Election Results Predictions [Archive]

Baron Lake

11-07-2006, 02:47 PM

Hope you're right usmc; but let's keep our powder dry just in case.

And, Lame Duck though he may be (always has been really), even with a Dem majority he still has the veto.

Course, that may not help him much when 5 or 6 committies start taking a close look at subjects like Halliburton, Rove, Deadeye Dick's energy buds...

Wonder where those 14,000 missing weapons really went. How big a warehouse ya suppose Georgie has in Crawford?
God, we could end up with Janet Reno flushing out another bunch religeous fanatics

Pelosi said impeachment would not be on the table. I didn't hear her say for how long.

b.l.

S.M.A.

11-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Here are my predictions:

Senate: Dems 50, GOP 50

House: Dems 232, GOP 201, Independent 2 (there are 435 congressmen, right?)

I also predict that the Democrats will pick up exactly six governerships.

Stuart http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

Nude in the North

11-07-2006, 03:17 PM

How bout we just wait a few more hours and see just what happens.

It's not like it's going to make a bit of difference anyway.

I'm pretty sure were not going to end up with anything better than we have now.
Different faces, Same Corruption.

Steve

Qikdraw

11-07-2006, 04:20 PM

I think the Republicans will stay in control. I'll be incredibly suprised if the Democrats win back either house.

Basically I think the election will be stolen again.

Qikdraw

Naturist Mark

11-07-2006, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here are my predictions:

Senate: Dems 50, GOP 50

House: Dems 232, GOP 201, Independent 2 (there are 435 congressmen, right?)

I also predict that the Democrats will pick up exactly six governerships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already wrong - the first Senate race to be called was Vermont - who elected Independent Bernie Sanders. But he will caucus with the Democrats, so I guess you can count that in the blue column.

-Mark

nacktman

11-07-2006, 04:56 PM

Check out AP they have a nice article on the election as it is happening where they cite names and ages and locations of republicans (registered) who are or have already voted for the Democratic candidate in their district.

Nude in the North

11-07-2006, 05:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Check out AP they have a nice article on the election as it is happening where they cite names and ages and locations of republicans (registered) who are or have already voted for the Democratic candidate in their district. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion , That should be banned. No reporting on elections should be allowed untill All Polls are closed, that may effect the outcome of the election.
And posting peoples names and how they voted?? Even if the people give that information willingly it shouldn't be allowed to be made public by the media.

What happened to Sanctity of the vote?

Steve

usmc1

11-07-2006, 06:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nude in the North:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Check out AP they have a nice article on the election as it is happening where they cite names and ages and locations of republicans (registered) who are or have already voted for the Democratic candidate in their district. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion , That should be banned. No reporting on elections should be allowed untill All Polls are closed, that may effect the outcome of the election.
And posting peoples names and how they voted?? Even if the people give that information willingly it shouldn't be allowed to be made public by the media.

What happened to Sanctity of the vote?

Steve </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Republicans ripped out and stomped on its heart in 2000.

usmc1

11-08-2006, 09:57 AM

And, the results are:

Senate:

Dems = 51
GOP = 49

House:

Dems = 234
GOP = 201

Governorships = + 6

Now some of the conservatoids will nanner-nanner about VA & MT and recounts, but I promise you this, and you can go all in, by dark tonight both states will belong to the Dems.

Now, there should be no calls for recounts from the GOP, since both the Republican candidates ran their mouths about Gore's recount in Florida and how much they disbelieve in recounts. It's "unpatriotic", "let's move on!"

We'll see!

hm0504

11-08-2006, 10:41 AM

In VA, some of the electronic voting machines did not display the name of the Democrat candidates correctly -- "James H (Jim)" rather than "James H (Jim) Webb" -- on the selection confirmation page. That probably cost Webb a few votes so I'm glad he still won there in that tight race:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/voting-james...-gets-s_b_32378.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/voting-james-webb-gets-s_b_32378.html)

By the way, the fact that there are electronic voting machines being used in real elections but which still contain software so flawed that they can't even display the name of the candidate correctly is a real testament to the absolute untrustworthiness and dangers of unauditable electronic voting. Americans, and any other jurisdiction thinking of using such machines, should be screaming about this.

Bob S.

11-08-2006, 01:18 PM

The VA Senate race is still too close. They have the provisionals to go and then an a recount.

Webb was a Repub who recently changed to a Dem. In fact, he wrote a very negtive article about then-outgoing President Clinton. He is a very conservative Dem.

