Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Chit-Chat & Non-Welding Discussion / Off-Topic Bar and Grill / I'll make my election predition now
1 2 3 4 Previous Next  
- - By Root Pass (***) Date 10-17-2008 17:53
I'm betting Mccain the winner by 10% in November.
Parent - - By OBEWAN (***) Date 10-17-2008 17:55
That is pretty optimistic based upon all the recent polls that show Obama ahead now.  We can only hope for the best.
I am not going to make any guesses since it is too close for me to call right now.
Parent - By hogan (****) Date 10-17-2008 18:01
Some European bookies are already paying out for bets that obama would win. Can you imagine this pic on a on money someday?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/16/paddy.pay.ap/index.html
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 10-20-2008 11:22
How soon we forget. When Bush got elected the second time, All but Fox was predicting a Kerry landslide, along with all the skewed polls. It may or may not be this time, but one thing is for sure, There are still americans out there that choose not to be lead around by the nose. I just hope there are enough of them left to make a difference this time.
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-17-2008 18:14
I'll take Barack Steve Obama for $100 by at least 8% national.
Parent - - By vagabond (***) Date 10-17-2008 18:21
I'd be hesitant to bet on any percentage spread and I'm a betting guy.  The only prediction I'll make is this will be a close, very close election.  I doubt if there is a 5% difference,  I really doubt it.
Parent - - By kipman (***) Date 10-17-2008 18:24
The popular vote is likely to be close, but that doesn't necessarily mean the electoral college results will be close.  Depends on how each state falls.
Mankenberg
Parent - - By Metarinka (****) Date 10-17-2008 18:28
that's a lesson from the 2000 election when Al  Gore won the popular vote but bush won the electoral votes.
I doubt this will be as close of an election as 2000
Parent - - By 63 Max (***) Date 10-17-2008 22:03
Sorry, but you need to check your facts. The right wing liberals like to said Al Gore won the popular vote but in fact he did not.
Parent - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-17-2008 22:12
Right wing liberals?  Ok.  Thats different.
Parent - - By Metarinka (****) Date 10-17-2008 22:32
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

I don't think that fact has ever been up for debate.  Also I don't believe it was the first time a candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.
Parent - By DaveBoyer (*****) Date 10-18-2008 04:17
It is pretty hard to believe that Ralph Nader got almost 3 million suckers to vote for Him.
Parent - - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-18-2008 04:11
The famous RECOUNTS in FL won the election for bush, thats a fact. If the republicans hadn't stole the 2000 election for bush the country "MIGHT" not be in the mess its in.
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-18-2008 04:44
K,
You sound like you might be a democrat.  I hope so.  It seems like I am the only one here.
Parent - - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-18-2008 15:34
Yeah i am, i work out of a union hall. Thats the party that supports unions thats why the UA, INT boiler m., support them. In my opinion they are for the blue collar working men and women. I see so many people that support bush on here and every were else complain about illegal aliens taking work from americans when bush opened the border up for them. But i dont like Mccain or obamah i think we have a poor choice this time, i would like to have seen hillary take the office.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-18-2008 17:13 Edited 10-18-2008 17:17
I'll agree that Bush is weak on immigration on the southern border..

But the fact is that NAFTA came through on Clinton's watch and current immigration policy remains unchanged from the Clinton era.

Bush's weakness lies in not pushing the legislature to legislate better border control... Neither Bush or Clinton could have changed border policy with the stroke of a pen.

Boilermakers, Ironworkers, Millwrights and Pipe trade unions have no need for government support. They are strong because of their excellence... The UAW, IAM, Teamsters etc, need government to support the continuation of foolishly extravagant work rules.

Government is not busting unions any more.. they don't need to.. Competition with non union groups who pay skilled labor skilled wages and unskilled labor a wage that is representative of their skills is what is sinking unwise union leadership.

