PDA

View Full Version : McCain & Obama compete Celebrity Roast Style



WRATHWILDE
10-17-2008, 11:34 PM
For all you political Junkies on GotMead
McCain and Obama go head to head performing a Celebrity Roast...
Better than the debates, finally something fresh from these two.



[size=20pt]McCain Up First
Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdWeqiyn3zQ&NR=1)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Ishs8QSUM)

Obama Responds
Full (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg)

liff
10-18-2008, 02:11 AM
I missed that, thanks for this post.

Oskaar
10-18-2008, 11:04 AM
I watched this while it was on. I cracked up when McCain said (paraphrasing here) "I can't help feel that there are some of you here tonight that are rooting for me. . . .buy the way, it's wonderful to see you here tonight Hillary!"

I almost fell out!

Cheers,

Oskaar

youngmeadman
10-18-2008, 02:39 PM
Yeah, I found both very funny,
It is kinda weird how the Canadian election was called and done, during your election. :laughing7: Good luck to you guys, may the best leader win!

Teufelhund
10-19-2008, 12:30 AM
How pathetic! Is this really the best America can come up with as Presidential candidates? :confused4: Neither one of those morons gets a vote from me. :thefinger: Fer cryin' out loud people! What are you? Sheeple or lemmings? :BangHead:
Never pick the lesser of two evils.

:cheers:

DD

WRATHWILDE
10-19-2008, 02:29 AM
Fer cryin' out loud people! What are you? Sheeple or lemmings? :BangHead:


Personally we can write in candidates here in Iowa... so Ron Paul Still has my Vote.

We'd be better off with Lizards of course.

Douglas Adams -

An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

"What?"

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

Oskaar
10-19-2008, 11:28 AM
Yup, same here in So Cal. Anyone wanna be my Vice President?

sandman
10-20-2008, 01:05 AM
I heard today that Colin Powell came out in support of Obama. Damn shame... I'd have voted for Powell if he ran, but Obama and McCain just CAN'T be the best we've got to offer.

Angus
10-20-2008, 09:57 AM
I heard today that Colin Powell came out in support of Obama. Damn shame... I'd have voted for Powell if he ran, but Obama and McCain just CAN'T be the best we've got to offer.


That's the point! We did not offer them. The parties, special interests, and the media offered them. We were left with two "evils" to choose from. Now it is true that we can write in a name, or select one of the other runners such as Paul, or refrain from voting altogether, but in my opinion this pretty much wastes a vote due to the fact that the current party system in the US leaves no chance for the Journeyman victory. So what are we left with? The lesser of two evils. And as much as we may dislike that option, we will have no right complaining about the fate of our 401k plans, or the closing of our small businesses, or the cost of buying health insurance if we refrain from voting for the candidate who will be slightly better for the country than the other guy.

Every day, we make decisions that we may not be entirely happy with, but that we know is the right thing to do. Paying taxes would be an example. We all hate doing it, but we know we have to or face the consequences. Same here. So, in my opinion, we need to look at what options we do have, evaluate their positions and how they will interact with the legislature, determine which of the two (yes, I personally eliminate other runners based on the fact that they have no chance of winning) will advance policies that most closely match our own beliefs and will benefit the country as a whole, and vote independantly from pride.

"We in America do not have government by the majority; we have government by the majority who participate" - Thomas Jefferson

Angus

wayneb
10-20-2008, 10:47 AM
Angus,

You are totally correct. I heard from a buddy of mine at work that he was not only unhappy with the choices for president, but also railed against our choices for the Senate seat open in Colorado this year. So he voted for Barr for president, and he cast a write-in vote for me (!!??!!) for Senate. I had to tell him that although I appreciated his thought, neither Barr nor I had any more chance of winning than Mickey Mouse, so he effectively wasted his votes. Too bad.

WRATHWILDE
10-20-2008, 01:03 PM
When the Parties pick who is going to represent you... Your vote has already been wasted. Rationalizing it by voting the lesser of two evils doesn't make it any less so. The only thing left is to have your vote merely counted, and voting for the (D) or (R) only matters if you are intent on not letting the other candidate take the White House.

