Congratulations Democrats

[luv_america]

I will post more on why this happened later, but clearly the Republicans got trounced.

I congratulate the Democrats for their victory and their supporters here on this board.

Thankfully our Democratic process allows for an orderly transfer of power. In many countries, a war or a coup is required to express the will of the people. Of course, that is not our way and we should congratulate ourselves for maintaining this process for longer than any country in the history of civilization.

Now it is the Democrats responsibility to govern. It is my opinion that the Democrats are a party void of ideas. Its an angry party that ran an election against a President that has become unpopular due to a 6th year malaise and a war that is unpopular with some Americans and nearly the entire mainstream media. There were no specific governing issues outside of the war that drove the American voter yesterday. When that happens, the Republicans lose.

It is noticeable that many of the Democrats who got elected yesterday appeared to be very conservative on many issues. A theme of a future post will discuss this in more detail.

Enjoy your victory! It is now the Democratic Party's responsibility to lead our legislative branch. I'm certain that my fellow conservatives will be watching what they do, and at the same time being vocal about our disagreement (per Hillary, because its patriotic:jump: ) . I also believe that the Republican party will reorganize and set a firm conservative agenda for voters to digest for 2008.

[DJofSD]

I also believe that the Republican party will reorganize and set a firm conservative agenda for voters to digest for 2008.

Dream on. The party has yet to hit rock bottom.

[JustRalph]

They didn't win anything except the right to gripe in committee. If they decide to go after Repubs with subpoena's they just make themselves look worse. They don't have a majority that can overcome a veto. They can't do much, so it will just be a louder platform.

There was no big shift in power. It was a slight tilting.

[luv_america]

Just Ralph,

agreed. Once i lighten up later today, I will start a thread on this.

[Bala]

"I will post more on why this happened laterIt is very simple. No long winded analysis necessary. Liberal Republicans got trounced!

Call the current white house occupants “RINO's” “Neocons” whatever. But do no not call them conservative or Christian. The republicans party is anything but classical conservative.

The three F's come to mind with the Bush administration. Fake, Phony and Fraud.

Take a lucid look at the Dem's win. What do you see? I see conservative Dem's won. Joe Leiberman!!! All the southern Dem's ran on a conservative Dem platform.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Repubs lost because the voters only wanted Iraq, tax cuts, and the deficit to be temporary and not permanent.

[JustRalph]

It is very simple. No long winded analysis necessary. Liberal Republicans got trounced!

Call the current white house occupants “RINO's” “Neocons” whatever. But do no not call them conservative or Christian. The republicans party is anything but classical conservative.

The three F's come to mind with the Bush administration. Fake, Phony and Fraud.

Take a lucid look at the Dem's win. What do you see? I see conservative Dem's won. Joe Leiberman!!! All the southern Dem's ran on a conservative Dem platform.

Very insightful. and correct on all fronts. Many of my Conservative Friends stayed home. And some downright voted against Dewine and such.

[Secretariat]

Repubs lost because the voters only wanted Iraq, tax cuts, and the deficit to be temporary and not permanent.

Well said.

[Secretariat]

Now it is the Democrats responsibility to govern. It is my opinion that the Democrats are a party void of ideas. Its an angry party that ran an election against a President that has become unpopular due to a 6th year malaise and a war that is unpopular with some Americans and nearly the entire mainstream media. There were no specific governing issues outside of the war that drove the American voter yesterday. When that happens, the Republicans lose.

Some Americans? How about a significant majority of Americans? And if you think Iraq is the only issue Americans are upset about ask Chafee from Rhode Island?

[Tom]

Well said.

Yeah, Everyone went out to vote for higher taxes. Good grief! How stupid.

[PlanB]

LOL. if only the political Republicans had a sense of humor like those here
they would have kept both houses. Personally I'm very worried about corp
influence & right now my wife made from scratch Pizza, mine with italian
sausage ummm ,so I gotta run.

[PaceAdvantage]

I will post more on why this happened later, but clearly the Republicans got trounced.

Trounced?

Dude, every media outlet on Earth was beating it into the head's of the masses that the US sucked, life sucked, the Iraq war is a disaster, Bush sucks, Republicans suck, Republicans are closet homosexuals, Republicans eat their young, Republicans are morally and spiritually corrupt, etc. etc.

THe Democrats picked up a whopping 29 seats in the HOUSE. BIG FREAKIN' DEAL. The average seat gain in mid-term elections since WWII has been 25.47....wowsers....what a record breaking Democratic victory. :rolleyes:

We're constantly being told on this board how horrible Bush and Republicans are....worse than NIXON they say....

