Election America!

[Busyman™]

Did you vote today?

It took me about 40 minutes to vote.

[Skiz]

Did you vote today?

It took me about 40 minutes to vote.

Yep. I usually do early voting to rule out any wait times, but I slacked off this year and went today at 5:00. I waited 1 hour, 5 minutes. :fist:


GO PERRY! :01:

[SeK612]

No (as I'm not American).

Looks like a decent result for the Democrats though from news reports. Tbh it seems about time the U.S woke up to Bush (he really is a bit of a tool) and the Republicans. Heck it might even stop some of the hate (Western hate at least) towards America if the suggested results stick.

[bigboab]

I think this has been a very shrewd move by Bush. Going into the Presidential elections all the trouble can be blamed on the Democrats.:rolleyes:

[Cheese]

I don't understand USA elections (is this like the equivalent of our local elections?) but that Hilary Clinton chap seems pleased with herself so that must be a good thing.

[Barbarossa]

I don't really understand either. Is Hilary Clinton the president now? :blink:

[ahctlucabbuS]

If the results stick, I guess a congratulation is in order.

Atleast it's better than the alternative.


To clarify: Democrats have both the senate and the congress at the moment.

[bigboab]

I think only half of the seats in the two houses come up for election every two years. Anyone elected sits a term of 4 years. The Presidential Election takes place in two years time. It means that halfway through a Presidents 4 year term, he/she can lose control of both houses. I think that has happened this time. Have not seen the full results yet. As I said 'I think'.:)

The Americans will correct me soon.:rolleyes:

[Barbarossa]

My entire knowledge of the American political system comes from watching The West Wing, and most of that is :whoosh:

But I think that happened to President Bartlett once, and it wasn't a good thing, because nothing ever got done. :idunno:

[vidcc]

I think this has been a very shrewd move by Bush. Going into the Presidential elections all the trouble can be blamed on the Democrats.:rolleyes:

Nothing changes there then. Everything that went wrong over the last 6 years has been Bill Clinton's fault ;)

[backlash]

I voted. The wait wasn't too long. I think maybe 1/2 an hour total. I was happy to see a lot of people out voting for this midterm election.

[JPaul]

So if the democrats control both what effect does that have on POTUS. Does he need them to agree legislation / policy or can he just do what he wants, since he can't be re-elected anyway.

And also, which is the upper house and what is the difference between them.

[ahctlucabbuS]

The senate would be the upper house I believe. I'm not sure how comparable it is to the british system though.

Bush would have to reach out to democrats for majority support now. Of equal importance, the possibility for an investigation into the Iraqi matter would be open...

As it stands now the democrats took the congress by a large margin, while barely taking control of the senate (by as little as a few thousand votes in their favour in some states); while the republicans can demand a recount in those states...

[j2k4]

I think only half of the seats in the two houses come up for election every two years. Anyone elected sits a term of 4 years. The Presidential Election takes place in two years time. It means that halfway through a Presidents 4 year term, he/she can lose control of both houses. I think that has happened this time. Have not seen the full results yet. As I said 'I think'.:)

The Americans will correct me soon.:rolleyes:

Yes, he will.

Seats in the House (total of 435) are two-year terms, and stand for election coincidental with presidential elections and mid-term as well.

Senate terms are six years, and 1/3 of the 100 seats stand for election every two years.

The House is in Democrat hands now, and I am quite sure the Senate will follow when results are officialized.

Does anyone think the Republicans cheated at all (at all).

[bigboab]

I think only half of the seats in the two houses come up for election every two years. Anyone elected sits a term of 4 years. The Presidential Election takes place in two years time. It means that halfway through a Presidents 4 year term, he/she can lose control of both houses. I think that has happened this time. Have not seen the full results yet. As I said 'I think'.:)

The Americans will correct me soon.:rolleyes:

Yes, he will.

Seats in the House (total of 435) are two-year terms, and stand for election coincidental with presidential elections and mid-term as well.

Senate terms are six years, and 1/3 of the 100 seats stand for election every two years.

The House is in Democrat hands now, and I am quite sure the Senate will follow when results are officialized.

Does anyone think the Republicans cheated at all (at all).

Thanks for the correction.:)

Is the Senate elections 33, 33, 34 or do they have another system?

