Election results discussion thread [Archive]

Recyclerz

11-07-2006, 06:35 PM

docgoblin wrote: The whole thing is gonna result in one huge stalemate for the next two years. Santorum losing is bad because the fighting autism bill probably will now be dead. With 1 in 166 kids being born with the disorder I think it's really important for this research to go forward. Oh well, at least we're sending that big bad George W a message... Who cares about the stupid kids!? I disagree on the autism bill.  It passed the Senate by consensus and, as anybody who listened to Imus for even one minute in the last couple of months, was being held up by that "worm gut sucking weasel " Joe Barton in the House, who will probably be losing his chairmanship tonight.  I think it gets passed as one of the first things in the new Congress.I am for stalemate for the next two years though.  Limits the stupid things W can do on his way out, some of the more egregious tax cuts will expire, and it actually gives W the chance to do something bi-partisian that is actually good for the country to salvage his reputation (eg. A reasonable fix for Soc. Security, real investment in alternative fuels paid for by a gas tax).  We'll see.

Recyclerz

11-07-2006, 06:39 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: You'd cry too if you just spent 15 million of your own money for nothing. I thought those TV commercial were pretty good (Mr. Smith goes to Washington and the one where the Lieberman look-alike keeps crashing into the wall over and over).He can go into advertising. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" />

burrben

11-07-2006, 06:39 PM

ohio is pretty blue now. this is the first time that the people i've voted for actually won

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 06:40 PM

What's the latest on Jim Webb?

torker

11-07-2006, 06:41 PM

Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo. <img height="300" src="http://www.guesswhosthejew.com/photos/thumbnails/200x300/Chico%20Marx.jpg" width="160" border="0" />

This message was edited by torker on 11-7-06 @ 10:43 PM

UnknownPD

11-07-2006, 06:43 PM

Putin in a landslide

Bulldogcakes

11-07-2006, 06:44 PM

Recyclerz wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You'd cry too if you just spent 15 million of your own money for nothing. I thought those TV commercial were pretty good (Mr. Smith goes to Washington and the one where the Lieberman look-alike keeps crashing into the wall over and over).He can go into advertising. <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" /> Do you think that 15 mil might have been used better if it was spent on Autism research or alt fuels? I do.Plus the Reublicans will spend the next 6 months trying to sell the fact that since Lieberman won, that means the war is not as unpopular as the "liberal media" makes it out to be. They will hang their hats on this race. Its also why they gave so much support to Leiberman. Wont fly, but they'll be selling it.      

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-7-06 @ 10:50 PM

Bulldogcakes

11-07-2006, 06:47 PM

THis Pennsylvania race is unreal. 93% in and seperated by 8,000 votes. Allen still ahead.

Recyclerz

11-07-2006, 06:50 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Recyclerz wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You'd cry too if you just spent 15 million of your own money for nothing. I thought those TV commercial were pretty good (Mr. Smith goes to Washington and the one where the Lieberman look-alike keeps crashing into the wall over and over).He can go into advertising. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" />  Do you think that 15 mil might have been used better if it was spent on Autism research or alt fuels? I do.   Sure, but as a Libertarian might put it - it's his money. I kinda like Lieberman but I'm not sorry that the anti-war crowd got to howl and probably pushed ol' Joe into some rethinking of his position.  I suspect he'll be pushing pretty hard for whatever changes Baker recommends next year.

HBox

11-07-2006, 06:50 PM

PapaBear wrote: What's the latest on Jim Webb?  Down, probably will lose but it might be close enough for an automatic recount.

HBox

11-07-2006, 06:55 PM

here's a thought no matter what happens with the Senate: Let's say Bush dumps Rumsfeld and offers Lieberman the chance to be Sec. of Defense, does he take it knowing that the Republican Governor of Connecticut will nominate a Republican to replace him? Obviously this issue is utmost importance if the Democrats take the Senate but that seems highly unlikely at this point.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 06:56 PM

HBox wrote:  PapaBear wrote: What's the latest on Jim Webb?   Down, probably will lose but it might be close enough for an automatic recount. It just showed as 49-50 for Allen, but I didn't see the percentage of the vote counted. That's damn close.

HBox

11-07-2006, 06:57 PM

NBC just called, and I don't know how or why, that the Democrats WILL take the House with a MINIMUM gain of 29 seats. And they say that they are being conservative. Take that for what you will.

HBox

11-07-2006, 06:58 PM

PapaBear wrote: HBox wrote: PapaBear wrote: What's the latest on Jim Webb? Down, probably will lose but it might be close enough for an automatic recount. It just showed as 49-50 for Allen, but I didn't see the percentage of the vote counted. That's damn close.  They are well over 90%, maybe even over 95%.

Bulldogcakes

11-07-2006, 07:01 PM

EDIT Drudge has 95.66% in, Allen leading by 14,000 votes. <strike> </strike> 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-7-06 @ 11:02 PM

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:02 PM

With 95.66% reporting:<table width="85%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td> G F Allen</td>
<td> Republican</td>
<td align="right">1,097,708</td>
<td align="right">49.71%</td></tr>
<tr><td>  J H Webb Jr</td>
<td> Democratic</td>
<td align="right">1,083,988</td>
<td align="right">49.09%</td></tr></table>[color=navy][size=2]The remaining areas are more Democratic but there most likely won't be enough to overtake Allen. If the margin of victory is .50 % or below there is an automatic recount. I don't know what the procedures are if it isn't that close and Webb wants a recount.

Bulldogcakes

11-07-2006, 07:03 PM

Whatever else happens tonite, the Republicans got their asses kicked. Its only a matter of degree at this point. And they deserve every bit of it.

Reephdweller

11-07-2006, 07:03 PM

DEMS NEED: +3 TO TAKE SENATE DEMS NEED: +2 TO TAKE HOUSE

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:06 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Whatever else happens tonite, the Republicans got their asses kicked. Its only a matter of degree at this point. And they deserve every bit of it.   I don't know. It looks like Republicans can hold on to Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri, and Montana is also a possiblity too. If they take all 4 that's impressive. If they can hold on to the three tossups that's still really good considering everything.

Bulldogcakes

11-07-2006, 07:10 PM

THey're calling the House for the Dems. Praise the lord, we now have gridlock. Congrats to my liberal buddies and goodnight.

Reephdweller

11-07-2006, 07:13 PM

Looks like the democrats have taken the house. Nice!One to go.

Gvac

11-07-2006, 07:13 PM

This entire election coverage is unwatchable.  I've been flicking around from CBS to NBC to ABC to FOX to CNN to MSNBC to FOXNews to ....They're all AWFUL.  Unintelligible "pundits" stammering and stuttering their projections.  Who in their right mind can watch this shit?

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 07:15 PM

Do what I'm doing, Gvac. I'm watching the numbers with the volume down while listening to today's R&F. It's quite entertaining.

Reephdweller

11-07-2006, 07:16 PM

I haven't watched a word of it.

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:22 PM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WI/H/03/" target="_self">This is Paul R. Nelson, and I disapprove of these election results.</a>

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:22 PM

NBC has updated their projections, now its +32 Democrats in the House.

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:32 PM

<table width="85%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td>G F Allen</td>
<td> Republican</td>
<td align="right">1,113,013</td>
<td align="right">49.50%</td></tr>
<tr><td>  J H Webb Jr</td>
<td> Democratic</td>
<td align="right">1,108,291</td>
<td align="right">49.29%</td></tr></table> 97.66% reporting. We are virtually guaranteed a recount here. And then there are absentee ballots.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 07:34 PM

There's a shitload of absentee ballots this year, and they are pretty evenly slit between dems and reps. This is going to be one tight race!

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:36 PM

Irony Alert: the NBC White House Correspondent just said that Bush's immigration plan now has a much better chance of pasing with a Democratic House.

johnniewalker

11-07-2006, 07:37 PM

HBox wrote: <a target="_self" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WI/H/03/">This is Paul R. Nelson, and I disapprove of these election results.</a>  Thats such crap, I really thought he was making some headway.  I really thought his fatboy slim remix had the pull of an I like Ike campaign slogan.

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:41 PM

johnniewalker wrote: HBox wrote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WI/H/03/" target="_self">This is Paul R. Nelson, and I disapprove of these election results.</a> Thats such crap, I really thought he was making some headway. I really thought his fatboy slim remix had the pull of an I like Ike campaign slogan.   Hilarious bit aside that guy is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party.

Dudeman

11-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Gvac wrote: This entire election coverage is unwatchable. I've been flicking around from CBS to NBC to ABC to FOX to CNN to MSNBC to FOXNews to ....They're all AWFUL. Unintelligible "pundits" stammering and stuttering their projections. Who in their right mind can watch this shit? colbert report!!!

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:52 PM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/VA/" target="_blank">Holy shit. Webb ahead by 2,500 votes with 99% reporting.</a>

johnniewalker

11-07-2006, 07:55 PM

Interesting propostions passed, some same sex marriage bans and this one in Michigan<div class="cnnBallotbox">
<div class="cnnBallottitle">
Michigan | Proposition 2: Restrict Affirmative Action</div>
<div class="cnnBallotcontent">Proposed amendment to Michigan
Constitution would "prohibit the University of Michigan and other state
universities, the state, and all other state entities from
discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on
race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." On June 23, 2003, the
U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, ruled in
favor of affirmative action in the University of Michigan's admissions
policies. The Bush administration opposed the university's
pro-affirmative action admission policies.Very interesting! </div>
</div>

HBox

11-07-2006, 07:57 PM

South Dakota shot down an abortion ban.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 08:03 PM

Hbox beat me to it.

This message was edited by PapaBear on 11-8-06 @ 12:04 AM

johnniewalker

11-07-2006, 08:05 PM

PapaBear wrote: Hbox beat me to it.

This message was edited by PapaBear on 11-8-06 @ 12:04 AM You were more accurate by 100 votes.  Don't be so hard on yourself.

suggums

11-07-2006, 08:06 PM

HBox wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/VA/">Holy shit. Webb ahead by 2,500 votes with 99% reporting.</a>   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/drunk.gif" />  <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/lol.gif" />

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 08:07 PM

If Webb wins by one vote, I'm taking credit.

TheRealEddie

11-07-2006, 08:08 PM

wait, did Earl make any election predictions!?!?!?! I should have been paying closer attention....

TheRealEddie

11-07-2006, 08:08 PM

hey, theres a Daily Show ad on the bottom of ronfez.net. Cool!

HBox

11-07-2006, 08:09 PM

This Virginia race is not going to be decided for a while. EDIT: Wow. David Shuster says that a candidate cannot even ask for a recount until election results are certified two weeks from now. This is going to take a long while.[/color] 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-8-06 @ 12:11 AM

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 08:12 PM

HBox wrote: This Virginia race is not going to be decided for a while. The Lt Governor's race had a recount last year. It wasn't decided until late December.

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:14 PM

BDC wrote:  "Nancy Pelosi for speaker baby!" She's on the stage right now!  Nice!

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:16 PM

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:18 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  docgoblin wrote:  I really think Lieberman is about the biggest centrist there is. If you look at his issues he leans slightly right as much as he leans slightly left.   Not according to his voting record. 90+% he votes with his (former) party. He has had some high profile defections, just like McCain has had with Bush. But he and McCain package themselves as moderates, but vote with their party.   Sorry about old post replays here but I'm catching up.  Joementum promised to vote with the Dem party leadership on huge issues as well based on his recent campaign.  Yet he also said he wouldn't run for multiple terms in the senate and we see how much he followed that pledge a few decades back running as an outsider to politics.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 08:19 PM

Wait a minute...Fez predicted the House would go to the Dems, and Ron said it wouldn't. FEZ BEAT RON!!!

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 08:19 PM

PapaBear wrote: If Webb wins by one vote, I'm taking credit. Along with the credit, you will have my thanks.

Bama

11-07-2006, 08:20 PM

This is the most exciting midterm election I've ever seen.I can't stop watching

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:20 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Pollster Charles Cook just said on MSNBC that he thinks the Dems wont get enough seats to win the house, looking at the #s he has. He thinks they have a better shot in the Senate, but I doubt that. THey need to win almost all the close races to do that. A tie may be more likely. Even if they end up with a tie, Cheney breaks it. Charles Cook is an ass as well.  Nice call deek!

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:22 PM

Recyclerz wrote: docgoblin wrote: The whole thing is gonna result in one huge stalemate for the next two years. Santorum losing is bad because the fighting autism bill probably will now be dead. With 1 in 166 kids being born with the disorder I think it's really important for this research to go forward. Oh well, at least we're sending that big bad George W a message... Who cares about the stupid kids!? I disagree on the autism bill.  It passed the Senate by consensus and, as anybody who listened to Imus for even one minute in the last couple of months, was being held up by that "worm gut sucking weasel " Joe Barton in the House, who will probably be losing his chairmanship tonight.  I think it gets passed as one of the first things in the new Congress.I am for stalemate for the next two years though.  Limits the stupid things W can do on his way out, some of the more egregious tax cuts will expire, and it actually gives W the chance to do something bi-partisian that is actually good for the country to salvage his reputation (eg. A reasonable fix for Soc. Security, real investment in alternative fuels paid for by a gas tax).  We'll see.I wish this would indeed happen but the Repubs of this group don't know the first thing about compromise and even go after their own when they don't 100% back their crazy politics.  I doubt it'll go so well unfortunately, but the damage will be more limited for sure.

FUNKMAN

11-07-2006, 08:23 PM

PapaBear wrote: Wait a minute...Fez predicted the House would go to the Dems, and Ron said it wouldn't. FEZ BEAT RON!!!nice catch! things are looking up for Fez...

HBox

11-07-2006, 08:24 PM

spoon wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Pollster Charles Cook just said on MSNBC that he thinks the Dems wont get enough seats to win the house, looking at the #s he has. He thinks they have a better shot in the Senate, but I doubt that. THey need to win almost all the close races to do that. A tie may be more likely. Even if they end up with a tie, Cheney breaks it. Charles Cook is an ass as well. Nice call deek!  I saw that and BDC got it backwards.

NickyL0885

11-07-2006, 08:27 PM

I didnt vote today, but im happy Dems took the House. I'll be shocked if we take the Senate though. Its going to be close. On a side note, I'm Officialy 21!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smile.gif" />

Reephdweller

11-07-2006, 08:29 PM

PapaBear wrote: Wait a minute...Fez predicted the House would go to the Dems, and Ron said it wouldn't. FEZ BEAT RON!!!I just don't remember it that way. Ron always wins.

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:39 PM

Thanks to Virginia and PB ...... I hope!!!  Later Mookaka!

HBox

11-07-2006, 08:41 PM

MSNBC just reported that there are 33,000 uncounted votes in Fairfax County. And that is apparently very good for Jim Webb.

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:42 PM

And for me!

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 08:44 PM

And that is apparently very good for Jim Webb. You're damn right it's good for Webb! After this, Fez may change his mind about not being burried in Fairfax. This whole "being able to vote again", thing is cool as shit. My first vote back, I voted for Tim Kaine, and he won. Could I be the new Mr. Perfect?

Dudeman

11-07-2006, 08:48 PM

where's that scumbag rove. i hope he is somewhere choking on a bacon burger.

Bama

11-07-2006, 08:50 PM

I'm watching Fox news right now. Shephard Smith is pissed off. I can't stop laughing.Smith "Is the Senate gone?"  Fair and balenced

This message was edited by Bama on 11-8-06 @ 12:51 AM

spoon

11-07-2006, 08:55 PM

Bama wrote: I'm watching Fox news right now. Shephard Smith is pissed off. I can't stop laughing.Smith "Is the Senate gone?"  Fair and balencedThis message was edited by Bama on 11-8-06 @ 12:51 AM That's hilarious, I'm sorry I missed it!

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:03 PM

Anyone catch this bullshit prop?!?  I'm sooo glad it's about to fail. Arizona | Proposition 200: $1 Million Voter Reward <div />Would establish a "voter reward" random drawing every two years with a first prize of $1 million or more in an effort to increase voter participation. Voters who cast ballots in primary or general elections would be eligible to win. The money would come from the Arizona Lottery and private donations.

This message was edited by spoon on 11-8-06 @ 1:04 AM

Bama

11-07-2006, 09:04 PM

More Fox news .... Krystal says he bets the Senate is going Democrat. Smith looks like he wants to punch him in the throat.

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:05 PM

Wow. Fox News, and BILL KRISTOL, are saying that McCaskill will probably win Missouri when everything I have seen all night has had Talent with a 40,000+ lead.EDIT: Oh wait. she does have the lead now and the remaining precints are in her favor.[/color] 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-8-06 @ 1:07 AM

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:05 PM

Ohhh please punch him and kill each other!  Please, please, please!!!!!

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:06 PM

Bama wrote: More Fox news .... Krystal says he bets the Senate is going Democrat. Smith looks like he wants to punch him in the throat.  Give him a break though. He also just found out he's never going to get married in Virginia.

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:06 PM

PapaBear wrote:  And that is apparently very good for Jim Webb.  You're damn right it's good for Webb! After this, Fez may change his mind about not being burried in Fairfax. This whole "being able to vote again", thing is cool as shit. My first vote back, I voted for Tim Kaine, and he won. Could I be the new Mr. Perfect?Fairfax Cty is going about 60/40 for Webb, so out of 33,000 votes he stands to gain another 6600 votes. Obviously a huge number in this election. However, MSNBC.com shows 99% reporting in Fairfax which would mean more like 3300 votes uncounted, Webb gaining 660.McCaskill is ahead in Missouri now. Looks like VA, MO and MT could all go "Blue".

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 09:07 PM

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:07 PM

HBox wrote: Wow. Fox News, and BILL KRISTOL, are saying that McCaskill will probably win Missouri when everything I have seen all night has had Talent with a 40,000+ lead, It has been said that all the dem areas (mostly the bigger cities) are yet to come in and she should win handily if Talent didn't get out to a lead of at least 100,000 by the time they started to come in.

Bama

11-07-2006, 09:08 PM

Missouri still has to have St. Louis and Kansas City votes come in. Dems have to win that one.

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:10 PM

4 more years of Gov. Schwarznegger on Conan O'Brien! He is a caricature of himself.

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:10 PM

Funny, even though this prop seems good, did they ever think it would pass since it only hurts companies in the state, not outside it.  What a dumb prop!<div class="cnnBallotbox"><div class="cnnBallottitle">Califronia | Proposition 87: Funds for Alternative Energy</div><div class="cnnBallotcontent">Would create a $4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption by 25 percent. It would establish various research and production incentives for alternative energy sources and vehicles, as well as more energy efficient technologies. The program would be funded by a tax on producers that use oil extracted in California.</div></div>

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:14 PM

This one is incredibly only passing right now by 10,000 votes (50% to 50%)!  FU Missouri! <div class="cnnBallotbox"><div class="cnnBallottitle">Missouri | Amendment 2: Allow Stem Cell Research</div><div class="cnnBallotcontent">Proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution known as the "Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" would protect embryonic stem cell research. It would specifically legalize all stem cell research and therapies consistent with federal law. It would ban human cloning.</div></div>

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:16 PM

spoon wrote: This one is incredibly only passing right now by 10,000 votes (50% to 50%)! FU Missouri! * class="cnnBallotbox">* class="cnnBallottitle">Missouri | Amendment 2: Allow Stem Cell Research* class="cnnBallotcontent">Proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution known as the "Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" would protect embryonic stem cell research. It would specifically legalize all stem cell research and therapies consistent with federal law. It would ban human cloning.  As with McCaskill, the remaining areas are more liberal so that should help.

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:18 PM

Colorado Amendment 44 is failing 40 to 60%.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_44_(2006" target="_self">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_44_(2006)</a>In an unrelated event, I am cancelling plans to move to Colorado.

This message was edited by fezticle98 on 11-8-06 @ 1:20 AM

TheRealEddie

11-07-2006, 09:19 PM

fezticle98 wrote: 4 more years of Gov. Schwarznegger on Conan O'Brien! He is a caricature of himself.   Dont blame me, I voted Green...oh wait...

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:21 PM

TheRealEddie wrote:  fezticle98 wrote:  4 more years of Gov. Schwarznegger on Conan O'Brien! He is a caricature of himself.Dont blame me, I voted Green...oh wait... There was some obscure election, probably house, where the losing candidate was name Kotos. Wish I could have voted for him/her.

spoon

11-07-2006, 09:24 PM

Looks like Ford is done in TN officially and it's a shame.  I liked him and it's about time the south stepped up and showed they have progress a little.  The only thing I didn't like about him was his stand on abortion but that sure as hell wasn't the main issue.And good point H on Missouri.  How that many people could be against it is just plain idiotic.  My sis has MS and I'm sure we all have family members that could have been helped out by this research if it was further on right now.  Not to mention the US continues to fall behind the rest of the world in a very key future medical field.  China, Korea, Germany and many others are light years ahead of us but I guess it's God's way right?

El Mudo

11-07-2006, 09:27 PM

I liked him and it's about time the south stepped up and showed they have progress a little.  e·lit·ism or ‚·lit·ism 
n.
<ol>
<li>
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups
deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as
in intellect, social status, or financial resources.</li><li><ol><li> The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.</li><li> Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.</li></ol></li>
</ol>

Bama

11-07-2006, 09:30 PM

Shephard Smith - "Let's be honest - the Congress hasn't accomplished anything."

Bama

11-07-2006, 09:32 PM

Please tell me you guys saw that rant on Fox News. Basically - the terrorists are trying to kill us - now we've got Nancy Poloski - we're fucked.

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:33 PM

I turned on Fox News for 2 minutes and it was the most entertaining thing I've seen all day.

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:35 PM

Bama wrote: Please tell me you guys saw that rant on Fox News. Basically - the terrorists are trying to kill us - now we've got Nancy Poloski - we're fucked.  The best part was the pause at the end to let it sink in.The second best part was the chick pretty much saying that the Democrats better act like Republicans or people will backlash. I'll give them a break though. They need to let tonight sink in for a while.

Bama

11-07-2006, 09:36 PM

When Brit Hume was hosting he was kind of bummed out but not really an asshole about it.Smith is pissed and he's not afraid to show it.

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:38 PM

I'm really getting sick of Chris Matthews vacilating between Missouri and Missoura. Just pick one and go with it!MT is 59% reporting with a 10,000 vote lead for the DEM Senate Candidate. It looks like Conrad Burns is gaining slightly in the late voting though. Liebermann must be grinning ear to ear tonight. He loses, then wins and now it looks like the Senate may be 49-49 with him as one of the two independents.

TokeOne

11-07-2006, 09:39 PM

Prediction:After the victory Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins turn face in Maine and join the Blue World Order. The heels in the White House start infighting with Bush forcing Rove and Rumsfeld to join the "Kiss My Ass" club. "YOU'RRRRRRE FIIIIIIRRRREEEED KARRRRRRRL RRRRROVE"!Then Colin Powell emerges from the back, rips off his red jersey showing a blue one and says "IT WAS MEEEEEEE IT WAS MEEEEEE ALL ALONG!"

HBox

11-07-2006, 09:43 PM

I'm watchin MSNBC. They had Ed Gillespie on earlier tonight. He seemed enthusiastic and optomistic. He's on now and when they introduced him he was stamding there with the 1000 yard stare. 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-8-06 @ 1:43 AM

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 09:58 PM

Fuck, it's got to feel good to make a victory speech like that. Claire McCaskill seems to be enjoying it.I won senior class representative, but there were only 3 running for 3 spots, so I didn't feel a victory speech was appropriate. However, before the vote I tore up my campaign speech and said "I guess I'm gonna win anyway."That's my Fez-like attempt to link myself to the election story.

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:04 PM

fezticle98 wrote: Fuck, it's got to feel good to make a victory speech like that. Claire McCaskill seems to be enjoying it.I won senior class representative, but there were only 3 running for 3 spots, so I didn't feel a victory speech was appropriate. However, before the vote I tore up my campaign speech and said "I guess I'm gonna win anyway."That's my Fez-like attempt to link myself to the election story. The only thing: it's not over yet. No one called it yet, and Talent hasn't conceded.EDIT: OK, NBC has just called it.DOUBLE EDIT: And now Talent has conceded. 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-8-06 @ 2:09 AM

TokeOne

11-07-2006, 10:09 PM

I am going to be the first one to call it. It's over Johnny. And that is with 15K votes going to a fringe left wing candidate.

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:11 PM

And while nobody was looking Webb's lead grows to almost 6,000 votes.

TokeOne

11-07-2006, 10:11 PM

CNN just called Missouri.Allen is down by 6K, he won't be able to beat that. One more for the good guys.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 10:11 PM

Webb's lead is up to 6k.

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:12 PM

<a href="http://sbe.vipnet.org/" target="_blank">It's up to almost 8,000!</a>

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 10:15 PM

HBox wrote: <a href="http://sbe.vipnet.org/" target="_blank">It's up to almost 8,000!</a> Just another reminder... I, PapaBear, got Jim Webb elected. You're welcome.

TokeOne

11-07-2006, 10:20 PM

PapaBear wrote: HBox wrote: <a href="http://sbe.vipnet.org/" target="_blank">It's up to almost 8,000!</a> Just another reminder... I, PapaBear, got Jim Webb elected. You're welcome.You make me proud to be an American. I didn't think I would feel this again after 2000.

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:20 PM

Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure.

TokeOne

11-07-2006, 10:27 PM

HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure. Biggest winner is the American people. The Neo Confederate Taliban can crawl back in their caves.

Plethora

11-07-2006, 10:28 PM

HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure.  Would you say that he has Joe-mentum?

TheRealEddie

11-07-2006, 10:30 PM

TokeOne wrote: HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure. Biggest winner is the American people. The Neo Confederate Taliban can crawl back in their caves.   huzzah!

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:34 PM

Plethora wrote: HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure. Would you say that he has Joe-mentum?   I would say for Lieberman this is a Joe-mentous occasion.

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 10:39 PM

HBox wrote:  Plethora wrote: HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure.  Would you say that he has Joe-mentum?   I would say for Lieberman this is a Joe-mentous occasion. I'm picturing a commercial for Joe-Mentos, right now.

HBox

11-07-2006, 10:44 PM

<img width="144" height="200" border="0" src="http://www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2004-president/images/lieberman.gif" /><img width="349" height="319" border="0" src="http://www.theanniesite.com/movie/aileen-kalender.gif" />"And ah-1, and ah-2.... The Sun will come out JOE-MORROW!Bet your bottom dollar that JOE-MORROW there'll be Sun!JOE-MORROW, JOE-MORROW, I love ya, JOE-MORROW!You're only a DAY AWAY!!!!!!" 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-8-06 @ 2:45 AM

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 10:48 PM

Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3...How do you like my new line four, of my sig quotes?

This message was edited by PapaBear on 11-8-06 @ 2:49 AM

Fezticle98

11-07-2006, 10:54 PM

HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure. Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.fezticle98 wrote: Liebermann must be grinning ear to ear tonight. He loses, then wins and now it looks like the Senate may be 49-49 with him as one of the two independents.

Plethora

11-07-2006, 11:22 PM

In the midst of all this Lieber-mania, I almost forgot.... Election Night 2006YAY! <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" /> And thank you very especially PapaBear! 

This message was edited by Plethora on 11-8-06 @ 3:23 AM

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 11:37 PM

How's this for weird speculation?Some guy on CNN just said that the gay marriage ban in VA, might have inadvertently helped Webb. He's saying that the proposed amendment drew out morally conservative black voters. These voters came to the polls to vote for the amendment, but also voted for Webb.To quote Johnny Carson... That's weird, wacky stuff.Though I voted against the proposed amendment, I'd like to thank all black homophobes in Virginia, for deciding there was a reason to vote in this election.No Homo.

FMJeff

11-07-2006, 11:41 PM

you know, for all my fucking bitching about this country, partisan politics aside, i am fucking glad i still live in a country where a party in power can be removed if the voting public is motivated enough. now, what to do...looks like dem house, repub senate unless a miracle happens in the next couple of hours...with the repubs holding half a legislative branch and the executive branch, how much can dems expect to actually get one short of putting the kabash on white house power? on the state level though, dems REALLY shined...electing our first black mass governor...2nd black governor in historykey state senatorial control across the country...although major defeat for gay marraige...but then again its in the states where gays wouldnt live anyway if they had half a brain...a. they're all fucking boring and b. they're all jesusheads. kudos to eliot spitzer...i mean his opponent was a completely retard from what i gathered fromt he debates...i would vote for a president spitzer one day...i dunno, feeling positive...country has spoken..."democrats, here's your shot. don't let us down." can the underdog party do some good with this second chance?

HBox

11-07-2006, 11:52 PM

Montana is counting very slowly and Burns has been pecking away at Tester's lead continously for hours now, shrinking what was a 12,000 lead to under 4,000 right now with 81% left.

FMJeff

11-07-2006, 11:56 PM

<img width="470" height="273" border="0" src="http://www.testerforsenate.com/wp-content/themes/tester/images/home_feature_fpo.png" />maybe tester shouldn't have gone with the jon goodman in the big lebowski haircut ...what a creepy looking guy...like a baby eating drew carey

PapaBear

11-07-2006, 11:57 PM

How's the dental floss tycoon vote going there?PS... How did Coach vote?

This message was edited by PapaBear on 11-8-06 @ 3:58 AM

HBox

11-08-2006, 12:02 AM

FMJeff wrote: <img width="470" height="273" border="0" src="http://www.testerforsenate.com/wp-content/themes/tester/images/home_feature_fpo.png" />maybe tester shouldn't have gone with the jon goodman in the big lebowski haircut ...what a creepy looking guy...like a baby eating drew carey   <img border="0" src="http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4782/unitaskp0.jpg" />"Now there's a haircut you can set your watch too."

spoon

11-08-2006, 12:35 AM

HBox wrote: Montana is counting very slowly and Burns has been pecking away at Tester's lead continously for hours now, shrinking what was a 12,000 lead to under 4,000 right now with 81% left. Regardless, all the networks seem to have all but called this race for the Dems and they also state that Webb should hold his lead as well.  Even Fox has reported this, yet nobody has called it outright.

Fezticle98

11-08-2006, 12:38 AM

FMJeff wrote: <img height="273" src="http://www.testerforsenate.com/wp-content/themes/tester/images/home_feature_fpo.png" width="470" border="0" />maybe tester shouldn't have gone with the jon goodman in the big lebowski haircut ...what a creepy looking guy...like a baby eating drew carey Probably plays well in the sticks (and in the urban areas, if Montana has any).http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1792/kidnplaytl1.jpg

blakjeezis

11-08-2006, 12:46 AM

I went to a MAJOR CABLE NEWS OUTLET'S website and this was their list of top stories, presumedly with their place in the list corresponding with their relative import:<ul><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227954,00.html">Britney Spears Files for Divorce From K-Fed</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228018,00.html">University of Miami Football Player Shot, Killed</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228086,00.html">Israeli Tank Fire Kills 18 Palestinians in Gaza</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228051,00.html">Snake Bite Kills Woman During Church Service</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228059,00.html">Bomber Kills 35 at Pakistan Army Camp</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227980,00.html">Sandinista Head Ortega Wins Nicaragua Presidency</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227948,00.html">Man Jailed for Putting Puppy in Warm Oven</a></li></ul>

 Disgusting, isn't it? And why is everyone celebrating? "Yaaaaaaay,we won! Let's switch. Let's get lied to, fleeced, and have our freedoms, futures, health, and children stolen from us by a gang of thugs that we will defend to the death and that you guys will attack this time!" Congratulations, you're all assholes. 
 
 

 

This message was edited by blakjeezis on 11-8-06 @ 4:57 AM

CuzBum

11-08-2006, 12:48 AM

blakjeezis wrote: I went to a MAJOR CABLE NEWS OUTLET and this was their list of top stories, entitled after the election:* class="target"> <ul><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227954,00.html">Britney Spears Files for Divorce From K-Fed</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228018,00.html">University of Miami Football Player Shot, Killed</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228086,00.html">Israeli Tank Fire Kills 18 Palestinians in Gaza</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228051,00.html">Snake Bite Kills Woman During Church Service</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228059,00.html">Bomber Kills 35 at Pakistan Army Camp</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227980,00.html">Sandinista Head Ortega Wins Nicaragua Presidency</a></li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227948,00.html">Man Jailed for Putting Puppy in Warm Oven</a></li></ul><div /> disgusting, isn't it? And while we're at it, why is everyone celebrating? "Yaaaaaaay, let's get lied to , fleeced, and have our freedoms, futures, health, and children stolen from us by a gang of thugs that YOU guys will defend to the death and that YOU guys will attack this time! It'll make for a nice change." Congratulations, you're all assholes.   * class="target"> <div /> <h2 class="medium">i saw this</h2><h2 class="medium"><a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,227961,00.html">Democrats Capture House; Senate Still Up for Grabs</a></h2><h3><a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,227961,00.html">Races for Republican-held Senate seats in Virginia and Montana still too close to call</a></h3>GOP clinging to hope for win in one of two remaining GOP-held Senate seats — Virginia, Montana — to avoid Dem sweep • <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youdecide2006/index.html" target="_self">YOU DECIDE 2006: Complete coverage</a> | <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/replytotopic.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/53502/currentpage/6/messageid/#" onclick="popTracker();return false;">Election Tracker</a> • <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,228053,00.html">Major Senate Races</a> | <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,228081,00.html">Major House Races</a> • Photo Essays: <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/photoessay/0,4644,1251,00.html">Election Night Winners</a> | <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/photoessay/0,4644,1252,00.html">Losers</a><li><h2 class="small"><a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,227937,00.html">Dems Take Control of Statehouses</a></h2>Dems take 6 governor spots from GOP; Patrick first black gov. of Mass.; Schwarzenegger wins in Calif.; Strickland takes Ohio • <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/story/0,2933,228038,00.html">South Dakota Voters Reject Bill to Ban Almost All Abortions</a></li>

spoon

11-08-2006, 12:55 AM

Just did a big rundown on MT and here's why I think it's all but in the bag for Tester.Only 6 counties remain with votes to be counted.  Three of them are all over 90% counted and Tester has a lead in each so I'd assume that trend to continue and add a few more votes to Tester's lead.   Next, there are three more counties where the voting is far from counted.  1)  Fergus County (the only county trending heavily for Burns at this point with votes left to be counted) / 25% ReportingSo far it's at 61% Burns (861 votes) and 36% Tester (504 votes).  So even though the percentile margin is big, it's a low count county and won't even offset the three other counties with less percentages left trending for Tester.2)  Gallatin County / 22% Reporting9,937 or 50% Burns and 9,718 or 48% for Tester.  So basically this county is pretty split and shouldn't make a huge impact on the numbers unless the rest comes from a huge stronghold for one candidate or the other.  I assume the trend should stay the same and they'll continue to split here.3)  Cascade County / 61% Reporting10,894 or 52% Tester vs. 9,633 or 46% Burns.  Sure it is somewhat close and has less votes still to be counted, but it is in a large population center in MT and is trending way above average for Tester and should be the key to his win.  So I'll go out on a limb based on this analysis and call Montana for Tester and the Dems.

spoon

11-08-2006, 01:04 AM

Virginia is done by all accounts that I've researched.  It'll just be the normal last ditch effort by the losing candidate that we've all grown accustomed to in the last few elections which may take anywhere between a couple hours and a couple weeks to decide.  The one thing the Repubs have going for them is that VA is packed full of influential red dogs who may help them in a recount if it comes to it which seem very likely since it's within the .50% needed for a state paid version.  Outside of this, the republican party or candidate would have to pay for it themselves which would still seem likely since the balance of power in the Senate hangs on the seat.

