Speaking of stupid voters....(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-12-22
In Reply to: Oh well, half the people who voted for O have no - idea who they voted for ..and dont care.nm
http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html
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
stupid voters are an embarrassment to all of us huh!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUC3ORbhjTg
Where were all the voters before?
Good point. I vote in every election, whether it be for president or town dog catcher. It is really pathetic to see the low turnout time after time unless it is the presidential election or a tax overide on the ballot. And I live in a town with a majority of senior citizens, can't imagine how low the turnout would be without them.
When my Dad was alive and we lived in the same town, he would check the list when you first signed in to make sure our names were crossed off indicating that we had voted. Look out if you had not. He was a big bad Boston police officer and you did not want to cross him!
It also comes down to those voters
who had no clue what they were voting for and did no research at all and just voted for the celeb candidate. How many people did interviewers stop and question about Obama and McCain and they had no clue who was for what or who their VPs were, etc......but they were voting for Obama.
I know that all people have a right to vote but I think sometimes we should really restrict that. LOL! Too may ignorant people not knowing who they are voting for but they are voting just to vote.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
tell that to the voters who are only voting for O
There were thousands of voters........ sm
who voted in this election who were not informed or educated on the issues or the candidates. I don't see much of a difference, do you?
American voters do not trust
the fact that this is a real "crisis". Don't want to allow Bush to force congress into another debacle like the funding for the war before he is dragged from the WH kicking and screaming. McCain is asking for time out so he can rest and catch his breath.
the voters don't decide the election- sm
Perhaps you forgot, or don't even know, that it isn't the voters who actually decide the election anyway. It is the electoral college. We could all boycott (although that would be stupid beyond belief as our voices would not be heard at all) and it would not affect the election results anyway. Get it??
If it weren't for uninformed voters
NEITHER candidate would have a chance.
VOTING BY WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!!!!!!
Too bad that over half the voters disagree with you.
.
There are a lot of voters across America who make
$250,000 or more who are voting for Obama. These are the same folks who will pay more taxes under Obama's tax plan. It goes to show even the wealthy who will be taxed more by Obama's tax plan, still want him to be President. I hear JTP complain but he is not making much money and he owes back taxes. There must be something right about Obama if the wealthy who are going to get a tax increase, are voting for him.
Of course they did. But at issue here is showing voters
I did not call you an imbecile. I said your posts are imbecilic. Being a hot-headed Obama supporter, according to the red camp, I have no character to degrade, so evidently I have nothing to lose by calling it like I see it. BTW, I've probably done all the growing I'm gonna do by age 64.
Belittling intelligent voters
just end up making you and yours look very, very small. It is sad to see the other party's apparent complusion to tear down something they cannot quite understand. Better luck next time with your candidate, your campaign strategy and your capacity to muster up the hope and inspiration so many Americans are feeling today. Maybe you too can find a way to feel a bit more proud of who you are and who seeks to represent you.
Voters Send a Pro-Choice message
I read this in my local paper this evening. The entire column is a bit too long to post, but I personally found it interesting. Some highlights:
In three states, abortion was literally on the ballot. In South Dakota, a ban amounting to outright criminalization of the procedure was defeated soundly, going down by a yawning margin in a deeply red state. In California and Oregon, voters turned back efforts to mandate parental involvement in abortions for teenagers -- it's the second time California has rejected the proposal.
---
As Democrats seized control of the Senate, abortion-rights supporters gained ground. Incoming Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia all support abortion rights. They all are set to replace anti-abortion Republicans -- and will vote in the chamber that decides on the fate of nominees to the Supreme Court.
In the House, at least 22 new pro-choice members are to replace lawmakers whose records were either anti-abortion or mixed on the issue, according to a count by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Final results in a few races still are unknown.
---
In Arizona's 5th Congressional District, where anti-abortion Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell, residents received fliers mocking Hayworth's support for letting pharmacists who say they personally oppose contraception to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions. ``Sleeping pills? I don't believe in sleeping pills,'' a genial-looking middle-aged man in a white coat says in the flier. ``Try counting sheep.'' Tying incumbents to the pharmacist-refusal issue, as well as to their widespread opposition to emergency contraception, showed these lawmakers to be precisely where they are: Outside the mainstream.
Any comments?
Voters do this when candidates spout fvalues.
nm
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
Yeah, and a large number of those new voters are
coming out saying they will vote for McCain now.
to foster relations with the Muslim voters...
both campaigns are needing those votes - not just Obama. There are Muslims in this country that are American citizens and they do get a vote too.