Yes.:rolleyes:

[Biggles]

Just as Hilary may be moving into the Whitehouse the chances are the Conservatives could be regaining England (not sure if Scotland will still be part of the UK by then).

Will J2 be taking an extended vacation in a Cotswold village and become a real ale buff? :shifty:

[j2k4]

Is the Senate elections 33, 33, 34 or do they have another system?

Yes.:rolleyes:

As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.

What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?


Just as Hilary may be moving into the Whitehouse the chances are the Conservatives could be regaining England (not sure if Scotland will still be part of the UK by then).

Will J2 be taking an extended vacation in a Cotswold village and become a real ale buff? :shifty:

If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.

I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.


I don't understand USA elections (is this like the equivalent of our local elections?) but that Hilary Clinton chap seems pleased with herself so that must be a good thing.

Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.

A few facts:

She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.

She won by a ridiculous margin.




















She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.

[Busyman™]

As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.

What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?


Just as Hilary may be moving into the Whitehouse the chances are the Conservatives could be regaining England (not sure if Scotland will still be part of the UK by then).

Will J2 be taking an extended vacation in a Cotswold village and become a real ale buff? :shifty:

If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.

I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.


I don't understand USA elections (is this like the equivalent of our local elections?) but that Hilary Clinton chap seems pleased with herself so that must be a good thing.

Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.

A few facts:

She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.

She won by a ridiculous margin.




















She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.

Hilary sucks ass.

[JPaul]

Hilary sucks ass.

Probly why she won.

[JPaul]

Just as Hilary may be moving into the Whitehouse the chances are the Conservatives could be regaining England (not sure if Scotland will still be part of the UK by then).

Will J2 be taking an extended vacation in a Cotswold village and become a real ale buff? :shifty:

Do you think that the Conservatives will win the next General Election.

Maybe if Gordon is made leader, the English have always had problems with the party having a Scottish (or Welsh) leader.

Tony did a great job of convincing them he was actually English.

[j2k4]

As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.

What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?



If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.

I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.


I don't understand USA elections (is this like the equivalent of our local elections?) but that Hilary Clinton chap seems pleased with herself so that must be a good thing.

Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.

A few facts:

She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.

She won by a ridiculous margin.




















She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.

Hilary sucks ass.

That's a good start.

Perhaps by '08 you will have learned the first entire first bar of the score, rather than just the first note...;)

[bigboab]

What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?

Saddam sentenced to be hung and the British terrorist sentenced to 40 years
just before the elections. Too much of a coincidence methinks.:)

[j2k4]

What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?

Saddam sentenced to be hung and the British terrorist sentenced to 40 years
just before the elections. Too much of a coincidence methinks.:)

Ooooh, you're right.

Just think of the international complicity required.

Damn Republicans-their popularity overseas cannot be denied.

[bigboab]

Saddam sentenced to be hung and the British terrorist sentenced to 40 years
just before the elections. Too much of a coincidence methinks.:)

Ooooh, you're right.

Just think of the international complicity required.

Damn Republicans-their popularity overseas cannot be denied.

They are called puppets. Bush pulls the strings or moves his fingers according to which puppet. I use the word puppet as an all-encompassing term.:lol:

[vidcc]

The word (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert-GOP-Loss1.wmv):naughty:

[j2k4]

Ooooh, you're right.

Just think of the international complicity required.

Damn Republicans-their popularity overseas cannot be denied.

They are called puppets. Bush pulls the strings or moves his fingers according to which puppet. I use the word puppet as an all-encompassing term.:lol:

Gee, you mean the Iraqis really don't want to hang Saddam? :whistling

[JPaul]

I think the majority probably do.

Not those who supported him when he was in power tho', obviously.

[Busyman™]

Democrats control the House and Senate.

George "Macaca" Allen conceded defeat and did not demand a recount.

He bowed out rather graciously as well.

Now all we need is a Democratic (or Independent) President to seal the deal in '08.

Republicans had their chance and they severely mishandled the ball.

I am liking the changes Nancy Pelosi wants to make. They are severely logical.

Watch Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and The Distinguished Gentleman.

She wants to...wait for it.....make it so Congressman can't receive gifts.

She wants to piss of lobbyists and special interests.

She wants to bring some integrity to congress (that's been sorely lacking).

Hell I can't accept gifts from customers and I'm just a grunt tech.

Why the hell should people that affect everyone's life be able to.

While congress is at it, why not change that stupid fucking President pardoning crap?

Put some logic in this shit. I can see pardoning for some death penalty cases (governors can do it) especially if the conviction was questionable but being able to pardon some rich fuck like Marc Rich is ridiculous.

I also like the Republican (can't remember his name) that is spearheading the fight against earmarking funds for pork.

He ran unopposed in his state (people probably like his common sense).

[j2k4]

I also like the Republican (can't remember his name) that is spearheading the fight against earmarking funds for pork.

He ran unopposed in his state (people probably like his common sense).

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I wonder why you couldn't remember his name?

[Busyman™]

I also like the Republican (can't remember his name) that is spearheading the fight against earmarking funds for pork.

He ran unopposed in his state (people probably like his common sense).

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I wonder why you couldn't remember his name?

Cos' I couldn't.:blink: I don't know about his other views but this one that he spearheads is quite logical.

Bridge To Nowhere anyone?

Might I add that this affects the entire congress and not just Dems or Repubs.

[MagicNakor]

Nancy Pelosi has a very irritating laugh. I wish I didn't know these things, but CNN is on way too much here. <_<

:shuriken:

[clocker]

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.

[Skiz]

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.


I'm glad you said that. I watched that show but I couldn't think for the life of me who the guys name was or where I saw it. Was buggin me earlier. :frusty:

[Busyman™]

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.

Thanks, clocker.:happy:

I loves teh 60 Minutes.

[j2k4]

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.

Flake is another one, yes.

One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.

I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?

I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(


Nancy Pelosi has a very irritating laugh.

:shuriken:

Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistling

[Skiz]

Flake is another one, yes.

One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.

I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?

I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(


I didn't know that he had leukemia (spelling?) :O

Total shocker. :dabs:

[Busyman™]

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.

Flake is another one, yes.

One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.

I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?

I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(


Nancy Pelosi has a very irritating laugh.

:shuriken:

Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistling

Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:O

60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.

[j2k4]

Flake is another one, yes.

One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.

I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?

I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(


Nancy Pelosi has a very irritating laugh.

:shuriken:

Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistling

Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:O

60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.

60 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.

They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.

[JPaul]

In a situation such as this surely your whole system of Government becomes pointless.

Congress just won't led POTUS do anything and vice versa. You will have a Government in perpetual conflict. Or does it not work like that in real life. Do they manage to reach working compromises.

[vidcc]

Sometimes there is no hope those elected will produce results :unsure:



Dead Ringer: Deceased Candidate Wins Election With Voters in Dark

By E&P Staff

Published: November 10, 2006 10:15 AM ET updated 1:30 PM

NEW YORK Things were so bad for Republicans this week in the midterm elections they couldn't even beat a dead man in North Carolina.

A candidate for a county board there, who was still appearing in newspaper ads the weekend before the Nov. 7 election, earned an easy victory, gaining 12,000 votes — despite being dead for a month.

Union County elections officials knew about his death for weeks, but did not inform voters, even though the newspaper ads and endorsements continued.

"We are instructed that it's not our job to do that," said Shirley Secrest, elections director.

The late Sam Duncan was the top vote-getter Tuesday for two seats as supervisor on Union County's Soil and Water Conservation board. He was running for re-election as his four-year term expired.

The Democratic Party distributed literature and sample ballots backing Duncan near the polls on election day. Democratic Party officials said they didn't know Duncan had died when they placed the ads and printed the literature, but did not know later.

Former sheriff Frank McGuirt said he had helped Duncan gain enough votes to knock out a board chairman who had served for many years. "I was shocked to know that poor Sam was gone," McGuirt told the Charlotte Observer. "I guess I had just missed that obituary." A check by E&P for such an obituary also came up empty, at least on a quick search.

An appointment will now fill Duncan's seat.

Meanwhile, in Texas, a Republican, Rep. Glenda Dawson, was re-elected
despite her death in September. In this case, her passing was no secret, but her campaign was criticized for sending out campaign mailers just before the election touting her record -- but not mentioning that she had died.
source (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003380483)

[bigboab]

Am I missing something? Nearly a whole page about the Republicans failing to beat a dead candidate, only to be cancelled out by a sentence at the bottom pointing out that a Democrat failed to beat a dead Republican.:blink:

[Busyman™]

Flake is another one, yes.

One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.

I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?

I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(



Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistling

Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:O

60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.

60 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.

They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.

Name a better TV mag. Dateline? The Catch-A-Perv episodes were great.

[j2k4]

Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:O

60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.

60 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.

They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.

Name a better TV mag. Dateline? The Catch-A-Perv episodes were great.

I don't find any of them compelling.

At all (at all).

[j2k4]

In a situation such as this surely your whole system of Government becomes pointless.

Congress just won't led POTUS do anything and vice versa. You will have a Government in perpetual conflict. Or does it not work like that in real life. Do they manage to reach working compromises.

Let me describe this to you in a way you can understand.

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

If you remember anything at all about that period, you should recall that mutually-assured destruction was the modus from which all decisions were considered or made.

Small leap, now:

While government in the U.S. doesn't actually function, it's spasmodic urge to commit politics occasionally allows it to, um.....happen.

As an unfortunate side-effect, each loaf of product contains a wee bit of Frankenstein's monster.

Fact.

BTW-

How's that for a brilliant and succinct summation.

[vidcc]

Am I missing something? Nearly a whole page about the Republicans failing to beat a dead candidate, only to be cancelled out by a sentence at the bottom pointing out that a Democrat failed to beat a dead Republican.:blink:
Well I was wondering just how it could be legal to run a dead candidate at all.
I think both campaigns were disgraceful for doing so. Although one has to wonder about the voters that knowingly voted for a dead candidate :unsure:

We have some incredibly bad election rules, Foley's name and delay should not have been on the ballot for example, it's bad for democracy, but I really find it hard to believe that it's legal to run a dead candidate.

[ilw]

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.

[Busyman™]

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.

It is of utmost importance for those with nary a point to talk indirectly and try and sound intelligent when they are not.

[j2k4]

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.

Insofar as you did not cite the latter sentence of my post I will assume you had no problem understanding it.

Overlay the first (quoted) with the second (unquoted) and you will discover the only relevant condition bearing on American politics.

[j2k4]

In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.

It is of utmost importance for those with nary a point to talk indirectly and try and sound intelligent when they are not.

Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."


"and try and

??????

How about "and try to"?

Honestly...:whistling

[bigboab]

In a situation such as this surely your whole system of Government becomes pointless.

Congress just won't led POTUS do anything and vice versa. You will have a Government in perpetual conflict. Or does it not work like that in real life. Do they manage to reach working compromises.

Let me describe this to you in a way you can understand.

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

If you remember anything at all about that period, you should recall that mutually-assured destruction was the modus from which all decisions were considered or made.

Small leap, now:

While government in the U.S. doesn't actually function, it's spasmodic urge to commit politics occasionally allows it to, um.....happen.

As an unfortunate side-effect, each loaf of product contains a wee bit of Frankenstein's monster.

Fact.

BTW-

How's that for a brilliant and succinct summation.

Would this particular Frankenstein monster happen to come from Texas? If so, I cant believe that you wrote the above quote.:rolleyes:

[JPaul]

Am I missing something? Nearly a whole page about the Republicans failing to beat a dead candidate, only to be cancelled out by a sentence at the bottom pointing out that a Democrat failed to beat a dead Republican.:blink:
Well I was wondering just how it could be legal to run a dead candidate at all.
I think both campaigns were disgraceful for doing so. Although one has to wonder about the voters that knowingly voted for a dead candidate :unsure:

We have some incredibly bad election rules, Foley's name and delay should not have been on the ballot for example, it's bad for democracy, but I really find it hard to believe that it's legal to run a dead candidate.

It would appear that for Congress one has to be above a certain age, a citizen of the US for a certain time and resident in the state you represent. Given that being dead sort of precludes you from being resident anywhere I tend to concur that it would be illegal to put forward a dead person as a candidate for election.

Do you think something is going to be done about this, or will it be just another example of something the rest of the World can pour scorn on, in relation to your political system.

