Politicial Poll - Sorry Yet?

[PAVALKER]

No other comments are requested or desired, just your vote. 
And yes, I selected only show the results of the poll after you have voted. 
So if you can't see it, you have to vote.

[junior]

where do i get that bumper sticker?

No other comments are requested or desired, just your vote. 
And yes, I selected only show the results of the poll after you have voted. 
So if you can't see it, you have to vote.

[Tundra]

Junior, here's the link... http://www.patriotdepot.com/

[PAVALKER]

Here is the link where I got it....



http://www.zazzle.com/anti_obama_bumper_sticker_bumper_sticker-128588696921923212

[Scanner]

lol..that is the most poorly worded poll question I've ever seen...congratulations.

[DFragn]

An accurately true reflection [poll] it is not.

[PAVALKER]

lol..that is the most poorly worded poll question I've ever seen...congratulations.

Beings you consider yourself the "Articulate One", (with ideals of the Chosen One), feel free to start your own poll with the exact same question.  You get your results your way and I get mine my way..... 

[Tropic traveler]

To be completely honest I knew he was a liberal just as Hillary was. What surprised me & dissappoints me the most is HOW liberal he is as demonstrated by his actions to date.
However, we {conservatives} are just going to have to grin & bear it as we try to blunt as much as we can of the harmful liberal policies he will attempt to push through. That is the price we must pay for Bush's mistakes & our choice of a weak canidate to oppose him, McCain. 
Silver lining here is with all the liberal nonsense Obama is & will try cramming down our throats HOPEFULLY will expose the liberal agenda AND exactly who the liberals are. Up untill now libs {the flamers} have been mostly keeping a low profile. The kook left will come out of the woodwork & show their faces pressuring Obama when he will have to back down from his way left agenda at times. Witness the caving on the health care fiasco.
Keep the faith & let's concentrate on getting our true message out while fighting the good fight against the current onslaught. It aint gonna be easy but the future of freedom depends on it. 

[JimL]

lol..that is the most poorly worded poll question I've ever seen...congratulations.

Scanner as much as it pains me to do so...I have to agree with you!

[Jeff K]

To be completely honest I knew he was a liberal just as Hillary was. What surprised me & dissappoints me the most is HOW liberal he is as demonstrated by his actions to date.
However, we {conservatives} are just going to have to grin & bear it as we try to blunt as much as we can of the harmful liberal policies he will attempt to push through. That is the price we must pay for Bush's mistakes & our choice of a weak canidate to oppose him, McCain. 
Silver lining here is with all the liberal nonsense Obama is & will try cramming down our throats HOPEFULLY will expose the liberal agenda AND exactly who the liberals are. Up untill now libs {the flamers} have been mostly keeping a low profile. The kook left will come out of the woodwork & show their faces pressuring Obama when he will have to back down from his way left agenda at times. Witness the caving on the health care fiasco.
Keep the faith & let's concentrate on getting our true message out while fighting the good fight against the current onslaught. It aint gonna be easy but the future of freedom depends on it. 

 

[junior]

ok who wants kool-aid?

[Puffs Daddy]

And so the results suggest that those who didn't vote for Obama are sorry he was elected? Other than reflecting the fact that Valkyrie riders aren't exactly a bellweather group in terms of US politics, what should one conclude?

[PAVALKER]

Conclude what you want.   

[johnhunter44]

Just trying to survive until he leaves office.....

[Sludge]

Just trying to survive until he leaves office.....

+1

[dipstick]

Aint never been a good politician come out of Il.

[roboto65]

ok who wants kool-aid?

+2 million

[Sludge]

Aint never been a good politician come out of Il.

Aint that the truth!!  LOL

[Varmintmist]

As the question was worded I was tempted to answer "not sure yet"

Mcain is a liberal. O is way past liberal firmly into socialism. That point isnt arguable. You might not like the label, but it is a perfect fit. Just look at his policies and his associations as in who he appoints and the fact that there are more anti constitutional carzs in DC than there were at a ball given by the Romanovs.

IF Mcain got in, we would have had more socialism light like we did with Bush. (For all the Bushaphobes out there, try to think of a social program that you didnt get under Bush. ) If we had more of that, then the over the top libs would have gotten more than they might by putting this yahoo in there and him going whole hog commie. This way, it isnt the camels nose under the tent that you dont notice, its the back end pushing through the front flap. People will actually look at the numbers because they can see that it doesnt add up at all instead of doing a "ho hum" and letting it slide.

We might actually get a conservative in office who understands that the country was not founded on the transfer of wealth from the producers to the non producers after this little wake up call.

[asfltdncr]

I believe the way one can determine whether someone is a liberal or conservative is to look at their voting record-not look to the woodwork.

To be completely honest I knew he was a liberal just as Hillary was. What surprised me & dissappoints me the most is HOW liberal he is as demonstrated by his actions to date.
However, we {conservatives} are just going to have to grin & bear it as we try to blunt as much as we can of the harmful liberal policies he will attempt to push through. That is the price we must pay for Bush's mistakes & our choice of a weak canidate to oppose him, McCain. 
Silver lining here is with all the liberal nonsense Obama is & will try cramming down our throats HOPEFULLY will expose the liberal agenda AND exactly who the liberals are. Up untill now libs {the flamers} have been mostly keeping a low profile. The kook left will come out of the woodwork & show their faces pressuring Obama when he will have to back down from his way left agenda at times. Witness the caving on the health care fiasco.
Keep the faith & let's concentrate on getting our true message out while fighting the good fight against the current onslaught. It aint gonna be easy but the future of freedom depends on it. 

[valkmc]

I wonder why a true conservative cannot get elected (president), maybe the people in, Gov. for the people by the people don't want a true consevative in office!!! Just a thought, everyone has the right to vote, I make sure I do, that way when things go wrong I at least got the right to complain.

[TX Wolfman]

No I didn't vote for him and I do regret that he is president and I am sorry that he is president and I hope the country doesn't repeat the mistake in 4 yrs.

[Varmintmist]

I wonder why a true conservative cannot get elected (president), maybe the people in, Gov. for the people by the people don't want a true consevative in office!!! Just a thought, everyone has the right to vote, I make sure I do, that way when things go wrong I at least got the right to complain.

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

[Puffs Daddy]

As the question was worded I was tempted to answer "not sure yet"

Mcain is a liberal. O is way past liberal firmly into socialism. That point isnt arguable. You might not like the label, but it is a perfect fit. Just look at his policies and his associations as in who he appoints and the fact that there are more anti constitutional carzs in DC than there were at a ball given by the Romanovs.

IF Mcain got in, we would have had more socialism light like we did with Bush. (For all the Bushaphobes out there, try to think of a social program that you didnt get under Bush. ) If we had more of that, then the over the top libs would have gotten more than they might by putting this yahoo in there and him going whole hog commie. This way, it isnt the camels nose under the tent that you dont notice, its the back end pushing through the front flap. People will actually look at the numbers because they can see that it doesnt add up at all instead of doing a "ho hum" and letting it slide.

We might actually get a conservative in office who understands that the country was not founded on the transfer of wealth from the producers to the non producers after this little wake up call.

Hilarious. Have to warn you though, there are a few folks in this country who actually believe this stuff.

[Sludge]

Hilarious. Have to warn you though, there are a few folks in this country who actually believe this stuff.

Then there are a few that are completely blind too...

[Varmintmist]

As the question was worded I was tempted to answer "not sure yet"

Mcain is a liberal. O is way past liberal firmly into socialism. That point isnt arguable. You might not like the label, but it is a perfect fit. Just look at his policies and his associations as in who he appoints and the fact that there are more anti constitutional carzs in DC than there were at a ball given by the Romanovs.

IF Mcain got in, we would have had more socialism light like we did with Bush. (For all the Bushaphobes out there, try to think of a social program that you didnt get under Bush. ) If we had more of that, then the over the top libs would have gotten more than they might by putting this yahoo in there and him going whole hog commie. This way, it isnt the camels nose under the tent that you dont notice, its the back end pushing through the front flap. People will actually look at the numbers because they can see that it doesnt add up at all instead of doing a "ho hum" and letting it slide.

We might actually get a conservative in office who understands that the country was not founded on the transfer of wealth from the producers to the non producers after this little wake up call.

Hilarious. Have to warn you though, there are a few folks in this country who actually believe this stuff.

Puff, which part do you find funny?

I dont know what you want to call the policys that are "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." but the guy who came up with that formula wasnt a free market economist. If you take from someone at the point of a gun and make a direct transfer of wealth to another as policy, that is socialism. It is also what your team is all about now. That is why I am no longer a Dem.

Or is it the czars? Please find where in the constitution that the executive branch gets to appoint policymakers with the mandate to spend tax money. That guy that just "stepped down" was to be the sole authority in charge of millions of tax money from the "stimulus" package.  Not saying the (R) 's dont do it, it still isnt right and your guy has a cattle car load of them.

Or is it the fact that Bush was no conservative? Bush was the biggest spender since Carter, until O took the championship in 6 months. Conservitism has its main tenant to reduce and limit Federal Gov. Bush spent more on Gov. education and labor than Clinton.

[valkmc]

I wonder why a true conservative cannot get elected (president), maybe the people in, Gov. for the people by the people don't want a true consevative in office!!! Just a thought, everyone has the right to vote, I make sure I do, that way when things go wrong I at least got the right to complain.

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

That is true, however the founders weren't perfect they counted slaves as 2/3 of a person!!! Not exactly very humane. 

[Tropic traveler]

Varmintmist you hit it upon the head about Bush not being a conservative.
That is one of the main reasons {IMHO} that we have a liberal in the WH now. There were so many people angry at Bush that there was NO WAY any {R} would get elected. A very familiar ring to that scenerio.... Carter 1976. Media in a tizzy over Watergate. 2008, Bush's liberal policies also deflated the conservative base allowing a fresh face {& a slick talker} win with very little examination into his true beliefs. Cheerleading media keeping the fire stoked even carried the Congress to the left as well. Again echoes of Carter.
I still say there will be a silver lining to this lefty phase we are going through. Maybe finally this country will realize that we really are a conservative people & that is what made this country great. More importantly maybe a true conservative canidate {& leader} with a little charisma will emerge. Then maybe the differences between lib & conservative will become more clear.
Just don't expect help from the media.

[Varmintmist]

I wonder why a true conservative cannot get elected (president), maybe the people in, Gov. for the people by the people don't want a true consevative in office!!! Just a thought, everyone has the right to vote, I make sure I do, that way when things go wrong I at least got the right to complain.

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

That is true, however the founders weren't perfect they counted slaves as 2/3 of a person!!! Not exactly very humane. 

Right fraction, wrong context, VERY HUMANE. Check your history.

The slave states are the ones that wanted slaves counted as a full person, without voting rights. Why do you think that was? Power and control.
How is the House of Representatives populated? Population:reps. More population more reps. If slaves were counted as full persons (NON VOTING) the slave states would control the house and the purse. How much longer do you think we would have been a slave country if the slave states controled things? Would it have been better for slaves or worse?

If you want to use a fact, use the whole thing.

[Jabba]

I have given up on the Republicans.

I have gone over to the Libertarians.  They are more conservative about the things I like, and less abou tthe things I don't.  I know there are Libertarian whacko's. so don't bother pointing them out.  There are Rep and Dem whacko's too.  In Indiana we tend to ignore the isolationist national Libertarians.  Do our own thing.  Hopefully we'll end up with a good alternative to the choices of control you in your wallet, or control you in your private life. 

I don't want controlled at all.  Thank you VERY much.

Jabba

[valkmc]

I wonder why a true conservative cannot get elected (president), maybe the people in, Gov. for the people by the people don't want a true consevative in office!!! Just a thought, everyone has the right to vote, I make sure I do, that way when things go wrong I at least got the right to complain.