Now I do think Obama would make the better President than McCain, but I don't know that I like the thought of having Democrats control all three branches. And as much as I am Pro-Choice ~ in that Women and their doctors should be the only ones involved in the decision... I would rather have strict Constitutionalists in the supreme court than Progressives. I would like to see Federal start taking a back seat to States. The Federal Government should be in the Business of protecting our Freedoms and Rights from overzealous States, end of story. Not undermining a States Rights to expand on the freedoms of its residents. So there are reasons I won't vote for Obama, and reasons I won't vote for McCain (Mainly his ProWar stance and his recent loss of Personal Character and Convictions).

It's really a wash, McCain might try harder to reduce the size of the Federal Government, which I agree with... States should be in control of most of these departments. Although McCain has made in clear that he wouldn't cut any spending on the Pentagon, Military or Homeland Security (these all need a healthy pruning in my book).

Obama would likely "slightly" reduce the amount of Military spending to pay for some other programs, but absolutely doesn't want the States in control, he would rather they be subservient to their Federal Departments. So a reduction of Government is very unlikely.

Obama would be the better President (if for nothing else his views on war), McCain would likely give us better Justices. Neither reason is strong or compelling enough to vote just to keep the other out of office. So I'll vote for the man whose beliefs most closely match mine, Ron Paul... it is less of a protest vote (even with no hope of winning) than a vote merely to keep one of the other two party candidates out.

And at least my vote is where I truly stand, if you haven't noticed... when you vote for a (R) or (D) in protest of the "other" two party candidate, the Party who wins views their agenda as a mandate supported by YOU. My vote at least shows that his "mandate" doesn't have my support, or the support of a % of other Americans. Not much of a consolation I know. But I believe making your true position known is better than letting them believe your vote equals support for their agenda.

Cheers,
Jered Talbot
(Wrathwilde)

wayneb
10-20-2008, 01:20 PM
Wrath,

While I agree that Ron Paul would have been a better choice than either of the ones we now have, I have a hard time casting a vote for someone that I know will not have a realistic chance of winning. My approach is to vote for a viable alternative, even though they may not be aligned with all of my objectives, and I will in the next election cycle actively work for any candidate and/or party pre-primary who most closely aligns with my points of view, with the intent of eventually having an impact on the total selection process.

I believe that based on history, we generally tolerate one or the other of the two principal parties until evidence shows that neither one can serve the country's combined best interests... then the populace gets behind one of the alternative parties and their chosen candidate(s) with enough backing that it/they replace one of the insipid incumbents. While the process can seem to take forever to happen, history shows that it happens with enough frequency to prevent absolute disaster from propagating for more than two or so election cycles. Bottom line - I'm not satisfied with our current state of affairs, but I believe in the system enough to have faith that it is self-correcting, albeit not fast enough to prevent some prolonged periods of discomfort from happening.

WRATHWILDE
10-20-2008, 02:25 PM
Wrath,
I have a hard time casting a vote for someone that I know will not have a realistic chance of winning.


In which case, at this point, any vote other than Obama is a wasted vote. Make no mistake, McCain has NO chance of winning this election without major election fraud flipping Obama votes to McCain. So lets all go out and vote for Obama, because REALISTICALLY he is the only candidate with a chance of winning. So lets just go out and give him 100% of the vote, so that he can turn around and say that 100% of America supports his agenda. I don't support Obama's agenda, I don't support McCain's agenda. I don't believe Bob Barr is a Libertarian as much as an opportunist.

If you think it's going too be close, take a look at the electoral maps (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), Obama pretty much has 364 electoral votes compared to McCain's 171 with 3 electoral votes up for grabs in North Dakota

At this point there is no viable alternative to Obama, so you might as well vote where you really stand.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

Oskaar
10-20-2008, 02:53 PM
I'm not voting for either of them either, and that wouldn't change if McCain were a clear cut winner at this point. Ron Paul gets my write in vote.

