Election prediction poll [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Yerdaddy

10-20-2006, 01:02 AM

Aside from the congressional pages, what will be turned over in the Congress on November 7th?

PapaBear

10-20-2006, 01:11 AM

I voted House only... but I'm hoping for both.Personally, I'm not happy with any of the choices I have in this election, but I'm still voting Dem. I used to think that "voting for the lesser of two evils" was bad, but that was before our current global situations, and before I realised how precious my voting rights are.

spoon

10-20-2006, 01:16 AM

I voted both, but I'm very upset about the electronic voting machines and how easily they can be rigged.  If the Dems gain neither it'll definitely show voter fraud based on the current polls.  I suspect it happened last time too.

romey79

10-20-2006, 01:26 AM

I'm 27 & have never voted.  The last 8 years have compelled me to hit the polls for the 1st time...I'll be going dem all the way.

DarkHippie

10-20-2006, 02:59 AM

I'm sure the republicans still have some dirty tricks left.  i dont think the dems will get anything

cupcakelove

10-20-2006, 04:35 AM

I'm sure they'll take the House.  The Senate will be much closer, but I believe they will prevail.  But that's most likely my biased speaking.  If George Allen wins another term I'm moving into the city, I don't care how broke I'm going to be, I can't take much more of the backward thinking.

A.J.

10-20-2006, 05:19 AM

I think the Dems will take the Senate only by a slim margin.  They might pick up a seat or two in the House but I think redistricting will ensure incumbancy and a Republican majority.

furie

10-20-2006, 05:28 AM

i think the democrats will take the house, but the republicans will hold the senate.

UnknownPD

10-20-2006, 05:53 AM

Dewey will defeat Truman

UnknownPD

10-20-2006, 05:55 AM

spoon wrote: I voted both, but I'm very upset about the electronic voting machines and how easily they can be rigged.  If the Dems gain neither it'll definitely show voter fraud based on the current polls.  I suspect it happened last time too. So, if the Dems win it was fine, but if the pubs win its fraud?

Jujubees2

10-20-2006, 09:56 AM

How about this whack-job Senator from Montana (Burns).  He says the President has a plan for Iraq but he won't tell anybody what it is.<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm</a>

FezPaul

10-20-2006, 10:00 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: How about this whack-job Senator from Montana (Burns).  He says the President has a plan for Iraq but he won't tell anybody what it is.<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm</a>If he told you, he'd have to kill you.That old gag.

A.J.

10-20-2006, 10:08 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: How about this whack-job Senator from Montana (Burns).  He says the President has a plan for Iraq but he won't tell anybody what it is.<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm</a>If it existed, the New York Times would have leaked it by now.

KennethC

10-20-2006, 10:25 AM

I'm looking forward to "an all new HOUSE!"

torker

10-20-2006, 12:08 PM

I'll leave the prediction making to the pros.<img height="263" src="http://www.draplin.com/pics/GARY_SPIVEY_04.jpg" width="350" border="0" />

Recyclerz

10-20-2006, 12:11 PM

UnknownPD wrote: spoon wrote: I voted both, but I'm very upset about the electronic voting machines and how easily they can be rigged.  If the Dems gain neither it'll definitely show voter fraud based on the current polls.  I suspect it happened last time too. So, if the Dems win it was fine, but if the pubs win its fraud? The GOP only has the systems to steal the close elections right now.  But given enough time, money and ambition (ingredients that they have plenty of) who knows what they can accomplish.  <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" />

sailor

10-20-2006, 12:11 PM

UnknownPD wrote: spoon wrote: I voted both, but I'm very upset about the electronic voting machines and how easily they can be rigged. If the Dems gain neither it'll definitely show voter fraud based on the current polls. I suspect it happened last time too. So, if the Dems win it was fine, but if the pubs win its fraud?   yeah, if your side doesn't win, there must be cheating.  didn't you get the memo?

ADF

10-20-2006, 07:59 PM

He was referring to the fact that an overwhelming majority of people feel that Bush and all republicans associated with him have a very low approval rating.  An easy republican victory would be a sign to conspiracy nuts that voter fraud has taken place.  On the plus side, republicans are scoring very high in the disapproval ratings.

soupcan

10-20-2006, 08:25 PM

"radio psychic, radio psychic"...some "terrorist' event /scare occures and americans vote Bush cronies in , again .

Fez4PrezN2008

10-20-2006, 08:52 PM

My prediction... write-in candidate Fez Watley sweeps it in 2008...

spoon

10-20-2006, 09:31 PM

ADF wrote: He was referring to the fact that an overwhelming majority of people feel that Bush and all republicans associated with him have a very low approval rating.  An easy republican victory would be a sign to conspiracy nuts that voter fraud has taken place.  On the plus side, republicans are scoring very high in the disapproval ratings. Thanks for clearly stating what I meant.  As far as other election losses, the dems lost fair and square up until 2002.  It was then that first the hanging chads issue came up and then in 2006 the diebold machines along with many other horror stories in Ohio alone.  Sorry, this has been documented and can't be ignored.  And I believe one should know I wasn't for the Dems at all points in my life, just now as it clearly is the choice of lesser evil.  In fact, just what does a republican vote get middle class U.S. citizens these days?  If you have a good answer, chances are your a liar or just plain ignorant.  Wake up.

FUNKMAN

10-20-2006, 09:39 PM

who give's a rats left testicle?from the top to the bottom they are pieces of shit. they expect the public to act civil and respectful towards one another and then they spend billions 'across the board' to run smear campaigns and act like fucking bratty kids...fuck e'm all

spoon

10-20-2006, 09:52 PM

That's fucking hot!

FUNKMAN

10-20-2006, 09:54 PM

spoon wrote: That's fucking hot! I thought that would get a "Big Veteran's" attention   <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/rolleyes.gif" border="0" />edit: excuse em wa    "Big Ass Veteran"

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 10-21-06 @ 1:56 AM

keithy_19

10-20-2006, 09:59 PM

I voted they'll take nothing and like it, simply because I like the quote. Also, living in Jersey the tide will turn to the democrats. So my vote does little to sway the overall effect.

WRESTLINGFAN

10-21-2006, 02:43 AM

Though the Republicans have screwed up big time, Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house would be a trainwreck

Yerdaddy

10-21-2006, 03:12 AM

Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?

Gvac

10-21-2006, 06:12 AM

Zoltar says change seems likely.   <img border="0" src="http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/zoltar.jpg" />

WRESTLINGFAN

10-21-2006, 06:38 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?  The NAMBLA crowd is hoping Pelosi becomes speaker. 

This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-21-06 @ 10:39 AM

Yerdaddy

10-21-2006, 08:30 AM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?  The NAMBLA crowd is hoping Pelosi becomes speaker. This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-21-06 @ 10:39 AM Based on what?

johnniewalker

10-21-2006, 09:03 AM

I'm hoping for a complete congressional change.  New ideas are needed.  Have fun with that Iraq albatross though.

WRESTLINGFAN

10-21-2006, 09:41 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?  The NAMBLA crowd is hoping Pelosi becomes speaker. This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-21-06 @ 10:39 AM Based on what?  Based on her EXTREME left wing agenda, it has hijacked the democratic party

WRESTLINGFAN

10-21-2006, 09:43 AM

johnniewalker wrote: I'm hoping for a complete congressional change.  New ideas are needed.  Have fun with that Iraq albatross though. Thats why term limits are needed in Congress

BLZBUBBA

10-21-2006, 10:07 AM

I've never undertstood the hate for Pelosi.  She raised her family and THEN ran for public office.  Liberal?  Where's she from?  California.  She's representing her constituents.  As for predictions.  Who does apathy favor?  I expect a low turnout.  People have grown weary of Bush and his bunch and I doubt they'll get the vote out.  But then people are pretty indifferent with voting Democratic as well. It comes down to whether Democrats can get their vote out.  I don't really see that happening.  If there is a large turnout it will be Democratic voters and they could very well take both houses.  But I just don't see people flocking to the polls this year.  I think Congress may well stay the same.  Pretty much evenly split with Republicans keeping a miniscule majority.  The Dems may take the Senate.  The House?  I doubt it.

johnniewalker

10-21-2006, 10:10 AM

BLZBUBBA wrote: I've never undertstood the hate for Pelosi. She raised her family and THEN ran for public office. Liberal? Where's she from? California. She's representing her constituents. As for predictions. Who does apathy favor? I expect a low turnout. People have grown weary of Bush and his bunch and I doubt they'll get the vote out. But then people are pretty indifferent with voting Democratic as well. It comes down to whether Democrats can get their vote out. I don't really see that happening. If there is a large turnout it will be Democratic voters and they could very well take both houses. But I just don't see people flocking to the polls this year. I think Congress may well stay the same. Pretty much evenly split with Republicans keeping a miniscule majority. The Dems may take the Senate. The House? I doubt it.  I understand the hate for pelosi.  People either love or hate her, she's not just a liberal but on the extreme part of the spectrum.  I never understood all the hate for Rick Santorum.