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

That is true, however the founders weren't perfect they counted slaves as 2/3 of a person!!! Not exactly very humane. 

Right fraction, wrong context, VERY HUMANE. Check your history.

The slave states are the ones that wanted slaves counted as a full person, without voting rights. Why do you think that was? Power and control.
How is the House of Representatives populated? Population:reps. More population more reps. If slaves were counted as full persons (NON VOTING) the slave states would control the house and the purse. How much longer do you think we would have been a slave country if the slave states controled things? Would it have been better for slaves or worse?

If you want to use a fact, use the whole thing.

The fact is that our founders wrote a document attempting to support a gov that gave people the power to control that gov, only they did not mean all the people only the people that met their criteria, Now I happen to think they did a great job, however when one makes a statement about only allowing taxpayers to vote, we as a people are deciding who meets the criteria to have a say in the power. I am scared of outright liberals just as most in our country are. I am also scared of people who want to limit power (voting rights), today taxpayers, tomorrow maybe landowners only, how about people above a certian income. Koolaide comes in many different flavors and I see it on both sides of the fence. Trufully, I do not trust many who run this country, they are most often out to take care of their own or at least their own agenda.

I understand how the house works, I also understand control of slaves was not humane no matter what spin was put on it. I believe history bore that out.

[Duffy]

Some excellant points made here by TT and others. 

I have always called myself an independant, but I have voted more Republican than Democrat.

"W" changed that! He had no clue on conservativism when it came to spending. He had the same issue in most of his previous business dealings...  We should have known better.

So, now what? Neither the republicans nor the libertarians have any kind of a leader that I am aware of. Wouldn't we love to have a conservative leader that can speak like Obama emerge? I don't see any in the current crop.

Let's replace them all and see what surfaces. 

[JimL]

Some excellent points have been made indeed.  Only 2 issues that have been mentioned that I look at a bit differently. 

As a conservative I once protested by voting Independent for the "big eared" gentleman from Texas.  I was a bit pissed off that Bush senior raised taxes after "read my lips".  In retrospect it didn't take long for me to realize how naive I had been, my vote split the Republican base and gave a victory to Bill Clinton (which compared to what we have now would seem like a blessing).

Jabba makes a good point about the Libertarians, however I hesitate to make the mistake of making the worst possible choice the "de facto" winner by splitting the conservative base again.  There are a few issues I don't agree with as far as the Republican platform is concerned, however making an ideological statement by voting Independent or Libertarian in my opinion is much like making an ideological statement and insisting that my Valkyrie has has the right-of-way against an F350.  My satisfaction of sticking by my ideological beliefs in both cases will be very short-lived....

[PAVALKER]

darn.... I knew I shouldn't have added that last choice in the poll.  Something tells me that those might fit nicely into another category without any votes.     

[Jabba]

Jabba makes a good point about the Libertarians, however I hesitate to make the mistake of making the worst possible choice the "de facto" winner by splitting the conservative base again.  There are a few issues I don't agree with as far as the Republican platform is concerned, however making an ideological statement by voting Independent or Libertarian in my opinion is much like making an ideological statement and insisting that my Valkyrie has has the right-of-way against an F350.  My satisfaction of sticking by my ideological beliefs in both cases will be very short-lived....

I offer a respectful counterpoint...

When you vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils" what you are doing is sending that Evil the message that you actually endorse, and approve of their governance.  Which, we agree we do not.  If we could get the people that actually BELIEVE like we believe to VOTE like they believe, we'd not be having this debate, and both the Reps AND the Dems would be relegated to "also ran" status. 

It's all about marketing.  You're doing EXACTLY what both the Reps and Dems WANT you to do.  Kepp choosing the "Lesser of Two Evils" and keeping the nation split... and them in power.  Don't think their isn't a lot of Democrat voters in the SAME position as you.  There are.  I'd say 60-70 % of the people I talk to on BOTH sides of the devide... spout that SAME tired arguement.  I understand it... I used to spout it. 

We CAN do better.  We do NOT have to accept this crap ANYMORE.