The unions that embrace excellence, reasonable work rules and cross utilization are doing just fine without support from the federal government.
Parent - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-19-2008 23:21
Lawrence, your outlook on union labor is true and you made an excellent point all the way around. NAFTA did happen on clintons watch and al gore had the deciding vote, I just like every other american in there right mind dont approve of. Clinton did not pass that by his self republicans voted in favor of it to. One point that ill disagree with is they are union busting stratagey's still in play. union's still need support from presidents that are pro union, thats my 2 cents.
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-18-2008 17:47 Edited 10-18-2008 17:54
Hello K.Sexton26, I'll throw this out there for everyone to consider. IF..... we had accurate facts reporting sources that we could rely upon and IF we took the time as individuals to carefully research this information, the voting would probably be easy. The obvious route to take for selecting and electing candidates wouldn't be so much of a crap shoot. As it stands we all should look at the "total package", make our best "educated" and "collective" use of informational sources and select our candidates based on these premises. You probably also should consider their complete agendas and not necessarily just the small portion of the platform that suits your own narrow area of interest. Just a bit to consider. Best regards, aevald
Parent - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-19-2008 23:32
Thats true aevald we all have to look at the BIG PIC, i don't even won't to vote this time i really don't like the options we have. To tell the truth i didn't won't to vote for the last election but i did kerry wasn't much of a canidate ethier. Obamah has a slick tounge, i personally think his past and fund raising tactics sould be investigated alot more than they have, and having ties to ACRON group everybody know's that is shady. 
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 10-21-2008 20:20
Well, All I know is that the U.A. has more work then they can handle right now and a republican is in office.  If we want those nukes to go, more drilling here in the states, Tar sand mining, refineries spending billion to refine the tar sands, it would probably be smart to vote for McCain/Palin.  This eqauls hella work for U.A. and on top of that, you don't have to vote some sweet talker into office that's gona end up letting IED'S turn up over here on our soil.
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-18-2008 21:48
Not a fact at all.  Everytime the Democrat's got a recount they actually lost votes.  Cheating and still messed it up. And for your second missed point, the Republicans did NOT  steal the election. As to the mess, if you read at all, you will find out this mortgage mess started under Mr. Clinton in order to get the underprivileged into homes they could not afford..

Again, these are the facts.

Griff

"I'll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money,
you can keep THE CHANGE"
Parent - - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-19-2008 23:55
Go to democrat.com the facts are stated there, they are several other web sites about the subject as well. Your guns are pretected by the constitution not republicans, i dont think either party can rewright that anytime soon
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-20-2008 00:19
You are in the dark on that one too!!!

Griff
Parent - - By K.Sexton26 (**) Date 10-20-2008 03:00
in the dark about what? look man i get it your a republican im a libarial democrat i not going to waste my time or yours going back and fourth about which party is the better choice
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-20-2008 21:47
I never said anything about parties.  I said you were in the dark about the Second Amendment and the attacks on it by the liberals. Specifically Obama.

As is most often the case with liberals, such as yourself, you jump subjects because you know you cannot defend the point in question.
The only way a sensible person could not be aware of the attacks on the Second Amendment would be,well, (I will be nice) if you were in the dark.

Griff
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-20-2008 21:56
I am a liberal but I am fan of guns.  But I do think that the industry should be regulated.  I am waiting for the day when someone takes the 2nd Amendment to the Supreme Court for their "right" to own a 155mm Howitzer.  Come on AK 47s are fun.  But really have no practrical use for them.  They were made to kill humans.  Fun, but not really needed.  Hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns OK and at times very necessary.  But come on assault rifles for home protection, not a good idea.  Over penetration and down range liabilities, like kids and neighbors make them not a good choice.  Damn fun, but unrealistic.  I would like to fire a .50 BMG but not at a crack head breaking into my house.

I think that the 2nd should be protected but come on, how far can it be taken.
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-20-2008 22:23
You sir and those like you, are perhaps the biggest threat to the Second Amendment. And I do not mean that as personal insult.  You fail to recognize the threat.

First point:  155's ??? Huh, who brought them into this
second    :  Ak's, as most firearms, are indeed fun to shoot.  No practical use?   About the same practical use level as a .30-.30   
                 Winchester (based on power level).  Overpenetration?  Not  as much as many of the "hunting rifles" you okayed.
                 And by the way,  AK-47'S ARE ALLREADY ILLEGAL  as they are fully automatic. (Yes there are provisions for ownership if you  
                want to buy the permits. Very expensive.)
                 Downrange liabilities are present and very real regardless of which firearm is in use
Third       :  All firearms are based on designs intended to kill

I could go on but, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Griff

      
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-20-2008 22:38
The 155 reference was to illustrate the inflation that comes along with all sides of Constitutional issues.  People I know want no gun available from a 22 on up.  And there are others that will fight tooth and nail to maintain their "right" to bear anything that fires a projectile.  Me, I am on the middle of the spectrum.  I am all for reasonable gun oiwnership.  There are certain rounds and firearm configurations that have evolved from the military to the hunting realm. 
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-20-2008 23:35
I respect your position.  One problem however, continually lies in the definition of "reasonable". 

Respectfully
Griff
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 11:33
Exactly!!!
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-21-2008 22:46
We agreed on something!!

Griff
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-22-2008 00:54
Hey Griff,
I'm glad your starting to see things my way.
LoL
Parent - - By 522029 (***) Date 10-22-2008 14:31
Hey, that's what I thought about you!!

Griff
Parent - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-22-2008 16:33
LOL.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-21-2008 11:27 Edited 10-21-2008 11:31
Everybody is dancing around the point and nobody is getting to it.

Blathering about assault rifles vs. hunting rifles

The second ammendment is about nothing more than an armed populace.  The population, citizens, prolitariat in Bryans case, are armed for two singular reasons, one of defending the U.S. from forigen invasion ans secondly, of overthrowing a tyrannical government.  Not hunting, not home protection, except in the broadest sense...

The second ammendment was created by the founders as a mechanisim to overthrow the U.S. government.

Liberals don't like it when the discussion goes this way.. Nontheless.. Facts are stubborn things.

The point is clearly made again and again in the Federalist papers.

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 11:35
The only way we have mechanism we have to "overthrow a tyranical government" is to Vote Nov. 4.
That was dramatic.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-21-2008 12:27 Edited 10-21-2008 12:35
Here is an example of typical fact ducking by folks who don't agree with the intent of a fact.

Time spent discussing what they "think" the second ammendment "should" mean. But when the very words of the founders are placed in the forefront as they themselves explained without question exactly what they ment when the second ammendment was drafted and enacted.........

Well lets talk about voting out an adminsitration 230 years after the founders spoke.

The very fact that the current adminsitration is leaving in November no matter who wins the upcomming election bears out the fact that it is not tyranical.  Wrong about any number of things but not tyranical

Why not stay on point for a moment longer and talk more about the second ammendment?  I promise to play nice :)
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 14:54
I am by no means advocating a ban and confiscation of ALL firearms.  To attempt that would be impossible to say the least.  Maybe I am not getting the whole point but I do think that I am becoming Enlightened. 

The 2nd Amendment is there so the American people will have the available resources to wage Revolution?  Is that what I am missing? 

As I have stated, I do own guns, and plan on buying more.  On this issue I don't stand with the "Liberal" viewpoint.  I am just trying to figure out how people are so offended by the regulation of the firearms industry.  So what is the problem?
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-21-2008 15:34
Now your getting it!

As Hamelton said and the authors intended...  It's not much use bearing arms if they don't match the standing army.

So have your AK or your Howitzer for all I care....  The right to have em is a provision of the Bill of Rights.

Those who wish to remove that exact freedom or lessen it in any way need to revisit the Bill and attempt to change it.
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 15:41
I want to thank you guys alot.  Everything is clear now.  I think I'm gonna git my Obama stickers off my truck and git me sum McCail/Pallin stickers now.
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-21-2008 17:48
The NRA thanks you  :)
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 20:17
Yeah, probably not.  I still like Obama.  If I read some more of 3.2's post about Denmark I might just move there.  Higher taxes.  Universal health care, education system covered by tax money,a small "upper" class and "lower" class, large middle class and relatively easy access to Belgium and their great beers.  Man, it sounds like Liberals/Democrat/Socialist or whatever's wet dream.

Saddle up boys (and girls) let's ride!!!  Yee haa!!!  I'm feeling like a maverick right now!

Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-21-2008 20:27
Hey Bryon, you might want to whoa down a bit on the move. Their gun laws are "very" restrictive. If you own handguns you will need to leave them home. As with all of our choices, we don't necessarily have the option of everything that suits us without taking on a bit that doesn't. Best regards, aevald
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-21-2008 20:46
And don't forget the $9/gal gasoline...
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 21:39
Remember, I'm ridin' a horse.  I assume they have grass.
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-21-2008 22:37
I don't know Bryon, real estate is a commodity over there, it's a small country and not an immense amount of countryside that isn't spoken for. Great transportation choice, however. Best regards, aevald
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-21-2008 22:38
I can't win for losing.
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 10-22-2008 12:47
Hey, don't worry about it...
With their loose laws on cannabis and prostitution, a fellow can stay high and sated all the time. Who needs anything else!?

:-)  Tim
Parent - By BryonLewis (****) Date 10-22-2008 12:52
Now your talking. 
Parent - - By kipman (***) Date 10-22-2008 13:34
Tim,
Sounds like you are getting your countries mixed up.  Sounds to me like you are referring to the Netherlands.  You get an F in geography for this week.
Mankenberg
Up Topic Chit-Chat & Non-Welding Discussion / Off-Topic Bar and Grill / I'll make my election predition now
1 2 3 4 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill