Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Congratulations, Democrats

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Looks like you guys got the House for the next two years. You moonbats should love having Nancy Pelosi as your Speaker.

I guess Robert Redford and all his cronies can move back from Canada now.

I hereby apologize in advance to the poor Iraqis on behalf of my misguided country. Now they will be left to the mercy of the Iranians, and just like in Vietnam, no other country will ever be able to trust the word of the United States as an ally again.

Looks like we'll see that immigration amnesty bill that Bush wanted, now that the Dems control the House.

Posted by: Joeychgo

LOL - Cant have a positive thought huh....

Well, Gee - GW can still Veto - and the dems dont have the Senate yet either. So, it seems that nothing too terrible will happen - but GW cant just muscle his agenda through anymore. He actaully has to negotiate for a change.

Posted by: Calabrio

It's not a surprise, but it is a disappointment.

I'll tell you the positive- so far, it seems like only moderate Democrats are winning these contested seats. The moonbats are being defeated. Lieberman defeated Lamont.

But, let me ask, what issues will the Democrats be advancing in 2007.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

LOL - Cant have a positive thought huh....

Well, Gee - GW can still Veto - and the dems dont have the Senate yet either. So, it seems that nothing too terrible will happen - but GW cant just muscle his agenda through anymore. He actaully has to negotiate for a change.

You are wrong again, Joey. The House has to approve funding for Iraq. A Dem led House can simply refuse to pass a bill allocating funds for the war, and Bush will be forced to bring the troops home, and Iraq will go straight to hell.

So much for political savvy.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

It's not a surprise, but it is a disappointment.

I'll tell you the positive- so far, it seems like only moderate Democrats are winning these contested seats. The moonbats are being defeated. Lieberman defeated Lamont.

But, let me ask, what issues will the Democrats be advancing in 2007.

I dont know, im not a Democrat.

Yes, more moderate, which I wish the Repubs were as well, as I am more moderate. Our country has been divided for too long, and we need a more moderate approach.

Oh, one thing. Who are you dissappointed in? The voters or the republicans?

Seems to me - the polls have been ignored for too long, and the voters are showing the Republicans how they feel about being ignored. Shame its too late for them to listen.

If I was to blame anyone - it would be GW. He forcefed many things down the throats of Americans, which is why he too has such a low popularity.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Speaking of a divided country, I'll bet the impeachment proceedings begin within 30 days after Jan 1.

President Pelosi won't veto sh!t.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Yeah - maybe GW should have done a better job selling and managing the war. Better yet, maybe he should have fought the right war from the start. Iraq was always the wrong war. Bush Sr. had the wisdom to know we didnt belong occupying Iraq. Shame the son didnt learn anything.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Speaking of a divided country, I'll bet the impeachment proceedings begin within 30 days after Jan 1.

President Pelosi won't veto sh!t.

We can only hope....

Posted by: fossten

I just checked the Missouri race and it looks like so far almost half a million people in that state want Michael J. Fox to remain sick.

What a large number of heartless people there must be in that state.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Looks like you guys got the House for the next two years. You moonbats should love having Nancy Pelosi as your Speaker.

I guess Robert Redford and all his cronies can move back from Canada now.

I hereby apologize in advance to the poor Iraqis on behalf of my misguided country. Now they will be left to the mercy of the Iranians, and just like in Vietnam, no other country will ever be able to trust the word of the United States as an ally again.

Looks like we'll see that immigration amnesty bill that Bush wanted, now that the Dems control the House.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Oh, one thing. Who are you dissappointed in? The voters or the republicans?

Both.

Quote:

Seems to me - the polls have been ignored for too long, and the voters are showing the Republicans how they feel about being ignored. Shame its too late for them to listen.

So what issues were ignored that will be better addressed by the Democrats?

And if you can actually think of something, what can you base that on?

Quote:

If I was to blame anyone - it would be GW. He forcefed many things down the throats of Americans, which is why he too has such a low popularity.

Such as...? What things has Bush forced down the throats of the public?

Oh- and about only electing moderates...my mistake:

Quote:

The first paragraph of Reuters’ report on the win of former Nation of Islam spokesman Keith Ellison in Minnesota says it all: Minnesota sends first Muslim to Congress.

MINNEAPOLIS, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Voters elected a black Democrat as the first Muslim in Congress on Tuesday after a race in which he advocated quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and made little mention of his faith.

They’ll be celebrating in Gaza tomorrow.

Posted by: evillally

Fvck the Congress- Marxachusetts just elected Urkel for governor!

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by evillally

Fvck the Congress- Marxachusetts just elected Urkel for governor!

Wouldn't that be Marxesota?

Posted by: RRocket

Fossten,

I'm wondering in your opinion, why people lost faith in Republicans. It would seem if the Republicans were doing things "right" that they would still be in control. Certainly the Dems didn't luck their way in. In your opinion, what did the Republicans do to lose? And please don't tell me they did everything right...obviously there are some sour voters out there. I want an honest answer from you (if that's possible) on what the Republicans would/should have done to retain control. Just wondering what the die-hard Republican point of view is. Clearly something is broken and needs fixin'.

Posted by: TheDude

1) Clinton did it!

2) The liberal run media brainwashed people!

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

1) Clinton did it!

2) The liberal run media brainwashed people!

There isn't an easy answer to this, and in the middle of the night of the election, exhausted, with so little time to reflect is probably a bad time to try.

The situation around the world is bleak. It's not something most people want to recognize.

The situations and issues are being so complicated, and the media does such a pitifully bad job informing the public, many people dismiss the complicated issues. How much time was spent debating whether "Macaca" was a silly word or a really, really smart way to use a racist term wrong?

People voted to protest a "culture of corruption" but in doing so, Alcee Hasting, a Democrat judge who was impeached for bribery and perjury in 1989, may very well be the chairman of the Intelligence committee or the House Rules Committee.

It's mind boggling.

The dow has been above 12000, unemployment is a 4.4%, but now we're going to have tax increases (Democrats will allow the tax cuts to expire) and raise the minimum wage?

On the positive side, I expect this to do great harm to the Democrat party. They've seized power, but now they have to act on it. They won office by NOT telling the public what their policies are. By remaining silent, by serving as a protest vote they can be all things to all people. Now what will they do? If they show their cards, they will abandoned the general public. If they soften their tone, they will infuriate the MoveOn/DemocratUnderground.com base of the party.

It's nice and easy to bitch and obstruct, now they have no one to hide behind. The reality that the world is smoking right now, who no simple solutions, will now become their irresponsibility as well as their liability.

Arguably, this election makes the likelihood of another Republican President greater in 2008. It's a tough lesson for the party, but I'm not sure how it'll be interpreted. When guys like Santorum and Lincoln Chaffee get bounced, it's hard to guess which way the party will move. Normally when a party is defeated, they move to the middle. This time, since even liberal Republicans were beaten, maybe something good can come of this.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRocket

Fossten,

I'm wondering in your opinion, why people lost faith in Republicans. It would seem if the Republicans were doing things "right" that they would still be in control. Certainly the Dems didn't luck their way in. In your opinion, what did the Republicans do to lose? And please don't tell me they did everything right...obviously there are some sour voters out there. I want an honest answer from you (if that's possible) on what the Republicans would/should have done to retain control. Just wondering what the die-hard Republican point of view is. Clearly something is broken and needs fixin'.

You asked for my honest opinion, so here it is.

1. The Republicans failed to address the immigration issue in a timely fashion, which I warned them about.

2. The conservative base was discouraged by a move to the center by Republicans and decided not to show up. (But don't worry, Bryan says this is the perfect strategy for us to win in 2008. </sarcasm>)

3. The media succeeded in bringing us ONLY bad news from Iraq and pounding Bush and the Republicans 24/7 for two years. Except for possibly Jimmy Carter, no presidency is a complete failure, and yet according to CNN et al, Bush has a broken government. Apparently the people believed this.

4. The Democrats have traditionally picked up seats in the sixth year of a president. Bill Clinton was no exception.

5. The Democrats recruited moderate candidates to run in blue states and they consolidated seats in those states that had been seized by Republicans. The country is more divided than ever. Blue states are bluer, red states are redder.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Cynical SOB.

Big Mama Pelosi is IN DA HOUSE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRocket

The GOP lost because the US citizens as a whole are no longer buying the load of BS coming out of the White House. The economy is NOT as great as GW would like us to believe, and the US citizens are not stupid enough to believe it any longer. The Iraq war is NOT going as great as GW would like us to believe, and the US citizens are not stupid enough to believe it any longer. The GOP's strength on defense and security for US soil is NOT as great as GW would like us to believe, and the US citizens are not stupid enough to believe it any longer.

Posted by: FreeFaller

I hope for nothing but the best for this country. I have more love for it than many could possibly understand. With the votes being counted and the Democratic takeover of the House (possibly the Senate) I can only say one thing to them. Congratulations and Good Luck. Do what your constituents think is best for the country and leave her a better place than you found it. You've talked the talk...now we'll see if you can walk the walk.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Let me add, the lying, despicable GOP scare tactics ("we'll lose Iraq war if Dems are elected"), fear mongering ("Pelosi and her "San Fransisco values" will ruin this country and kill our babies") and distractions ("Kerry hates our troops") no longer work. Americans have finally wised up to this hate bull crap being spewed forth by the likes of Coulter, O'Reiley, Hannity & Limbaugh.

THE US CITIZENS HAVE SPOKEN TO WASHINGTON DC: SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Basically - Yes - the voters have spoken. The repubs have ignored the polls for too long, and now the voters have made it so they cant be ignored. Once more, it was alot of long term repubs that got beat That should tell you something.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

1) Clinton did it!

2) The liberal run media brainwashed people!

I don't believe that anyone at this point is blaming Clinton. Clinton was just the precursor. He was the fuel, Bush was the flame, and now we all get burned. This is exactly why this country is going down the toilet, because we all want to point fingers and place the blame along party lines. It was not the Democrats, nor was it the Republicans, it was the individual politicians who did things incorrectly. We have had both democrats and republicans screw up.

And you are correct in blaming the media. If the media would just print the facts, and not put their spin and or bias on the stories, maybe some people would make decisions based solely on fact and not on conjecture or reporter bias.

See Deville, I can respond to your posts without attacking you, because at least this time your attempt at humor was obvious.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Basically - Yes - the voters have spoken. The repubs have ignored the polls for too long, and now the voters have made it so they cant be ignored. Once more, it was alot of long term repubs that got beat That should tell you something.

It tells us that term limits are very much overdue. There should never be anyone in a public office that wields more power than the people who put them there. Two terms and you are out. No more career politicians. Take away the perks and people will server because they want to make a difference, not because they want to sponge off of the American public for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: fossten

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter
is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says,
"Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

The situation around the world is bleak. It's not something most people want to recognize.

The situations and issues are being so complicated, and the media does such a pitifully bad job informing the public, many people dismiss the complicated issues.

Ill agree the situation around the world is bad, but come on. GW isnt helping things, he's making them worse. He wont talk to anyone that is a problem. Im not saying we should bend over for these people, there is some merit in his positions, but after 6 years of Iran and North Korea and no positive movement, you have to consider a change in strategy.

Before you say it, yes, NOW north korea seems to be moving in a better direction. But they have the nuke now. That should have been avoided.

How long do we ignore Iran? Until they have a nuke?

Lets look at Iraq... Want to know GW's biggest mistake there? (besides going to war there in the first place) Not enough troops. Bush Sr. had half a million troops and never planned on going to Baghdad or occupying the country. GW has 150,000. There is your problem right there.

Truth is - Iraq shouldnt have been attacked. Iran would have been a much better choice. Saddam had Iraq under control. You may not have liked how he did it, but he had it under his control and could be negotiated with. Iran there is no talking to. Once more, a war with Iran might have been met with more international support, especially within the middle east. (Iran isnt Arab and is generally disliked and/or feared by much of the arab world)

I will admit, these are very complicated issues to which there are no easy answers. But this is why GW surrounding himself with hawks doesnt help. Once more, his loyalty to these people is killing him as well. Many many people think Rumsfield should have been cut loose already. GW refuses to listen to people, even other republicans.

Those reasons are a big part of why this happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

The dow has been above 12000, unemployment is a 4.4%, but now we're going to have tax increases (Democrats will allow the tax cuts to expire) and raise the minimum wage?

First, let me say thank you Calabrio. You told the truth. Dems wont increase taxes, they'll let the tax cuts expire. Same effect, but its a more accurate representation.

The trouble isnt the tax cuts, its the $3+ a gallon gas we endured, its the fiscal irresponsibility. You forget something. DO you think the guy that lives across the street from me who just had his second baby and works as a mechanic gives a crap about the dow being over 12,000? Nope. He cares about HIS wages. His income. Reality is, his income hasnt increased much in the last 6 years. He doesnt see the trickle down effect that the tax cuts for the rich have.

Before you say it, he may be stupid, but he is a voter. And he isnt alone.

Reality is that regardless of if the economy is doing better, it wasnt for a good amount of time, and people remember. The fixes GW has placed are short term ones at that. What are we doing about Social Security? What are we doing about the national Debt

As you can see, the debt has just increased and increased. Clinton brought it down a bit. But since 1980 Reagan, Bush SR and GW have done nothing to reel it in. Sure the Democrats have to consider letting tax cuts expire, but thats because the debt is crushing us and long term will hurt more. You cant keep cutting taxes without either a. reducing spending, or b. increasing taxes later.

Lets get back to the stupid voter. A little story. I was sitting in a restaurant the other day, having coffee and listening to the discussion about the Roskam - Duckworth race in the 6th district in Illinois.

One woman said she just couldnt vote for the Democrat. I asked why.. She told me its because the Demorcrats support the Death Tax and she doesnt want her family to have to pay a tax when she dies.

Read that again. I wrote it right.

This woman didnt realize the "Death Tax" is the "Estate Tax" and it only applies when the deceased leaves more then $2 million. She thought you just had to pay a tax when a family member died.

Now, Im not arguing that she's not well informed. But she understood Estate Tax immediately. My point being, the repubs renamed the Estate Tax the Death Tax for a reason. And this is a perfect example of why they did.

I see it as taking advantage of the uninformed voter and distorting the truth. Just like saying that Democrats will Increase Taxes when they let the tax cuts expire. Oh, on that note, lets remember, GW said in the beginning that the tax cuts were only temporary.

Lets talk about illegal immagration. This tough talking President who is suppose to be strong when it comes to protecting us, seems to be draggin his feet on this one. Whos coming over the border? Just Mexicans coming to work? NO. We go to war with IRAQ because they are developing WMD, which are never found, but we can let all the terrorists in the back door to our country.

One of the first things I remember when I moved into this house. I hired a landscaping company to do some work and my new next door neighbor told me he was happy to see I hired Americans and not Mexicans. My old next door neighbor, a LEGAL immigrant from Mexico, often told me how we should stop the illegals.

SO before you think Im all about the Dems - let me tell you - Im not. My attitude on this issue is simple. Throw them out. No amnesty. Throw them out. How? Simple. You make a delclaration. If your not suppose to be here, you have 60 days to get out. If your caught, your deported. If your caught again after being deported, its a 2 year prison sentence at labor. The labor? Building the wall along the border.

Ah, what about the workers? They just want to work. Ok, fill out the paperwork from our Embassy in Mexico. Then we'll consider it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Arguably, this election makes the likelihood of another Republican President greater in 2008.

Sure it does. Because it can be a no lose situation for the repubs. Anything bad they'll blame on congress. Anything good they'll take credit for.

Posted by: fossten

I've got news for you, Joey:

The only ones keeping Bush's amnesty bill from becoming law were the House Republicans. And now they're gone. So much for a balance of power.

You'd better start learning Spanish.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I've got news for you, Joey:

The only ones keeping Bush's amnesty bill from becoming law were the House Republicans. And now they're gone. So much for a balance of power.

You'd better start learning Spanish.

Actually, Ive refused. I spend 20+ years in the restaurant business, and I refused to learn spanish. Wanna work for me? Learn english.

And the fact that it was Bush's Amnesty Bill - Doesnt that tell you something?

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I just checked the Missouri race and it looks like so far almost half a million people in that state want Michael J. Fox to remain sick.

What a large number of heartless people there must be in that state.

Can you eat your words? We voted in record numbers. We elected a Dem to the Senate, Voted for Stem cell research and voted no on $.80 cent a pack tax. Oh, and we voted to raise the minuim wage.

It seem that the "heartless" people in my state voted for change.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

Let me take this rare opportunity to agree with you and say AMEN BROTHER!

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFaller

I hope for nothing but the best for this country. I have more love for it than many could possibly understand. With the votes being counted and the Democratic takeover of the House (possibly the Senate) I can only say one thing to them. Congratulations and Good Luck. Do what your constituents think is best for the country and leave her a better place than you found it. You've talked the talk...now we'll see if you can walk the walk.

Steve Well spoken....

Even though I doubt any of our two group the Dems or the Reps. will do any better.. I believe it is wrong to have the government controlled by one party.

I'm sorry to say but anyway you cut it 66% of the population is moderate. You have to work with both sides to make the country work. And if something is broke then it needs to be fixed. I don't know if we will see the fixing done, but maybe both parties will make the move to the middle where this nation needs to be. Two groups working together.

A House Divided Can not Stand! This doesn't mean we have to accept one side or the other to be united it means we have to unite both sides. We have to move to the middle.

This is what I feel is lost in Washington..

These last few years there has been no body watching what is happening in Washington, but the vote on tuesday said the people have been and are tired of what has been happening. Maybe more work done now that the two parties will have to work together, that's if they work together...

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbslmo

Can you be more of an idiot? I was sarcastically referring to the people who had voted AGAINST the amendment up to that point.

(Throws up hands in disgust at total ignorance of lib)

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Let me take this rare opportunity to agree with you and say AMEN BROTHER!

Same here.

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Can you be more of an idiot? I was sarcastically referring to the people who had voted AGAINST the amendment up to that point.

(Throws up hands in disgust at total ignorance of lib)

Oh, my appoligies to you Fossten. Your most recent postings prior to the election were so laden with sarcassim that I honestly thought of you as a pompus butt-head. But, I guess your not. Now that the elections are over, can we all just get along?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15620405/

Democrats edge closer to control of Senate
GOP incumbent ousted in Mont.; Democrats claim victory in Va. race
BREAKING NEWS
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The battle for the Senate hung on a single race after Democrats picked up a seat in Montana, defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, NBC News reported Wednesday.

Burns lost his job in a squeaker of a race, thrust from office due to his own gaffes, his ties with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a determined campaign by Democrat Jon Tester.

Tester’s race against GOP incumbent Burns was delayed by equipment glitches, a heavy turnout and the narrowness of his lead — fewer than 2,000 votes.

Democrats seized on their candidate’s lead in Virginia to claim victory — and control of the Senate, though a potential recount could further lengthen the suspense.

In Virginia, Jim Webb claimed victory — with an edge of fewer than 8,000 votes — over Republican incumbent Sen. George Allen.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Webb had 1,170,564 votes, or 49.6 percent, to Allen’s 1,162,717, or 49.3 percent.

A final count, including all absentee ballots, was expected later Wednesday.

<snip>

Posted by: shagdrum

Republicans had no leadership in congress or the senate (no Gingrich to rally 'round). The only leadership they had was from a moderate like Dubya. The result, Republicans look ineffective and have to become "moderate" to get anything done. The best example is the Immigration issue. They had to either support Dubya's bonehead amnesty program, or do what a true conservative would do (and what the base wanted) and go against it. Washington has been spending like a drunken sailor too, making them seem like the party of "big government". True conservativatism works and wins. Half-@$$ed conservatism doesn't. Liberalism didn't win this election, the Dems that won in close races did so by being moderate, and attacking republicans. No agenda of their own was offered. Now we we see the true face of liberalism.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Republicans had no leadership in congress or the senate (no Gingrich to rally 'round). The only leadership they had was from a moderate like Dubya.

Worse yet- Hassert and Frist. And thankfully, they're soon out of the leadership.

Quote:

True conservativatism works and wins. Half-@$$ed conservatism doesn't. Liberalism didn't win this election, the Dems that won in close races did so by being moderate, and attacking republicans. No agenda of their own was offered. Now we we see the true face of liberalism.

There is some concern when guys like Santorum were defeated. But otherwise, you're right. Liberalism didn't win. The margins of the victory were razor thin. But more importantly, most of the Democrat victories were done with conservative Democrats.

Two quick examples- if Webb beats Allen, Webb worked in the Reagan administration.