Why is that important? Realize that all of Virginia's Reps were reelected into Congress. We still have an 8-3 Repub-Dem ratio. VA voters also, unfortunately, voted for the marriage amendment, one of the most restrictive in the country.

Calling us a blue state (or even a purple state) is still premature. Even with a Dem governor and possible Senator, we still are extremely conservative.

Bob S.

usmc1

11-08-2006, 02:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
The VA Senate race is still too close. They have the provisionals to go and then an a recount.

Webb was a Repub who recently changed to a Dem. In fact, he wrote a very negtive article about then-outgoing President Clinton. He is a very conservative Dem.

Why is that important? Realize that all of Virginia's Reps were reelected into Congress. We still have an 8-3 Repub-Dem ratio. VA voters also, unfortunately, voted for the marriage amendment, one of the most restrictive in the country.

Calling us a blue state (or even a purple state) is still premature. Even with a Dem governor and possible Senator, we still are extremely conservative.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hogwash! It happened! Pinch yourself! You got a Democratic Governor and Senator and three Democratic Congress critters. You may not be blue, but you'll more purple than you were on Monday.

Don't you get it? Monday Virginia Red, Wednesday Virginia turns purple from the blue.

Surely Allen won't ask for a recount, he thinks they are unpatriotic and impedes the business of the people.

It is over, Webb won. Allen lost, and deservedly so.

Yeah, yeah, they ain't real Democrats they're conservative Democrats is the Limbaugh mantra.

But, the facts are these, it takes 60 votes in the Senate, so a simple majority, is not sufficient. Yet, it does force the GOP into having to compromise and negotiate in good faith.

Putting all that aside, bringing down Santorum is so SWEET! So SWEEEEEEETTT! Seeing Ohio go Blue, so sweet.

And seeing so many of the GOP Revoltion, the class of '94 getting the boot--Sweeet.

And seeing Johnson, of Conneticut, the author--using crib sheets provided by Pfizer--of Medicare Plan D, getting the boot. So damn sweet!

But, I promise you this, that Senate seat belongs to the Democrats now. And, if you want to think your state is a red state, fine!

And, obviously, what you and others just do not understand about Democrats is this: We do have a very broad tent, which is why we can have a Socialist and Webb-type within our party. It is our strength--we reflect the people.

The failure of the Republicans to open their tent large enough is what has driven so many back to the Democrats.

Some of you pooh-poohed when I, and others, posted the data showing that NASCAR Dads, Security Moms, Libertarians, Suburban Independents and Reagan Democrats were moving to the left.

Well, last night we were proven right.

And, I spent half my day today meeting with activists planning on how we're going to educate, organize, mobilize voters and find viable candidates and raise money for '08.

nacktman

11-09-2006, 04:53 AM

I predict a sweep by the Democrats! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/listen2.gif You say they already swept. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

I was right then! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

shomymojo

11-09-2006, 05:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
And, the results are:

Senate:

Dems = 51
GOP = 49

House:

Dems = 234
GOP = 201

Governorships = + 6

Now some of the conservatoids will nanner-nanner about VA & MT and recounts, but I promise you this, and you can go all in, by dark tonight both states will belong to the Dems.

Now, there should be no calls for recounts from the GOP, since both the Republican candidates ran their mouths about Gore's recount in Florida and how much they disbelieve in recounts. It's "unpatriotic", "let's move on!"

We'll see! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...I agree...we won...get over it GOP...and lets move on !!!..LOL

Naturist Mark

11-09-2006, 05:41 AM

There can still be some reversals - in much of the country early voting by absentee ballot was an option for all voters - in many districts up to 40% of votes were made thusly. It will take some time for all those ballots to be counted.

The major reason for absentee ballot use this year was distrust of electronic voting machines (for good reason - even Republicans are complaining this year about machine 'failures'). However, we can expect a preponderance of those ballots to be blue. Some already called races will flip.

-Mark

NudistGuy47

11-09-2006, 05:41 AM

[/QUOTE]
And, I spent half my day today meeting with activists planning on how we're going to educate, organize, mobilize voters and find viable candidates and raise money for '08.[/QUOTE]

Good for you usmc1. We all should be doing the same to help shape the future of this country.

usmc1

11-09-2006, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
And, the results are:

Senate:

Dems = 51
GOP = 49

House:

Dems = 234
GOP = 201

Governorships = + 6

Now some of the conservatoids will nanner-nanner about VA & MT and recounts, but I promise you this, and you can go all in, by dark tonight both states will belong to the Dems.

Now, there should be no calls for recounts from the GOP, since both the Republican candidates ran their mouths about Gore's recount in Florida and how much they disbelieve in recounts. It's "unpatriotic", "let's move on!"

We'll see! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...I agree...we won...get over it GOP...and lets move on !!!..LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We? WE??? You got a mouse in your pocket? Wait, you ain't got no pockets, hhmmmm, where is that little "WE" mousey hiding?

Bob S.

11-10-2006, 03:08 PM

usmc:"You got a Democratic Governor and Senator and three Democratic Congress critters. You may not be blue, but you'll more purple than you were on Monday."

The only change that was made was the Senator, who was replaced by a conservative Democrat. Yes, that was a little more purple, but until the 8-3 Repub congressional delegation changes and the Repub majority in both of our State Houses disappears, I would consider this to be a very reddish-purple commonwealth.

Belive me, usmc, I would like to see a lot of the uber conservatvism to leave from soem aspects of society. I would like the traditional aspects of the Republican philosophy (smaller govt, less intrusive laws, less spending, less taxes, crowning me as supreme ruler of all the knwon universe, etc.) to become reality, but until that happens, what is the point in trying to deny what is real?

usmc:"The failure of the Republicans to open their tent large enough is what has driven so many back to the Democrats."

Tents come and go. Different groups can pick up their tent and carry it to the party that is more likely to help them.

The issue in this election was Bush's popularity and Iraq as well as the corruption scandals of some of the members of Congress. Some Repubs incumbents lost merely because they were Repubs and had nothing to do with their policies.

We'll have to wait for '08 to see what kind of impact these elections truly had.

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

11-10-2006, 03:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The issue in this election was Bush's popularity and Iraq as well as the corruption scandals of some of the members of Congress. Some Repubs incumbents lost merely because they were Repubs and had nothing to do with their policies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think it had a lot to do with their rubber stamp and unwillingness to do any meaningful oversight. If they have any policies different from the president they kept it well hidden behind their rubber stamp.

-Mark

missouriboy

11-11-2006, 02:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually I think it had a lot to do with their (the republicans') rubber stamp and unwillingness to do any meaningful oversight. If they have any policies different from the president they kept it well hidden behind their rubber stamp.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly right, Mark. Loyalty to "my Party," right or wrong, overrides the concept of service to the people. Both parties, all parties. That's what our founding fathers forewarned about partisan politics, and as unusual, they had it right.

usmc1

11-11-2006, 05:32 AM

MoBoy, I think if you would drill in a little deeper you would find that one of the things the "Founders" warned of us was of "Political Parties", not partisan politics.

On appearance it seems merely a slight semantical difference, but in truth, there is a profound difference.

All politics is partisan hence the Constitution and laws and a process of governeance and policy making which protect us from the effects of partisanship.

Our nation was born amid raging partisanship and rancorous debate and vicious jealousies, hatreds and in-fighting. The New England versus Southern "thought" is a prime example.

The founders were deeply aware of the dangers of factions and parties so they built a system of governance wherein partisan politics were subjected to discourse, debate, negotiation and compromise with protection built-in for individual liberty and minority viewpoints.

LamontCranston

11-11-2006, 05:46 AM

First off.. congratulations to all the new Democrat-elect office holders and all their supporters who helped them to victory at the polls.

The Republicans in office got lazy, over-confident, off message and were thrown out.

It would be wise for the Dems not to repeat that mistake. There's another election in two years.. which is another fine legacy from out Founding Fathers: two, four, six year and lifetime terms depending upon your office.

The cycle keeps everyone on task and accountable.

I saw a few interviews with Nancy Pelosi, Rumsfeld was fired, and the Bolton nomination is being turned away. There's hope and promise.

At some point soon, the Bush-bashing and Republican blame will have to stop and delivery on promises must begin.

Looking forward to a new year.

Bob S.

11-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Mark:"Actually I think it had a lot to do with their rubber stamp and unwillingness to do any meaningful oversight."

Had the president been popular and his decisions as popular, "rubber stamping" would not have been an issue. I agree that unquestioning loyalty and an unwillingness to go against the party line is bad, but it does not seem to go askew when the policies are popular with the citizenry.

That is where the Repubs got in trouble. Bush was unpopular. His policies were unpopular. Congress was seen as agreeing and upholding those very policies. Therefore, the people used their votes to tell Bush he was going bad by voting out people they could who were in allegience with him.

Same idea, different words.

Mike S.:"The Republicans in office got lazy, over-confident, off message and were thrown out."

