Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-05-12 11:06:54
jetxburned
Member
+8|6662
Something I've been hearing a lot of lately - "ooh, the first woman president, how nice this country would be with her" or "oh wow, a black president, what a great country that would make us ..."

Please. Basing your vote around a candidates physical characteristics is probably the worst idea you'll have come '08. Please actually think this through if you decide to vote.

While having a black president would be nice and unprecedented, having a black president who uses public taxes for ridiculous things (which Obama has already done) is a waste.

While having a female president is something new and "exciting", having a female president who continuously preaches morals, forcing them down the American's throat, while doing absolutely nothing progressive for the country (hint: Hilary K Clinton) is a disaster.

Do not make the same mistake again, as in 2000 and '04, actually look at what this candidate or that candidate can do and WILL do. Do not contribute to the further downgrade of this country or the destruction of others. Ignore party affiliations and please look for the best option America has. Don't do this for the new, the unusual, or the unprecedented - do this for your fellow man (notice I did not say countryman). The USA's influence is vast and powerful, so make it a good one. I'm just tired of being affiliated with a country that is seen as arrogant, idiotic, and ignorant because of our president.

PS. I know most of you (supposedly) are intelligent enough to know this, but just in case ...
2007-05-12 11:11:25
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|7015|Mountains of NC

are you someones campiagn manager   


I dislike both candidates you just mentioned and hope the closest they come to the white house is a post card

If we are going to talk about a candidate that has the skills and who is black then I would toss my vote to Colin Powell - wish he was running
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2007-05-12 11:58:06
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6915
I am glad I will not be eligible to vote in 2008. All the candidates suck.
2007-05-12 12:09:38
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
For the sake of the rest of the world I can only hope a Democrat or an Independent is elected president of America. Otherwise may God have mercy on our souls.
2007-05-12 12:12:16
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7068|London, England
The whole woman/black thing will never work. Imo, a black guy or a woman will never become president of the U.S. They simply won't get voted in for those very reasons. I can almost guarantee that.

If it's going to be between a white guy, a black guy and a woman. Even if that white guy is Hitler. He will win.
2007-05-12 12:13:54
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA

SEREMAKER wrote:

If we are going to talk about a candidate that has the skills and who is black then I would toss my vote to Colin Powell - wish he was running
I agree...Colin Powel > Barrak Hussein Obama.


Look, vote for the canidate that you think will lead our country the best.  I could care less if they were bright pink or had an extra eye in the middle of their head - although in retrospect it would be pretty kewl.
2007-05-12 13:13:14
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6670|Escea

I'd like to see Powell run. (A part of me thinks a video/pic of Powell running is going to appear)
2007-05-12 13:14:32
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7208

This Powell?

https://www.world-crisis.com/images/uploads/powell_un_2.jpg

No thanks!
2007-05-12 13:19:25
RECONDO67
Member
+60|7083|miami FL
I agree we should think before voting unlike last time when we put BOZO the clown in the white house actually the supreme court appointed him he was no elected

I HATE BUSH that mother fucker has fucked us all and hes butt buddy Karl robe
2007-05-12 14:39:55
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6801
condi is a two for one deal, hopefully someone with integrity and leadership will be elected, that omits just about the entire democratic field, always has since FDR
2007-05-12 14:42:23
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6894|Chicago, IL
Why the debate over Hillary vs. Obama?  the republicans have roughly the same support in the polls, and I'm voting for their candidate, whoever he may be.
2007-05-12 14:43:49
Ender2309
has joined the GOP
+470|7018|USA
ron paul!
2007-05-12 14:46:39
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6801

S.Lythberg wrote:

Why the debate over Hillary vs. Obama?  the republicans have roughly the same support in the polls, and I'm voting for their candidate, whoever he may be.
Republicans will make an easy sweep unless some 3rd party candidate pops up soon. That’s how both clintons got elected, our country dislikes the democrats  more than Bush.
2007-05-12 14:54:45
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Republicans will make an easy sweep unless some 3rd party candidate pops up soon. That’s how both clintons got elected, our country dislikes the democrats  more than Bush.
Why is there a democratic majority in both house and senate then?
2007-05-12 15:04:28
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7068|London, England
Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
2007-05-12 15:09:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
2007-05-12 15:11:34
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7093|Peoria
I think that the OP doesn't realize that the majority of Americans vote based on pretty much entirely physical appearances.
2007-05-12 15:18:18
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7276|Grapevine, TX

SEREMAKER wrote:

I dislike both candidates you just mentioned and hope the closest they come to the white house is a post card
QFE!

