Election day.

George Grand

Diggs,

I think Mr. Casey is a much better HUMAN BEING than Mr. Santorum. Now if Transylvania was populated by nothing but intolerant folks like Rick, than yes, he would be the better representative. But I think it has a lot more decent human beings than intolerant lunatics, and that is who Mr. Casey is better suited to represent.

And for what it's worth, I only WISH I was no longer part of the military. I am still firmly entrenched, but may not be able to make that same statement this time next year.

reeltrouble1

The more detailed the categorzation the easier the manipulation.

RT1

shack

Well, I'm done with this thread and politics in general for awhile. I have voted many times since 1970. I have seen A Democratic Congress and Democratic President, A Democratic Congress and Republican President, a Republican Congress and Democratic President, a Republican Congress and Republican President. (and split houses as well). I've done just fine in the past regardless of the makeup of the government....and I will do just fine in the future. I enjoy discussing issues and the intelligent (and passionate) exchange of ideas....I despise what politics have become today. At least I don't have to hear the political posturing everyday for a while.

daniel_paul_

krabby5 wrote:

like you'll notice any difference...they're all crooks anyways..republicans, democrats..doesnt matter...

I also like how that scum Bill Frist succeeded in piggy-backing a bill onto the port security bill that basically tries to ban online poker..With all the problems in the world, we are worried about someone playing a $5 sitngo?...but, of course, it's ok to have horse racing...

You could regulate online poker and make BILLIONS in tax dollars...but you wouldn't want that...makes too much sense..

Plus Bill Frist is a scum in a major sense if you read his history...good republican representative...

like I said...they're all shite

Dem's spend billions on Medicare...Repubicans spend billions on war...what is the difference? The republicans just run up the bill because they know in 4-8 years everyone will hate the Dem's for trying to pay it. "they're all shite"

daniel_paul_

George Grand wrote:

Diggs,

I think Mr. Casey is a much better HUMAN BEING than Mr. Santorum. Now if Transylvania was populated by nothing but intolerant folks like Rick, than yes, he would be the better representative. But I think it has a lot more decent human beings tha intolerant lunatics, and that is who Mr. Casey is better suited to represent.

I heard (from my office manager) that Rick said "all women belong in the home" during the campain. If that is true....:(

krabby5

shack wrote:

More intelligent than playing internet poker.



You know that how? Back then there were no questions asked. They were probably euthanized as humanely as the society would have.

I admit calling a guy scum without knowing him was wrong..

Your statement on internet poker is idiotic..whether you agree with it or not, there are millions of americans playing online poker every day...To attempt to ban it instead of regulating it to generate taxes cannot be argued..I seem to remember how well prohibition worked out...and why aren't cigarettes banned?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You ask me how I know that he did that to the animals...I guess i could ask you how you assume they were euthanized as humanely as society would have..

Bottom line: You can't argue politics because no one wins....which is my point to begin with...it doesn't matter who is in office...

shack

I said I was through....:(

krabby5 wrote:

Your statement on internet poker is idiotic....

You are proving my point about no civil discussion of the issues. There are many that feel that internet gambling is stupid and wrong...their point of view has equal standing to those that feel different.

krabby5 wrote:

whether you agree with it or not, there are millions of americans playing online poker every day...To attempt to ban it instead of regulating it to generate taxes cannot be argued..I seem to remember how well prohibition worked out...and why aren't cigarettes banned?

There are millions of people doing millions of illegal things everyday, (crack, meth, heroin, illegal (non-internet) gambling, prostiution, etc.) that could all be regulated to generate tax dollars. The validity of doing so IS open to discussion as internet gambling should be as well. Don't bank on cigarettes always being legal. If New York can ban transfats...don't bet on cigarettes staying around. There are many in the "liberal" side of politics that would love to take that "right" away. If a national health plan is adopted cigarettes could be an easy target to save money and improve health.

krabby5 wrote:

You ask me how I know that he did that to the animals...I guess i could ask you how you assume they were euthanized as humanely as society would have..

You said you KNEW he lied about the animals. I know how the animals are euthanized and knowing the man I said he PROBABLY treated them in a similar manner.

As I said, I have no problem dicsussing politics in a civil and informed manner.

