Can John mccain really take the white house

[tas38]

I just posted this above, and it answers what you ask raider.

( I'm talking about African American voters, obama is getting 80 to 90% of their votes that is high by anyone standards. Not that women are not voting for hillary, hillary tried to keep the colored voters though and still is. )

Edited In:

I'm not sure how to name them, we always say colored the lady next door is colored and says the same. I guess it's a little different, depending where you are but that how we say it around here.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by BILLBO

The Republicans are already planning to air adverts against Obama (organized by Cliff May under a non-profit organisation using the '501(c)(4)' tax code so that contibuters do not have to be named - now that opens up a whole new can of worms), they will undoubtedly reinforce those already of that persuassion, but they are repulsive to most people.

Yippee...what would an election be like without the "swift boat" attacks.

Like the names in your siggy, by the way.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Devil Dog

He means negro!

That's what we say in the PI... Thanks.

[Devil Dog]

Originally Posted by Raider

That's what we say in the PI... Thanks.

Colored or Negro?

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Devil Dog

Colored or Negro?

Oh sorry... Negro, but some pronounce it Negra.

[fab]

I love these political threads. Move ten times faster than any domain threads.

[BILLBO]

Reuters polls: Texas - Obama by 4%, Ohio - Clinton by 1%

[draggar]

Originally Posted by Raider

John McCain will take the White House because Security is one of the single most important issues that face us today.. McCain is also well known for reaching across the isle and working with Democrats. The direct opposite of Obama and the Clintons.

I agree. McCain has actual WAR experience, he wasn't a draft dodger or in the merchant marines, George Bush (the first one) was the last president we had who had actual battle experience (he was a fighter pilot).

I have a lot of respect for McCain. The guy does work across the table often and speaks out against Republicans when he doesn't agree with him. We need more people like him (hell, we need to get rid of political parties altogether).

Also, people call him a warmonger. McCain has seen the worst a war has to offer, he was a POW during the Vietnam War (he stayed in the Hanoi Hilton) and helped develop extremely important tactics for POWs. Ever see the video of them during an interview with one of their captors? They spoke verbally what the captors wanted to hear but blinked in Morse code a message for the US. They would hold onto their US, hide flags whenever they could. They would be caught, tortured to the brink of death and would make another flag just to keep their spirits high.

A warmonger starts a war without thinking of the consequences. McCain has lived though the worst of war and I don't think he would be willing to put anyone at risk to go though what he did unless there was no other option.

As for Obama, the lack of anti-Hillary ads we saw in Florida made me get respect for him. I'm sick of seeing the 5th grade name calling and tattle tailing. We're supposed to recruit mature people to run this country, and if so, then they do most of them resort to elementary school tactics?

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I could not sleep last night thanks to the flu.

Instead I sat up and watched TV.

There is a documentary out that is a MUST see...

This is not a liberal documentary, this is not a Michael Moore film, this is a tell all of the agenda of the current administration with facts, figures, and signatures.

You can not fake who sits on what board, who killed what bill, who signed what law, and who purchased what company.

A MUST SEE



Who Killed the Electric Car?

Interesting but this has been going on for a long time. I remember when a farmer in the mid-west came out with a fuel source derived from corn (sounds familiar?). Sure enough, that disappeared within a few months. Now, our big oil companies have it and are using it. Chrystler unveiled a regular gasoline powered car that got 100 miles per gallon back in the early 1990s (1991?) but that quickly disappeared.

Our oil companies are buying out these patents to keep their hold on the country's family jewels (and wallets). I'm sure that poor farmer got a six figure payout for that patent from a gas company.

[bd77]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I hope the hell I am not kidding anyone?

I hope like hell people don't go through life with visors covering their eyes like the mules hauling the mule train.

Or the circus comes to town and everyone come out to see the elephant show as they are prodded and poked to stand up to the delight and the applause of the crowd.

But there seems to be a propensity to see only one way and one way only...the party way.

Let's take a look at some folks featured in this documentary:

Condoleezza Rice

5/7/91-1/15/01: Director of the Chevron Corporation, one of the world's largest and most powerful oil companies. Her decade-long stint ended seven days before being appointed by President--and former fellow oil-company executive--George W. Bush as National Security Advisor. A few months later Chevron changed the name of its its largest oil tanker, the "Condoleezza Rice" (which it had named in her honor in 1995), to the "Altair Voyager". A Chevron spokesman stated, "We made the change to eliminate unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name".

Dick Cheney

Former CEO of Halliburton, still on their payroll despite "leaving" the company to take on the office of Vice President of the United States.

