All I know is that I am from Texas, and I would never vote for Bush as a presidential candidate. I learned too much from his stint and a half as governor. What he left undone, and left for Perry is monumental. And, of course, since Perry is looking at his national propects, he hasn't affected much change, either. A property tax mess, educational chaos, wasted tax dollars, misappropriated funds, unorganized immigrant issues, and unfunded mandates.
The average American doesn't realize that there are folks pouring across our borders because of the drug cartels in Mexico, and major national security issues are left dangling. I work in public education, and the stories some of our children tell us about the corruption and killings in Mexico and Texas are devastating. There is a huge surge of immigration (legal and illegal) right now because of the drug wars.
Barack O " Bama
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
Unfortunately, it sounds as if he'll fit well in Washington.Sue Sue Applegate wrote: And, of course, since Perry is looking at his national propects, he hasn't affected much change, either. A property tax mess, educational chaos, wasted tax dollars, misappropriated funds, unorganized immigrant issues, and unfunded mandates.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
pktrekgirl
- Administrator
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
You know...you are not the only Texan I know on the internet who didn't vote for Bush and say they never would. I know tons. But yet, he still won the governorship...and carried the State of Texas in both Presidential elections....by a substantial margin.Sue Sue Applegate wrote:All I know is that I am from Texas, and I would never vote for Bush as a presidential candidate. I learned too much from his stint and a half as governor. What he left undone, and left for Perry is monumental. And, of course, since Perry is looking at his national propects, he hasn't affected much change, either. A property tax mess, educational chaos, wasted tax dollars, misappropriated funds, unorganized immigrant issues, and unfunded mandates.
The average American doesn't realize that there are folks pouring across our borders because of the drug cartels in Mexico, and major national security issues are left dangling. I work in public education, and the stories some of our children tell us about the corruption and killings in Mexico and Texas are devastating. There is a huge surge of immigration (legal and illegal) right now because of the drug wars.
My friends live in Austin, primarily. I wonder - are some parts of the state much more conservative than others?
Because although I know alot of anti-Bush people in Texas, he always seems to win!
I'm also really curious about why people continue to vote Republican down there, if these guys never get anything done. Do they really think the Democrats would do worse?
Hello,
Well since you ask. Obama does not have a chance of election as president for the reasons stated earlier this thread. Plus, he does not have a chance because he is named "Obama". Specifically, here are some connections...
Barack Obama wins democratic nomination.
Barack Obama appears on ballot for president.
Voter sees name "Obama".
Voter experiences vague unease regarding name "Obama".
Voter makes tenuous connection between names "Obama" and "Osama".
Voter sort of remembers "Osama" as name of some real bad guy.
Voter does not vote for Barack Obama.
Does the above sound dumb? Well, what can I say? The majority of voters in the United States are pretty dumb and uninformed. So I don't sound like an elitist...I include myself in the "dumb and uninformed" voting public.
Here is my prediction vis-a-vis next president. Two "ifs"...if he decides to run (has not thrown his hat in the ring as of May 4, 2007) and if he makes it to the Republican convention as leading candidate. Fred D. Thompson. Why Fred D. Thompson? Because, "oh...I've seen that guy (Fred Thompson) on television...or was it the movies?...and he seemed so sincere and nice in that television/movie thing I saw him in...I vote for Fred...".
Do I really believe what I said my two preceding paragraphs? Maybe, I am just cynical and a curmudgeon? Yes. I really believe what I said my last two paragraphs and I am a curmudgeon. Heck, I did not even talk about the usual scandalmongering during presidential elections.
Rusty
Well since you ask. Obama does not have a chance of election as president for the reasons stated earlier this thread. Plus, he does not have a chance because he is named "Obama". Specifically, here are some connections...
Barack Obama wins democratic nomination.
Barack Obama appears on ballot for president.
Voter sees name "Obama".
Voter experiences vague unease regarding name "Obama".
Voter makes tenuous connection between names "Obama" and "Osama".
Voter sort of remembers "Osama" as name of some real bad guy.
Voter does not vote for Barack Obama.
Does the above sound dumb? Well, what can I say? The majority of voters in the United States are pretty dumb and uninformed. So I don't sound like an elitist...I include myself in the "dumb and uninformed" voting public.
Here is my prediction vis-a-vis next president. Two "ifs"...if he decides to run (has not thrown his hat in the ring as of May 4, 2007) and if he makes it to the Republican convention as leading candidate. Fred D. Thompson. Why Fred D. Thompson? Because, "oh...I've seen that guy (Fred Thompson) on television...or was it the movies?...and he seemed so sincere and nice in that television/movie thing I saw him in...I vote for Fred...".
Do I really believe what I said my two preceding paragraphs? Maybe, I am just cynical and a curmudgeon? Yes. I really believe what I said my last two paragraphs and I am a curmudgeon. Heck, I did not even talk about the usual scandalmongering during presidential elections.