spoon

11-08-2006, 01:11 AM

Update in Montana:They decided to recount all the votes in Meagher and Yellowstone County but don't expect any changes in the results already added at one point.  So right now you can add these two counties to the yet to be determined with very little to go on in terms of amount of votes and who they trend for.  The networks have stated that Meagher is small (no pun intened here I and they swear) and won't have a huge impact bc it's pretty split as well, while Yellowstone seems to have gone slightly Tester's way and should add to his lead.  I don't have much more to go on here but it pains me that the balance of power in this fucking country hinges on fucking Virginia (sorry PB) and Montana!!  Come through for us Deliverance and Almost Canada.

spoon

11-08-2006, 01:49 AM

Update in Virginia:Only three counties not at 100% reporting. 1)  Isle of Wight (no pun for right but the only county still trending for Allen):  92% ReportingAllen 57% or 6,984 votesWebb 42% or 5,050 votes* Not too many votes left here but should help Allen out in a smaller county in terms of total voters. 2)  Fairfax City County:  86% ReportingWeb 56% or 4,187 votesAllen 43% or 3,182 votes* This should offset the Isle of Wight County votes and hence keep the vote difference virtually the same between candidates based on both trends and the size of the couties versus the percentage reporting. 3)  Loudoun County:  96% ReportingWeb  50% or 37,994 votesAllen  49% or 36,968 votes* This is a huge county in terms of votes and possibly the deciding factor.  But with the margin being almost 8,000 already, the percent reporting so high, the rundown on the other two counties not at 100% and finally the fact that the trend in the county leans toward Webb, one should be able to postulate that Webb should become the next Senator of Virginia.  The big question is if the difference could get over the .50% needed for a recount not to be paid for by the state.  If it gets over that number, approximately 11,000 vote difference needed for it to happen, the republicans or Allen would have to pay for the recount and it's not cheap.  Plus the higher the number gets, the less likely the chance they republicans will go through with it.  Allen and Santorum went from Presidential hopefuls in 2008 (based on predictions and republican leaders as recent as 2005), to possibly out of politics all together.  And it's not the same environment out there so the cushioned lobbying jobs a la Rick Santorum just won't be there for them.  I guess they'll have to go the corporate CEO route.  Poor rich bastards!

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:08 AM

HBox wrote: Biggest winner tonight: Joe Lieberman. Unless the Democrats can pull off a defector from the Republicans in the Senate he has the Demoratic Party by the balls. He will be keeping all his seniority, that's for sure. Imus got his wish. Maybe with Allen, Santorum and a too many hard right Representatives to list, now McCain will stop kissing Jerry Falwells ass. And build a new coalition like he should, and the public wants.And this wasn't just all about the war. It was also about the scandals and anger toward the House and White House for a variety of reasons (spending, growth of Gov't, immigration, etc). An across the board repudiation of Pat Robertson style republicanism. Now maybe they'll get back to Reagan/Goldwater style libertarian conservativism. But unfortunately, I dont see any candidates on the horizon.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 6:22 AM

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:24 AM

<img width="185" height="233" border="0" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" /> Good morning Miss Speaker.

A.J.

11-08-2006, 02:45 AM

FMJeff wrote: you know, for all my fucking bitching about this country, partisan politics aside, i am fucking glad i still live in a country where a party in power can be removed if the voting public is motivated enough.  <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/52949/page/Term_limits_for_Senators___Congressmen_.htm" target="_self">See my comments here about term limits</a>.

A.J.

11-08-2006, 02:47 AM

spoon wrote: Virginia is done by all accounts that I've researched.  It'll just be the normal last ditch effort by the losing candidate that we've all grown accustomed to in the last few elections which may take anywhere between a couple hours and a couple weeks to decide.  The one thing the Repubs have going for them is that VA is packed full of influential red dogs who may help them in a recount if it comes to it which seem very likely since it's within the .50% needed for a state paid version.  Outside of this, the republican party or candidate would have to pay for it themselves which would still seem likely since the balance of power in the Senate hangs on the seat. The other thing is that there are lot of absentee ballots from Navy folks from the Norfolk area to be counted.

cupcakelove

11-08-2006, 04:00 AM

Holy crap, Webb is up by less than 8,000 votes. I wish it had just gone one way or the other, I can't stand not knowing who won.  And I'm sure the court battles that are about to come will be more than embarassing.  Just concede already Allen!

cupcakelove

11-08-2006, 04:03 AM

spoon wrote: 2) Fairfax City County: 86% ReportingWeb 56% or 4,187 votesAllen 43% or 3,182 votes*
This should offset the Isle of Wight County votes and hence keep the
vote difference virtually the same between candidates based on both
trends and the size of the couties versus the percentage reporting. 
That's just Fairfax City. Fairfax County isWebb 59% or 201,905 votesAllen 40% or 137,222 votes

This message was edited by cupcakelove on 11-8-06 @ 8:03 AM

A.J.

11-08-2006, 04:27 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. Best female House Speaker EVER:<img height="180" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/705000/images/_705046_betty300.jpg" width="300" border="0" />

empulse

11-08-2006, 04:27 AM

Can some of the republicans on here do me a favor? I will refrain from gloating if you will put some of your tears in a jar and send them to me.... ok im gloating. know why?CUZ WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!!!!my favorite comment this morning was from Mike Barnicle on MSNBC.."We'll be serving subpoenas at the superbowl..." Dems in '08 bishes.

TheMojoPin

11-08-2006, 04:30 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Holy crap, Webb is up by less than 8,000 votes. I wish it had just gone one way or the other, I can't stand not knowing who won.  And I'm sure the court battles that are about to come will be more than embarassing.  Just concede already Allen! Why is it embarassing?  With a margin of less than 10,000 votes, it would be stupid for any candidate to not make sure everything can be clarified as much as possible as to who won.  That's why the system is designed the way it is.  They've got 10 days to try and sort things out if a candidate so wishes.

CuzBum

11-08-2006, 04:37 AM

CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES COME ON, COME ON GUYS LET'S KILL SOME FETUSES, COME ON LET'S CLEEBRATE!!!!!111ONE111!!ELEVEN!!!!!

cupcakelove

11-08-2006, 04:47 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: cupcakelove wrote: Holy
crap, Webb is up by less than 8,000 votes. I wish it had just gone one
way or the other, I can't stand not knowing who won. And I'm sure the
court battles that are about to come will be more than embarassing.
Just concede already Allen! Why is it
embarassing? With a margin of less than 10,000 votes, it would be
stupid for any candidate to not make sure everything can be clarified
as much as possible as to who won. That's why the system is designed
the way it is. They've got 10 days to try and sort things out if a
candidate so wishes.I'm talking about the bahavior of someone claiming to represent VA being embarassing.  Its one thing to pursue an accurate recount, but judging by the way the Allen camp has handled the campaign so far, I would expect a lot of rhetorical bashing, sketchy legal moves, and just an all around disrespect for the democractic process.  I'll be more than happy if I'm wrong about this.  And Virginia will not do a recount until the election is certified, which isn't done until Nov 27th.

LordJezo

11-08-2006, 05:47 AM

The end is here. 

This message was edited by LordJezo on 11-8-06 @ 10:04 AM

Jujubees2

11-08-2006, 06:06 AM

I almost lost my breakfast this morning when I turned on the news and they were interviewing Tom Delay.  He said that he didn't think his scandal cost the Republicans more than 9 or 10 seats and then he said that "I guess people who want to make sure this country is safe, who want to fight the war on terror and who want to cut taxes will have to wait."  Jesus, last time I checked the Republicans controlled the WH, Senate and the House and he was Speaker of the House.  And what did he do?  Take kick-backs from Jack Abramoff.<img height="240" src="http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/30_govsMansion.jpg" width="320" border="0" />

HBox

11-08-2006, 06:10 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: I almost lost my breakfast this morning when I turned on the news and they were interviewing Tom Delay. He said that he didn't think his scandal cost the Republicans more than 9 or 10 seats and then he said that "I guess people who want to make sure this country is safe, who want to fight the war on terror and who want to cut taxes will have to wait." Jesus, last time I checked the Republicans controlled the WH, Senate and the House and he was Speaker of the House. And what did he do? Take kick-backs from Jack Abramoff.<img width="320" height="240" border="0" src="http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/30_govsMansion.jpg" />  Who is this Tom DeLay you speak of?

A.J.

11-08-2006, 06:16 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: Jesus, last time I checked the Republicans controlled the WH, Senate and the House and he was Speaker of the House.  And what did he do?  Take kick-backs from Jack Abramoff.  He was House Majority Leader.

torker

11-08-2006, 06:22 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.

Jujubees2

11-08-2006, 06:36 AM

torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.You mean scarier than what we had?  Congressmen who protected an alleged child molester, who took bribes, who failed to do their job to oversee the White House?

Furtherman

11-08-2006, 06:49 AM

Republicans got exactly what they deserved.  I'm happy for our country. I'm also happy that closed-minded hard core republicans are upset.  Open your eyes!

A.J.

11-08-2006, 06:59 AM

I was sad to see Bobo lose in Alabama. <table class="elexResultsMd" border="0"><tr>Ala. U.S. House District 4   </tr><tr>CandidateVotes%</tr><tr class="candidateRow"><td class="candidateWin"><a>Robert Aderholt</a> * (R) </td><td class="voteCount">128,412 </td><td class="pctCell">70 </td></tr><tr class="candidateRow2"><td class="candidate"><a>Barbara Bobo</a> (D) </td><td class="voteCount">54,338 </td><td class="pctCell">30 </td></tr><tr><td class="bottomRow" colspan="3">Key: * Incumbent | <img alt="Red Checkmark" src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gif" border="0" /> Winner Precincts: 99% | Updated: 10:48 AM ET | Source: AP <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/540/">More About This Race »</a> </td></tr></table>

TheMojoPin

11-08-2006, 07:27 AM

No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day.

cupcakelove

11-08-2006, 07:31 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day.It is sad, but at least everyone saw this coming.  I have a feeling that this will not stand up.  Its way to restrictive, and its broad reach really makes no sense when you think about it.  I don't even see how people could call it the gay marriage ban, when even if it hadn't passed, gay marriage would still be illegal in VA.

torker

11-08-2006, 07:32 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.You mean scarier than what we had?  Congressmen who protected an alleged child molester, who took bribes, who failed to do their job to oversee the White House?Yes.

A.J.

11-08-2006, 07:42 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day.I voted against the ban primarily because I despise the Bible-thumpers...but also because I wanted to see married gay coupled taxed to death like the rest of us non-breeders are going to be.

Dudeman

11-08-2006, 08:05 AM

torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: <img width="185" height="233" border="0" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in. This is more than just a little scary.why? im not saying im a huge fan, but what do you really know about her, other than the caracture  the republicans have painted of her or that she has an awkard tv presence. at the very least, even if you dont agree with her politics, she has a reputation as a very hard worker and pationate politician (she is the daughter of  the former popular mayor of baltimore)- in comparison to a former high school wrestling coach who, at the very least, even if you agree with him, he doesnt appear to be a hard worker with a in depth knowledge of issues.

TheMojoPin

11-08-2006, 08:55 AM

cupcakelove wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day.It is sad, but at least everyone saw this coming.  I have a feeling that this will not stand up.  Its way to restrictive, and its broad reach really makes no sense when you think about it.  I don't even see how people could call it the gay marriage ban, when even if it hadn't passed, gay marriage would still be illegal in VA. I know it won't stand up because nothing in our constitutions, state or federal, that are so blatantly anti-civil rights ever stand up.  It may take years or even decades, but they always fall.

johnniewalker

11-08-2006, 09:00 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: cupcakelove wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day.It is sad, but at least everyone saw this coming.  I have a feeling that this will not stand up.  Its way to restrictive, and its broad reach really makes no sense when you think about it.  I don't even see how people could call it the gay marriage ban, when even if it hadn't passed, gay marriage would still be illegal in VA. I know it won't stand up because nothing in our constitutions, state or federal, that are so blatantly anti-civil rights ever stand up.  It may take years or even decades, but they always fall.Anti-Sodomy laws, incest, polygamy laws.  Sexual preference is not a protected class...

Plethora

11-08-2006, 09:15 AM

If you're not a Bush lover, please to be pausing Ron & Fez and watch the prez news conference right now.... it's.... delicious.  6 years of waiting.... It's.... sublime.

Jujubees2

11-08-2006, 09:19 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Lincoln Chafee just lost. +3 in the Senate for the Dems. Even though I'm a Dem, I am sorry to see Chafee.  I’m originally from RI and he and his father did a lot of good for the state.  Hell, he's more liberal than most Dems (he didn't even vote for GW in the last presidential elections - he wrote in Bush senior).  Guess it shows you just how dissatisfied the people are with the Republican Party.

boeman

11-08-2006, 10:32 AM

Dudeman wrote: why? im not saying im a huge fan, but what do you really know about her, other than the caracture  the republicans have painted of her or that she has an awkard tv presence. at the very least, even if you dont agree with her politics, she has a reputation as a very hard worker and pationate politician (she is the daughter of  the former popular mayor of baltimore)- in comparison to a former high school wrestling coach who, at the very least, even if you agree with him, he doesnt appear to be a hard worker with a in depth knowledge of issues.  Well put...  But it's passionate not pationate. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" border="0" />

Yerdaddy

11-08-2006, 10:50 AM

Tester won Montana.

TheMojoPin

11-08-2006, 11:20 AM

<img height="150" src="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.2/election/bio/1732.jpg" width="100" border="0" />"I would like...to have won...MONTANA..."

Furtherman

11-08-2006, 11:31 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: <img height="150" src="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.2/election/bio/1732.jpg" width="100" border="0" />"I would like...to have won...MONTANA..."<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbup.gif" border="0" /> No papers?  No votes?

torker

11-08-2006, 11:37 AM

Dudeman wrote: torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in. This is more than just a little scary.why? im not saying im a huge fan, but what do you really know about her, other than the caracture  the republicans have painted of her or that she has an awkard tv presence. at the very least, even if you dont agree with her politics, she has a reputation as a very hard worker and pationate politician (she is the daughter of  the former popular mayor of baltimore)- in comparison to a former high school wrestling coach who, at the very least, even if you agree with him, he doesnt appear to be a hard worker with a in depth knowledge of issues.  You can't learn much about her from the 60 Minutes puff piece. I actually share some of her views. It really shouldn't matter what her dad did.  Please don't disparage high school wrestling coaches.  My high school wrestling coach had a good work ethic and I knew where he was coming from.  Besides, don't west coast hippies eat babies?

DJEvelEd

11-08-2006, 11:45 AM

<table class="e_results" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" width="438" border="0"><tr class="titlerow"><td> </td><td> </td><td width="152">Candidate</td><td align="right" width="75">Vote Total</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">Vote %</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="dwinner"><td width="65" rowspan="10"><div /><div /></td></tr><tr class="dwinner"><td width="18"><img height="12" src="http://cdn.channel.aol.com/news/elections/06/checkmark1" width="13" border="0" /></td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?state=NJ&id=139795">Bob Menendez</a> (i) <img height="7" alt="" src="http://cdn.channel.aol.com/news/elections/06/dem" width="16" border="0" /></td><td align="right" width="75">1159642</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">53%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?state=NJ&id=136086">Thomas Kean</a> <img height="7" alt="" src="http://cdn.channel.aol.com/news/elections/06/rep" width="16" border="0" /></td><td align="right" width="75">973895</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">45%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147874&state=NJ">Len Flynn</a> <img height="7" alt="" src="http://cdn.channel.aol.com/news/elections/06/lib" width="16" border="0" /></td><td align="right" width="75">14238</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">1%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147848&state=NJ">Edward Forchion</a>, LMj</td><td align="right" width="75">11380</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">1%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147846&state=NJ">J.M. Carter</a>, Oth</td><td align="right" width="75">7389</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">0%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147875&state=NJ">Leonard Smith</a>, Oth</td><td align="right" width="75">6069</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">0%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147909&state=NJ">Daryl Brooks</a>, Oth</td><td align="right" width="75">4981</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">0%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?id=147910&state=NJ">Angela Lariscy</a>, SWP</td><td align="right" width="75">3338</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">0%</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="default"><td width="18"> </td><td width="152"><a href="http://www3.capwiz.com/aol04/e4/cinfo/?state=NJ&id=147837">Gregory Pason</a>, Soc</td><td align="right" width="75">2400</td><td width="38"> </td><td align="right">0%</td><td> </td></tr></table>  <div />The Weedman came in FOURTH?!? DAMN!  <div />If he would only apply himself....he could be third!        

This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 11-8-06 @ 3:47 PM

keithy_19

11-08-2006, 11:52 AM

Since we basically are in a stalemate, doesn't that mean nothing will get done? The hope for a bi-partisan congress is an idealistic dream.

HBox

11-08-2006, 11:58 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: <img width="100" height="150" border="0" src="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.2/election/bio/1732.jpg" />"I would like...to have won...MONTANA..."  "Of course I would have a plan to win the election! But I'm not gonna tell you because then you'll blow it!"

Jujubees2

11-08-2006, 12:13 PM

keithy_19 wrote: Since we basically are in a stalemate, doesn't that mean nothing will get done? The hope for a bi-partisan congress is an idealistic dream. Well, the Republicans have been in charge for how long and what have they done?  Fight over a flag burning admendment, Terri Schiavo and tax cuts to oil companies.

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 12:19 PM

grandzu

11-08-2006, 12:23 PM

I just hope that the Dems don't screw anything up for the next two years, so everything is gravy for '08.  But then it depends on who the candidates are then.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 01:38 PM

A.J. wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: <img width="185" height="233" border="0" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. Best female House Speaker EVER:<img width="300" height="180" border="0" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/705000/images/_705046_betty300.jpg" />  YES!!!!!! "ORDER!! OWWWWWDAAHHHH!!!!! " <blockquote />

Gvac

11-08-2006, 01:53 PM

Leave it to <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918" target="_blank">The Onion</a> to put it all in perspective.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 01:53 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day. And most of the Democrats who won are more toward the center/middle than the hard left. Webb is a mainstream Republican by any measure, and listening to Lieberman you'd think the same thing. Many of the freshman House Reps and Senators will be moderates. THe house leadership, however is another matter. Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Murtha, Dingel, all significantly to the left of the country. Some to the far, FAR left. This election was certainly a repudiation of the House Republicans, but not of conservative values. Many of the conservative ballot initiatives did well. But an exit poll which asked "Who is the party of big Government" Republicans won by 12%. And they still have the built in advantages of the gerrymandering they did in place for the next two election cycles. So if they get their acts together and/or the Dems blow it, they could be back in a hurry.    

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 7:46 PM

CuzBum

11-08-2006, 01:58 PM

<img src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" border="0" />I'm not calling her mommy.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:35 PM

CuzBum wrote: CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES COME ON, COME ON GUYS LET'S KILL SOME FETUSES, COME ON LET'S CLEEBRATE!!!!!111ONE111!!ELEVEN!!!!! That's purely idiotic.  I'm glad you seem to vote on one issue alone.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:43 PM

torker wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.You mean scarier than what we had?  Congressmen who protected an alleged child molester, who took bribes, who failed to do their job to oversee the White House?Yes.Then you may be retarded.  Definately a little slow bc Pelosi fights hard for her constituents and doesn't base everything on religious issues brought up by closet gay religious leaders.  She'll truly try to work together and at least the scary policy and spending of the "conservative" republicans will stop.  Give me one thing that scares you about her that is valid, just one that doesn't simply state she has different views from you.  She has nothing marring her record like you old boys club and has a fire/passion I can get behind.  She'll certainly have to work together with repubs and do what Bush acted like he would 6 years ago.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely so that went to the neo-cons heads and it showed.  Pelosi may be in a better position than we once thought (may control the house and senate), but she's far from in absolute power and I think it'll keep her grounded.  Make your case Torker, don't just spout off whiny claims.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:47 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Lincoln Chafee just lost. +3 in the Senate for the Dems. Even though I'm a Dem, I am sorry to see Chafee.  I’m originally from RI and he and his father did a lot of good for the state.  Hell, he's more liberal than most Dems (he didn't even vote for GW in the last presidential elections - he wrote in Bush senior).  Guess it shows you just how dissatisfied the people are with the Republican Party. So he wasted his vote in the last presidential election, I'd be very confident in his voting in the Senate then.  Glad he's gone.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:57 PM

keithy_19 wrote: Since we basically are in a stalemate, doesn't that mean nothing will get done? The hope for a bi-partisan congress is an idealistic dream. Hell, we already got something out of this, Rumsfeld is gonzo!  It's just a start, but it is a direct result of the election results and the new power the dems hold.  And nothing is better than this religious right rule getting things done.  Sometimes a stalemate is a good thing or lesser of evils.  Perhaps nothing gets passed and we finally save some fucking money.  But looking at history it seems a lot usually does get done when a mid-term election redistributes the powere bt multiple parties.  And bc Bush's legacy banks on Iraq, he will have to be more than willing to compromise on many issues to protect it and make end as well as it's possible.  I also believe a lot of people, corrupt people, are very scared right now and are probably spending a lot of time at the paper shreader and or fire place.  How many files can one delete in a 24 hour period?  Question like this are going to be answered all the way up until the change.  I promise you tons of documents will go missing before the dems get to look into things over the last 6 years but even that won't save some of them.  I don't want this to become a huge witch hunt, but some have to go down.....Rumsfeld, Cheney and Haliburton goons to name a few.

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:04 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  TheMojoPin wrote: No matter which way Virginia goes Senate-wise, we apparently still hate homos.It's a sad, sad day. And most of the Democrats who won are more toward the center/middle than the hard left. Webb is a mainstream Republican by any measure, and listening to Lieberman you'd think the same thing. Many of the freshman House Reps and Senators will be moderates. THe house leadership, however is another matter. Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Murtha, Dingel, all significantly to the left of the country. Some to the far, FAR left. This election was certainly a repudiation of the House Republicans, but not of conservative values. Many of the conservative ballot initiatives did well. But an exit poll which asked "Who is the party of big Government" Republicans won by 12%. And they still have the built in advantages of the gerrymandering they did in place for the next two election cycles. So if they get their acts together and/or the Dems blow it, they could be back in a hurry.      This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 7:46 PM Do me a favor, explain just what "the far, Far left" are set to do that is so outrageous?  Like Campo said, the liberal moniker isn't a bad thing, it's something to be fucking proud about.  The "conservative" issues many times tie right into the "liberal" ideas, but of late the conservatives spend more even though this is one of there main stances!  Both parties are infiltrated by big corp money and don't really work for their constituents, but for corporate interest.  This is the biggest problem with government right now and it is destroying both parties.  Let's see if the Dems are at least a little better, but we'll see.  The best result of this election is that the power is split and it was truly needed and needs to be kept in place.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Though she has been painted as a far Left Liberal, I think Pelosi has taken the right tact. My only fear is that they'll get pushed by their base into getting bogged down trying to "get even" with the Republicans by holding a bunch of stupid hearings that will add up to nothing but wasting time and turning off the public. Pelosi has said she plans on pushing foward with an agenda that people can get behind. We'll see. I happen to agree with The Dems on Immigration reform. I disagree on minimum wage, but think its a minor issue for most businesses. If they push us to get out of Iraq before they can govern themselves, the country will collapse and Syria, Turkey and Iran may have to get involved. Which will likely be a bigger disaster than the dominos that fell after Vietnam, with worldwide economic implications. But again, I dont think Pelosi will go that far, despite her base screaming for it.

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:38 PM

Contrary to popular belief, most dems don't want to go that route unless something gets discovered that make it clear they need to look into things.  Even though I think it is much more important than looking into someone's sexual life, as thousands of our troops died over there based on fixed intelligence and billions of dollars are just plain missing while our troops still don't have body armor with billions spent on it.  With the problems we have here, the safety of OUR ports and airports, one would think we should focus more here.  Also, bc of this war we surely are less safe and have very little options in terms of North Korea and Iran.  We are stretched so thin for so long for what?  Now some true threats come up and we don't even have the world with us (even though China did recently step up with NK), or the resources to protect ourself from attack.  And just how could anyone think that raising the min wage is a bad idea after 10 fucking years.  I believe the republican led congress has given itself around 8 raises in that time, while most of the county still makes fucking $5.15 an hour!  The last time the min wage was raised by the way, it helped the economy bc these people can't put it away in savings accts., in stock and bonds or cds.  They actually start to dig out a little and put it back into the economy and help redistribute the wealth.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 04:53 PM

I just think its none of their business who gets paid what, whether on the high or low end of the scale. Also, if you raise it when there's a soft ecomony or high unemployment employers might tend to hire less or cut back on staff so as not to raise prices in a bad ecomony. So it ends up hurting the little guy who now cant find a job. But the labor market happens to be very tight right now, unemployment is around 4% which is below normal (5%) so a hike may actually help employers who are looking for employees and having trouble finding them. So while I dont generally support it, if the Dems want to push it now, I wont object. You see it as a moral issue, I see it as a business and privacy issue.   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 9:22 PM

spoon

11-08-2006, 05:40 PM

Truthfully I see it as both bc you shouldn't make a choice based on only one of the key factors.  The true solution is to raise the min and fine companies who employ illegals.  If you really want to fix immigration and illegal immigration, doing this is all that's needed.  If they don't have jobs until they are legally here, the issue will begin to stabalize and companies will be forced to pay real wages (and taxes will be collected on almost all workers too).

docgoblin

11-08-2006, 05:59 PM

The bottom line is that the two party system is rediculous at this point. We have both parties grabbing billions of dollars from major corporations to get elected. Then after they are in office they owe so many favors to the corporations that our needs are never even considered. Campaign finance reform is essential to making these races a level playing field. I'd love to see a Libertarian candidate have the same chance as a Democrat or Republican. At the very least, it would make the two big parties campaign on issues rather than throwing money at negative ads to win a spot (ask Harold Ford from Tennesee how bogus ads can destroy a campaign). The next two years will now be a stalemate in a time of serious threats from terrorists. What happens after that could determine the fate of the country and the world... And that's not just hype.

Reephdweller

11-08-2006, 06:10 PM

Democrats take control of the senate! Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!

torker

11-08-2006, 06:31 PM

spoon wrote: torker wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.You mean scarier than what we had?  Congressmen who protected an alleged child molester, who took bribes, who failed to do their job to oversee the White House?Yes.Then you may be retarded.  Definately a little slow bc Pelosi fights hard for her constituents and doesn't base everything on religious issues brought up by closet gay religious leaders.  She'll truly try to work together and at least the scary policy and spending of the "conservative" republicans will stop.  Give me one thing that scares you about her that is valid, just one that doesn't simply state she has different views from you.  She has nothing marring her record like you old boys club and has a fire/passion I can get behind.  She'll certainly have to work together with repubs and do what Bush acted like he would 6 years ago.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely so that went to the neo-cons heads and it showed.  Pelosi may be in a better position than we once thought (may control the house and senate), but she's far from in absolute power and I think it'll keep her grounded.  Make your case Torker, don't just spout off whiny claims.I stated in an earlier post that I don't disagree with her on all issues. I'm also not buying into the 'liberals are all good' line of bullshit.  I am not a fan of the extreme left or the extreme right.  I am not intimidated by a persons sexual preferences or their religious beliefs.  I am over-taxed and these fuckers in Washington are pissing my money away.  Iraq. to say the least, has been seriously mismanaged by those in power.  I heard virtually nothing from the Democrats on concrete plans for the redirection of the conflict and most of what I heard Pelosi say (before today) has been divisive.   so... please don't lump me in with the 'old boys club'.  Far fucking from it.  

This message was edited by torker on 11-8-06 @ 10:35 PM

PapaBear

11-08-2006, 06:36 PM

The AP said it had contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers on Wednesday. The new AP count showed Webb with a lead of 7,236 votes over Allen.The news agency quoted an adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity, saying Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night -- or about 7,000 votes.Disinclined to request a recount... Sounds promising.

mendyweiss

11-08-2006, 07:09 PM

PapaBear wrote: The AP said it had contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers on Wednesday. The new AP count showed Webb with a lead of 7,236 votes over Allen.The news agency quoted an adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity, saying Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night -- or about 7,000 votes.  Disinclined to request a recount... Sounds promising.What's amazing, is up until 2 months ago , Allen was a top 2 or 3 to be the prez nominee, I don't think he could be elected dog catcher today !!

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 07:25 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Though she has been painted as a far Left Liberal, I think Pelosi has taken the right tact. My only fear is that they'll get pushed by their base into getting bogged down trying to "get even" with the Republicans by holding a bunch of stupid hearings that will add up to nothing but wasting time and turning off the public. Pelosi has said she plans on pushing foward with an agenda that people can get behind. We'll see. I happen to agree with The Dems on Immigration reform. I disagree on minimum wage, but think its a minor issue for most businesses. If they push us to get out of Iraq before they can govern themselves, the country will collapse and Syria, Turkey and Iran may have to get involved. Which will likely be a bigger disaster than the dominos that fell after Vietnam, with worldwide economic implications. But again, I dont think Pelosi will go that far, despite her base screaming for it. This sounds exactly like what happened to Clinton after he won re-election back in 96. The only difference that witch hunt was so stupid and had nothing to do with Americans and polotics. It was a real true witch hunt. This witch hunt would be justified because what these reublicans have done has hurt america in everyway. Due to these pompus asses we went to an unjust war killing our children oin false information. The rich got a lot richer and middle classe bcame lower middle class or poor. The poverty level in this country has risen and look at what happened with Katrina. IMO Bush should be impeached and the republican moral party should be shown for what they are, which is not as moral as they state. But even thought I think all this I hope the dems take the igh ground and DONT do this. Nothing will get done and we will look like bigger fools to the rest of the world. LEt the dems take the high road and just make America better and fix the way the world sees us and get those other nations back on our side and really fix this world. I think the dems can do what Bush couldnt, bringing the world together rather then divide us.

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 07:28 PM

spoon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, most dems don't want to go that route unless something gets discovered that make it clear they need to look into things.  Even though I think it is much more important than looking into someone's sexual life, as thousands of our troops died over there based on fixed intelligence and billions of dollars are just plain missing while our troops still don't have body armor with billions spent on it.  With the problems we have here, the safety of OUR ports and airports, one would think we should focus more here.  Also, bc of this war we surely are less safe and have very little options in terms of North Korea and Iran.  We are stretched so thin for so long for what?  Now some true threats come up and we don't even have the world with us (even though China did recently step up with NK), or the resources to protect ourself from attack.  And just how could anyone think that raising the min wage is a bad idea after 10 fucking years.  I believe the republican led congress has given itself around 8 raises in that time, while most of the county still makes fucking $5.15 an hour!  The last time the min wage was raised by the way, it helped the economy bc these people can't put it away in savings accts., in stock and bonds or cds.  They actually start to dig out a little and put it back into the economy and help redistribute the wealth.  That why I think tax cuts and raises for middle class and the poor helps the economy more. When you give tax cuts to the rich all they do is invest it  or put it in a cd. That doesnt help the economy, it help themselves and banks make money. The poorer classes will spend it on things they need and maybe some things they want, thus helping growth.

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 07:35 PM

docgoblin wrote: The bottom line is that the two party system is rediculous at this point. We have both parties grabbing billions of dollars from major corporations to get elected. Then after they are in office they owe so many favors to the corporations that our needs are never even considered. Campaign finance reform is essential to making these races a level playing field. I'd love to see a Libertarian candidate have the same chance as a Democrat or Republican. At the very least, it would make the two big parties campaign on issues rather than throwing money at negative ads to win a spot (ask Harold Ford from Tennesee how bogus ads can destroy a campaign). The next two years will now be a stalemate in a time of serious threats from terrorists. What happens after that could determine the fate of the country and the world... And that's not just hype. Sounds good. I think all this money spent on campaigns is so tupid. Millions of $$$. in CT lamont spent $16 mil thats just 1 race. All this money could be spent on more important things rather then tv stations getting all the big $$$ for commercials.Plus is it just me or does anyone else think that the president and any elected official shouldnt be traveling around the country on our time and money to try to get support or votes for their party? I'm sorry Bush flying all over the country the last 3 weeks doing fund raisers while he should be actually working is just bad. Plus the cost of the plane, security, fuel and everything else is footed by us not that party. I'm using Bush as an example, No dem should be doing this either unless they themselves are paying not the tax payers and not while they should be working. Do it on your own time like you 2 month summer vacations. Seems like poloticians work about as much as school teachers. mon-fri, weekends and holidays off with a full summer vacation. Bullshit

Recyclerz

11-08-2006, 08:28 PM

The World Says "Thank You America"<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1942821,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1942821,00.html</a>While I don't believe that our primary motivation as a country should be to make the rest of the world like us, I don't think we can completely ignore them either.  In my job I occasionally have to wine & dine foreigners (mostly Europeans) who come over to see how we're spending their money.  Most are very polite but 98% hate Bush with a fury that makes Al Franken seem like Rush Limbaugh in comparison.  The election results should make them a little happy now. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" />

spoon

11-08-2006, 09:21 PM

torker wrote: spoon wrote: torker wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: torker wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  <img height="233" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg" width="185" border="0" /> Good morning Miss Speaker. And then reality set in.  This is more than just a little scary.You mean scarier than what we had?  Congressmen who protected an alleged child molester, who took bribes, who failed to do their job to oversee the White House?Yes.Then you may be retarded.  Definately a little slow bc Pelosi fights hard for her constituents and doesn't base everything on religious issues brought up by closet gay religious leaders.  She'll truly try to work together and at least the scary policy and spending of the "conservative" republicans will stop.  Give me one thing that scares you about her that is valid, just one that doesn't simply state she has different views from you.  She has nothing marring her record like you old boys club and has a fire/passion I can get behind.  She'll certainly have to work together with repubs and do what Bush acted like he would 6 years ago.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely so that went to the neo-cons heads and it showed.  Pelosi may be in a better position than we once thought (may control the house and senate), but she's far from in absolute power and I think it'll keep her grounded.  Make your case Torker, don't just spout off whiny claims.I stated in an earlier post that I don't disagree with her on all issues. I'm also not buying into the 'liberals are all good' line of bullshit.  I am not a fan of the extreme left or the extreme right.  I am not intimidated by a persons sexual preferences or their religious beliefs.  I am over-taxed and these fuckers in Washington are pissing my money away.  Iraq. to say the least, has been seriously mismanaged by those in power.  I heard virtually nothing from the Democrats on concrete plans for the redirection of the conflict and most of what I heard Pelosi say (before today) has been divisive.   so... please don't lump me in with the 'old boys club'.  Far fucking from it.  This message was edited by torker on 11-8-06 @ 10:35 PM I agree with you on a lot of what you posted here and you've won me back a little.  Yet Pelosi was only allowed to be divisive in the past bc they were treated like lepers and she had to show she was fighting back to her constituents somewhat.  I truly believe we'll see some good change this time around.  Historically a lot gets done in these situations and I believe the healing has to start somewhere.

A.J.

