Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 06:09:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 363 364 365 366 367 [368] 369 370 371 372 373 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 684518 times)
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9175 on: December 08, 2011, 10:41:20 am »
Ignore



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, u.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, +1.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9176 on: December 08, 2011, 01:55:13 pm »
Ignore


Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  42%, +1.

Disapprove:  50%, -1.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15333


View Profile
« Reply #9177 on: December 08, 2011, 01:59:46 pm »
Ignore



But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.
Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

June of 1993 was not December of 1995.  Reagan was actually in the 30's in late 1982 early 1983.  He was around 50% at this point.
You said first year. Did you mean last year?
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9178 on: December 08, 2011, 03:32:45 pm »
Ignore



But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.
Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

June of 1993 was not December of 1995.  Reagan was actually in the 30's in late 1982 early 1983.  He was around 50% at this point.
You said first year. Did you mean last year?

Yes, I look at the last 18 months and the last 12 months.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15333


View Profile
« Reply #9179 on: December 08, 2011, 03:57:20 pm »
Ignore



But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.
Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

June of 1993 was not December of 1995.  Reagan was actually in the 30's in late 1982 early 1983.  He was around 50% at this point.
You said first year. Did you mean last year?

Yes, I look at the last 18 months and the last 12 months.
In that case, the counter example is Truman. Below 40% in the 1948, but he still won re-election despite third party runs by both his liberal flank and the Dixiecrat wing of the party.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28786
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9180 on: December 08, 2011, 07:29:52 pm »
Ignore

In that case, the counter example is Truman. Below 40% in the 1948, but he still won re-election despite third party runs by both his liberal flank and the Dixiecrat wing of the party.

Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

If Dewey had even run a marginal campaign at the end, he could have easily have gotten at least this:



Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9181 on: December 09, 2011, 09:41:09 am »
Ignore



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -1.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 23%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.


There has been a slight upswing in Strongly Approve, but is not reflected in the rest of his numbers.  It could indicate that his base is coming back.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9182 on: December 09, 2011, 11:17:34 am »
Ignore



Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.

I think that there was a noticeable change post Watergate.  Both Eisenhower and LBJ had a lower vote percentage that their "low during the year before, (LYB)" approval numbers on Gallup. They had 68% and 73% LYB, respectively.  Truman gained about 12 points on his LYB. Nixon about 11 points.

The LYB gain, with rounding, was since then as follows:

Ford:  9 points
Carter: 9 points
Reagan: 8 points
GHWB: 8 points
Clinton:  7 points
GWB:  5 points

Obama is at 42% on the weekly Gallup.  He improves at just above average with any other president, he wins re-election.  He could, obviously, be in better shape, but it is still winnable. 
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9281
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #9183 on: December 09, 2011, 01:12:41 pm »
Ignore

Presidential polling has been around for such a short time, and the sample size of Presidential elections is so small that drawing these definitive conclusions from the data is a waste of time.
Logged

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9184 on: December 10, 2011, 09:58:21 am »
Ignore

December 9, 2011

Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  42%, u.

Disapprove:  51%, +1.


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9185 on: December 10, 2011, 09:59:42 am »
Ignore



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, +1.


« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 10:22:46 am by J. J. »Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9186 on: December 10, 2011, 10:01:03 am »
Ignore

Presidential polling has been around for such a short time, and the sample size of Presidential elections is so small that drawing these definitive conclusions from the data is a waste of time.

Right now, my conclusion is that, with these numbers, it is possible for Obama to survive.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15333


View Profile
« Reply #9187 on: December 10, 2011, 10:05:43 am »
Ignore

Presidential polling has been around for such a short time, and the sample size of Presidential elections is so small that drawing these definitive conclusions from the data is a waste of time.

Right now, my conclusion is that, with these numbers, it is possible for Obama to survive.

Given the polling and the likely potential candidate, it is not just possible, it is extremely likely that Obama will be re-elected.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10389
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9188 on: December 10, 2011, 11:29:55 am »
Ignore



Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.

I think that there was a noticeable change post Watergate.  Both Eisenhower and LBJ had a lower vote percentage that their "low during the year before, (LYB)" approval numbers on Gallup. They had 68% and 73% LYB, respectively.  Truman gained about 12 points on his LYB. Nixon about 11 points.

The LYB gain, with rounding, was since then as follows:

Ford:  9 points
Carter: 9 points
Reagan: 8 points
GHWB: 8 points
Clinton:  7 points
GWB:  5 points

Obama is at 42% on the weekly Gallup.  He improves at just above average with any other president, he wins re-election.  He could, obviously, be in better shape, but it is still winnable. 

The maximum level of popular vote that any President has ever gotten in the last 100 years is about 61%, roughly the level for FDR in 1936, LBJ in 1964, or Nixon in 1972. In all three cases that involved an incumbent defeating a weak challenger, a scenario still possible in 2012.