pennington

10-21-2006, 11:11 AM

As Tip O'Neil used to say, "All politics is local".  Most voters are happy with their Senator/Congressman. Even with some open seats, overall things will stay pretty much as they are now.And I agree, term limits have been needed for a long time.

spoon

10-21-2006, 11:55 AM

johnniewalker wrote: BLZBUBBA wrote: I've never undertstood the hate for Pelosi. She raised her family and THEN ran for public office. Liberal? Where's she from? California. She's representing her constituents. As for predictions. Who does apathy favor? I expect a low turnout. People have grown weary of Bush and his bunch and I doubt they'll get the vote out. But then people are pretty indifferent with voting Democratic as well. It comes down to whether Democrats can get their vote out. I don't really see that happening. If there is a large turnout it will be Democratic voters and they could very well take both houses. But I just don't see people flocking to the polls this year. I think Congress may well stay the same. Pretty much evenly split with Republicans keeping a miniscule majority. The Dems may take the Senate. The House? I doubt it.  I understand the hate for pelosi.  People either love or hate her, she's not just a liberal but on the extreme part of the spectrum.  I never understood all the hate for Rick Santorum.  I'm originally from PA and Rick Santorum IS an ass and deserves to lose this election.  He doesn't have the people's interest from PA in mind whatsoever, but does the bidding of W (Cheney) at every turn.  I think he runs on the anti-ESD and PB platform, pressing topic I know.  Nancy P is way more down to earth than you would think.  Just where does all her "extreme" left wing tactics come into play?  Simply bc she goes against the right wing's corporate laden policy which is destroying the middle class?  Well then, I'm an extreme left wing politico as well and proud as one could fucking be.

docgoblin

10-21-2006, 12:03 PM

FUNKMAN wrote: who give's a rats left testicle?from the top to the bottom they are pieces of shit. they expect the public to act civil and respectful towards one another and then they spend billions 'across the board' to run smear campaigns and act like fucking bratty kids...fuck e'm all Hear, Hear!!! Very few of these rich assholes could give a shit about real people. Both sides are full of greedy, fat, power-hungry slobs who care only about taking care of their special interests and staying in office. If any of these rotten fucks really cared about their constituents we'd have alternative fuel, better health care and a solution to the social security mess by now. Each administration is worse than the last. Sadly, I've voted in every election since 1980. I often end up voting for poor independent slobs who really seem to care about making a difference. Unfortunately under the horrible campaign laws that we have now, the indies are given almost no chance in any election.This thread depresses me.

Gvac

10-21-2006, 12:19 PM

Like I've stated countless times before, everyone who gets elected to a political office goes in owing favors to certain large donors, usually major corporations.  To think "The Democrats will help me" or "The Republicans are the ones who will make America great" is so ludicrous it's infantile.  Until there's a sure-fire way to remove all money and corruption from political campaigns (HA!) don't hold your breath waiting for an honest politician who will actually impact your life in a positive way.  PS - TERM LIMITS FOR EVERY POLITICIAN!  STATE, LOCAL, FEDERAL, ETC.

spoon

10-21-2006, 01:22 PM

Gvac wrote: Like I've stated countless times before, everyone who gets elected to a political office goes in owing favors to certain large donors, usually major corporations.  To think "The Democrats will help me" or "The Republicans are the ones who will make America great" is so ludicrous it's infantile.  Until there's a sure-fire way to remove all money and corruption from political campaigns (HA!) don't hold your breath waiting for an honest politician who will actually impact your life in a positive way.  PS - TERM LIMITS FOR EVERY POLITICIAN!  STATE, LOCAL, FEDERAL, ETC. In the same respect, it's infantile to believe everyone is corrupted easily and that nobody has your interest in mind more than another.  There are difs and if you pay attention you can clearly see them.  Some people really are into philanthropy even being from upper class roots.  If we just give up, nothing will change.  The answer is to truly look into your local candidates, past, present and goals and base your pick on that.  If they don't hold up to your expectations, you bounce him/her next time.  If people were as responsive to their officials as they were to their fantasy football teams we'd live in a much better time.

spoon

10-21-2006, 01:23 PM

I have no clue why Vac's big font passed on to my quote?  If a mod needs to fix it cool.