I won't vote for someone I don't believe in, and I don't believe that the two party system has been functional for a very long time now. No big conspiracy theories, or anything like that. The major majority of the voting public has put their stamp of approval on this type of campaign (popularity, mud slinging, misdirection, etc) and the preponderance of the television educated public (I'm talking about the people that will argue with you all day long based on what they saw on TV) are signing up to vote whatever way the most compelling commercial tells them to.

So, when I hear that my vote for someone who can't possibly win is wasted, I have to wonder how anyone can honestly feel that voting for one of the two parties that have systematically degraded the quality of my life (e.g. my net wages via taxes, my retirement benefits via financial crisis, my domestic tranquility by putting up a neon sign at all of our borders saying "Illegal Immigrants Welcome," the ballooning size of government at all levels, etc.) is a bigger waste of a vote. To me, both parties are guilty of the above and a hell of a lot more. It just doesn't make sense in my mind (I'm speaking about me here, you may be different) to keep voting for the lesser of two evils when there is an alternative.

Cheers,

Oskaar

wayneb
10-20-2008, 03:18 PM
Don't get me wrong, guys. My point is not that you shouldn't vote your conscience. It is rather that if you do so, then acknowledge that you do it at some risk. If you wait until post-primary and you still feel that neither of the "anointed ones" adequately represent your positions, then rather than register a protest vote, I feel it is a more productive use of your time to start immediately working toward presenting a viable alternative for next time. In the near term, if you're going to bother to vote in the presidential contest in November, make sure you choose the candidate that will degrade your life less in the intervening 4 years before the next cycle. To do otherwise may make you feel better, but it runs the real risk of dilution of that part of the voting pool that really matters -- it is when most of the thinking voters vote their "true conscience," that the likes of Clinton or Dubbya end up getting the majority of the ballots cast. And sorry, Jered, I can't write off anyone's chances based on "the polls." This country is so evenly divided between those who say they're Democrats and those who say they're Republicans, that the independent voter really makes the selection in these national contests.

IMHO, it was too late for Ron Paul to have any impact on the Republican primary back in March of '07 when he announced his candidacy, although I supported him in his efforts. I still believe that his stated objectives and beliefs most completely align with mine, out of all the candidates out there. So, after the next cycle, if things (as I expect) do degrade further, if we are not ready at that point to offer Paul or somebody like him as an alternate party alternative, then shame on us for not being more proactive in keeping his name out there as a real viable alternative.

It is a waste of time and breath to complain about the complacency of the lemmings who make up the majority of the American electorate. It is far more productive to build up the name recognition of anyone who offers a real alternative to the dysfunctional status quo. Just my not so humble opinion, but I'm stickin' to it! ;)

Teufelhund
10-20-2008, 03:58 PM
If voting could actually change the system, the largest contributors i.e. the ADL, AIPAC and SPLC, would make it illegal. ANY prospective candidate who is for good old fashioned American values, ethics and morals is banned, censored and ignored by the media.
Ron Paul was too out-spoken about sending back the 30 million illegals from Me-hee-co and Rupert Murdoch, owner of MSNBC, BANNED him from a debate. Since WHEN do Americans let a 3% population control, OUR Presidential selections?
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/evil.htm

:cheers:

DD

Oskaar
10-20-2008, 05:08 PM
Don't get me wrong, guys. My point is not that you shouldn't vote your conscience. It is rather that if you do so, then acknowledge that you do it at some risk. If you wait until post-primary and you still feel that neither of the "anointed ones" adequately represent your positions, then rather than register a protest vote, I feel it is a more productive use of your time to start immediately working toward presenting a viable alternative for next time. In the near term, if you're going to bother to vote in the presidential contest in November, make sure you choose the candidate that will degrade your life less in the intervening 4 years before the next cycle. To do otherwise may make you feel better, but it runs the real risk of dilution of that part of the voting pool that really matters -- it is when most of the thinking voters vote their "true conscience," that the likes of Clinton or Dubbya end up getting the majority of the ballots cast. And sorry, Jered, I can't write off anyone's chances based on "the polls." This country is so evenly divided between those who say they're Democrats and those who say they're Republicans, that the independent voter really makes the selection in these national contests.

