Uninformed Obama voters....brought to you by the biased media...sm
Posted By: sm on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: Media Malpractice...How Obama got elected....sm - ms
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....)
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
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?
The liberal media is biased in favor of Obama.....
Half this country believe in this so called savior, and I hold the media 90% responsible, and the ill-informed people will and are following blindly.
God help us.
If it weren't for uninformed voters
NEITHER candidate would have a chance.
VOTING BY WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!!!!!!
Nope. Liberally-biased media wont let him fail.
nm
If I hear liberal garbage or biased media one more time I'm gonna
puke!!!!!! It was an interesting article, nothing more, nothing less. Taking offense at that article is a little like gasping at straws donchathink?
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.
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
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
You know the media protects Obama....
media bias is obvious, got so bad they MSNBC finally removed Matthews and Olbermann to commentary only. THe media chose Obama way back when and have protected him ever since. He did not do an interview with anyone who would really ask him questions until this last week.
Never have I seen anything on the media about Obama that comes anywhere near what has been done to Palin of a personal nature. The only thing I saw on the media about any of Obama's family was Michelle's comment about being proud of her country. She was stumping on behalf of her husband when she said it. But she has not been criticized for being a working mother and no one has voiced any concern about her ability to be a mother and have a career. Her career is pretty demanding and she still has time for her social activism. I would say she is capable of juggling family and career and have heard no one suggest any different. I have not heard Obama critiqued about how good a father he would be while running the country (he #1, she #2). There has been nothing for JM to call them down about. Obama has not come out and tried to stop his adoring masses until the Sarah Palin thing. He never came out and told them to lay off all the cindy Mccain rehab stories when THOSE were going around...so apparently he didn't care that the candidate's wife was being attacked in that case.
Nowhere near the same thing, as you are well aware.
The media is obviously in the tank for Obama
nm
The media is in love with Obama. Therefore,
nm
So now Obama is also repsonsible for the media?
Give me a royal break!
Obama's grandmother and the media coverage
I feel very bad that she is terminally ill. I have lost many close relatives myself and those have been the worst of times for me.
But, I feel his campaign has used this situation to his media gain.
Put it this way, if it was me and I found out my grandmother was so sick, I would have been on the first plane there (I don't have my own jet). What if she died before he got there? As I said, there were a few days of a delay in there where the situation has been reported repeatedly. If she was so sick, he should have just gone. Everyone would have understood.
There. I said it. Many may think it was heartless thing to say, but wouldn't you have just dropped everything and gone?
Biden could have taken on more in his absence.
Media Malpractice...How Obama got elected....sm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
http://howobamagotelected.com/
"Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
All of this was conducted for a forthcoming documentary on how the news media impacted the 2008 election. Please get on our mailing list and return to this website in the coming months for more information on the film, "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected"
Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Well....McCain sure couldn't go after Obama in the media, even if he wanted to...
they are all in love with Obama, right down to the tingle up their legs. As to the vitriol on this board, it is easy to see where the mud is, and is not on the Republican side. Nothing of substance posted most of the time, and if it is and is countered by someone, then come the attacks. Just amazing that people living in the same country (and possibly the same town) hate someone because of their political affiliation. Geez.
So you're saying the left controls the media? I thought the media produced the story.
I haven't seen or heard one thing blaming Obama's crew for this. Where can I read about the right aligning to attack the left? Where did you find this information? Or is this just your observation and opinion of things?
Speaking of the media, let's take a poll who thinks the media has run amuck sm
and which ones do you think are the most ridiculous? Fox News, NYT, AP, Wash. Post, CNN, your choice.
Just because you're uninformed
about what your government is doing doesn't mean I made it up. 
Go educate yourself. I used to be uninformed too,
nm
Are you dyslexic or just uninformed?
Perhaps you need to look past your own holier-than-thou ego to see the truth.
Calling Israel 'the new kid on the block' is insulting and shows your extreme prejudice against Jews. Shame on you!!!!!!!
Do you have any knowledge of acdtual HISTORY, or do you just rely on Wikipedia for your vast knowledge of the world? Have you ever bothered to RESEARCH for yourself, or is Google your God? You're a prime example of today's "artificial intelligence." You think you've got all the answers. Give me a break, kid.
