The undecided voters have been identified. They are the ones waiting for McCain to get younger or Obama to get whiter.
Printable View
The undecided voters have been identified. They are the ones waiting for McCain to get younger or Obama to get whiter.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Irish betting company settles bets on Obama early:
[url]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24511776-29677,00.html[/url]
Nice news for Obama supporters, but if I was a betting man I would wager that the owner of Paddy Power is a fan of Obama. Good on ya though![/QUOTE]You guys holding one of those Obama tickets had better cash it, quick. It seems that without a daily bloodbath on Wall Street, The Messiah's lead is destined to drain away. Down from 10% to 2% in the most recent AP poll. People are getting the message that he intends to "take our wealth and spread it around" to people who don't work and don't intend to.
Ronald Reagan was behind at this point in 1980. President Obama is spending a lot of time measuring the Oval Office for draperies. I think he'll rue the day he made the mistake of exposing his Marxist soul to a plumber from Ohio.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]You guys holding one of those Obama tickets had better cash it, quick. It seems that without a daily bloodbath on Wall Street, The Messiah's lead is destined to drain away. Down from 10% to 2% in the most recent AP poll. People are getting the message that he intends to "take our wealth and spread it around" to people who don't work and don't intend to.
Ronald Reagan was behind at this point in 1980. President Obama is spending a lot of time measuring the Oval Office for draperies. I think he'll rue the day he made the mistake of exposing his Marxist soul to a plumber from Ohio.[/QUOTE]Hunt-are you factoring in a positive spin on margin of error, or something? The news on the AP poll I saw today indicated a 57% to 52% margin for Obama.
[url]http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9193983&nav=menu108_7[/url]
No sense in a futile debate about poll numbers, but you don't strike me as a disseminator of bogus info.
Cheers
It is difficult to intrepret polling data. In 2004 Kerry was President for a few hours based on exit polls. We still don't know why those exit polls were so inaccurate.
I have said forever that 2008 should be Obama's election. That is just a feeling. It is not based on polls. The polls are meaningless.
[QUOTE=Stowe]No president has the power to make serious changes to our society (other than make war) Because of the special interest groups Congress and any and all presidents are too afraid to address real changes. Like addressing the debt, Social Security, Medicare, the energy crisis, climate change.
Suerte.
Stowe[/QUOTE]Will that hold true if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in Congress?
It was just such a majority that allowed Lyndon Johnson to pass his Great Society.
What would an Obama, Read, Pelosi team give us? Something similar to the Three Stooges I suspect.
But hey I survived Jimmy Carters first term and I can survive The Second Coming of J. C.... IF it happens.
Punter,
I used think that it didn't matter much who we elected President in 2008. However, I remember Jimmy Carter. I think Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter's brother and famous for Billy Beer, would have been a better President than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had and has the backbone of a jellyfish.
If you think Obama might be the second coming of Jimmy Carter I am scared to death. This has the makings of a nightmare.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]It is difficult to intrepret polling data. In 2004 Kerry was President for a few hours based on exit polls. We still don't know why those exit polls were so inaccurate.
I have said forever that 2008 should be Obama's election. That is just a feeling. It is not based on polls. The polls are meaningless.[/QUOTE]Diebold electronic voting.
""A new computer chip was flown to Snyder [Texas] from Dallas," County Clerk Lindsey told the Associated Press. With the new chip installed, the computer then verified that the Democrat had won the election. In another Texas anomaly, Republican state Senator Jeff Wentworth won his race with exactly 18,181 votes, Republican Carter Casteel won her state House seat with exactly 18,181 votes, and conservative Judge Danny Scheel won his seat with exactly 18,181 votes – all in Comal County. Apparently, however, no poll workers in Comal County thought to ask for a new chip."
Three separate races in the same county and all three got EXACTLY the same number of votes. I guess it could happen naturally.
