Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on November 03, 2006, 03:12:46 PM
-
Projected New Senate: 49 Democrats 49 Republicans 2 ties
Projected New House: 241 Democrats 193 Republicans 1 Tie
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
-
All those polls lean heavily democratic. I haven't figured out why yet.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
All those polls lean heavily democratic. I haven't figured out why yet.
Really? Or are you being facetious?
The reason polls lean heavily to the Democrats is that Democrats (which 90% of reporters are) believe that the great unwashed are so easily led that they will automatically vote for whomever they think is going to win.
(they're probably right too...)
-
Polls? Leaning Democrat? How Absurd!
Got a call from a Pollster, looking for my wife, she registers Democrat. I said She wasn't home, but I'll answer.
"Umm..is this MR. ROC?"
Yes I say
No Thanks they say.
I, on the other hand, am registered Republican :rofl
Must not have wanted to hear my view.
-
Dems will get 3, maybe 4 Senate seats (Ohio, PA, NJ......mebbe MD). so Gop will retain control there
And 14 to 18 House seats, whch will gives us Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and Alcee Hastings running our government, which oughta give us no end of yucks for the next 2 years:aok
-
In the event the Democrats do not dominate this election, the cries of voter fraud and stolen elections will be deafening. And I'm not yet convinced that the election is going to go the way the Democrats want and expect it to. If you look at history, they should have won back control at least in the last election. In near every case in the last hundred years, the party of the President has consistently lost seats in every mid term election, with only a few exceptions. The Democrats have been way behind the curve since Bush was elected. They'd have to double what the best predictions are for their gains just to catch up. And if they don't, they'll swear things are fixed. Bet on it.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Dems will get 3, maybe 4 Senate seats (Ohio, PA, NJ......mebbe MD). so Gop will retain control there
And 14 to 18 House seats, whch will gives us Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and Alcee Hastings running our government, which oughta give us no end of yucks for the next 2 years:aok
Here is what you get with Nancy Pelosi (This is how she's voted on issues in the past)
-voted to uphold partial-birth abortion
-voted against parental notification when minor children seek abortion
-has shown no concern for the rights of the innocent unborn, yet consistently opposed the death penalty.
- voted against welfare reform, including the 1996 bill signed by President Clinton and its re-authorization.
-opposes a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer in the classroom.
-opposes allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property, including schools.
-voted against education IRAs.
-opposed a $10 million program for school vouchers in the District of Columbia.
-voted against the 10-year $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug bill because she preferred one that was twice as expensive.
-voted for tax increases and opposed tax cuts
-opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-lead the opposition in 2000 against then-President Clinton's successful effort to establish permanent normal trade relations with China.
-opposed giving Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush trade-promotion authority
-voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
-voted to end Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba.
-voted to reduce funds for the B-2 intercontinental bomber, which performed superbly in the 1999 Kosovo War, in 2001 in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
-opposed anti-missile defense, even as a nuclear-armed North Korea has tested ballistic missiles.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Dems will get 3, maybe 4 Senate seats (Ohio, PA, NJ......mebbe MD). so Gop will retain control there
And 14 to 18 House seats, whch will gives us Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and Alcee Hastings running our government, which oughta give us no end of yucks for the next 2 years:aok
that would be alcee hastings an impeached judge who was caught red handed accepting bribes, who is re-elected by the largest concentration of sociopaths in the state of florida will be the head of the important select commitee on intelligence and serve on the terrorism and homeland security commitee. I will wager you that we will pay in blood if this person is ever to hold such power.
read about this gem it's amazing he gets re-elected even in the his predominantly black district. if ever there was a need for gerrymandering.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
In the event the Democrats do not dominate this election, the cries of voter fraud and stolen elections will be deafening. And I'm not yet convinced that the election is going to go the way the Democrats want and expect it to. If you look at history, they should have won back control at least in the last election. In near every case in the last hundred years, the party of the President has consistently lost seats in every mid term election, with only a few exceptions. The Democrats have been way behind the curve since Bush was elected. They'd have to double what the best predictions are for their gains just to catch up. And if they don't, they'll swear things are fixed. Bet on it.
Big time SHACK!!!!
-
electoral-vote.com was pretty far off in the last presidential election... He's trying to be unbiased (sort of) but if you look at his newsy stuff he pretty much focuses on dem gains and repub losses. But he does try to report the polls pretty much straight.
Still, the polls aren't always right, or even very close. Even without the voting ballot issues, he projected a solid loss for Pres Bush in 2004 and missed the mark by about 60 electoral votes IIRC.
-
The Univeristy of Iowa has been running a project for a long time that attempts to use market forces (wagering) to predict election results.
They're very accurate, but the ammount of participation is low, so the data is noisy.
iirc they do about half a $million on presidential elections & a quarter on mid-terms
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/data_congress06.html
[SIZE=8]NO VIGGORISH[/SIZE] fu vegas:D :D :cool: :cool: :cool:
-
So as long as the democrats remain the party of "reward the mediocre, and sub par performance, and penalize the average-above average workers", they will never get a vote for me...
If all these at the mininum, 200 grand a year dems support the poor so much, and are so anti wealth, why arnt they giving all their money to charity? hypocrits
-
Originally posted by storch
that would be alcee hastings an impeached judge who was caught red handed accepting bribes, who is re-elected by the largest concentration of sociopaths in the state of florida will be the head of the important select commitee on intelligence and serve on the terrorism and homeland security commitee. I will wager you that we will pay in blood if this person is ever to hold such power.
read about this gem it's amazing he gets re-elected even in the his predominantly black district. if ever there was a need for gerrymandering.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
I lived in Tampa at the time he was impeached...it was a GIVEN that he was going to prison, now he stands to become one of the most important people in the country
Btw, Jane Harmon from CA, a very level-headed lady, SHOULD become chairman of Armed Services Committee, but she wasn't leftist enough for Pelosi, and thus has been tossed overboard. Which brings to mind guys like Harold Ford, senate candidate from TN-- "Christian, Pro gun, Pro life" He MAY get elected, but HOW THE F will he get ANY power within the Democratic party to do something for his state with an outlook like that? He is more rightist than Joe Lieberman, who was thrown out. (Unless, of course, Harold is lying his arse off to get elected, and will instantly propose a " Gays in the military" type thing as soon as elected)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Which brings to mind guys like Harold Ford, senate candidate from TN-- "Christian, Pro gun, Pro life" He MAY get elected, but HOW THE F will he get ANY power within the Democratic party to do something for his state with an outlook like that? He is more rightist than Joe Lieberman, who was thrown out. (Unless, of course, Harold is lying his arse off to get elected, and will instantly propose a " Gays in the military" type thing as soon as elected)
Harold Ford Jr is the newest son of one of the sleaziest slimiest families in politics. Either his father or his uncle (I can't remember) was once arrested for driving 100MPH down Interstate 40 and shooting at trucks through the moonroof of his Lincoln. Several of the Fords have been busted for various form of corruption, inlcuding the recent Tennessee Waltz sting which nailed one of them. When that one stepped down, there was an election to replace him. His sister or aunt ran and won by 13 votes, of which about 8 or 10 were cast by dead people, and another 1/2 dozen or so were cast by people who were ineligible to vote for one reason or another. When the state legislature voted to declare the election invalid on the grounds of voter fraud, she sued and had a federal judge bring an injunction.
Bob Corker is NOT who I would have chosen, but Ford is no choice at all. There were a couple of good candidates, but the Republican party supported Corker over them, so we have Corker who I don't really trust, and don't much care for. But he's better than Ford, who as my dear old Dad used to say before he left this ****ty world, "I wouldn't trust in an outhouse with a muzzle on him".
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
All those polls lean heavily democratic. I haven't figured out why yet.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Nash
:rofl
welome back Nash!
Nuke
-
It never seems to register to Dems that polls and the press are not elections. The amount of positive press for Democrats smells of wishful thinking. The press has done a lousy job predicting elections and since they're so strongly pro Dem I'd almost discount the large gain simply on the press' track record. Remember all the down-cast faces on TV during the 2004 election? The win most of the press predicted would be Kerry's? Everyone remember the press predicting a landslide Republican victory right before they took over? No, I don't either. Again, nothing but stunned looks and "how could that have happened? The polls and our own press coverage said it couldn't happen?"
Why are the polls unreliable? This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41186-2004Jan23?language=printer) particular article was from 2004 and was discussing primarily the New Hampsire primary but check out the details where they discuss overall pollster reliability, particularly this quote:
"The svengalis at ABC News and some major papers don't like Zogby's tracking," reported The Note, the widely read ABC News online politics briefing . Then they quote an anonymous "ABC guru" who called Zogby's tracking polls "crack for the weak."
Or this:
"Zogby is not a reputable pollster," said Warren Mitofsky, who is co-directing the media exit polls this year for the major television networks and the Associated Press. "He is more a salesman and a self-promoter than a pollster. He has made lots of mistakes on election outcomes -- five in 2002. . . . I have heard of volatile campaigns, but he has volatile polls." (Zogby acknowledged on his Web site last February that "this past election cycle was not my finest hour.")
Or this:
The New Hampshire-based American Research Group's tracking poll ended up buried deepest in the snow bank: They had Bush winning by two the day before the primary, merely 20 points off the mark. On the Democratic side, the losing pollster at least got the winner right: The Quinnipiac poll predicted Gore would win by 17 percentage points, but he actually won by four.
If anyone still wants to jump overboard based on polls here's (http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/1/mooney-c.html) another interesting article about Zogby with a lot of info about polls in general:
In a recent New York Times Magazine cover story about animal rights, journalist Michael Pollan reported that 51 percent of Americans believe that "primates are entitled to the same rights as human children." It was a surprising finding, but one that Pollan simply attributed to a "recent Zogby Poll." When Pollan's article came out, you can only imagine the celebration at the Doris Day Animal League, a group dedicated to establishing legal rights for chimpanzees. The league's role in commissioning the survey went entirely unmentioned in the Times story. By hiring the renowned pollster John Zogby, the group had essentially purchased an objective fact, one that entered into the conventional wisdom via the nation's leading Sunday magazine.
I think I'll wait until after the election to see what the voters have to say,
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Projected New Senate: 49 Democrats 49 Republicans 2 ties
Projected New House: 241 Democrats 193 Republicans 1 Tie
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
The idiot liar crime family will be taking over for the pervert crime family, how exciting...
-
polls lean left as they are done in the middle of the day when republicans are at work and dems are home watching Ophra or J springer ...
my guess is that they do not gain the majority of the house or the senate and we have recounts through Christmas ...
-
Originally posted by cav58d
"reward the mediocre, and sub par performance, and penalize the average-above average workers",
Like enron? Or any corporate welfare case? I am more in debt and raises have been microscopic. Any tax cut has been offset by higher costs everywhere else. There is no party for the working class anymore, we are getting sqeezed more and more.
Take the race for governor here in ma. I mean, who wouldn't vote for Healey? She won't raise taxes and she won't give illegals a license or pay for their education. So why is she so far behind Patrick, who will do all these things and has not denied it?
Because she is so out of touch with the working class it isn't funny. She calls union people hacks, that was brilliant, throw the peasants under the bus. She campaigns in well to do suburbs and thinks that's the only people who vote. I got news for her, the majority of voters are from working families who don't have 7.8 million to put into their own election campaign. They are workers(and alot of them union) who want someone who is going to recognize them, not call them hacks. What, you make $20.00 dollars an hour and you're a hack? But if your husband is making millions off your political connections your not?
All she had to do was reach out to the working class and she would have crushed Patrick, but she's a millionaire, why should she care about them?
Oh, and speaking of hacks, she collected more from state employees for her campaign than Patrick did, I guess her hacks need to keep their jobs.
So now we get Patrick, just great, just freaking great
-
The site posted above is an un-biased source. Most people here think anything but Faux News (TM) is a biased source.
-
This 2006 election is
1. anti-Republican
2. anti-incumbent
3. or both
we'll see what happens on Tuesday:aok
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Like enron? Or any corporate welfare case? I am more in debt and raises have been microscopic. Any tax cut has been offset by higher costs everywhere else. There is no party for the working class anymore, we are getting sqeezed more and more.
Take the race for governor here in ma. I mean, who wouldn't vote for Healey? She won't raise taxes and she won't give illegals a license or pay for their education. So why is she so far behind Patrick, who will do all these things and has not denied it?