First, get off your high horse. Second, my ancestors have been in Eretz Yisrael since the beginning of time. Before the Romans, before the Christians, and before the Palestinian squatters you seem to love so much.
There have been MANY, MANY waves of Jewish resettlement in Israel. Israel was NOT born from the Partition Plan. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And, by the way, when Jerusalem was dubbed an international city, and the UN got to have jursdiction, WE agreed. But the Arabs couldn't deal with the concept of peace and declared all-out war. When we claimed our independence, it was the Arabs who, once again, couldn't conceive of PEACE in the region, who invaded US!
The bloody Palestinians never relented in their attacks. They don't want us to exist. Guess what. The feeling's mutual.
I'm not wasting a single tear on dead Palestinians. They sure as he__ wouldn't waste one on you.
But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to root for barbarous terrorits, by all means, go ahead. I'm sure they appreciate your support. (Yeah, right.)
You won't be anymore uninformed than he will....he
NM
Only if you're totally uninformed.
Let's get one thing straight. Being informed about history and seeing it with a clear eye has nothing to do with "hating America." I love America, I was born here, it's my homeland and I will take up arms against any invader who sets foot here. But America is in danger now - and has been for decades - by a different kind of enemy and if you don't know that then you have no idea what people are talking about when they protest vigorously against that enemy. So, it seems "unbelievable" to you.
The actions of men and women with objectionable agendas, who start wars for the sake of profit and power and ultimately better control over you, have NOTHING to do with the constitutional ideas that make this a great nation. The individual heroism, sacrifice and bravery of our armed forces is just beyond question. The selfish and evil plotting that goes on behind closed doors to send those individual heroes to their deaths is likewise beyond question. One thing they must do to make us willing to go to our deaths is define and demonize the enemy, make us think we are in imminent danger of attack and put out the call to defend the homeland against the evildoers. Sound familiar? All of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries followed this script to one degree or another. Behind the scenes the warmakers let nothing as silly as "American ideals" interfere with the business of making money, collaborating with the enemy and claiming the natural resources of other peoples'lands. If you can't see their objectives clearly you aren't looking for them and if you're buying their propaganda, I assure you, they love you a lot. Now give them your money and send your children off to die for another great financial quarter, and don't expect anything in return.
This is nothing new, "leaders" have been doing this to their populations forever. That does not mean the populations, and some of their representatives, and their countries and constitutions are to blame - but there is always a struggle in the population between those who believe the nice fairy tales and those who don't. The truly evil ones like this, and they do all they can to keep the people fractured and squabbling. Otherwise, a united people is a specific danger to them and their agendas, as you can certainly understand. They don't make their money and their empires without our consent. That's just a plain fact.
America at its heart *is* an empire, a good one with the potential to shed light across the globe - but they are taking it away from us. You should be more concerned about that than you are about dissing me. That 800-pound gorilla is standing right behind you and I'm only pointing at it.
You are one frightening and uninformed person.
Socialism has never worked. Socialism is as close to communism as you can get. WHERE do you get your information?!!!
Only an uninformed person would still think he's Muslim.
sheesh
Uh-huh, better or biased?
makes if biased and
not worth reading. Kind of like getting "news" from Faux. If you enjoy having all your misconceptions and radical opinions reinforced, you are using the right sources. Me, I like fact-checked info that does not insist it has the One and Only Truth.
Could your post be any more biased?
There are just as many left wing smears and lies posted on the internet and just as many left wing news sources who twist the truth or only show good news of O and bad news of Mccain.
Everyone needs to research BOTH SIDES of the issues and then decide. Beware of links from ANYONE. No one is going to post a link that makes their choice look bad.
Sheesh.
Yeah? Well, almost everything else is biased for the
nm
What dribble and so uninformed, he isn't taking money from small businesses, geez.
Common sense should tell you he is not saying he is taking the money from small business to give to the the middle class.
he is saying he wants to tax fairly the wealthy (businesses over 250,000) and probably take some of the loop holes away. Lower the middle class taxes (if there is one anymore) so we can breathe. Former statesmen have said it is dangerous to put all the money in so few hands, it develops corruption. Don't just read the headlines, read between, on top, in depth, etc. McCain jumped on that statement to win votes. He is wealthy, what makes you think he understands you? The reason our jobs are going overseas is the present adminstration has given all these corporations tax breaks to do so - saying it builds global democracy - it didn't work, it just made the corporations richer). i don't care who you vote for but Ms. Piggy would be better than McCain and dum, DE dum dum.
Yet we get on this board and moan and whine about not getting paid enough and companies are spening millions buying other transcription companies over our backs you think taxing them fairly is socialism.
I am through with this board, it is sad so many want 4 more years of the same. Keep working for pennies while benefits are taken from you, lines per are decreased. Do you think getting less for voice is fair when it takes almost the same amount of time to do it and make half? Do you think the company is taking that much of a hit? Yet they are forcing it so it most be a benefit to them. They are laughing all the way to the bank while you eat the feathers.
ridiculous biased statement
He was a constitutional law professor for pete's sake. If there is any group trained to think on their feet, it is lawyers. You are just making these things up with no basis..
MSNBC is the most biased of all the stations
Fox News was voted by the press to be the most fair in their reporting. They compared all the major stations and came up with an average of 40% of all reporting devoted to each side when reporting election news.
Other posters will state Fox is biased, but I have started watching that station and CNBC. I was MSNBC and the others when I need a laugh.
Yes, and condescending, biased, partisan.
nm
I figured using an article that was not biased by. . .s/m
your so-called ""liberal spin"" might hold a little more credence. After all, the Canadians don't have a partisan agenda and are just reporting the facts.
Four libs against 1 conservative...wow....how biased can that show be...sm
...that show is a joke.
It shows you have a biased opinion and a weak mind.
I'm sure the Hitler Youth loved their newsletter just as much as you hate-festering libs love your Huffington Post.
And you really need to spend a second to look up the definition of "terrorist."
If a "terrorist" was anyone who commits murder, your Saint Tiller (may his stinking corpse rot in his grave) is the prime example of a TERRORIST. 60,000 infants executed. And yet all you can focus on is your hate for anything Christian.
How pathetic.
For convention coverage minus spinning, bashing, biased
Tired of attack politics? Don't need reporters telling you what you just saw or what to think about it? Want a one-on-one convention experience? Want to digest the content without the interference of disconcerting and distracting commentary? Want to be in charge of deciding what is and what is not pertinent during the course of the conventions? Do anchors and networks promoting their own hidden agendas get under your skin as they invent issues of no consequence, discount messages of great importance and try to stir up conflict? Do you find most coverage obnoxious, rude and insulting to your intelligence? Does their reporting look and sound like make believe? Do you think our candidates, conventions, parties, issues, policies and political process deserve more dignity than a big-top circus/carnival presentation?
The solution is easy. Switch that channel. Try CSPAN. Not to worry. If you feel you are missing something in the way of staying abreast with the pundit's play-by-play smear scripts, you can always get caught up on all those issues the next time you log onto MT Stars political forum.
I would believe Nancy Pelosi before a biased reporter who is Republican, sounds like Palin, no facts
x
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?
It was brought in because
the poster labelled him as being black. Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.
Well, since you brought it up......
Why the heck can't BLACKS be just plain AMERICANS like the rest of us???? I don't see myself going around saying I'm Irish-Native American-American. Let's let the racist crap go, shall we?
And by the way, I DID answer you. Sorry it wasn't quick enough to suit you.
VOTING FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!
He has brought it up
along with all the other questionable associations Obama has, but no answers have been given. Obama said that he did not agree with the things Wright said, but that was really all the explanation he gave and he refused to answer any other questions about it. I would like to hear answers about that, too, but I just don't see it happening - he's too much of a friend of the media to have to answer to anything.
Brought To You By......
http://www.google.com/search?q=Once+upon+a+time%2C+on+a+farm+in+Washington+DC%2C+there+was+a+little+red+hen+who+scratched+about+the+barnyard+until+she+uncovered+quite+a+few+grains+of+wheat.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Take your pick. By the way, your cut and paste job totally missed the first paragraph.
First of all, someone else brought up
smokers and I was just trying to explain how I can love and care for someone but hate what they do....so I used my father and his smoking.
As for smoking....it is too a sin. Technically anything that we take into our body that harms it is sinful. Our bodies are supposed to be temples to God. That is why for so many years ear piercing was bad and some people still consider tattoes bad.
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??
Too bad that over half the voters disagree with you.
.
|
!["](http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"){kind=icon}
0 comments:
Post a Comment