The exit polls that put Kerry in the lead, think it has to do with the time difference in the big country in the west. Kerry easily took all Eastern states, and especially the Northeastern (NY, N Jersey, Mass) The exit polls are not that sophisticated and cannot adjust for this. Even though California was a sure winner for him, the early exit polls failed to pick up the big following of Bush in Mid and South. Relied on early inputs in the East.
I will say it again.
It is unsettling that Obama and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who does not buy into the concept the Obama is "THE ONE"
Is this a signof what we can expect with an Obama Presidency?
Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. I have a lot of respect for McCain and I think Obama has a lot of potential.
In 1976 we elected that worthless son of a ***** Carter to the Presidency. Carter had about the same expierience as Palin.
The difference is that Carter was and is an idiot, while Palin is a sharp cookie. I will take Palin over that fucking idiot Carter any day of the week.
What I am trying to say is that I have no fears of a Palin Presidency. By definition it would be one thousand times betters than a fucking Jimmy Carter Presidency
[QUOTE=El Alamo]I will say it again.
It is unsettling that Obama and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who does not buy into the concept the Obama is "THE ONE"
Is this a signof what we can expect with an Obama Presidency?[/QUOTE]To El Alamo, try to take it to a higher level. Obama has 20 % support from Europe. We all wanted Hilary, and now again these stupid Ohios and what you have below that state messes it up.
The World now needs the Clintons.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Punter.
I used think that it didn't matter much who we elected President in 2008. However, I remember Jimmy Carter. I think Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter's brother and famous for Billy Beer, would have been a better President than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had and has the backbone of a jellyfish.
If you think Obama might be the second coming of Jimmy Carter I am scared to death. This has the makings of a nightmare.[/QUOTE]Hi El Alamo,
Think about it, the cry will be we ’ve got a mandate from the people.
Now the same folks that told us the war is bankrupting the country, just teamed up with that turn coat Bush and wrote a check for 700 billion plus to bail out Wall Street and the Bankers, and they didn ’t even bat an eye. They did it like we had the money and with the blessing of both candidates!
Who’s investigating and who’s going to jail? Why not?
At the same time imho they said Fuck Main Street; who ’s going to bail me out on the money I lost in the value of my home? (I had already moved my 401k money out of the Stock Market to safe havens.)
Oh but I forgot we ’re going to get that 700 billion back; really, how and in who ’s life time?
Have you heard Obama tell you what he ’s going to cut to pay for all this, all he ’ll say is we ’re going to look at everything. At least McCain called for a freeze, it ’s not much but it ’s something.
I remember double digit inflation and double digit prime interest rate, under Jimmy Carter. When we put Carter in office I was trying to support a family and raise two kids. I was also a blue collar worker, a union officer, and a Yellow Dog Democrat, and like so many of the young guys today I truly thought we could “change ” the world. Jimmy Carter gave the word change a new meaning, I lived his nightmare and it looks like Déjà vu all over again to me.
People were mad and voting against Nixon and Carter was promising “change ”. Today they are mad voting against Bush and Obama is promising “change ”.
Armed with a “mandate from the people ” and a “Filibuster Proof Congress ” the Three Stooges will put every social giveaway program they can think of into law, it ’s just the nature of the beast, and what ’s to stop them?
Now how will they pay for it? Crank up the printing presses and increase taxes. Ring any bells?
Unfortunately I see this as the best case scenario if Obama is elected, the worst case would be if we have another 911 type of attack. (I ’m talking economics here)
You, Sid, and Exon are the big money guys and I respect the financial savvy of all three, so tell me how I ’m wrong.
Punter,
I understand what you are saying.
It's frightening.
This might be the future but the country we knew and loved (the United States) may be history
[QUOTE=El Alamo]I will say it again.
It is unsettling that Mccain and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who does not buy into the concept the Mccain is "THE ONE"[/QUOTE]Triple co-sign.
