It's all very logical, my friends, it's called MATHEMATICS.
Let's simplify it for you: this country has a 2 party system, at this point in our history. That might change, some time in the future, but I sincerely doubt it. A 3rd party candidate has as much a chance in hell of winning the U. S. Presidency, today, as Hugo Chavez becoming a capitalist and declaring his undying love for George W. Bush. It will never happen. Sorry. So, given that, there are only 2 party candidates (the Democratic and Republican) vying for the top dog position that have any hope of winning this election in November. The only 2 viable candidates to choose from are Barrack "Hussein" Obama and John Sidney McCain, III.
If there are only 2 VIABLE candidates, there will be votes destined for Obama and votes destined for McCain. ANY vote NOT for McCain is a vote for Obama and this is why:
Say you have 20 voters- 10 are registered Democrats, and 10 are registered Republicans. The 10 Democrats decide to support Obama, because well, he's a Democrat and they are party loyalists. Obama gets those 10 votes! Now we have the Republicans, some of whom are pissing and moaning about how McCain isn't conservative enough for them, so 2 of those decide, hmmm, we're just going to punish the dang 'ol Republican Party and vote for Bob Barr (or Chuck Baldwin). 1 decides to not vote at all. 1 is an Obamacon, who has been duped into believing all of Obama's lying campaign rhetoric, and decides to vote for Obama. So McCain gets only 6 votes, and Obama wins.
Those 4 non-McCain votes got Obama elected, how is that not a vote for Obama!!
11 comments:
Yea, I think the poster at the end of this post sums it up perfectly.
Why do you always emphasise the "Hussein"?
karen, what that poster sums up is that McCain was a HUNK! (Smile)
troika...why did people always emphasize RODHAM until Bill was running for Pres and then, afterwards, the Rodham returned again and now it's gone again...
WHy's it always fair play for the Left but never for the right? Hillary RODHAM Clinton.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama........what are you, racist? What's the big deal? (oh, ya...Hussein sounds very Mu.......oh, that's right....oops...can't have THAT now, CAN we!) Hill's was about extreme feminism...Obama's is just telling his middle name.
RIGHT?
Incog, your math seems right to me (RIGHT, too!!)
No, I'm not racist,Z, but thanks for the intelligent comment.(*high sarcasm*)
I don't see quotes around the middle names of anyone else you mention.
Incog wrote: "The only 2 viable candidates to choose from are Barrack "Hussein" Obama and John Sidney McCain, III."
Can you see the difference, Z? There are quotes around Hussein and not Sidney. Hence, I'm asking why the emphasis on "Hussein"?
Now can you see what I mean, Z?
In the same post there are no quotes around the W in George W. Bush.
This has nothing to do with left and right, you've just jumped in as I if it does. I'm pretty left wing, but I would never vote for Obama, I think he's full of BS, whereas John "Sidney" McCain seems far more honest and knows what he's talking about.
Incognito is putting a deliberate emphasis on "Hussein" by making it the only middle name of a president or presidential candidate to be put in quotes in her blog.
I know I'm not racist, although you childishly imply I am, and I know Incog isn't racist at all - I just want to know why there is this deliberate emphasis.
Hi Incog
Good points.
I see your pal is back.
McCain was hot when he was young!
Slightly shallow Frasypoo
KAREN: Well it's indicative of who he is. I do believe people can change, and do, although I'm not sure he has. And, again, not that I believe he's Muslim.. but..
TROIKA: You know Troika, I have no idea. I might have seen it somewhere else, but to be perfectly honest, it was not conscious at all. Sorry.
Z: Ditto. He certainly was!! And I think Troika was taking exception with the quotes, though as I told him, it has no hidden meaning, sorry to say. But when you think of it, Barrack Hussein Obama doesn't sound very presidential to me.
TROIKA: No need to get snippy, lad. And see my above response re. your query. No hidden agenda. Will remember not to do it again, unless I quote all middle names.
and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you wouldn't vote for Obama. Good on you. Too bad you're not a citizen so you could add another vote for McCain.
FRASYPOO: Yes, off and on. and he certainly was, when he was young. Not shallow at all. Beauty is a thing to behold. :-)
youre right Incog..what a sorry state of affairs!...long time no see again girly!..hugz!
I totally agree. I am getting sick of a lot of the conservative talk show hosts bashing on McCain and then bashing on Obama...putting McCain in a weakened position is not standing on principle, its assuring a far left President for America. I don't see any moral victory in that! great post...:)N
so who is gonna catch this democrate when she casts that republican vote for the first time ever and then faints? what say you all? *giggle*
;)
~maria
WOMAN: It is indeed.. and yeah.. has been a while, but I am back! will head over to yours tomorrow. off to bed.
NIKKI: Absolutely. McCain, though not perfect, is a far better alternative to Obama. And I will do my damndest to make sure Obama does not become our next Prez.
NAMASTE: I will!! I'll be the first to conratulate you...:-) You go. girl! It's not all that bad.
McCain and Obama, both are giving tough competition to each other, but I think chances of Obama are very high.
Post a Comment