IMHO, it was too late for Ron Paul to have any impact on the Republican primary back in March of '07 when he announced his candidacy, although I supported him in his efforts. I still believe that his stated objectives and beliefs most completely align with mine, out of all the candidates out there. So, after the next cycle, if things (as I expect) do degrade further, if we are not ready at that point to offer Paul or somebody like him as an alternate party alternative, then shame on us for not being more proactive in keeping his name out there as a real viable alternative.

It is a waste of time and breath to complain about the complacency of the lemmings who make up the majority of the American electorate. It is far more productive to build up the name recognition of anyone who offers a real alternative to the dysfunctional status quo. Just my not so humble opinion, but I'm stickin' to it! ;)


Well, again, I can't in good conscience vote for either of the offerings, and my vote isn't a protest vote. Rather, it is a vote of confidence for Ron Paul, and a vote of no-confidence in either of the other parties/candidates plain and simple. Dilution of the voting pool is strong indicator that the party losing the votes is no longer reflective of the majority of the constituency, and is out of touch with their core ideals. The more dilution, the stronger the message. To me, it's the people that are settling on the "evil of two lessers" that are delaying a reform in the party and system. If more people would use their votes to send that message by voting out of party when they are not satisfied with their chosen candidate, then the political analysts and shrewd campaign tacticians of that party would seize on that statistic, and make changes in values and ideals for the next round. Politicos don't miss that type of trend and neither do political opportunists. Honestly, at this point it's the voting public that has to send that exact message in my opinion for any substantive change in either party to happen. If people suffer over the next four years because of it, then they will be that much more apt to want a real change, and probably a bit more willing to vote non-party.

Do I realistically think that will happen? Who the hell knows? But, I'm not going to just lay down and vote out of fear or compromise based on who's going to screw me less. When that happens they can just brand my government identification number on my forehead and give me a number in the government cheese line.

Cheers,

Oskaar

wayneb
10-20-2008, 05:22 PM
Well, Oskaar, I can see your point, but I have to go my own way on this one.

However I do want to make the following point, applicable to everyone in this country -- If you are a citizen of the USA and old enough to legally be participating in this great hobby of ours, GET OFF YOUR @$$ and VOTE! Whether you subscribe to my point of view, or Oskaar's, or you happen to think that one or the other of our choices for chief executive really is the best that we can do, GET YOUR CHOICE RECORDED! There is no excuse for not voting -- that really does throw away any chance you have of influencing how things are done in our government, and it sends a clear and unambiguous message to the politicos and special interests alike, that they can buy you off and/or push you around by convincing you that your voice doesn't matter. BU!!$#*^ This is your country -- get involved with it!!!

Now that I've got that off my chest... :cheers:

Oskaar
10-20-2008, 05:29 PM
Well, Oskaar, I can see your point, but I have to go my own way on this one.


Yup, that's the beauty of the system, it's designed for people to do as they decide they should.

Cheers

Bill and Opus in 2012!

wayneb
10-20-2008, 05:39 PM
ACK!!

;D

WRATHWILDE
10-20-2008, 06:40 PM
To me, it's the people that are settling on the "evil of two lessers" that are delaying a reform in the party and system. If more people would use their votes to send that message by voting out of party when they are not satisfied with their chosen candidate, then the political analysts and shrewd campaign tacticians of that party would seize on that statistic, and make changes in values and ideals for the next round. Politicos don't miss that type of trend and neither do political opportunists.


Well said Oskaar, and one of the underlying points I was trying to make. I stand beside Oskaar on this one, more people need to vote out of the two party system for the message to sink in with the Politicians. Flipping your allegiance between the two parties on the basis of who's the lesser of two evils only exacerbates things. Both parties need to know they can go to hell, and won't get our vote, until they start truly abiding by the Constitution, and working to restore it.