Off message? They weren't even using the same playbook that Repubs should be looking in.

They were delivered a huge slice of humble pie--and they cooked it themselves. If they felt the slap of reality hard enough, they may be able to rebound in 08. Had this not happened, I would have forseen a similar kind of candidate for pres. Already, McCain has suggested that he is open to the possibility of running in 08. It would be interesting to see who else runs against him (if he does).

I also wonder if the more middle ground Dems who were elected will alter who the Dems send to run for the nomination for pres in 08?

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

11-11-2006, 02:57 PM

It will be interesting to see if the new Democratic leadership will hand the Republicans the same abuse they were served back when.

Congress was controlled by Democratic majorities for decades, but the Republican minority was respected and most of the time their work was bipartisan.

The ranking minority member of each committee - sometimes called co-chair - had real power in the committee and had input in the agenda. The minority had the ability to subpoena witnesses and call hearings. The minority party had a powerful and important role in providing oversite and keeping government honest.

All that ended when the neo-cons took over.

Under Republican leadership there was NO meaningful oversite. The Democrats couldn't subpeona a single witness, or call a single hearing. Outrages against our democracy have been committed without any meaningful scrutiny - Where did the missing $9 Billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds dissappear to? What are all the secret internment camps that KBR is building throughout the US for? Why has Florida and Ohio allowed official election counts stand that show greater than 100% voter participation? How is it possible that Denny Hastert can swear in a congressman before his election is certified? How is it that systematic human rights abuses could be committed - in violation of the UCMJ - at detention sites separated by thousands of miles - yet no one above the rank of sergeant was responsible? And what the hell happened after Katrina?

So I ask you. Will the Democrats return Congress back to the rules of yore, or will they humiliate the Republicans by treating them same way they were treated?

-Mark

Liam

11-11-2006, 06:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
(.....)The founders were deeply aware of the dangers of factions and parties so they built a system of governance wherein partisan politics were subjected to discourse, debate, negotiation and compromise with protection built-in for individual liberty and minority viewpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreeing that all politics is partisan, aren't the founder's intents as listed in the above paragraph often subverted by extreme partisanship?

Sanslines

11-12-2006, 04:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So I ask you. Will the Democrats return Congress back to the rules of yore, or will they humiliate the Republicans by treating them same way they were treated? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Democrats have their eyes on the next prize ie the 2008 Presidential Elections. There are many experienced and seasoned Democratic politicians who understand that they need to project a more moderate approach and resolve domestice issues. When it comes to investigations and oversight, the more experienced Democratic politicians fully understand that the American public will not tolerate investigations for the sake of purely punishing Republicans. The Democratic leadership understands that they need to rise above this and conduct investigations in a proper manner. This means that investigations will be conducted for alleged wrongdoing and if such wrongdoing is established, then such wrong doing must be revealed, appropriate disciplinary actions undertaken, and then the investigations closed. Hopefully, this is what will occur. Only time will tell.

Sanslines

11-12-2006, 05:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mark:"Actually I think it had a lot to do with their rubber stamp and unwillingness to do any meaningful oversight." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can't sat that ALL Republicans did not want to 'do the right thing' by providing meaningful oversight. There has been a small group of Repubs who have dominated the show. The other Repubs did not have much of a voice in that show. As the small, dominant group of Repubs are pushed out, the more moderate Repubs will come forward and their voices will slowely start to be heard again. They will most likely work with moderate Democrats in getting things done. It is very important to note that what we have experienced in the past few years is not reflective of the 'true' Republican Party. There was an extreme shift to the right that represented more of a fringe element of the Republican Party. As this fringe element is removed, the Republican Party will shift more towards the center and the espoused core beliefs of the Republican Party ie smaller government, less government regulation, lower taxes, will again emerge. The Democratic Party will play a big roll in this by forcing the Republican Party back towards the center. As I have said before, the Democratic Party might be doing the Republican Party a big favor by forcing the Republican Party to clean up their act.

usmc1

11-12-2006, 05:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
(.....)The founders were deeply aware of the dangers of factions and parties so they built a system of governance wherein partisan politics were subjected to discourse, debate, negotiation and compromise with protection built-in for individual liberty and minority viewpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreeing that all politics is partisan, aren't the founder's intents as listed in the above paragraph often subverted by extreme partisanship? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know what you mean by exteme partisanship, Liam. But, I do think you did miss the point of what I was saying in that sentence and what I have been saying here for over a year.

First, the founders built a system wherein partisanship and factions are restrained and channeled by a process of negotion, compromise and co-operation.