Probably because after 35 years, voters probably feel confident
Guess Biden's appearance in front of 3875 University of Northern Colorado students earlier today was just our/their collective imaginations. Tune in tomorrow for his 8:30 am stop in Colorado Springs, his afternoon stump in Pueblo or perhaps Thursday's in Raleigh NC rally. There is no reason whatsoever for Biden or the campaign to blink an eye over Biden stating the obvious about a new president being tested. He can also comfortably shine light on the experience issue (double-digit lead an all) since McCain gave up any credibility on that subject the minute he picked SP. Did you see the new polls top pick regarding what McCain's greatest liability is? But there should be no suprise there. Voters would have to be crazy to think she is ready to lead when she does not even understand her own job description and didn't have the sense to read the Constitution after the last 2 times she botched that question.
Typical pub. Underestimates the intelligence of US voters.
x
Obama has played the voters for fools...
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-has-played-voters-for-fools.html
To think that conservatives have viewed Bill and Hillary Clinton as unethical politicians who would do anything to get elected. When we are as disgusted as we think we possibly can be, on to the political stage steps Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois makes Bill and Hillary look “not quite so bad”.
Though they enjoyed paling around with Yasser Arafat, we didn’t have the all-consuming fear that they would completely sell-out Israel, nor did we have to worry about them supporting infanticide, though they saw nothing wrong with partial-birth abortion.
Yes, Obama keeps his pants on when away from his “bitter-half,“ Michelle, but that’s not much comfort when he has campaigned for Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga who made a pact with Kenyan Muslims to institute Sharia law.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-funds-odinga-who-promises-sharia.html
Thomas Sowell has written an article in National Review describing how Obama has played the American people for fools.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5YTM3M2UzMjY3N2M3YWRiMDI0NzNmMTNhNjJlNTc=
“Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far-Left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the Left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with — allied, not merely ‘associated’ with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers’ homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks — and what it says is more important than a politician’s rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort — and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just ‘an education professor’ who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools — an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Sen. Obama’s political campaign began in Bill Ayers’s home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year’s political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers’s home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute ‘the real issues’ that we should be talking about, instead of Obama’s track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called ‘real issues.’
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is ‘pragmatic’ rather than ideological.
But political zigzags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zigzagged and so did Hitler. Zigzags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.”
Right on, brother! Right on! It’s refreshing to see a black conservative who stands on principle and doesn’t support Obama just because of his dark pigment. I’m speaking of you, General Powell.
To all well-educated voters and free thinkers...
On Tuesday night, If and when Barack Hussein Obama wins the 2008 United States Presidential Election, please join me in announcing that "The tribe has spoken, and that John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the ubiquitous Sam have officially been voted off the island!"
No, Obama voters will be stomping and kicking
nm
I think Obama will ask his voters to vote for who he wants in; I hope not though! nm
Voters who actually read party platforms and plans
the distinctions between $250,000, $200,000 and $150,000. The figures apply to a variety of tax structures which have been clearly laid out for those interested in something other than basing their vote on dead-end issue-dodging, obsfucation, misinformation, character slurs and the like. You can read up or not. The information is there for the taking.
If it weren't for uninformed voters, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
Did you happen to catch John Stossel's report on 20/20 last night?
Uninformed Obama voters....brought to you by the biased media...sm
Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who voted for Obama, several of my relatives included....and they don't know even half of the answers to these questions either. They believe exactly what the media tells them to believe (or not to believe....)
The voting machines is a must to make voters confident their votes are counting...sm
But the Democrat party needs to delineate what separates them from the republican party as terms of what direction they will take the country. That is definitely uncertain. The chances of them getting their voters out to the polls will be better, I think.
It's a dark day in America when voters dare to feel inspired and hopeful?
rasberries
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
again, this is stupid
whatever, I concede... like it's major issue. I mean for cryin' out loud. Where exactly did MT say she was going back for the last month or so she hasn't posted here. I haven't noticed whether or not she posted a timetable WHEN she would be going back. This whole stupid idiotic argument was because someone assumed she hadn't been posting because she went back to Iraq. When she said that she hadn't you all called her a liar. THERE'S the spin...
They think WE are stupid. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing.
American people, namely his followers, will not question him, especially since he's obviously an upstanding God-fearing man. They'll take his word for it.
Are you really that stupid? TI
Can you put nothing in perspective? Without a doubt, in recent weeks, this is the most ignorant of remarks I have heard.
How stupid?
Well, obviously there are many stupid Americans because they believe this man is the answer to their prayers. They actually believe he will get them AFFORDABLE healthcare, he says the same healthcare HE has. How in the heck does he think he is going to get insurance companies to give anyone in this country the same insurance he has and they be able to afford it.
But, you see, there are those who actually think he can. And now that he is back peddling on his economic plan, which all O lovers, will conveniently ignore, he will screw you over even more.
That was stupid.
.
Well you are too stupid if you believe what you
You are regurgitating information you have heard but you don't even know what you just said, except it sounds good to you. Lets blame the rich....yea, that's it. THe rich who employ you and pay most of the taxes in this country, yea, it must be their fault. Your idea of rich is very clouded anyway, so unless you stop listening to whiners and wise up to how your own community functions in the first place, you will be the addition to this problem.
Get an economics book and read it. I dare say you know nothing about econ101 anyway, so that would explain that remark.
I am not stupid
I know that you cant believe everything that you read. That goes both ways. I am basing my opinion on his behavior, or lack thereof. If you are a Christian, you have to answer to God first. If he believed that, he would not be allowing this kind of behavior. I am not just basing this off of the internet. I am also basing it on how people where I live are talking about him. How they feel about him. It is just strange. Also, I have prayed about this quite a bit. That is my final source.
actually stupid is not seeing
what happened after the question was asked regardless of who asked it. stupid is focusing on the questioner and not the answer and stupid is not being frightened by what happened to the man after asking the question, which was his right
It's so stupid though
So what, does he ask people who they are voting for before they go in, and then what. I don't understand what the fool is there for except to act like a fool
Why should they do that??? This would be really stupid nm
nm
How stupid do you think I am?
You're going to spout off some ancient edict that lasted for how long again? Until it was revoked? You insult my intelligence along with many black people who would be outraged by your audacity.
You mean he's not stupid enough to take the
Care to comment on that nuclear Israel thingy?
I'm stupid....I get it.
Yes...staying informed makes me stupid....thanks for clearing that up. No wonder we have Obama in the White House with so many uninformed morons out there crying out "In Obama We Trust." Please excuse me if I don't feel like just sitting back and not knowing what are government is doing or planning on doing. Please excuse me while I go vomit!
but I do appreciate that so many think I am either stupid...
or a liar.
Perhaps they are stupid then...
you don't buy things you can't afford; those with modest intelligence know that. They are still losers in my book, wanting a handout when they bit off more than they could chew. While the banks did make the loans, homeowners need to take responsibility for their mistakes. What a country of whiners we have; as usual, the responsible people will take care of those who don't want to do it for themselves. Again, shelter is a right, owning a home a privilege.
People not stupid...
...it's likely the American people did not elect Bush for either of his terms. Problem is, it doesn't matter anymore so long as Republicans continue to applaud the use of corporate-owned voting machines that leave no verifiable paper trail. What can we do? Bush supporters own the machines. Bush supporters tabulated the votes. We don't have any say anymore about who sits in the White House - when it looked like we were using our voice of reason in 2000 the SCOTUS yanked the vote right out of our hands and appointed the president, overriding the fair vote count and giving us all the finger. Again, Bush supporters. Now they have the machines to re-define our votes a little more smoothly, but it's all the same criminal intention.
The American people are actually pretty smart - that's why those who hate them have to resort to such meticulous and intricate planning to steal their voice.
Of course, there are always some who are easily led, but they are far from the majority they like to claim they are. They can't even conceive of the difference between a paper ballot and a electronic vote - they have no idea which is better or why it's better, much less any notion of how to defend a Republic or their Constitution, or the integrity to act in a way that's best for their country rather than what's feely-good and rah-rah for their own selfish selves. Guess we have to put up with them, but what are we going to do about the vote thieves they enable?
Are you honestly that stupid
that you can't tell the difference between someone hoping someone burns in hell AFTER they die (having had nothing to do with their death) and openly and publicly encouraging America to ASSASSINATE the leader of a country?
Are you really that much of a moron, and as Gadfly said, why in the world do you WANT to openly reveal that to others? Some of you people need some SERIOUS professional help.
This whole thread is stupid!
MT did not say she was going back to Iraq...she was answering a poll!!!! Where's the lie?
Oh, please, Drudge is as stupid
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Another stupid move.
I see Bush has offered aid to the earthquake victims in Iran. He did this the morning after the quake. He really did not know there would be an earthquake in Iran, nor did anyone else, yet less than 24 hours after the quake he is offering aid to a country whose mouthpiece would like to blow us all to smithereens. I find it curious that it took Bush 3 or 4 days to realct to Katrina and we all knew that storm was coming for days and days and days. Although I sympathize with any victims of disasters, would it not benefit Bush and his party to aid our own country first. New Orleans is still a mess. They are still finding dead bodies, and he sends aid to, of all places, Iran. Someone explain this to me. I really don't get this.
thanks for calling me stupid ...
who knows? If you are half as smart as you think apparently think you are, yes indeedy -- maybe you could do it ... if you had become governor of a State!
I am tired of the slick, coached peoplel who simply regurgitate what the punduits tell them too. At least, for now, she is a real person ....
I can see why you like Obama -you have the same superiority attitude with a condescending nature ... LOL
that said, I really do not like him BUT I may vote for him - I truly haven't made up my mind yet.
LOL ....
|
!["](http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"){kind=icon}
0 comments:
Post a Comment