Yerdaddy

10-21-2006, 01:41 PM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?  The NAMBLA crowd is hoping Pelosi becomes speaker. This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-21-06 @ 10:39 AM Based on what?  Based on her EXTREME left wing agenda, it has hijacked the democratic partySo you're saying you got no basis for the statement. OK then.

FUNKMAN

10-21-2006, 01:43 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Because she might decide to keep a pedophile in a house leaderhip position?  The NAMBLA crowd is hoping Pelosi becomes speaker. This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-21-06 @ 10:39 AM Based on what?  Based on her EXTREME left wing agenda, it has hijacked the democratic partySo you're saying you got no basis for the statement. OK then.ooooh! you told him ...

Gvac

10-21-2006, 01:57 PM

<hr width="100%" size="2" />spoon wrote:   The answer is to truly look
into your local candidates, past, present and goals and base your pick
on that.  If they don't hold up to your expectations, you bounce
him/her next time.  If people were as responsive to their officials as
they were to their fantasy football teams we'd live in a much better
time. 
<hr width="100%" size="2" />Agreed, bro.  However, the past few elections I've made a conscious decision to vote for the most unknown and under-funded independent candidate who most closely echoes my views and beliefs.  I just think it's folly to expect wealthy men who take millions of dollars in campaign contributions to truly be committed to the constituency they claim to represent.

Gvac

10-21-2006, 02:06 PM

Getting back to the subject at hand, I appear to be in the minority based on the results but I think the Dems take the Senate only.

johnniewalker

10-21-2006, 02:36 PM

spoon wrote: johnniewalker wrote: BLZBUBBA wrote: I've never undertstood the hate for Pelosi. She raised her family and THEN ran for public office. Liberal? Where's she from? California. She's representing her constituents. As for predictions. Who does apathy favor? I expect a low turnout. People have grown weary of Bush and his bunch and I doubt they'll get the vote out. But then people are pretty indifferent with voting Democratic as well. It comes down to whether Democrats can get their vote out. I don't really see that happening. If there is a large turnout it will be Democratic voters and they could very well take both houses. But I just don't see people flocking to the polls this year. I think Congress may well stay the same. Pretty much evenly split with Republicans keeping a miniscule majority. The Dems may take the Senate. The House? I doubt it. I understand the hate for pelosi. People either love or hate her, she's not just a liberal but on the extreme part of the spectrum. I never understood all the hate for Rick Santorum. I'm originally from PA and Rick Santorum IS an ass and deserves to lose this election. He doesn't have the people's interest from PA in mind whatsoever, but does the bidding of W (Cheney) at every turn. I think he runs on the anti-ESD and PB platform, pressing topic I know. Nancy P is way more down to earth than you would think. Just where does all her "extreme" left wing tactics come into play? Simply bc she goes against the right wing's corporate laden policy which is destroying the middle class? Well then, I'm an extreme left wing politico as well and proud as one could fucking be. I was just joshin ya, but I do think Santorum has the same feeling for democrats as Pelosi does for the repub. Whether its justified or not, I think its probably true. I'm not sure what's 100% accurate to classifying a congress person but her voting record classifies her as fairly liberal. I don't think she feels bad about it, so if someone supports her I don't think they should either. 

This message was edited by johnniewalker on 10-21-06 @ 6:50 PM

Yerdaddy

10-21-2006, 02:40 PM

Gvac wrote: Like I've stated countless times before, everyone who gets elected to a political office goes in owing favors to certain large donors, usually major corporations.  To think "The Democrats will help me" or "The Republicans are the ones who will make America great" is so ludicrous it's infantile.  Until there's a sure-fire way to remove all money and corruption from political campaigns (HA!) don't hold your breath waiting for an honest politician who will actually impact your life in a positive way.  PS - TERM LIMITS FOR EVERY POLITICIAN!  STATE, LOCAL, FEDERAL, ETC. See I don't buy this "they're all the same" theory. I used to, but now I think I was wrong.Take your key issue in this post, G: campaign finance reform. The last law limiting money in campaigns was the McCain-Feingold bill, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act" target="_blank">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</a>, passed in 2002. There was a vote on this bill and some people supported your position and some opposed it. <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml" target="_blank">Here's the vote in the House.</a> 41 Republicans and 198 Democrats voted for it - 176 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted against it. <a href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=54&chamber=S&congress=1072&tally=1" target="_blank">In the Senate, the vote was 60-40</a>, with 51 Dems and 9 Reps voting for, and 38 Reps and 2 Dems voting against. Certainly on this issue the two parties are not the same.