CameronPoe wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
I post this once again... the Democrats are not, and are far less in touch with middle America. e.g. " the Folks"
The Republican Party has surely let me down, but FFS they are a better choice than any Democrat President. Period.
https://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/teflonshadow/MapOfBushOverGore.jpg
2007-05-12 15:19:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I dislike both candidates you just mentioned and hope the closest they come to the white house is a post card
QFE!

CameronPoe wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
I post this once again... the Democrats are not, and are far less in touch with middle America. e.g. " the Folks"
The Republican Party has surely let me down, but FFS they are a better choice than any Democrat President. Period.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123 … erGore.jpg
Perhaps you should throw up a map of population density too....

33m people voted dem, 26m people voted rep in the Senate general elections in 2006. 40m people voted dem, 35m people voted rep in the Congress general elections in 2006.

Congratulations to the Reps on winning the election race for the vast empty open spaces. The important places like urban CA, New York City, Chicago, Miami, Seattle and Philadelphia, etc. voted dem in your map.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-12 15:28:22)

2007-05-12 15:25:38
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7276|Grapevine, TX
Simple enough....
https://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/teflonshadow/MapOfBushOverGore.jpg
https://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/teflonshadow/PopByCounty.jpg
2007-05-12 15:35:55
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6801

CameronPoe wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
Who said " the US is an inherently anti-democrat country "

I said " our country dislikes the democrats  more than Bush "

Congress’s approval rating is lower than Bush's.

new poll out, I'll try and find a link.

The local elections and non- Presidential year elections don’t get allot of interest, sadly.
not many people bother to vote. The Presidential elections show more of the nations mood. Considering the hostility of the media to conservatives in the USA they still do well nation wide.
In non presidential years turn out is usually pretty low and not indicative of our nation as a whole.
The party not in the White House, usually picks up a few seats. Its not like democrats  have a mandate like the 1994 election. The democrat’s have a narrow majority and even those seats were won in very close elections. As another example, The NRA is a heavy supporter of Conservatives ( usually ). They number in the millions but they are spread out across the country.
They can swing nationwide Elections ( Bush I ) but state by state they don’t have much clout.
So they don’t wield they kind of power that a smaller group ( like some ethnicity ) that inhabits one area densely can.


The way you consistently and deliberately misquote people, You seem blatantly deceitful.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-12 15:46:38)

2007-05-12 15:55:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cameronie do you honestly think they're going to vote for a Woman or a Black man who supposedly has ties with Islam.
They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
Who said " the US is an inherently anti-democrat country "

I said " our country dislikes the democrats  more than Bush "

Congress’s approval rating is lower than Bush's.

new poll out, I'll try and find a link.

The local elections and non- Presidential year elections don’t get allot of interest, sadly.
not many people bother to vote. The Presidential elections show more of the nations mood. Considering the hostility of the media to conservatives in the USA they still do well nation wide.
In non presidential years turn out is usually pretty low and not indicative of our nation as a whole.
The party not in the White House, usually picks up a few seats. Its not like democrats  have a mandate like the 1994 election. The democrat’s have a narrow majority and even those seats were won in very close elections. As another example, The NRA is a heavy supporter of Conservatives ( usually ). They number in the millions but they are spread out across the country.
They can swing nationwide Elections ( Bush I ) but state by state they don’t have much clout.
So they don’t wield they kind of power that a smaller group ( like some ethnicity ) that inhabits one area densely can.


The way you consistently and deliberately misquote people, You seem blatantly deceitful.
I didn't 'quote' you as you incorrectly put it. I said you implied or suggested the US was anti-democrat (not explicitly stated), which you do imply in that post.

Bush Approval Rating:
https://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.gif

Only 1/3 of the population of the US approve of the job he's doing, give or take the polling margin of error. That's pretty woeful.

General Election Results 2006:

33m people voted Democrat, 26m people voted Republican for Senate.
40m people voted Democrat, 35m people voted Republican for Congress.

A comfortable popular majority in both.

The Dems won't get the presidency if they keep rolling out diabolically inept candidates from their primaries. As soon as one comes along the Reps will lose the presidency I'm guessing, based on how unpopular Bush and the Republicans have become of late.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-12 16:03:51)

2007-05-12 16:34:54
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6801

CameronPoe wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

They won't vote for either. But to suggest that the US is an inherently anti-democrat country is just blatantly incorrect.
Who said " the US is an inherently anti-democrat country "

I said " our country dislikes the democrats  more than Bush "

Congress’s approval rating is lower than Bush's.

new poll out, I'll try and find a link.

