Voters prefer Texas gov. Rick Perry over Obama 44% to 41%

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 4:28 AM GMT
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/09/03/2011-09-03_rick_perry_strides_past_prez_in_new_poll_voters_prefer_texas_gov_to_obama_44_to_.html

    Texas Governor Rick Perry is riding high heading into next week's GOP presidential debate, topping President Obama in a new poll.

    Perry, the longest-serving governor in the history of the Lone Star State, edged Obama, 44% to 41%, in a national Rasmussen poll - a sign voters dig his pro-jobs message, McClatchy Newspapers reported Friday.

    No other GOP White House hopeful topped the president in the poll, which surveyed 1,000 likely voters from Aug. 23 through Aug. 30. The margin of error was 3%.

    Obama still holds a hypothetical edge over the rest of the GOP field, boasting a four-percentage-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Rasmussen poll. Earlier in the year, Romney held a 1-percentage-point lead over Obama in a poll.

    The Rasmussen triumph capped a week of positive poll results for Perry, who appears to have snatched the GOP front-runner tag away from Romney.

    On Monday, a CNN/ORC International poll of GOP and independent voters who tend to favor Republican positions had 27% of voters nationwide supporting Perry, with only 14% backing Romney, The Texas Observer reported Friday in a story titled: "Can Perry Be Stopped?"

    On Tuesday, a poll by Public Policy Polling showed Perry 20 points ahead of Romney among likely GOP voters in South Carolina.

    "He's skyrocketed to the front-runner position, and that is significant," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, told McClatchy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 5:20 AM GMT
    Sure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 12:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.

    The only one here who has been consistently wrong here is you Christian. Here's what accompanies their daily tracking poll of their record:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy."

    The Pew Center noted that Rasmussen Reports beat traditional media in covering Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts earlier this year: "It was polling-not journalistic reporting-that caught the wave in the race to succeed Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy." Rasmussen Reports was also the first to show Joe Sestak catching Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary race last year.

    Once again in 2010, Rasmussen Reports polling provided an accurate preview of Election Night outcomes. See how we did.

    Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, noted, “This was one tough election to poll and forecast. Rasmussen Reports caught the major trends of the election year nationally and in most states.”

    In December 2009, a full 11 months before Election Day. A Democratic strategist concluded that if the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 elections. Other polls at the time suggested the Democrats would retain a comfortable majority. The Republicans gained 63 seats in the 2010 elections.

    Rasmussen’s final 2010 projections were published in the Wall Street Journal. Scott Rasmussen noted that “it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.”

    In the 2009 New Jersey Governor's race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, "If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!"

    In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
    We also have provided a summary of our 2008 state-by-state presidential results for your review.

    In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports polling projected that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. We were the only firm to project both candidates' totals within half a percentage point by (see our 2004 results).

    See also our 2008 state results for Senate and governor.

    See 2006 results for Senate and Governor.

    Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

    Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 34.9% Republicans, 34.1% Democrats, and 31.0% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly larger advantage for the Republicans.

    A review of last week's key polls is posted each Saturday morning.
    To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the president's numbers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 3:55 PM GMT
    Tell us Riddler, if you could vote for this Far Right Christian Talaban condidate would you ?

    Does any conservative here really want this fundamentalist nut to take his version of bringing the nation back to god into the position of US President ?


    If so, be careful what you wish for,

  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Sep 05, 2011 3:58 PM GMT
    Hmmmm Long time till the elections, very long time in the memory of most voters.

    I refuse to get worked up.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 4:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.


    Christian73 was way out in front on the Wisconsin recall elections, forecasting a "landslide" Democrat victory according to "the polls" he consulted. icon_lol.gif
    LMAO.. he was half right and you were half wrong.. get over it. it was a wash in WI.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 5:27 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.


    Christian73 was way out in front on the Wisconsin recall elections, forecasting a "landslide" Democrat victory according to "the polls" he consulted. icon_lol.gif
    LMAO.. he was half right and you were half wrong.. get over it. it was a wash in WI.


    It wasn't a wash in WI. Labor hampered Walker's ability to continue implementing his radical, anti-worker agenda. They are now, wisely, husbanding their strength while planning to recall Walker next year. Further, the fight n Wisconsin has made other lunatic fringe governors back off, including in Ohio.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 5:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said Tell us Riddler, if you could vote for this Far Right Christian Talaban condidate would you ?

    Does any conservative here really want this fundamentalist nut to take his version of bringing the nation back to god into the position of US President ?


    If so, be careful what you wish for,



    Right... because the President has the power to outlaw religion, specify which brand of sexuality is acceptable, mandate that bible study be part of all public school courses....




    LOL !!! You underestimate the effects of religion and government when mixed, I wouldn't make light of warnings against it, because all through history the mixture has had disasterous results. Human nature is no different today than it ever was, and if religion can bring some power to politics it WILL be used.

    So please be a wise conservative and don't vote for anyone who like this Perry breaks with Seperation of Church and state, which has worked well for 200 years. Take his state sponsored day of prayer for instance. Its a warning sign of what road this guy may take us down. All his backers need is some calamity like 9-11 and those Christian talaban would be willing to go down any road back to god/country and 'keep us safe'. Its sadly the way the 'sheeple' react. Again, be careful what you wish for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.


    Christian73 was way out in front on the Wisconsin recall elections, forecasting a "landslide" Democrat victory according to "the polls" he consulted. icon_lol.gif
    LMAO.. he was half right and you were half wrong.. get over it. it was a wash in WI.


    It wasn't a wash in WI. Labor hampered Walker's ability to continue implementing his radical, anti-worker agenda. They are now, wisely, husbanding their strength while planning to recall Walker next year. Further, the fight n Wisconsin has made other lunatic fringe governors back off, including in Ohio.



    I certainly agree !!! Walker effectively woke up a sleeping giant the way he trampled on middle class gains, by his fight to get rid of Unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2011 6:34 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.


    Christian73 was way out in front on the Wisconsin recall elections, forecasting a "landslide" Democrat victory according to "the polls" he consulted. icon_lol.gif
    LMAO.. he was half right and you were half wrong.. get over it. it was a wash in WI.


    It wasn't a wash in WI. Labor hampered Walker's ability to continue implementing his radical, anti-worker agenda. They are now, wisely, husbanding their strength while planning to recall Walker next year. Further, the fight n Wisconsin has made other lunatic fringe governors back off, including in Ohio.
    Oh I know that.. My statement was for our resident 'self loathing gay' wannabe conservative straight bitch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 2:21 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. That old Rassmusen. Getting it wrong since, well, whenever they were founded.


    Except when of course they get it more right than others - which seems to be generally the case.


    Christian73 was way out in front on the Wisconsin recall elections, forecasting a "landslide" Democrat victory according to "the polls" he consulted. icon_lol.gif
    LMAO.. he was half right and you were half wrong.. get over it. it was a wash in WI.


    It wasn't a wash in WI. Labor hampered Walker's ability to continue implementing his radical, anti-worker agenda. They are now, wisely, husbanding their strength while planning to recall Walker next year. Further, the fight n Wisconsin has made other lunatic fringe governors back off, including in Ohio.


    Given how much more money and resources the unions had - this was a massive setback for them. Again your revisionism does you a significant disservice to your credibility - but you seem too intent to cling to failed policies to apparently care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 8:10 AM GMT
    Riddler, re:unions and your label of them as "Failed policies". Failed my ass !!! Unions are exactly what raised factoryworker low survival wages to living wages, Unions took minors from Company owned villages and company stores to living wages.

    Unions are exactly what buitl and made a the sustained middle class from the forties all the way through to Bush's wars and tax cuts putting our country in debt and a crash from deregulation that produced this current unemployment mess we're in. for decades the common factory worker could support a family on just his wages, providing a home and car and an education for his kids, this came about because of UNIONs. They've got their black marks but over all they are what built the middle class. I suppose Riddler you agree with Bachman and would do away with the minimum wage entirely. which is nothing but giving only creedence to the Corps. bottom lines, with no regard to worker considerations. These kinds of policy ideas would take us backwards where workers would no longer have a survivable wage, Then what ? What is the end game here you people are shooting for?

    Men created the corporation to benefit men for the profite they generate for the common good of workers and investors, Corporations didn't create Men for their profit as some expendable commodity. Corps are not people, corps are supposed to be for common good, not for merely self perpetuation through profits only. Unions came about to stop the results of the latter frame of thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 12:20 PM GMT
    realifedad said Riddler, re:unions and your label of them as "Failed policies". Failed my ass !!! Unions are exactly what raised factoryworker low survival wages to living wages, Unions took minors from Company owned villages and company stores to living wages.

    Unions are exactly what buitl and made a the sustained middle class from the forties all the way through to Bush's wars and tax cuts putting our country in debt and a crash from deregulation that produced this current unemployment mess we're in. for decades the common factory worker could support a family on just his wages, providing a home and car and an education for his kids, this came about because of UNIONs. They've got their black marks but over all they are what built the middle class. I suppose Riddler you agree with Bachman and would do away with the minimum wage entirely. which is nothing but giving only creedence to the Corps. bottom lines, with no regard to worker considerations. These kinds of policy ideas would take us backwards where workers would no longer have a survivable wage, Then what ? What is the end game here you people are shooting for?

    Men created the corporation to benefit men for the profite they generate for the common good of workers and investors, Corporations didn't create Men for their profit as some expendable commodity. Corps are not people, corps are supposed to be for common good, not for merely self perpetuation through profits only. Unions came about to stop the results of the latter frame of thought.


    My view of unions: they served their purpose in protecting the rights of workers though were broadly unnecessary. With the rising value of labor - what became scarce wasn't physical resources, it was people. That's why unions find themselves woefully unprepared for the economy that has been emerging - one based on the limits of thought, imagination and innovation. With the transition increasingly to compensation based on merit, this resulted in unions who have clung to failed models denying that any individual's output can be greater than another, to be rejected increasingly by their original supporters.

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity. I should note that it is often business leaders who for instance decry the sad state of the public education system because of the problems in finding qualified candidates for jobs they offer.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. They allow for money to be raised to pursue ideas and markets - which are made up of what society wants and needs.

    I don't have a judgement call on Rick Perry yet. I suspect he would do better economically than Obama and yet, like most politicians, I am wary of what he would actually end up doing given that it's never easy to shrink and devolve power because of entrenched interests. I think I personally like Jon Huntsman better - but let's be realistic here. The problem isn't so much the candidates the GOP has put forth, but rather, this is a problem of Obama's own making. People are rejecting his failed economic policies and over reach. At this rate, so long as it's a warm body, it could win against Obama next year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 1:00 PM GMT
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 1:08 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)


    The reality is that if you look at foreign investment - investments made by corporations in markets, it overwhelmingly accrues to first world countries - which entirely undermines your argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 1:58 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)


    The reality is that if you look at foreign investment - investments made by corporations in markets, it overwhelmingly accrues to first world corporate accounts and shareholders - which entirely makes your argument.
    Fixed your mistakes.. you're welcome!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 2:19 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)


    The reality is that if you look at foreign investment - investments made by corporations in markets, it overwhelmingly accrues to first world corporate accounts and shareholders - which entirely makes your argument.
    Fixed your mistakes.. you're welcome!


    Too bad facts mean nothing to you. Why is it that foreign direct investment is largest in the US if the returns are greatest in the third world - with such low barriers and protections to labor? The fact you are unable to answer this question underscores how silly your argument is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 2:38 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)


    The reality is that if you look at foreign investment - investments made by corporations in markets, it overwhelmingly accrues to first world corporate accounts and shareholders - which entirely makes your argument.
    Fixed your mistakes.. you're welcome!


    Too bad facts mean nothing to you. Why is it that foreign direct investment is largest in the US if the returns are greatest in the third world - with such low barriers and protections to labor? The fact you are unable to answer this question underscores how silly your argument is.
    Too bad facts mean nothing to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 2:46 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    I would do away with minimum wage because as a price floor it creates unemployment often to those who need the basic training and/or reintegration into the workforce the most. It is generally profitable for corporations to worry about the welfare of its workers - in fact, the most profitable firms are often the ones who treat their workers the best and compensate them accordingly. The simple reason is productivity.

    Corporations are groups of people and represent them accordingly. Don't bullshit anyone here, its offensive. Corporations are money machines, nothing more. Yes they represent their shareholders and compensate them to the best of their ability!
    And Riddler just explained why corporations LOVE doing business in third world countries where labor is cheap! Yeah, they LOVE their laborer's welfare and pay them accordingly. (as cheaply as possible, its the bottom line stupid)


    The reality is that if you look at foreign investment - investments made by corporations in markets, it overwhelmingly accrues to first world corporate accounts and shareholders - which entirely makes your argument.
    Fixed your mistakes.. you're welcome!


    Too bad facts mean nothing to you. Why is it that foreign direct investment is largest in the US if the returns are greatest in the third world - with such low barriers and protections to labor? The fact you are unable to answer this question underscores how silly your argument is.
    Too bad facts mean nothing to you.


    At least you're consistent in posts completely devoid of facts and reason. icon_wink.gif . Better luck next time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 4:29 PM GMT
    When someone like riddler says unions were not really necessary, one wants to take him by the hand to the little town of New Waterford, NB and bring him to the monument at the centre of the town which marks where corporation employed "goons" opened fire on men who refused to enter an unsafe mine in the 1930s, killing a boy of 16 and wounding dozens of others before they could get to safety.


    Then we could go over to Glace Bay where you can read the similar plaque there. We will go from town to town and make him read out the names of people shot for refusing to work in unsafe condition until he cries ENOUGH

    And if that does not work we can go to the rest home and he can talk to the children of those strikers - damned their nerve, eh riddler? He can perhaps find a woman there who lost a relative in that and tell her unions were never necessary. But be forewarned - those old ladies from Cape Breton can hit hard from a lifetime of hard scrabble work, and they have nothing to lose by teaching you the error of your perspective.


    Foolish boy, you know nothing of the real world of workers or men.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn saidWhen someone like riddler says unions were not really necessary, one wants to take him by the hand to the little town of New Waterford, NB and bring him to the monument at the centre of the town which marks where corporation employed "goons" opened fire on men who refused to enter an unsafe mine in the 1930s, killing a boy of 16 and wounding dozens of others before they could get to safety.


    Then we could go over to Glace Bay where you can read the similar plaque there. We will go from town to town and make him read out the names of people shot for refusing to work in unsafe condition until he cries ENOUGH

    And if that does not work we can go to the rest home and he can talk to the children of those strikers - damned their nerve, eh riddler? He can perhaps find a woman there who lost a relative in that and tell her unions were never necessary. But be forewarned - those old ladies from Cape Breton can hit hard from a lifetime of hard scrabble work, and they have nothing to lose by teaching you the error of your perspective.


    Foolish boy, you know nothing of the real world of workers or men.




    Do you bother to read? Please re-read what I said - you might actually respond with some relevant points. Foolish boy? I'd say you're a foolish man, but really it has nothing to do with gender. You're just foolish. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn saidWhen someone like riddler says unions were not really necessary, one wants to take him by the hand to the little town of New Waterford, NB and bring him to the monument at the centre of the town which marks where corporation employed "goons" opened fire on men who refused to enter an unsafe mine in the 1930s, killing a boy of 16 and wounding dozens of others before they could get to safety.


    Then we could go over to Glace Bay where you can read the similar plaque there. We will go from town to town and make him read out the names of people shot for refusing to work in unsafe condition until he cries ENOUGH

    And if that does not work we can go to the rest home and he can talk to the children of those strikers - damned their nerve, eh riddler? He can perhaps find a woman there who lost a relative in that and tell her unions were never necessary. But be forewarned - those old ladies from Cape Breton can hit hard from a lifetime of hard scrabble work, and they have nothing to lose by teaching you the error of your perspective.


    Foolish boy, you know nothing of the real world of workers or men.


    Riddler will be an old miserable spinster at death. Most people cannot stand 'knowitalls' and have absolutely no time for them.
    They also very much dislike liars, and IF you were to read his profile, the lies told and proven by his interaction and posting here are rampant.
    Yes, he is a foolish little tike born with a heaping dose of arrogance. I KNOW his Asian parents did NOT raise him that way.

    (btw, riddler, I've spent more time in asia than you have been breathing)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 7:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidRiddler will be an old miserable spinster at death.

    Says the 50 something year old single guy who's already had a heart attack to Riddler who is in a committed relationship. icon_rolleyes.gif
    and you know my relationship status how?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    tazzari saidHmmmm Long time till the elections, very long time in the memory of most voters.

    I refuse to get worked up.






    No need to get worked up.

    The fact that Perry is looking good in the polls is actually great news.
    The stronger that Perry looks in the polls - the more likely it is that he'll get the Repub nomination.

    And Perry would be a very weak Repub nominee.
    Perry's autobiography is chock full of fatally self destructive ammunition that the Dems could use to pummel Perry into a bloody pulp, in the general election.
    http://news.yahoo.com/perry-book-treasure-trove-foes-093000778.html

    Plus, Rasmussen polls are always total bullshit anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 7:56 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidRiddler will be an old miserable spinster at death.

    Says the 50 something year old single guy who's already had a heart attack to Riddler who is in a committed relationship. icon_rolleyes.gif
    and you know my relationship status how?


    Member since: 05/05/10
    Last active: 09/06/11
    Profile updated: 05/05/11
    Direct link: http://www.realjock.com/TropicalMark
    Age: 51
    First location: Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States
    Relationship Status: Single
    Looking for: Friends, Dating or Relationship, Training Buddies


    Unless of course you are lying...


    Really? Riddler is in a relationship? Wow.