That said.....I'm out. (really)

TroyD

daniel_paul_ wrote:

Dem's spend billions on Medicare...Repubicans spend billions on war...what is the difference? The republicans just run up the bill because they know in 4-8 years everyone will hate the Dem's for trying to pay it. "they're all shite"

This is probably, no offense, one of the most uninformed statements that one could make. Please do some research before making a statement like that.....and a great example for why we have the divisions that we do. We glom on to a soundbite without actually finding what the reality is.

BDT

George Grand

With all due respect. "Carpet bombing" a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks is a more responsible or informed statement? It would've killed far more INNOCENT people than Saddam ever could have.

We have the divisions we do because we are all different.

MacLeod

This was a bad day for Republicanism but not conservatism. Virtually all the Republicans that were unseated were unseated by Democrats running as conservatives.

That gives me hope.

We sent these Republicans up to DC in 94 because they ran as conservatives. Over the years they turned into politicians and became entrenched in the DC mentality. Eventually they turned their backs on their conservative base completely and were respopnsible for growing the federal government more and spending more than any Congress probably in history.

The thing that bothers me tho is that in about 3 months the bloodbath will begin. Its payback time baby!

Payback for 2000, payback for Clinton being impeached and so on. Bush is going to be **** deep in subpoenas and impeachment hearings for the next 2 years!

hearingimpared

RuSsMaN wrote:

Voted at the local Elementary school, right before I picked up whistle britches. It couldn't have been easier to be an American today.

What the hell are "whistle britches?" They sound like pants with holes in it.:D

TroyD

George Grand wrote:

With all due respect. "Carpet bombing" a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks is a more responsible or informed statement? It would've killed far more INNOCENT people than Saddam ever could have.

We have the divisions we do because we are all different.

My point is that if I were in charge and decided to take over a country, that is how I would do it. I'm NOT in charge nor do I wish to be. My point is, that the conduct has been far more civil than it could have been.

I, nor many people that I know, ever made the connection between Saddam and 9/11. Nor was my intent either make the connection or convince anyone that it's a just war.

We have division because we are different, yes. However, my point is that there are a LOT of people that will hear something and take it at face value without question. The fact is that now, and historically, entitlement spending is a MUCH larger chunk of the federal budget than defense is. That's a fact.

Okay, taken the statement further: The Republicans run up the bill because in 4-8 years because everyone will hate the Democrats for it. It's just not true. In the past 60 years, Democrats have controlled Congress for almost 50 of it. If we want to make the assumption that Congress is the root of spending ills (which I don't but for the sake of argument) than the argument, over the long haul, doesn't hold water. Now, I'm not excusing Republicans as I think they are all to blame but I just think if we want to point fingers, we should at least be honest and informed.

BDT

hearingimpared

RuSsMaN wrote:

IE, Hillary making her run towards 'the middle'?

Makes me sick. We need the patriots to stand up, we need a revolution - parties aside, TRUE values and beliefs to the front line please.

Right On Russ!

W WALDECKER

bobman1235 wrote:

It's tough, when people are so passionate about some of the issues. When you have libs calling every Republican / conservative a warmonger (and other similar thigns on BOTH sides), it tends to lead to some bad blood.

kind of like when they patently label all Democrats liberal's ?

hearingimpared

aaharvel wrote:

imo the bigger picture here isn't the Democrats regaining control of Congress but the fact (or at least the hope) that this signals the end of the neo-conservative movement. Thank God.

Traditional, heartland Ronald Reagan conservatives now for the first time in 12years finally have the opportunity to take their party back and imo there are many disenfranchised republicans out there who are unhappy with the current state of the Republican party. You know who you are.

I'm sure many on this forum are probably pissed right now- and that's fine. Man i've been there. But this gives alot of conservatives a moment of pause to figure out who they really are - a Reagan Republican or a Bush Republican. I'd be willing to bet most conservatives in this country hold Reagan on a higher pedestal and they should. I do, he was a great president. I can't say the same for this one.



His judgement cometh, and that right soon.

I'm a stunch republican, I voted for Regan twice, I voted against W twice. That doen't mean I'm against everything he has started but he did make a mess of some stuff, I just hope the dems don't make it worse.

hearingimpared

shack wrote:

Lot's of misinformation there...and EXACTLY the type of stuff that has turned American politics into the sewer it has become.