The local elections and non- Presidential year elections don’t get allot of interest, sadly.
not many people bother to vote. The Presidential elections show more of the nations mood. Considering the hostility of the media to conservatives in the USA they still do well nation wide.
In non presidential years turn out is usually pretty low and not indicative of our nation as a whole.
The party not in the White House, usually picks up a few seats. Its not like democrats  have a mandate like the 1994 election. The democrat’s have a narrow majority and even those seats were won in very close elections. As another example, The NRA is a heavy supporter of Conservatives ( usually ). They number in the millions but they are spread out across the country.
They can swing nationwide Elections ( Bush I ) but state by state they don’t have much clout.
So they don’t wield they kind of power that a smaller group ( like some ethnicity ) that inhabits one area densely can.


The way you consistently and deliberately misquote people, You seem blatantly deceitful.
I didn't 'quote' you as you incorrectly put it. I said you implied or suggested the US was anti-democrat (not explicitly stated), which you do imply in that post.

Only 1/3 of the population of the US approve of the job he's doing, give or take the polling margin of error. That's pretty woeful.

General Election Results 2006:

33m people voted Democrat, 26m people voted Republican for Senate.
40m people voted Democrat, 35m people voted Republican for Congress.

A comfortable popular majority in both.

The Dems won't get the presidency if they keep rolling out diabolically inept candidates from their primaries. As soon as one comes along the Reps will lose the presidency I'm guessing, based on how unpopular Bush and the Republicans have become of late

I said you implied or suggested the US was anti-democrat (not explicitly stated), which you do imply in that post..
Try looking at and reading my quote instead of misinterpreting it in your own words.

Would that be FAIR mr. “ FAIR & BALANCED ” ?

Nice graph ! I said that Congress’s approval rating is lower than Bush’s so your graph is meaningless.

poe wrote:

33m people voted Democrat, 26m people voted Republican for Senate.40m people voted Democrat, 35m people voted Republican for Congress. A comfortable popular majority in both.
This does not address the fact that the seats they picked up.....
were won in very close elections.
I also did mention The local elections and non- Presidential year elections don’t get allot of interest, sadly.
not many people bother to vote. The party not in the White House, usually picks up a few seats.

Your constant  effort to twist and deceive is alarming as is your comfort with it. FAIR & BALANCED?

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-12 17:04:49)

2007-05-12 16:43:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Try looking at and reading my quote instead of misinterpreting it in your own words.

Would that be FAIR mr. “ FAIR & BALANCED ” ?

Nice graph ! I said that Congress’s approval rating is lower than Bush’s so your graph is meaningless.

poe wrote:

33m people voted Democrat, 26m people voted Republican for Senate.40m people voted Democrat, 35m people voted Republican for Congress. A comfortable popular majority in both.
This does not address the fact that in the seats they picked up.....
were won in very close elections.
I also did mention The local elections and non- Presidential year elections don’t get allot of interest, sadly.
not many people bother to vote. The party not in the White House, usually picks up a few seats.

Your constant  effort to twist deceive is alarming as is your comfort with it. FAIR & BALANCED?
Deceive? lol. Am I correct in stating the Democrats won the House and Senate (the most recent) elections? Yes. Am I correct in saying they garnered many more votes than the Republicans in the House and Senate (the most recent) elections? Yes. Am I correct in stating that George W. Bush is very unpopular in America, i.e. the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the job he's doing? Yes.

Unless deceiving people involves stating hard irrefutable facts then I guess your point is lost on me...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-12 16:43:21)

2007-05-12 17:04:36
Smithereener
Member
+138|6763|California

CameronPoe wrote:

For the sake of the rest of the world I can only hope a Democrat or an Independent is elected president of America. Otherwise may God have mercy on our souls.
Don't think an Independant has ever become president. Some have gotten relatively (relative to what independants usually get) high amounts of popular votes, but barely any get electoral college votes.

I also agree with the OP. I've already heard some people in my Junior class at school saying, when they become eligible to vote, they're going to vote Hillary. I asked them why they would, and they shrugged and said something along these lines: "I dunno, cause she's a girl." While having a womam president might be refreshing or interesting, to vote for a candidate because of what they are instead of who they are or what they can do is quite stupid.

I'm still not even sure who I'd want to vote for, don't know enough about any of the candidates.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard