wow! A democrat showing some form of common sense

[Udie]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html



 Don't know why but I always liked Ed Coch.  Good introspecive (sp?) into the problems of the democratic party.  Who knows you guys get rid of all the libs and maybe I'd even think about voting for a dem.

[Ripsnort]

2004 is going to be another disappointment for the Democrats too.

[midnight Target]

Just that middle one I'm guessing..


OK Thrawn, this would have made sense if you hadn't deleted your post.

[hardcase]

sure rip, cause the economy is really gonna take off now, you betcha! Saddam isnt going to gas a bunch of kids(you did read where they are looking for more Atrophine..Not for the population being gassed by us but by his using those WMD on our guys to protect his troops.

So, the economy is gonna pick up gangbusters, the war will be won with no loss of life. Remember,  now that Reps have the White House, and both the Senate and House,  then whatever happens, or doesnt happen is gonna lie on the Reps head. Only thing worse than losing can be winning. The next 2 years will define the Reps like no other time. If things go great, they will be back in, if things go badly, they may never be in again.


HC

[blur]

Any Jellyfish….er…Democrat with any backbone would have voted against the use of military force on Iraq.

To kill people now because they may develop weapons and kill people in the future is absurd. Actually it’s insane.

People always whine about how terrible war is and then turn around and start another one!

Since this administration wants war so bad I’m fervently hoping that Saddam tells Shrub to stick his weapons inspectors up his ass.  Then if the Iraqi people have the guts to defend their country we’ll have a good ‘un on our hands. Street-to-street fighting, carpet-bombing kindergartens, body bags piling up…wow this sounds exciting!

[popeye]

Yeah, the Democrats are in for a long dry spell.

I just wish I was in that top 1 percent.  Those guys are really gonna party!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by hardcase
sure rip, cause the economy is really gonna take off now, you betcha! Saddam isnt going to gas a bunch of kids(you did read where they are looking for more Atrophine..Not for the population being gassed by us but by his using those WMD on our guys to protect his troops.

So, the economy is gonna pick up gangbusters, the war will be won with no loss of life. Remember,  now that Reps have the White House, and both the Senate and House,  then whatever happens, or doesnt happen is gonna lie on the Reps head. Only thing worse than losing can be winning. The next 2 years will define the Reps like no other time. If things go great, they will be back in, if things go badly, they may never be in again.


HC

What ever are you talking about Hardcase?  I was speaking from a historical perspective..not knee-jerk emotional like you what I find really funny is how the Dems are saying "Well they better do something NOW because they have control!"  And my answer is "What should they do, should they do what the Dems in the Senate did for the past 2 years?

On the heels of a shocking two-seat loss in lastTuesday's election, Senate
   Democrats looking to win the chamber back in 2004 face decidedly long
   odds.

   Nineteen Democrats are up for re-election compared to 15 Republicans, a
   drastic reversal from 2002, whenRepublicans had to defend 20 seats to
   just 14 for Democrats.

   And, although no Democrat up for re-election retired last cycle, a number
   of Senators are pondering a departure this time. In addition, seven
   Democrats up for re-election in 2004 received 55 percent or less in their
   last race, making them likely targets for Republicans.

   Only three Republicans who are up for re-election this cycle won their
   1998 races with less than 55 percent of the vote.

   Mitch Bainwol, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial
   Committee, said that "2004 looks like a good opportunity to build on the
   new majority."

   Bainwol noted that "our class looks extremely strong and we are going to
   see retirements on their side."

   One Democratic strategist, while admitting 2004 is "another tough cycle,"
   noted that there are "more genuine pickup opportunities in more
   Democratic states than 2002."

   President Bush carried 22 states that will hostSenate elections in 2004,
   while Al Gore won 12.

   Open seats will be the central focus of both senatorial campaign
   committees, as Democrats seek to keep their retirements to a minimum in
   order to preserve their chances of winning back the majority.

   Leading the list of possible retirees is Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who will
   be 82 years old on Election Day 2004 and will lose the chairmanship of the
   Commerce Committee when the 108th Congress convenes.

   Hollings broached the possibility that he might bow out Thursday in a
   South Carolina newspaper.

   "I'm not announcing yet; I'm thinking about it. I have a year or so to
   make up my mind," he said.

   Regardless of what Hollings does, a number of Republicans are waiting in
   the wings to run for the seat, bolstered bytheir party's strong showing at
   the ballot box last Tuesday. The GOP won the openSenate seat of retiring
   Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) and knocked off Gov. JimHodges (D).

   Leading the list of Republican aspirants is Rep. Joe Wilson, who won a
   special election last December to replace deceased Rep. Floyd Spence (R)
   in the 2nd district.

   "Many people have approached the Congressman within the party
   organization" about the Senate race, said Wilson spokesman Wesley
   Denton. "They believe he would be the strongest candidate."

   "It is too early to make a decision," Denton added, "but he is absolutely
   going to listen."

   Wilson was a longtime protege of Spence, organizing the late
   Congressman's first Congressional campaign in 1970.

   An attorney by trade, Wilson was elected to the South Carolina state
   Senate in 1984, where he served until he was elected to replace Spence.

   Wilson faced little competition in the Republican primary or the general
   election to replace Spence.

   Wilson had $51,000 in his campaign coffers throughOct. 16 but raised $1.3
   million in the 2002 cycle. He faced only minor party opposition in
   Tuesday's election.

   If he runs for Senate, Wilson could face primary competition from within
   the South Carolina Congressional delegation, however, as Rep.JimDeMint
   (R) has also expressed an interest in a Senate bid.

   "Jim would welcome the chance to run," said spokesman Dan Lara. "He
   would run a campaign based on issues and ideas."

   DeMint, who was elected to the UpCountry 4th district in 1998, pledged to
   serve only three House terms, which would put him out of office after the
   2004 election.

   Other names being mentioned for the GOP nomination are former state
   Attorney GeneralCharlie Condon, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in
   2000, former Gov.David Beasley and former Rep.Tommy Hartnett.

   If Hollings does retire, the Democratic bench is sparse.

   Names being mentioned include 2000 Senate nominee Alex Sanders,
   Columbia Mayor Bob Coble and state Sen. Luke Rankin. [/i]
http://www.rollcall.com/pages/politics/00/2002/11/pol1111b.html

[Eagler]

Originally posted by blur
To kill people now because they may develop weapons and kill people in the future is absurd. Actually it’s insane.

do you treat your house for termites as you build it or after you move in and lose a wall?

today you cannot afford to wait until "after"

all we want is the goon in Iraq to follow the rules he agreed to  10 years ago and never did

we now have the leadership to make him or kill him or both

Today, the course of this is in saddams hands- no one else-
tomorrow er Friday - this will not be the case

[GRUNHERZ]

A little known variant of a famous statement:

"Why risk killing a few people now when if we a just a lil bit patient we can risk the death of a many people later."  

The more famous short version.

"Peace in our times!"

[easymo]

The logic is odd.  "He may get the bomb."

  We HAVE the bomb.  Not only that; we INVENTED it.  And we are the only nation on earth to use it to kill women and children.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by easymo
The logic is odd.  "He may get the bomb."

  We HAVE the bomb.  Not only that; we INVENTED it.  And we are the only nation on earth to use it to kill women and children.

Actually, is "He WILL use the bomb"...thats the logic here.  And, the women and children were collateral to the war itself, in Saddams case, this would be the specific target.

[easymo]

Rip.  I simply have no reason to belive that.  When I was a boy there where more than a few people around that wanted to bomb the Russians.  Where do you think the phrase "preemptive strike" came from.  The only reason they didn't, was that the Russians had a bomb also.

[Ripsnort]

Lighting up oil wells in order to create (what he thought would create) a "winter" effect on the globe was not enough to convince you? Along with the speech made shortly after that this was his intentions, to make the world pay?  Gassing your own civvy's was not enough?

[midnight Target]

I wonder if Saddam is sitting there saying....

"But we must attack the USA! Look! They already used the bomb once, they are sure to do it again!"

while GWB is saying...

"But he already used WMD against his own people and against Iran! He is sure to do it again!"


Go read the history of the real cause of WW1. It all comes down to misjudging the resolve of the other guy.

[easymo]

This isn't about us.  Its about the Jews, at least that is the target he use's to draw support.  He would have to deliver the thing. Israel is the closest, and most probable target. Thanks to them ignoring UN resolutions, they already have the bomb.  These two would be in much the same boat as us and the Russians back in the cold war.