[Busyman]

It is of utmost importance for those with nary a point to talk indirectly and try and sound intelligent when they are not.

Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."


"and try and

??????

How about "and try to"?

Honestly...:whistling

:rod:

[ilw]

In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.

Insofar as you did not cite the latter sentence of my post I will assume you had no problem understanding it.

Overlay the first (quoted) with the second (unquoted) and you will discover the only relevant condition bearing on American politics.
I figured it out on about the 3rd attempt, after having looked up what specie meant, but i still don't think its technically good english (or even merkin) and its a completely unnecessarily complicated way of expressing the sentence

Also which is the latter sentence? your original post had half a dozen sentences in it.

[underground33]

It would appear that for Congress one has to be above a certain age, a citizen of the US for a certain time and resident in the state you represent. Given that being dead sort of precludes you from being resident anywhere I tend to concur that it would be illegal to put forward a dead person as a candidate for election.

Do you think something is going to be done about this, or will it be just another example of something the rest of the World can pour scorn on, in relation to your political system.

[JPaul]

Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."


"and try and

??????

How about "and try to"?

Honestly...:whistling

:rod:

:busyrod: Quality

[j2k4]

Insofar as you did not cite the latter sentence of my post I will assume you had no problem understanding it.

Overlay the first (quoted) with the second (unquoted) and you will discover the only relevant condition bearing on American politics.
I figured it out on about the 3rd attempt, after having looked up what specie meant, but i still don't think its technically good english (or even merkin) and its a completely unnecessarily complicated way of expressing the sentence

Also which is the latter sentence? your original post had half a dozen sentences in it.

I must confess I built it for JP's edification; perhaps that will suffice as explanation.

Actually, I am surprised I hooked you, Ian-Busyman much less so.

He's always ready and willing. :cool:

[j2k4]

Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."



??????

How about "and try to"?

Honestly...:whistling

:rod:

:busyrod: Quality

:fixed:

[j2k4]

Let me describe this to you in a way you can understand.

Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.

If you remember anything at all about that period, you should recall that mutually-assured destruction was the modus from which all decisions were considered or made.

Small leap, now:

While government in the U.S. doesn't actually function, it's spasmodic urge to commit politics occasionally allows it to, um.....happen.

As an unfortunate side-effect, each loaf of product contains a wee bit of Frankenstein's monster.

Fact.

BTW-

How's that for a brilliant and succinct summation.

Would this particular Frankenstein monster happen to come from Texas? If so, I cant believe that you wrote the above quote.:rolleyes:

No, by that I meant systemic flaws will not allow any legislation which might be described as brilliant, pure, or even focused.

Instead we get massive, pork-laden waste, or incredible stinginess, pseudo-enlightenment, or utter stupidity.

Example:

Our government is absolutely flummoxed by an out-of-control illegal immigrant problem.

How fucking dumb is that.

[Busyman]

:fixed:

Would that you could adequately manage to fix it.

You are arrogant for no reason.

[Busyman]

Would this particular Frankenstein monster happen to come from Texas? If so, I cant believe that you wrote the above quote.:rolleyes:

No, by that I meant systemic flaws will not allow any legislation which might be described as brilliant, pure, or even focused.

Instead we get massive, pork-laden waste, or incredible stinginess, pseudo-enlightenment, or utter stupidity.

Example:

Our government is absolutely flummoxed by an out-of-control illegal immigrant problem.

How fucking dumb is that.

Maybe the Dems can do something about that....all a dat.

[JPaul]

Not while you have a Republican Executive.

[j2k4]

You are arrogant for no reason.

Only when confronted with baffling and willful thickness, as in your case.

You don't need to be the way you are with me, nor me with you, but there it is, nonetheless.

If you took a different tack, perhaps I would as well...did that ever occur to you.

[j2k4]

Not while you have a Republican Executive.

Political gridlock can be comforting as well.

Dems sense a great advantage to "getting nothing done" in this situation, as responsibility for the gridlock diffuses amongst the members of Congress, while it is concentrated in the case of the Executive.

He is blameworthy, they are not.

[Busyman]

Not while you have a Republican Executive.

Political gridlock can be comforting as well.

Dems sense a great advantage to "getting nothing done" in this situation, as responsibility for the gridlock diffuses amongst the members of Congress, while it is concentrated in the case of the Executive.

