NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the latest polls have Rudi and Hillary as the nominees. I see Thompson has slipped significantly in the past week or two and so has Obama.

Looks like Rudi has an average 10.7 point lead over Thompson. Good because I think Rudi would make the better President even though I don't agree with him on several issues.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

Hillary has a commanding average 25.6 point lead over Obama. Maybe she will pick him to run as VP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Ssda...

Damn Hilary. What the fuck is wrong with the people who like her?

Realclearpolitics is a bad source. They're so pro-Hillary in the Dem nomination that it isn't even funny.

At this point, there are still 3 months to go, and we are not yet condemned to a Clinton Presidency quite yet.

On the other hand, I'm looking foward to seeing Bush III get trounced if he actually beats Multiple Choice Mitt and Grandpa Fred.

Realclearpolitics is a bad source. They're so pro-Hillary in the Dem nomination that it isn't even funny.

At this point, there are still 3 months to go, and we are not yet condemned to a Clinton Presidency quite yet.

On the other hand, I'm looking foward to seeing Bush III get trounced if he actually beats Multiple Choice Mitt and Grandpa Fred.

I don't see why you say they are a bad source. If you looked, the only thing they did is take the average of several other polls. Looks rather un-biased to me.

Whom do you classify as Bush III? If it's Rudi, you are way off base as they aren't even close on a very many issues.

I don't see why you say they are a bad source. If you looked, the only thing they did is take the average of several other polls. Looks rather un-biased to me.

Whom do you classify as Bush III? If it's Rudi, you are way off base as they aren't even close on a very many issues.

Bush III on corruption
Bush III on fucking up the war on terror
Bush III on nepotism
Bush III on torture
Bush III on the violation of Civil Rights

He's a worse George W.

A little early to be calling this, don't you think? Before a single vote has been cast?

Bush III on corruption
Bush III on fucking up the war on terror
Bush III on nepotism
Bush III on torture
Bush III on the violation of Civil Rights

He's a worse George W.

So, who the hell are you calling Bush III?

A little early to be calling this, don't you think? Before a single vote has been cast?

No, the news does it all the time before all the vote is in. :rolleyes: Hell, they even did it before all the polls are closed. Remember Florida? :eek:

So, who the hell are you calling Bush III?

I thought it was obvious. Rudy Giulliani, the other "serious" Republican candidate (I hesitate to label any of them serious, though, all things considered). The man will be a disaster for the Republicans, given his history of scandal and inneptitude. I look foward to the International Brotherhood of Firefighters running ads against him if he wins.

No, the news does it all the time before all the vote is in. :rolleyes: Hell, they even did it before all the polls are closed. Remember Florida? :eek:

An even better example.

http://www.printsandphotos.com/Merchant2/images/fullsize/3/3265.jpg

Damn Hilary. What the fuck is wrong with the people who like her.

Beats me.

No, the news does it all the time before all the vote is in. :rolleyes: Hell, they even did it before all the polls are closed. Remember Florida? :eek:

If the news jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

I thought it was obvious. Rudy Giulliani, the other "serious" Republican candidate (I hesitate to label any of them serious, though, all things considered). The man will be a disaster for the Republicans, given his history of scandal and inneptitude. I look foward to the International Brotherhood of Firefighters running ads against him if he wins.

So you are supporting?????????

So you are supporting?????????

The Terrorists.

If the news jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Depends on how high the bridge is and how deep the water is. :eek:

So, whom do you think or hope will win the nomination for each party?

An even better example.

http://www.printsandphotos.com/Merchant2/images/fullsize/3/3265.jpg

Excellent! I forgot about that one. Truman was the last great Democratic President. :(

So you are supporting?????????

Why does it matter?

As a matter of fact, I am supporting a candidate, but I'm increasingly doubtful that they will make it out of the primaries, and I am bracing myself to only vote for Clinton if it looks like my vote will be important.

Why does it matter?

As a matter of fact, I am supporting a candidate, but I'm increasingly doubtful that they will make it out of the primaries, and I am bracing myself to only vote for Clinton if it looks like my vote will be important.

Why would you vote for Clinton? Why does anyone want to vote for Clinton? I'm from NY and I've always been against her, especially since it was painfully obvious she was just using her post as senator as a stepping stone to the white house.

Why would you vote for Clinton? Why does anyone want to vote for Clinton? I'm from NY and I've always been against her, especially since it was painfully obvious she was just using her post as senator as a stepping stone to the white house.

Because every other candidate from every other party is worse.

Depends on how high the bridge is and how deep the water is. :eek:

So, whom do you think or hope will win the nomination for each party?
I have months to decide.

And I don't get to vote in primaries.

Both are awful.

Guliani is slightly less bad, because his record is not one of unmitigated failure: unlike Hillary, who has to be one of the most ineffective senators in history.

Why does it matter?

As a matter of fact, I am supporting a candidate, but I'm increasingly doubtful that they will make it out of the primaries, and I am bracing myself to only vote for Clinton if it looks like my vote will be important.

If you wanted to help your candidate by trying to convince people he/she is the best candidate and involve yourself in some discussion, it matters. But, it is obvious you don't want to participate in the discussion other than to deride other candidates. So, I have nothing more to say to you.

If you wanted to help your candidate by trying to convince people he/she is the best candidate and involve yourself in some discussion, it matters. But, it is obvious you don't want to participate in the discussion other than to deride other candidates. So, I have nothing more to say to you.

Seriously? You're making that accusation? Celt "Redefeat Communism" Lund is going to level that at another poster?

Balls of steel, sir. Balls of fucking steel.

If Hillary wins...

Say, did Oswald ever have any kids by any chance?

Why would you vote for Clinton? Why does anyone want to vote for Clinton? I'm from NY and I've always been against her, especially since it was painfully obvious she was just using her post as senator as a stepping stone to the white house.

Right on! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Seriously? You're making that accusation? Celt "Redefeat Communism" Lund is going to level that at another poster?

Balls of steel, sir. Balls of fucking steel.

Oh wow, and he just did it again.

If you wanted to help your candidate by trying to convince people he/she is the best candidate and involve yourself in some discussion, it matters. But, it is obvious you don't want to participate in the discussion other than to deride other candidates. So, I have nothing more to say to you.

Right on! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Wow. I didn't even have to wait...

Balls of steel, sir. Balls of fucking steel.

Ever stop and think about how uncomfortable that would be?

:(

Seriously? You're making that accusation? Celt "Redefeat Communism" Lund is going to level that at another poster?

Balls of steel, sir. Balls of fucking steel.

Hey, I took the "Redefeat Communism" off the picture because I know she is not a Communist. She is a Socialist. She is for Socialized medicine, she is for giving every child a $ 5,000.00 savings bond at birth, she is for re-distribution of wealth. She wants to take money away from those who earn it and give to those who don't instead of helping people out of poverty through education and employment.

Ever stop and think about how uncomfortable that would be?

:(

You'd need ballsacks of leather...

Ever stop and think about how uncomfortable that would be?

:(

If they fit, you wear them. :D

You'd need ballsacks of leather...

That might work.. though I don't want to know how it would attach.

If they fit, you wear them. :D

Not enough steel for that.

If you wanted to help your candidate by trying to convince people he/she is the best candidate and involve yourself in some discussion, it matters. But, it is obvious you don't want to participate in the discussion other than to deride other candidates. So, I have nothing more to say to you.

I'd gladly promote my candidate in a forum where it was something that would help. This forum is not one of them. My candidate is already the majority candidate on this forum, and amongst those who do not support them, it is pointless to say anything.

On forums where it is profitable to my candidate, I discuss them. It is not profitable to do so here. Now where is my response to substantive critiscisms of Bush III?

Hey, I took the "Redefeat Communism" off the picture because I know she is not a Communist. She is a Socialist. She is for Socialized medicine, she is for giving every child a $ 5,000.00 savings bond at birth, she is for re-distribution of wealth. She wants to take money away from those who earn it and give to those who don't instead of helping people out of poverty through education and employment.

1. That's not socialism.
2. The point went way over your head.

1. That's not socialism.
2. The point went way over your head.

Well... It's not like Social Democracy is technically socialism, and anyway, there's nothing wrong with it.

1. That's not socialism.

socialism
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 38

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

And that is exactly what Hillary wants to do with some of her programs. That is why I say she is a socialist, just like FDR was a socialist.

[QUOTE]2. The point went way over your head.

Yes, it did.

Wow. I didn't even have to wait...

That was absolutely hilarious. If nothing else Celtlund is funny for a laugh.

Also, go to GM. There're Mafia games waiting for you to sign up for...

That was absolutely hilarious. If nothing else Celtlund is funny for a laugh.
Sure enough.

Also, go to GM. There're Mafia games waiting for you to sign up for...
I don't think I'll live long enough to finish a second one of those games...

Sure enough.

I don't think I'll live long enough to finish a second one of those games...

Not all of the games are that slow. Look at Jocabia's "Mafia: The Original!" game. It's been speedy speedy. (And my Star Trek based one will be too if I have anything to say about it!)

Realclearpolitics is a bad source. They're so pro-Hillary in the Dem nomination that it isn't even funny.

At this point, there are still 3 months to go, and we are not yet condemned to a Clinton Presidency quite yet.

On the other hand, I'm looking foward to seeing Bush III get trounced if he actually beats Multiple Choice Mitt and Grandpa Fred.
Romney would be thrashing Guiliani if he wasn't a Mormon. Apparently fear of non-Protestants and terrorism are keeping Guiliani in the lead.

socialism
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 38

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

And that is exactly what Hillary wants to do with some of her programs. That is why I say she is a socialist, just like FDR was a socialist.

That one word makes her not a socialist.