Cheers,
Jered Talbot
(Wrathwilde)

Wolfie
10-21-2008, 05:57 AM
Indeed, both of the major parties are in desperate need of reform regardless of which way you swing. Many people are too afraid to vote their own politics and it sustains a corrupt middling system that represents the few over the many.
I think the introduction of run off voting is the best way to start getting third parties like the Independents or Greens any significant representation in this country, but until people can support those parties without being afraid of "losing" the election to the other team the major parties will never get the hint (or have to pay attention) to the real demands of the public.

Representative Voting Now!
http://instantrunoff.com/

buildmark
10-24-2008, 02:44 PM
those videos were hilarious!! I enjoyed them a lot.

We need to eliminate the predominately 2 party system and let politicians run on their past deeds and what they stand for. Maybe that will give those like Ron Paul more of a chance. It's too bad the networks don't give equal air time to all candidates.

Ron Paul did so well in the early polls.

Vino
10-31-2008, 05:20 PM
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who's hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and McCain and their bid to be our next president.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, both of them are Post Turtles."
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle" was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put him up there to begin with."

I'm just ready for the election to be over, so the Brittany and Michael are making the headlines again :snorting:

fatbloke
11-02-2008, 11:14 AM
From an outsiders POV, Obama seems much more plausible than McCain.

I also feel that McCain only picked the hockey stick with lipstick because "Hilary" didn't get the gig for the other lot, there's certainly been much less about Biden in our news.

On the face of it, Obama gives the impression of being "the answer", much like Blair did for us in 97, and look where that got us. I certainly hope that if Obama does win, as seems likely, that he does a better job than Blair did for us.

I look at the news when they are showing some Obama/McCain comparison stuff and always ask myself the same question, "Would I buy a used car from either of these men" ? Thus far, the answer has always been a resounding "No".

Hence my hope as above. Because it would be very foolish to presume that it doesn't really matter who ends up as President of the US, it affects, pretty much, just about every one on the planet too some degree!

Just my 2 pence worth!

regards

fatbloke

WRATHWILDE
11-06-2008, 08:33 PM
McCain has NO chance of winning this election without major election fraud flipping Obama votes to McCain.

If you think it's going too be close, take a look at the electoral maps (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), Obama pretty much has 364 electoral votes compared to McCain's 171 with 3 electoral votes up for grabs in North Dakota


Well for those of you who don't believe in Polls, Let's see how it Played out as compared to what I had listed above.

Final Tally of Electorial Votes.
Obama ~ 364 (exactly as predicted)
McCain ~ 174 (McCain took the 3 ECVs in ND. MO hasn't Declared but McCain Leads by 5,859 votes)

Like I predicted, McCain had no chance of winning this election, the media knew this of course... but did their best to "pretend" McCain had a chance. Probably to deflect criticisms of bias.

Semi-Related Rant ~ The Media's attempts to be "balanced" in it's current model (it's actually closer to manufactured controversy) does the public a great disservice. I think a better model would be Fair and Truthful Reporting. Examples would be the independent findings of a Commission or Study being refuted by guests who bring no data to support their disagreement, only slanders and contempt for the results presented before them, with nothing more to base their derision on than personal agenda or "belief". I don't know how many times I've seen the opposing sides resort to personal attacks (Conservatives far more often than Liberals), dismissals and/or scare tactics often completely irrelevant or even refuted by said study.

It's Giving time to that type of manufactured controversy in a effort to be balanced that pisses me off about main stream media. If you want to be balanced... here's an Idea, ask meaningful questions about the methodology, who the sample groups are, study the questions asked... were they leading? Let your audience have an overview so that they can determine things themselves. And above all the hosts should let their guests answer questions instead of cutting them off with shotgun questions to keep them off balance in an effort to undermine or suppress their position. (Fox News seems to Only Hire People whose goal in life is to never let an opposing viewpoint to be fully articulated.) It's why I can't stand to watch them. Even if I disagree with the guest I still want to hear a full explanation of what they have to say. I'm tired of all the Drama Queen hosts. I tune in to the news for just that, news. I'm not interested in watching Attack of the Rabid Drama Queen's truncated news hour.