We have had 12-years of dominence by a party hell-bent on subverting and gaining uber-control of that process, yet the "system", against some very great odds, reasserted itself on Tuesday last.

Secondly, I think that in one of my very first postings on this board I mentioned the "monster" feared by all politicians.

In the United States of America "the monster" is the people, the body politic, the man in the street, the average joe, etc. It is We The People, and our founders gave us the final say over factions and parties.

This by-election proves that.

Once again, as it has done throughout our history, the monster has wakened and asserted itself over factions and parties to say NO!, this is not the way our country should go.

So, again, our founders worried about factions and parties wresting control of the procress of governance, policy and political partisanship, not the partisanship itself.

Semantics aside, there is a major distinction and that was where I was directing MoBoy's attention.

missouriboy

11-13-2006, 06:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Congress was controlled by Democratic majorities for decades, but the Republican minority was respected and most of the time their work was bipartisan.

The ranking minority member of each committee - sometimes called co-chair - had real power in the committee and had input in the agenda. The minority had the ability to subpoena witnesses and call hearings. The minority party had a powerful and important role in providing oversite and keeping government honest.

All that ended when the neo-cons took over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, Mark! Read that last sentence again. Neo-cons!

If these people really were honest American conservatives, they wouldn't need a newly-coined identifier, would they? They are NOT conservatives, and they aren't liberals either... they just chose to ride the Republican coattails because of the (perceived) popularity of the Republicans' then-current ascendancy.

And since everyone knows who they really do represent, why is everyone so reluctant to say so? Hmmmm??

usmc1

11-13-2006, 01:55 PM

Well actually it is a toss up as to who was using whom. But, I think some are still buying the wrong card in this three-card monte set-up.

Most of those called neo-con were at one time liberals and came from the so-called intelligentsia. They were Hegellian in their antithesical switch from liberalism to uber-conservatism and world domination. Over the past three decades or so they have established themselves in right wing think tanks, universitites, bureaucracies, and in Republican politics. But....

They would argue that it was they who were subverted by the Republican establishment rather than their subverting the GOP.

Personally, I feel sometimes badly for fiscal conservatives, because they have always picked the wrong card when they reach out to the Republican party, and now are like homeless puppies. But, it is their link-up with social conservatives; women haters, racists, bigots, gay-bashers, and other despicable sods that I find repugnant. Better they would of hung with the Democrats and fought for fiscal responsibility than aligning themselves with the offal of anti-human social conservatism.

So, let's just go to the straight level, dead earnest truth: The neo-cons, the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and the religious right picked the wrong card in the three-card monte game dealt by the soulless international corporations who have bought our representatives, subverted our courts, and who use our military to advance their profits.

So you can blame each other till the cows come home, because now the fight is joined.

But, while the neo-cons are pointing fingers at the Bush establishment, and the fiscal conservatives blame the neo-cons and the Bush administration, and the Bush administration blames whoever-- the People, the real people, the unions, the workers, the single moms, the families in the suburbs, the older adults, the young people locked into replicant and meanigless jobs are asserting themselves and taking charge.

The Democrats educated, organized, and mobilized and yanked the bone right out of the old dog's mouth. But, this election was not a failure of conservatism (in any of its several manifestations)--it was a victory for liberal democracy.

But, we're still dealing with some very powerful forces and it is nowhere near a done deal.

Liam

11-13-2006, 05:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
I do not know what you mean by exteme partisanship, Liam. But, I do think you did miss the point of what I was saying in that sentence and what I have been saying here for over a year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't miss your point actually, I just wasn't sure about how you stated it. We are in accord sir. Thank you for your clarification!

Qikdraw

11-13-2006, 09:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
The Democratic Party will play a big roll in this by forcing the Republican Party back towards the center. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why has it been in the past few years that Republicans have said that they haven't leaned to the far right, but that democrats have switched to the far left, and have called for the democrats to get away from the far left. Now that democrats control both houses its that the republicans moved too far right and the democrats will help the republicans move to the centre?

And franly if it was a small group of republicans dominating the show, why did no republican stand up against them? Frankly all republicans who stood by and did nothing to stop the moving to the far right is equally as wuilty. They signed those bills that small group wanted them to, they passed those laws that small group wanted them to. ALL republican politicians who went along with this administration are as guilty as that small group.