Rusty
Rusty said:
Do I really believe what I said my two preceding paragraphs? Maybe, I am just cynical and a curmudgeon? Yes. I really believe what I said my last two paragraphs and I am a curmudgeon. Heck, I did not even talk about the usual scandalmongering during presidential elections.
You are right on the nickel on your statements. John F. Kennedy Sr. was a charming, young, energetic and handsome man, with a, though not beautiful, very lovely, dignified lady, and a gorgeous little blond daughter. The whole package made up a picture of what most Americans of the late 50's, early 60's wanted their own lives to be, so guess who they voted for? Especially after 12 years of stodgy, white haired Ike and Harry S. Years later, after LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, along comes a charming, young, energetic and handsome man, with a, though not beautiful, very lovely, dignified lady, and a gorgeous little blond daughter, Bill Clinton. And Guess What?
People vote on personality, looks, and charm, not the man behind those qualities. George Sr. wasn't that bad, so let's vote in his son, and look what happened. If JFK Jr. had lived, and ran for President, how much do you think you would bet he would be voted in?
A funny thing happened tonight on the way to this forum. Bill Maher had one of the Republican candidates on and apparently he made a flub last night on the debate - his excuse? - his hearing aid wasn't working properly and he answered what he thought he heard. If he thought that reasoning might get my vote, boy is he wrong - o. Just what I want, a President in conference on important issues who may not hear correctly what is said, and answers what he THINKS he heard!!!
Somebody please come forth and protect us from all these clowns we have in Washington, D.C. We need help!
Anne
Do I really believe what I said my two preceding paragraphs? Maybe, I am just cynical and a curmudgeon? Yes. I really believe what I said my last two paragraphs and I am a curmudgeon. Heck, I did not even talk about the usual scandalmongering during presidential elections.
You are right on the nickel on your statements. John F. Kennedy Sr. was a charming, young, energetic and handsome man, with a, though not beautiful, very lovely, dignified lady, and a gorgeous little blond daughter. The whole package made up a picture of what most Americans of the late 50's, early 60's wanted their own lives to be, so guess who they voted for? Especially after 12 years of stodgy, white haired Ike and Harry S. Years later, after LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, along comes a charming, young, energetic and handsome man, with a, though not beautiful, very lovely, dignified lady, and a gorgeous little blond daughter, Bill Clinton. And Guess What?
People vote on personality, looks, and charm, not the man behind those qualities. George Sr. wasn't that bad, so let's vote in his son, and look what happened. If JFK Jr. had lived, and ran for President, how much do you think you would bet he would be voted in?
A funny thing happened tonight on the way to this forum. Bill Maher had one of the Republican candidates on and apparently he made a flub last night on the debate - his excuse? - his hearing aid wasn't working properly and he answered what he thought he heard. If he thought that reasoning might get my vote, boy is he wrong - o. Just what I want, a President in conference on important issues who may not hear correctly what is said, and answers what he THINKS he heard!!!
Somebody please come forth and protect us from all these clowns we have in Washington, D.C. We need help!
Anne
-
SSO Admins
- Administrator
- Posts: 810
- Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
- Contact:
I tend to agree, but I also think Obama has personality, looks and charm to spare. I also don't think there's going to be a significant "his name sounds like Osama" factor among voters if he manages to get the nomination and make it through a presidential campaign.mrsl wrote:People vote on personality, looks, and charm, not the man behind those qualities. George Sr. wasn't that bad, so let's vote in his son, and look what happened.
I think you're dead on with the "George Sr. wasn't that bad" factor. In 2000 I didn't pay a lot of attention to politics. I honestly didn't care who won. That's changed in the last seven years, obviously.
-
Vecchiolarry
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Good Morning Everyone,
From what I can see (a Canadian viewing American politics!), the good old USA doesn't have anybody worthwhile electing and hasn't for over a decade.
But then, neither has Canada. We've had and now have boobs in office and politics federally, provincially and civically.
And, on could say that about every world country.
Where are our leaders?? Gone to seed!!
Larry
From what I can see (a Canadian viewing American politics!), the good old USA doesn't have anybody worthwhile electing and hasn't for over a decade.
But then, neither has Canada. We've had and now have boobs in office and politics federally, provincially and civically.
And, on could say that about every world country.
Where are our leaders?? Gone to seed!!
Larry
-
pktrekgirl
- Administrator
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
I'd have voted for him!mrsl wrote:If JFK Jr. had lived, and ran for President, how much do you think you would bet he would be voted in?
Even if I didn't like what he was saying, I'd watch the State of the Union with the sound turned off, just to gaze up JFK, Jr.
WOW, he was a beautiful man!
I still can't believe he's gone.
Anne,
Thank you for your "right on the nickel" message.
I can pinpoint the moment I discovered how important most American citizens regard American politics and American politicians.