Well, in 1974, the Democrats picked up 49 seats in the house!!! Nowhere near what they did yesterday.....now that WAS a trouncing....

Plus, many of these races turned out to be DEAD-TIGHT!

The people who think this is some sort of refurendum on Bush and Republicans are seriously deluding themselves.

[luv_america]

PA,

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this was a refurendum. When I say trounced, I'm more inclined to admit that we got trounced relative to my own projections, which were way off.

These guys have to govern now and show us what they really mean. Meanwhile, the liberal Republicans in the House and Senate are almost all gone now, and the chamber feels a bit more conservative. Pelosi and Reid thankfully won't have it easy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

When the media and pundits and by extension others concentrate on the differences minor issue become key and often the big picture is less noted.
Bush's opponents were and still are looking at personalities and Bush made the mistake often made by those in control- assuming nothing will change. That is why IMO they were surprised at the results. The media and the parties never figure out that the majority of voters are more to the center than they are are themselves so they do not know what issues make the difference in certain races.

[Secretariat]

From The Terminator:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/15970735.htm

Schwarzenegger hails Democratic congressional takeover as healthyLAURA KURTZMAN
Associated Press

MEXICO CITY - California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, meeting with outgoing President Vicente Fox in Mexico City, hailed the Democratic takeover of Congress as healthy for democracy, saying "Washington was stuck."

Schwarzenegger suggested that Washington follow his example in California where he has worked with Democrats to achieve bipartisan agreements, such as placing $37.3 billion in bond measures on the November ballot, which voters embraced and which are aimed at easing the state's traffic jams, aging schools and inadequate affordable housing.

"I think this is good that we have new blood coming to Washington, that we have new people with new ideas coming to Washington," he said.

Schwarzenegger said he also was glad to hear California Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who would become the first female House leader in history, wants to find ways to cooperate with Republicans. The governor said he called Pelosi after Tuesday's elections, but they haven't spoken yet.

[Secretariat]

And great relief in Britain:

Thank you, America
Leader
Thursday November 9, 2006
The Guardian

For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.

...

In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.

[JustRalph]

Sec, you know we dont' give a damn what they think, right?

You also are aware that for about 599 bucks you can buy a ticket to England? right?

[JustRalph]

British Man Injured After Lighting Firecracker in Buttocks

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228517,00.html


BTW Sec, this guy was a British Soldier

[BlueShoe]

Time to clear up a misconception;Joe Lieberman is not a conservative or even a moderate.He is a liberal,period.His lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating is 17.Congressperson (?) soon-to-be Speaker Nancy P. has a lifetime rating of 3.Next comes a term that I only recently have heard used;"Blue Dogs".This is supposed to mean moderate or even conservative Democrats,likened to the "Reagan Democrats" of the '80s.Long ago there was a block of conservative Dems from the South called "Boll Weavils",but they seem to have become extinct.If true,the Bluedogs may give Nancy and her radical Left cronies almost as much trouble as will the GOP.Hopefully,they will join the Republicans in blocking Pelosi and companys radical socialist schemes.

[DJofSD]

BTW Sec, this guy was a British Soldier

"Full Metal Jacket" in reverse?

[Secretariat]

Sec, you know we dont' give a damn what they think, right?

Ever think maybe that's been part of the problem?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Time to clear up a misconception;Joe Lieberman is not a conservative or even a moderate.He is a liberal,period.His lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating is 17.Congressperson (?) soon-to-be Speaker Nancy P. has a lifetime rating of 3.Next comes a term that I only recently have heard used;"Blue Dogs".This is supposed to mean moderate or even conservative Democrats,likened to the "Reagan Democrats" of the '80s.Long ago there was a block of conservative Dems from the South called "Boll Weavils",but they seem to have become extinct.If true,the Bluedogs may give Nancy and her radical Left cronies almost as much trouble as will the GOP.Hopefully,they will join the Republicans in blocking Pelosi and companys radical socialist schemes.
36 (Ford JR out) Good luck to them going against the Congress leaders. You have not heard of them because they are not allowed to be in leadership positions.
The old white Demo leaders are the likes of Kennedy, Biden, Franks, Kerry, and Byrd.

"List of Blue Dog Coalition members
Joe Baca (California)
John Barrow (Georgia)
Melissa Bean (Illinois)
Marion Berry (Arkansas)
Sanford Bishop (Georgia)
Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Allen Boyd (Florida)
Dennis Cardoza (California)
Ed Case (Hawaii)
Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
Jim Cooper (Tennessee)
Jim Costa (California)
Bud Cramer (Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
Harold Ford, Jr. (Tennessee)
Jane Harman (California)
Stephanie Herseth (South Dakota)
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
Steve Israel (New York)
Jim Marshall (Georgia)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
Mike Michaud (Maine)
Dennis Moore (Kansas)
Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Mike Ross (Arkansas)
John Salazar (Colorado)
Loretta Sanchez (California)
Adam Schiff (California)
David Scott (Georgia)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Ellen Tauscher (California)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Mike Thompson (California)

[Tom]

They didn't win anything except the right to gripe in committee. If they decide to go after Repubs with subpoena's they just make themselves look worse. They don't have a majority that can overcome a veto. They can't do much, so it will just be a louder platform.

There was no big shift in power. It was a slight tilting.

Here is my take on it. Pelosi's puppy will now align himslef with the dems to preserve a legacy for himslef. He already dumped a guy that just last week was his man for the course. That's two courses knucklehead has given up on in recent weeks. Today, he is all ears for any suggestins on Iraq. A ral lsuc up. Bush is a scoundrel - he is loyal to no one and he will do whatever he has to make himslef look good. Do not trust this snake. He will not veto any bills brought to him for the next two years. He sees the chance now to ram through his own ridiculous ideas about imigration and other things the repubs would not allow him.

Bush's plan all along has been the North American Union - the USA is expendible and he will do whatever he can to disolve our borders.
As far as I am concern the dems won the WH this week too. Nacy, put down papers - you new little doggie is not house trained yet.

[Tom]

BTW Sec, have you posted your congratulations letter from Osam yet?
You do know you guys are his choice. Wonder why that is. NOT.

[betchatoo]

Time to clear up a misconception;Joe Lieberman is not a conservative or even a moderate.He is a liberal,period.His lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating is 17.Congressperson (?) soon-to-be Speaker Nancy P. has a lifetime rating of 3.Next comes a term that I only recently have heard used;"Blue Dogs".This is supposed to mean moderate or even conservative Democrats,likened to the "Reagan Democrats" of the '80s.Long ago there was a block of conservative Dems from the South called "Boll Weavils",but they seem to have become extinct.If true,the Bluedogs may give Nancy and her radical Left cronies almost as much trouble as will the GOP.Hopefully,they will join the Republicans in blocking Pelosi and companys radical socialist schemes.

Please enlighten me to which radical socialist schemes those are

[BlueShoe]

Quote;"Please enlighten me,etc".Okay,just for starters--sharp increase in the minimum wage,socialized medicine(disguised by calling it universal health care),much higher taxes across all income levels,increased seizure of private property based on the recent Supreme court eminent domain decision,gutting of all branches of the Armed Forces by sharply reducing manpower levels and funding,submitting to expansion of the power and authority of the United Nations such as submitting US citizens to the authority of the World Court,increasing the power and influence of the public employees unions,creating open borders and legalizing virtually any person already here or who comes here,releasing thousands of hardened felons from prisons early and refusing to incarcerate those commiting new crimes,eliminate private possesion of any and all types of firearms by confiscation or threatening new laws,refuse to honor our foreign obligations by withdrawing from Iraq in disgrace,ignoring Iran and North Korea by only conducting "meaningful dialogue" with them while they develop their nuclear weapons.and---you get the idea dont you?Am sure that I have left several things out and that others can fill them in.These are just a few of the things that our new radical left "leaders" will try to push.---Wait,just thought of two more things the Libs will try to do--make marriage legal between any two consenting adults without consideration of sex,and--the total secularization of all levels of American society;they plan to outlaw God and any reference to Him.---And people wonder why I have such utter contempt and undying hatred for the Left.

[44PACE]

Why do people get so excited when a political party wins? I have been walking this planet for 45 years, when the Dems controlled the Goverment I worked and paid my own way, when the Repubs controlled I worked and paid my own way, now it is going back the other way, tommorow I will work and pay my own way.


Anytime I hear people getting excited about politics it gives me the impression that they need help from the Government.

The best Government is You. Rely only on yourself then you will only have yourself to blame if things do not turn out.

[betchatoo]

Quote;"Please enlighten me,etc".Okay,just for starters--sharp increase in the minimum wage,socialized medicine(disguised by calling it universal health care),much higher taxes across all income levels,increased seizure of private property based on the recent Supreme court eminent domain decision,gutting of all branches of the Armed Forces by sharply reducing manpower levels and funding,submitting to expansion of the power and authority of the United Nations such as submitting US citizens to the authority of the World Court,increasing the power and influence of the public employees unions,creating open borders and legalizing virtually any person already here or who comes here,releasing thousands of hardened felons from prisons early and refusing to incarcerate those commiting new crimes,eliminate private possesion of any and all types of firearms by confiscation or threatening new laws,refuse to honor our foreign obligations by withdrawing from Iraq in disgrace,ignoring Iran and North Korea by only conducting "meaningful dialogue" with them while they develop their nuclear weapons.and---you get the idea dont you?Am sure that I have left several things out and that others can fill them in.These are just a few of the things that our new radical left "leaders" will try to push.---Wait,just thought of two more things the Libs will try to do--make marriage legal between any two consenting adults without consideration of sex,and--the total secularization of all levels of American society;they plan to outlaw God and any reference to Him.---And people wonder why I have such utter contempt and undying hatred for the Left.

Thanks for the chuckle. It was a good way to start my day.

For the last several years people have been calling the left leaning on this board the gloom and doom boys. You make them all seem like sunshine :jump:

[ljb]

BTW Sec, have you posted your congratulations letter from Osam yet?
You do know you guys are his choice. Wonder why that is. NOT.
Do you have a direct line to Osama ? How do you know who his choice is? Perhaps we should start tapping your phone. Oh never mind we already are. :D

[luv_america]

44Pace,

Agreed 100%!! However, you sould like a conservative. You are confident and don't need to be told by government that you are inferior and need help to "just get by".

In reality, people should take who governs less seriously and be responsible for themselves. That, IMHO, that is the American Way. This is one of the hallmarks of conservatism. I can do it by myself, for myself. I am responsible for what I do and what I become.

I do give credit for liberals for always trying to tell us that we can't do it alone, and we need their help and big government to make it all work.
They always blame others when their results are inferior.

The biggest and best things in this world get built when persons take risk and responsibility for their desires. It is liberals that try to reduce the world to riskless and without disappointment. This my friends is socialism, which makes everyone equally unhappy.

I'm not an unhappy one. I am responsible. Thank God.

[Tom]

I see the new leader of Al Qeda, in a tape today, offered his congrats to the dems. Speaks volumes for their credibility, eh?
Osam in....08???:lol:

Maybe we should call them Al Qedacrats.

[BlueShoe]

Thanks to Kenwoodallpromos for the list of members.Since I am a California resident,looked up the ACU ratings for the eight members listed for my state,and was not pleased with what I found,several are liberals,and even a moderate rating would be a reach.However,they are not part of the new radical Left Kremlin crowd that has taken over.Just today,congresswoman Jane Harman(Cal),who is a moderate,was denied the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence commitee,for which she was in line,and passed over in favor of one of the Nancy crowds favorites,a man whose name did not catch,but who has had some questionable dealings in the past.May find out more and post on this later.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by 44PACE
Whats in it for me?
Why do people get so excited when a political party wins? I have been walking this planet for 45 years, when the Dems controlled the Goverment I worked and paid my own way, when the Repubs controlled I worked and paid my own way, now it is going back the other way, tommorow I will work and pay my own way.

Anytime I hear people getting excited about politics it gives me the impression that they need help from the Government.

The best Government is You. Rely only on yourself then you will only have yourself to blame if things do not turn out. Originally posted by Luv_America
44Pace,

Agreed 100%!! However, you sould like a conservative. You are confident and don't need to be told by government that you are inferior and need help to "just get by".

In reality, people should take who governs less seriously and be responsible for themselves. That, IMHO, that is the American Way. This is one of the hallmarks of conservatism. I can do it by myself, for myself. I am responsible for what I do and what I become.

I do give credit for liberals for always trying to tell us that we can't do it alone, and we need their help and big government to make it all work.
They always blame others when their results are inferior.

The biggest and best things in this world get built when persons take risk and responsibility for their desires. It is liberals that try to reduce the world to riskless and without disappointment. This my friends is socialism, which makes everyone equally unhappy.

I'm not an unhappy one. I am responsible. Thank God.
__________________
listening to liberal intentions and drowning them with conservative ideas for at least 40 years.4P,
I’m not concerned about whether or not you're actually a conservative, but I am curious as to whether you believe that your position (which I too thought was well-stated) is exclusive to Conservatives.

HA,
I’m starting to admire you’re talent for “spin-meistering.” First, let’s take a look at where we agree:In reality, people should take who governs less seriously and be responsible for themselves. That, IMHO, that is the American Way.

… I can do it by myself, for myself. I am responsible for what I do and what I become.

… The biggest and best things in this world get built when persons take risk and responsibility for their desires.Now let’s look at where I have some questions: I do give credit for liberals for always trying to tell us that we can't do it alone, and we need their help and big government to make it all work.
They always blame others when their results are inferior.

