Mighty Quiet

No Jack, Americans did not figure that out, the liberal media in consort with the left wingers told them that repeatedly enough that it became truth.

That is known a policeing, and it has never worked anywhere against religious fanatics such as these terrorists. These terrorists have much to celebrate.

Totally false

Seniors are all for socialization of medical care

The liberal judges do legislate, unconstitutionally.

Almost complete balderdash

No it was a failure to spell out their plans and goals. And turning a blind eye to the border issue.

Oh but they absolutely are, or George soros and the internet will have their heads.

They were unwilling to order a hit on the remaining leftist Judges in order to open up a spot for a conservative.

Nope, this was an extreme leftist movement miraculously exceeding all expectations.

 

Jack Matthews on the main thrusts of the Democrats:

//The third theme was health care reform. Click on CNN's
website where the exit poll data was collected to
see how high the percentage of seniors and middle aged
American votes went to Democrats asa a result of this issue.//

Evidently it was only in the swing districts that this idea
was pushed. I didn't see any of it in the campaigns in my
red (or whatever the color is for Republican congress critters) state.

 

Hillclimber, ScottJ, & others, republicans need to blame ourselves for this loss, not the media, and not the other side. That's what they do. It's our fault, not theirs.

I strongly suspect the resignation of Rumsfeld.

 

I certainly understand your frustration, but you are one of the third of American voters that obviously lives in fantasy land and doesn't have a clue. Your responses are an arrow to the reason why the Republicans were ousted. Blinders do not win elections.

 

No doubt about it. Dems didn't win. Republicans lost by abandoning the principles that got them elected.

Unlike Dem voters, the conservatives that put the GOP in power have held them accountable for what they did/didn't do and their methods.

 

The Republicans lost because:

a) Rumsfeld didn't do as he should and fall on his sword 8 months ago instead of apparently today. Had he done so, the GOP would have kept power in the Senate.

b) Scandal. Whether it was orchestrated by Dems/media for maximum effect or not, the Abramoff and Foley scandals were responsible for putting the House in Dem hands.

c) Abandonment of principle. To one degree or another, the first two items reflect this. In 94, the GOP swept to power under Reaganism. Ten years later they were guilty of the same pork barrel politics that helped them win. The only thing they retained was the FACT of the Reagan/JFK tax philosophy. Lower rates on the investment class = increased receipts.

The Dems presented one idea: "change". They didn't even define it. Here in MO, the only specific policy I heard the McCaskell campaign address was the minimum wage. Otherwise, they just beat the mantra of ambiguous "change".

The GOP won in 94. They presented ideals that the American people bought into. The Dems didn't win yesterday. They became the default choice.

 

Nope. That isn't a consistent theme at all. Some demand an out now and others realize how disasterous a time table would be. So instead of actually stating "this is what we stand for", they said the Iraq policy needs to "change". Everyone agrees with that... except maybe Cheney.

No it hasn't. What you state is a reflection of the purposeful ignorance contrived by the leftists. The terrorists consider Iraq center stage. Saddam certainly wanted to promote terrorism and was a terror sponsoring ruler. The investigations have concluded that there was some contact of unknown nature between al Qaeda and Saddam's gov't with indications that they wanted cooperation.

The only "good" idea IMO offered by the Dems was the Biden approach which was by no means broadly accepted by the Dems.

As opposed to the vague "change the course" demagogury.

Yes. I see your point. They are obviously much more qualified to do that than the military commanders responsible for the prosecution of the war.

Balancing the tax load? What does that mean Jack? You think the highest 50% should pay even more when they're already paying well over 80%? You mean that the job creating investment and business class should pay more?

You know what happens when they do? They don't hire, expand business, invest in technology, or improve employee benefits. They do raise prices, lay off, close businesses, seek shelters, etc.

But the most obvious reason to NOT increase taxes is that IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY NOR NANCY PELOSI'S.

Please provide objective proof for this.

BTW, I thought you Dems wanted people to pay more in taxes.

In actuality, your points are self-contradictory. When rates are reduced but people pay more... by mathematical necessity they are making more.

Moreover, if this were even close to being true the media and Dems wouldn't have talked about anything else during the campaign.

No matter who voted what, increased gov't involvement in health care will not improve service, will not lower costs, but will create more costly and frustrating bureaucracy. That is pure and simple FACT.

If you want improvements in health care costs you have to reintroduce consumer power. Medisave accounts would be an excellent start but liberals who want to socialize medicine have to this point prevented what they know to be a viable solution... but one that wouldn't centralize power.

Regardless of what Bush has done or not done, liberal judges DO legistlate from the bench. They create law that wasn't in the law they were ruling on. Roe v Wade regardless of what you think of abortion is a prime example. Nothing in the USC comes close to providing this right and it isn't private any more than murdering someone in your basement is.

I think Bush has earned his status but McCain was right when he said it went much deeper than Bush or Iraq. He rightly assessed that it happened because the GOP left its conservative principles.

Frankly, there is evidence that they'd like to do just that. They have promoted and will undoubtedly now push restrictions on internet free speech and the "fairness doctrine" to thwart conservative speech on the radio... all the while very hypocritically lamenting the violation of privacy associated with intercepting terrorists' cell phone calls.

So you think that replacing two of the previous four with Alito and Roberts put us further away from a Court that will overturn that travesty of justice?

Rumor is that Stephens will step down. Due to a Dem Senate, Bush will not get another Alito or Roberts on the court much less a Scalia who is the most devoted to the Constitution of them all.

This election specifically decreased the likelihood that Roe will be overturned while simultaneously ensuring that common sense laws concerning parental consent and illegal transport will be overturned upon the altar of Molech.

 

Yeah it just happened...and it is the republicans own fault that they lost. They forgot why they were put into office to begin with. Let's pray that those voted out will remember what the republican party use to stand for.

With the platform of raise taxes, cut and run, and raising minimum wage, i'm worried about what's going to happen if the dems get the senate too...our nation needs a lot of prayer.

 

Oh for your amusement Jack:

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061108/D8L91IQ00.html

We were probably one Justice away from seeing a pro-life court. Congrats again on the Dem victory that will prevent the deaths of millions on the altar of Molech.

 

It was probably the last chance the religous right had to continue to be the restrainer, on a large scale against the evils inroads. The only way is for the Republican party to return to its Christian base, and I'm very skeptical about that. We reap what we sow.

I knew it was coming from the dialog on here, but not to this degree. Christianity is going to take the position of being happy with whatever the leftists decide is OK.

 

This nation does not do that and never has. Why would you perpetuate that lie?

 

Which part of 'if' are you having problems with?

 

Hey, I got an idea. Take the advice of this thread, and be "mighty quiet."

 

Thank you very much!

I must say that I have truly enjoyed this election; the results are even greater than I imagined they would be.

I caught a little bit of Bush's press conference today and was pleasantly surprised. President Bush sounded like he would work with this democratic Congress, like he did when he was governor of Texas.

 

I have absolutely no confidence in someone who sees the empowerment of a party that officially endorses the right to commit infanticide as a thing to take pleasure in. I spend probably more time than I should wondering how you could be so lacking of compassion and discernment. I have been preaching on Romans 1 and the list of charges against man at the end of it.

The one that comes to mind when I think of your callous attitude toward the unborn is "without natural affection".

Yeah... And Pelosi said something about running the most ethical House in history... sort of like Clinton's pledge after winning the first time.

Conyers has already developed the impeachment plan against Bush. The first time Bush tells the Dems "no", it will start. Even worse, it appears that another Supreme Court Justice will retire soon. The worst effect of this election is that Bush will not be able to seat another constructionist Justice.

The best effect btw was a culling of a few liberal Republicans like Chaffee.

Even if Bush were willing, the Republicans in Congress have absolutely no incentive to see the Dems successfully implement their socialistic agenda over the next two years.

 

Thank you for the sermon preacher. :sleep:

That's Speaker of the House Pelosi to you mister.:laugh:

I worry more about another extreme right-wing judge being appointed more than one that is liberal.

We'll see won't we.

 

Good one. OK. Have it your way. She's Mister Speaker Pelosi.:type:

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

pel...
Pelic..
Relic..
no.....

Pelvic..
pelope
pelllloci

Oh, I just can bring my self to say Speaker of the House, Pel...!!

How about just Miss Nancy? That is my mom's name... Nancy... I can say that...

 

I saw the "if" but saw no other reason for the post than to bash the military. I didn't think you were playing a little game.