Yerdaddy

10-22-2006, 01:57 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001661.html" target="_blank">As opposed to the dem-haters getting to just pull out of their asses tehories of what the dems would do if they to take back part of Congress - like pull out of Iraq and give Bin Laden a big hug - here's an idea of what they would do differently.</a>No one speaks more authoritatively for the Democrats on defense and national security issues than Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, both longtime members of the Armed Services Committee. If you want to know what Democratic gains in this midterm election would mean for national security policy, Levin and Reed can provide the answers.In a conference call with reporters the other day, the two senators outlined the changes in U.S. policy toward North Korea and Iraq that they and their fellow Democrats would like to see. They signal to voters the kind of change a Democratic victory would mean.In the case of North Korea, Levin called for doing something that President Bush has refused for six years to do -- engage directly in talks with representatives of the communist regime.But he put a condition on it, saying such talks should take place only "providing our allies and partners want us to do it" and only as part of an agreed-upon strategy supported by Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.Reed, who endorsed the idea, said any direct U.S.-North Korea talks would "most likely" take place in the context of the six-power talks, now stalled over Pyongyang's defiance of the United Nations and the regime's testing of a nuclear weapon.Levin said he believes the other nations in those six-power talks -- Russia, China, Japan and South Korea -- all wish the United States would talk directly with the North Koreans. Our willingness to do so would not be a sign of weakness, he said, but a way of removing an excuse the North Koreans have used to explain their obduracy.This isn't much, but it's long overdue. The Bush administration has treated talks as a reward for accepting all of our demands in advance. They've done this with North Korea, Iran and Syria. It's a ridiculous policy that basically cuts off all chance for diplomatic progress towards solutions and leaves us with only war or the threat of war to solve problems. Well, with this quagmire in Iraq - and is one now - we have no military options in any of these places. So cutting off all diplomacy, like we've more or less done, has left us with no policy towards any of these countries. This policy of having no policy has been ridiculed by even conservative experts for a long time now. This democratic change, if they got it from the administration, would help.[quote]On Iraq, the two Democrats harked back to the amendment that 39 senators supported during a debate earlier this year -- an amendment that called for a start on U.S. troop withdrawals within six months but set no numbers and specified no target date for ending the U.S. military presence.Reed, who has made many trips to Iraq and returned just weeks ago from his most recent visit, described the "very, very difficult situation" he found there. "We have to begin to work toward redeployment without setting a timetable," he said. "We have to start laying out some red lines for the Iraqis . . . give them some clear goals we want them to achieve." They need to set plans for disarming militias, conducting elections at the provincial level and spending some of the funds being hoarded in Baghdad on better services for the people, he said.Implicit in their comments is a belief, based on their firsthand observations, that the current rulers in Baghdad have a different agenda for themselves than the Bush administration's bland assurances suggest. As Levin put it, "Our only leverage for change is to force the politicians in Iraq to realize we're

A.J.

10-23-2006, 02:39 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:  On Iraq, the two Democrats harked back to the amendment that 39 senators supported during a debate earlier this year -- an amendment that called for a start on U.S. troop withdrawals within six months but set no numbers and specified no target date for ending the U.S. military presence.   I thought the whole problem with this fiasco was that we needed MORE troops there.

Furtherman

10-25-2006, 09:35 AM

soupcan wrote: "radio psychic, radio psychic"...some "terrorist' event /scare occures and americans vote Bush cronies in , again . I think that is very possible.  I hope not, but I wouldn't put it past them.

