idrankwhat 0 #26 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs much as I dispise that clown of a president(?), I think it would be much worst if that Nazi of a vise president(?) were to take his place. That vice-Nazi is already in power. If Dubya left office, and Cheney became prez, the only change would be that the presidential speeches wouldn't be as dumb. Yea, but the press conferences would be more interesting! Helen Thomas: "Mr. President. You said earlier that.." President Cheney: "Go fuck yourself. Next question!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 November 8, 2006 QuoteYea, but the press conferences would be more interesting! Helen Thomas: "Mr. President. You said earlier that.." President Cheney: "Go fuck yourself. Next question!" If a president did that, it would quadruple my desire to vote him in a 2nd term ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 November 8, 2006 Quote We'll see what the future holds. I'd like to think the democrats would learn from the republican's mistakes, but that may just be wishful thinking. If they're smart they'll grab up the platform planks that the R's dropped and peed on. Smaller more efficient government, less intrusion into citizen's lives, balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, no-nation building...it's there for the taking, especially the fiscal responsibility part. If they can't grab that one and run with it then they ARE inept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 November 8, 2006 QuoteIf a president did that, it would quadruple my desire to vote him in a 2nd term Exactly why would you want anybody with common decency to run a country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteYea, but the press conferences would be more interesting! Helen Thomas: "Mr. President. You said earlier that.." President Cheney: "Go fuck yourself. Next question!" If a president did that, it would quadruple my desire to vote him in a 2nd term But why even bother speaking to the press when waterboarding is so much more fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #31 November 8, 2006 The Onion sums it up brilliantly/hilariously, as usual: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuote We'll see what the future holds. I'd like to think the democrats would learn from the republican's mistakes, but that may just be wishful thinking. If they're smart ........... Big "if". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 November 8, 2006 QuoteIDW - Smaller more efficient government, less intrusion into citizen's lives, balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, no-nation building...it's there for the taking, especially the fiscal responsibility part. If they did that, I'd keep them in. But they wouldn't be Dems or Reps, they'd be some kind of freaks. Unlikely. But we can hope. They don't have their own identity, that one is pretty nice. QuoteDekker - Exactly why would you want anybody with common decency to run a country? Do you mean "without"? If so, are you talking about the press? QuoteZ - onion That article really sums it up for me too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 November 8, 2006 QuoteDo you mean "without"? If so, are you talking about the press? No it was sarcasm. America is already seen as the most arrogant nation around. A president who would act in such a manner in a public forum would do even more damaga to the country's perception. I know it is a discussion that would never become reality, but why would a President who displays a complete lack of common decency increase your willingness to vote for him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #35 November 8, 2006 Wow. That didn't take long, and the votes aren't even certified yet. I'm going to try to buy jump tickets in advance! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4320602.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #36 November 8, 2006 yep. fuel prices were as low as they've been all year, so it's not a big surprise that they're moving back up. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #37 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteJefferson, Hamilton, Handcock, and Franklin are smiling in their graves this day! Doubt it. But lets see if you still feel this way in a few years...Don't get me wrong this *may* be a good thing, but the left has failed to stand for anything for 10 years. If they do like they have been doing they will not do anything here either. I think that this will be a really good thing. Not because the repubs are evil or the dems are angels, but because it will create a balance. The repubs controlling congress and the executive branch let them run away with their agenda. Both branches controlled by dems would equal the same result. One branch repub and one branch dem will mean that only what they agree on will get through, which should significantly reduce the impact of extremism from either party. I voted for Schwarzenegger for California's governor for the same reason. I don't particularly like the guy, but he has tried to be sensitive to the other side, and because we have a democratic legislature, the legislature can stop him from doing something idiotic, and he can do the same to them. I didn't vote for him because he's a good governor; I voted for him because he brings balance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #38 November 8, 2006 QuoteI think that this will be a really good thing. Not because the repubs are evil or the dems are angels, but because it will create a balance. The repubs controlling congress and the executive branch let them run away with their agenda. Both branches controlled by dems would equal the same result. One branch repub and one branch dem will mean that only what they agree on will get through, which should significantly reduce the impact of extremism from either party. This is basically how I feel. One further example>> For the most part, the Democrats who got in tended to be the more centrist ones, not the most left-leaning ones. On the right side of the spectrum, several extremist right wing state referenda were rejected by voters. one to ban all abortion, one to ban funding of stem cell research, one to ban gay marriage. So it appears as though the voters chose to trim off the extremists on both ends this year. so from a libertarian point of view, this has generally been a good thing. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #39 November 8, 2006 That's 3 of us. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #40 November 8, 2006 >One branch repub and one branch dem will mean that only what they > agree on will get through, which should significantly reduce the > impact of extremism from either party. Agreed. Only thing that could be better is a republican senate, democratic house and third-party (libertarian, green, independent) president. >I didn't vote for him because he's a good governor; I voted for >him because he brings balance. Also, to his credit, he learned from his big mistakes during his first few years, when he thought he could bully the legislature into doing what he wanted them to do. Not many politicians are capable of learning from their mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 November 9, 2006 QuoteThe far right STILL has two branches of government...the executive... and the SCOTUS that put them there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #42 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe just have to survive another two years of Bush the dope-lomat, unless the House starts impeachment procedures . . . Oh be still my heart . . . As much as I dispise that clown of a president(?), I think it would be much worst if that Nazi of a vise president(?) were to take his place. Yeah, but then if he died, Nancy Pelosi would be president! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #43 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe just have to survive another two years of Bush the dope-lomat, unless the House starts impeachment procedures . . . Oh be still my heart . . . As much as I dispise that clown of a president(?), I think it would be much worst if that Nazi of a vise president(?) were to take his place. And that line of thinking has probably prevented GWB from meeting the fate of the Kennedys (or the Dodo for that matter...) "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #44 November 9, 2006 The Associated Press just called the Senate race in Virginia for Webb (D). Dems win both Houses . . . - running out for more Champaign . . . and a John Deere hat – way to go Virginia! NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #45 November 9, 2006 California local news is showing a large banner someone hung on an overpass of the 10 freeway. It says: Mission Accomplished! NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #46 November 9, 2006 >One side just gloats, the other side bitches. Then they all switch sides. And the conservative press has just signed up for their new role. Hugh Hewitt: "And it is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn't shoot straight. Now we get to play offense." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 November 9, 2006 QuoteNick: While I think you are blowing this somewhat out of proportion, you are on the right track. Unlike Bush, Jr., Nixon inherited a war from Kennedy and Johnson. It will be up to the next President where we will go with it. What I see in this is 1994 all over again. The political hubris of a Legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party running roughshod and uncontrolled. If anyone can recall this time, had Clinton been up for reelection in 1994, he would have been shitcanned. What we see is a shifting of the power back to a balance. I've been saying for a while that the ideal setup is that Congress and POTUS are different parties. Guess why Clinton looked so good? He only looked good his last 5 years. Reagan looked great. Carter lasted one term. The Dems have had ZERO balls since 1994. Hopefully, they'll get some now. QuoteThe political hubris of a Legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party running roughshod and uncontrolled. What was so out of control? Name legislation. He raised taxes on guys like (the rich) which led to a slow recovery of the total economy. What else did he do? Introduce Socialized medicine that was rejected by his congress? SO where's the beef? QuoteWhat we see is a shifting of the power back to a balance. I've been saying for a while that the ideal setup is that Congress and POTUS are different parties. In part, but things have gone so far right for so long that balance is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay away. So everything lefty for a term or to can precede balance and be a good thing. QuoteGuess why Clinton looked so good? He only looked good his last 5 years. Reagan looked great. Carter lasted one term. Clinton looked good his last 5 because the first 3 were inherited from Bush's recession, 9% interest for homes, 8% unemployment, etc... It took his tax policies to better the matter and it took 3 years before we saw a start. Same with Reagan, the mess he inherited from Carter took time, but the difference is that he cut taxes and INCREASED BORROWED SPENDING; that's the difference. So it appeared to be fixed for a bit, but it was really fucked up. With Clinton, his fix actually balanced things and he handed it over that way. Carter lasted one term what? OK, so that means to this argument???? He would have shined had he been reelected? Doubt it. Hmmmm, I can't stop to wonder why you didn't include GH Bush in your argument. Perhaps it would hurt your argument, in that Bush looked better his first term. I don't buy your analysis. QuoteThe Dems have had ZERO balls since 1994. Hopefully, they'll get some now. I agree, I hope they do as most of the other industrialized nations do; mandate health coverage for ALL citizens, nit just the deserving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #48 November 9, 2006 This has been a good election a really good election. It's not going to make the war in Iraq go away, but it's a start. Rummy quitting is good news too. But the best news of all is that BUSH IS A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT !! Oh how I wish I had a duck hunter's duck call thingy, I'd call the White House right now and start quacking. qUACK QUACK YOU FUCKER, YOU'RE A LAME DUCK !!! YEEE-HA !!! Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 November 9, 2006 QuoteClinton looked good his last 5 because the first 3 were inherited from Bush's recession, 9% interest for homes, 8% unemployment, etc... It took his tax policies to better the matter and it took 3 years before we saw a start. Prime rate was 9.5% in Jan. 2001. By December 2001 it was 5.0% The lowest it ever got under Clinton was 7.25% and that was very short lived. Just clarifying the record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #50 November 9, 2006 >The lowest it ever got under Clinton was 7.25% and that was very short lived. OTOH, the stock market generally does considerably better under democratic leadership. (table attached.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
likearock 2 #42 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe just have to survive another two years of Bush the dope-lomat, unless the House starts impeachment procedures . . . Oh be still my heart . . . As much as I dispise that clown of a president(?), I think it would be much worst if that Nazi of a vise president(?) were to take his place. Yeah, but then if he died, Nancy Pelosi would be president! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #43 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe just have to survive another two years of Bush the dope-lomat, unless the House starts impeachment procedures . . . Oh be still my heart . . . As much as I dispise that clown of a president(?), I think it would be much worst if that Nazi of a vise president(?) were to take his place. And that line of thinking has probably prevented GWB from meeting the fate of the Kennedys (or the Dodo for that matter...) "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #44 November 9, 2006 The Associated Press just called the Senate race in Virginia for Webb (D). Dems win both Houses . . . - running out for more Champaign . . . and a John Deere hat – way to go Virginia! NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #45 November 9, 2006 California local news is showing a large banner someone hung on an overpass of the 10 freeway. It says: Mission Accomplished! NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #46 November 9, 2006 >One side just gloats, the other side bitches. Then they all switch sides. And the conservative press has just signed up for their new role. Hugh Hewitt: "And it is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn't shoot straight. Now we get to play offense." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 November 9, 2006 QuoteNick: While I think you are blowing this somewhat out of proportion, you are on the right track. Unlike Bush, Jr., Nixon inherited a war from Kennedy and Johnson. It will be up to the next President where we will go with it. What I see in this is 1994 all over again. The political hubris of a Legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party running roughshod and uncontrolled. If anyone can recall this time, had Clinton been up for reelection in 1994, he would have been shitcanned. What we see is a shifting of the power back to a balance. I've been saying for a while that the ideal setup is that Congress and POTUS are different parties. Guess why Clinton looked so good? He only looked good his last 5 years. Reagan looked great. Carter lasted one term. The Dems have had ZERO balls since 1994. Hopefully, they'll get some now. QuoteThe political hubris of a Legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party running roughshod and uncontrolled. What was so out of control? Name legislation. He raised taxes on guys like (the rich) which led to a slow recovery of the total economy. What else did he do? Introduce Socialized medicine that was rejected by his congress? SO where's the beef? QuoteWhat we see is a shifting of the power back to a balance. I've been saying for a while that the ideal setup is that Congress and POTUS are different parties. In part, but things have gone so far right for so long that balance is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay away. So everything lefty for a term or to can precede balance and be a good thing. QuoteGuess why Clinton looked so good? He only looked good his last 5 years. Reagan looked great. Carter lasted one term. Clinton looked good his last 5 because the first 3 were inherited from Bush's recession, 9% interest for homes, 8% unemployment, etc... It took his tax policies to better the matter and it took 3 years before we saw a start. Same with Reagan, the mess he inherited from Carter took time, but the difference is that he cut taxes and INCREASED BORROWED SPENDING; that's the difference. So it appeared to be fixed for a bit, but it was really fucked up. With Clinton, his fix actually balanced things and he handed it over that way. Carter lasted one term what? OK, so that means to this argument???? He would have shined had he been reelected? Doubt it. Hmmmm, I can't stop to wonder why you didn't include GH Bush in your argument. Perhaps it would hurt your argument, in that Bush looked better his first term. I don't buy your analysis. QuoteThe Dems have had ZERO balls since 1994. Hopefully, they'll get some now. I agree, I hope they do as most of the other industrialized nations do; mandate health coverage for ALL citizens, nit just the deserving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #48 November 9, 2006 This has been a good election a really good election. It's not going to make the war in Iraq go away, but it's a start. Rummy quitting is good news too. But the best news of all is that BUSH IS A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT !! Oh how I wish I had a duck hunter's duck call thingy, I'd call the White House right now and start quacking. qUACK QUACK YOU FUCKER, YOU'RE A LAME DUCK !!! YEEE-HA !!! Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 November 9, 2006 QuoteClinton looked good his last 5 because the first 3 were inherited from Bush's recession, 9% interest for homes, 8% unemployment, etc... It took his tax policies to better the matter and it took 3 years before we saw a start. Prime rate was 9.5% in Jan. 2001. By December 2001 it was 5.0% The lowest it ever got under Clinton was 7.25% and that was very short lived. Just clarifying the record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #50 November 9, 2006 >The lowest it ever got under Clinton was 7.25% and that was very short lived. OTOH, the stock market generally does considerably better under democratic leadership. (table attached.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
