Obama victory sparks cheers around the globe

[Plane]

The Libertarian Party has been an exercise in futility so far. Observe the low, low turnout for Bob Barr. I cannot imagine the Libertarians getting more than 3% of the vote in the best of circumstances. Most people do not want to abolish most of the government.

The Republicans committed suicide when they nominated Juniorbush and Cheney. Clowns like Delay, Armey and Stevens do not help much, either. They stand for nothing.

When your own candidates have to run as "mavericks" against your standing president, and then lose, you have major problems.

We lost by less tha 4% of the popular vote.

This is a 4% problem that BHO can solve for us by disapointing 5% of his constituancy.

How unlikely is that?

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is a 4% problem that BHO can solve for us by disapointing 5% of his constituancy.


How is that true? 28% of the people think Juniorbush is an incompetent moron, and he is still in office.

You get one chance in 2008 to remove Obama. McCain will never get another shot at it, and they have no one even remotely competent and electable.

And no, Palin is neither competent nor electable. She is useful only so Tina Fey can make us laugh.

[Plane]

This is a 4% problem that BHO can solve for us by disapointing 5% of his constituancy.


How is that true? 28% of the people think Juniorbush is an incompetent moron, and he is still in office.

You get one chance in 2008 to remove Obama. McCain will never get another shot at it, and they have no one even remotely competent and electable.

And no, Palin is neither competent nor electable. She is useful only so Tina Fey can make us laugh.

IN 2004 BHO won his first office of national prominence , he became a Senator , he was little known previous to this , famous only for a single speech. Was it predictable at that point that he had the potential to win his party nomination for President?

In 2004 Bush won with a 2% margin in the popular vote, BHO has worked hard , organised the best election organisation the world has ever seen and spent more money than Bush and Kerry together , all to produce a net percent change of 6%.

Go ahead and be superconfident .For BHO to be reelected requires mostly that he do a good job , can he do so well that 5% of us canot change their minds about him?

[Xavier_Onassis]

He has  four years, nonetheless. Perhaps the Republicans will not try to give him a hard time as they did Carter and Clinton for no good reason.
============================

Keep in mind that the voters in 2012 will not be the same as the voters in 2008. Some people will die, and others will come of voting age or will be naturalized and gain the right to vote.

[Knutey]

He has  four years, nonetheless. Perhaps the Republicans will not try to give him a hard time as they did Carter and Clinton for no good reason.
============================

Keep in mind that the voters in 2012 will not be the same as the voters in 2008. Some people will die, and others will come of voting age or will be naturalized and gain the right to vote.

Very true and now with currently "illegals" becoming legal there are estimates that over 15 million of them will register and I betcha they become Dems. 

[BT]

Very true and now with currently "illegals" becoming legal there are estimates that over 15 million of them will register and I betcha they become Dems.  Wink

That would depend on how prosperous they become.

[Knutey]

Very true and now with currently "illegals" becoming legal there are estimates that over 15 million of them will register and I betcha they become Dems.  Wink

That would depend on how prosperous they become.

You are , of course, right. When folks become too prosperous , they become greedy Repuds.

[BT]

You are , of course, right. When folks become too prosperous , they become greedy Repuds.

Otherwise known as contributing members of society.

BTW are no dems prosperous?

[Knutey]

You are , of course, right. When folks become too prosperous , they become greedy Repuds.

Otherwise known as contributing members of society.

BTW are no dems prosperous?

Many Dems are prosperous , just not greedy like y'all. BTW , Dems contribute to society far greater than y'all who contribute more to your own greedy pockets.

[BT]

Many Dems are prosperous , just not greedy like y'all. BTW , Dems contribute to society far greater than y'all who contribute more to your own greedy pockets.

That must explain why conservatives donate far more to charity than liberal dems.

Must be the tax breaks they are after.

[Michael Tee]

That must explain why conservatives donate far more to charity than liberal dems.

Must be the tax breaks they are after.

========================

Tax breaks might explain the donations of the rich more than the donations of the not-so-rich.  Have you considered the possibility that the Republican Party as a fleecing operation might be targeted not at the fleecing of non-Republicans but at the fleecing of even Republicans who are in the lower income brackets?

One model of the Republican Party is that the lower ranks are filled by good-natured dolts who DO give relatively generously to charity, not realizing that the wealthier members who give lavishly also get lavishly.  They maybe seduced by the socially backwards program of the party into supporting economic policies not in their own best economic interests.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I agree that the Republican Party is run by a small bunch of oligarchs who have affiliated themselves with "self-made" rich people and religious people that are essentially suckers.


I question that conservatives are more generous, if you exempt the churches at least. They like to brag a lot more. You would not catch Donald Trump making an anonymous donation to anything.

[Knutey]

Many Dems are prosperous , just not greedy like y'all. BTW , Dems contribute to society far greater than y'all who contribute more to your own greedy pockets.

That must explain why conservatives donate far more to charity than liberal dems.

Must be the tax breaks they are after.

Actually , I do believe that is true , but it might be fire insurance to protect y'all from the Hell you truly deserve .

[BT]

I question that conservatives are more generous, if you exempt the churches at least.

Why exempt the churches?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I question that conservatives are more generous, if you exempt the churches at least.

Why exempt the churches?

==========================
Why NOT exempt them?
Does a 20,000 seat megachurch serve anyone other than its members?

Some churches provide useful services to the destitute. Some don't. But the motivation for giving to a church is often different.