Up here I vote for the NDP - New Democratic Party, so Barack Obama.

As I said before, I am sitting this one out, and for reasons I pm'd D3V... I voted twice... against a retard, and we got a retard. So right now, anything is better than Bush, even if it is McCain. The worst he could do is keep Bush's policies alive. I think (or hope) America is smart enough to see through McCain's bullshit should he win. On the other hand, if Obama wins, he seems to be promising a new America. I would love to see him completely change America in his 8 years in office, but it seems unlikely. I figure, whoever wins, however they put change into effect will affect my voting next election.

To anyone that says, "Who cares if your last 2 votes had shit results, blah blah blah..." Let me see you play ANY video game with a 12 yr old who has hacks. You kind of give up playing if you know you can't win. That's how I view it at least...

You have more of a chance to win if you play, even if you're playing against someone with hacks.

Unless you know the host is going to be cycled every four years :P

diablo 1 legit pvp'er Vs cursor kill!

If Bill could run again, I'd vote for him.

Just mailed in the necessary papers that registers me to vote. Gobama!

I hate hearing people say, "Oh well, Obama has this in the bag! NOOOOOooo reason to worry"..

That's exactly what was said about John Kerry, and look what happened to him. At any moment in this general election, anything can change or happpen, I just hope that this time around more people can get involved and stay involved, the only time that matters is when it's time to vote.

Well I think there were quite a lot more people against John Kerry, since he had issues of his own about flip-flopping and such.

i heard that Palin is winning the popularity vs Biden, and more men are interested in Palin then women. Men think that Palin is qualified where as women do not.

Men tend to be republicans, while women tend to be democrats. I think it's like 60% republican and 40% democrat for men. I can't remember the hard statistics, but it's something like that. That might explain it.

I don't think Bush = The worst president in history. People including you are just tired of him. Remember there's other presidents that have messed up their post worst than the current one has (Clinton, Nixon?). It's apparent by the poll that no one on the forum would like McCain to win.

How in the hell can you possibly say that Clinton messed up more than Bush? I don't care which side of the fence you're on, I just cannot see where you could get that logic. Please explain it to me.

Taken from a random wiki article

Rasmussen Reports poll
A Rasmussen Reports poll taken June 13–24 of 2007 asked 1,000 randomly selected adults to rate America's presidents. Six presidents were rated favorably by at least 80% of respondents. They were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Twenty presidents were viewed favorably by at least 50% of respondents.

Only two presidents were viewed unfavorably by at least 50% of respondents. They were Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, the current president. [11]

Favorably-viewed Presidents

George Washington (94% favorable)
Abraham Lincoln (92% favorable)
Thomas Jefferson (89% favorable)
Theodore Roosevelt (84% favorable)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (81% favorable)
John F. Kennedy (80% favorable)
John Adams (74% favorable)
James Madison (73% favorable)
Ronald Reagan (72% favorable)
Dwight Eisenhower (72% favorable)
Harry Truman (70% favorable)
Andrew Jackson (69% favorable)
Gerald Ford (62% favorable)
John Quincy Adams (59% favorable)
Ulysses S. Grant (58% favorable)
Jimmy Carter (57% favorable)
William Taft (57% favorable)
George H.W. Bush (57% favorable)
Woodrow Wilson (56% favorable)
Bill Clinton (55% favorable)

Unfavorably-viewed Presidents

Richard Nixon (60% unfavorable)
George W. Bush – the current president (59% unfavorable)

And for those who would love to get in the sack with bush, here is an article for you - this way i dont seem like i looked up one paper

WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY
Kalona News ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | Ethel Bontrager

Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:45:51 PM by 11th_VA

The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the editor on Feb. 15, 2004.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11!

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Think about it!

Submitted by Ethel Bontrager





What is the moral of this story? Lemme tell you, the moral is that irregardless of what one man did, there will always be someone who supports it and someone who is against it. If GWB called an end to this war right now, and had every single soldier brought home, there would be those for it and against it, if he stayed in combat same problem. People will be telling him he is an idiot for staying and an idiot for leaving. It is a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation. For any of us to declare that one president is 'horrid' to another is foul play, and you lack the professional title to be making such claims.

That article was written in 2004. That 600 soldier death toll is now 4,155. This is just US soldiers alone, not Iraqi forces, Iraqi citizens, or soldiers from other countries. 4,155 US deaths.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

We have also killed over 1,000,000 civilians/military in Iraq. One Million people dead, for no reason. That's, horrendous. That's Stalin/Hitler/Mousillini numbers.

staggering numbers, but - i just wanted to pull two threads one for bush and one against.

Are you sure about that? I've heard of numbers around 100K, but never a million.

Well, one million "casualties" which isn't necessairily defined as Deaths, just inujured/deaths. I can't seem to actually find a website where I read this at, but I do agree the death total is probably around 100,000 . . .

Oh, you said we've killed 1,000,000. Just a confusion of terms, I see.

I'm not sure what the casualties is at.