Because she is so out of touch with the working class it isn't funny. She calls union people hacks, that was brilliant, throw the peasants under the bus. She campaigns in well to do suburbs and thinks that's the only people who vote. I got news for her, the majority of voters are from working families who don't have 7.8 million to put into their own election campaign. They are workers(and alot of them union) who want someone who is going to recognize them, not call them hacks. What, you make $20.00 dollars an hour and you're a hack? But if your husband is making millions off your political connections your not?
All she had to do was reach out to the working class and she would have crushed Patrick, but she's a millionaire, why should she care about them?
Oh, and speaking of hacks, she collected more from state employees for her campaign than Patrick did, I guess her hacks need to keep their jobs.
So now we get Patrick, just great, just freaking great
What does Enron have to do with Republicans? Ahhhh, nothing at all. You dont like millionaire politicians? Then vote Republican because there are far, far more millionaire Dem politicians than Republicans.
Inflation is small (avg 3.6 for this year) and that's including the price of gas (which BTW is still dropping). We will always have inflation whether the economy is booming (as it is) or not. You'd think inflation of 0% would be great, wrong. That's a sign the economy is a bust.
You may feel squeezed but then so do lots even during the best economies and the national economy is doing very well despite the left's propaganda. Regions and various industries will vary in their economic prospects, that's a fact of life, regardless of which party is in power. I'd suggest that if your raises are miniscule that you find another job. You a union guy? Why not complain to them? Why do you think it's the government's job to do something about your raises?
Finally, why not knock off this "working class" crap, as if nobody but you actually works.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
What does Enron have to do with Republicans? Ahhhh, nothing at all. You dont like millionaire politicians? Then vote Republican because there are far, far more millionaire Dem politicians than Republicans.
Inflation is small (avg 3.6 for this year) and that's including the price of gas (which BTW is still dropping). We will always have inflation whether the economy is booming (as it is) or not. You'd think inflation of 0% would be great, wrong. That's a sign the economy is a bust.
You may feel squeezed but then so do lots even during the best economies and the national economy is doing very well despite the left's propaganda. Regions and various industries will vary in their economic prospects, that's a fact of life, regardless of which party is in power. I'd suggest that if your raises are miniscule that you find another job. You a union guy? Why not complain to them? Why do you think it's the government's job to do something about your raises?
Finally, why not knock off this "working class" crap, as if nobody but you actually works.
very well worded argument Mace.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
What does Enron have to do with Republicans? Ahhhh, nothing at all. You dont like millionaire politicians? Then vote Republican because there are far, far more millionaire Dem politicians than Republicans.
Inflation is small (avg 3.6 for this year) and that's including the price of gas (which BTW is still dropping). We will always have inflation whether the economy is booming (as it is) or not. You'd think inflation of 0% would be great, wrong. That's a sign the economy is a bust.
You may feel squeezed but then so do lots even during the best economies and the national economy is doing very well despite the left's propaganda. Regions and various industries will vary in their economic prospects, that's a fact of life, regardless of which party is in power. I'd suggest that if your raises are miniscule that you find another job. You a union guy? Why not complain to them? Why do you think it's the government's job to do something about your raises?
Finally, why not knock off this "working class" crap, as if nobody but you actually works.
Why attack me? I'm voting for Healey, perhaps you misunderstand, but attack as you will. And yes, of course we all work, but alot more of us work for under 100k than over it, and if you don't reach out to those voters, how can you win? The government's job to give me raises? Wow, nice spin, no, but it isn't the governments job to strip unions of any bargaining power they have either.
btw, our last cola(cost of living adjustment) was thirty nine cents an hour, the largest in about 20 years
-
I apologize Sixpence if I misread your post, I didn't mean any personal insults to you. I was instead trying to attack the myths that we constantly hear from various interest groups and the press. You know, those that portray Enron as a Republican conspiricy or that the economy is bad when it's really doing exceptionally well. Even more to the point, and that the political parties are responsible to specific classes of citizens, i.e., the "working class" or minorities, rather than all of us. I guess it might have been better to simply point out that it's a mistake to believe the government (feds in particular, but also state) is there to deal with the problems of individuals or specific groups. It's not designed for that and, quite frankly, it's horribly inefficient and incompetent when it tries to do so. In actuality, the best thing government can do is the least possible.
-
I sure believe the polls, they are never wrong. But, ahhh, didnt the polls assure us Kerry was going to win the presidential election in 04?
Nothing is assured in the upcoming election, and from recent experience demos shouldnt count their chickens (seats) before they hatch.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Even more to the point, and that the political parties are responsible to specific classes of citizens, i.e., the "working class" or minorities, rather than all of us.
Well, if you draft legislation designed for a specific class of people, then you directly effect them. If you tell the corporate world they can spend what they want on lobbying, then tell labor they can't, you effect a class of people.
-
six... How do the republicans do that? I thought all they wanted to do was allow the union members to act as individuals if they chose? that these individuals could tell the union to stop wasting the money they gave them on political parties that were not of their choice?
lazs
-
Thing that cracks me up here. I dont know about the rest of the country but we have two clowns here running against one another.
The only thing sputtered out of their mouths was how bad the other guy is.
Honestly, havent got a clue what either of them stand for cause neither of them have said.
Other then to say how bad the other guy is.
Now there is something to vote on:rolleyes:
-
For all you conservatives that believe the polls and have been a bit down in the mouth here's a bit of news:
..... A Pew Research Center poll showed a significant narrowing in the partisan advantage in House races that the Democrats have enjoyed for much of the year, findings that echoed those of a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Saturday....
.....The poll found a drop in Democratic support among independents, but Pew Director Andrew Kohut said the most significant change over the past two weeks is that Republicans now outnumber Democrats among likely voters.
.....A Washington Post-ABC News poll found a similar tightening......Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Center, said the poll nonetheless found that Republicans were becoming more enthusiastic as Election Day approached, a sign that the party was making progress in addressing one of its main problems this year: a dispirited base.
....A series of Mason-Dixon polls published on Sunday suggested a tightening in two Senate races, Rhode Island and Maryland, that Democrats had been confident of winning.
.....Democrats, mindful of the Republicans' success in getting their voters to the polls in the past two elections, expressed nervousness at signs of tightening in some national polls.
....Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democrat leading his party’s effort to win control of the House, said, “It’s inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end.”...."I don't know what to make of it,".....“This is making me nervous.”
Two minute drill, go team go!
-
polls are crap
If you have worked in marketing research at all, you'd realize this.
they can be slanted to produce the results someone wants to see
"a dispirited base" - who exactly is this? what is the alternative, vote dumbarsecrat? not vote at all and put a dumbacrat in office? Don't think so - I think the dems will be crying foul by 22:00 tomorrow when their victories never materialize ...
-
If democrats take over it would give Bush the credit for lowering the deficit :p
-
Indeed, the gap is now narrowing...The Republican's just have a stronger base then the Democrats, and they have all woken up...I think most people are sick and tired of the democrats pointing fingers, and simply running on the fact that they arnt George Bush...
Tomorrow is definately going to be a late night, and when dems dont win some of the seats they hoped for, I can gurantee you they will cry DIEBOLD!....
Anyways....Republicans- If you have any free time today, please call up the campaign and help GOTV.....
Democrats- Don't forget the election is Wednesday and polls open at 7am....
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
.....The poll found a drop in Democratic support among independents,
Few days ago I saw another report that I wanted to post here But didnt as I was in a rush when I saw it.
That there is a significant rise among voters registering as independants.
Looks like more and more people are getting sick of these two parties
About 17 percent of voters registered for next week's election eschew major-party identification, according to a study released Thursday by American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
KFWB NEWS (http://www.kfwb.com/pages/119582.php?contentType=4&contentId=234937)
Here is the source they are using
http://spa.american.edu/spafiles/File/news/csae20071102.pdf (http://spa.american.edu/spafiles/File/news/csae20071102.pdf)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
polls are crap
If you have worked in marketing research at all, you'd realize this.
they can be slanted to produce the results someone wants to see
"a dispirited base" - who exactly is this? what is the alternative, vote dumbarsecrat? not vote at all and put a dumbacrat in office? Don't think so - I think the dems will be crying foul by 22:00 tomorrow when their victories never materialize ...
LOL, OK Eagler, I'm going to call the 2-minute rule. You have to spend at least 2 minutes perusing previous posts before posting yourself. ;) You would have found I also believe polls are crap, particularly when used by the press to pre-establish the winners of elections in an attempt to influence voter turnout. I was simply trying to "buck-up" those that seriously believed the pro-dem hype. I do agree that when things don't turn out as predicted the Dems will be hysterical...just like after 2004...and 2000.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
All those polls lean heavily democratic. I haven't figured out why yet.
Heh. Keep working on it. ;)
-
News reports today stated that in the most recent polls the preference of potential voters for democratic candidates has shrunk from a 14 point lead to a 6 point lead in just two weeks.
This indicates that the gains so gleefully anticipated by the democrats may not be as substantial as they'd wish. Every second term president has seen some loss of support by his own party in mid-term elections.
The gains may be so meager that any claims of a voter mandate will be rendered null and void.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
If democrats take over it would give Bush the credit for lowering the deficit :p
Ahem:
Federal Budget Deficit Falls to Lowest Point in Four Years
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 11, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - The federal deficit for the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 dropped to just under $248 billion, its lowest level since 2002. While President Bush hailed the development as "a dramatic reduction" in government red ink, Democrats responded that the total is "one of the largest in our nation's history."
According to a report released by the Bush administration on Wednesday, the 2006 fiscal year deficit was $71 billion or 22.3 percent less than last year and lower than just three months ago, when the president noted that deficit reduction was a year ahead of schedule.
Both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office credit the improved totals to increased federal receipts. During 2006, revenues grew by 12 percent to reduce the deficit to its smallest amount in four years, when its $159 billion shortfall ended a four-year run of budget surpluses.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061011e.html
Not bad, considering a recession started in 2001, then 9/11, then then the war, then Katrina
-
I find it amusing that the pollsters claim there is a change with Republicans gaining points. The "change" is either due to inaccuracy in their polling methods or dishonesty with intent to manipulate the elections imo.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ahem:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061011e.html
Not bad, considering a recession started in 2001, then 9/11, then then the war, then Katrina
and it will go much lower thats IF the democrats take power
-
Originally posted by 1K3
and it will go much lower thats IF the democrats take power
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six... How do the republicans do that? I thought all they wanted to do was allow the union members to act as individuals if they chose? that these individuals could tell the union to stop wasting the money they gave them on political parties that were not of their choice?
lazs
It's a democracy Lazs, you vote, that's how it works. The minority can't tell the majority what to do and how to do it. It's why you elect who you do. If you and a majority wanted to elect someone who would put his/her resources towards fighting to keep guns, would you want a minority to tell him/her to put those resources to other things? Of course not, the majority of you voted otherwise and expect that to get done. You elect union members.
We, as a union, spend big money on arbitration, to fight for our cola, our sick time, our health care, etc. And we back politicians that help our cause, so why would we listen to a few in the minority who don't want us to back a politician because of his/her views on abortion? That's pretty stupid, don't you think? I am sure you could care less about a politician's view on abortion as long as he shared your view on guns.
And if those union members feel that strongly, they can always pull their union dues and send the check elsewhere, it's that simple. And in Ma., you have to represent a non-union employee, it's the law or the union can get sued.
No one puts a gun to your head to join a union, I have yet to see anyone fight to leave a union, I see many trying to get in though.
Well, I have to take a nap, going to support Healey tomorrow(even though she is not strong for unions, the union is still letting me vote for her, imagine that!) so I hope those polls are wrong.
-
It is possible that at one time the poll takers were honest and maybe even ethical.
I stopped paying attention to polls back in the mid 90s.
I got called several times to participate in polls.
Realized from the questions asked that many polls were slanted toward what the people paying for the poll wanted as an answer.
I stopped being part of polls, and giving any credence to the same, at that point.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
and it will go much lower thats IF the democrats take power
Ok I'll bite...WHEN has there been a history of the Democrats being fiscally responsible? And don't say in the 90's--- the projections up through 2000 showed 200 million dollar deficits until Newt came in in '94
Oh yah: we need an AH poll for HOW MANY lawsuits are gonna be filed today alleging fraud, voter intimidation, etc. ---I'm saying......9
-
(http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Statshot-Whos-Polling-R.jpg)
-
Just as expected
DEMs win the HOUSE?!?!?!
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061107/STG_MEGA_Pelosi_858p.jpg)
:aok :aok :aok
-
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_ford_061107_sp.jpg
This is absurd - but so very typical of a Demo-Repub
-
Well as predicted in the original post.
As of this time.
Dems have indeed wont he house. And the senate is close.
Personally I think this is good for the country as a whole.
Im not sure I would like to see the Dems in control of both though.
As they stands now this is going to force by neccessity a move to the middle which is right where I like it
-
To not anyone in particular....
(http://www.imagechef.com/ic/imgout/pur00ea44b894adda45.jpg)
Because:
Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections
Resounding Victories In All States, Counties, Cities, Towns
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45
WASHINGTON, DC—After months of aggressive campaigning and with nearly 99 percent of ballots counted, politicians were the big winners in Tuesday's midterm election, taking all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, retaining a majority with 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate, and pushing political candidates to victory in each of the 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs.
"It's a good night to be a politician," said Todd Akin, an officeholder from Missouri. "The American people have spoken, and they have unanimously declared: 'We want elected officials to lead this nation.'"
Already confident they would have an easy time in the Midwest, a region long known for electing politicians, as well as with poll-going Americans in the deep South, politicians also picked up seats in each additional area of the country.
"We expected politicians to take Washington, Indiana, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, North Dakota, Mississippi, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, California, Iowa, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin, and Arkansas," said Georgetown University political science professor Barbara Steward. "But the fact that voters in the urban areas of Rhode Island and the farmlands of West Virginia, along with every other state, all put politicians into office is quite extraordinary."
"Even in the most hotly contested local races that went down to the wire, politicians still came out on top every time," she added.
This year's results are the most unanimous since the last election two years ago, in which politicians enjoyed widespread victories unrivaled since the election before that, and the one in 2000.
Politicians managed to appeal to all economic and ethnic backgrounds, genders, and age groups, enjoying equal success among both liberal voters and conservatives.
Issues advanced by politicians dominated not only the Senate and House races, but also all state, district council, county, and town-board elections.
"It looks like politicians are poised to dominate the political discourse of the country for years to come," said analyst Maria Lawson of the Free Enterprise Institute, who as long ago as December of 2004 had picked congressmen to once again take over the House of Representatives. "This should allow them to pursue their own political agendas almost unimpeded, sign even more bills into law, and appoint fellow politicians to committee chairmanships, special interest commissions, and other posts of power."
Added Lawson: "While it's still too early to tell, after the success of this election, it might not be too long before we see another politician in the White House."
Despite fears that the dozens of campaign-finance violations, soft-money misappropriations, infidelity charges, hidden drunk-driving records, and protracted congressional cover-ups leaked just days before the election would hurt their chances, politicians were still elected over non-politicians in every single race.
"The fact that not a single non-politician even ran for office is just further proof that the American people tend to vote for politicians during times of war," Steward said. "Past data also suggests that the American people tend to vote for politicians during times of peace, as well as, generally speaking, every two years."
Some voters, however, such as Arkansas native Patrick Bunter, who first voted for a politician—Harry Truman—in 1944, are calling this latest victory "politics as usual."
"Over the years, I grew disappointed with the job the politicians were doing, yet I kept on voting for them out of loyalty," Bunter said. "This time around, I swore I'd go with someone else, but frankly, looking at the ballot, I didn't see any other choice."
-
The Dems didn't win it... the repubs lost it
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm not yet convinced that the election is going to go the way the Democrats want and expect it to.
Convinced yet?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Convinced yet?
No. The Democrats expected to easily gain at least three more seats in the Senate, and they didn't. They expected to easily gain about 10 more seats in the House, and they didn't. They didn't come close to making up their deficit in comparison to the historical averages either. The sitting President normally loses a lot more mid terms, and a two term President usually does even worse. Figuring a scandal like Foley and a war like Iraq, with low approval ratings, the Democrats should have done far better. Given all the factors in their favor, the Democrats should have gotten the sweep they expected. They've failed to come close in all three "mid term" elections. The Democrats didn't do well as much as the Republicans did poorly. It remains to be seen if the Republicans learned the lesson. Sadly, the Democrats will think they won, and will continue to do what they have been doing. It will come back to bite them.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
The Dems didn't win it... the repubs lost it
To be more precise.
Bush lost it
-
Those who feel that the United States needed a change in leadership may have had a point...
Unfortunately these days it actually seems when casting your ballots you are not actually voting for the best person for the job you are voting for the "lessor of two evils"...
In the times we find ourselves in I personally am not so sure the American People actually knew WHAT, not nescessarily who, they were voting for...
The thing that concerns me about this election is WHERE are these people going to take this country and what is their agenda... I dont know, as most of this election was about mudslinging and not issues, and the platform they provided was the "we all hate George Bush" mantra..
Just to give anyone who cares to read a bit ive provided you with the following information:
Look Up "House Progressive Caucus" they are the "progressive people" among the members of the house. Find their party affiliation... Pay attention to who is notably absent from the list... Such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton... The interresting thing is they were not always absent as they were members of this organization prior to the information being obtained as to what the "House Porgressive Caucus" really was...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29612
Read this article and if that is not enough information go here:
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
of course you would not hear any of this information from ABC CBS or NBC because they have their own transparent political agendas and have obtained the results they wanted..
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No. The Democrats expected to easily gain at least three more seats in the Senate, and they didn't. They expected to easily gain about 10 more seats in the House, and they didn't. They didn't come close to making up their deficit in comparison to the historical averages either. The sitting President normally loses a lot more mid terms, and a two term President usually does even worse. Figuring a scandal like Foley and a war like Iraq, with low approval ratings, the Democrats should have done far better. Given all the factors in their favor, the Democrats should have gotten the sweep they expected. They've failed to come close in all three "mid term" elections. The Democrats didn't do well as much as the Republicans did poorly. It remains to be seen if the Republicans learned the lesson. Sadly, the Democrats will think they won, and will continue to do what they have been doing. It will come back to bite them.
I remember a time when Bush thought his few % point margin win gave him a "mandate" :lol
Looks like Dems aren't the only ones that need to learn this lesson ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
To be more precise.
Bush lost it
In all fairness, it's not JUST Bush. The Senate and House for example spent the money, or more to the point, wasted it. Bush failed to veto it. The Senate and Bush both screwed the pooch on immigration, an the House actually paid the price. Bush had nothing to do with Foley. The sagging approval ratings for Bush didn't help much though.
The truth is, it's as much about pure partisan politics as it is anything. The economy is doing pretty well, and has been. There have been no more successful attempts at terrorism here (probably hurt as much as helped). The war is not going that badly, it's just not going as well and as easy as people would like. It's a well known fact the general public has little tolerance for war in general, and no patience for lack of quick progress. The fact that any note of progress rarely makes the front page, and if it does it falls quickly, but any setback of any sort is front page news for months does not help.
The bitterness of the left over the two previous elections feeds enough hatred that there is little if any chance of true bi-partisan co-operation. Eventually, pure hatred is bound to cause the general public to question even progress, much less the lack of it.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I remember a time when Bush thought his few % point margin win gave him a "mandate" :lol
Looks like Dems aren't the only ones that need to learn this lesson ;)
If you remember, Bush beat the Vice President of a popular incumbent with high approval ratings. There's a big difference there. Gore should have won that race handily, and he didn't. As popular as Gore and Clinton were supposed to be, and as much as the media fronted for them, Bush should never have had a chance.
There's no doubt, the Republicans need to learn several lessons. The question is, will they. The next question is the Democrats did not win on the issues, they won on a platform of "we're not them". So what are they going to do? A large number of the Democrats who won are actually far more moderate than Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, and Kennedy. So how far will they go towards the left? It will be interesting to see how far the ACTUAL shift to the left is.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you remember, Bush beat the Vice President of a popular incumbent with high approval ratings. There's a big difference there. Gore should have won that race handily, and he didn't. As popular as Gore and Clinton were supposed to be, and as much as the media fronted for them, Bush should never have had a chance.
There's no doubt, the Republicans need to learn several lessons. The question is, will they. The next question is the Democrats did not win on the issues, they won on a platform of "we're not them". So what are they going to do? A large number of the Democrats who won are actually far more moderate than Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, and Kennedy. So how far will they go towards the left? It will be interesting to see how far the ACTUAL shift to the left is.
I was talking about when he beat Kerry... I don't remember him claiming a mandate after his first election, although he might have.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not rooting for a major swing to the left. If more moderates got in, that's great news to me.
-
One more article I thought was interesting:
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats[/b]
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45 ONION
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
To be more precise.
Bush lost it
nope, it was more than that ...
the terrorist in Iraq got the results they were gunning for with the increase in violence from sept on with the media showing in full graphic color (Iraq sniper videos) every ounce of it they could. and with the medias help, the dems blew out of porportion every scandal they could find or create to put a republican in a negative light.
gotta give the dumbacrats credit as they know what buttons to push to get the brain dead masses to vote their way ... while the republicans look like deaf and dumb mutes in comparision.
should be an interesting 2 years and if they win out in 08, more likely than ever now, a frightening 4 years after that ...
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I was talking about when he beat Kerry... I don't remember him claiming a mandate after his first election, although he might have.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not rooting for a major swing to the left. If more moderates got in, that's great news to me.
The Republicans probably DID have a mandate after Bush beat Kerry. They did pretty well in the rest of the elections as well. The problem is they squandered that mandate. They have left their base. And it was pretty stupid too. They failed to carry out the wishes of those who elected them. In their greed to solidify their hold, they actually catered to the "centrists" on the left that they were courting. All that did was upset their conservative base. They failed to remember that all important piece of advice, "dance with the one that brung you". So they got sent home from the dance alone.
There were boatloads of conservatives who either stayed home, or voted Democrat or Independent, just to punish the Republicans that left their base and courted another group.
The Democrats simply didn't have a real platform. It was nothing but "we're not Republicans" and "we're going to change the direction in Iraq". That's pretty much all that was necessary. Like I said before, they should have actually done even better with it.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
So as long as the democrats remain the party of "reward the mediocre, and sub par performance, and penalize the average-above average workers", they will never get a vote for me...
If all these at the mininum, 200 grand a year dems support the poor so much, and are so anti wealth, why arnt they giving all their money to charity? hypocrits
HAHAHAHA!!! Yes O master Rush. I hear you and believe. I will work to spread your gospel.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I was talking about when he beat Kerry... I don't remember him claiming a mandate after his first election, although he might have.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not rooting for a major swing to the left. If more moderates got in, that's great news to me.
Thats pretty much how I feel as well.
Interesting to note.
While Dems basically swept.
7 states voted for state constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage.
And Arizona voted in favor of making English its offical language
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Republicans probably DID have a mandate after Bush beat Kerry. They did pretty well in the rest of the elections as well. The problem is they squandered that mandate. They have left their base. And it was pretty stupid too. They failed to carry out the wishes of those who elected them. In their greed to solidify their hold, they actually catered to the "centrists" on the left that they were courting. All that did was upset their conservative base. They failed to remember that all important piece of advice, "dance with the one that brung you". So they got sent home from the dance alone.
There were boatloads of conservatives who either stayed home, or voted Democrat or Independent, just to punish the Republicans that left their base and courted another group.
The Democrats simply didn't have a real platform. It was nothing but "we're not Republicans" and "we're going to change the direction in Iraq". That's pretty much all that was necessary. Like I said before, they should have actually done even better with it.
I disagree with you on Bush having a mandate - that election wasn't exactly a landslide.
I'm not really sure who you mean by their base though?
I think they were in kind of a rough spot - either win in Iraq or lose. Because if you mean by the base, the far right (which generally includes the religious types), I think they would have found that by siding with them, they would really, really angered the moderates from both parties... It's just that the extremes of both sides generally come off as scary to us in the center :)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No. The Democrats expected to easily gain at least three more seats in the Senate, and they didn't. They expected to easily gain about 10 more seats in the House, and they didn't. They didn't come close to making up their deficit in comparison to the historical averages either.
Take your head out of the sand
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One more article I thought was interesting:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45 ONION
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put The Onion down McGroin
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nope, it was more than that ...
the terrorist in Iraq got the results they were gunning for with the increase in violence from sept on with the media showing in full graphic color (Iraq sniper videos) every ounce of it they could. and with the medias help, the dems blew out of porportion every scandal they could find or create to put a republican in a negative light.
lol If you don't support the King of the USA and the Repubs you then teh terrorist wins!!!
And why are the insurgents in the position to sustain and even increase violence? I thought after years the occupation had turned the corner. Violence didn't just go up in Sept, it's been constantly and consistantly getting worse. It's not the Democrats or media's faulth that Iraq isn't being prosecuted properply. It's the Bush administation, he is after all(as people like you like to say) CinC.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Take your head out of the sand
You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.
I guess polls might be more accurate than your instincts then. ;)
-
Bush and his policies never entered the equation for me during this election.
My decision point was very simple. If the incumbent didn't show up for work, was a primarily negative/blocking factor in important legislation (like immigration), and pretty much contributed to the overall do-nothing congress we've had for the last several years, I voted for "anyone but the incumbent".
It had nothing at all to do with the President. If the guy in office showed up to work and either voted for or against the president's policies, it doesn't matter to me. If he didn't show or consistently voted against, regardless of which party sponsored the bill, then I voted against him.
For everything else on the ballot, if it cost money or took responsibility away from locals or individuals and placed it in the hands of the govt, then I voted against. Again, it had nothing to do with Bush.
This election and the next, I'm on the "toss the bastards out" ticket because they're mostly worthless. Time magazine spent a dozen pages pretty much proving that Pelosi spent the entire last 6 years doing NOTHING but blocking any legislation sponsored by the republicans, even if that legislation was an exact duplicate of policies she campaigned for. In my opinion, she is just about the worst kind of politician there is anywhere. She's willing to put partisian politics ahead of the good of the nation in every single situation, and she strong-armed everyone around her into following her obstructionist lead.
Don't believe me, check out the Time magazine article and judge for yourself. It has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with the bastards in congress needing to get put on the unemployment roster because they're utterly worthless. This was probably the worst congressional session in history, yet people still try to blame the upheaval on the president... Total BS. Congress did it themselves and they're so focused on their own partisian politics and re-election, they can't imagine why people are so pissed off.
-
I'm worried about "the new direction" Democrats want to take in Iraq. If we withdraw, we will have been defeated, we will have provided not a "safe house" but a whole safe country for terrorists to take over as a base of operations. and that is a very bad thing for not only our country, but for the whole world.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.
What are you talking about? I don't remember reading anywhere they expected to win the senate, the fact that they almost took the senate was shocking. Early in the evening they were thrilled at their gains in the house, then watched as the senate was almost icing on the cake. Look, you were way off, admit it.
-
The problem the Democrats will soon have is that they think THEY have a mandate, and they really don't.
Their position on Iraq will not be what people want. What the Democrats have in mind is a hasty exit. What the people seem to want is a more aggressive prosecution of the war, which Bush isn't doing either. People want al Sadr dead, and they want more progress on the insurgency in general.
Their position on the domestic issues won't be well liked either. Amnesty and increased illegal immigration isn't what the people are looking for, that's why Bush is in trouble there, and so was the Senate. If the Democrats are able to bring about tax increases and increased spending on social programs, along with their proposed $2 an hour increase in the minimum wage the result will be a stunted economy.
The most probable outcome is that the Democrats, if they are successful in achieving their goals, will be their own worst enemy. Just like the Republicans have been for the past few years.
-
Dems, Repubs...who cares. Joe Middle Class is still standing at the edge of the cliff.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What are you talking about? I don't remember reading anywhere they expected to win the senate, the fact that they almost took the senate was shocking. Early in the evening they were thrilled at their gains in the house, then watched as the senate was almost icing on the cake. Look, you were way off, admit it.
No, I wasn't. You didn't understand what I said.
If you knew as much about me as you THINK you know, you'd understand I'm a cynic, and a pessimist. I never thought the Republicans would hold as much as they did. I HOPED they would, but I was convinced they would not. I just never thought the Democrats would get what they thought they would. And they didn't.
-
I hope this won't happen but what we have now is a deadlocked congress. look for the republican machine to start a big smear campaign against congressman pelosi and for two years of nothing getting done.
the bright spot is many of the gains in the house are by conservative dems who would probably vote with the republicans on important legislation. I suspect pelosi will cheekbones her way out of the top job in fairly short order.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One more article I thought was interesting:
One team blames the other for loosing... DOH!
"That" "is" "how" "you" "usually" "win" "or" "loose" "something..." "the" "other" "guy" "is" "better." (sorry.. had to) :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I just never thought the Democrats would get what they thought they would. And they didn't.
Show me where they expected to win the house and the senate. The 26 seats in the house was expected by the dems? Show me that too
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Show me where they expected to win the house and the senate. The 26 seats in the house was expected by the dems? Show me that too
Since World War II, the party in control of the White House has lost an average 31 House seats and six Senate seats in the second midterm election of a president's tenure in office.
The Democrats said several times they thought they'd beat the average. They didn't.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Democrats said several times they thought they'd beat the average. They didn't.
Show me where
-
sooo, i guess the voting machines worked ok this time, huh? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
sooo, i guess the voting machines worked ok this time, huh? :rolleyes:
Maybe not in Virginia
-
so why would a conservative who hates higher taxes vote for democrats to "punish" republicans?
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
the good thing about large swings and national elections like this is that you will be able to easily see what the agenda of the so called fair media is..
For instance... when kerrie lost.. all the today show people were wearing black and acting like their pets had been run over.
I am sure that there will be real jubilation in the press.
lazs
-
There is a silver lining here, the dems that won lean to the center, their strategy was to embrace the center. The arrogance of the republicans towards the center is what did them in, they have no one to blame but themselves. With this strategy in mind, I cannot see how they can allow hillary a run at the White House. So, no hillary in 2008
-
I figured that running hillary would be a good thing for me since she was sure to lose. The dems will still field some left wing liberal.. they have to in order to capture their base.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Show me where
Go look for yourself for crying out loud. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lead you to it. Look, it's out there, all you have to do is look. If I pointed it out and explained it to you it still would not matter. You've made up your mind.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
There is a silver lining here, the dems that won lean to the center, their strategy was to embrace the center. The arrogance of the republicans towards the center is what did them in, they have no one to blame but themselves. With this strategy in mind, I cannot see how they can allow hillary a run at the White House. So, no hillary in 2008
It is NOT the center that cost the Republicans the most, it is the conservative base. The Republicans spent too much, and continued to do so. They also shifted spending towards social programs. They're too soft on illegal aliens. And they have failed to prosecute the war in Iraq and on terrorism in general aggressively enough. It is actually their attempts to cater to and pacify the center and left of center that has cost them. The true conservative base is disenchanted with the Republican party.
That's not to say that the center was not part of it. You cannot alienate the conservative base without also affecting the center that is somewhat conservative, even if only on a few issues. You are correct that the center was part of it. It was the scandals and the poor progress on the war that really had the biggest effect on the center. But those issues also bothered the conservative base, and coupled with the spending and illegal aliens, among other things, caused a large rift in the base, and they were simply not motivated in many cases.
Whether or not Hillary runs depends largely on how the Democrats are able to keep their momentum. The one thing she will not do is run when she has no chance. If the momentum of the Democrats falters, and the Republicans put up a decent candidate, Hillary won't run. Now, it may be said that they didn't run her for any number of reasons. But in order for her to run, the Democrats have to be on a serious roll, as she is so divisive a candidate that she has no chance unless the Democrats are on top and out in front by a large margin. She is NOT the centrist her husband was. Therefore, they cannot count on the center vote. The center vote most be so disenchanted with the right, and the right must be so crushed, that neither can muster enough vote to keep her out.
-
And they may yet win the Senate. I would not be terribly surprised.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
There is a silver lining here, the dems that won lean to the center, their strategy was to embrace the center. The arrogance of the republicans towards the center is what did them in, they have no one to blame but themselves. With this strategy in mind, I cannot see how they can allow hillary a run at the White House. So, no hillary in 2008
that pretty well sums it up. let's see if they can reign in their "leadership".
-
so virgil... you believe that the democrats will spend less on social programs and spend less in general? that they will be tougher on illegal aliens?
Perhaps not... but.. do you believe there were a lot of conservatives that thought that?
face it.. the country is changing.. right now more people want socialism and big government in their lives... more people feel that they need to take money from others because they will never make it on their own without a government stealing form someone else to give to them.
they live on "entitlements" and live in section 8 houses. In some cases.. they aren't even citizens.
I think you are right tho that the congress in power allways loses after it gets a chance to show it's stuff... politicians are scum and it shows.. they allways have the lowest approval rating of any profession (for good reason) and the glow of "my guy got in" wears off very quickly as you watch them destroy the country while taking graft and commiting sex crimes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so virgil... you believe that the democrats will spend less on social programs and spend less in general? that they will be tougher on illegal aliens?
Perhaps not... but.. do you believe there were a lot of conservatives that thought that?
face it.. the country is changing.. right now more people want socialism and big government in their lives... more people feel that they need to take money from others because they will never make it on their own without a government stealing form someone else to give to them.
they live on "entitlements" and live in section 8 houses. In some cases.. they aren't even citizens.
I think you are right tho that the congress in power allways loses after it gets a chance to show it's stuff... politicians are scum and it shows.. they allways have the lowest approval rating of any profession (for good reason) and the glow of "my guy got in" wears off very quickly as you watch them destroy the country while taking graft and commiting sex crimes.
lazs
Of course I do not believe that the Democrats will spend less, nor do I believe that they will prosecute the war better or be any less corrupt.
That does not mean I do not think some conservatives stayed home, nor does that mean I do not think some conservatives voted for moderate Democrats simply because the Republicans were not really conservative or Republican. I'm not nearly so foolish as to believe that a great number of moderate Republican voters did not vote for moderate Democrats out of disgust for some of the crap the Republicans have done lately. And the moderate conservatives were certainly unhappy this time, where as they were not the last two times.
Let's face it, on security we're so far removed from the attacks we've suffered that security is not the strong issue it once was. The five year mark has passed, and we're not dealing with a patient general population.
The Republicans haven't suffered a defeat like this in years. In fact, they've had since 1994 to get their feces cohesive, and they've been going backwards for several years now. They've been skating by for years, and this year the "throw the bums out" sentiment was stronger than anything else, and the Republicans were guilty of generating much of that sentiment.
The moderate Democrats that DID get elected may have just enough power to prevent a severe slide to the left, that remains to be seen. If they do prevent that slide, it will be even more difficult for the Republicans to turn their down hill slide around.
Let's face it, Bush and the rest of the Republicans had better do something, and they had better get their feces cohesive, or last nights big change will look small in comparison to the next two elections. And they'd better not be so stupid as to sink to the level of simple nasty partisan politics. That may have helped the Democrats, but the conservatives that the Republicans must count on will not have any tolerance for it.
-
I think Nilsen made the best prediction earlier, which I'll paraphrase.
"I predict that if the Republicans win it will be a landslide, and if they lose it will be a minor loss, not really a loss at all in fact."
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think Nilsen made the best prediction earlier, which I'll paraphrase.
"I predict that if the Republicans win it will be a landslide, and if they lose it will be a minor loss, not really a loss at all in fact."
Yeah, that was pretty good.
But it IS a loss, and a pretty serious loss. I just expected it to be a little worse. And it still could be. Two close races in the Senate, and the Republicans could lose both.
-
Well, the poll you can look at through Yahoo shows Webb (D) leading in Virigina by ~8,000 votes with 100% reporting, and Tester (D) leading in Montana by ~2,000 votes with 100% reporting.
I think the Republicans still have a chance though, since both races are fairly close. I think Republicans tend to be better at picking up votes after the fact, so they will probably carry Montana. If they manage to pick up Virginia I think some people might get a little suspicious.
-
If the democrats blow this thing and show the american people their true liberal socialist colours, the next president will be a conservative republican, again. Hmmm.......I wonder if rove played it this way :aok
-
Seems my prediction of the neo-con death cult members gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands has come true....:D
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Seems my prediction of the neo-con death cult members gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands has come true....:D
I think you're having flashbacks to 2000 and 2004.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think you're having flashbacks to 2000 and 2004.
Keep going :D
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Keep going :D
I'm not really all that unhappy the democrats have taken the house and possibly the senate. For too long now we've been continually bombarded by how the republicans have screwed everything up, especially in Iraq. I'm ready to sit back and watch the democrats clean it all up in the next two years.
I'm also ready to watch the democrats eliminate the patriot act and all other measures to fight terrorism. When the terrorists come knocking at our door once again it will be interesting to note America's reaction.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm not really all that unhappy the democrats have taken the house and possibly the senate. For too long now we've been continually bombarded by how the republicans have screwed everything up, especially in Iraq. I'm ready to sit back and watch the democrats clean it all up in the next two years.
I'm also ready to watch the democrats eliminate the patriot act and all other measures to fight terrorism. When the terrorists come knocking at our door once again it will be interesting to note America's reaction.
You forgot to mention Securing the borders, cut and run, flip flop and so on. :D
-
democrat plan for Iraq, cut off aid to iraq, send US troops back to germany where they belong, blame it all on bush. :D
-
Originally posted by Hawco
You forgot to mention Securing the borders, cut and run, flip flop and so on. :D
I'm all for securing the borders but neither party wanted that as an issue and I expect to see pretty much the status quo maintained there.
The democrats made Iraq their central issue. I really hope they are successful in bringing our troops home while leaving a stable Iraq. I'm not being sarcastic in this but I do not expect it to happen.
-
I dont see how the dems can do anything about Iraq other than cut off the supply of cash, the war is still up to the prez.
shamus
Ps I am a bit concerned now that all those dems got in that the terrorists are going to be lighting off bombs all over the US. :)
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I dont see how the dems can do anything about Iraq other than cut off the supply of cash, the war is still up to the prez.
shamus
Ps I am a bit concerned now that all those dems got in that the terrorists are going to be lighting off bombs all over the US. :)
Perhaps they shouldn't have made it their central platform? They did and now they must deliver.
-
Looks like some here are looking at Iraq in black and white terms.
Cut and run from the right and redeployment from the left is just political lingo for 'you're wrong and I'm right', IMO.
One thing that is going to happen under a Democratic congress is some sorely needed oversight into where and how our money has been spent in Iraq.
There has been all too many of our tax dollars lost, stolen and just flat out tossed away with an almost total absence of any form of accountability with the exception of their knowledge that some 10's of billions of dollars and thousands of weapons have simply dissappeared.
The fact that these actions to address the waste in Iraq will involve congressional investigations is going to ruffle more than a few feathers, but, IMO, that's what's needed to weed out the scoundrels who have been robbing us of boatloads our tax dollars.
These next few years leading up to the election in '08 are going to be very interesting.
-
I hope the first thing they do is go through the books and see who's been making all the cash from the Iraq thing. Second would be to find out who's been skimming off the top and throw their prettythang in Jail.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
I hope the first thing they do is go through the books and see who's been making all the cash from the Iraq thing. Second would be to find out who's been skimming off the top and throw their prettythang in Jail.
Tin Foil Hat candidate.
-
It was a given that the Gop would lose the House-- As for the Senate---Missouri and Montana in particular-- had the Senate not been acting SOOO unconservative--spending money like 'drunken sailors', and trying to move the whole #$%$^#$ population on Mexico in here--it wouldnt have driven so many folks to either sit home or vote Libertarian. In BOTH of those states, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than the deciding difference between the Repub guy and the Dem guys (gal)
-
Even relatively conservative incumbents who have done well for their constituency have been tossed out in favor of unknown Democrats claiming to be at least moderate, and conservative on some issues. They got caught up in the rush to "throw the bums out".
The Republicans brought this upon themselves, and they have no one else to blame. I was terribly disappointed in the choice they made to replace Frist, who I was not happy with. Corker was certainly far less of a good candidate than either of the two he beat in the primary, but the party backed him. So he got elected. Then he had Ford for competition and barely beat that scumbag. It was the same in many places.
In the two close Senate races that it appears will give the Democrats control over the Senate as well as the House, the difference will likely turn out to be those disgusted Republican supporters who stayed home.
If the Democrats didn't really suck, they'd have easily beat the average and a lot more Republicans would have gone home.
-
The tide is turning, and not soon enough.
The Democrats have a tough job ahead fixing the damage that has been done. I dont envy them!
-
you haven't seen damage yet ... its coming though
-
dangit... shoulda made a bet with Eagler.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Looks like some here are looking at Iraq in black and white terms.
Cut and run from the right and redeployment from the left is just political lingo for 'you're wrong and I'm right', IMO.
One thing that is going to happen under a Democratic congress is some sorely needed oversight into where and how our money has been spent in Iraq.
There has been all too many of our tax dollars lost, stolen and just flat out tossed away with an almost total absence of any form of accountability with the exception of their knowledge that some 10's of billions of dollars and thousands of weapons have simply dissappeared.
The fact that these actions to address the waste in Iraq will involve congressional investigations is going to ruffle more than a few feathers, but, IMO, that's what's needed to weed out the scoundrels who have been robbing us of boatloads our tax dollars.
These next few years leading up to the election in '08 are going to be very interesting.
I think your entirely correct.
But I also think that anyone thinking that now the the Dems have congress
That they are goign to be able to just start banging gavels and demanding things is in for a rude awakening.
They have the majority yes. But its not an overwhelming majority. Which means they arent going to be able to do justr whatever they want because they want.
Now they (both sides)are more or less going to be forced to work in a more bipartisan way or nobody is going to be able to get anything done.
-
It was all part of "the Uniter's" plan.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I think your entirely correct.
But I also think that anyone thinking that now the the Dems have congress
That they are goign to be able to just start banging gavels and demanding things is in for a rude awakening.
They have the majority yes. But its not an overwhelming majority. Which means they arent going to be able to do justr whatever they want because they want.
Now they (both sides)are more or less going to be forced to work in a more bipartisan way or nobody is going to be able to get anything done.
yep. much better.
-
Yanno I was just thinking.
They way Dems are renowned for spending money.
And the way Reps have been spending money.
Abou tthe only way for the Dems to distance themselves from the Reps.
Is to be more like a fiscally conservative republican LOL
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
One team blames the other for loosing... DOH!
"That" "is" "how" "you" "usually" "win" "or" "loose" "something..." "the" "other" "guy" "is" "better." (sorry.. had to) :D
When one party "loose" the election, does the other party tighten it?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Projected New Senate: 49 Democrats 49 Republicans 2 ties
Projected New House: 241 Democrats 193 Republicans 1 Tie
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
look at history its nothing new. every 12 to 14 years or so control of both houses changes, it has happened like clock work for over 100 years.
-
Not really a loss at all for the Republicans.
They are just setting up for 2008, right guys?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Not really a loss at all for the Republicans.
They are just setting up for 2008, right guys?
lol, you are eating this up aren't ya ;)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
the average-above average workers
:rolleyes:
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
They got caught up in the rush to "throw the bums out".
Yeah, i'll say! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15622299/?GT1=8717)
-
the problem is.. the democrats will cut spending by cutting the military.. it is an old ploy.. they will also raise spending to the point of killing the country by new entitilement programs..
Wars get paid off... entitlements grow to a bigger percent of the budget every year and.... you can't pull the tit away once the sucklings have gotten a taste.
Democrats have been the cause of about 90% of the ever growing debt that we have in this country... the military budget goes up and down but the entitlement one just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. How much does welfare and social security cost us all right now? How much for medicare?
How much do we still owe for vietman? When iraq is paid off will social security and medicaare be paid off?
To cut the military budget and raise entitlements is simply pulling the wool over the dumbest and most selfish amoung us...
lazs
-
Ya forgot one Laz, they will RAISE taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary already said it on national TV some time ago.
-
How do you think they pay for their programs?
Of course they will raise taxes and they will be very hard on people who contribute the most. They will kill incentive to prosper to a large extent..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How do you think they pay for their programs?
Of course they will raise taxes and they will be very hard on people who contribute the most. They will kill incentive to prosper to a large extent..
lazs
Doesnt the American population have more spirit than that? Do you seriously think abit higher taxes will knock people down like that? It seems that I have more faith in your countrymen then you do if thats the case.
-
Lazs is a demogogue, Nilsen.
He cold probably make it on national radio, as an "independant" of course.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How do you think they pay for their programs?
Of course they will raise taxes and they will be very hard on people who contribute the most. They will kill incentive to prosper to a large extent..
lazs
"read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" - George Bush I
-
Originally posted by JB88
"read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" - George Bush I
Yes, that bastard. Also the assault weapon bill he signed less than 100 days in office. Bush Sr. is Satan, he tricked me into voting for his dishonest bellybutton and I'll never forgive him.
culero
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Democrats have been the cause of about 90% of the ever growing debt that we have in this country...
lazs
lol! You're kidding right? Show me an administration that has borrowed and spent like this one, one where the house,senate, and White House was controlled by republicans. Didn't raise taxes? Who is going to pay that debt? What, we are going to migically print all that money to pay it?
Since Reagan, it has been republican administrations who have built our debt, not the democrats.
The dems tax and spend, the republicans borrow money they don't have and spend. Say what you want, but it is alot better to pay cash for something than to borrow the money for it and pay compound interest on it.
-
KLINTON CHEATED ON HIS WIEF!!!!!!
-
Nilsen, when taxes go up the rich find loopholes to protect their money from the taxes, so less taxes are collected from the rich but the avg person pays more taxes.
-
Yes they do find loopeholes. They do it here too, but should a raise in taxes be stopped on that account? I can only speak for norway, but here the rich find their loopholes, but these folks are also some of the biggest dynamoes for creating by investing their money in new businesses. They dont sit on thier money.. they use it to create new opportunities. However many loopholes they find they still pay _alot_ more taxes than the average joe. The taxes may not come directly as income tax, but it still comes in to the government.
If the super rich were to pay the same amount in % of their income it would still be la drop in the ocean compared to what the middle class payes in total.
-
None of that applies here Nilsen.
First off, if you tax the "rich", they merely pass it on to the next guy down the ladder. You can count on the fact that wealthy people figure their time and effot is worth $X. Now if you tax $X until it becomes $x, then they'll just charge more until they get $X again.
With lower taxes revenues are up, the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and the deficit is beginning to come under control again. Hell, even the trade deficit is shrinking.
Even the liberals who love taxes, and will do anything they can to justify them eventually have to acknowledge that taxes on the "rich" or corporations are only passed on to the end user of the product or service. Witness the idiots in California who tried to enact a special tax on oil companies in California. They knew if they could get the tax to pass, the cost of the tax would merely end up as a burden on the end users. So in the new tax bill they placed a provision prohibiting the oil companies from passing the cost to them of the new tax on to the consumer.
Oh, by the way, go look up what percentage of the overall revenues each tax bracket pays in the U.S. The upper brackets pay the vast majority of the tax revenue collected.
-
six you don't get it? if you start a program and raise a tax to cover it... as that program grows in size and scope... more money and taxes are needed to support it. None of the democrats entitlements ever go away.
Look at what we spend our taxes on and then tell me that the republicans are the cause of it... Wars get paid for with a healthy economy... the entitlements never do and... in order to pay for em you have to raise taxes which... makes the economy sick which means the entitlements then need to be more heavily funded (more welfare) which means higher taxes which means the economy gets even sicker..... and on and on.
you simply can't tax your way into prosperity and you can't end poverty by making everyone poor.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you haven't seen damage yet ... its coming though
Correct you are. We havent even begun to see the damage that rep control has wrought on this country. It will take years for us to recover from the damage..
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol! You're kidding right? Show me an administration that has borrowed and spent like this one, one where the house,senate, and White House was controlled by republicans. Didn't raise taxes? Who is going to pay that debt? What, we are going to migically print all that money to pay it?
Since Reagan, it has been republican administrations who have built our debt, not the democrats.
The dems tax and spend, the republicans borrow money they don't have and spend. Say what you want, but it is alot better to pay cash for something than to borrow the money for it and pay compound interest on it.
Six you cant convince them..
Its like a talking point. Blame the dems in spite of the facts....
-
Originally posted by Silat
Its like a talking point. Blame the dems in spite of the facts....
^^^^^
pot talking to the kettle
-
IMHO there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Dems and the Reps. Further I've come to look on the situation in our politics as the parties are co-operating BIG time. Both are workin all the time to keep the newer parties OUT of the loop.
Dems want something...Reps say NO then when Reps get into power the put what the Dems wanted into effect. some of the laws the Dems wanted while Klinton was in power were denied by the Reps with the claim they gave TOO much power to the Pres. Reps got into power and BANG nearly the 1st thing they did was enact many of the laws the Klinton Administartion wanted.
It's all B.S. n smoke n mirrors. Several of the Dems and Reps are considered part of the Bilderbuger group, our at least many attended the meetings. That and the Tri-lateral commission stuff.
Note sayin conspearacy, but sure makes a body wonder!
-
Originally posted by wrag
.. some of the laws the Dems wanted while Klinton was in power were denied by the Reps with the claim they gave TOO much power to the Pres. Reps got into power and BANG nearly the 1st thing they did was enact many of the laws the Klinton Administartion wanted..
(http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg)
-
Prez Bush should take notes from the The Terminator. Governor Aanold (CA) manages to get things done, even in overwhelming democrat-controlled congress. Yes Prez Bush should follow the the current example in CA if he wants a smooth ride for the next 2 years...
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Not really a loss at all for the Republicans.
They are just setting up for 2008, right guys?
As I stated in another thread. The Dems have whined long enough.
Now its time for them to do something. Whinging and complaining alone isnt gonna cut it anymore.
Yet for all their complaints. None has any kind of a real plan.
