|
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Okay, I pull up my browser for a quick check of the news. Hit Google
News. I usually start there and then delve off into the papers that the articles lead me to. Here's what we have for headlines today: Pig Breaks George's Heart.... Well, my first thought is that Rush Limbaugh won't return Bush's phone calls. I guess it was a case of kiss and squeal. No, its George Clooney's pet pig. The pig died. The only reason we know this is that Clooney ordered 50 lbs of sausage casing from Cabelas. Okay, what next? NYC Bans Trans Fats from Eateries... Okay, that's just mean. If some transexual who has to buy its pantyhose from the women's section wants to go out for a quick piece of Clooney's Homemade Sausage, it has to go to New Jersey. Maybe if it ran there a few times, it could lose enough to fit into or afford .... Hefty Fee for Hepburn's Dress... Yes, that slinky black dress from Breakfast at Tiffany's was yanked out of the grave and sold at auction for $922,299 or $920,000 (NZ money) or $1m (Aussie bucks) or £410,000 or £467,000 (Irish) or 807-thousand dollars or $811,390 (what Romainians think it sold for). This exceded the auction estimate of $150,000 for this size two number. Hmm, maybe the NYC transexual has to run say... to Ecuador to loose enough to fit into the dress. Then again, said NYCCT (New York City Chunky Transexual) may have already gone to NJ as ... E. Coli Threat May Have Passed In NJ!!! Ya eat a Clooney Homemade Sausage thats been trucked to NYC in the back of socially responsible solar powered Volvo, sold out of the back of said Volvo to a NYCCT thats been banned from the local restaraunts, the first think that NYCCT is gonna do is take a dump at the rest stop on the Jersey Turnpike. Damn, news is just too depressing. Now how do I get the little red balls to go over to the green side or is it the other way 'round? Frank Reid |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Frank Reid wrote:
Damn, news is just too depressing. How many innocent people died in Iraq today? The carnage is unabated and even increasing, but no one here seems to care or to pay attention. We're pushing 3,000 of our troops dead, and many more grievously wounded. Just today, there were three US soldiers killed and six wounded in Baghdad. The number of Iraqis beheaded (the Sunnis' favorite method) or tortured to death with drills into the skull (the Shiites' favorite method) are beyond counting. The Baghdad morgue doesn't have enough room for the bodies. They classify Sunni vs. Shiite by the mode of death, and essentially throw the bodies on a pile. Maybe two different piles. The ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country have a lot to answer for. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... The ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country have a lot to answer for. Then help me get rid of them by joining our movement. We are the third party. We want a government that we can trust and that is not the current government controlled by Democrats and Republicans. Salvation awaits you! Join a third party! Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... The ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country have a lot to answer for. Then help me get rid of them by joining our movement. We are the third party. We want a government that we can trust and that is not the current government controlled by Democrats and Republicans. Salvation awaits you! Join a third party! I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it. So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country?" Good luck. You'll need it! Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it. So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country?" The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6 years. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message news:_hndh.7236 "... The ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country have a lot to answer for" They should be tried as war criminals! and At the very least spend some quality jail time! and Yes! I do mean Bush Cheney et all ! Too bad- it won't happen! Fred "rw" wrote in message nk.net... Frank Reid wrote: |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Opus wrote: "rw" wrote in message ink.net... I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it. So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country?" The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6 years. See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. As a political party, the Democrats are just as shiftless, corrupt and worthy of blame as the Republicans. That both parties *main* focus, year after year, has been partisan control of government and not bi-partisan work to improve the income, health, and educational status of the American people is proof positive that the current two-party system is detrimental to the well-being of Americans. By extension, Americans have come to show, at best, a benign neglect for people of even less means around the world. Why do you think so many people jumped on the Bush bandwagon, and held on so tightly as it careened off a cliff to certain death, doom and destruction. We talk of competition in capitalist economics, yet distain competition in out political system? Why? Because, those who have the most to gain, monetarily, have the bullhorn and have inculcated the American people with a myopic view of the political landscape. Why haven't we done anything to improve our energy situation? It's not the fault of one or the other party, it's the fault of BOTH parties. Why didn't we, like the Brazilians, recognize the potential dangers of foreign energy reliance, back in the 1970s? Did our elected representatives assume that a magic pill would be developed to solve our energy needs? or did they assume that our geo-political ties would remain unchanged forever and/or our military would ensure the free flow of oil for the U.S. economy forever? We need new ideas in our government, and they won't be forthcoming from the Dems. or Repubs. What was your perspective on Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam conflict, rw? I can only assume that you were or would have been in favor of our incursion into Vietnam, by your unwavering support for the Dems. Hell, neither of the sons a bitches (Dems. and Repubs.) can even bring themselves to do the most important task charged to them by the U.S. Constitution--Declaration of War! Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Opus wrote: "rw" wrote in message thlink.net... I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it. So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our country?" The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6 years. See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases AFAIC. I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the past six years, and that's what will change in January. The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that, tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the government. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition) and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a rigid and extreme ideology. In parliamentary systems it's often necessary to create coalitions of several parties to form a government, and the government is then hostage to the demands of the most extreme minority. We see this happening now in Iraq, where Al-Malaki's so-called government can't stand up to the Shiite militias because he needs their political support. It also happens in relatively "mature" parliamentary democracies, as well, like Israel, where the hard-line right wing has been able to block progress on a "land for peace" solution to the Palestinian problem, even though a majority of Israelis support it. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
rw wrote:
Opus wrote: See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. ... McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only the people who are elected get to govern. I rarely agree with _Chicago Tribune_ editorials, the Trib usually comes across as a Republican mouthpiece and cheerleader, so this one surprised hell out of me. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ewsopinion-hed December 6, 2006 Obama should run With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke. There are the polarizing figures: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. There are the candidates who've been here before, such as Sens. Joe Biden, John McCain and John Kerry. There are the little-known politicians whose best hope may be the second spot on the ticket, like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former New York Gov. George Pataki. There are the capital veterans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), whose importance inside the Beltway may make them imagine they have electoral strength beyond it. And then there is Barack Obama. It's safe to say that when he decided to run for the Senate in 2004, he didn't imagine there would be lots of people now urging him to seek the highest office in the land. But ever since his electrifying address to the last Democratic convention, he has been marked for greater things. To run for president would be a big leap for someone who just a couple of years ago was commuting to Springfield as a state senator. There is a plausible case why Obama should bide his time and burnish his credentials for the future--plausible, but not persuasive. When a leader evokes the enthusiasm that Obama does, he should recognize that he has something special to offer, not in 2012 or 2016, but right now. What would he bring to the race that others don't? The most obvious is an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography. In his convention speech, Obama demolished the image of a nation of irreconcilable partisan camps: "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states." No one else has shown a comparable talent for appealing to the centrist instincts of the American people--instincts that often go unsatisfied as each party labors to rally its most uncompromising factions. After the divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences. Any presidential race is a long shot, and there is no guarantee that Obama could succeed. But he may never again find such favorable circumstance. With his unifying themes, he would raise the tone of the campaign. His intellectual depth--he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught law at the University of Chicago--and openness would sharpen the policy debate. He could help the citizenry get comfortable contemplating something that will happen sooner or later--a black president. His magnetic style and optimism would draw many disenchanted Americans back into the political process. He and the nation have little to lose and much to gain from his candidacy. Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases AFAIC. Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little concerned with fact and logic. I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the past six years, and that's what will change in January. How long can you hold your breath? The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that, tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the government. It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and both have absolute control. Think about it. There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition) and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a rigid and extreme ideology. So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part of political discourse? In parliamentary systems it's often necessary to create coalitions of several parties to form a government, and the government is then hostage to the demands of the most extreme minority. Yeah, that parlimentary system has proven to be a complete failure. We see this happening now in Iraq, where Al-Malaki's so-called government can't stand up to the Shiite militias because he needs their political support. So you are giving Bush his "props" for creating a full-fledged democracy in Iraq? It also happens in relatively "mature" parliamentary democracies, as well, like Israel, where the hard-line right wing has been able to block progress on a "land for peace" solution to the Palestinian problem, even though a majority of Israelis support it. You're right, we certainly wouldn't want anything like that to occur here in the good 'ol US of A. Do so reading Steve, but try the likes of Fred E. Haynes, Steven J. Rosenstone, Stephen C. Craig, Arthur H. Miller, Marc J. Hetherington.... Op -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... rw wrote: Opus wrote: See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. ... McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only the people who are elected get to govern. Good thing that you weren't around in 1854, when the Republican Party was a third party movement. We might only have a one party system today. I suppose you'd rather the two independents in congress vote with the Repubs, rather than taint the Dems. right? Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Steve wrote:
