Extremeskins Presidential Election Poll

[fuji869]

Just wondering how the Extremeskins members will Vote will be on Tuesday?

[FullbackIsKey]

i'm not even gonnafill this one out, but i'll just guess...with this crowd...here comes the bu****es.

[portisizzle]

Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

[Monte51Coleman]

Originally posted by portisbowwow
Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

:puke:

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by portisbowwow
Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

Hardy har har har. :rolleyes:

[gbear]

not will vote. did vote

[ohioskins]

Originally posted by portisbowwow
Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

Unless your African American, then you can only vote after you show 3 forms of ID and you have your mandatory rectal exam at your designated polling place..... :laugh:


Only three more days.... Thank Goodness.

[HapHaszard]

Only dead Democrats are allowed to vote more than 3 times. LOL

[Predicto]

but their vote only counts if the registration form was printed on the correct thickness of paper.

[The Sir]

Crazy that two people actually haven't made up their mind yet

[Larry]

I'm amazed everybody didn't make up their minds a year ago.

[fuji869]

Originally posted by Larry
I'm amazed everybody didn't make up their minds a year ago.

:cheers: Exactly, most of the people I know last year knew that they were either going to vote for George Bush or whoever the Democrats were going to put up.

[FullbackIsKey]

yet another poll ralph nader gets his name omitted from...


I'm just sayin'...

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by portisbowwow
Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

Wow, another incendiery, useless remark from portisbowwow. What else is new? :rolleyes:

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


Wow, another incendiery, useless remark from portisbowwow. What else is new? :rolleyes:

Hi Chops........

wanna go to the local penetentiary to help the Democrats "get out the vote" down in FLA?

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by portisbowwow


Hi Chops........

wanna go to the local penetentiary to help the Democrats "get out the vote" down in FLA?

No... what I really want is for you to shut the hell up until you learn to do something besides start arguments. You're the drunk assh*le in the bar throwing popcorn at people to start fights. Just sit the hell down and shut your mouth.

[visionary]

Originally posted by portisbowwow


Hi Chops........

wanna go to the local penetentiary to help the Democrats "get out the vote" down in FLA?

LOL pretty funny ;)

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


No... what I really want is for you to shut the hell up until you learn to do something besides start arguments. You're the drunk assh*le in the bar throwing popcorn at people to start fights. Just sit the hell down and shut your mouth.

Over the top there much Dave? Sheesh, chill out dude, can't you see he's just pulling your chain. Sometimes you make that easy, ya know...

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Resurrection


Over the top there much Dave? Sheesh, chill out dude, can't you see he's just pulling your chain. Sometimes you make that easy, ya know...

You're saying that because he's on your side. I guarantee you that if there was some liberal assh*le posting useless messages that are intended to piss you off, well, you'd be pissed off.

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


You're saying that because he's on your side. I guarantee you that if there was some liberal assh*le posting useless messages that are intended to piss you off, well, you'd be pissed off.

Umm, I have to agree here. That was very Eagles-fan-ish and troll-y of Bow Wow. Seriously.

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


You're saying that because he's on your side. I guarantee you that if there was some liberal assh*le posting useless messages that are intended to piss you off, well, you'd be pissed off.

No, I'd play the game. Cause that's all it is.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


You're saying that because he's on your side. I guarantee you that if there was some liberal assh*le posting useless messages that are intended to piss you off, well, you'd be pissed off.

It doesn't help when someone takes the bait and runs for blue water.

[panel]

Originally posted by atlhawksfan
Crazy that two people actually haven't made up their mind yet

I disagree, these two aren't as different as most think.

In Iraq, they got the same basic stratagy, initially, add more troops, then replace them with Iraqis and UN guys down the line as they are made availible.

The both went to the same school at the same time, and then went into the military, which has caused contravesy today.

Both of them feel the same way about the Israli-Palistine conflict.

If I were to ask:

Who is better for Small businesses
Who is better for farmers
Who is better for health care
Who is better for the economy
Who will make America a freer country
Who will be fiscally responcable

I will get different answers from different people. A lot of peoples opinion of these candidates are based on the preconceived notions on what it means to be Democratic or Republician.