When George Bush was looking for a Vice Presidential running mate, he gave Cheney--who was a power in the right-wing of the Republican party--a list of names of potential nominees and asked him to pick who he thought was the best man for the job. Several days later Cheney came back and told Bush that, after going over the list, he decided that he himself, and not any of the men on Bush's list, should be Vice President. Bush acquiesced.

Does that mean I am anti-GOP?

I applaud Devil Dog's pin point assessment of what is going on (http://www.dnforum.com/post4-post-1390986.html) To me, it would not matter if this current administration was republican or democrat...wrong is wrong.

Don't you think that if the electric car was a feasible option that rich liberals would finance it and build the necessary infrastructure to get it going? I mean come on if there is a demand for something someone will supply it but a film like this that essentially says that there is a conspiracy theory behind why the electric car didn't take over the market seems a bit crazy to me.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by bd77

Don't you think that if the electric car was a feasible option that rich liberals would finance it and build the necessary infrastructure to get it going? I mean come on if there is a demand for something someone will supply it but a film like this that essentially says that there is a conspiracy theory behind why the electric car didn't take over the market seems a bit crazy to me.

Let's say you're a domainer that specializes in non .com .net .org, the traditionals. And lets say there was a head of a certain organization that wished to open up the root and application process and allow an unlimited amount of .ext's. You as a domainer have a huge amount of money invested in said alt .ext/s. Grant it those new extensions probably would do the greater public some good but allowing it would crush an entire industry. Are you going to try and protect your investment by lobbying against those new extensions from coming to fruition? Conspiracy? No those companies were protecting their investments/business.

BTW this is based on a true story.

[BILLBO]

Now I have seen it all.

In a poll released today by the The Columbus Dispatch it gives Clinton a 16% point lead over Obama.

WHAT?

Well hang on a minute, as this is something that I feel I know a little about I looked into it and went to the raw data supplied.

1) This was a post poll, not normally considered the most accurate way of measuring opinion, but a recognised method.
2) This was a poll of registered Democratic voters (sounds good, but wait).
3) Those registered Democratic voters who had not voted since 2003 were eliminated! What? You mean that the vast majority of young voters were purposefully eliminated from your poll? Perhaps I have misunderstood we will see by the demographics of those polled.
4) Numbers per age of those who replied to the poll:

18-24 years old..........................22
25-34 years old.........................113
35-44 years old.........................210
45-54 years old.........................491
55-64 years old.........................507
65-74 years old.........................388
75+ years old............................337

Now do these figures seem a little odd to you?

In the 18-45 age bracket (where Obama consistantly out votes Clinton) there is a total of 355 replies whilst at the other extreme the 65+ age bracket there are a total of 725 replies (a demographic that has constantly favoured Clinton). The fact that 18 - 45 year olds make up over 30% of the population and 65+ year olds make up just 13%, this means that the voting intentions of 65+ year olds were given statistically 5 times more weight than those of 18-45 year olds!

To further sway the bias the split of male/female was 876:1,119 (that is 43.9% to 56.1%). Hang on the split should actually be 48.6 male to 51.4 female. Not quite so important this gender difference, but females again have had a bias towards Clinton.

But then I realised something, hang about, something really important and that casts major doubt on the authenticity of the entire poll. If there were only 876 men who replied and 1,119 women who rplied that means that total replies are 1,995. But the poll report says that it is based on a total of 2,308.

So 313 replies are either not authentic or 313 replies have been ignored!

I think this whole poll is a total mockery, this is the kind of poll that you expect to come from a third world dictatorship spin doctor.

The old saying can now be reworded clearly as far as the Columbus Dispatch is concerned: 'There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then polls by the The Columbus Dispatch'!

This poll isn't worth the paper it was writen on!

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by bd77

Don't you think that if the electric car was a feasible option that rich liberals would finance it and build the necessary infrastructure to get it going? I mean come on if there is a demand for something someone will supply it but a film like this that essentially says that there is a conspiracy theory behind why the electric car didn't take over the market seems a bit crazy to me.

Have you seen the documentary?

Have you done independent research to counter this?

Are you simply quoting the GOP script in response to this?

How many rich liberals are on boards of Oil companies? Car Companies? Oil tanker companies? Refineries?

That is if you are referring to rich liberals as being Democrats.

[BILLBO]

Re my post above (#151) I wrote to the editors of RealClearPolitics.com pointing out the same points as above and that the poll is unauthorative. I am glad to report that RealClearPolitics.com have now erased the poll from their lists, and it will now not influence the running average 'poll of polls'.

The little guy/girl can make a difference when alert!