He is blameworthy, they are not.

Well if he consistently vetoes bills that pass then he would get the blame....and he should get the blame.

The Dems have the majority in the Senate by a cunt hair and almost the same for the House (I think that's a little over 52%) so they don't have veto override power.

The saving grace would be if some moderate Repubs vote with the Dems or if Bush decides the changes are good.

I mean the Dems said that they wouldn't impeach and he should be appreciative of that.:smilie4: I mean I've seen a President impeached for as little as a dick suck. I think lying to get America (among other countries) into the current stink we are in with almost 3,000 soldiers dead fits the impeachment ticket a bit better.

[Busyman]

I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.

Jeff was just on Bill Maher last night too.

A Republican making sense, amazing.

[peat moss]

It can't be just me but I hate politics ,so boring the rich plick always wins .

Put a woman in the White House with convictions maybe I'll pay better attention
she does n't even have to be good looking by the way . :dabs:

[JPaul]

Well if he consistently vetoes bills that pass then he would get the blame....and he should get the blame.

The Dems have the majority in the Senate by a cunt hair and almost the same for the House (I think that's a little over 52%) so they don't have veto override power.


The veto over-ride must be a fairly rare thing, as Congress has to agree by two thirds to do it. It can't be all that common for POTUS to have as low as a third of Congress in his own party, or supporting his point of view.

You'll see how it looks bizarre from the outside. For at least the next two years the Legislative branch of your Government can put forward ideas, debate them and vote on them. For someone else to just say "nah", I don't fancy that.

Re the impeachment issue, were there many Democrats who supported the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If so they would be on fairly shakey ground trying to impeach him for going ahead. I don't know how many supported it, or failed to speak out against it, you chaps will know.

[j2k4]

I mean the Dems said that they wouldn't impeach and he should be appreciative of that.

:blink:

[Busyman]

I mean the Dems said that they wouldn't impeach and he should be appreciative of that.

:blink:

What part don't you understand? Is this going to be a boring moment again?

[vidcc]

Re the impeachment issue, were there many Democrats who supported the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If so they would be on fairly shakey ground trying to impeach him for going ahead. I don't know how many supported it, or failed to speak out against it, you chaps will know.

If he does get impeached I think it may be for something else. It's debated depending on what political side one is, but there are several things he has done that are unconstitutional. Warrentless wiretaps as an example and these signing statements are questionable.

I don't think it serves any good for the U.S. impeaching Bush, but he probably deserves censuring at the very least.

When the system was designed they wanted to ensure that they weren't replacing a foreign king/dictator country with a local dictator. So they set up the 3 branches to be seperate but equal to ensure checks and balances would prevent this happening.
Our so called freedoms are protected best when there is at least one branch held by a different party. As we have seen just recently, when one party holds all the power the country suffers and we lose freedoms as the oversight disappears.
Of course this system can lead to stalemate so usually a compromise is reached..........if only I could say that they usually reach good compromises:dry:

[JPaul]

Re the impeachment issue, were there many Democrats who supported the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If so they would be on fairly shakey ground trying to impeach him for going ahead. I don't know how many supported it, or failed to speak out against it, you chaps will know.

If he does get impeached I think it may be for something else. It's debated depending on what political side one is, but there are several things he has done that are unconstitutional. Warrentless wiretaps as an example and these signing statements are questionable.

I don't think it serves any good for the U.S. impeaching Bush, but he probably deserves censuring at the very least.

When the system was designed they wanted to ensure that they weren't replacing a foreign king/dictator country with a local dictator. So they set up the 3 branches to be seperate but equal to ensure checks and balances would prevent this happening.
Our so called freedoms are protected best when there is at least one branch held by a different party. As we have seen just recently, when one party holds all the power the country suffers and we lose freedoms as the oversight disappears.
Of course this system can lead to stalemate so usually a compromise is reached..........if only I could say that they usually reach good compromises:dry:

Good points, well made.

The only similar situation I can think of in the UK is when one party does not get a majority of seats in the commons. As such they are unable to form a Government.

The last time I remember that happening resulted in the LibLab pact. The Labour party and the 3rd largest party (Liberal Party) formed a coalition Government. They basically added their seats together to make a majority. The idea was then to have Government based on compromise

It didn't work.

