Home
2012
Election Results
Election Info
Weblog
Wiki
Search
Email
Site Info
Store
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email?
May 21, 2013, 12:04:16 am
News:
Cast your ballot in the 2012 Mock Election!
Atlas Forum
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
U.S. Presidential Election Results
2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results
(Moderator:
True Federalist
)
2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
« previous
next »
Pages:
1
2
[
3
]
Author
Topic: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates? (Read 5193 times)
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #50 on:
June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am »
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #51 on:
June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #52 on:
June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am »
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
Posts: 8526
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #53 on:
June 15, 2010, 08:32:45 am »
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Plot&redirect=no
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #54 on:
June 15, 2010, 03:38:36 pm »
Quote from: Badger on June 15, 2010, 08:32:45 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Plot&redirect=no
Oh give it up already.
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #55 on:
June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #56 on:
June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm »
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #57 on:
June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #58 on:
June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm »
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
Posts: 6297
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #59 on:
June 18, 2010, 10:11:02 pm »
Clinton vs McCain
Clinton comes close in a lot of southern states, but looses all of them except for Florida. One of the surprises of the night is Virgnia going early for McCain. Clinton does worse than expected everywhere. She led McCain by seven points going into election day, but almost all of the voters who decided in the voting booth went to McCain as did basically all of the undecideds. When americans thought of the Clintons, they thought of the Monica Lewinski scandal and they found Hillary to not be very likable. That cannot save McCain, but it can put him closer than expected.
Logged
Alaska for Deukmjican and South Dakota going for Bradley. Four states remain. Ohio and South Dakota big news of the hour. Dems hold Montana senate seat.
Duekmjican: 257
Bradley: 194
Paul: 0
"So, I leave you all tonight with a full heart and a fervent prayer that we will meet again and we will meet often in this land where miracles are always happening, where every day is a new beginning and every life a blessing from God.
So I want to say thanks to each one of you here. Thank y
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #60 on:
June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #61 on:
June 21, 2010, 04:09:27 pm »
Quote from: The Prince on June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #62 on:
June 21, 2010, 04:56:43 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 21, 2010, 04:09:27 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?
Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #63 on:
June 21, 2010, 07:51:46 pm »
Quote from: The Prince on June 21, 2010, 04:56:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 21, 2010, 04:09:27 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?
Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
You got that right.
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #64 on:
June 21, 2010, 08:41:41 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 21, 2010, 07:51:46 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 21, 2010, 04:56:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 21, 2010, 04:09:27 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm
Quote from: The Prince on June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am
Quote from: Derek on June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Quote from: Derek on June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm
Quote from: Dallasfan65 on June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm
Quote from: WilliamSargent on June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am
Quote from: The Prince on June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am
9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.
That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
It was a fake document.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?
Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
You got that right.
At least we agree on something.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
Posts: 4704
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #65 on:
June 24, 2010, 08:52:39 pm »
What are we agreeing on?
Logged
I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
Posts: 14684
Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52
Re: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
«
Reply #66 on:
June 25, 2010, 01:57:48 pm »
Quote from: Derek on June 24, 2010, 08:52:39 pm
What are we agreeing on?
That John kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
Logged
Pages:
1
2
[
3
]
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
-----------------------------
=> 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
===> 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
=> U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results
=> Presidential Election Trends
=> Election What-ifs?
===> Past Election What-ifs (US)
===> Alternative Elections
===> International What-ifs
-----------------------------
Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
-----------------------------
=> Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections
===> 2013 & Odd Year Gubernatorial Election Polls
===> 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> Congressional Elections
===> 2014 Senatorial Election Polls
=> International Elections
=> Election Predictions
-----------------------------
Questions and Answers
-----------------------------
=> Presidential Election Process
===> Electoral Reform
===> Polling
=> The Atlas
===> How To
-----------------------------
General Discussion
-----------------------------
=> Constitution and Law
=> Religion & Philosophy
=> History
===> Alternative History
-----------------------------
General Politics
-----------------------------
=> U.S. General Discussion
=> Political Geography & Demographics
=> International General Discussion
=> Economics
=> Individual Politics
=> Political Debate
===> Political Essays & Deliberation
===> Book Reviews and Discussion
-----------------------------
Election Archive
-----------------------------
=> 2012 Elections
===> 2012 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2012 House Election Polls
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2012 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> 2010 Elections
===> 2010 House Election Polls
===> 2010 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2010 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> 2008 Elections
===> 2008 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2008 Gubernatorial Election Polls
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
=> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Polls
=> 2006 Elections
===> 2006 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2006 Gubernatorial Election Polls
-----------------------------
Forum Community
-----------------------------
=> Forum Community
===> Forum Community Election Match-ups
=> Election and History Games
===> Mock Parliment
===> Town Hall
===> Survivor
===> Interactive Timelines
=> Off-topic Board
-----------------------------
Atlas Fantasy Elections
-----------------------------
=> Atlas Fantasy Elections
===> Voting Booth
=> Atlas Fantasy Government
===> Constitutional Convention
===> Regional Governments
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Powered by SMF 1.1.18
|
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Loading...