| 9th November 2006 01:46 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
LOL...post of the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come to think of it....it's all coming unglued since the Tele incident. Coincedence???
LJ.
It's just God's way of remaining anonymous! |
| 9th November 2006 05:29 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
I think we all need to just relax & chill out and spend the next five hours staring at THIS ! :
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
|
| 9th November 2006 05:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Where is Tele? I want him to remind us why the Democrats can't win elections.
History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.
So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER |
| 9th November 2006 08:46 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Non-Americans think of Americans today as we do everyday.
A bunch of fucking wankers in check pants.
|
| 9th November 2006 08:49 PM |
|
|
| WJ |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Non-Americans think of Americans today as we do everyday.
A bunch of fucking wankers in check pants.
I don't think anyone has worn check pants since '74.
I could be wrong; perhaps American's just wear them when they travel. |
| 10th November 2006 12:45 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
A bunch of fucking wankers in check pants who own Australia six ways until Sunday. We have all the moolah.
|
| 10th November 2006 03:02 AM |
|
|
| 2000monkey |
Anne Coulter's books are now in the remainder bins along with all the other useless Bush propaganda. |
| 10th November 2006 04:40 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Owning Oz? Shit, that aint much. |
| 10th November 2006 09:44 AM |
|
|
| jb |
Whats kind of lame is how the dems are going out of there way to be gracious victors....When the republicans swept into power in 94, they took no prisoners and immediatelty started their assautlt upon Clinton/democracy. While I am not in favor of impeachment hearings, I am very much in favor of investigating how we were mislead, either intentionally or inadvertently , about WMD's. I also think that we have every right to investigate Cheney's secret meetings with the energy bosses, Haliburton, and the rest of the disgraceful, immoral, and illegal activities by this GOP led Congress. Enough with the phony civility, we won and as Bush said after 04, we are not going to waste this "capital".. It's times for dems to stop feeling intimidadated by the bullies, and start bullying themselves. We see it happen way to often, even on this board.
[Edited by jb] |
| 10th November 2006 09:55 AM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
quote:
jb wrote:
Whats kind of lame is how the dems are going out of there way to be gracious victors....When the republicans swept into power in 94, they took no prisoners and immediatelty started their assautlt upon Clinton/democracy. While I am not in favor of impeachment hearings, I am very much in favor of investigating how we were mislead, either intentionally or inadvertently , about WMD's. I also think that we have every right to investigate Cheney's secret meetings with the energy bosses, Haliburton, and the rest of the disgraceful, immoral, and illegal activities by this GOP led Congress. Enough with the phony civility, we won and as Bush said after 04, we are not going to waste this "capital".. It's times for dems to stop feeling intimidadated by the bullies, and start bullying themselves. We see it happen way to often, even on this board.
[Edited by jb]
Uber-humiliation. |
| 10th November 2006 10:27 AM |
|
|
| jb |
It's the American Fucking way!!! |
| 10th November 2006 11:17 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Good luck with that Joshy. It's normal for the out of power party to gain 6-7 Senate seats & 30 House seats in the 6th year of a Presidency. The Dems did nothing special & even they must realize it to some extent which makes them somewhat smarter than I'd previously realized. |
| 10th November 2006 11:28 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Good luck with that Joshy. It's normal for the out of power party to gain 6-7 Senate seats & 30 House seats in the 6th year of a Presidency. The Dems did nothing special & even they must realize it to some extent which makes them somewhat smarter than I'd previously realized.
Hello Blue, and please, do not allow any of this political stuff affect our friendship. However, I heard many republican commentators stating that this was "normal"(see Mary Matlin) on Hannity and colmes. However, many , including myself, thought the democratic party was all but extinct a few years ago. This election shows that the voters, not some political ideology, are still in charge. A divided government, as you also know, tends to compromise to achieve the common good. It was a stunning reversal of GOP fortune, and while it may only be temporary, it could not have come at a more important time. Look, even Professor Savage thinks Bush is a a phony conservative. |
| 10th November 2006 11:32 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
The Dems are definitely the smaller party at this point which even folks like Ho Dean admit. However in a healthy democracy things will go back & forth. In 2 years the Dems have some shaky seats to defend. And no, this won't affect our friendship; however it is pretty important that we meet in AC next week as I have Maxy dollar for you & we need those cultish pictures taken. |
| 10th November 2006 11:34 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
The Dems are definitely the smaller party at this point which even folks like Ho Dean admit. However in a healthy democracy things will go back & forth. In 2 years the Dems have some shaky seats to defend. And no, this won't affect our friendship; however it is pretty important that we meet in AC next week as I have Maxy dollar for you & we need those cultish pictures taken.
Professor Savage is a must listen!!!! |
| 10th November 2006 11:34 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
He's nutty. He's like Janeane Garofalo but funnier. |
| 10th November 2006 11:37 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
He's nutty. He's like Janeane Garofalo but funnier.
Is she still on Air America? What do you think of Bill O'Reilly and this new "secular progrossive" bs he is selling....doesn't everyone know at this time he is a phoney, simply making millions at the right time?
[Edited by jb] |
| 10th November 2006 11:39 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
She left. Air America is actually financially bankrupt after being morally bankrupt for years. Bill O'Reilly is a good guy but sometimes he does that evenhandedness stuff too much. |
| 10th November 2006 11:40 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
She left. Air America is actually financially bankrupt after being morally bankrupt for years. Bill O'Reilly is a good guy but sometimes he does that evenhandedness stuff too much.
He's looking after "you" ...and remember, don't be a popinjay...
[Edited by jb] |
| 10th November 2006 11:42 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Funny stuff! Be pithy! |
| 10th November 2006 11:55 AM |
|
|
| jb |
http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/confessions_of_an_angry_hustler_rev_ted_haggard.php
Wow!!!!!!! |
| 10th November 2006 12:02 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Anyone else here impressed with how well the Republican contingent is taking it? I am.
Wait a second, did someone say O'Reilly was a good guy? |
| 10th November 2006 01:47 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Joey wrote:
I think we all need to just relax & chill out and spend the next five hours staring at THIS ! :
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
So true, old pal!!! LOL!!! |
| 10th November 2006 02:19 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Anyone else here impressed with how well the Republican contingent is taking it? I am.
Wait a second, did someone say O'Reilly was a good guy?
Well, we could spend the next 12 years yelling"Diebold! Diebold!" but we have money to make. |
| 10th November 2006 02:54 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
C'mon be fair. Diebold only became an issue in 2002.
Congrats on your new leader, Steele. That's great, he did everything to avoid being called a Republican, even going so far as to have homeless guys hand out literature claiming he was really a Democrat, and he's the guy to lead the Republicans to the promised land? Then again, the other guy was a closeted gay man for a party of homophobes and gay bashers. Man, I have never seen a party fall apart so quickly. It's almost as sad as the thought of the Stones actually extending this tour any further. |
| 10th November 2006 03:08 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Falling apart? Funny stuff. Many pundits are saying that if Bush had fired Rummy weeks ago we would have at least kept the Senate. This is still teh leading party & the veto pen will be a star shortly. |
| 10th November 2006 03:34 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Crashed and burned. The in-fighting and turning on each other is worth the price of admission alone. Dubya has already proved he doesn't need to veto anything, not with his "signing statements". He didn't even adhere to laws his own people passed. I hope he does veto often, especially with the issues like minimum wages, etc. that enjoy overwhelming support among Americans. 2008 will be so much easier.
Leading party? Where? The Democratic Party (which more people are willing to associate themselves with than the Republican party) now control the House, Senate, majority of governorships and state legislatures. Is it an overwhelming majority? No, but if there's anything the Republicans have tought us over the past 6 years, it's not how much of a majority that matters, it's just the point of being the majority. Iraq may have had more of an effect on the federal races but on state and local races it was all about Democrats. How did the SD abortion question or the AZ gay marriage question do? Unlike the puffed up Republicans, we are under no illusion that this is the beginning of permanent majority or some other ridiculous notion like that. But at this point in time, more people agree with the Democrats than the Republicans on a number of issues that are important to them.
That and Ann Coulter couldn't even bother to vote, not even illegally in this election. A sure sign that the terrorists have indeed won. Assalamu Alilkum Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuh |
| 10th November 2006 03:42 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
The AZ gay marriage thing passed, no? If not, it passed in most of the otehr 6/7 states that had it on the ballot. As for SD, even many pro-lifers didn't like that law so support for it was tepid. 2 years from now will be what determines who has the majority. Divided gov't won't be the cure-all that many had hoped for. |
| 10th November 2006 04:39 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
The Joey is on FIRE !!!!
That is right . Just keep reading !
Please ..... just keep on reading and I promise to keep postin' all that GOLD you have come to expect these past thirty two years .
W- W- W- What ?! .... Oh , sure ! :
November 9, 2006
A Come-to-Daddy Moment
By MAUREEN DOWD
" Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.
They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?)
The defense chief got hung out to dry before Saddam got hung. The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in. Two trusted members of the Bush 41 war council, Mr. Baker and Robert Gates, have been dispatched to discipline the delinquent juvenile and extricate him from the mother of all messes.
Mr. Gates, already on Mr. Baker’s “How Do We Get Sonny Out of Deep Doo Doo in Iraq?” study group, left his job protecting 41’s papers at Texas A&M to return to Washington and pry the fingers of Poppy’s old nemesis, Rummy, off the Pentagon.
“They had to bring in someone from the old gang,” said someone from the old gang. “That has to make Junior uneasy. With Bob, the door is opened again to 41 and Baker and Brent.”
W. had no choice but to make an Oedipal U-turn. He couldn’t let Nancy Pelosi subpoena the cranky Rummy for hearings on Iraq. “He’s not exactly Mr. Charming or Mr. Truthful, and he’d be on TV saying something stupid,” said a Bush 41 official. “Bob can just go up to the Hill and say: ‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there when that happened.’ ”
Bob Gates, his friends say, had been worried about the belligerent, arrogant, ideological style of Rummy & Cheney from the start. He fretted at the way W.’s so-called foreign policy “dream team” — including his old staffer and fellow Soviet expert Condi — made it up as they went along, even though that had been their complaint about the Clinton foreign policy team. A realpolitik advocate like his mentor, General Scowcroft, he was critical of a linear, moralizing style that disdained nuance, demoted diplomacy and inflated villains. In 2004, he publicly questioned the administration’s approach to Iran.
While Vice went off to a corner to lick his wounds, W. was forced to do his best imitation of his dad yesterday, talking about “bipartisan outreach,” “people have spoken,” blah-blah-blah — after he’d been out on the trail saying that electing Democrats would mean that “the terrorists win and America loses.”
“I share a large part of the responsibility” for the “thumpin’ ” of Republicans, he told reporters. Actually, he gets full responsibility.
W. has stopped talking about democracy as a standard of success in Iraq; yesterday, he said that Iraq had to “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”
He was asked if his surprise at the election results showed he was out of touch with Americans. “I thought when it was all said and done,” he replied, “the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
So it was just that the American people were too dumb to understand? W. also managed to bash Vietnam vets, saying that this war isn’t similar because there’s a volunteer army, so “the troops understand the consequences of Iraq in the global war on terror.” Is that why W. stayed out of Vietnam? Because he understood it?
An ashen Rummy was also condescending during his uncomfortable tableau with W. and Bob Gates in the Oval Office, implying that he was dumped because Americans just didn’t “comprehend” what was going on in Iraq. Actually, Rummy, we get it. You don’t get it.
“Baker’s no fool,” a Bush 41 official said. “He wasn’t going to go out there with a plan for Iraq and have Rummy shoot it down. He wanted a receptive audience. Everyone had to be on the same page before the plan is unveiled.”
They don’t call him the Velvet Hammer for nothing. R.I.P., Rummy. "
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09dowd.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fMaureen%20Dowd
[Edited by Joey] |
| 10th November 2006 04:45 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
That hag is the new Mary McGrory! |