Regards,
BM.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. [/QUOTE]* cough * bullshit * cough *
Punter and his ilk-
I seem to remember that back on January 20, 2001 (the day Bush took office) that 1 US Dollar was worth more than 1 Euro. I also remember that there was a massive projected federal budget SURPLUS. In addition, oil was less than $30 USD per barrel and gas floated around $1 USD per gallon. So just WHAT the fuck happened?
Well, for starters a complete idiot who happened to be born to an aristocratic family with deep military / industrial / oil complex connections ascended to the presidency after stealing an election in which he was not elected by the majority of US citizens. This complete idiot pissed away the massive federal budget surplus by giving massive tax cuts to rich guys who did not need it and by starting a quagmire-by-design war to enrich those military / industrial / oil complex connections previously mentioned. This quagmire-by-design war served to double the national debt in only 5 years time, and helped to drive the price of oil up fourfold. How are these war materials payed for? BY TURNING ON THE PRINTING PRESSES, AND THUS DEVALUING THE CURRENCY. The very act of turning on the printing presses and thus devaluing the currency causes the price of oil to rise, as oil is denominated in USD. Take a guess who has benefited from this?
Those of you who think that the Republicans are the party of "fiscal responsibility" should open your fucking eyes and see what a Republican President who had Republican majorities the first six years has done to a country that was in a dominant financial position the day he entered office. You people live in dreamland if you think the US can continue along its current path of deficit spending without raising taxes on those with the ability to pay. The current administration should be put on trial for crimes against the American people and for conspiracy to destroy the economy of a nation.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Hunt-are you factoring in a positive spin on margin of error, or something? The news on the AP poll I saw today indicated a 57% to 52% margin for Obama.
[url]http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9193983&nav=menu108_7[/url]
No sense in a futile debate about poll numbers, but you don't strike me as a disseminator of bogus info.
Cheers[/QUOTE]Here's the AP poll from today showing The Messiah at +2:
[url]http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/elections/ap_election_wave8_topline_101308.pdf[/url]
The Gallup poll has The Messiah at +2, using their traditional methodology. The "new" methodology that "assumes" millions of new voters for Obama shows him at +6 or something like that.
Here's another tracking poll that using consistent methodology shows The Messiah's lead shrinking from +13 to +4 today.
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/BG_101708_2-way-ballot-trender.pdf[/url]
Plenty of time left in this ball game, but the trend is in McCain's favor. Anything can happen. I expect the usual Democratic October Surprise, probably McCain's love child, some bribery allegation, or the usual bullshit, following Weinberger's indictment in 1992, the Bush DUI in 2000, and the "missing" al-Qaqa explosives from 2004. (Did the pull one of these stunts in 1996? I think not, since Clinton was comfortably ahead of Bob Dole.)
I suspect that a big part of the con right now is the Democrats and their lackies in the press trying to convince people that "it's over" in order to depress Republican turnout and make the election a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Punter,
I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.
Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.
Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.
I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to work
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The majority of people who are viciously anti-Obama are either the extremely wealthy who do not want to pay more taxes or ignorant redneck rascist types who simply cannot imagine having a black man in the white house. [/QUOTE]In your tirade you forgot this part of you normal stump speech.
You may well have your dream come true on November 4th, but be careful what you wish for.
We ’ll see what you got in four years, if that happens.
I apologize if I stepped on your toes and I ’m sorry that you ’re so angry; remember life goes on either way.
This may surprise you but, I agree that Bush has not been fiscally responsible and he has spent like a Democrat, (no argument from me on that issue) and I have called him a turn coat.
If I see Bush ’s name on the ballot next time I vote, I promise I will vote against him!
However I don ’t see the Three Amigos and socialism as being answer to what ails us, but hey that ’s just me.
Sorry I can ’t wish you luck in the election, but I wish you well.
But I can ’t speak for my “ilk ”.
Punter 127
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Punter.
I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.
Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.
Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.