… It is liberals that try to reduce the world to riskless and without disappointment. This my friends is socialism, which makes everyone equally unhappy.Lets see now: Who was doing it alone without all those “earmarks” and who was doing it with their help? How much bigger does government get than the one created by the Conservative Republican Presidential Administration together with the Conservative Republican Congress during the last six years? Exactly what superior results did they achieve? Didn’t they blame others when their results were inferior? How did the voters interpret their results?

Hey, HA, you certainly are one responsible guy, but you HArdly sound HAppy. ;)

[luv_america]

Who is HA?

You are confusing conservatism with Republicanism. Clearly I am in total agreement that the Republicans spent out tax money like drunken sailors. It will take a true conservative leader to re-unite the concepts of conservative smaller government with the Republican party. George Bush and the last Congress were NOT conservative.

If the Democrats become the party of smaller government, tax cuts, and personal empowerment, it would bring me to consider becoming a Democrat. I just don't see this happening.

[Indulto]

Who is HA?

You are confusing conservatism with Republicanism. Clearly I am in total agreement that the Republicans spent out tax money like drunken sailors. It will take a true conservative leader to re-unite the concepts of conservative smaller government with the Republican party. George Bush and the last Congress were NOT conservative.

If the Democrats become the party of smaller government, tax cuts, and personal empowerment, it would bring me to consider becoming a Democrat. I just don't see this happening.Imagine that! I must heve confused YOU with a Republican! Maybe it was this earlier post of yours:I'd like to understand who is whinning?

When the Democrats lost the last few elections they blamed the media (ha!!), the election equipment, fraud, the Republicans for playing dirty, and most of all the voters.

All I hear is the Republicans blaming ourselves. In fact, most Republicans believe that we can blame Democrats because you didn't run on anything or promise anything except "cut and run" from Iraq, and portayed every Republican as the boogeyman because they are in the same party as Bush. Those are not complaints, those are politics. We are to blame because we didn't have a message that contrasted the Democrats message.

I know I didn't whine. The very next morning here I started a thread "Congratulations Democrats". I'm a horseplayer. I lose races more often then I win them. Its good preparation for real lfe sometimes.Did I also confuse you with a conservative? ;)

[luv_america]

Indulto,

Clearly your last post was a post just to poke at a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. What was your point other than to try to make my post look less than genuine? Why do you waste your time?

Clearly I am a Republican voter because that is the party that most represents my conservative ideals. If the Democrats all of the sudden platformed all of the those conservative ideals, I would start voting for them.

I made a point that there is a difference between Conservatism and Republicanism. Since you were the only one not to get it, and needed to poke at it, I will explain it for you.

Conservatism is a set of ideals that is to the right of Republicanism, which is the attempt to center those ideas to get votes. The real power in the Republican party is conservatives, however, unfortunately we get to elect dolts like Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham and the two liberals from Maine. John McCain is attempting to look like a conservative so that he can become the next President.

Either way there are differences. Its sorta similar, but much less of a difference between the words Democratism, liberalism, and socialism, but Republicans are not afraid of labels that express what we really believe.

[DJofSD]

The real power in the Republican party is conservatives

I respectively beg to differ. The people in the seats of power within the GOP are closer to being democans than they are conservatives.

Of the top of my head, the only thing I can think of that current power brokers and party leaders have in common with conservatives is a strong national defense -- but they even screw that up.

Flush the toilet, out with the lot of them. Let's start over.

[luv_america]

This is happening now as we speak. The voting and money power is to the right of this gang. We are starting over. It may take a while, but the Dems could accelerate it by their foolish ways.

[Tom]

The republican party will purge, clean out, rebuild, and be back, properly centered in 12-18 months. They always do. Those who led the party off course will be gone.
Now, the dems never change, never learn, never last.
The resident libs have even said as much on tis forum - and I agree wtih them - that this a statement against Bush. What they don't say is the truth - it was not a vote FOR them. Big difference.

I think I even mentioned this a few weeks ago - how a dem victory would force the repubs to wake up, get thier crap together, and come back strong for 2008, meanwhile, allowing the dems a world stage to act like fools on for two years and drive themsleves further away from the average American.
Next time, the will be no Bush to vote against. THEY will the ones who have mucked up everything big time.

:lol: Go govern, boys.....times a wastin' !

[Indulto]

Indulto,

Clearly your last post was a post just to poke at a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. What was your point other than to try to make my post look less than genuine? Why do you waste your time?