The minimum for an incumbent President seeking re-election despite three years of economic meltdown (Hoover 1932) or in the wake of debacles of foreign policy (Carter 1980) is around 40%. Anyone who thinks that the President is going to do better than FDR in 1936  or worse than Hoover in 1932 is on shaky ground. As for Eisenhower and LBJ, there was no way in which Ike was going to win 63% of the popular vote (57% was fine enough for him, and campaigning would have brought more risk than reward), and the 73% approval rating was late in 1963 during his political honeymoon.

Truman would have been defeated badly had the Reds (no, not the Cincinnati variety) had been closing in on some ROK redoubt in a southern corner of the country with Mao and Kim il-Sung boasting that "Liberation comes next to Japan! Death to the fascist running-dog Hirohito!" Of course such is contrafactual as the war did not begin until 1950.

OK -- President Obama so far is involved in some foreign-policy debacles, but those so far are the debacles that he inflicted upon Osama bin Laden and let happen to Muammar Qaddafi. It is still possible that an economic meltdown can happen between now and November, but time is running out for that. There's no speculative boom to go bust while Obama is President. Slow growth in hard times? FDR won big in 1936 under those circumstances.

What is different this time is the Citizens United decision that effectively allows political front groups to throw unlimited funds into any political effort, including propaganda campaigns intended to weaken the support of any politician that such a front group wants defeated, as well as into political campaigns.     

Improving economic conditions (no given) clearly seal a re-election of President Obama against a weak opponent (nearly a given). 

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9189 on: December 10, 2011, 03:16:55 pm »
Ignore


Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  42%, u.

Disapprove:  51%, u.


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4989


View Profile
« Reply #9190 on: December 10, 2011, 09:02:00 pm »
Ignore



Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.

I think that there was a noticeable change post Watergate.  Both Eisenhower and LBJ had a lower vote percentage that their "low during the year before, (LYB)" approval numbers on Gallup. They had 68% and 73% LYB, respectively.  Truman gained about 12 points on his LYB. Nixon about 11 points.

The LYB gain, with rounding, was since then as follows:

Ford:  9 points
Carter: 9 points
Reagan: 8 points
GHWB: 8 points
Clinton:  7 points
GWB:  5 points

Obama is at 42% on the weekly Gallup.  He improves at just above average with any other president, he wins re-election.  He could, obviously, be in better shape, but it is still winnable. 

The maximum level of popular vote that any President has ever gotten in the last 100 years is about 61%, roughly the level for FDR in 1936, LBJ in 1964, or Nixon in 1972. In all three cases that involved an incumbent defeating a weak challenger, a scenario still possible in 2012.

The minimum for an incumbent President seeking re-election despite three years of economic meltdown (Hoover 1932) or in the wake of debacles of foreign policy (Carter 1980) is around 40%. Anyone who thinks that the President is going to do better than FDR in 1936  or worse than Hoover in 1932 is on shaky ground. As for Eisenhower and LBJ, there was no way in which Ike was going to win 63% of the popular vote (57% was fine enough for him, and campaigning would have brought more risk than reward), and the 73% approval rating was late in 1963 during his political honeymoon.

Truman would have been defeated badly had the Reds (no, not the Cincinnati variety) had been closing in on some ROK redoubt in a southern corner of the country with Mao and Kim il-Sung boasting that "Liberation comes next to Japan! Death to the fascist running-dog Hirohito!" Of course such is contrafactual as the war did not begin until 1950.

OK -- President Obama so far is involved in some foreign-policy debacles, but those so far are the debacles that he inflicted upon Osama bin Laden and let happen to Muammar Qaddafi. It is still possible that an economic meltdown can happen between now and November, but time is running out for that. There's no speculative boom to go bust while Obama is President. Slow growth in hard times? FDR won big in 1936 under those circumstances.



FDR saw 13% GDP growth and 7% decline in unemployment in 1936. 
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10389
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9191 on: December 11, 2011, 09:03:05 am »
Ignore



Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.

I think that there was a noticeable change post Watergate.  Both Eisenhower and LBJ had a lower vote percentage that their "low during the year before, (LYB)" approval numbers on Gallup. They had 68% and 73% LYB, respectively.  Truman gained about 12 points on his LYB. Nixon about 11 points.

The LYB gain, with rounding, was since then as follows:

Ford:  9 points
Carter: 9 points
Reagan: 8 points
GHWB: 8 points
Clinton:  7 points
GWB:  5 points

Obama is at 42% on the weekly Gallup.  He improves at just above average with any other president, he wins re-election.  He could, obviously, be in better shape, but it is still winnable. 