What if your a fiscal repulican but a social democrat?

[nonniey]

Originally posted by HapHaszard
Only dead Democrats are allowed to vote more than 3 times. LOL

Advantage Kerry. The dead heavily lean democratic. The damn shame is that we joke about this but this has been really happening for decades.

[tex]

Kerry is simply Bush lite. No matter which is elected the skull and bones team notches a win.

[Tarhog]

Portisbowwow...try adding a 'smilie' or other indicator when you're trying to be funny. It helps.

And Chopper, when you're highly pissed, if you can't do it without a string of expletives, its better not to post at all. I understand the urge...I've crossed over the line myself (most of us who care have), but the rules is rules and you'll end up with a timeout or worse (I think we've already had that discussion so I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble maintaining?).

[gstahl]

Originally posted by portisbowwow
Can we vote two or three times like the Democrats will this year???

Already preparing excuses for a loss I see... ;)

[Rdskns2000]

I'm voting for Banderik!

[OURYEAR#56]

I'm still trying to understand why people are voting for Bush. The guy just got sh*t on by Osoma. Let me get this straight, you bomb Afghanistan, Bomb Iraq, and we're still not safe. What did he do over 4 years?

[FullbackIsKey]

Originally posted by tex
Kerry is simply Bush lite. No matter which is elected the skull and bones team notches a win.


the lesser of 2 evils is still 4 more years of evil.

[FullbackIsKey]

Originally posted by panel


I disagree, these two aren't as different as most think.

In Iraq, they got the same basic stratagy, initially, add more troops, then replace them with Iraqis and UN guys down the line as they are made availible.

The both went to the same school at the same time, and then went into the military, which has caused contravesy today.

Both of them feel the same way about the Israli-Palistine conflict.

If I were to ask:

Who is better for Small businesses
Who is better for farmers
Who is better for health care
Who is better for the economy
Who will make America a freer country
Who will be fiscally responcable

I will get different answers from different people. A lot of peoples opinion of these candidates are based on the preconceived notions on what it means to be Democratic or Republician.

What if your a fiscal repulican but a social democrat?

that's because the only things the candidates, and the pundits for that matter, talk about, ever, are iraq, taxes, and a little bit of health care. Even bloggers don't stray much from those. It all comes back to there being limited legitimate sources of information(media consolidation), and nobody policing those sources anymore.

[ross3909]

Like it or not Bush has taken a side on these issues where Kerry has not. I am afraid what would happen if Kerry did get in to be President because I have no idea what he stands for. I also dont think that many liberals dont understand that the war on terror is much larger than Osama and Al Quada. Question for the Dems...if we catch Osama and destroy Al Quada, is the war over?

[gstahl]

Originally posted by ross3909
Like it or not Bush has taken a side on these issues where Kerry has not. I am afraid what would happen if Kerry did get in to be President because I have no idea what he stands for. I also dont think that many liberals dont understand that the war on terror is much larger than Osama and Al Quada. Question for the Dems...if we catch Osama and destroy Al Quada, is the war over?

I think you generalize too much. To answer your question, no of course not. Think Munich '72, El Al, Achille Lauro, OK city, Khobar Towers, Tehran, Pan-Am.

Interesting Page <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html>

So questions for you...

- Is the invasion of Iraq part of the war on terror? (not "will the middle east be a better without the evil saddam?" that is not the question)

- Is an invasion of any other country called for in the war on terror (at this time or in the near future)?

To contrast your statement above, I am afraid of Bush being elected for another term, BECAUSE I know what he stands for.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


You're saying that because he's on your side. I guarantee you that if there was some liberal assh*le posting useless messages that are intended to piss you off, well, you'd be pissed off.

Not really I just take a deep breath and say:
Chopper: What are you ........ ;)

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Build more Overlords.

Whoever's for that, I'm voting for them.

[Walking Deadman]

Our modern day odd couple:
The new adventures of Chopper Dave and Portisbowwow.

LOL:laugh:

[visionary]

Originally posted by gstahl


I think you generalize too much. To answer your question, no of course not. Think Munich '72, El Al, Achille Lauro, OK city, Khobar Towers, Tehran, Pan-Am.

Interesting Page <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html>

So questions for you...

- Is the invasion of Iraq part of the war on terror? (not "will the middle east be a better without the evil saddam?" that is not the question)

- Is an invasion of any other country called for in the war on terror (at this time or in the near future)?

To contrast your statement above, I am afraid of Bush being elected for another term, BECAUSE I know what he stands for.
-------------------------------------------------
Why don't you tell us G, is Iraq part of the war on Terror, should we or will we have to invade other countries in that war on terror...?

Or do you think that the war on Terror should only be waged against Al Queda in Afghanistan, as Kerry has implied at times...

even though he has said at other times that he would go anywhere to capture or kill the terrorists (except maybe Iraq, which he voted for anyway)

[gstahl]

Originally posted by visionary

-------------------------------------------------
Why don't you tell us G, is Iraq part of the war on Terror, should we or will we have to invade other countries in that war on terror...?

Or do you think that the war on Terror should only be waged against Al Queda in Afghanistan, as Kerry has implied at times...

even though he has said at other times that he would go anywhere to capture or kill the terrorists (except maybe Iraq, which he voted for anyway)

No, I answered the question ask with numerous examples. Why don't you just answer mine.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by gstahl


No, I answered the question ask with numerous examples. Why don't you just answer mine.

Geoff, I'll try to answer your questions. For the first one, we either have to take Bush's word or not right now. We do know that after '98, Saddam had biological and chemical weapons unaccounted for, and we do know they aren't there right now. What we don't know for sure is if between '98 and last March, did Saddam destroy them, were they all destroyed in the bombings in '98, or did he ship them out of the country (Syria, for example). If they were destroyed, then this war was just to remove a fascist tyrant. If the weapons are outside Iraq in the hands of a rogue state or terrorists, then this was part of the War on Terror. We just don't know yet, and have to decide what we think is more likely.

And for the second question, I think the invasion of another country could be an option in the future. Let's say Musharraf of Pakistan is overthrown by radical Muslims who have vowed death to Americans (not impossible). Pakistan is a nuclear capable country. Would you want to go in and take them out, which like Iraq, would not be all that hard as long as they don't start throwing nukes at our troops, or would you just hope that we could settle our differences diplomatically? I don't trust these guys enough to think that if we just left them alone, they would leave us alone.

[visionary]

Originally posted by gstahl


No, I answered the question ask with numerous examples. Why don't you just answer mine.

I'm not sure that you did answer your own questions, and I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with them anyway...

I would say that of course an invasion of Iraq is part of the war on Terror, the same as if we had invaded Somalia, or Syria or North Korea. Though there are also plenty of other good reason for the invasion. (Which I've discussed here and in other site and will not go into again...way too long to do that now)

As for the second question...I don't think that it is too possible or neccessary to invade another country right now, though we should continue to work with them to fight terror (like in Pakistan, Phillipines, Afghanistan and Iraq) as we have been

and influence them to turn more towards democracy,
as we are in in Iran (through the people) and Saudia Arabia (through the government albeit with a lot of friction on the other end).

[gstahl]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer


Geoff, I'll try to answer your questions. For the first one, we either have to take Bush's word or not right now. We do know that after '98, Saddam had biological and chemical weapons unaccounted for, and we do know they aren't there right now. What we don't know for sure is if between '98 and last March, did Saddam destroy them, were they all destroyed in the bombings in '98, or did he ship them out of the country (Syria, for example). If they were destroyed, then this war was just to remove a fascist tyrant. If the weapons are outside Iraq in the hands of a rogue state or terrorists, then this was part of the War on Terror. We just don't know yet, and have to decide what we think is more likely.

And for the second question, I think the invasion of another country could be an option in the future. Let's say Musharraf of Pakistan is overthrown by radical Muslims who have vowed death to Americans (not impossible). Pakistan is a nuclear capable country. Would you want to go in and take them out, which like Iraq, would not be all that hard as long as they don't start throwing nukes at our troops, or would you just hope that we could settle our differences diplomatically? I don't trust these guys enough to think that if we just left them alone, they would leave us alone.

Thoughtful answers. As far as the second, I think I would have to agree (a nuclear threat of attack directly at the US would need to be dealt with, though I am still not sure invading Pakistan, in your scenario, would be very successful). I do worry that our bar for going war is moving down. I am all for preemptive strikes that are targeted at terrorist, but I think the bar for invading a country has to be very very very high. I think in retrospect, I would have not supported a war in Iraq (which I did at the time) and would have much rather have more concentration on terrorism throughout the world. Since I am not charged with making those decisions I can play Monday morning QB.

Honestly, either man (I believe) will do work their hardest to protect this country. I do think GWB will be quicker on the draw, so to speak, than JK, but I feel either will go after terrorists. So, given the above I would rather have a President that is more restrained but still resolved to use military force if required.

So to answer my own questions...

- I do not think Iraq was related to fighting terrorism. I think it is only related to fighting terrorism today in an Iraq local sense (our troops are under attack) and that the situation fosters terrorist and can provide ammunition, both practically and politically, to terrorist. I think it also stretches our resources extremely thin and this is going to get worse.

- As I have said above, while I agree with a radical governments (especially that has nuclear weapons as in the example you give) which directly threatens (like is going to attack us, not just doesn't like us) the US has to be dealt with. If they are just bad folks and there is no direct threat to the US, we need to not jump into a war. Furthermore I think we need to step back and figure out how to win this kind low intensity conflict. We can kick ass until it comes to dealing with guerillas and insurgency, we still have not figured that out. It is a really really hard problem that has confounded people for a very long time. I just do not think we know how to win some of these conflicts (Somalia, Iraq and possibly still Afghanistan) and the resulting power vacuum may or may not make a safer world (which should always be taken into account). I think mistakes were made in Iraq at the highest levels and we committed to and executed on the military option too early and this is part of the reason I am voting the way I am.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

I agree with what you said, Geoff. This war has to be an example for not rushing into a preemptive war against a target that isn't an imminent threat. I believe that Bush will not do something like this again, unless he is much more sure of the magnitude of the threat. He's got to know that people, like myself, who are straddling the support line for Iraq, would not support a repeat of this unless we have hard proof that the enemy is planning to attack us.

And I agree with what you said about W. and Kerry, and that reason, along with my hope that Bush has learned that he needs more proof of the threat before attacking a sovereign state, is why I will vote for Bush. I think we'll be fine with both of them (hopefully), but I prefer Bush's determination and decisiveness to Kerry's patience and "global testing".

And I don't know that there is an effective way to fight insurgents and guerillas. They use innocent people and important landmarks as cover, so we are fighting them with 2 hands and one leg behind our backs. And the way our media basically blames our troops when a car bomb goes off in Baghdad and kills 3 innocent people doesn't help either. I think that this is unfortunately something that we will have to accept when we go to battle in the War on Terror because this is how they fight, and if it discourages us from fighting them, then we will lose.

[SnyderShrugged]

Manhattan polling place? WTF?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/


It's a righty blog site, but pics don't lie.

Is it possible these are photoshopped?

[tex]

Originally posted by FullbackIsKey



the lesser of 2 evils is still 4 more years of evil.

Very true.

[Raub]

Make sure you get out and vote early and often folks!

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
Build more Overlords.

Whoever's for that, I'm voting for them.

You must construct addition pylons.

[NACSkins]

http://img30.exs.cx/img30/9016/fight23.jpg

[Mr. S]

wow, compared to past political affiliation threads, this presidential voting poll is much closer, im quite impressed. I woulda voted other, but had to vote for Kerry as many other liberals prolly felt.