Qikdraw

usmc1

11-14-2006, 04:39 AM

g<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
The Democratic Party will play a big roll in this by forcing the Republican Party back towards the center. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why has it been in the past few years that Republicans have said that they haven't leaned to the far right, but that democrats have switched to the far left, and have called for the democrats to get away from the far left. Now that democrats control both houses its that the republicans moved too far right and the democrats will help the republicans move to the centre?

And franly if it was a small group of republicans dominating the show, why did no republican stand up against them? Frankly all republicans who stood by and did nothing to stop the moving to the far right is equally as wuilty. They signed those bills that small group wanted them to, they passed those laws that small group wanted them to. ALL republican politicians who went along with this administration are as guilty as that small group.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely, and the legal precedence was established at Nuremberg for the legal punishment of those who "went along".

I think Americans are going to be dismayed and outraged when they learn just how very close to true facism we have come in a very short time.

And, I have just got to say, once again, this fight is nowhere close to being over. There are some very powerful and dark forces arrayed against us.

The real battle is between International Corporate Facism and Liberal Democracy, all the rest is chaff and chatter. And, despite this election, liberal democracy is still very fragile and could still fail. It is only one election, a setback--but not the destruction and elimination of corporate facism.

If you think Cheney is a rich and powerful man, just consider this: How rich and powerful must be those he answers to, those who put him in his position, those who faces we never see and whose voices we never hear, those who buy our politicians and use our military to expand their profits, those who decide if jobs leave America for Asia or Africa, those who are determined to have their way.

Sanslines

11-14-2006, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
The Democratic Party will play a big roll in this by forcing the Republican Party back towards the center. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why has it been in the past few years that Republicans have said that they haven't leaned to the far right, but that democrats have switched to the far left, and have called for the democrats to get away from the far left. Now that democrats control both houses its that the republicans moved too far right and the democrats will help the republicans move to the centre?

And franly if it was a small group of republicans dominating the show, why did no republican stand up against them? Frankly all republicans who stood by and did nothing to stop the moving to the far right is equally as wuilty. They signed those bills that small group wanted them to, they passed those laws that small group wanted them to. ALL republican politicians who went along with this administration are as guilty as that small group.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of what politicans say, a small group of Republicans from the extreme right had hijacked the party and attempted to dominate and force the entire party towards the extreme right. There were many Republicans who opposed this move but were not able to do or to say much for fear of being ostracized and having their careers ruined. How many of us in our own lives would find the courage to speak out against something knowing that doing so would ruin our careers and possible our families? Why would we expect politicians to be any different from the rest of us? This is not the 1960's and many today are definitely living in the age of apathy. It was obvious that the Republicans did move too far right but what has changed now is that they can no longer stay in this position if they want to win future elections and remain in power. Therefore, the elections will force the Republicans to move towards the center regardless of what either party claims.

Qikdraw

11-14-2006, 05:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
Regardless of what politicans say, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Politicians? I've heard it from pundits, politicians and just about every republican I have talked to over the past few years! I can't count how many times when I've seen on the news or read in articles when its said that the democrats have moved to teh far left. It's only now that the democrats are in control that the republicans have said that the republican party was hijacked. The funny thing is the democrats have been saying the republican party was highjacked and have gotten ridiculed for saying that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a small group of Republicans from the extreme right had hijacked the party and attempted to dominate and force the entire party towards the extreme right. There were many Republicans who opposed this move but were not able to do or to say much for fear of being ostracized and having their careers ruined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This does not excuse standing buy and doing nothing. How many families were ruined, financially or otherwise, while these politicians stood by and did nothing?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many of us in our own lives would find the courage to speak out against something knowing that doing so would ruin our careers and possible our families? Why would we expect politicians to be any different from the rest of us? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because we elect politicians into office to take care of us, we don't expect them to take care of themselves over us. How many things have passed that are harmful to the American public? Every republican politician that just signed off and did nothing should be fired, and new republicans should be put in their place.

Qikdraw

Liam

11-14-2006, 08:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Yes, Mark! Read that last sentence again. Neo-cons!

If these people really were honest American conservatives, they wouldn't need a newly-coined identifier, would they? They are NOT conservatives, and they aren't liberals either... they just chose to ride the Republican coattails because of the (perceived) popularity of the Republicans' then-current ascendancy.

And since everyone knows who they really do represent, why is everyone so reluctant to say so? Hmmmm?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My best friend identifies himself as a Conservative. He detests Neo-cons. We all, by now, know what Neo-cons are...or should anyway. My friend is also a fundamentalist Christian, yet he can't abide the self-identified Christian Right. He invented the term "Neo-theology". I think it is a great term for these bible twisters.