empulse

10-25-2006, 03:30 PM

I voted they take both.   If the voting can be trusted.The "They're all the same" argument is false.  Check their voting record (and actually examine the bills, which sadly are never read thorougly till its too late.)  I believe that Ultimate Power Ultimately Corrupts, and having one party control it all leads that party down the path of corruption.  Removing the corporations from our democratic process should be the #1 goal of every American.  Its bullshit for congressmen / senators to be beholden to the corporations for anything.  The congress and the senate should only answer to their constiuents. People should never have to fear their gov't, their gov't should have to fear the people.Public Financing is the answer to the electoral process.  Re-initiate the Fairness Doctorine.  Pull FCC licenses of ANY TV network that labels a show NEWS, and cannot back up FACTUALLY ALL CONTENT 100% (and yes, obviously i believe that an allownce for Anonymous sources should exist), if you are calling it NEWS then it had better fucking be the TRUTH.  Now what is the hubbub about Nancy Pelosi?  If Dems win, she is next in line to be President. very simply this freaks those in charge the fuck out.  If Dems win in Congress, investigations will begin (much needed i might add) into the corruption of this One Party Gov't we have had for 6+ years.  There stands a chance that one, or both President Bush and Dick Cheney could be impeached or removed from office.  Speaker of the house is next in line for the job, not likely to happen but it has a probability of happening that isn't way way out there..I'm not sure why believing the following makes me evil, makes me a filthy liberal:do unto others as you would have them do unto youbelief in a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion for alli believe in taxes. we cannot provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare without them.I think the corporations don't know any better than i do, and they aren't allowed to vote, or buy votes.I believe in Habeus Corpus.  Its one of the core elements to this democracy.  No one branch of gov't should ever be more powerful than another.  Just the notion that the President could snatch a US citizen off the streets with no recourse, is batshit crazy.  You say it can't happen...  How would you know?  No attorney. no reason. no one has to know. you never existed.  Thats scary.Gays, muslims, christians, jooos, are all equally fucked up, and should be gauranteed the same right to being screwed as you or I.If you were ever to try and take anything from religion and insert it in politics, there is only one common belief among all religions, one common thread which is preached/taught over and over and over.  Take care of the least among us (shows up in the bible some 3100 times).  Help those around you.

Yerdaddy

10-26-2006, 12:16 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  On Iraq, the two Democrats harked back to the amendment that 39 senators supported during a debate earlier this year -- an amendment that called for a start on U.S. troop withdrawals within six months but set no numbers and specified no target date for ending the U.S. military presence.   I thought the whole problem with this fiasco was that we needed MORE troops there.Was going to give one of my long analyses, (bedtime stories for anyone with any sense), but <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/061030ta_talk_packer" target="_blank">I found an article instead.</a> All ham to allah!When the National Security Council met to discuss Iraq earlier this month, in Washington, the sense of urgency was palpable. The director of national intelligence described the deterioration of security in Baghdad and Basra; the Iraqi Army was near collapse, he said, and another explosion of sectarian violence was imminent. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that the American commander in Iraq was asking for two new combat brigades immediately and fifty thousand additional troops in the coming months. “We’ve just heard a very dour intel briefing,” the national-security adviser said, opening the floor to discussion. “With more resources, can we really get it right? Can we do it better than we’ve done in the past three and a half years?”“What is ‘it’?” another participant asked. “What do we mean by success? A democratic Iraq?”“Can we achieve a stable, unified Iraq?” the national-security adviser persisted. “Does anyone here believe that’s still possible? And, if not, then Plan A has failed and we have to come up with other options.”“Plan A is dead,” the Secretary of State announced, and sketched out a new strategy to bring Iran, Syria, and Iraq’s other neighboring countries into negotiations, in order to prevent civil war from spreading across borders. “We have to take what is a hugely eroded leadership position in the international community and try to turn it around. It’s a hell of a long shot.”The meeting was remarkable for its clarity: the principals looked at unpleasant facts from every angle, asked fundamental questions about the choices available, criticized past failures, and agreed on new plans without concern for the political fallout. The old habits of wishful thinking and blind loyalty were gone. If this discussion had taken place at the White House, one could be a little hopeful, not just for a change of policy but for a change of climate in which new policies might be imagined. Instead, it occurred a mile away, at the Brookings Institution, where a dozen civilian and military officials of previous Administrations had come together for a daylong war game on Iraq.more...

Yerdaddy

10-26-2006, 12:23 AM

By the way, I predict House only, but I wouldn't be surprised if the loser Democrats still couldn't pull of a win once again this election.

A.J.

10-26-2006, 03:26 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Was going to give one of my long analyses, (bedtime stories for anyone with any sense), but <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/061030ta_talk_packer" target="_blank">I found an article instead.</a> All ham to allah!  Shukran jazim.  But I found a good one too -- in today New York Times.[QUOTE]October 26, 2006<div class="kicker">Op-Ed Contributor</div><h1>What Osama Wants </h1><div class="byline">By PETER BERGEN</div><div>WashingtonTHE French saying, often attributed to Talleyrand, that “this is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder,” could easily describe America’s invasion of Iraq. But for the United States to pull entirely out of that country right now, as is being demanded by a growing chorus of critics, would be to snatch an unqualified disaster from the jaws of an enormous blunder. To understand why, look to history. Vietnam often looms large in the debate over Iraq, but the better analogy is what happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. During the 1980’s, Washington poured billions of dollars into the Afghan resistance. Around the time of Moscow’s withdrawal in 1989, however, the United States shut its embassy in Kabul and largely ignored the ensuing civil war and the rise of the Taliban and its Qaeda allies. We can’t make the same mistake again in Iraq.A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land,” he wrote. “Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing.” Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West. And there is no riper spot than the Sunni-majority areas of central and western Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the most feared insurgent commander in Iraq — was issuing an invitation to Mr. bin Laden when he named his group Al Qaeda in Iraq. When Mr. Zarqawi was killed this year, his successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, also swore allegiance to Al Qaeda’s chief. Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden’s master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies. Indeed, in 2005 Mr. Zawahri sent Mr. Zarqawi a letter, which was intercepted by the United States military, exhorting him to start preparing for the impending American withdrawal similar to that of Vietnam 30 years ago. “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy,” Mr. Zawahri said. “Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them.” Yes, there is little doubt that the botched American occupation of Iraq was the critical factor that fueled the Iraqi insurgency. But for the United States to wash its hands of the country now would give Al Qaeda’s leaders what they want. This does not mean simply holding course. America should abandon its pretensions that it can

A.J.

10-26-2006, 03:47 AM

empulse wrote: The "They're all the same" argument is false.  Check their voting record (and actually examine the bills, which sadly are never read thorougly till its too late.)  I believe that Ultimate Power Ultimately Corrupts, and having one party control it all leads that party down the path of corruption.   With a brief interruption under Reagan, the Democrats ran both houses of Congress for 40 years - until 1995.  So there was no corruption in Congress when the Democrats had one party contol under JFK/LBJ, Carter and part of Clinton's first term?  Removing the corporations from our democratic process should be the #1 goal of every American.  Its bullshit for congressmen / senators to be beholden to the corporations for anything.  The congress and the senate should only answer to their constiuents. People should never have to fear their gov't, their gov't should have to fear the people.You do realize that corporations employ constituents?  If corporations don't succeed then businesses lay people off and/or export jobs overseas.  So members of congress should NEVER vote pro-business?Pull FCC licenses of ANY TV network that labels a show NEWS, and cannot back up FACTUALLY ALL CONTENT 100% (and yes, obviously i believe that an allownce for Anonymous sources should exist), if you are calling it NEWS then it had better fucking be the TRUTH.  That isn't a form of censorship and a violation of free speech?  Who decides what is the "truth"?  So should CBS have had its FCC license revoked after the Dan Rather broadcasted that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate" target="_self">the documents regarding Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard </a>were genuine when they turned out to be fake?

empulse

10-27-2006, 04:09 PM

With a brief interruption under Reagan, the Democrats ran both houses of Congress for 40 years - until 1995.  So there was no corruption in Congress when the Democrats had one party contol under JFK/LBJ, Carter and part of Clinton's first term?  Not saying that Democrats are better than Republicans as a rule.  Actually I didn't name a party in that first paragraph. I was saying its neccesary to have all of the facts first before you make a blanket statement about all politicians, and even more if you intend to vote for someone.  Yes there are plenty of piece of shit democrats.  How many republicans will say that about their party?You do realize that corporations employ constituents?  If corporations don't succeed then businesses lay people off and/or export jobs overseas.  So members of congress should NEVER vote pro-business?Yes, corporations employ constituents.  and those people will vote their conscience.  they work in the factory or at the business and can decide for themselves whats best for them.  And businesses shouldn't be proped up by gov't. Airlines should have been allowed to fail.   Someone very quickly would have taken there place.  Oil companies receieve BILLIONS in our tax dollars every year...  they are in need more than you or I? (or New Orleans?)   This is a 100% REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE - SENATE - PRESIDENT - SUPREME COURT, and all of our jobs are going overseas anyway in the perfect storm of a pro corporate gov't.  So how does business help me again?  Isn't the market supposed to decide?  (See Danny Devito buggy whip speech in Other Peoples Money)That isn't a form of censorship and a violation of free speech?  Who decides what is the "truth"?  So should CBS have had its FCC license revoked after the Dan Rather broadcasted that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate" target="_self">the documents regarding Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard </a>were genuine when they turned out to be fake?Censorship? So i can call me kicking some old lady in the cunt and stealing her purse a friendship greeting?   If you are going to call it News.. then it had better fucking be NEWS.  If its entertainment and opinions then call it the I'm Gonna blow smoke up your ass for an hour show, not NEWS.  You confuse me on TRUTH.  lets look at it, define it:<table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">4.</td><td valign="top">the state or character of being true. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">5.</td><td valign="top">actuality or actual existence. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">6.</td><td valign="top">an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">7.</td><td valign="top">honesty; integrity; truthfulness. </td></tr></table><table class="luna-Ent" border="0"><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">8.</td><td valign="top">(often initial capital letter<img class="luna-Img"

Kevin

10-27-2006, 04:31 PM

<img height="226" src="http://metropolis.co.jp/xmg/541/541-F-japanese-guy.jpg" width="150" border="0" />  I totally misread the thread, I thought you meant erection prediction poll, you have no idea how disappointed I am<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbdown.gif" border="0" />

A.J.

11-06-2006, 08:07 AM

Top.  Any other predictions?

furie

11-06-2006, 12:47 PM

I have a question;
Does the endorsement on a candidate from groups you belong to sway your vote at all?

For me I'd say no. I get emails from the emerald society informing what candidate they endorse and I just skip right over it. I don't know who they like or why. I vote for me.

Reephdweller

11-07-2006, 04:22 AM

I'm hoping for them to take both.

AKA

11-07-2006, 05:37 AM

It's been interesting to see the Democrats become a united front this last month, even as more and more former Republican candidates switch parties, watering down the dreaded, but really elusive, Liberal influence (that I think died with Paul Wellstone, if it ever really existed in the last 30 years). The old chestnuts of the Dems being SOFT ON TERROR or RAISING YOUR TAXES don't quite ring true if think beyond the bumperstickers, that even if Speaker of the House, Comrad Pelosi, and her cronie Herr Kennedy wanted to Do San Franciscos Bidding and raise taxes and "cut and run," that George W. Bush, a Republican, is still President, and basically has a say in all of that. Worst case scenerio, Dubya may finally get to make a second veto during his time in office, to join the one he did against Stem Cell research!It's little consolation that the balance of power may finally be shared with two years left in an era of rubberstamping and steamrolling - especially since both parties really are looking more and more like the same Frankenstein Republicrat monster.

A.J.

11-08-2006, 06:05 AM

A.J. wrote: I think the Dems will take the Senate only by a slim margin.  They might pick up a seat or two in the House but I think redistricting will ensure incumbancy and a Republican majority. So much for THAT theory.

bobrobot

11-08-2006, 06:33 AM

I predict a razzle dazzle victory 4 the Democrats!!!<img height="229" src="http://www.supersnail.com/images8/2__kolchaka_snail_juaxss.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

Yerdaddy

11-08-2006, 08:48 AM

A.J. wrote: A.J. wrote: I think the Dems will take the Senate only by a slim margin.  They might pick up a seat or two in the House but I think redistricting will ensure incumbancy and a Republican majority. So much for THAT theory.bRaiN fARt!!!!!!!1!<img height="209" src="http://guilds.outpost10f.com/~poetry/contest/july02/images/brainfart-5.jpg" width="300" border="0" />LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!I!!!!!!AM!!!!!!!!!A!!!!!!!! !!!!J!!!!!A!!!!!!!!!!C!!!!!K!!!!!A!!!!!!!!!!S!!!!! S!!!!!!!!!!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 11-8-06 @ 12:51 PM

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 01:41 PM

46.15% of RF.net predicted the elections. And, from what I can tell the political junkies, at least AJ and I, guessed wrong. I, for one, am going to make up for it with longer posts, and I expect AJ to atone with more classic television call-back posts.

A.J.

11-13-2006, 02:30 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: 46.15% of RF.net predicted the elections. And, from what I can tell the political junkies, at least AJ and I, guessed wrong. I, for one, am going to make up for it with longer posts, and I expect AJ to atone with more classic television call-back posts. We DO have reputations to maintain after all.