The maximum level of popular vote that any President has ever gotten in the last 100 years is about 61%, roughly the level for FDR in 1936, LBJ in 1964, or Nixon in 1972. In all three cases that involved an incumbent defeating a weak challenger, a scenario still possible in 2012.

The minimum for an incumbent President seeking re-election despite three years of economic meltdown (Hoover 1932) or in the wake of debacles of foreign policy (Carter 1980) is around 40%. Anyone who thinks that the President is going to do better than FDR in 1936  or worse than Hoover in 1932 is on shaky ground. As for Eisenhower and LBJ, there was no way in which Ike was going to win 63% of the popular vote (57% was fine enough for him, and campaigning would have brought more risk than reward), and the 73% approval rating was late in 1963 during his political honeymoon.

Truman would have been defeated badly had the Reds (no, not the Cincinnati variety) had been closing in on some ROK redoubt in a southern corner of the country with Mao and Kim il-Sung boasting that "Liberation comes next to Japan! Death to the fascist running-dog Hirohito!" Of course such is contrafactual as the war did not begin until 1950.

OK -- President Obama so far is involved in some foreign-policy debacles, but those so far are the debacles that he inflicted upon Osama bin Laden and let happen to Muammar Qaddafi. It is still possible that an economic meltdown can happen between now and November, but time is running out for that. There's no speculative boom to go bust while Obama is President. Slow growth in hard times? FDR won big in 1936 under those circumstances.



FDR saw 13% GDP growth and 7% decline in unemployment in 1936. 


Any significant growth in GDP and decline in unemployment will seal re-election of the President. If President Obama could get unemployment down to 3% and get 13% growth in GDP, then he would win back the Carter-but-not-Obama vote while strengthening his gains elsewhere and winning 61% of the popular vote and about 520 electoral votes.

I may be carrying a political analogue from a different place that isn't so popular here, but political and economic realities of this decade may have more in common with those of 75-80 years ago than with those of ten years ago. The closest analogue to the still-remembered financial meltdown of 2007-2009 is the first half of economic implosion of 1929-1932.

FDR won big in 1936 because (1) he was a masterful politician, (2) the GOP alternative was weak, (3) even if he could not induce the economy to fully leave the Great Depression he could get a solid start (4) against an economic nightmare largely attributed to the Other Party.  2012 may be the only analogue in any respect to 1936 since the 1940s because we have been spared any economic meltdown that in any way resembles that of even the first half of 1929-1932.

The most favorable scenario that I see for the President is roughly a 55-45 split of the popular vote and about 400-440 electoral votes with Texas as the rough difference between 400 and 440 electoral votes. Based on what I see in the generic ballot for Congress in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (the other state for which I have polling data on that is Montana, and that is on an at-large election)  I now predict that the Republicans will lose the House of Representatives. 

Can President Obama lose? He most certainly can -- if he has a personal scandal, if he faces a military/diplomatic debacle, or if the economy goes into a tailspin. But with none of those he (1) has already shown himself a masterful politician capable of taking away votes that the Other Side used to think reliably 'theirs', (2) facing severely-flawed opposition, and  (3-4) having real growth during economic hard times, hard times the result of catastrophic policies of the previous Administration. The GOP has a bigger problem with credibility now than it did going into the 2010 elections because it has shown that it learned nothing from its defeats in 2006 and 2008 that would force it to change its approaches to the issues of the time.     

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9192 on: December 11, 2011, 10:24:14 am »
Ignore


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, +1.

Disapprove 53%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -2.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28786
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9193 on: December 11, 2011, 12:09:20 pm »
Ignore

http://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/default.aspx?id=9804

According to a Winthrop University Poll taken November 27-December 4, 2011

In South Carolina:
Obama: Approve: 44.8% Disapprove: 47.8% (Net: -3.0%)
Haley: Approve: 34.6% Disapprove: 43.0% (Net: -8.4%)
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9194 on: December 11, 2011, 02:38:37 pm »
Ignore


Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  43%, +1.

Disapprove:  50%, -1.



Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9195 on: December 12, 2011, 09:56:32 am »
Ignore


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, +1.

Disapprove 52%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -2.


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9196 on: December 12, 2011, 04:43:47 pm »
Ignore



Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  44%, +1.

Disapprove:  48%, -2.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39330
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9197 on: December 13, 2011, 02:45:50 am »
Ignore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYcqToQzzGY&feature=related
Logged

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9198 on: December 13, 2011, 11:58:52 am »
Ignore


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, u.

Disapprove 53%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, u.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9199 on: December 13, 2011, 04:08:17 pm »
Ignore


Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  45%, +1.

Disapprove:  48%, u.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pages: 1 ... 363 364 365 366 367 [368] 369 370 371 372 373 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines