats are powered by a zombie hamster?
Democrats win!

Zombie hamster is like zombie Jesus, except fury and not the son of God.

People, people! Do I even have to mention what should be already known just by my presence?

Nope.

The whole 2008 election will be muscle flexing, asinine promises and mundslinging of the highest calibre. The primaries will see the worse of the worse elected to run.

Well, whatdaya expect?

Please, please, please run Rudy. Beating him would be the easiest thing for the Dems. He's as corrupt as it comes, and he's innept.

Everyone vote GREEN PARTY

YEAH!

Oh, give us a break. With the Republicans, it's lights on, no one home. Democrats are no better; wheel is turning, hamster's dead.

Spare us. Please. 2 party systems occur naturally in large Republics. It is a product of strife between factions. You know the way to fix the parties if they aren't working? Join them and work to change them.

My trolling-detector always goes off when I read things like Donkocrats and Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton.

Does the thread title count as trolling or flamebaiting?

Spare us. Please. 2 party systems occur naturally in large Republics. It is a product of strife between factions. You know the way to fix the parties if they aren't working? Join them and work to change them.

2 problems with that, number one, I'm a socialist and I already support the NDP and number two, I'm not American. :p

Does the thread title count as trolling or flamebaiting?

Yes.

1. I already predicted Hilary would win the nom and lose the election.
2. Rudy is an asshole.

2 problems with that, number one, I'm a socialist and I already support the NDP and number two, I'm not American. :p

The two party system is probably the best system possible in the US. If there were more parties, it would be harder for presidential candidates to get the necessary electoral votes, and the House would decide. With two parties, the electoral college usually goes with the popular vote. There are exceptions, like the 2000 election, but it's better than it could be.
Also, third-parties do occasionally win elections. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, I believe (he's just listed as independent).

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, I believe (he's just listed as independent).

Sanders? He's an independent Democrat, like Lieberman.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!


...this shows that at least 52% of Americans have jobs and/or earn money.

hehe

<snip>

Don't troll/flamebait, especially in your thread titles.

Sanders? He's an independent Democrat, like Lieberman.

Lieberman's more like an independent republican.

Lieberman's more like an independent republican.

Either way, neither Sanders nor Lieberman are true independents.

Sanders? He's an independent Democrat, like Lieberman.

Joementum may beleive that he is a Democrat, but he is not a member of the Democratic Party, and as soon as possible, the Dems are gonna kick him out of the Democratic Caucus.

Sanders? He's an independent Democrat, like Lieberman.

Sanders is nothing like Lieberman. Lieberman is a Republican in everything but name, and Sanders, as was pointed out, is a Socialist, but runs as an Independent because if he ran as a Socialist, he'd never have gotten elected.

Clinton is hardly the best Democrat out there. She's a Republican in Democrat's clothing. She's too hardline for your average Democrat and frankly scares the pants off me.

"REPUBLICAN"?! More like "Peoples' Republican." She's a Socialist in Democrat's clothing if she's anything. Just look at Hillarycare and think: socialized medicine.

To the extent she's ever moved toward the right, it's solely to fool enough voters to get her elected.

"REPUBLICAN"?! More like "Peoples' Republican." She's a Socialist in Democrat's clothing if she's anything. Just look at Hillarycare and think: socialized medicine.

To the extent she's ever moved toward the right, it's solely to fool enough voters to get her elected.

She is a far cry from a Democrat. The only thing that makes her not a Republican by any stretch is her stance on healthcare. Other than that, she is as red as they come. She may try and paint herself blue, but she's very purple most days and I think the blue is wearing off.

She may be pro-women's issues but if you look at her overall stance (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm) on the majority of issues presented, she is more right than left on them, especially when it comes to war.

She is less of a Democrat than the others, with some policies more befitting to the Republican side of things.

...this shows that at least 52% of Americans have jobs and/or earn money.

hehe

Yeah because the republican party is SOO small government :rolleyes:

If that is their reasoning then those 52 percent are idiots.