Here Endeth the rant.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

(Note -Use of the term "Drama Queen" in this rant is not meant to be Gender Specific, I consider Bill O'Reilly to be a Drama Queen)

wayneb
11-07-2008, 12:41 AM
Yup - the polls were pretty much right on in calling this one, this time.

That said, I've seen polls go wildly wrong in years past. This is the first time that most of them hit it within the statistical error margins; they're starting to learn lessons about how to ask questions and who to ask them of. Of course it might also be that enough of the electorate was dissatisfied enough about the current administration that they voted for what they perceived as change.

Will Obama bring real change? The jury's definitely still out on that one. The only thing that is sure, is that the combo of world economic uncertainty and other world instability would challenge any administration holding office in the next four years.

Angus
11-07-2008, 09:07 AM
Change? No. Unless he meant change back to the Clinton years. His first three cabinet selections were part of, or involved with, the Clinton cabinet. There is no change coming.

If I went to a job interview, and I told them that I would make major changes to their company and make it profitable, and they hired me, what would happen to me after a few months when I had not fulfilled the promises made? I would be fired. Why can we not do the same to the President?

As for the press, I hate them. Not just the 'in your face' bias of those people on MSNBC/Fox/CNN/NBC/ABC etc.; they at least tell you where they are coming from so you are in no doubt about their political leanings. I hate those members of the press who try to pass themselves off as unbiased, unaffiliated reporters. They use subtle words that may seem innocuous, but gently push people in one direction or another. Example (this is an actual case, only the names have been changed because I cannot remember them off hand): two judges running for the Supreme Court of WI, one Liberal, the other Conservative. The description in the paper was: "Judge A, who is aligned with the liberal group Lib, and Judge B, who has ties with conservative group Con....." Seems fairly innocent and fair. Both judge's affiliations are being exposed. Good reporting. But look at the very careful selection of the wording. You can be aligned with the center of the Milky Way (i.e. heading through the Universe in the same direction), but still be 15,000 light years away. But if you have ties with something, you have direct contact and will most likely do as that group wants.

There are no reporters any more. There are just editorialists gently pushing their propoganda.

Angus

wayneb
11-07-2008, 11:42 AM
There are no reporters any more. There are just editorialists gently pushing their propoganda.

Angus



Unfortunately, "news" coverage isn't practiced by any of the mainstream media outlets any more. It just doesn't pay the bills. Entertainment, and as a subset of that, "subtle persuasion," sells.

There were some good things about the old "restricted" broadcast industry. Three commercial (and in some markets one "public") networks, and that was it. Everyone running individual stations and networks could afford to allow time for a little unbiased and fair reporting, since the fact that the news lost a little $$ didn't matter too much to the networks' and stations' bottom lines. With all the additional choices for media dividing up the pool of $$ for production and broadcast these days, if any program doesn't return a profit, no matter how valuable or noble it may be, it is gone in less than 13 weeks.

buildmark
11-07-2008, 12:32 PM
it should be made law for political candidates that if you give one free air time, you must give the others, including independents equal air time.

Here's just some proof;

replace xx with tt
hxxp://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070830/democrat_coverage_070830/20070830?hub=Entertainment

Teufelhund
11-07-2008, 05:21 PM
Just goes to show how the countrys POPULAR VOTE doesn't stand a chance against the bought-and-paid-for ELECTORAL VOTES.
Change? Oh yeah. You're gonna see change! 30 million illegals getting amnesty, gun rights down the sh*tter and more affirmative action than you could ever imagine. Should I also mention Iran, whom is going to get invaded, one way or the other and the draft will most likely come into effect?
This is just another classic example of a mock election and the tail wagging the dog.

:cheers:

DD