Hear Hear!!! The author(s) on that site has some real personal issues to think that people are going to be enamored with that kind of trash. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that someone in office could be all that crap and have people still vote for him I don't care what flavor the koolaid is.

hearingimpared

George Grand wrote:

Diggs,

I think Mr. Casey is a much better HUMAN BEING than Mr. Santorum. Now if Transylvania was populated by nothing but intolerant folks like Rick, than yes, he would be the better representative. But I think it has a lot more decent human beings than intolerant lunatics, and that is who Mr. Casey is better suited to represent.

And for what it's worth, I only WISH I was no longer part of the military. I am still firmly entrenched, but may not be able to make that same statement this time next year.

VS. tolerant lunatics who bash entire an entire city's population as being stupid, ugly, murderous and Filthy. . . and state's population as vampires. Look to your own back yard George. Hold on let me do a spell check so as the rest of the population doesn't get attacked for mispealng.

hearingimpared

krabby5 wrote:

I admit calling a guy scum without knowing him was wrong..

Your statement on internet poker is idiotic..whether you agree with it or not, there are millions of americans playing online poker every day...To attempt to ban it instead of regulating it to generate taxes cannot be argued..I seem to remember how well prohibition worked out...and why aren't cigarettes banned?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You ask me how I know that he did that to the animals...I guess i could ask you how you assume they were euthanized as humanely as society would have..

Bottom line: You can't argue politics because no one wins....which is my point to begin with...it doesn't matter who is in office...

Cigarettes aren't banned but people's right to smoke is. . . no I don't smoke. . .no I don't like smoking but . . .see above.

Tour2ma

MacLeod wrote:

This was a bad day for Republicanism but not conservatism. Virtually all the Republicans that were unseated were unseated by Democrats running as conservatives. That gives me hope.

The thing that bothers me tho is that in about 3 months the bloodbath will begin. Its payback time baby! Payback for 2000, payback for Clinton being impeached and so on. Bush is going to be **** deep in subpoenas and impeachment hearings for the next 2 years!

Going to halfway agree with you here, Mac (which in itself is a record). Agreement is that hope lies in the general direction of the center. I think/ hope the "neoconservative" movement will fade and be replaced by more traditional, old-school conservatism (which included a healthy dose of libertarianism).

Disagreement is around the liklihood of "payback". Time will tell, but I can't see it happening if for no other reason than that the new, Conservative Dem's will want to serve more than one term.

One of the more interesting comments I heard in last night's coverage was that the (I's), i.e., Independents, in large part determined the outcome of this election, breaking Democratic by a 3:1 margin, and turning out in record numbers to boot. They even overpowered DeLay's masterful "jerrymandering" in many (R) strongholds, including Tom's old fort, the Texas 22nd, where I reside.

TroyD wrote:

As shack pointed out, nothing is going to radically change. Part of that is just the way the system is designed. Our founding fathers built in gridlock.

I'd say they built in the potential for gridlock, or to put it more classically, checks and balances. That these were weakened (some would say have been non-existant) for six-years, was an elemnet is the I's motivation.

As for change.... perhaps it won't be radical, but IMO change has already begun. For the first time in six years I heard the President sound like he did in his Texas Governor days, like the he did during his '99 campaign.

TroyD wrote:

Politicians have ALWAYS cared more about power than anything, however, I'd say the last person to really give a rats **** was Truman.

While I tend to agree, if Jimmy Carter cared about power, he hid it well. I think the Repub power grab the past 6-years was over-the-top, and, in part, this unleashed the Indy backlash I mentioned above...

George Grand

You guys have 8 or 9 intelligent, good-looking, non-murderous, hygienic people, left in Filthy. There used to be more but they moved to the suburbs in Jersey.

You forgot to comment on the wisdom of putting a statue of a cartoon character on the steps of your most prestigious art museum.

pearsall001

George Grand wrote:

You guys have 8 or 9 intelligent, good-looking, non-murderous, hygienic people, left in Filthy. There used to be more but they moved to the suburbs in Jersey.

You forgot to comment on the wisdom of putting a statue of a cartoon character on the steps of your most prestigious art museum.

Yo George, take a hike!!! Get off your soap opera for a while!!! Better yet, go listen to some music, maybe that'll calm you down. You have got to be the most negative SOB I've come across on this forum. Give it a rest, for at least a couple of minutes.

George Grand

I'm as cool as a cuke here, but you seem to be getting a little edgy. Take a nice relaxing ride through one of the city's Free Fire Zones. You'll probably feel better afterwards.

I've been bad-mouthing Filthy on this forum since 1999. Sorry you showed up in '05 and can't face the facts.

George Grand

Guys, the bottom line on this election day thread is fairly obvious.

In 2000, a lot of folks felt bad about the results of the election, and warned an awful lot of people that the results weren't going to be good in the long run. Then in 2003 a lot of those same people said that attacking Iraq was an even dumber move than the one made in 2000. Then we had "Mission Accomplished", "nothing but some dead enders", "insurgency is in its last throes", and a few other ditties. Well, it took a few years, but the chickens seem to be home and roosting.

MacLeod

2000 had nothing to do with it. It was conservatives that ended the GOP's control on Congress. Republicans have been snubbing their noses at their base for 6 or 7 years now and they finally had enough and stayed home this time around.

I agree with you that Bush had a lot to do with it also but not because of the war. Conservatives support the war. The biggest issues this time around were first and foremost the gargantuan size of the government and government spending brought on by Bush and the GOP Congress and then Bush and the GOP's TOTAL refusal to do anything about illegal immigration and the complete travesty like Campaign Finance Reform violation of the 1st ammendment brought on by McCain and you got a lot of conservqatives jumping ship.

I offer up proof for this by the fact that virtually every single Democrat that beat out a Republican incumbant was running very conservatively! Here in TN we had a liberal Dem Congressman running for the Senate as a pro gun, pro life, anti illegal immigration conservative and got almost 50% of the vote. Same in other states.

Conservatives arent Republicans, theyre conservatives and they vote where their values lie and not by a certain party. The Democrats only had to figure out that the GOP base was fed up with the party and then run some conservative Democrats and boom!

hearingimpared

George Grand wrote:

I'm as cool as a cuke here, but you seem to be getting a little edgy. Take a nice relaxing ride through one of the city's Free Fire Zones. You'll probably feel better afterwards.

I've been bad-mouthing Filthy on this forum since 1999. Sorry you showed up in '05 and can't face the facts.

Wow seven years you've been at it George; I think you need some new material.

daniel_paul_

TroyD wrote:

This is probably, no offense, one of the most uninformed statements that one could make. Please do some research before making a statement like that.....and a great example for why we have the divisions that we do. We glom on to a soundbite without actually finding what the reality is.

BDT

The only reason it is uninformed is because you disagree. Now I did generalize, which all of you first attack when your opinion is questioned. Shame on me. But you do not attack the "Democrats = Tax increase" theory which is a gross generalization. The last time the budget was balanced was under Clinton.

daniel_paul_

TroyD wrote:

We have division because we are different, yes. However, my point is that there are a LOT of people that will hear something and take it at face value without question. The fact is that now, and historically, entitlement spending is a MUCH larger chunk of the federal budget than defense is. That's a fact.

BDT

If it is a fact, then post evidence to support the claim. If I am mis/uninformed then show me how. I can not take the clame "That's a fact" at face value without the fear of continuing my ignorance.

There will always be divisions. That is where the idea of tolerence comes from. You tolerate those you disagree with.

edit: Almost(don't want to asy all for fear of the "generalization" card) every statement in here is 50% fact spun to fit someone's agenda. The joke is that many of us believe our own BS.

F1nut

hearingimpared wrote:

Wow seven years you've been at it George; I think you need some new material.

Hey now, GG is like a breath of fresh air. He says what he means, no PC crap from him and these days that's rare. You should try to appeciate that.

hearingimpared

F1nut wrote:

Hey now, GG is like a breath of fresh air. He says what he means, no PC crap from him and these days that's rare. You should try to appeciate that.

I thoroughly enjoy GGs straight up no nonsense way . . .I like people who tell it like it is. Philly is a very dirty city. . .and is a pain in the **** to live in but the people like me and my family are good people.

shack

George's posts are interesting to read and are laced with a very dry sense of humor. I often don't agree with him but they are fun to read none-the-less.