Bush, Obama or McCain? Opinion poll

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: kage69
While Obama hasn't completely won me over with some of his decisions, he's still magnitudes better than the embarrassing and pathetic failure we all know as GWB. I've given up trying to rationalize the motivations and amnesia of Bush voters, so I won't comment on those who chose him here. I don't think McCain would have been worse then the puppet of 2000-2008, but his disturbing record of trading his integrity for political approval in that period (as well as becoming more than a little nutty and senile) give me plenty of doubt that he would have been better than Obama. Plus, it's hard to take politicians seriously when they exhibit (or endorse) the kind of buffoonery popularized by Bush and Palin.

Obama has more brains than the other two choices combined, easily. I just can't see how less intelligence would make for a better choice, and W's record re-affirms that.

Brains and good intentions don't necessarily make good leaders. Obama is clearly overwelmed by many decisions he has been faced with lately and has made some embarassing mistakes. Lets hope he realizes this before he spends us into oblivion.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Evan
I get a kick out of the people that still claim this board is heavily left-wing when we have a third of the board voting for Bush in this poll, showing you roughly how many fringe right-wingers exist here. We're talking one of the worst POTUS' of all time and he's still cracking 33%+, even over McCain who would have undoubtedly been a superior POTUS.

This.

32 votes for Commander Codpiece? Were they threatened with a Dick Cheney Hunting Trip if they didn't vote for Bush?

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: lokiju
I would not vote for any of the above options.

Same here.

Unless the poll was for "Best choice to run the country into the ground", then Obama wins hands down.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Evan
I get a kick out of the people that still claim this board is heavily left-wing when we have a third of the board voting for Bush in this poll, showing you roughly how many fringe right-wingers exist here. We're talking one of the worst POTUS' of all time and he's still cracking 33%+, even over McCain who would have undoubtedly been a superior POTUS.

Man... between you and Craig I'm beginning to think that lefties are psychic or something. Taking hypotheticals and making them into absolute fact... It's amazing!

Yeah, damn those "hypothetical" poll results staring you in the face (which is backed by numerous other threads that isn't hard to search, try it).

Next you'll be starting threads bemoaning a 200+ year old problem of politicians not reading bills they sign. Oh, wait, you did.

You declared, as absolute fact, McCain's hypthetical, fantasy presidency to be superior to Bush's REAL presidency. What does that have to do with any poll? I was just wondering where your super secret psychic powers come from. Were you hit by a radio active meteor? Is being psychic a side effect of being a lefty?

And it's not a 200 year old problem. It's actually a fairly recent one. Find me a single 1000 page bill presented to congress prior to the 1920's.

 

[Peelback79]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
I voted Bush just to get the lefties panties all in a bunch.

Probably the only time bush and panties are going to be in the same sentence and no one gets hit with a sexual harrassment suite.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
32 votes for Commander Codpiece? Were they threatened with a Dick Cheney Hunting Trip if they didn't vote for Bush?

No, they've seen the GWB disaster and are seeing the emerging Obama disaster unfold, so they realize any other option than those two would be preferable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

No, one man murders an innocent child.. and the next murders another child because he doesn't want to be seen as weak on children. And thats just one example. Bush also had out of control spending, Obama has even MORE out of control spending. Bush wanted to hold innocent people indefinitely.. so does Obama.

The SAME.. Obama is a TRAITOR and a MURDERER.. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Oh... I see now. You are completely delusional and live in an idiot bubble. Your analogy just doesnt work.

Going to war based on a lie = Murdering and innocent child. - OK, I'll buy that part.
Maintaining troops in the messed up aftermath of that same war based on a lie = Murdering and innocent child? No - No way.

What would you have Obama do, just immediatley withdraw all troops day one? That would have casused havoc - every rep and dem, and independant knows that. I might add that Obama promised to withdraw the troops by 16 months into his term - a goal he is well on his way to accomplishing. Is that still like murdering and innocent child? LOL -

One man makes a mess, and the other has to clean it up - they are NOT equal. That same statement holds true for the economy and spending.

I get that you dont like Obama - nothing wrong with that, everyone has thier own thoughts on how things should be run... But dont put Obama on the same failtrain with Bush - not at all the same.

Why isn't Obama pulling missile defense from Poland like he promised? Why is he continuing Bush policies?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

If by decent job you mean getting us even MORE into debt, not changing Bush's policies on Iraq and Gitmo, and igniting racial tensions by blasting white cops for doing their jobs.. Then I guess we agree.

 

[PJABBER]

I don't want to leave this discussion without my own reminiscing about how we should have decided this past election -

Obama and McCain - Dance Off!

Bush couldn't make it, he was doing that Summit with Putin at the Ritz -

Putin on the Ritz

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Andrew1990

If the three were the only choice, probably Bush. He is the lesser of 3 evils.

He isnt too bright and he is somewhat easy to read unlike Obama who seems to do what he pleases. McCain is like Bush except he seems like a suck up.

Obama is now the traitor, murderer, torturer, war criminal that George W. Bush was.

Corrected.

Go ahead. Compose a post including names, dates, statutory citations and quotes from credible sources to prove it. If you can't, you're full of shit... as usual... [/b]TROLL![/b]

Since Obama has kept Bush's policies regarding the wars, and you have already proven Bush is all of the above.. I believe I have no need to duplicate your work. Please refer to your own documentation. I'm citing you as a source.

Your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals started their war of LIES in Iraq and left it in Obama's lap. Now, I know you're real slow on understanding facts and logic, so you'll have to accept that it's not pyhysically possible to stop a war on a dime or on a command.

Your pathetic attempt to dodge the question doesn't fly, but since you're in complete denial, here's a small part on what I can post to prove my point.

In case you didn't know it, lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The following list of public lies are the same ones the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES. It would take just a few minutes to find lots of threads where I've posted them, but in case you're mouse challenged:

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

As of July 24, 2009, 4,330 American troops have died in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

Lying to promote starting the war in Iraq more directly supports charging them with murder under two theories:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Cliffs:

The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath.

Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war.

The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

George W. Bush and his criminal gang are guilty of MURDER. Do I really have to regurgitate their own admissions that they directed acts of TORTURE and other war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Do I really have to dig up all the old threads discussing their unconstitutional, illegal surveillance of American citizens?

Do you really think you can establish that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did not commit TREASON when they violated their Constitutionally mandated oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

You can believe whatever you want, but your fantasies are not names, dates, statutory citations and quotes from credible sources to proving that Barrack Obama has committed any of these crimes. Prove your accusations, or STFU... TROLL! :|

 

[Medellon]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

Decent job?! Dude you aren't that stupid are you?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

You declared, as absolute fact, McCain's hypthetical, fantasy presidency to be superior to Bush's REAL presidency.

Calm down kiddie. I was more stating that the likelihood of McCain doing worse than Bush was basically next to zero if you really want to get down to it. Based on his record it's a hard standard to reach such a POTUS. McCain at least had a record for reaching across the aisle and would have maybe been in a similar situation of compromise the way Clinton was from 94-00. Not hard to see how McCain would have been better.

What does that have to do with any poll?

What? Read the poll, you're confused.

I was just wondering where your super secret psychic powers come from. Were you hit by a radio active meteor? Is being psychic a side effect of being a lefty?

How close-cut is that fringe over on the right-wing? Who get's to tee off first between Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage?

And it's not a 200 year old problem. It's actually a fairly recent one. Find me a single 1000 page bill presented to congress prior to the 1920's.

Why the hell would a 1000 page bill need to be the standard? Do you really think politicians read every word of their 400 page bills before the 20's? Holy christ you are lost.

Btw, the paranoia about lefties is pretty funny also. Just because someone takes a position on an issue that happens to be supported by the left it doesn't necessarily mean they're a lefty; sometimes it just means they aren't demonstrably stupid.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Medellon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

Decent job?! Dude you aren't that stupid are you?

No I'm not stupid and I'm also not from El Paso which seems to go hand in hand with stupidity.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

If by decent job you mean getting us even MORE into debt, not changing Bush's policies on Iraq and Gitmo, and igniting racial tensions by blasting white cops for doing their jobs.. Then I guess we agree.

He'll be closing Gitmo before the next election and we are getting out of Iraq. As for the debt, it seems we have to spend to revive the economy. It's to early to tell if it will workj or not. Regarding blasting white Cops, I didn't see where he mentioned the race of any Cops. In fact one of the cops there was black. He was also right, both Gates and Crowely over reacted. No big deal unless you're a hair on fire Wingnut Tree Swinger who has had a major hard on for Obama from day one which is a perfect description of you.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Medellon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama,seems to be doing a decent job given what he inherited.

Decent job?! Dude you aren't that stupid are you?

Me thinks its you who is stupid.

Obama lied the economy died? Not only do you say something totally retarded, but you are proud enough of it to put it in your sig - LOL

I am pretty sure, that if you do a little bit of research, or have even a tiny bit of memory left in your clouded rightwing brain, you will find that the economy took a giant crap prior to January 2009.

Obama inherited the worst mess since hte great depression, he didnt cause it... Maybe you disagree with how he is handling it, but you cant possibly be dumb enough to think he caused it. Even Fear no Evil, who is dumber than a stump knows Obama didnt cause it.

duh.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
I don't want to leave this discussion without my own reminiscing about how we should have decided this past election -

Obama and McCain - Dance Off!

Bush couldn't make it, he was doing that Summit with Putin at the Ritz -

Putin on the Ritz

So, who really should have won the election?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

So, who really should have won the election?

Barrack Hussein Obama because he got the vast majority of the electoral and popular votes. The Constitution doesn't provide for do-overs.

 

[PJABBER]

Popular vote Obama 69,456,897 McCain 59,934,814
Percentage Obama 52.9% McCain 45.7%

52.9% of the popular votes means we have a winner!

Obama did NOT win the dance-off but he did get the job!

Did he get a mandate to do whatever he wants to?

Doesn't seem like it to me, and 59,934,814 agree!

:music:

Next topic, please!

 

[rudder]

Personally I would rather have a republican in the white house. Neither on the list is a good choice but the a democrat run congress spending money like crazy... anything to reign that in would be welcome at this point.

 

[kage69]

Personally I would rather have a republican in the white house. Neither on the list is a good choice but the a democrat run congress spending money like crazy

I'm just curious...where you by chance out of the country between say, 2001 and 2006?

 

[Siddhartha]

Considering what, recession, two wars, etc he has had to and is deal with, I voted for Mr Obama.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: kage69

Personally I would rather have a republican in the white house. Neither on the list is a good choice but the a democrat run congress spending money like crazy

I'm just curious...where you by chance out of the country between say, 2001 and 2006?

Yes, its a fine mess they got us into - now they turn around and blame Obama like he broke it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: kage69

Personally I would rather have a republican in the white house. Neither on the list is a good choice but the a democrat run congress spending money like crazy

I'm just curious...where you by chance out of the country between say, 2001 and 2006?

Yes, its a fine mess they got us into - now they turn around and blame Obama like he broke it.

it's really no different than not giving GHWB credit for laying down the foundations for the Clinton years or not giving Clinton blame for contributing to problems that arose during GWB's tenure.

 

[Medellon]

So when exactly will it be Obama's responsibility? Honestly, how long do you all give Obama a free pass? When his overspending leads to massive inflation will it then be his responsibility or will you all still blame Bush for everything?