People have very short memories; they have already forgotten that a demagogue gnome almost gave this country a new party victory just a few years back. LOL !! How's that Reform Party of Ross Perot doing these days ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases AFAIC. Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little concerned with fact and logic. I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left." Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the American voters are also "extreme left." I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the past six years, and that's what will change in January. How long can you hold your breath? About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago. The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that, tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the government. It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded. OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect hypocrisy on your part. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and both have absolute control. Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party if it somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the prospect doesn't keep me awake at night. There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition) and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a rigid and extreme ideology. So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part of political discourse? Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years? I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some leaders who are competent to deal with them. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Steve wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Steve wrote: People have very short memories; they have already forgotten that a demagogue gnome almost gave this country a new party victory just a few years back. LOL !! How's that Reform Party of Ross Perot doing these days ? See? Short memories. It fell apart shortly after the election of Jesse Ventura, primarily due to the actions of Buchanan at their national convention. It was on the news. The Reform Party fell apart primarily due to Ross Perot insisting that it be his personal party rather than a national party. That cult of personality thing cuts both ways. Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve. We agree on that. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Steve wrote: Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve. We agree on that. That's because both of you lack basic language skills, a grounding in the fundamentals of logic, history and philosophy, even a rudimentary understanding of moral authority, and a modicum of good sense. And that's why you get what you deserve. Wolfgang no paradox.....no irony......louching?.....****in' kindergarteners. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
rw wrote: Opus wrote: "rw" wrote in message ink.net... Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases AFAIC. Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little concerned with fact and logic. I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left." Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the American voters are also "extreme left." To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours.... "The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions" - Ken |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Steve wrote: On 6 Dec 2006 17:23:44 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Steve wrote: Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve. We agree on that. That's because both of you lack basic language skills, a grounding in the fundamentals of logic, history and philosophy, even a rudimentary understanding of moral authority, and a modicum of good sense. And that's why you get what you deserve. Wolfgang no paradox.....no irony......louching?.....****in' kindergarteners. Am not. See, that's the thing about Usenet. The stevies and kennies and dicklets and predators think they're playing a game......and they're scoring points. Wolfgang give folks just a little bit of time and a few choice opportunities......they WILL show you what they are. that's o.k.......that's good. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Opus wrote: I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left." Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the American voters are also "extreme left." No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and not a vote for the Dems, as you did. About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago. You might want to work on that, if you think that Jan. holds any real since of change. OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect hypocrisy on your part. Not because you don't agree with me Steve, but because you know that the Dems have been in the same position as the Repubs have been for the past 6 years and you still refuse to except that it will happen again under our present two-party system. Nothing changes, for the good, under the two-party system. There's no competition to check the *absolute* power of the Dems and Repubs. Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party if it somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the prospect doesn't keep me awake at night. No, a third party wouldn't have the magical effect of bestowing virtue on either the Dems or the Repubs. Not even Jesus H. Christ could do that. Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years? What do yo think brought about an end to slavery and gave women the right to vote. Third parties Steve. The Republican Party was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery. Only after the Prohibition and Socialist parties began drawing support for women's suffrage, did the Dems and Repubs finally see the light. Child labor laws--third party progressive income tax--third party 40 hour work week--third party Social Security--third party I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some leaders who are competent to deal with them. No we certainly wouldn't want any of those frivolous Amendments to affect the Dems or Repubs from enriching their buddies. Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message news:WdLdh.7575 Get a grip, Janik. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party isn't "extreme left," any more than, say, John McCain, a very conservative Republican, is "extreme right." The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is slightly left of center. That's where I stand. You've been brainwashed. You've been trained to believe that left = bad, and that anything even slightly left to the Republican position is "extreme." Poor, deluded soul that you are. If Barry Goldwater were alive and in politics today his positions would be considered "extreme left" by the likes of you. He was pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. One of his quotes: The main lesson I learned from my grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.” That’s a message worth remembering today. That's how far down the rat hole of political polarization and right-wing spin we've sunk. Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister? Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Opus wrote:
Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister? Maybe I should think about that. I could "spin" about how I don't like being spied on, against the law, without a court order; about how I don't like giving huge tax breaks to the richest .1% while the middle class gets crumbs and their children get stuck with the bill; and how I don't like being lied into a bogus, optional war that will cost trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives. I could go on, but you get the point. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"Opus" wrote in
: No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and not a vote for the Dems, as you did. Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. If the Dems don't look at this and learn a real lesson, they're idiots, but I don't think there's much of a risk of this, based upon the language I hear them using. Even if the Republicans can manage to take back the Senate next go around, I can't see them not learning the lessons of this election. The country is better off now than it was two months ago. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rw" wrote in message ink.net... Opus wrote: Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister? Maybe I should think about that. I could "spin" about how I don't like being spied on, against the law, without a court order; about how I don't like giving huge tax breaks to the richest .1% while the middle class gets crumbs and their children get stuck with the bill; and how I don't like being lied into a bogus, optional war that will cost trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives. I could go on, but you get the point. Yeah I do. So only Republicans voted for all of that? Op |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
Scott Seidman wrote:
Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go. Joe F. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Opus" wrote in : No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and not a vote for the Dems, as you did. Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. "Third, there are few signs that the Republican base deserted the party." http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=91 If the Dems don't look at this and learn a real lesson, they're idiots, but I don't think there's much of a risk of this, based upon the language I hear them using. I have never seen that either party, really, learned lessons from election results. Over time they settle right back into their old habits of taking care of their cronies and special interests. The Democrats had basically 4 decades in which to improve the living and health standards of the average American, and they ****ed everything away as long as they were able to get pork-barrel monies for their buddies at home. Teh Clinton admins. fiasco with universal healthcare--putting Hillary in charge killed any hope of progress on that front. Clinton waited 'til the few days before he left office to enact executive orders on environmental restriction . He had eight years in office and Al Gore, and waits 'till he is leaving office to act? Year after year, a Democratic controlled Congress passed pay raises for itself, but failed to recognize the needs of the average American and minimum wage. No work on Medicade or Medicare. But all of a sudden, it became an important issue, when they thought they could gain votes to oust the Republicans. I don't see them doing anything different than they have in the passed. All they have to do is not get us into another "illegal" war and they are home free, as far as they are concerned. I predict a jump in independent/unaffilliated voter registration in the coming years. More and more people are losing their political identification with both parties. Hispanics immigrants, who are not politically socialized to either of the parties, like most native born Americans are registering *independents*. You might like to peruse some of the Pew Hispanic Centers research findings: "...the Hispanic electorate is growing much faster than the non-Hispanic electorate. Between the 2000 vote and the election this November, the number of eligible Latino voters will have increased by about 20% to about 16 million people. The rate of increase is about six times faster than for the non-Hispanic population." http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/8.pdf Even if the Republicans can manage to take back the Senate next go around, I can't see them not learning the lessons of this election. The country is better off now than it was two months ago. I'd say that remains to be seen. Op -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
On 7 Dec 2006 06:51:43 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote: Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go. Joe F. FWIW, there wasn't really anything special or different about the 2006 midterms as far as the vote numbers go - something like 70ish million people voted, and they voted something like 32.5ish million GOP to 37.5ish million Dem, with the vast majority of all races not even close - i.e., the incumbent candidate (or in the few "open" races, at least party), GOP or Dem, handily won reelection. Moreover, the party in power tends to lose a bit of ground with midterms. As is typical, the minority party tends to focus on the weak candidates or open races - the races that voter turnout could effect. Add to this widely-covered "crossover" results, where people voted for the opposition or against their party's candidate, such as Lieberman, and the overall results can appear as something significant. I'd offer that it had little to do with Iraq. For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e., unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the public (again, on both sides) will see it that way. IMO, the most significant thing was the Clintonista Dems portrayal of the results as some huge groundswell supporting them and their ideas. They've already gotten burned, and when, not if, they really stumble, they'll take it in the shorts. Unfortunately, just as they have for years, they'll get the entire Dem party a good whack right along with them. I'd offer that the GOP knew they were going to lose some ground, and they've made a shrewd political move in setting up and/or allowing the Clintonistas to set themselves up (and with them, the Dems) for that fall. I'd further offer that many moderate Dems (those who aren't, and don't support the, Clintonistas) realize this and that's why many are keeping a pretty low profile right now (including - hint, hint - Obama). TC, R |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
wrote in message ... On 7 Dec 2006 06:51:43 -0800, "rb608" wrote: Scott Seidman wrote: Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go. Joe F. FWIW, there wasn't really anything special or different about the 2006 midterms as far as the vote numbers go - something like 70ish million people voted, and they voted something like 32.5ish million GOP to 37.5ish million Dem, with the vast majority of all races not even close - i.e., the incumbent candidate (or in the few "open" races, at least party), GOP or Dem, handily won reelection. Moreover, the party in power tends to lose a bit of ground with midterms. As is typical, the minority party tends to focus on the weak candidates or open races - the races that voter turnout could effect. Add to this widely-covered "crossover" results, where people voted for the opposition or against their party's candidate, such as Lieberman, and the overall results can appear as something significant. I'd offer that it had little to do with Iraq. For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e., unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the public (again, on both sides) will see it that way. IMO, the most significant thing was the Clintonista Dems portrayal of the results as some huge groundswell supporting them and their ideas. They've already gotten burned, and when, not if, they really stumble, they'll take it in the shorts. Unfortunately, just as they have for years, they'll get the entire Dem party a good whack right along with them. I'd offer that the GOP knew they were going to lose some ground, and they've made a shrewd political move in setting up and/or allowing the Clintonistas to set themselves up (and with them, the Dems) for that fall. I'd further offer that many moderate Dems (those who aren't, and don't support the, Clintonistas) realize this and that's why many are keeping a pretty low profile right now (including - hint, hint - Obama). Well......gosh......sounds like ya got some chocolate......and some vanilla. Um......you really DO believe that being transparent is the same as being invisible......don't you? :) Wolfgang absinthe oprah absinthe latifah emeril absinthe. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
rb608 wrote:
wrote: fun stuff snipped I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. The election results had little to do with Iraq? Both houses of Congress changing hands is not a major shift? Losing almost every contested election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by giving up power? Obama is keeping a low profile? Stop it, yer killin' me. Joe F. I'm sure that Dean also thinks the Iraq war is going just great. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
rw wrote:
rb608 wrote: wrote: fun stuff snipped I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. The election results had little to do with Iraq? Both houses of Congress changing hands is not a major shift? Losing almost every contested election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by giving up power? Obama is keeping a low profile? Stop it, yer killin' me. Joe F. I'm sure that Dean also thinks the Iraq war is going just great. BTW, this clown has to be the most consistently wrong person I've ever come across. I love to know his stock picks so I could short them. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
On 7 Dec 2006 08:30:21 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