Clearly I am a Republican voter because that is the party that most represents my conservative ideals. If the Democrats all of the sudden platformed all of the those conservative ideals, I would start voting for them.

I made a point that there is a difference between Conservatism and Republicanism. Since you were the only one not to get it, and needed to poke at it, I will explain it for you.

Conservatism is a set of ideals that is to the right of Republicanism, which is the attempt to center those ideas to get votes. The real power in the Republican party is conservatives, however, unfortunately we get to elect dolts like Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham and the two liberals from Maine. John McCain is attempting to look like a conservative so that he can become the next President.

Either way there are differences. Its sorta similar, but much less of a difference between the words Democratism, liberalism, and socialism, but Republicans are not afraid of labels that express what we really believe.HA,
Clearly you are upset, but unclear as to what is being poked fun at. And if I WERE poking fun at some or all conservatives or Republicans -- or even at you alone simply because you are a conservative albeit tenuous Republican -- I would indeed be wasting my time.

What you don’t get (and perhaps you aren’t the only one) is that you as an individual -- regardless of any affiliation -- keep coming up with material that deserves to be made fun of. The election is over, but based on recent posts in this and other threads from both the extreme left and right here (especially yours), it appears the next two years in off-topic will continue to primarily involve sniping and bickering with only rare opportunities for reasonable discourse and cooperatively arriving at sensible conclusions. Nothing you have said yet indicates anything constructive or instructive about your presence after 150 posts.

It's one thing to challenge, discredit, or poke fun at commentary with ideological content. It's another to introduce ideology where none exists -- or is necessary. Just my opinion, of course. BTW congratulations on the new nadir you achieved in that regard in the “My Plan…” thread.

But feel free to respond and possibly waste some of your own time. Until you start CLEARLY stating your positions, AND defending them on their own merits WITHOUT distorting those of your perceived opposition, I'm sure you'll continue to amuse me with your relentless, but ineffective attempts at blanket dismissal of liberal concepts and those who support them.

[luv_america]

Indulto,

nice try.

It is interesting how liberals attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. I attack no one here, only their ideas. I have plenty of posts that clearly state positions and opinion. Isn't that why I'm being argued with?

You and others are just pissed that you're not going to be able to post your views exclusively without getting an argument. Too bad.

[PlanB]

LUV, do you want the Democrats to fail, even though that could hurt our country? I don't understand why a few days since the elections & you're
freaking out. Give it time. Freak out later when the Dems settle in.

[luv_america]

Seriously, PlanB, where do I say I want the country to fail or am I freaking out?

I started this thread as a congratulations to the victors of the election.

If the Democrats can effectively govern and respresent my ideas, they would get my vote. Clearly this batch of Republicans failed.

I have three hot button issues. First by mile is our national defense which includes the war against terror. Secondly, keeping taxes lower, which I believe helps everyone in the economy. Thirdly, reducing the size of government and its interference in our businesses and lives. If the Dems can help pull those off, I will applaud them.

See, no freaking out. Please don't take Indulto's attempt at spin and censorship as a "freak-out". I'll wait to see if a "cut and run" plan happens before I freak out.

[Indulto]

Indulto,

nice try.

It is interesting how liberals attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. I attack no one here, only their ideas. I have plenty of posts that clearly state positions and opinion. Isn't that why I'm being argued with?

You and others are just pissed that you're not going to be able to post your views exclusively without getting an argument. Too bad.Thanks, HA, I thought so too. ;)

If only you WOULD present arguments and not just diatribes. Too :(

[luv_america]

again, nice try.

I ask a lot of questions of posters here. I post a lot of my ideas, defend them and are prepared to argue them. Just read my postings in this thread for an example. You didn't argue them, just poked at them. You do EXACLTY what you claim I do. That sir, is a typical liberal trick (just look at the Culture of Corruption as an example).

I do not represent myself as a "know it all" as some of the posters here do.

Really, what's your problem (besides the fact that I disagree with you 90% of the time). Air it out, this is your forum. I'm game.

[Tom]

LUV, do you want the Democrats to fail, even though that could hurt our country? I don't understand why a few days since the elections & you're
freaking out. Give it time. Freak out later when the Dems settle in.

This is EXACTLY what the dems did, with the help of the biased press. You guys did nothinklg but engourage theenemy if IRaq and gave them hope with all that stupid talk about a timeline. Just image what would have happened if we told Hitler - July, buddy, if we aren't in Berlin by July, we are foing home. Same things you guys did here. Your side has already totally forginen the terroists and rushed to the defense of a few islolated cases of non-lethal, non-lasting form of so-called torture. Here;s what i think - anyone concerned about Abu Grad is a friggin traitor.
Yet how many months did the press and libs drag that story our? They gave more press to the actions of .001% or less of our troops than they did or have to all the good things accomplished there. Who has an agenda of defeat?
And even in victory, you guys still have no plan - just revenge and more insults - you guys not only hope this country fails, you ensure it!
That is why I say get out now, today. With dems in charge, victory is not an option. No way this country will ever beaet any enemy with the dems in control. We are at best France with losers on the hill. It's like being in battle, in a fox hole, under fire, and the soldier next to you says "Your eyes are so alluring in the bomb blasts!" Yikes! Who you gonna shoot?:bang:

[Indulto]

again, nice try.

I ask a lot of questions of posters here. I post a lot of my ideas, defend them and are prepared to argue them. Just read my postings in this thread for an example. You didn't argue them, just poked at them. You do EXACLTY what you claim I do. That sir, is a typical liberal trick (just look at the Culture of Corruption as an example).

I do not represent myself as a "know it all" as some of the posters here do.

Really, what's your problem (besides the fact that I disagree with you 90% of the time). Air it out, this is your forum. I'm game.Again, thank you.

My problem, Sir, is your prolonged presentation of pure political propaganda -- blatantly deceptive and arrogantly dismissive. I may have missed it, but I have yet to see you post any ideas for which you are the original source. Your posts appear only to offer opinions of other people's ideas; ostensibly to outrage political opposition.

The difference between what I do and what you do is that your objective is to make “liberals” look foolish and my objective is to make your efforts to do so look foolish.

Plus, as I think most conservatives are OK even when they disagree with me, I wouldn't label your tactics as a “typical” conservative trick. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

My problem, Sir, is your prolonged presentation of pure political propaganda -- blatantly deceptive and arrogantly dismissive. I may have missed it, but I have yet to see you post any ideas for which you are the original source. Your posts appear only to offer opinions of other people's ideas; ostensibly to outrage political opposition.

Odd. The quoted paragraph above could easily apply to any of the more prolific political posters we have here in off-topic. I wonder why you choose to mix it up with "Love, American Style?"

[Indulto]

Odd. The quoted paragraph above could easily apply to any of the more prolific political posters we have here in off-topic. I wonder why you choose to mix it up with "Love, American Style?"PA,
I realize that with so many posts to peruse, it's possible you scanned past critical content. I believe my complete post was self-explanatory. Is it your purpose to promote further political provocation among prolific posters? ;)

[hcap]

I got severly criticized for quoting Bob Cesca on the Webb thread

"Time For A Big Ol' Cup Of 'Shut The F*** Up"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-c...of_b_33857.html

None of the points he raises is as bad as what Tom and his buddies the "bushmen" have consistantly done to the most of the lefties criticizing the war and how we got dragged into it.

Tom babbles... anyone concerned about Abu Grad is a friggin traitor.

You guys did nothinklg but engourage theenemy if IRaq and gave them hope with all that stupid talk about a timeline. Just image what would have happened if we told Hitler - July, buddy, if we aren't in Berlin by July, we are foing home

You guys not only hope this country fails, you ensure it!

Hey Tom you forgot da punchline Aiding and abetting

That's why all you bushmen and bush cultists-which in FACT you were- until it really became blatant how mediocre your leeeduur was-Cesca wrote the way he did, and why I quoted him.

[luv_america]

Indulto,

There is no doubt that you are poking at me because I disagree with your posts and the others liberals here. You still can't argue any of the posts we have made in this thread.

Here's a challenge. I FULLY support Tom's post that the Democrats and the press have deliberately misled this country into thinking that everything that is going on in Iraq is all bad. At least 98% of the stories tell of doom and gloom. They have emboldened our enemies. Terrorists repeat Democrat talking points in their tapes from their caves. Please defend them.

There's more good going on in Iraq and the Democrats know it. That's why you're not going to see the Democrats as a party pull out of Iraq. My guess is that they're going to put on a good show, and try to force Bush to defend his position either with a policy proclamation of the veto pen. The Democrats cannot win the White House in 2008 after a disgraced loss in Iraq. They know it and you know it. These are political animals. They will do what they need to do to stay in power no matter who it hurts.

My guess is that Bush will outsmart them like he did before the 2002 mid-terms and force them to vote on staying in Iraq directly. He'll make Hilary and the others go on the record.

Indulto, plenty for you to argue. Give it a try if you dare. Defend you're seditious boys and gals.

[JPinMaryland]

"....My guess is that Bush will outsmart them like he did before the 2002 mid-terms and force them to vote on staying in Iraq directly.


How is he going to do that exactly? Maybe turn over his Commander in Chief powers to Pelosi?

[Indulto]

Indulto,

There is no doubt that you are poking at me because I disagree with your posts and the others liberals here. You still can't argue any of the posts we have made in this thread.

Here's a challenge. I FULLY support Tom's post that the Democrats and the press have deliberately misled this country into thinking that everything that is going on in Iraq is all bad. At least 98% of the stories tell of doom and gloom. They have emboldened our enemies. Terrorists repeat Democrat talking points in their tapes from their caves. Please defend them.

There's more good going on in Iraq and the Democrats know it. That's why you're not going to see the Democrats as a party pull out of Iraq. My guess is that they're going to put on a good show, and try to force Bush to defend his position either with a policy proclamation of the veto pen. The Democrats cannot win the White House in 2008 after a disgraced loss in Iraq. They know it and you know it. These are political animals. They will do what they need to do to stay in power no matter who it hurts.

My guess is that Bush will outsmart them like he did before the 2002 mid-terms and force them to vote on staying in Iraq directly. He'll make Hilary and the others go on the record.

Indulto, plenty for you to argue. Give it a try if you dare. Defend you're seditious boys and gals.Thanks for the invitation, but argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Nor does idle speculation. Don't worry. I'll jump in whenever I think it's appropriate -- or that you're not. ;)

[JustRalph]

"....My guess is that Bush will outsmart them like he did before the 2002 mid-terms and force them to vote on staying in Iraq directly.
How is he going to do that exactly? Maybe turn over his Commander in Chief powers to Pelosi?

The President can introduce legislation. He hands it off. It takes very little for the Prez to introduce this kind of thing. He can do it if he wants. No problem at all.

[luv_america]

Thanks for the invitation, but argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Nor does idle speculation. Don't worry. I'll jump in whenever I think it's appropriate -- or that you're not.

Indulto,

You criticized me for not stating a case and making an argument. When I do and invite you to debate, you run away. That leaves your original criticism as very hollow.

As I said before, "nice try".

[Tom]

Thanks for the invitation, but argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Nor does idle speculation. Don't worry. I'll jump in whenever I think it's appropriate -- or that you're not. ;)

A very mature reply, thank you.
:ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

Indulto,

You criticized me for not stating a case and making an argument. When I do and invite you to debate, you run away. That leaves your original criticism as very hollow.

As I said before, "nice try".HA,
You remind me of the headless horseman from "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow."

Who wouldn't prefer to defer a debate
With a fellow so callow and shallow to wait
For a topic of value to appear on the slate
And permit me to swallow the nonsense you state.

[Tom]

Now I am impressed. That was a brilliant come back.
It gets my seal of approval.
You have transcended hollering. :ThmbUp::D

[Indulto]

Now I am impressed. That was a brilliant come back.
It gets my seal of approval.
You have transcended hollering. :ThmbUp::DRecognition from the master -- what else could I ask for? ;)

[JPinMaryland]

The President can introduce legislation. He hands it off. It takes very little for the Prez to introduce this kind of thing. He can do it if he wants. No problem at all.

I'm not sure if a pres. can do that. I thought it was up to a committee to bring it to the floor; and only after it is vetted through several committees I guess.

THis might be a good time to break out one of those "How a bill becomes law" charts from the old civics book....

In any event, I dont think they can be forced to bring any such bill to a vote. Tons of bills sit around every year and never make it to the floor.

But beside that argument, I was thinking more on these lines:

What exactly is this bill going to say that makes the US committ to Iraq for x number of years or months?

Senate Bill 425: The Stay in Iraq Forever Law. We hereby mandate that US forces stay in Iraq forever.

Isnt this a separation of powers problem? The president is C in Chief. How can Congress tell him where to put or move troops?

[lsbets]

THis might be a good time to break out one of those "How a bill becomes law" charts from the old civics book....


Better yet - Schoolhouse Rock!

http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html

[JustRalph]

typically the President hands the legislation off to a like minded Congressman. It then is officially introduced and sponsored by the "like minded Congressman" and the President. The President almost always can get his legislation introduced as long as he has an interest that he can barter. That interest being, usually, his veto pen. *note; see "hands it off" in my prior post.

A great example of not having an interest to barter or a "like minded Congressman" is the Social Security Tussle from last year. He went around trying to sell it and it fell flat. There weren't any Congress types willing to touch it with an election coming up. And there was absolutely no legislation of any real import that Bush could barter his veto pen with. It was prior to an election.......which means nothing gets done for a year. So he had no leverage. And nobody cared. Gigantic mistake on their part.