Yes, Obama won the election. That doesn't mean he's the best man

for the job. It just means he's good with deception. Talk about smoke and mirrors!

I don't know who or what Obama is and I don't know what role he will play in the years to come. What I do know is our days are number and he will set the stage for certain prophesy to be fulfilled. Watch and see.

Is Obama The Antichrist? I don't know. But the spirit of the antichrist is already in this world.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Week from Wednesday, 04/29 CNN preemptying all regular programming to relieve the Election Day electricity that ran through our country.

The network says it will compile a national report card of Obama's performance, using opinion polls and a series of viewer surveys.

The big night is April 29, a week from this Wednesday, pre-empting regular programming.

It is possible. It has happened before. I think now especially in these final two days, when people are hearing Obama saying in a radio interview that he will bankrupt coal companies and skyrocket electricity bills, a lot of people are really wondering. Especially the states where coal is their major industry. They are starting to realize that a vote for the O means they'll be out of work. Along with the birth certificate issue not being resolved, and other the other numerous questions about the O people are really wondering about him.

He said he has visited 57 states in this country, had 2 more to go. Now, if this had been Hillary or a reb candidate, the media would still be dragging this through the mud. Maybe it was just a freudian slip? Organization of the Islamic Conference?

in order to win over a "moderate muslim" because they are by definition open to Western ideas regarding politics and general ideas. They embrace a sort of liberal Islam in sharp contrast to the extremist or fundamentalist muslims who have zero tolerance and believe in and embrace the concept of Jihad against the infidels.

I'm not just talking about muslims who live in the U.S., but muslims around the world. For example, President Karzai of Afghanistan has been deemed a moderate muslim because of his political ideas which is why he fears violence against him from the extremists in his country.

Get it? Obama saying that he wants to "win over" moderate muslims is akin to a MTSO saying they want to "win over" Indian MTs to work with them. It won't be hard and will take very little convincing. Not to mention King Obama is the "world's president." Like I said, he's just posturing of the media. The liberal media loves him and his pretty speeches. Journalists have become babbling idiots since O burst on the scene.

for the rich -- and "rich," by the way, is anyone earning more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Obama wants to give tax CREDITS to businesses that keep jobs in the USA, instead of exporting them out of the country.

These huge greedy corporations may be creating jobs, but they're not creating American jobs. Obama wants to try to slow that down and wants to reward companies who don't turn their backs on Americans.

At the bottom of this article, there's a link to watch the video - it's a hoot!!!!

In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election. How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country? And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play?

Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent. Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name. Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them. Nobody can unseat them without party approval. And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.

Same theory as they use in product advertising. Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay. See? All the hard decision-making has been done for us!

Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them. Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds. So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me). And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.

Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve. We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that.

I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system. Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what? More party clones? I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have.

Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred. You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little. All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable. KnowwhatImeanVern?

(CBS) If last year�s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn�t vote at all.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

John Kerry

41%
George W. Bush

36%
Someone else

13%
Not vote

6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn�t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won�t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn�t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

In 2004, voted for: Kerry
John Kerry

81%
George W. Bush

-
Someone else

13%
Not vote

4%

In 2004, voted for: Bush
John Kerry

3%
George W. Bush

84%
Someone else

7%
Not vote

3%

In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote
John Kerry

34%
George W. Bush

11%
Someone else

23%
Not vote

16%

For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.