Local, I'm in the FLorida 13th district, past home of Katherine Harris. The Republican beat the Democrat here by just three hundred some votes (now we're engaged in the recount ect.) But he was running against a business woman who was had recently changed parties to become a Democrat.

Ned Lamont was defeated by Lieberman.

And despite having a half century to do something before, the Democrats have two years to put up or shut up. It gives the Republicans a much needed break to regroup, and it means the Liberals can no longer make fake outrage and issue baseless charges.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbslmo

Now that the elections are over, can we all just get along?

You have got to be kidding.... This forum!!!

Posted by: MAC1

I would call it bad strategy for Rumsfeld to resign after the election. He should have resigned at least 2 months before the election.

It's clear that a majority of Americans want to see a quicker end to the War and our troops to come home. Much of the slow going in Iraq is due to the lack of resolve to hold steadfast to principles of non-tolerance for terrorists. For example, non-government militias should not be permitted to organize. One of the biggest mistakes, in my opinion, is that Muqtada al-Sadr is being allowed to foment trouble and permitted to organize a militia. We should have taken him and his militia out a long time ago. In fact, I would insists that al-Sadr will not be permitted to continue to foment trouble regardless of what the goverment says. Moreover, I would have put his lackeys on notice as well by a dropping a bomb or two in the middle of one of their little pep-rallies. On a number of occasions many of his followers gathered with weapons in arm. I would have treated those with weapons to be part of his militia and would have taken swift action to eliminate them. Make no mistake al-Sadr is not part of the solution; he is part of the problem.

Therefore, my first recommendation as Secretary of Defense would be to take al-Sadr out immediately.

Posted by: pepperman

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbslmo

Now that the elections are over, can we all just get along?

In this forum that will only happen when, the second coming of JESUS happens.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by pepperman

In this forum that will only happen when, the second coming of JESUS happens.

Awwww - we're all good friends - just a little spirited

Posted by: Marcus

The one thing I hope the Dems realize is that this is no more of a "mandate" than Bush's 2004 win was a mandate. As much as I'd LOVE to see Bush and Cheney impeached and sent to prison, it would do far more harm to the country than good. Better to work with the SOB than fight him. I think the Dems are on that track, but we'll see what happens.

Posted by: biglou71

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

Steve Well spoken....

A House Divided Can not Stand! This doesn't mean we have to accept one side or the other to be united it means we have to unite both sides. We have to move to the middle.

This is what I feel is lost in Washington..

I agree. BUT. When the Repbulicans were in the minority, they DID work with the Democrats, at least to a degree. But the Democrat have only obstructed thru the whole 6 years of President Bush's presidency

So I guess when the DEMOCRATS have the majority we should kneel and work toghether. But they arent held to the same standard eh?

What a load of crap.

Posted by: RRocket

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Except for possibly Jimmy Carter, no presidency is a complete failure,

But Carter did broker a peace deal between Sadat (Egypt) and Begin (Israel) that stands to this day. Do you consider that a failure?

I mean..some people would consider Bush a complete failure, but imagine if he brokered a peace deal between Israel and Iran...you guys would build statues of Bush for years to come!!

Posted by: pepperman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Awwww - we're all good friends - just a little spirited

I totally agree.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRocket

But Carter did broker a peace deal between Sadat (Egypt) and Begin (Israel) that stands to this day. Do you consider that a failure?

Carter's involvement in that "peace deal" is greatly overstated. Egypt needed to sign that peace treaty because they could no longer afford the constant state of war they had been responsible for.

And mind you, that peace deal eventually cost Sadat his life. The Muslim Brotherhood killed him. And- the Muslim Brotherhood spawned Hamas, which continues to attack Israel from Gaza.

Quote:

I mean..some people would consider Bush a complete failure, but imagine if he brokered a peace deal between Israel and Iran...you guys would build statues of Bush for years to come!!

The two situations are even close to being the same. Absolutely nothing about the two situations are similar.

Posted by: JC1994

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

oh the agony!!!

Posted by: JLewisinSyr

AP is reporting VA goes to Webb so the House and Senate are now Democratic majority.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLewisinSyr

AP is reporting VA goes to Webb so the House and Senate are now Democratic majority.

Webb probably could have been elected had he run as a Republican...
If it weren't a matter of control of the Senate, I'd even consider voting for Webb, given what I know about him.