Well now they will HAVE to do somethnng
Or Yes. they will just be getting set up to loose again in 08
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Prez Bush should take notes from the The Terminator. Governor Aanold (CA) manages to get things done, even in overwhelming democrat-controlled congress. Yes Prez Bush should follow the the current example in CA if he wants a smooth ride for the next 2 years...
Who wants a smooth ride? I want things DONE. Damn a smooth ride.
And the Democrats have decided to be obstructionists again, already. They have already said they won't even CONSIDER Bolton's appointment to the UN. It doesn't matter how good a job he does. So much for "bi-partisan co-operation".:eek:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg)
Yup, its too bad the guy on watch didnt stop that
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I figured that running hillary would be a good thing for me since she was sure to lose. The dems will still field some left wing liberal.. they have to in order to capture their base.
lazs
Ive never seen a "Liberal" running.Kerry, gore, etc not liberal..Most dems are moderates..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the problem is.. the democrats will cut spending by cutting the military.. it is an old ploy.. they will also raise spending to the point of killing the country by new entitilement programs..
Wars get paid off... entitlements grow to a bigger percent of the budget every year and.... you can't pull the tit away once the sucklings have gotten a taste.
Democrats have been the cause of about 90% of the ever growing debt that we have in this country... the military budget goes up and down but the entitlement one just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. How much does welfare and social security cost us all right now? How much for medicare?
How much do we still owe for vietman? When iraq is paid off will social security and medicaare be paid off?
To cut the military budget and raise entitlements is simply pulling the wool over the dumbest and most selfish amoung us...
lazs
Not true. And google is your friend...........
-
Originally posted by wrag
Ya forgot one Laz, they will RAISE taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary already said it on national TV some time ago.
No worries Wrag. They said they were adding the 3 points back to those over $250 000.. Not tax everyone. But I dont know how we are going to pay the debt that the reps have given us without new corporate taxes..
That will not affect 95% of you all:)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg)
Sad... Reps always pull 9/11 when they are losing the argument.
But Ill bite Eagler.
Remind me whose watch that happened on?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Most dems are moderates..
only at election time.
-
Originally posted by john9001
only at election time.
Just like the current crew of repubs like to call themselves conservatives as they throw around money like drunken sailors (no disrespect meant to drunken sailors)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg)
Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?
Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?
Read the sig ......
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?
never said we were ..
the changes came after the attack .. but you knew that
-
Originally posted by Eagler
never said we were ..
the changes came after the attack .. but you knew that
And you know OBL was responsible for the attack, right?
So, where in Iraq is OBL?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?
Actually that didn't answer the question, as usual.
And Bush Sr. had how many thousands of troops in Iraq in '91?? I mean if we're going to play the obviously ridiculous game....
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Actually that didn't answer the question, as usual.
And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.
However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.
So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.
However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.
So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.
And as many here expect the new dem congress to fix the situation in Iraq, why didnt the repub congress in Clintons era catch OSB?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg)
IMHO many of the laws that were passed with the claim that they were needed due to this weren't.
I could give a run down on my reasoning but many of those reason were covered when the patriot act and such were in the works.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Just like the current crew of repubs like to call themselves conservatives as they throw around money like drunken sailors (no disrespect meant to drunken sailors)
shamus
I actually take offense to that. I'm a very thrifty drunken sailor.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look at what we spend our taxes on and then tell me that the republicans are the cause of it...
They ruled the house, senate and white house.....so it's the dems fault? I know you are gonna spin it lazs, but they had the magic wand in their hand and never used it. Instead they included pork barrel spending for votes. The Bush administration projected that there would be a $1.288 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2004 in the 2002 U.S. Budget. In the 2005 Mid-Session Review, however, this had changed to a projected deficit of $850 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion. 49% of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29% was due to "tax relief", and the remaining 22% was due to war, homeland, and other enacted legislation.
So you know that tax cut you got? It was borrowed!!
Wars get paid for with a healthy economy
Waaa? I can't believe you said that. Are you kidding? So this war is making us wealthy??? It's putting us in the hole!! Wars cost money, you borrow for war, then spend that money building your war machine which boosts the economy, but it's borrowed, then the spoils pay it off. We are not at war for spoils, and there is no magic money to pay for it. It gets paid with tax dollars.
you simply can't tax your way into prosperity
And you sure as hell can't borrow your way into it either. The last I read we pay a billion dollars a day in interest alone on our debt. That's insane.
I am interested to see what the dems do, they embraced the center and it carried them to victory, to revert back to tax and spend would be political suicide. If they haven't learned their lesson yet, shame on them.
All I want is for the pork barrel spending to stop and to start paying off our debt. I hope I see it in my lifetime.
No one takes our debt seriously, it's disturbing.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.
However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.
So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.
It seems to make perfect sense to you:lol
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
They ruled the house, senate and white house.....blah blah blah
no way you actually believe that. they held majority in both houses but never did they rule both houses. the democrats prevented the president from appointing judges to federal bench for his entire first term. or did you forget that?
-
I think one of the most interesting outcomes of the election is the difference in how the two parties respond to defeat. I haven't heard a single cry of "stolen", "disenfrancisment", "new fascist regime", etc., etc. No mad rush to the courts to overthrow an election that didn't come out in their favor. No refusing to admit defeat once all the votes were in. No mass petitions for recounts (except recounts that are mandatory due to state law). No attempts to cherry pick Republican districts for recounts. No last minute discoveries of ballots located in some warehouse. It appears that the Republicans have taken it on the chin and are not whinning about it although I'm sure there will be a small few that will.
I think the party is going to actually look at itself and figure out where it went wrong rather than blaming the outcome on a foolish electorate or an insidious and evil opposition party. Maybe the Dems will learn from this as well and figure out that the American population doesn't like whinners very much even though we give them enough press.
Here is an amusing tongue-in-cheek series of questions I wish I could take credit for:
Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless . . . this is all part of Rove's plan.
A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney, always forgetting his password.
What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos [of the DailyKos] must feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys . . . except for the one he really wanted.
Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid? Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to Commissioner Gordon's office.
So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
It seems to make perfect sense to you:lol
Congratulations on your complete lack of the ability to read and comprehend.
-
six.. you aren't hearing what I am saying... a war is expensive and a bad thing so far as debt but.... A healthy economy can absorb it and take care of it...
The oppossite is true of democrat spending... it is all entitlements that do not help the country in any way... it is such welfare that is a total waste and.... no matter who is in power after that.... it grows and grows and grows with no way to stop it...
The republicans are spending too much but very little of it will be to programs that, like social security ponzie scheme and welfare.... will grow to take allmost every dollar brought in.
So who came up with these ruinous welfare plans? the democrats... who suggests more every year and more taxes to pay for em? democrats.
Take a look at the spending pie and see how much is going out in entitlements and welfare.... it is allmost every dollar brought in.
The republicans do create agencies that suck money up forever but nothing like welfare or the EPA or social security or medicare..
The democrats suggest paying for childcare in daycare say.... sounds good... everyone wants a free daycare ride paid for with a few pennies from them and another percent or two on the evil rich right? And... it only costs a billion a year... heck... way better than a war.
Ten years latter the war is paid off but that one billion a year program for daycare is not 50 billion a year with no end in sight and anyone who tries to cut it is commiting political suicide... how dare they be so cruel to helpless children!!!
When the democrats put in a new welfare program it screws every one of us forever... when they pass a new tax... no matter on what segment of society.... it drags the whole economy down.
soicialism... is an endless downward spiral. The democrats are embracing that because it is the lazy way to garner votes... give people something for nothing and they will vote for yu.... never looking past that first payoff.
lazs
-
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)
hey big spenda...
-
Originally posted by storch
no way you actually believe that. they held majority in both houses but never did they rule both houses. the democrats prevented the president from appointing judges to federal bench for his entire first term. or did you forget that?
So, legislation is brought before federal judges? What the hell does an appointment have to do with balancing a budget?
-
presidents do not appropriate the money, the house appropriates the money, nice touch with "oil war 1" and "oil war 2" and "neo-con".
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So, legislation is brought before federal judges? What the hell does an appointment have to do with balancing a budget?
you may want to take a 7th grade civics course before going any further sir.
-
Originally posted by storch
you may want to take a 7th grade civics course before going any further sir.
So, a federal judge passes highway bills?
-
And you sure as hell can't borrow your way into it either.
And you sure as hell have never stepped foot in an economics class room.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And you sure as hell have never stepped foot in an economics class room.
So, tell me, how is that debt good for us? It's all part of the master plan huh?
-
The 2005 highway bill had a staggering 6,376 earmarks. In contrast, Ronald Reagan vetoed a 1987 highway bill because it had 121! And his quote at the time was ''I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair".
In 2000 GW said if Gore got elected ''the era of big government being over is over."
Six years later the only thing that is over is the GOP reputation for fiscal sobriety.
And this happened because "the democrats prevented the president from appointing judges to federal bench for his entire first term"?
Holy crap, no wonder I flunked 7th grade civics
-
Actually Sixpence you have a very valid point about the lard and it, more than the war, is probably why the Republicans are out on their butts. But to address the point about the deficit, and what I think they're trying to get at is that debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Without debt you wouldn't be able to buy a house for instance. The point is what you use the debt for. If you invest it in infrastructure or, in the case of the war, to ensure peace and stability then it's a good thing.
Just such a case in point is the depression, followed by WWII (and enormous debt), followed by an era of economic expansion never seen before as the manufacturing infrastructure built with the debt and the peace that followed the successful conclusion of the war fed an enormous economic boom.
That is as opposed to just borrowing money and handing it out, or worse, creating entitlement programs which 1) are enormously inefficient, 2) are self-sustaining, and 3) provide no positive input to the economy at all.
-
You know, I've had a sobering realization here, There's no real difference between the Dems and the GOP, all that happens is that big business money passes from one party to the other, If the Dems lose then the cash goes back the other way.
None of them have our interests at heart, The penny has finally dropped for me here, Look at where I live in California, both of them have it sown up so that nobody gets a look in from any other party and I bet you that's the same right across the country.
We can all go back and forth and forth and back on the GOP V Dems debate, but they are both the same in my book, I mean c'mon, do you think the dems will stick up for the avearge working man? nope, Just like the GOP didn't either.
The same tired old lines are now coming out of the Dems as what came out of the GOP beforehand, All they are going to do is look after their corporate donors, just like the GOP did before them.
Who stands up for us? Who has our interests at the forefront?
Who's going to stand up for affordable healthcare, jobs, not these sh**y part time walmart jobs but real jobs, what about affordable education?, access to decent housing? Nobody, theyr'e too busy looking after their donors and raising cash for the next election.
I'll never ever vote for any GOP/Dem person again, funny thing is, it took me till this election to think like this, there's no change, there's no "new direction" being planned, We were all just used, voting fodder, fed a few scraps of lines to appeal to us and then goodbye till the next election.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
You know, I've had a sobering realization here, There's no real difference between the Dems and the GOP, all that happens is that big business money passes from one party to the other, If the Dems lose then the cash goes back the other way.
None of them have our interests at heart, The penny has finally dropped for me here, Look at where I live in California, both of them have it sown up so that nobody gets a look in from any other party and I bet you that's the same right across the country.
We can all go back and forth and forth and back on the GOP V Dems debate, but they are both the same in my book, I mean c'mon, do you think the dems will stick up for the avearge working man? nope, Just like the GOP didn't either.
The same tired old lines are now coming out of the Dems as what came out of the GOP beforehand, All they are going to do is look after their corporate donors, just like the GOP did before them.
Who stands up for us? Who has our interests at the forefront?
Who's going to stand up for affordable healthcare, jobs, not these sh**y part time walmart jobs but real jobs, what about affordable education?, access to decent housing? Nobody, theyr'e too busy looking after their donors and raising cash for the next election.
I'll never ever vote for any GOP/Dem person again, funny thing is, it took me till this election to think like this, there's no change, there's no "new direction" being planned, We were all just used, voting fodder, fed a few scraps of lines to appeal to us and then goodbye till the next election.
I've had that same revalation. Been a registered Libertarian ever since... :)
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Who stands up for us? Who has our interests at the forefront?
Who's going to stand up for affordable healthcare, jobs, not these sh**y part time walmart jobs but real jobs, what about affordable education?, access to decent housing?
As Meat Loaf said, "there ain't no Coupe de Ville lieing in the bottom of a Crackerjack box." I think the fundamental problem here is you're expecting the government to do something it was never supposed to do in the first place. Show me in the Constitution where is says government is responsible for any of these things? You can't. The sad part is that the politicians have convinced us that they're responsible for everything, you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself, we'll do it for you. Worse, is that abdicating our own care to the government empowers the government in ways never intended.
-
'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm)
Looks like Al-Qaeda is happy with the election results....
:D
-
a predictable endorsement. all the sociopaths that hang around the area where I work are also pleased and expecting hand outs of one type or another in the near future.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Since Reagan, it has been republican administrations who have built our debt, not the democrats.
Both parties share power, both are responsible, both collectively fail every time. We are here with massive debt, open borders, poop poor schools, runaway spending, erosion of civil liberties, massive corruption...all happened under the noses of both parties.
Can you imagine a company that recycles the same failed ideas / employees and calls it "change"?, when people fail to do their jobs they get fired, but a political party can chronically FAIL, and why not?, they have zero worry of losing a chunk of the power, sheeple are too poop scared to step out of lock step, think for themselves and reject the same old stale preconceived ideals... the RNC and DNC have spent billions to make sure of that.
Not only do they not get fired for sucking, they get rewarded for it by people defending their team just because it doesnt stink as bad as the other team.
A handful of libertarian / Independents could not possibly do any worse than these clowns have done.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Both parties share power, both are responsible, both collectively fail every time. We are here with massive debt, open borders, poop poor schools, runaway spending, erosion of civil liberties, massive corruption...all happened under the noses of both parties.
Can you imagine a company that recycles the same failed ideas / employees and calls it "change"?, when people fail to do their jobs they get fired, but a political party can chronically FAIL, and why not?, they have zero worry of losing a chunk of the power, sheeple are too poop scared to step out of lock step, think for themselves and reject the same old stale preconceived ideals... the RNC and DNC have spent billions to make sure of that.
Not only do they not get fired for sucking, they get rewarded for it by people defending their team just because it doesnt stink as bad as the other team.
A handful of libertarian / Independents could not possibly do any worse than these clowns have done.
That's complete nonsense x0847Marine.
Yes, it's easy to say it's everyone's fault when there are problems, yet I don't think anyone has argued that either party is blameless; however, Americans have built the worlds greatest nation and national economy. Along the way the American economy has driven the world economy to new heights along with it. Not bad for a bunch of chronic failures.
Lets not forget the Dems lost power in the 90s and now its the Republicans turn. Who said nobody could be fired?
Debt is only "massive" in absolute terms, not relative. For instance we're now paying only about 7% of the GDP to national debt interest while in the 80s we were paying about 15%. Is this supposed to be indicitive of some sort of failure? You own a home? Let's say you make $70,000 a year and buy a $100,000 home. Interest on the first year is going to be something like $10,000 or 14% of your income. Does it suck? Sure...but I'll bet that you'd be more than willing to spend some time convincing the bank you can afford it wouldn't you? What do you have for that investment? You've got a house.
Erosion of civil liberties? Name one single civil liberty you've lost. You can't because that's complete and utter BS. Massive corruption? How has any corruption hurt you? Seems to me that the reason you even know about corruption is because someone got caught and the "big" scandals hardly ever touch anyone but a limited few. People are people, regardless of party. There always has been and always will be corruption. The important thing is they're caught and pay a price whether it be in jail or thrown out of congress. To pretend there is some utopia with no corruption is imbecilic.
I think the only "sheeple" that is "poop scared" is you.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Name one single civil liberty you've lost.
off the top of my head:
the last time I flew I'm sure 4 or five got stomped on.
the patriot act violates 6 or 7 ammendments
the 2nd has been steadily being eroded for a long time.
the war on drugs has been used to justify many unconstitutional policies.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
off the top of my head:
the last time I flew I'm sure 4 or five got stomped on.
the patriot act violates 6 or 7 ammendments
the 2nd has been steadily being eroded for a long time.
the war on drugs has been used to justify many unconstitutional policies.
Right. Name any rights you've lost is what I asked. You can't name a single one but you're "sure 4 or five got stomped on." Pretty non-specific. If there really is this huge, insidious plot to turn the US into a gulag as so many on this BB seem to suggest don't you think there would be something just a little more substantive?
Let me say this though, I understand and agree that we must be vigiliant regarding our rights, regardless of which party is in power but to read some of the people on these boards you'd think the jackbooted thugs just dragged your poor grandmama away to the waterboard. (BTW, I've been waterboarded...not fun...but not torture either).
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Right. Name any rights you've lost is what I asked. You can't name a single one but you're "sure 4 or five got stomped on." Pretty non-specific. If there really is this huge, insidious plot to turn the US into a gulag as so many on this BB seem to suggest don't you think there would be something just a little more substantive?
Drug forfiture laws have been used to size property many times WITHOUT actually having to go to court.
Didn't matter that an unknowing parent had an offspring that got caught on their property or while using their property.
Violates the 4th ...........
In several states the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd is also ignored. The so called assault weapons ban, bans the very weapon anyone in the milita is required to have. And if you're between 14 and 60 you are in the milita.
Gulag? Hmmm..........
So much information that is avialble on the net is still being ignored by many.
There is a plan, as to gulag well ...hmmm, but there is a plan. The Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights are in it's way. Says it right in the plan. Who wrote the plan? Our Government IIRC.
-
What you mean to say wrag is that you "believe" these laws violate the Constitution. What I would say is that there is a constant push-pull between too much and too little. Problems arise, laws are passed to address the problem, these laws are then tested in court. That's the way it's designed to work so, almost by definition, laws will be made that are improper or unconstitutional but that's no reason to believe in a grand strategy and plot. As a matter of fact, you'd probably be able to find more new "rights" that have been invented by the courts than you will find actual rights being compromised.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And you sure as hell have never stepped foot in an economics class room.
Okay, yes you can borrow your way to prosperity if you invest the money wisely and get a greater return on investment than the cost of borrowing. But the US hasn't invested the wealth they borrowed wisely and it's debt is bad debt.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Right. Name any rights you've lost is what I asked. You can't name a single one but you're "sure 4 or five got stomped on." Pretty non-specific. If there really is this huge, insidious plot to turn the US into a gulag as so many on this BB seem to suggest don't you think there would be something just a little more substantive?
Let me say this though, I understand and agree that we must be vigiliant regarding our rights, regardless of which party is in power but to read some of the people on these boards you'd think the jackbooted thugs just dragged your poor grandmama away to the waterboard. (BTW, I've been waterboarded...not fun...but not torture either).
sigh... well since you need things spelled out for you...
right to privacy
right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.
right to due process
right to bear arms
right to free speech
right to travel freely
(by no means was that an exhaustive list)
and BTW, that statement about waterboarding you made is complete B.S. I've read accounts of WW2 vets who were japanese POW's and straight from the horses mouth waterboarding was the worst thing that was done to them. In one case I'm thinking of, it was the ONLY thing that was so horrendus that he had subconsiously repressed the memory of it until recently. Waterboarding not torture, that's rich.
-
all the bad debt we have has been for social programs that have made things worse..... increased poverty and out of wedlock babies for instance along with an increase in abortions.
Wars are bad but some good to the economy comes from them.. we are the biggest arms dealers in the world for instance. It is an investment of sorts... social programs only increase dependence and is simply pouring money down a rat hole.... worse... as dependence increases so does the debt incured to pay for it. Once a democrat passes a social program... eveyone pays for it forever in ever increasing amounts... republicans can't stop these fixed costs handed to them by democrats and socialists.
mace... yes, our second amendment rights are being squashed... all by democrats... The interpretation of the second or any amendment should be up to the supreme court but it is too cowardly to address the issue so.... lacking any guidance the politicians interpret it to mean whatever they want.
No knock laws and such are an infringement of our freedom... roadblocks and searches of our cars under the guise of drunk driving prevention... the forcing of wearing seatbelts and helmets for our own good... forcing states to comply by not giving back any of the money they extorted from the states in the first place.
A libertarian would be either inefective or out of office... no way could he take any entitlement from anyone without being piloried by the socialists and their media hacks.
There is no solution but.... there is a way to make it worse faster... and that is to vote democrat.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
sigh... well since you need things spelled out for you...
right to privacy
right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.
right to due process
right to bear arms
right to free speech
right to travel freely
(by no means was that an exhaustive list)
and BTW, that statement about waterboarding you made is complete B.S. I've read accounts of WW2 vets who were japanese POW's and straight from the horses mouth waterboarding was the worst thing that was done to them. In one case I'm thinking of, it was the ONLY thing that was so horrendus that he had subconsiously repressed the memory of it until recently. Waterboarding not torture, that's rich.
Nonsense about the waterboarding. I've had it done to me, no second-hand knowledge here. It's very, very unpleasant but that's it. Nothing at all like having your arms tied behind your back and being hoisted until your shoulders dislocate.
Regarding the rights you claim to have been taken from you...I'll spell it out for you. Name a single right YOU'VE had taken from you. First, there is no right to privacy in the constitution (although I agree there should be). Second, when have you been the subject of an unwarranted search or seizure? Third, when have you been denied due process? Fourth, where have you been denied the right to bear arms (I'll agree on this one though, there are states that have seriously infringed on this)? Fifth, where have you been denied free speach? Sixth, where have you been denied the right to travel freely?
Bottom line here is you, like so many others, are imagining a far greater threat than really exists. You wouldn't believe the number of things we could do but are not allowed to do in the quest to capture/kill terrorists. Again, first hand knowledge here. For the most part, we're denied certain capabilities because bananas like you will go off the deep end claiming it's really aimed at you. Trust me, you're just not that important.
-
right to privacy (last time I went to an airport, among other things)
right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. (last time I went to an airport. who the heck knows if I've been wiretapped or if my bank records have been turned over to the FBI, or my ISP's records, etc...)
right to due process (this was a double listing. same as above)
right to bear arms (the army has bigger guns than me)
right to free speech (I HAVE personally been HERDED into a free speech zone at a protest)
right to travel freely (airport BS)
that's what's affected me, off the top of my head. I'm not understanding why you don't think it's a problem unless it affects me or you personally. Rights are rights and I have a problem with the gov't infringing upon ANYONE'S rights.
Also, ever heard of the 9th Ammendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy
"The right to privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit."
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Actually Sixpence you have a very valid point about the lard and it, more than the war, is probably why the Republicans are out on their butts. But to address the point about the deficit, and what I think they're trying to get at is that debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Without debt you wouldn't be able to buy a house for instance. The point is what you use the debt for. If you invest it in infrastructure or, in the case of the war, to ensure peace and stability then it's a good thing.
Just such a case in point is the depression, followed by WWII (and enormous debt), followed by an era of economic expansion never seen before as the manufacturing infrastructure built with the debt and the peace that followed the successful conclusion of the war fed an enormous economic boom.
That is as opposed to just borrowing money and handing it out, or worse, creating entitlement programs which 1) are enormously inefficient, 2) are self-sustaining, and 3) provide no positive input to the economy at all.
Well, you have a point, but at what point to you stop borrowing. I own a house, and that's good. But if I keep borrowing more before paying what I have borrowed already, I could not afford to pay my mortgage and I would default.
OK, I have my house, but it needs to be painted, so I borrow money to paint it...then I borrow to put up a fence, then I borrow for new sod for my yard, then I borrow for a pool, then I borrow to have the fence stained, then I borrow to put an addition on, then I borrow to have the basement finished, then I borrow to have a new bathroom put in, then I start cashing those checks in the mail, you know "deposit this check for an instant loan", the one with the rediculous interest rate?
Well, guess what, I am on my way to bankruptcy. So if you borrow responsibly, yes, it can work for you, but can you honestly say we have borrowed responsibly? I don't have to ask you that, you already know.
Like that tax cut check we got, it was added to our debt, it was like cashing one of those checks for loans you get in the mail, we are paying compound interest on it.
Now, is Lazs right for saying we have too many social programs? Of course he is. Is he right for saying that is the primary cause of our debt? No way in hell. Welfare is welfare, if you are paying a contractor $3000 for hammers and $20,000 for toilet bowls, that's welfare. If you are creating government jobs for people who got you elected and their friends(bigger government), that's welfare, it's a free ride. Our tax dollars get raided on a daily bases and get added to our debt.
As one religious conservative put it "they were just as bad as the democrats when they got their snout in the trough"
And it has become a cycle of spenders, throw one bum out the other spends, throw that bum out and the other bum is back spending.
If the dems do the same, I think you might actually see these 3rd(4th, 5th?) parties start to gain strength. They need to ally with the bigger parties now, but people, as shown in this last election, will do what they have to for change. And if the dems spend away, it could be used as a rallying cry for an independent party. It may not win, but it could gain enough strength to make it a legit power and bring winds of change.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
right to privacy (last time I went to an airport, among other things)
right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. (last time I went to an airport. who the heck knows if I've been wiretapped or if my bank records have been turned over to the FBI, or my ISP's records, etc...)
right to due process (this was a double listing. same as above)
right to bear arms (the army has bigger guns than me)
right to free speech (I HAVE personally been HERDED into a free speech zone at a protest)
right to travel freely (airport BS)
that's what's affected me, off the top of my head. I'm not understanding why you don't think it's a problem unless it affects me or you personally. Rights are rights and I have a problem with the gov't infringing upon ANYONE'S rights.
Also, ever heard of the 9th Ammendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy
"The right to privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit."
There is no doubt that much of what you list is inconvienient but it has long been held that the rights in the constitution are not unlimited. For instance, the most commonly used example is that your right to free speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Most of your complaints are pure speculation, i.e.,your bank records, wiretaps, etc.; however, you're operating from the comfort of the very rights you claim have been compromised. You have no real personal experience with the deprivation of rights, just some minor inconvienences and speculation. For instance, your right to freedom from unwarranted searches has long been held to be balanced by the need to ensure the safety of the population as a whole. It's merely inconvienient. If you strongly object to airport searches, don't fly. There is no one denying you permission to travel or placing restrictions on it. It's that simple. As a matter of fact, it's the complaining about unwarranted searches that leads to 90 year old grandmothers being searched so security can continue to operate while not being accused to targeting (i.e., profiling) certain groups so, in fact, your arguement backfires. To follow your perceived notions of unwarranted search, no one could be searched either physically or electronically (i.e., explosive sensors, X-rays, etc.) while boarding a plane unless there is a specific search warrant from a judge for that specific individual. I for one am not willing to accept that interpretation.
Like I said before, there is a constant tension between too much and too little, absolutests in either direction do far more harm than good.
-
You have your interpretation and I have mine. I'm a strict constructionist, meaning I believe in the letter of the law. This is an opposing view to the concept of a "Living Constitution" and "legislative intent", philosophies which, in my view, have been tearing the Constitution apart. Ex: the "right to bear arms" means just what it says. period. any regulation of that right, limiting the arms I can bear to those of a certain type, or having to apply for a license, is an infringement.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
You have your interpretation and I have mine. I'm a strict constructionist, meaning I believe in the letter of the law. This is an opposing view to the concept of a "Living Constitution" and "legislative intent", philosophies which, in my view, have been tearing the Constitution apart. Ex: the "right to bear arms" means just what it says. period. any regulation of that right, limiting the arms I can bear to those of a certain type, or having to apply for a license, is an infringement.
But you see that was my whole argument. All Constitutional rights have always had limits on them. This is not new and it's only part of the "living Constitution" argument (which btw, I don't agree with either). I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with). By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation. The same is said about limitations on those rights.
Someone once said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and I have to agree with that. Denying for instance the governments ability to use supposedly "illegal" wire taps for overseas phone calls is one such case of being willing to commit suicide rather than deal with the real world. Can you imagine someone in WWII worrying about the constitutionality of the government listening in to German or Japanese radio broadcasts aimed at spies (and yes, many German and Japanese spies were US citizens) in the US? This is exactly the same thing. Who's going to take the blame the next time some terrorist gets on board a US airline because someone was wringing his hands over the constitutionality of searching passengers? I doubt you'll raise your hand and say "it was my fault".
The bottom line is a certain amount of distrust and scepticism regarding anything as powerful as the US government is healthy; however, we reach a point where absolutists and handwringers do far more damage than anything the government is currently doing.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, you have a point, but at what point to you stop borrowing. I own a house, and that's good. But if I keep borrowing more before paying what I have borrowed already, I could not afford to pay my mortgage and I would default.
OK, I have my house, but it needs to be painted, so I borrow money to paint it...then I borrow to put up a fence, then I borrow for new sod for my yard, then I borrow for a pool, then I borrow to have the fence stained, then I borrow to put an addition on, then I borrow to have the basement finished, then I borrow to have a new bathroom put in, then I start cashing those checks in the mail, you know "deposit this check for an instant loan", the one with the rediculous interest rate?
Well, guess what, I am on my way to bankruptcy. So if you borrow responsibly, yes, it can work for you, but can you honestly say we have borrowed responsibly? I don't have to ask you that, you already know.
Like that tax cut check we got, it was added to our debt, it was like cashing one of those checks for loans you get in the mail, we are paying compound interest on it.
Now, is Lazs right for saying we have too many social programs? Of course he is. Is he right for saying that is the primary cause of our debt? No way in hell. Welfare is welfare, if you are paying a contractor $3000 for hammers and $20,000 for toilet bowls, that's welfare. If you are creating government jobs for people who got you elected and their friends(bigger government), that's welfare, it's a free ride. Our tax dollars get raided on a daily bases and get added to our debt.
As one religious conservative put it "they were just as bad as the democrats when they got their snout in the trough"
And it has become a cycle of spenders, throw one bum out the other spends, throw that bum out and the other bum is back spending.
If the dems do the same, I think you might actually see these 3rd(4th, 5th?) parties start to gain strength. They need to ally with the bigger parties now, but people, as shown in this last election, will do what they have to for change. And if the dems spend away, it could be used as a rallying cry for an independent party. It may not win, but it could gain enough strength to make it a legit power and bring winds of change.
Actually sixpence, I continue to agree with a lot of your arguement; however, your example is not necessarily valid. If you continue to borrow and invest in your home and therefore it's value increases then the investment is sound. If on the other hand, you borrowed the money and then, instead of investing it, you blew it all on beer then you wouldn't be very smart. There's little disagreement that the government and industry (or any special interest group for that matter) have a strong tendancy to wash each others hands but I'd be willing to bet you that the amount of money wasted this way by DoD is trivial compared to the grand total of entitlements by the time you add up the spending of Health and Human Services, HUD, Education, Social Security, etc. Also remember that all of these other entitlement based organizations have their own versions of corporate welfare and fraud.
Besides, I've mentioned it before on the boards but the mythical $600 hammer and $10,000 toilet seat are just that, myths and have nothing whatsoever to do with corporate welfare. I can explain if you're really interested in the facts. Again, not denying that there aren't problems but I do disagree with the urban myth method of exemplars.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with). By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation. The same is said about limitations on those rights.
actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own. Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval. Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution." The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states. It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. It simply RECOGNIZES them. Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.
Someone once said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and I have to agree with that. Denying for instance the governments ability to use supposedly "illegal" wire taps for overseas phone calls is one such case of being willing to commit suicide rather than deal with the real world. Can you imagine someone in WWII worrying about the constitutionality of the government listening in to German or Japanese radio broadcasts aimed at spies (and yes, many German and Japanese spies were US citizens) in the US? This is exactly the same thing. Who's going to take the blame the next time some terrorist gets on board a US airline because someone was wringing his hands over the constitutionality of searching passengers? I doubt you'll raise your hand and say "it was my fault".
What you describe is different from Gov't FISHING through DOMESTIC records, looking for FOREIGN connections, which the Patriot Act permits. Even "sneak and peek" warrants are authorized. On American citizens. with no evidence. and they don't have to tell you about it. This bothers me.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own. Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval. Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution." The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states. It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. It simply RECOGNIZES them. Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.
have to agree with bsdaddict.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Actually, Jefferson, if he meant what he wrote, and those who pledged their lives to the Declaration disagree bsaddict.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Actually, Jefferson, if he meant what he wrote, and those who pledged their lives to the Declaration disagree bsaddict.
Regards,
hap
Creator, nature, whatever you call it. It's not an institution of man.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own. Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval. Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution." The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states. It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. It simply RECOGNIZES them. Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.
What you describe is different from Gov't FISHING through DOMESTIC records, looking for FOREIGN connections, which the Patriot Act permits. Even "sneak and peek" warrants are authorized. On American citizens. with no evidence. and they don't have to tell you about it. This bothers me.
I never once mentioned the "creation" of rights either by the Constitution or the courts. Without getting into metaphysical arguments I agree with you that the rights, as enumerated in the Constititution, are an attempt to capture those rights which we, as a society, believe are proper. Since; however, I haven't debated the origins of rights your argument is irrelevant. I simply pointed out the very accurate fact that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, as the Supreme Court has done in many cases including its recognition of privacy as a right. It proves my point that even a strict constructionist as you claim to be (and as I am also) cannot limit the scope of the Constitution to only the very specific words within it.
Also, while I do not agree with the idea of the Constitution as a "living document" it is foolish to believe that its authors anticipated every future contingency so some recognition of the technological differences alone must be made. I believe that the founders would be just as astounded by the invention of a right to an abortion as they would find it unbelievable that there are Americans that believe monitoring communications between an enemy and spies or enemy combatants within the US is wrong. I'm sure that had they the opportunity to intercept communications between the British and spies during the War of 1812 they most certainly would have done so and undoubtably did.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Besides, I've mentioned it before on the boards but the mythical $600 hammer and $10,000 toilet seat are just that, myths and have nothing whatsoever to do with corporate welfare. I can explain if you're really interested in the facts. Again, not denying that there aren't problems but I do disagree with the urban myth method of exemplars.
Well, we could go back and forth with actual cases of corporate and public subsidies. But you are trying to downplay corporate subsidies and pork barrel spending as insignificant, and that's far from the case.
There is nothing mythical about a $223 bridge earmarked for 50 residents on an island in Alaska
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
There is nothing mythical about a $223 bridge earmarked for 50 residents on an island in Alaska
wow - that bridge would only cost each resident $4.46 - sounds like a deal to me :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wow - that bridge would only cost each resident $4.46 - sounds like a deal to me :)
lol, silly me;)
-
Originally posted by Hawco
You know, I've had a sobering realization here, There's no real difference between the Dems and the GOP, all that happens is that big business money passes from one party to the other, If the Dems lose then the cash goes back the other way.
None of them have our interests at heart, The penny has finally dropped for me here, Look at where I live in California, both of them have it sown up so that nobody gets a look in from any other party and I bet you that's the same right across the country.
We can all go back and forth and forth and back on the GOP V Dems debate, but they are both the same in my book, I mean c'mon, do you think the dems will stick up for the avearge working man? nope, Just like the GOP didn't either.
Word.
One reason why neither party sticks up for the average working Joe; they don't know what its like to walk in Joes shoes. Only 1 guy, Webb, has boots on the ground in Iraq... the rest are the powerful elite who manipulate & gain favor within "The party"... by the time they get elected they owe a-lot of people and use big business to pay them back.
It really is too bad a regular Joe cant afford to run for office, but thats the way the Repubs & Dems like it... they have a firm grip on power and are not going to let up for something as silly as the good of the nation.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I never once mentioned the "creation" of rights either by the Constitution or the courts.
Originally posted by Mace2004
I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with). By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation. The same is said about limitations on those rights. [/B]
"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...
That's a bit of a stretch.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...
Please reread in the entirety and in context:
By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation.
1) I believe it's clear that I'm not ascribing the origins of rights to the Constitution here.
2) I believe it's also clear that I'm talking about the rights as described in the Constitution as well as the interpretation by the court that suggest there is more than just what the Constitution says.
3) Nowhere do I see where I debate the metaphysical origins of "rights".
-
If Heath Shuler turns out to be only a so-so congressman, can Nancy Pelosi replace him mid-term with Gus Frerotte?
ROFLOLOLOLOLMAO :D :D :aok
-
Originally posted by Debonair
ROFLOLOLOLOLMAO :D :D :aok
Ya fergot Jeff George:aok
-
six.. perhaps a simpler example...
I borrow on my house to build hot rods... a notoriously loser prospect...
Or... I have a friend or relative who is a junkie or just lazy... I borrow to pay for his drug habit or manage to scrape up enough to make sure he just gets by..
Now.. I am incurring debt in either case but... In the former... I am building something and buying and learning to use tools... I have something to show for it when I am done (granted... worth less probly than I put into it) but I have learned skills and... I have met lots of interesting people and interacted with em... I have helped many busisinesses... I may feel a tiny bit guilty that I am spending the money but... I feel it is essential for my pursuit of happiness.
In the case of the latter.... I am flushing the money down a rat hole... the friend or relative is not getting any better but simply becomeing more dependent... I am only making things worse by allowing him to not see the reality of his situation... he knows he can get loaded with his money and if he needs more... hit me up for it... I feel guilty and worried all the time as I slip further and further into debt. No one wins... My other relatives who may deserve it get nothing and... I am not in a good mood so they lose that too.
Same debt... in one case something is gotten out of it... in the latter...everyone loses.
lazs