11-09-2006, 04:01 AM

CampoNJ wrote: spoon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, most dems don't want to go that route unless something gets discovered that make it clear they need to look into things.  Even though I think it is much more important than looking into someone's sexual life, as thousands of our troops died over there based on fixed intelligence and billions of dollars are just plain missing while our troops still don't have body armor with billions spent on it.  With the problems we have here, the safety of OUR ports and airports, one would think we should focus more here.  Also, bc of this war we surely are less safe and have very little options in terms of North Korea and Iran.  We are stretched so thin for so long for what?  Now some true threats come up and we don't even have the world with us (even though China did recently step up with NK), or the resources to protect ourself from attack.  And just how could anyone think that raising the min wage is a bad idea after 10 fucking years.  I believe the republican led congress has given itself around 8 raises in that time, while most of the county still makes fucking $5.15 an hour!  The last time the min wage was raised by the way, it helped the economy bc these people can't put it away in savings accts., in stock and bonds or cds.  They actually start to dig out a little and put it back into the economy and help redistribute the wealth.  That why I think tax cuts and raises for middle class and the poor helps the economy more. When you give tax cuts to the rich all they do is invest it  or put it in a cd. That doesnt help the economy, it help themselves and banks make money. The poorer classes will spend it on things they need and maybe some things they want, thus helping growth.Hell, let's just make the minimum wage $50 or $100 an hour.  Is that going to be enough of a "living wage"?  If you're dumb enough to try and support a family on minimum wage alone perhaps you shouldn't be having a family.How do you give tax breaks to the poor?  Aren't they already paying hardly any income tax anyway?  So is the answer that the "poor" pay no taxes, the "middle class" pay some and "the rich" pay the most?Also, don't people's investments/bank accounts get taxed too?  So how is that hurting the economy?What exactly is considered to be "rich", "middle class" and "poor"? By some accounts, I'M rich...biatch.

Yerdaddy

11-09-2006, 04:12 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Though she has been painted as a far Left Liberal, I think Pelosi has taken the right tact. My only fear is that they'll get pushed by their base into getting bogged down trying to "get even" with the Republicans by holding a bunch of stupid hearings that will add up to nothing but wasting time and turning off the public. Pelosi has said she plans on pushing foward with an agenda that people can get behind. We'll see. I happen to agree with The Dems on Immigration reform. I disagree on minimum wage, but think its a minor issue for most businesses. If they push us to get out of Iraq before they can govern themselves, the country will collapse and Syria, Turkey and Iran may have to get involved. Which will likely be a bigger disaster than the dominos that fell after Vietnam, with worldwide economic implications. But again, I dont think Pelosi will go that far, despite her base screaming for it. Keep in mind Pelosi's base isn't San Francisco anymore. She's leadership now, so her base is national. Her voters are going to support her because they will view her as their voice in national policies and the strategy of the party as a whole. She will have to pander to them periodically - make them think they're seeing a more liberal stance by the party - but mostly, she has to represent democrats nation-wide. I think it risks motivating conservatives, who know the game better than the dems do, and puts her at risk of alienating the dirty dreadlock crowd that has to vote for her. Personally, I think she's a poor choice for leadership strategically. [Is my spelling actually getting WORSE as my posts get longer?] It's really risky - especially since I still consider the democrats losers. I don't see this win as the result of anything they've actually DONE. So, probably the democrats will end up shooting themselves in the food by placing too much power in the hands of their stronger opponents - republicans - and their newfound allies - the loony left. This is going to end badly.

Furtherman

11-09-2006, 06:28 AM

Bush really showed his true colors yesterday."I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election"Nice choice of words, once again.  So, everyone out there who voted Democratic?  Your president is disappointed with you.   "Actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday.  Shows what I know."Well, maybe if you didn't conceal yourself in that mightier than thou bubble you would actually knows what it felt like to be an American under your watch. Oh, and what did he have to say about the man who put him in office?  The puppeteer?  Karl Rove?"I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was."Wow.  You're a real good friend to have on one's side, huh?   Arrogant ass.

Jujubees2

11-09-2006, 06:43 AM

CampoNJ wrote: docgoblin wrote: The bottom line is that the two party system is rediculous at this point. We have both parties grabbing billions of dollars from major corporations to get elected. Then after they are in office they owe so many favors to the corporations that our needs are never even considered. Campaign finance reform is essential to making these races a level playing field. I'd love to see a Libertarian candidate have the same chance as a Democrat or Republican. At the very least, it would make the two big parties campaign on issues rather than throwing money at negative ads to win a spot (ask Harold Ford from Tennesee how bogus ads can destroy a campaign). The next two years will now be a stalemate in a time of serious threats from terrorists. What happens after that could determine the fate of the country and the world... And that's not just hype. Sounds good. I think all this money spent on campaigns is so tupid. Millions of $$$. in CT lamont spent $16 mil thats just 1 race. All this money could be spent on more important things rather then tv stations getting all the big $$$ for commercials.Plus is it just me or does anyone else think that the president and any elected official shouldnt be traveling around the country on our time and money to try to get support or votes for their party? I'm sorry Bush flying all over the country the last 3 weeks doing fund raisers while he should be actually working is just bad. Plus the cost of the plane, security, fuel and everything else is footed by us not that party. I'm using Bush as an example, No dem should be doing this either unless they themselves are paying not the tax payers and not while they should be working. Do it on your own time like you 2 month summer vacations. Seems like poloticians work about as much as school teachers. mon-fri, weekends and holidays off with a full summer vacation. BullshitSpeaking of pols traveling when they should be working, I don't think George Pataki has been in Albany more than five days over the past four months as he's busy getting ready for a presidential run.  Jesus, you barely even saw him campaiginig for any of the Republican candidates for state-wide office.

A.J.

11-09-2006, 06:49 AM

Furtherman wrote: Bush really showed his true colors yesterday."I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election"Nice choice of words, once again.  So, everyone out there who voted Democratic?  Your president is disappointed with you.   No, it's more about him and his role as leader of the GOP and watching said party lose control of both houses of Congress.  I'm pretty sure I remember President Clinton making similar sounding comments on November 9, 1994.

Furtherman

11-09-2006, 06:52 AM

A.J. wrote: Furtherman wrote: Bush really showed his true colors yesterday."I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election"Nice choice of words, once again.  So, everyone out there who voted Democratic?  Your president is disappointed with you.   No, it's more about him and his role as leader of the GOP and watching said party lose control of both houses of Congress.  I'm pretty sure I remember President Clinton making similar sounding comments on November 9, 1994.If Clinton did say "I'm disappointed" then I'd call him an arrogant ass too.

BYOBKenobi

11-09-2006, 12:20 PM

You want him to lie and say "wow, I'm so happy that for the next 2 years there will be a massive attack on anything I decide to do from the people that are supposed to be running this joint." ?I mean, most adds I saw for democrats went like "this guy sided with bush, don't give bush what he wants, vote democrat."  That's an add that says basically "hey, stalemate all progress for 2 years so we can make the current republican president look even worse and then we'll have an actual shot at getting the presidency in 08."If he came out and said how happy he was with the election we'd be bashing him for being a fake.  I guess that's all you can really expect him to say.  I am not happy with what happened.  If he had followed it up with "because of the harsh political climate against the current administration I can see how having all these negative pieces of shit in the house and senate is going to fuck us in the ass even harder than havign the wrong people here in the first place." then I'd <3 him hard.

Furtherman

11-09-2006, 12:24 PM

He brought that "harsh political climate" to himself, because of his ignorance.  He got exactly what he deserved.

Bulldogcakes

11-09-2006, 02:41 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:Keep in mind Pelosi's base isn't San Francisco anymore. She's leadership now, so her base is national. Her voters are going to support her because they will view her as their voice in national policies and the strategy of the party as a whole. She will have to pander to them periodically - make them think they're seeing a more liberal stance by the party - but mostly, she has to represent democrats nation-wide. I think it risks motivating conservatives, who know the game better than the dems do, and puts her at risk of alienating the dirty dreadlock crowd that has to vote for her. Personally, I think she's a poor choice for leadership strategically. [Is my spelling actually getting WORSE as my posts get longer?] It's really risky - especially since I still consider the democrats losers. I don't see this win as the result of anything they've actually DONE. So, probably the democrats will end up shooting themselves in the food (?) by placing too much power in the hands of their stronger opponents - republicans - and their newfound allies - the loony left. This is going to end badly. And most Democrats in the rest of the country are much closer to the middle than the ones in NY or San Francisco. Shit, the Senate leader is Harry Ried from Nevada and he's PRO-LIFE. And there's no doubt that that this election was about throwing out the bums in the House and Senate and putting the brakes on Bush much more than it was about being for the Dems and their agenda. I listen to NPR daily, and I'M just hearing about her agenda NOW. Her opening preamble wasn't a good sign (Cant find it on the Huffington post. But I heard about it <a title="on this" target="_self" href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2006/11/09">on this</a> local NPR show) Before she lists one thing she wants to do, she goes right to the class warfare bullshit, saying "In 100 hours, The top 5 Oil companies will make another 4.3 billion dollars. In 100 hours, the top 5 Pharmaceutical companies will gain 2.6 billion" on and on. Thats the kind of crap thats been losing them the past 5 mid terms. When you attack business, many Americans think your going after their job. And indirectly of course, they are.I think that the main problem they'll have is that while the new Dem freshmen are mostly moderates, the FACE of the party, the house leadership positions, are going to be held by Speaker-Pelosi Judiciary-John ConyersHenry Waxman-Govt Reform Comittee Ways and Means-Charles Rangel All of them are old guard FDR liberals who really dont get the more market friendly modern independant voters that gave them their majority. Thats not the face I want to put on a party if I want to keep winning elections, especially still working with the Republican gerrymandered districts. If they get tripped up, I think its there. Also, they had a 40% turnout, which is huge for recent mid terms. So Democrat voters clearly turned out in droves. But next go around will be a presidential, and the Dems will likely be running Hillary as their standard bearer, and the Republicans will have a fresh face to vote for as opposed to trying to turn out a conflicted base for Bush. And if you know any Republicans like I do, the one person on the planet they will walk through 5 feet of snow to vote against is Hillary. They hate her with a purple passion. It doesn't even really matter if they dont love or trust McCain (which they dont). They will run through fire to keep that bitch out of the White House and off their TV screens for 4-8 years. The highly motivated base next time around will be on the republican side, especially if gay marriage keeps spreading like it has been lately.      

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-9-06 @ 7:41 PM

Yerdaddy

11-10-2006, 08:34 AM

But next go around will be a presidential, and the Dems will likely be running Hillary as their standard bearer, and the Republicans will have a fresh face to vote for as opposed to trying to turn out a conflicted base for Bush. And if you know any Republicans like I do, the one person on the planet they will walk through 5 feet of snow to vote against is Hillary. They hate her with a purple passion. It doesn't even really matter if they dont love or trust McCain (which they dont). They will run through fire to keep that bitch out of the White House and off their TV screens for 4-8 years. The highly motivated base next time around will be on the republican side, especially if gay marriage keeps spreading like it has been lately.The Democratic party choosing Hillary in 2008 would be the last straw for me with the dems as far as elections go, if I hadn't already run out of straws in 2004. And for the exact reason you cite. If you're going to run a polarizing figure you have to count on having more party loyalty that the other guy. If the dems believe they have more loyalty than the republicans at this point then they won't see the inside of the White House until 3008. What scares me is that these midterms <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/11/10/BL2006111000345_pf.html" target="_blank">seem to be breeding confidence in the dems,</a> which they don't deserve. Losers.