I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to work[/QUOTE]I agree with you but I think Obama said it all the other day when he said;
[b]"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,".[/b]
Yeah, the president can wage war as evidenced so well by Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush W. It seems to be a pathological problem with Republicans-they like to kill-to push other countries around. Must make them feel powerful-they must have something lacking in their character-perhaps it is the only way they can feel like men. Kill, kill, kill. The bomb, bomb Iran mentality.
The president can impact the economy so evident by Bush W and the Repub Congress from 1994 to 2006 where it appears they have pushed this economy to a near depression-the worst economy in about 70 years. McAngryOldGuy would continue that as well as increase the debt, even more than Obama might, with his tax cut, tax, cut, tax cut mentality.
That reason alone is a reason to vote for Obama. We know what the Repubs will do-ruin the economy, increase the debt. We don't know what Obama will do. At least, voting for him allows us some hope.
McAngryOldGuy offers us the same old shit that has nearly ruined this country. Hopefully, Obama will offer us something different.
Suerte.
Stowe.
[QUOTE=Jackson]I agree, and so for me the decision boils down to this issue:
Who is best qualified to be the Commander in Chief?
John McCain: Annapolis graduate, Naval officer, aviator, former POW, 30 years of foreign policy experience.
Barak Obama: None of the above.
Thanks,
Jackson.
BTW, if you don't think it takes some stones to land a jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier, then you should talk to somebody who has done it. That group would not include a certain college professor.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=El Alamo]I will say it again.
It is unsettling that Obama and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who does not buy into the concept the Obama is "THE ONE"
Is this a signof what we can expect with an Obama Presidency?[/QUOTE]Right or wrong, it has actually been the media that has identified the Joe the Plumber issues with his not having a license and owing back taxes NOT the Obama campaign.
Oh, that's right. The media is all left-wing extremist liberals so everything that is printed that is negative towards the Repubs MUST be caused by the Democratic candidate.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. I have a lot of respect for McCain and I think Obama has a lot of potential.[/QUOTE]Boy that is believable! I believe everything you have posted has been anti-Obama and most everything for McAngryOldGuy has been positive, so of course you are open-minded toward Obama and would consider voting for him.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Punter.
I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.
Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.
Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.
I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to work[/QUOTE]I guess the vetoproof presidency of Bush was great! What did that get us? Violations of the constitution, an illegal war, economic destruction-$9 trillion dollars of our money gone, national debt increased more than under any other president. That is only a fraction of his abuses.
Yeah, it worked well when the Repubs had it.
Sorry but I don't recall you complaining when the Repubs had it.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Punter and his ilk-
I seem to remember that back on January 20, 2001 (the day Bush took office) that 1 US Dollar was worth more than 1 Euro. I also remember that there was a massive projected federal budget SURPLUS. In addition, oil was less than $30 USD per barrel and gas floated around $1 USD per gallon. So just WHAT the fuck happened?
Well, for starters a complete idiot who happened to be born to an aristocratic family with deep military / industrial / oil complex connections ascended to the presidency after stealing an election in which he was not elected by the majority of US citizens. This complete idiot pissed away the massive federal budget surplus by giving massive tax cuts to rich guys who did not need it and by starting a quagmire-by-design war to enrich those military / industrial / oil complex connections previously mentioned. This quagmire-by-design war served to double the national debt in only 5 years time, and helped to drive the price of oil up fourfold. How are these war materials payed for? BY TURNING ON THE PRINTING PRESSES, AND THUS DEVALUING THE CURRENCY. The very act of turning on the printing presses and thus devaluing the currency causes the price of oil to rise, as oil is denominated in USD. Take a guess who has benefited from this?
Those of you who think that the Republicans are the party of "fiscal responsibility" should open your fucking eyes and see what a Republican President who had Republican majorities the first six years has done to a country that was in a dominant financial position the day he entered office. You people live in dreamland if you think the US can continue along its current path of deficit spending without raising taxes on those with the ability to pay. The current administration should be put on trial for crimes against the American people and for conspiracy to destroy the economy of a nation.
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]We're in a war, remember?