Polls...

Votes count... not polls.

My poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) says differently.
The only important poll is the one they conduct November 4, 2008.
Slam dunk thread winning post!! :)

Okay.....shut down the troll poll.

"REPUBLICAN"?! More like "Peoples' Republican." She's a Socialist in Democrat's clothing if she's anything. Just look at Hillarycare and think: socialized medicine.

To the extent she's ever moved toward the right, it's solely to fool enough voters to get her elected.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Hillary? A socialist? That's a good one. She's definitely a conservative.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Hillary? A socialist? That's a good one. She's definitely a conservative.
Yes, we know only a true conservative would propose a single-payer health care system that made it a crime to find private care.

Only a true conservative would utter a thought like "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Only a real conservative would think in terms of how "great" government makes this country...“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

Yep, she's a socialist.

Guiliani equals America's number human rights violator.

I'm hoping that the Republicans pick him because with him as the Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton will easily grab control of the White House.

What people don't know about the cattle prods and the former mayor making it ok for police to torture and beat people in their custody for things as small as a traffic ticket.

Like we need more republicans, yes Mit, Hillary is a Republican who pretends to be a democrat.
Okay I'm done now.

Hillary a Republican? You haven't seen my shirt yet have you? :D

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-redefeat.jpg

"REPUBLICAN"?! More like "Peoples' Republican." She's a Socialist

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

In America? There have never been "other parties." None that matter or arn't a few fries short of a happy meal.

So, I guess Ross Perot had no influence on the election? I guess Jesse Ventura never served as governor? Unfortunatly, none have ever come close to winning. Part of the problem is the Dems and Repubs have made it damn difficult if not impossible for third parties to get on the ballots in all 50 states. :mad:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I do. It means she thinks some of us have too much and the government should take it away.

...this shows that at least 52% of Americans have jobs and/or earn money.

hehe

That was not funny in the least.

...this shows that at least 52% of Americans have jobs and/or earn money.

hehe

This shows that at least 52% of Americans have common sense. **nods**

54% of all statistics are made up on the spot. This poll doesn't mean shit, the election is what counts. Oh and if Rudy gets the presidency or even the Republican nomination, remind me to flee from the Western Hemisphere.

I do.

No. No you really don't.

Hillary a Republican? You haven't seen my shirt yet have you? :D

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-redefeat.jpg

Your idiocy proves nothing.

In America? There have never been "other parties." None that matter or arn't a few fries short of a happy meal.

What about the Bull Moose party? Good 'ol TR. There was also a socialist who got over 2 million votes. Which was quite a few back then.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

52-100 = 48% would consider voting for Hillary. (Hill'o Beans is such a lame bust, give up on humor.)
100-43 = 57% would not consider voting for Rudy.

You sir have contracted hepatitis fail.

No. No you really don't.

So tell me how government control of our private property isn't socialist.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

Ummm, why exactly is it good news or bad news for eaither party that certain individual candidates for a position have given current polling numbers before even securing their party's nominations?

At this point is is about as relevant as comparing Gravel's numbers with those of Ron Paul. Who cares?

Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be representatives. In a democracy it is alleged the people are the decision makers, and the representatives act on the will of the people. Somewhere the wires were crossed, (If they were ever untangled in the first place). The people seem to be subject to the will of politicians. If there are democracies they are in Utopia. In the real world any talk of democracy is an elaborate fiction. "Democracy" is an excuse for "representatives" to blame the people. Power doesn't just corrupt. It attracts corruption. Would those who have potential to be corrupt rather be poor, and powerless, or rich and powerful ? It's amazing how the scope of opportunity, can widen for those with a dull conscience

52-100 = 48% would consider voting for Hillary. (Hill'o Beans is such a lame bust, give up on humor.)
100-43 = 57% would not consider voting for Rudy.

Think again. The 52% figure is the percentage of people who would not consider voting for HRC. The 43% figure is the percentage of people who have a favorable opinion of Rudy. Two different quantities are being measured. 100% - [favorable opinion] =/= [would not consider voting for]. Otherwise, HBC's "would not consider voting for" percentage would be 100-39 = 61%.

And when I want your opinion of my sense of humor, I'll invite you to the Comedy Club :p

That's funny; I don't remember her winning the primary.

Think again. The 52% figure is the percentage of people who would not consider voting for HRC. The 43% figure is the percentage of people who have a favorable opinion of Rudy. Two different quantities are being measured. 100% - [favorable opinion] =/= [would not consider voting for]. Otherwise, HBC's "would not consider voting for" percentage would be 100-39 = 61%.

And when I want your opinion of my sense of humor, I'll invite you to the Comedy Club :p

That makes a little more sense. :p

How does this not bode well? 48% is not exactly that far away from a majority who would consider voting for her. It's not exactly a death nell for her. Now, if it were in the 30's, or low 40's that'd be different. Not to mention we're still a year and a half away, and a lot can change between now and then.

Polls for politics as well are sketchy. Depending on how/where the poll was conducted, it could skew the results one way or the other.

As well, you seem to think that Hillary is some sort of Democratic messiah. Which isn't true.

Your idiocy proves nothing.

It proves he doesn't know what a Communist is.

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!

Richardson '08!!!!!!

If you believe in polls, that is:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

Good news, America! Keep it up.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Rudy/Condi '08!
Little early, don't you think? Especially when HRC and every other top tier Democrat spanks Rudy and the other top tier Republicans?

But hey---you looked like a fool in November 2006 with your reliance on Karl Rove's math, so why not go two for two?

Please, please, please run Rudy. Beating him would be the easiest thing for the Dems. He's as corrupt as it comes, and he's innept.

I hope it doesn't even come to that. Sure, the Dems will probably tear him apart, but what if they don't? Better to have the Republicans put up some other punching bag who won't be quite as dangerous if, through the intervention of some unholy power, he wins.

This needs to be posted:

Lots of polls over the last several weeks. (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

These polls give voters hypothetical contests for the general election in 2008. Some pit Hillary against Giuliani, others pit Hillary against Giuliani with Bloomsberg running as independent; some pit Hillary against other GOP candidates, some pit Giuliani against other Democratic candidates... etc.

In contests between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the race is consistently close. In a majority of contests, Hillary wins by a narrow margin.

In contests between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the race is consistently close. In a majority of contests, Hillary wins by a narrow margin.

Well thank god for that. I was worried there for a second that a fascist wouldn't win. But it turns out by a close margin that both fascists have nearly equal chance.

Phew.

Well thank god for that. I was worried there for a second that a fascist wouldn't win. But it turns out by a close margin that both fascists have nearly equal chance.

Phew.

Quoted for regrettable truth.

Another interesting fact about the archived polls I just posted:

Early on (back in January and February) polls had Giuliani beating Hillary. Since then, Hillary's numbers have consistently increased while Giuliani's have consistently decreased.

In polls taken over the last four weeks, Hillary consistently wins.

Like I said before: people start out prejudiced against her, but they tend to warm.

With Giuliani, on the contrary, people start out with warm thoughts about "America's mayor"... then they find out he's both corrupt and incompetent.

P.S. I just love that the New York firefighters are turning on him!!!

Well thank god for that. I was worried there for a second that a fascist wouldn't win. But it turns out by a close margin that both fascists have nearly equal chance.

Phew.
At this point, I've given up on ever having a candidate I really like.

Now I try to console myself with interesting commentary on the social science aspects of campaigning.

Another interesting fact about the archived polls I just posted:

Early on (back in January and February) polls had Giuliani beating Hillary. Since then, Hillary's numbers have consistently increased while Giuliani's have consistently decreased.

In polls taken over the last four weeks, Hillary consistently wins.

Like I said before: people start out prejudiced against her, but they tend to warm.

With Giuliani, on the contrary, people start out with warm thoughts about "America's mayor"... then they find out he's both corrupt and incompetent.