Yerdaddy

11-10-2006, 09:04 AM

After Rummy the next victim of the midterms is the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901815.html?nav=hcmodule" target="_blank">Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.</a> He has been a protege and confidant of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and a key member of the Republican team that, until this week, had proved to be one of the most successful political units in modern American history.The <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061110-121131-5518r.htm" target="_blank">Washington Times</a> is saying he might be replaced by the black republican who just lost his race for the Senate in Maryland.Back to the WP Media Notes:Here's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09recon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1" target="">a little nugget</a> , deep in an NYT story, about moderate Republican Jim Leach, who lost his House seat in Iowa, and Republican chairman Ken Mehlman:"The Republican National Committee had sought before Election Day to send a mailing into Mr. Leach's Iowa district to attack his opponent's position on same-sex marriage."Mr. Leach recoiled at the mailing and called Mr. Mehlman, saying he would caucus with the Democrats if Mr. Mehlman did not withdraw it." 'I would rather lose running an uplifting race than prevail by finger-pointing,' Mr. Leach said."I'm almost sorry this guy lost.The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-investigations10nov10,0,1887142.story?coll=la-home-headlines" target="">L.A. Times</a> sees a new culture on the Hill:"Rep. Ike Skelton knows what he will do in one of his first acts as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-led House: resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations."The panel was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994. Now, Skelton (D-Mo.) intends to use it as a forum to probe Pentagon spending and the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war."It has been 12 years since Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate. But they are looking to make up for lost time, and in some cases, make the Bush administration and its business allies sweat."With control of every committee in Congress starting in January, the new majority will inherit broad powers to subpoena and investigate. And that is expected to translate into wide-ranging and contentious hearings."Good! We all know that politicians are generally scum. That's the point of democracy: to make them accountable to us through using ballances of power to provide oversight and accounability. Since we haven't had that in a long time there hasn't been any accoutability on what's happened in Iraq. So, while conservative pundits will describe this as revenge, "Bush bashing", obstructionism and anything else they can to try to protect the administration, this is a necessary and overdue function of democracy. I've read all the Congressional reports on the Iraq War and they absolutely reek of bias and whitewash. When you read the military and GAO reports you can't even believe they're talking about the same war. Hearings are not going to fix the war at this point - and they're not going to hurt it either. They will simply bring out alot of information about why we got here, MAYBE hold somebody responsible for deceptions and failures in taking us to war and conducting the war, and possibly act as a deterrant to doing the exact same fucking thing. Iran? Bring em on!

A.J.

11-10-2006, 10:12 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:   The Democratic party choosing Hillary in 2008 would be the last straw for me with the dems as far as elections go, if I hadn't already run out of straws in 2004.  "We need to order more straws."<img height="238" src="http://www.transparencynow.com/images/hawk2.jpg" width="320" border="0" />

Bulldogcakes

11-10-2006, 05:27 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:Good! We all know that politicians are generally scum. That's the point of democracy: to make them accountable to us through using ballances of power to provide oversight and accounability. Since we haven't had that in a long time there hasn't been any accoutability on what's happened in Iraq. So, while conservative pundits will describe this as revenge, "Bush bashing", obstructionism and anything else they can to try to protect the administration, this is a necessary and overdue function of democracy. I've read all the Congressional reports on the Iraq War and they absolutely reek of bias and whitewash. When you read the military and GAO reports you can't even believe they're talking about the same war. Hearings are not going to fix the war at this point - and they're not going to hurt it either. They will simply bring out alot of information about why we got here, MAYBE hold somebody responsible for deceptions and failures in taking us to war and conducting the war, and possibly act as a deterrant to doing the exact same fucking thing. Iran? Bring em on!  Be careful what you wish for. The way the Republicans will spin this is "We did whatever it took to defend America and now you 'weak on defense liberals' are putting us on trial for it". Dont forget most of the pubic doesn't pay as much attention to this stuff as we do. Bush's approval ratings may be low, but he still scores high on "defending America" questions. And these things can backfire, hearings have a way of making heroes out of guys like Ollie North. But this is getting boring at this point. This has been American politics since Watergate. The 2nd term scandal that consumes the presidency. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and now Bush. Dont get me wrong, with the way Bush was spending money anything that ties his hands and preoccupies the entire Government for 2 years sounds great to me. I love gridlock. But if you guys were planning on getting anything done, you're hurting yourself as much as him. And he's a lame duck.

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 12:19 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: Good! We all know that politicians are generally scum. That's the point of democracy: to make them accountable to us through using ballances of power to provide oversight and accounability. Since we haven't had that in a long time there hasn't been any accoutability on what's happened in Iraq. So, while conservative pundits will describe this as revenge, "Bush bashing", obstructionism and anything else they can to try to protect the administration, this is a necessary and overdue function of democracy. I've read all the Congressional reports on the Iraq War and they absolutely reek of bias and whitewash. When you read the military and GAO reports you can't even believe they're talking about the same war. Hearings are not going to fix the war at this point - and they're not going to hurt it either. They will simply bring out alot of information about why we got here, MAYBE hold somebody responsible for deceptions and failures in taking us to war and conducting the war, and possibly act as a deterrant to doing the exact same fucking thing. Iran? Bring em on!  Be careful what you wish for. The way the Republicans will spin this is "We did whatever it took to defend America and now you 'weak on defense liberals' are putting us on trial for it". Dont forget most of the pubic doesn't pay as much attention to this stuff as we do. Bush's approval ratings may be low, but he still scores high on "defending America" questions. And these things can backfire, hearings have a way of making heroes out of guys like Ollie North. But this is getting boring at this point. This has been American politics since Watergate. The 2nd term scandal that consumes the presidency. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and now Bush. Dont get me wrong, with the way Bush was spending money anything that ties his hands and preoccupies the entire Government for 2 years sounds great to me. I love gridlock. But if you guys were planning on getting anything done, you're hurting yourself as much as him. And he's a lame duck.   1. They're already saying that. Let's face it, this is the conservative strategy - attack any dems in power until they're not in power anymore. How much credibility did you give the accusations that Clinton hated the military, sold national secrets to the Chinese, had Vince Foster murdered, raped every woman who signed in at the Arkansas Governor's mansion, just to name a few. 2. I actually do care more about my country than my party. Hearings on Watergate and Iran/Contra actually made a differene on the way similar administrations conducted business, however briefly. To me, hearings on lost wars launched on false pretenses seems like a no-brainer. If the dems don't have hearings then they should share responsibility with the administration for the war. You have to hold hearings to make the truth about this war public even if it only deters similiar destructive wars for a decade or two. 3. I think a healthy part of the dems overcoming their pussy status is to learn to defy the republican spin. I don't want the crazy libs to take power just like the crazy cons have, but I don't see anything else reigning in the conservative extremists except the dems adapting and building a loyal base, which they haven't done in decades. If you don't hold hearings on something like this, you've lost me and anyone left of me. If you do, you keep me, who thinks in terms of policy - present and future - and you show strength to your base, which motivates. What I'd really like to see is the dems hold to a simple strategy: every time you're hit with this retarded "they're trying to make us weak!" accusations, you hit back with the latest findings of the hearings, ie. "they created a separate intelligence bureau just to lie to the public! THAT'S WEAK! I'LL FUCK ALL OF&n

Bulldogcakes

11-11-2006, 03:26 AM

1. They're already saying that. Let's face it, this is the conservative strategy - attack any dems in power until they're not in power anymore. How much credibility did you give the accusations that Clinton hated the military, sold national secrets to the Chinese, had Vince Foster murdered, raped every woman who signed in at the Arkansas Governor's mansion, just to name a few. 2. I actually do care more about my country than my party. Hearings on Watergate and Iran/Contra actually made a differene on the way similar administrations conducted business, however briefly. To me, hearings on lost wars launched on false pretenses seems like a no-brainer. If the dems don't have hearings then they should share responsibility with the administration for the war. You have to hold hearings to make the truth about this war public even if it only deters similiar destructive wars for a decade or two. 3. I think a healthy part of the dems overcoming their pussy status is to learn to defy the republican spin. I don't want the crazy libs to take power just like the crazy cons have, but I don't see anything else reigning in the conservative extremists except the dems adapting and building a loyal base, which they haven't done in decades. If you don't hold hearings on something like this, you've lost me and anyone left of me. If you do, you keep me, who thinks in terms of policy - present and future - and you show strength to your base, which motivates. What I'd really like to see is the dems hold to a simple strategy: every time you're hit with this retarded "they're trying to make us weak!" accusations, you hit back with the latest findings of the hearings, ie. "they created a separate intelligence bureau just to lie to the public! THAT'S WEAK! I'LL FUCK ALL OF YOUR DOGS YOU FACIST WHORES!" Or words to that effect. You hammer away with actual facts and say it like a man and you build your own base for a change. Probably never happen because the dems are looooooooooossseeeeeeeerrrrrrrs. But maybe.  I cant remember a time when the two parties DIDN'T attack each other constantly and blame the other for whatever is wrong at that time. That's just S.O.P. Hearings may be justified, but they'll just produce more of the noise that comes out of Washington and solve nothing. The Dems will take the most biased look possible at whatever evidence they have, attempt to smear whoever they get to show up, and the whole thing will end up at the Supreme Court. This wont be about getting to the truth, its all just political. I think the ultimate hearing was held last Tuesday, and I'm satisfied with that. This also gets dangerously close to attempting to criminalize and prosecute policy differences between the two parties, and if you think thats a good idea, look at what goes on in 3rd world countries and see how that ends up. The Democrats cant claim the Bush administration lied to them (though they will). Before the war, the Bush administration showed the national intelligence estimate to the House and Senate leadership and whoever else wanted to see it. If someone had a problem with it (and some did) they should have done their homework and brought it up then. To claim now that they were mislead is just monday morning quarterbacking, and weak. If the Dems want to score points in these (I think inevitable) hearings, forget about the facts and stick to sound bites. 95% of the public wont be watching it, and will find out about what happened in a one minute piece on the evening news. Be entertaining, thats what the TV "news" wants to see.    BTW-You mean to tell me Clinton didn't kill Vince Foster? Ha! Boy are you drinkin the ol Kool-Aid!

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 03:46 AM

Hearings may be justified, but they'll just produce more of the noise that comes out of Washington and solve nothing. The Dems will take the most biased look possible at whatever evidence they have, attempt to smear whoever they get to show up, and the whole thing will end up at the Supreme Court. This wont be about getting to the truth, its all just political. I think the ultimate hearing was held last Tuesday, and I'm satisfied with that. This also gets dangerously close to attempting to criminalize and prosecute policy differences between the two parties, and if you think thats a good idea, look at what goes on in 3rd world countries and see how that ends up. I don't think it will be this way. There's tons of evidence to be covered in hearings. No need to pull hyperbole out of one's ass in this situation. The Democrats cant claim the Bush administration lied to them (though they will). Before the war, the Bush administration showed the national intelligence estimate to the House and Senate leadership and whoever else wanted to see it. If someone had a problem with it (and some did) they should have done their homework and brought it up then. To claim now that they were mislead is just monday morning quarterbacking, and weak. I could make a real good case just from memory. They did bring it up - they produced their own reports which weren't bad, but they're the minority party so who gives a shit? With the power of subpoena you will see these guys admitting that they manipulated the public information. You've already got intel staff describing the processes. That Cheney Frontline piece i posted somewhere is just a start. Hearings would produce tons of meaningful shit. Possibly indictments. I have so much confidence in that I'm not even going to write the 5,000 word essay to back it up.

Yerdaddy

11-12-2006, 03:29 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100689.html" target="_blank">WASHINGTON (Reuters)</a> - Just days after Democrats took over Congress, Americans embraced their top goals and President George W. Bush's job approval rating slid to 31 percent, according to a Newsweek poll issued on Saturday.Huge majorities of those polled said they approved of the legislative priorities cited by Democratic leaders after their party seized control of the Senate and the House of Representatives from Republicans, the magazine said.But they also expressed concerns that Democrats might seek to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq too quickly or hamper the administration's efforts to combat terrorism, it said.The poll surveyed 1,006 adults on Thursday and Friday, following the Democrats' midterm election victory on Tuesday. It had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.The strongest support, 92 percent, was for lowering drug prices for retirees on Medicare by allowing the government to negotiate directly with drug companies. Some three-quarters of respondents said it should be a top priority, according to Newsweek.Americans also supported raising the federal minimum wage (89 percent), investigating government contracts in Iraq (89 percent) and cutting the interest rate of federal student loans (88 percent).