Jabba

[Charlie]

I gotta jump in here.  I am wondering what each of you mean by Conservative, I.E. Fiscal Conservative, Religious Conservative, or both.  The problem as I see it is the Republican party has lost it's Fiscal Conservative direction to the Religious Conservative side.  People like Gerald Ford and Paul Henry (a Republican Senator from our district) do not seem to exist any more in the Republican party.  Ronny changed all that back in the 80's by working so closely with the Religious Right.  It continued on since then with each Republican President and canidate since.  I think that is what has most hurt the party.

[JimL]

I gotta jump in here.  I am wondering what each of you mean by Conservative, I.E. Fiscal Conservative, Religious Conservative, or both.  The problem as I see it is the Republican party has lost it's Fiscal Conservative direction to the Religious Conservative side.  People like Gerald Ford and Paul Henry (a Republican Senator from our district) do not seem to exist any more in the Republican party.  Ronny changed all that back in the 80's by working so closely with the Religious Right.  It continued on since then with each Republican President and canidate since.  I think that is what has most hurt the party.

I am 100% a fiscal conservative and I have a few disagreements with the religious side of the party (not that I disagree with their beliefs, I just believe that these belief have to be separate from the Republican platform).  Overall I agree with your synopsis, this is what has hurt the party the most.

Jabba I understand the point you are making, however I still see it as an ideological stance and not a practical stance.  I could be wrong.

Gotta go, I have a meeting I have to join.....

[Varmintmist]

I understand how the house works, I also understand control of slaves was not humane no matter what spin was put on it. I believe history bore that out.

Hold on, you are spinning he 2/3'rds thing like it was a big time racist bad thing, that is a bald faced whopper. The FACT is that the racisits were pushing for slaves to be counted as a whole person. It isnt spin, it was a power play by the slave states to control the destiny of the country because they could see the writing on the wall. Slavery was a dying enterprise world wide. The fact that people take it out of context and try to play fast and loose with the truth is stuff CBS loves. No one EVER said control of slaves was humane. Counting them as 2/3'rds was humane because it brought slavery to an end faster was humane. If they had been counted as a whole person, a non voting person, the slave states would have had the representation to continue being slave states and would have been in control of the house and had more votes in the electorial college. I would figure putting the enslavers in charge for the forseeable future would be a tad worse than holding the line.

Ya see, our country is founded on choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Like it or not. Has been from the start. There is a simple reason for it, I dont agree with you most of the time. Thats it, the answer. If you like 100% of what a canidate stands for then you dont think for yourself.

I might like only 90% of a canidates or partys platform, someone else might only like 55%. In all of those cases we get to pick a canidate the MOST represents us. Toss in a third party and we get reps who have less than 50% of the vote like 3rd world countries. In the case of the 2/3rds, our reps chose the lesser of 2 evils because they had already tried to go all the way in the beggining. It was attempted to make this country a slave free country during the founding, however they needed the slave states to be successful and the slave states would not ratify without being able to have slaves. It took a while, but it happened.

As to getting to say who votes and who doesnt, people under 18 cant vote. Some felons can't vote. Puerto Ricans can't vote. Up until 1961 residents of DC coundnt vote. (there was another glaring error) We pick and choose all the time. If 50% of the voting population gets largess from the govt after it sticks a gun to the heads of the other 50% and takes what they earned, there is a problem. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

[Willow]

... Wouldn't we love to have a conservative leader that can speak like Obama emerge? I don't see any in the current crop.

Are you suggesting there are currently no conservatives that can lie with a straight face or read a teleprompter?    

Just kidding!    Sort of.

[f6gal]

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

In the history of this country, voting rights have never been limited to tax payers.  In 1776, when this country announced its independence from Britain, voting rights were limited to land owners.  American citizens didn't even pay federal taxes at that time.  If you recall your history lessons, the first federal statutes imposing the legal obligation to pay a federal income tax were adopted by Congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War.

That said, your basic premise is not without merit, I just had an overwhelming need to keep history reasonably accurate.