P.S. I just love that the New York firefighters are turning on him!!!
About HRC (if we're not going to call the other candidates by their first names, I see no reason to do it with her), I have to say that she has really impressed me during the first few debates--not enough to make her my favorite, mind you, but enough that I won't be uncomfortable voting for her if she wins the nomination. People still underestimate her intellect and her political savvy, it seems.

And Giuliani was at Bush-like levels before 9/11 in NYC, let's not forget. He's not a likeable guy, and he's only been as popular as he has been based on those 5 year old memories. The more people see him, the more they want someone else. Hell, the fact that Fred Thompson cut into his lead so quickly shows his support is soft.

Quoted for regrettable truth.

Sad though isn't it?

I personally would prefer Ron Paul (if he cold-shouldered some of his less savory supporters) or Bill Richardson.

About HRC (if we're not going to call the other candidates by their first names, I see no reason to do it with her), I have to say that she has really impressed me during the first few debates--not enough to make her my favorite, mind you, but enough that I won't be uncomfortable voting for her if she wins the nomination. People still underestimate her intellect and her political savvy, it seems.

And Giuliani was at Bush-like levels before 9/11 in NYC, let's not forget. He's not a likeable guy, and he's only been as popular as he has been based on those 5 year old memories. The more people see him, the more they want someone else. Hell, the fact that Fred Thompson cut into his lead so quickly shows his support is soft.

HRC really fucked upstate though. So it's a bit of a toss up isn't. (And as you know, I've never been a RG fan). So it's just more of her act.


Frankly, both are awful people, and if it comes down to the choice between the two, then, god help us, I pray for a viable third party candidate. (And I'm, an atheist).

52% of Americans polled wouldn't consider voting for Hill o' Beans Goddamn Clinton for President.

That is indeed good news.

Also good news: Rudy Giuliani's favorable rating = 43%.

Alas, this is not good news.

HRC really fucked upstate though. So it's a bit of a toss up isn't. (And as you know, I've never been a RG fan). So it's just more of her act.


Frankly, both are awful people, and if it comes down to the choice between the two, then, god help us, I pray for a viable third party candidate. (And I', and atheist).

The last polls I saw had HRC beating Giuliani pretty handily statewide--60-40 or something like that--but they're old, a couple of months at least. I think the idea that Giuliani has a shot at taking New York is a pipe dream, frankly, unless Bloomberg gets into the race and then all bets are off (though I think that hurts Giuliani more nationwide).

About HRC (if we're not going to call the other candidates by their first names, I see no reason to do it with her), I have to say that she has really impressed me during the first few debates--not enough to make her my favorite, mind you, but enough that I won't be uncomfortable voting for her if she wins the nomination. People still underestimate her intellect and her political savvy, it seems.

I've had the same experience. I would say that, at the start of the Primary season, I thought Hillary was an awful, terrible, no good, very bad choice. However, she's performed well in the primaries, and if she can convince me that she's not so bad, I'm sure she can convince the rest of America of the same thing.

I still prefer Obama or Dodd to her, but I won't be as devastated as I might have been if she wins. She wasn't as good at last night's debate (Which, IMO, Obama won by a nose), but she's been doing a really good job.

The last polls I saw had HRC beating Giuliani pretty handily statewide--60-40 or something like that--but they're old, a couple of months at least. I think the idea that Giuliani has a shot at taking New York is a pipe dream, frankly, unless Bloomberg gets into the race and then all bets are off (though I think that hurts Giuliani more nationwide).

Yah, I've no doubt about that. She really has the downstate vote these days because it will be a cold day in hell when NY votes republican anymore.

But that doesn't mean that she didn't screw the upstate vote and told a bunch of lies to them in 2000 to get elected. She has yet to fulfill a single upstate promise, seven years lated.

Bottom line: If it comes to the two New York candidates, you have a choice between a pathological liar or a psychopath. I don't really care who wins the primaries, as long as it is neither of those two.

BTW: Bloomberg is not running. Sadly :(

I have a feeling Clinton's campaign will crash and burn. Just like McCain's has, and just like what is happening to Guliani at the moment.

Obama is pretty much matching Clinton's funding which everyone thought was impossible not long ago. Obama performed well at the debate and i have a feeling his campaign is only going to go uphill.

My bet is an Obama/Edwards ticket versus Romney/Thompson.

When the democrats put their money behind Obama and Clinton I'm quite sure they asked themselves this question:
"In the wake of GWB's presidency how can we fuck up our chance at winning the '08 presidential election, which is basically a shoe-in for the democrats?"
Answer: nominate a black muslim and white bitch

Clinton is hardly the best Democrat out there. She's a Republican in Democrat's clothing. She's too hardline for your average Democrat and frankly scares the pants off me.

There are better choices for the Democrats. Same with the Republicans.

Guiliani is not the best choice for them either. Having him and Clinton run against each other would result in a pure pissing contest.You think you got no choice in the states? You should see British politics. Bloody Gordon Brown Or "Call me Dave" Cameron. Vote "none of the above"!

You think you got no choice in the states? You should see British politics. Bloody Gordon Brown Or "Call me Dave" Cameron. Vote "none of the above"!

You should be careful about that. Here in the US someone legally changed his name to none of the above and got elected to local government.

Hillary a Republican? You haven't seen my shirt yet have you? :D

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-redefeat.jpg

Funny.

When the democrats put their money behind Obama and Clinton I'm quite sure they asked themselves this question:
"In the wake of GWB's presidency how can we fuck up our chance at winning the '08 presidential election, which is basically a shoe-in for the democrats?"
Answer: nominate a black muslim and white bitch

You believe the crap Fox feeds you? Is your IQ really in single digits? Obama is not muslim, was never mulim, there is no reason for anyone to think he is muslim. He was raised an atheist and become a christian as an adult.

http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2007/01/obamas-muslim-past-should-worry.html
only took him a few months to decide what religion he is then...

interesting...


oh and: http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=754

http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2007/01/obamas-muslim-past-should-worry.html
only took him a few months to decide what religion he is then...

interesting...


oh and: http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=754

Oh yes. Two far-right-wing blogs. Great evidence of Obama's unreliability. Anymore mud to sling, or can you debate without resorting to 'OMG MUSLIM!"?

http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2007/01/obamas-muslim-past-should-worry.html
only took him a few months to decide what religion he is then...

interesting...

Indeed, a lot of schools in Indonesia are muslim schools, but the school Obama went to was 100% secular. There are muslims, christians, buddhists, hindus, jews etc at that school.

It doesn't matter if he is actually or ever was a Muslim.
Forget all of the religious aspect, he won't get elected on the basis that his middle name is Hussein.

The only way Obama is getting in the white house is as the VP, and even that's a long shot.

It doesn't matter if he is actually or ever was a Muslim.
Forget all of the religious aspect, he won't get elected on the basis that his middle name is Hussein.

The only way Obama is getting in the white house is as the VP, and even that's a long shot.

Ah yes, the pointless racism of much of the US. Forget that he may have fresh ideas, or decent abilities, or may actually make a decent President. No, he'll fail because he has a foreign name.

Fucking genius's...

Ah yes, the pointless racism of much of the US. Forget that he may have fresh ideas, or decent abilities, or may actually make a decent President. No, he'll fail because he has a foreign name.

Fucking genius's...
Skinny!

I've totally missed you!

Ah yes, the pointless racism of much of the US. Forget that he may have fresh ideas, or decent abilities, or may actually make a decent President. No, he'll fail because he has a foreign name.

Fucking genius's...

When is the last time the UK had an Indian PM again?

So tell me how government control of our private property isn't socialist.

Nobody seems to have answered, so I will:

It is socialist. That is, in fact, one of the main features of socialism.

Steal my property/money and give it to someone else.

...why I hate socialism. We should keep what we make (allowing for some necessary taxes, of course. We do need government to help us do some things... build/maintain roads, fight fires, defend us, etc.).