Not that anyone (except me) cares...the year was 1974 and the month was August. I was 19 years old. After two years of Watergate, Richard Nixon was leaving the White House. Walter Cronkite told me the Nixon resignation was a historically significant event. My local newpaper, The Boulder Daily Camera...told me the Nixon resignation was a historically significant event. I agreed with Walter and Daily Camera...I thought Nixon resigning from the presidency was the second most important event in my lifetime (second only to John Kennedy assassination).
On television, I watched as Dick Nixon got on a helicopter and left Washington. Later that day, the local television news did one of those "man in the street" things. The local television news interviewed people who had watched Nixon leave Washington for California. The local television news interviewed people in stores, bars...even on the street (I guess, the television was set up in a store window). I remember the public's opinion was..."Nixon? Just another crooked politician. He just happened to get caught." I looked at the Daily Camera and on the front page was another..."what's your opinion of Nixon's resignation?" Same sentiments..."crooked Nixon...no different than all the other crooks in Washington...I'm glad Watergate is over...". And so on.
Where was the, "this Nixon resignation day marks an important moment in history..."? I was confused. The televised news and the printed news told me Nixon resignation day is a turning point day for politics in America, but the "man on the street" news tells me it is..."same s***, another day".
That day in August of 1974 was my innocence lost day. Sniff...
Rusty
Thank you for your "right on the nickel" message.
I can pinpoint the moment I discovered how important most American citizens regard American politics and American politicians.
Not that anyone (except me) cares...the year was 1974 and the month was August. I was 19 years old. After two years of Watergate, Richard Nixon was leaving the White House. Walter Cronkite told me the Nixon resignation was a historically significant event. My local newpaper, The Boulder Daily Camera...told me the Nixon resignation was a historically significant event. I agreed with Walter and Daily Camera...I thought Nixon resigning from the presidency was the second most important event in my lifetime (second only to John Kennedy assassination).
On television, I watched as Dick Nixon got on a helicopter and left Washington. Later that day, the local television news did one of those "man in the street" things. The local television news interviewed people who had watched Nixon leave Washington for California. The local television news interviewed people in stores, bars...even on the street (I guess, the television was set up in a store window). I remember the public's opinion was..."Nixon? Just another crooked politician. He just happened to get caught." I looked at the Daily Camera and on the front page was another..."what's your opinion of Nixon's resignation?" Same sentiments..."crooked Nixon...no different than all the other crooks in Washington...I'm glad Watergate is over...". And so on.
Where was the, "this Nixon resignation day marks an important moment in history..."? I was confused. The televised news and the printed news told me Nixon resignation day is a turning point day for politics in America, but the "man on the street" news tells me it is..."same s***, another day".
That day in August of 1974 was my innocence lost day. Sniff...
Rusty
-
pktrekgirl
- Administrator
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
^ Actually, being the cynic that I am, I also agree with you, Rusty- particularly about the Obama/Osama link.
I mean, personally, I find it almost impossible to believe on the face of it. But if there is one thing the last 8 years has illustrated to me in spades: never underestimate the ill-informed stupidity of the American voting public.
I mean, just when you think they couldn't GET any less well-informed, out pops another ghastly example of their utter civic ineptitude.
Seriously. I bet half the American voting public couldn't tell you the difference between "Austria" and "Australia". And they have been looking at maps since grade school! And so I fully expect a percentage of them to make the exact connection you mention. As mind-boggling as that is.
They can tell you who got eliminated on American Idol last week. But they can't tell you who the Secretary of State is.
I mean, personally, I find it almost impossible to believe on the face of it. But if there is one thing the last 8 years has illustrated to me in spades: never underestimate the ill-informed stupidity of the American voting public.
I mean, just when you think they couldn't GET any less well-informed, out pops another ghastly example of their utter civic ineptitude.
Seriously. I bet half the American voting public couldn't tell you the difference between "Austria" and "Australia". And they have been looking at maps since grade school! And so I fully expect a percentage of them to make the exact connection you mention. As mind-boggling as that is.
They can tell you who got eliminated on American Idol last week. But they can't tell you who the Secretary of State is.
-
SSO Admins
- Administrator
- Posts: 810
- Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
- Contact:
Rusty wrote:I remember the public's opinion was..."Nixon? Just another crooked politician. He just happened to get caught." I looked at the Daily Camera and on the front page was another..."what's your opinion of Nixon's resignation?" Same sentiments..."crooked Nixon...no different than all the other crooks in Washington...I'm glad Watergate is over...". And so on.
I was to learn, however, that those lofty sentiments of patriotism, which are a part of every man of Helium, were induced as much by the love and respect in which we held our great jeddaks (emperors) as by our natural attachment to the land of our birth; while, upon the other hand, the Jaharians looked only with contempt and loathing upon the head of their state and feeling no loyalty for him, who was in effect the state, they looked upon patriotism as nothing more than an empty catchword, which an unworthy master had used to his own end until it had become meaningless.
-- Edgar Rice Burroughs, A Fighting Man of Mars