wrote: fun stuff snipped I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. So you, then, are regular listener...I'm not. The election results had little to do with Iraq? No, it didn't. I'd offer that the Lieberman race was about a good a signal to all as could be made - the voters didn't give a flock about his position on Iraq, his political party or what "Dems" (or even real Dems) outside of Connecticut thought or who _they_ supported, or anything else other than what they perceive as what Lieberman has done _for them_. I'd further offer that if straight-ticket/one-(quicker and easier)choice voting were impossible, his margin would have been even bigger. Both houses of Congress changing hands is not a major shift? No, it isn't, not when the "shift" is so slight, occurred in a midterm, and was the result of winning "up for grabs" or "in jeopardy" seats. IOW, there were few real surprises to careful observers. For example, Lieberman could decide to caucus with the GOP (unlikely, but...), and the Senate control goes to the GOP. Losing almost every contested election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by giving up power? Er, VERY few contested elections resulted in a change. Look at a list of results nationwide and you'll see that in many cases, the challenger only got 1/4-1/3 of the votes, whether the incumbent was Dem or GOP. What I suspect you mean to say is that in the Congressional races, a Dem candidate was able to defeat a GOP candidate in the majority of a relative few races where the GOP candidate was "weak" for one reason or another or where the incumbent wasn't in the race. And you (and plenty of others) have misinterpreted the meaning of the fact that "Iraq" was successfully used to do so in _some_ of these races. Most of these had to do with "local" issues and a huge effort to get out the Dem vote. And this is among the reasons why I suspect certain GOP strategists might have decided it was a good idea to let them go so far out on a limb to do it. You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the correct one. Obama is keeping a low profile? Relatively, yes, as compared to the past months, although some of it is (hopefully) due to wise counsel against over-exposure, and some is possibly influenced by Hillary's "I haven't decided yet" bull****. TC, R |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
On 7 Dec 2006 17:43:36 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:albgn2huv0ra1mu27a09qp3ilj3bp3gsdp@ 4ax.com: For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e., unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the public (again, on both sides) will see it that way. I obviously disagree. I think that its far more likely that historians will look at this as the checking of an out of control Administrative Branch. It was a very important election, and I doubt that I'll ever see a majority party hand the White House the keys again like this last majority did ever again in my lifetime. I suspect that the investigations that begin to look at just how little oversight was done will indicate that the problem is worse than I've imagined to date. In a sense, it might take a year or two for us to begin to understand just how important this election was. I do agree, however, that this election has little impact on the future of either party. The important issues are constitutional, not political. The election had to do with a whole ****pot of money spent to convince a relative few voters that a choice for the Dem would instantly make them rich, untaxed, beautiful, healthy, and be just as good as Paris Hilton and/or George Clooney (who, BTW, they then might have a shot of not only hanging with, but bedding, too) and a the Republican would result in them instantly being, well, just not good, smart, or worthy enough for...for...well, for being honored with having the Dem screw them over rather than the Republican. The fact that a couple of Republicans stepped particularly hard on their dicks (Allen, Santorum) simply made it easier in those races. Think about it - an incompetent racist buffoon like Allen managed to make it close - in a real "sea change," he wouldn't have even gotten his campaign manager's vote. In another race, a little twerp manipulating his meds blatantly lied to people's faces and an idiot like Rush Limbaugh is about the only one who _really_ calls him on it, and it helps win a race. I still say the most telling race in the US was Lieberman. TC, R |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
"rb608" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the correct one. Yeah; that must be it. Joe F. Yeah Joe! I was thinking along similar lines as rah deanie. You and that jaundices eye of yours. What's up with that anyway? Then you go forcing attempted meanings, in that partisan manner that is so you. Can't you see..........Oh yeah, I nearly forgot about that eye problem you have, sorry. Okay, can't you look through your one good eye and recognize political genius, when it smacks you in the face! Op --I sure hope we have learned something from this Joe! And get someone to look at that eye of yours. It freaks people out!-- |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
|
Speaking of Cabin Fever
On 7 Dec 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
wrote: You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the correct one. Yeah; that must be it. Joe F. A few interesting excepts from a look at the national results (the dollar amount is the amount reported to the FEC as _raised_): House: MI CD 01 Bart Stupak (I) Democratic 180,388 69.43% $802,503 MI CD 01 Don Hooper Republican 72,709 27.98% $2,896 MI CD 02 Peter Hoekstra (I) Republican 182,879 66.47% $640,320 MI CD 02 Kimon John Kotos Democratic 86,803 31.55% $4,720 Senate: MA 1 E.M. "Ted" Kennedy (I) Democratic 1,497,304 69.46% $8,770,211 MA 1 K. G. "Ken" Chase Republican 658,374 30.54% $726,858 and UT 1 Orrin G. Hatch (I) Republican 344,416 62.62% $4,639,286 UT 1 Peter Lynn Ashdown Democratic 169,369 30.80% $227,243 Compared with: PA 1 R. P. "Bob" Casey, Jr. Democratic 2,357,058 58.69% $16,363,637 PA 1 R. J. "Rick" Santorum (I) Republican 1,658,853 41.31% $22,478,293 and just because of the sheer vulgarity of it: NY 1 Hillary Rodham Clinton (I) Democratic 2,811,981 66.64% $37,853,894 NY 1 John D. Spencer Republican 1,320,571 31.29% $5,138,870 HTH, R |
Speaking of Cabin Fever
wrote in message
ink.net... wrote: The fact that a couple of Republicans stepped particularly hard on their dicks (Allen, Santorum) You forgot about Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Jim Talent, and Katherine Harris. And let's not forget Conrad Burns, and the two biggest ****-ups of all time, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The American people aren't buying this crap any longer. I sure am glad you mentioned that cocksucker Burns **** him! Good riddance to this scumbag! Fred -- Fred http://www.rnkdistributing.com http://www.rnk-inc.com ISS Long Beach Jan 19-21 2007 Booth 746 http://www.issshows.com/iss/1237/index.jsp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter