Day After Election Day

[marv81s]

One of those extremist is #3, right behind our President and Vice President. You should take a look at her voting record if you want scary. My way of helping out with health care, 1) Start with the illegals aliens in this country. My wife works in the health care field and I can't begin to explain how f'd up it is. They flood our ER rooms, they are the #1 reason why the hospital in my town doesn't have a maternity ward anymore. They weren't paying the bills, and who gets it in the end, us who do have insurance and pay taxes. Employers who hire illegals need to be penalized and we need to do something about our lack of bolder security. Someone asked why is it different in the north? Because Canadian authorities cooperate with our bolder patrol and aren't run by the Mexican drug cartel.

2) Wal*Mart is wisconsins #1 employer of employee's on medicaid. WTF is that about? a billion dollar company and they can't supply their $9 an hour employee's on health care. Calling Bullshit on that one!

3) a gov't run health care package is not the answer. It will create a ton more harm than good. Look at GB and Canada, you have to get on a waiting list for medical procedures to get done. No FDA to make sure a medication is 100% safe for consumers to use.

My opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[marv81s]

The are fascists who hate the Constitution...they are always trying to change it. They scare the bejesus out of me.

Same with the ACLU!! An organization that use to be a good cause, now taken over by the far left.

 

[NDAlumSon]

His support for the SBA and his tax cuts for small businesses helped to fuel economic growth a lot.
Clinton was always a believer in business and job growth.

Don't kid yourself. That was a result of the Republican revolution of 1994 working with a weakened president.
Presidents get more blame for a bad economy and more credit for a good economy than they deserve.
The economy roared during the 90's because of one thing. The silicon chip.
It was the explosion of the wired world that drove ecomonic growth during Clinton's presidency much more than any legislation could have hoped to achieve.

 

[maison bleu]

The are fascists who hate the Constitution...they are always trying to change it. They scare the bejesus out of me.

Really, I agree. Mixing church and state: look how much it's helped the Middle East. The more the Republicans suck up to them, the more they lose me.

And the Dems have already accomplished one thing: Rumsfeld's gone! As a veteran and a patriot, I couldn't be happier.

 

[lattedatte]

This is pretty much how I based every decision for every box I marked yesterday. I had to sift through a ton of garbage.

Jiggs, imagine how much money we could make if we started the following web site or a blog.... Voteforthemoderate.com

All we do is lay out the facts. Even if it is just for the presidency. We lay out the facts of what they stand for, what the voted on, etc. We then, based on who didn't walk the party line the most, support that candidate. We would have a ton of hits, a ton, I promise you that. People in the middle are sick of the extremist on BOTH sides and we could help people make that decision. You up for it???

 

[marv81s]

Facts always get distorted and/or spun to however a person wants to view them. There will always be somebody to spin the facts to their belief.

I agree with you maison, I will be glad when/if Rumsfield is gone. I will never get tired of saying this, LET THE GENERALS DEAL WITH FIGHTING/PLANNING HOW TO FIGHT THE WAR!!!!!

You would have thought we would have learned that after Korea and Vietnam. Politicians have no business in having a say so on how to fight a war. That is why these guys have the stars on their collar.

 

[lattedatte]

Really, I agree. Mixing church and state: look how much it's helped the Middle East. The more the Republicans suck up to them, the more they lose me.

And the Dems have already accomplished one thing: Rumsfeld's gone! As a veteran and a patriot, I couldn't be happier.

Right on, but I still despise Michigan...

 

[BestBIrish47]

props to jigga

props to jigga

Gotta love the South Park Quote thrown in there, it is so rellevant this time of year too! Quality post!!

 

[jiggafini19]

Jiggs, imagine how much money we could make if we started the following web site or a blog.... Voteforthemoderate.com

All we do is lay out the facts. Even if it is just for the presidency. We lay out the facts of what they stand for, what the voted on, etc. We then, based on who didn't walk the party line the most, support that candidate. We would have a ton of hits, a ton, I promise you that. People in the middle are sick of the extremist on BOTH sides and we could help people make that decision. You up for it???

We'd have to get Svoboda in on it, but hell yeah. I'm in. We've got too many dopes in this country that follow the company line. Want proof? I've got four words for you:

Dancing With the Stars.

We have a lot of idiots out there that don't bother to do their homework.

Just my opinion, but I thought Cinton was average. I can honestly look at him with total indifference and fairness. No way was he as great as the Democrats make him out to have been, but he wasn't nearly as bad as Republicans bash him. As time passes, we will see how his reputation changes.

Only three stand out as "great" : GW, Abe and FDR.

Regan, Ike, Truman and Teddy come close to great, but those three guys faced and overcame the most.

 

[NDAlumSon]

We've got too many dopes in this country that follow the company line. Want proof? I've got four words for you:

Dancing With the Stars.

That was beautiful !:awesomewo

Only three stand out as "great" : GW, Abe and FDR.

Regan, Ike, Truman and Teddy come close to great, but those three guys faced and overcame the most.

I'm gonna put Reagan up top on this one.

 

[tedwick]

Same with the ACLU!! An organization that use to be a good cause, now taken over by the far left.

i'd say that the religious right is much scarier than the ACLU. Trying to hard code a single religion's code of morals into a supposedly religion-neutral document is much more sinister. I actually don't know what the downside of what the ACLU is doing is. They seem to fight for your constitutional rights when they're being impinged upon by some of these new unconstitutional laws... a seemingly good thing to do.

It's actually a somewhat republican/libertarian group in its ideals, as it fights government restriction of rights. however, with the change of course republicans have taken, it's become more of a liberal rallying point. I'm happy with the work the ACLU has done for the most part.

I'll second the thought that I'm very, very scared of the religious right. I'd like to think of myself as a social liberal, fiscal conservative, but overall moderate. The christian coalition and the state of the republican party today bothers my socially liberal self to the core.

oh, and I'll throw Clinton into the fray for good presidents. Built a surplus, lowered unemployment, and managed to keep us out of WWIII, which a more recent president has failed at so far. Actually tried to get Bin Laden after the Cole but was denied by the CIA. I'd say he's a Regan-caliber president: not outstandingly great, but pretty darn good. And I'll put in a second nod for Teddy. Trust busting kicks ass. : D

 

[BGIF]

Rumsfeld Resigns!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717


Pelosi 1, Repubs 0

Had he done that a week or so ago, the Republicans might have won several of those close elections.

 

[tedwick]

Rumsfeld Resigns!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717


Pelosi 1, Repubs 0

Had he done that a week or so ago, the Republicans might have won several of those close elections.

The problem is Bush does what's good for the his and the republican party's image. I'm glad that Rumsfeld is leaving, but the nominated replacement is a "close Bush family friend". Nothing like a bunch of yes men sitting around. The administration lost its only safety valve when Colin Powell resigned. Now any idea Bush has is a good one. ugh.

 

[TexasDomer]

Trust in the fillibuster.

 

[BGIF]

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Military officials and politicians dissatisfied with the course of the war had called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in the months leading up to the election. Last week, as Bush campaigned to save the Republican majority, he declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term

Nice timing Mr. President!

 

[marv81s]

Denied by the CIA? Please. I am not going to bash Clinton. There has been enough of that throughout the years and there is plenty of blame to go around. On the other hand, what choice did Bush have after 9/11. The Islamic Facist have been planning for years to strike at us on our own soil. Luckily it wasn't a smuggled nuke from the old Soviet Union. Now we are taking the fight to them, which is how it should be.

The ACLU is a good organization historically. Modern day, not so much. What is wrong with saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school? I think most of the people on this website had to do that growing up and we turned out OK, even though it has "under GOD" in it, oh my, not that. Give me a break. ACLU is also representing NAMBLA, do we even need to go there? If you don't know what that organization stands for, look it up, because I get too pissed off just thinking about it. ACLU is representing them pro bono, nuff said. ACLU is filing suits on behalf of prisoners down in Gitmo, that is bullshit in of itself. These guys were taking prisoner on a battlefield, they didn't take a wrong turn in Kabul and end up attacking our soldiers on purpose, they are enemy combantants and they deserve the same rights as you or me, as an american citizen. No, wrong answer, wrong side there ACLU. They file suits to have religious symbols taken off of state seals. What the hell. This country was founded on and built on our founding fathers principles and now they want to change all that. I'm sorry, I have problems with that, I'm a traditionalist. I don't mind sacrificing some personel freedoms, I don't care if the gov't wants to see who I'm calling, where I go on the Internet, if anything they probably like the porn sites I go to, if all that protects me and my family, so be it. I am for that. The ACLU isn't what it use to be. They are just as bad as the Far Right religious fanatics. The far left and far right are both dangerous parties.

 

[marv81s]

Nice timing Mr. President!

No shit!! If he would have done this a month or so earlier it would have been a totally different election.

 

[NDAlumSon]

oh, and I'll throw Clinton into the fray for good presidents. Built a surplus, lowered unemployment, and managed to keep us out of WWIII, which a more recent president has failed at so far.

ted, with all due respect pal, this is incredibly naive.
One might say, that by his actions, or more precisely his inactions, he also managed to put thousands of American lives at risk.
Please think contextually and historicallly when discussing history and politics.
It's the only way to gain proper perspective on world events.
Oh, and hyperbole doesn't really advance understanding either. WWIII, C'mon !?!

 

[BGIF]

The problem is Bush does what's good for the his and the republican party's image...

If he was concerned about his party's image wouldn't he have "accepted" Rumsfeld's resignation in time to save the election?

It strikes me as stubborness not image saving. His party just got their ass kicked. In the spirit of "Yes, you got my attention with that kick in the nuts, I'm listening - now" he had the Poster Boy for Everything Gone Wrong (not a defense of Rumsfeld) fall on his sword.

I find irony in Rumsfeld's resignation AFTER the defeat at the polls. Another campaign bungled. A day late and a dollar short, once again.

 

[guff]

Maybe this will teach Republicans to be Republicans. Secure the border, the ports, and the country as a whole, stop the outrageous spending and reduce the size of gov't. Do that and you will motivate your base

 

[BGIF]

ted, with all due respect pal, this is incredibly naive.
One might say, that by his actions, or more precisely his inactions, he also managed to put thousands of American lives at risk.
Please think contextually and historicallly when discussing history and politics.
It's the only way to gain proper perspective on world events.
Oh, and hyperbole doesn't really advance understanding either. WWIII, C'mon !?!

Naive is an understatment, you're too kind.

 

[jiggafini19]

November 8, 2006
A Virginia Recount Would Not Come Soon
By JOHN O’NEIL

Virginia’s election laws allow an apparent loser to request a recount if a contest’s margin is less than 1 percent — and the margin in the preliminary results of the state’s Senate election stood this morning at about one-third of 1 percent.

While a recount seems likely, though, if it comes it will not come quickly.

According to a statement issued this month by the state’s Board of Elections, no request for a recount may be filed until the vote is certified, which is scheduled to happen this year on Nov. 27th.

After certification, a losing candidate has 10 days to file a recount request in the state courts. The petition will be considered by a panel made up of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court in Richmond and two judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. Those judges then set out guidelines for conducting the recount.

The costs of a recount are borne by the counties and cities conducting the review if the apparent margin of victory from the original count is less than one half of 1 percent, or if the candidate requesting the recount is ultimately declared the winner; otherwise the candidate must pay the cost.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting this morning, Jim Webb, the Democratic challenger, led Senator George Allen, a Republican, by less than 8,000 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast.

Last year, a recount involving the race for state attorney general did not begin until Dec. 20th. The margin in that election was the closest in a statewide race in modern Virginia history, with Bob McDonnell, the Republican incumbent, leading his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by only 323 votes of more than 1.9 million cast.

Mr. Deeds conceded defeat on Dec. 21 after preliminary figures in the recount showed that he would not make up the difference.

In Montana, the Senate race between the Republican incumbent, Conrad Burns, and Jon Tester, a Democrat, also remained close this morning, with Mr. Tester leading by about 1,600 votes as late returns trickled in.

But that margin amounted to a gap of about half a percent — not enough, if it holds up, to give Mr. Burns the legal right to request a recount. Montana law provides for recounts only in races with a margin of one-quarter of 1 percent or less.

Both races were complicated by the presence of third-party candidates who drew more votes than the margin separating the two major-party candidates.

In Virginia, Glenda Parker of the Independent Green Party had slightly more than 1 percent of the vote this morning. Ms. Parker, a former Pentagon budget analyst, had no affiliation with the national Green Party. She ran on two issues, calling for cuts in the federal deficit and the construction of a high-speed rail network to cut dependence on oil.

Late in the campaign, when she was attracting about 2 percent support in opinion surveys, she considered dropping out and endorsing either Mr. Webb or Mr. Allen, but then changed her mind.

In Montana, Stan Jones, running as a Libertarian, had 2.6 percent of the vote this morning.

 

[BGIF]

Maybe this will teach Republicans to be Republicans. Secure the border, the ports, and the country as a whole, stop the outrageous spending and reduce the size of gov't. Do that and you will motivate your base

I agree that secure borders, and outrageous spending are important issues. But do you really think that "the base" voted for Pelosi's team? Or that they stayed home to guarantee the other guys that DON'T share those viewpoints got elected?

That's the same rhetoric that Dems use when they lose elections. Get a grip!

This election was Foley, macaca, corruption, Iraq, denial, and mistep, after mistep, after mistep by Republicans.

Independents swing elections. They don't vote for "yellow dog" candidates like party regulars (of either party) do.

Both sides got their base. The Dems got 60% of the Independent vote and that was the difference.

This election was a prime example of throw the bums out. And so good guys got tossed out in the groundswell.

 

[tedwick]

Denied by the CIA? Please. I am not going to bash Clinton. There has been enough of that throughout the years and there is plenty of blame to go around. On the other hand, what choice did Bush have after 9/11. The Islamic Facist have been planning for years to strike at us on our own soil. Luckily it wasn't a smuggled nuke from the old Soviet Union. Now we are taking the fight to them, which is how it should be.

you should watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1j79y7i10FY
sure, it's biased, but it's pretty straight forward.

What is wrong with saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school? I think most of the people on this website had to do that growing up and we turned out OK, even though it has "under GOD" in it, oh my, not that.

From the ACLU Amicus Brief Synopsis:

[a spokesperson for the aclu said] "Removing 'under God' from the Pledge is not anti-religious," he added. "Just the opposite is true. The only way the religious reference in the Pledge can be upheld is for the Court to conclude that the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, which is far more insulting to people of faith."

As the ACLU noted in a friend-of-the-court brief, Congress added the phrase "under God" at the height of the anti-communist McCarthy Era. In signing the bill, then-President Eisenhower said that the phrase "under God" was added so that schoolchildren would "daily proclaim?the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
...
In a November 2002 letter to Hawaiian religious leaders that is attached as an appendix to the ACLU brief, President Bush wrote: "When we pledge allegiance to One Nation under God, our citizens participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence."

there's supposed to be a separation between religion and state. while it may be "harmless", religion shouldn't be impressed upon kids.

Give me a break. ACLU is also representing NAMBLA, do we even need to go there? If you don't know what that organization stands for, look it up, because I get too pissed off just thinking about it. ACLU is representing them pro bono, nuff said.

they're not defending the groups actions. they're defending their right to free speech. If you've read 1984, you should know what I mean by thoughtcrime. If they get evidence of illegal actions, by all means, let them rot in jail. But until then, thinking or saying things should not be a crime. Sure they're defending shitty people. But shitty people have rights just like you or me.

ACLU is filing suits on behalf of prisoners down in Gitmo, that is bullshit in of itself. These guys were taking prisoner on a battlefield, they didn't take a wrong turn in Kabul and end up attacking our soldiers on purpose, they are enemy combantants and they deserve the same rights as you or me, as an american citizen. No, wrong answer, wrong side there ACLU.

You really ought to be more familiar with the geneva conventions, specifically the third one, before you defend what's going on at guantanamo. There are also american citizens being held there, being denied their rights as citizens of this country. again, shitty people have rights too.

I don't mind sacrificing some personel freedoms, I don't care if the gov't wants to see who I'm calling, where I go on the Internet, if anything they probably like the porn sites I go to, if all that protects me and my family, so be it. I am for that.

Again, you really ought to read 1984. And recall the Benjamin Franklin quotation "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

And yeah. WWIII was hyperbole. But Clinton's "inaction" is misstated as well. Again, more of the CIA's inaction. but w/e. I'm just saying that I'd prefer not to be in a state of all-out war.

 

[marv81s]

Biased? Michael Moore's "documentary" was lessed biased than that video.

Child molesters don't deserve the protection of free speech, they don't deserve to hide behind that and the ACLU is wrong for representing them, FOR FREE!! These people share how to pick up boys, how to cheat the system, etc and you believe they should be entitled to share that under free speech? That is beyond comprehension to me.

Once again, I see nothing wrong with saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I am far from being a religious person, I said it all through school and I didn't feel like anything was being forced on me. It isn't a plege to GOD, it is a pledge to our country. I am very well aware of the Geneva Convention. Doesn't apply to these people down in Gitmo, they aren't uniformed soldiers of a country. The Convention guidelines don't apply to them. Those "americans" down in Gitmo will get their day in court, just not a civilian court. They are terrorist, if they are found not guilty in the military court of law they will be let go. But lets not forget why they were taking prisoner in the first place, and by the way, that is maybe 1% of the population down there. Their rights are not being violated down there. There is an International Red Cross team stationed down on that base (a very anti-american organization by the way) and I haven't heard anyone bitching lately. These guys are getting better treatment than our own dirtbags in our prisons are getting. They get regular exercises in the day, good meals, free health screenings, even cancer screenings, better than some of own people in this country. The ACLU isn't just speaking for those that became US citizens, they are speaking on all of their behalf, which I say again, wrong team ACLU.

I'm familiar with Franklin's quote, I agree, but I also understand that these are very different times. I am quite certain that he didn't ever think that we would have people willing to blow themselves up in the name of their GOD, people flying jets into buildings, etc. These are different times, a totally different war, I have nothing to hide. If your not willing to give the gov't the tools and the means to protect us as much as they can, then don't bitch. I truse the NSA and the president when they ensure me that they don't look and/or listen to domestic calls. If they are listening to some asshole here calling over to a suspected terrorist country, I want them to listen.

The moment you committ yourself to helping and/or empathizing with a terrorist party, your no longer protected by the same rights that I am entitled to, your a traitor to this country. Maybe that is just the old marine in me speaking out, but whatever. I'm an asshole, I accept that fact.

 

[marv81s]

Here's a bio of the potential new Secretary of Defense if anyone is interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228206,00.html

 

[tedwick]

So where does freedom of speech apply, and where doesn't it? Should it have applied to the clearly inferior blacks in the 1800's? Should it have applied to those commie bastards during McCarthyism? Should it apply to me and my unpatriotic, protesting, president-hating brethren?
(Please note the sarcasm. Blacks aren't inferior, socialists aren't bastards, and I don't hate the president. that much.)

What I'm trying to say is that, when you censor or deny free speech to a group, no matter how sleazy and horrible, you get on a slippery slope. Any minority group can be targeted with this kind of rhetoric, and then you get to a place where you can deny any group the right to say what they want, which would bring us to a modern version of the Alien and Sedition Acts. There's a reason the KKK and neo-nazi groups still exist and thrive in the states. The moment they do something illegal, they'd better rot, but to suppress their speech would be unamerican and unconstitutional.

guantanamo is a complex situation, I'll give you that. I'd feel more comfortable that the things going on there were sane, however, if the courts were open and the defendants didn't go defenseless against a court where you would basically have to prove your innocence rather than them prove your guilt.

And if you trust Bush and co. to not abuse their powers, you're more naive than I am. Look up "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and get back to me. Again, we're getting closer and closer to something like 1984 with every civil liberty we give up.

 

[marv81s]

I don't see the connection between a bunch of asshole nazi and KKKs idiots to child predators. Two of the three are just spewing hate speech, the other group is helping its members get into little boy's pants. Maybe I'm messed up in my thinking, but I think the child molestors are the bad guys on this one and shouldn't be covered by free speech since they are praying on our kids.

I do trust the President, even if it was Gore, Kerry, whoever. Do what you have to do to protect Americans. I'm not even commenting on the WMD remark. All I'll say is this, the US of A was told by at least 4 other foreign intelligence agencies that Saddam had them. Clinton's own appointee to the CIA told Bush it was a slam dunk that he has them. Even one of his former Generals has come out and said we had them and moved them before we were invaded.

 

[UNTITLEDPROJECT]

Here's a bio of the potential new Secretary of Defense if anyone is interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228206,00.html

Nothing I fear more than promoting someone, that already knows what we ate for breakfest.

 

[tedwick]

I don't see the connection between a bunch of asshole nazi and KKKs idiots to child predators. Two of the three are just spewing hate speech, the other group is helping its members get into little boy's pants. Maybe I'm messed up in my thinking, but I think the child molestors are the bad guys on this one and shouldn't be covered by free speech since they are praying on our kids.

The thing is, there used to be a bunch of KKK idiots running around lynching blacks. That's illegal. However, hate speech is not illegal. When NAMBLA members actually do something illegal, they'd better rot in jail. However, just talking about it and promoting their political opinion is, while perverse, completely legal and should remain that way.

I just visited both sects webpages. (And that's a reason why I'd prefer people not looking at my call records, internet logs, library records, etc.) NAMBLA says this about itself:

NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts

And to preempt the "Well they SAY that, but it's not actually what's going on" argument, the KKK website says that they don't promote lynching and it was just a couple of crazy folk in the '60s. What you say about one group goes for the other.

and yeah. i just had to get a WMD shot in there. the last word I hear on that was that there weren't any WMDs and the iraqi scientists were actually just hording the money. fooled sadaam, fooled the intelligence agencies.

But I still insist that civil liberties are what makes this country a decent place to live. If we lose the rights we are entitled to in the constitution, we're fucked. Again, I bring up 1984. I HIGHLY recommend reading it. It's VERY applicable to this day and age. We lose our ability to speak and do what we want one day, we'll be losing the ability to think for ourselves the next. Like I've been saying, it's a slippery slope.