We were attacked, remember?
Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Stowe]$9 trillion dollars of our money gone, national debt increased more than under any other president.[/QUOTE]We're in a war, remember?
We were attacked, remember?
Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]We're in a war, remember?
We were attacked, remember?
Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]First, we seem to be in a war/major military action ever time there is a Republican president so what else is new.
You make a good point except Iraq NEVER attacked us!!!! Don't you realize that yet??
Also, in EVERY other war the public has been asked to sacrifice with higher taxes, less benefits, something! Instead, Bush gives massive tax cuts-90% to the top 1% of the richest individuals and corporations and nearly bankrupts the country.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Jackson]We're in a war, remember?
We were attacked, remember?
Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Yes Jax we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think. I remember seeing it on TV, I haven't forgotten. And for anybody who has forgotten, Rudy Giuliani will remind them.
Yes we are in a war, but strangely not with the people that attacked us, kind of like invading Sweden in 41 for the attack on Pearl Harbor no?
Punter, my brother, same thing for you, the two biggest deficits this country has ever had have been by Repub administrations with Repub Congresses, Ronnie Raygun and Shrub. Both of those deficits were from essentially the same thing, corporate welfare. Punter I have sat with you at Exedra and listened far to often to you extolling the virtue of this President, sorry brother but it's the truth. Calling Dems "tax and spend party" is a great sound bite, it's just not true. Of course taxes will be going up, they have to, somebody has to pay for the last 8 years. Let me put it to you like this, if you buy a new truck you have to work to make the payments right? We (Los Estados Unidos) are behind on the truck payment brother, the repo man is coming, we gots to pay it off.
Jax this isn't a war it's a spending spree, weapons, defense contracts, and support contracts. Stowe's right bubba, can't spend more without earning more. Running up deficits to buy guns is cool if you make somebody pay for it. I just don't think it's fair to saddle my Grandchildren with the debt.
The only conservative member of this board to consistently ask "what the fuck are these pseudo-conservatives doing?" has been Syd.
[quote]Reagan was in office during the 97th, 98th, 99th, and 100th congresses. Republicans riding Reagan's coattails made gains in the congressional elections of 1980 and won the Senate majority for the first time in 26 years, but the House of Representatives retained a Democratic majority.
The 100th United States Congress from 1987 to 1989, during the last two years of the second administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Both chambers had a Democratic majority.[/quote] You pretty much blew that, so lets move on;
“Extolling the virtue ” is a bit of a stretch imho, but it ’s your story tell it any way you want, I know your going to anyway.
You see I don ’t have any allegiance to any politician or party. I can like them today and turn on them tomorrow if they fuck up, that ’s the beauty of being an Independent. I don ’t have republican or democrat tattooed on my ass like you do, so I ’m not boxed in like you are.
I do however continue to agree with a lot of what Bush has done, but I have never condoned wasteful spending; now you and I may disagree on what ’s wasteful. But a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street and the Bankers is wasteful imho, especially since it left Main Street high and dry.
BTW your buddies Reid and Pelosi were right in there with Bush on this one, and I don't hear you b*tching about that, and I don't hear you or anybody else calling for any investigations, why is that?
Oh and speaking of Reid and Pelosi what have they done in the last two years to cut spending, where is all the defeated or Bush vetoed legislation they pushed?
For that matter didn't those hypocrites promise to cut the funding for the Iraqi war?
Tells us how they couldn't do that because it would look like they were not supportive of the troops.
Then tell us why they promised to cut that funding before the 2006 election.
Oh and whatever happened to impeaching Bush? You do remember that don't you?
Hell Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush!
Speaking of the war, have you forgotten about Afghanistan? You know that ’s that little place Obama wants to send more troops too.
I will tell you this Daddy given the options we were given, I would still pick Bush, so there you have it "my brother", run with it!
================================================
Oh, FYI when I buy a new truck I write a check for it!
Have a nice day Daddy!
For the first time in 161 years, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president. Now I think I will keep my subscription to that fine newspaper.
The editorial board also termed the selection of Sara Palin as VP candidate to be "irresponsible".
[QUOTE=Punter 127]I don 't have republican or democrat tattooed on my ass like you do, so I 'm not boxed in like you are.[/QUOTE]The only tattoo on my ass is "Exit only no entrance!"
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Oh and speaking of Reid and Pelosi what have they done in the last two years to cut spending, where is all the defeated or Bush vetoed legislation they pushed?
For that matter didn 't those hypocrites promise to cut the funding for the Iraqi war?
Tells us how they couldn 't do that because it would look like they were not supportive of the troops.
Then tell us why they promised to cut that funding before the 2006 election.
Oh and whatever happened to impeaching Bush? You do remember that don 't you?
Hell Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush!
Speaking of the war, have you forgotten about Afghanistan? You know that 's that little place Obama wants to send more troops too.
I will tell you this Daddy given the options we were given, I would still pick Bush, so there you have it "my brother ", run with it!
==================================================
Oh, FYI when I buy a new truck I write a check for it!
Have a nice day Daddy![/QUOTE]Fucking Pelosi Congress sucks, you don't stop a war by not funding it. I'm not so naive to think we can just say "whups our bad we fucked up so now we are gonna take our shit and go." I don't pretend to understand how a country can make a monumental mistake such as our invasion of Irak and then disengage from a conflict like that. Too bad Colin was so disgraced by the UN thing, now that's who I wish I could be voting for this election, I bet he could get it done.
I haven't forgotten Afghanistan that would be the Shrubies that forgot that place. I was never in opposition to the little regime change thingy we did there.
Do you really write a check when you buy a new truck? Union graft must be pretty good if you can do that. But then again trucks are pretty cheap these days.
The Messiah's lead in the Zogby tracking poll appears to be draining away too.
Down from +6.2 a week ago to +3.9 today.
[quote]The latest figures showed a bump for McCain following Wednesday's final presidential debate.
"Today was the first full sample post-debate and there's a clear indication that McCain is moving up," Zogby said.
He added that McCain's support among Republican voters appeared to be consolidating.[/QUOTE]Still plenty of time for this thing to change one way or another. However, what amazes me is that the supporters of a guy whose entire lead is based on a stock market panic think the game is over. And we haven't even started to factor in the Bradley effect, either.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend the other day. He's a classic swing voter, voted for Clinton once and W once. He confided that this time he's voting for McCain, but is not letting anybody know it for fear of being branded a racist. This followed a similar conversation with a cousin of mine last weekend whose words were almost identical. It may mean nothing. But it tracks an interesting article I also read this morning.
[url]http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/16/frj_1016/[/url]
[QUOTE=Sidney]The Obomination and you supporters have convinced me that this is necessary. Could each of you send me 10% of your net worth? I will manage this fund using stocks, bonds, and commodities. The profits will be used to help the unfortunates. Who is willing contribute and / or serve on the Board of Directors?[/QUOTE]Hi Sid,
I'd be comfortable with [u]you[/u] managing my portfolio, but do we have to give my earnings to "the unfortunates"?
Thanks,
Jackson
[quote=Stowe]You make a good point except Iraq NEVER attacked us!!!! Don't you realize that yet??[/quote][QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Yes Jax we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think. I remember seeing it on TV, I haven't forgotten. And for anybody who has forgotten, Rudy Giuliani will remind them.
Yes we are in a war, but strangely not with the people that attacked us, kind of like invading Sweden in 41 for the attack on Pearl Harbor no?[/QUOTE]Okay guys, I'll explain this again for those of you who didn't understand it the first several times.
We were attacked by a stateless organization named Al Qaeda.
To fight them, we established a battleground in another country and invited them to attack us there, which they did with all the intelligence of lemmings rushing into the sea, and where we have summarily decimated their "troops".
Get it?
Thanks,
Jackson