[j2k4]

I mean the Dems said that they wouldn't impeach and he should be appreciative of that.

:blink:


What part don't you understand? Is this going to be a boring moment again?

I understand it fine, I just can't believe you think he ought to "be appreciative' of the fact.

Big bad Democrats.

I hope Conyers tries it, I really do. :yup:

[Busyman]

:blink:


What part don't you understand? Is this going to be a boring moment again?

I understand it fine, I just can't believe you think he ought to "be appreciative' of the fact.

Big bad Democrats.

I hope Conyers tries it, I really do. :yup:

It's a joke, jay.:ermm:

I personally think it would be a waste of time. There are more pressing issues on the table like running the country.

I just hope the Dems keep to the high road and don't fuck up. They have a massive clean-up to handle.

[j2k4]

[.I just hope the Dems keep to the high road and don't fuck up. They have a massive clean-up to handle.

I wouldn't count on the high road or not fucking up.

As to the "massive clean-up" they'll have to remember to lay aside their obstructionist tendencies.

What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.

[vidcc]

they'll have to remember to lay aside their obstructionist tendencies.
You say this like it's only the democratic party that obstructs. The repubs are just as bad.

But to your suggestion that the democratic party obstructed the republican agenda......They say "you're welcome". ;)

[Busyman]

[.I just hope the Dems keep to the high road and don't fuck up. They have a massive clean-up to handle.

I wouldn't count on the high road or not fucking up.

As to the "massive clean-up" they'll have to remember to lay aside their obstructionist tendencies.

What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.

Both sides have obstructionist tendencies. Now in the case of case Repub rule if the Dems really thought a bill to be rather idiotic they should be obstructionist and vice-versa.

Bush really should STFU. I mean he had his party ruling congress and did squat.

I said it all along, what good came of the Bush reign?

They spent like fuck while cutting taxes during a war. Dumb.

The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?

Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.

The average joe is having a threat to his livelihood on his heels and it benefits the few.

I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.

A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.

How the fuck does shit like that even exist?

Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.

They need to fucking axe all that shit out.

No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.

Earmarks and "gifts" sound like a fucked up "tradition" but it leads to corruption. It was painful seeing Jeff Flake argue his stance and then some other congressman argue theirs with a straight face.

I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.

Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.

[vidcc]

The Democrats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-rQIfn3JlY)

[Busyman]

The Democrats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-rQIfn3JlY)

Did you just upload that to YT?


The video you have requested is not available.

If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process.

[vidcc]

yes just, but it is showing as live here

Apparently Youtube has McAfee busyblocker

[Busyman]

yes just, but it is showing as live here

Apparently Youtube has McAfee busyblocker

Oh yeah I saw that on Bill Maher last night.

You should upload the "farewell" as well (as well).

You've got some good vids like the Foley Spin one. :lol:

edit:Oh man! I just saw the Hackett vs. Taylor clip from Hardball.:pinch:

I like Chris Mathews. He backs people into corners and cuts through bullshit.
Usually folks can't give straight answers.

[JPaul]

What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.

He should perhaps learn the "acronym" inmho and change the above to ".... he thinks they're about to fuck-up.".

Like I said earlier, it doesn't appear right to me that a large group of presumably intelligent and educated people should be able to debate a point and democratically agree it. Simply for one individual (of frankly questionable judgement) to say "nah, I personally have decided, for hundreds of millions of people, that we won't be doing that"

I agree there should be checks and balances. However your system was set up as a direct result of ensuring that there was no King, or equivelant. What you did however was basically to have the President as a King figure but a neutered one.

We have gone the opposite way. In theory a Government is formed on the Crown's behalf and they then make laws in her name. In practice her role is at best titular.

[JPaul]

I just read the post where busy used the word "reign".

It would appear that, in this instance, we concur.

[j2k4]

I said it all along, what good came of the Bush reign?

They spent like fuck while cutting taxes during a war. Dumb.

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.


The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?

Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.

The jobless rate is at a low, yet we are exporting jobs?

I'll pick tax cuts as the reason unemployment is so low, but you can stick with "just because because" if it suits you.

BTW-We are not "exporting jobs", we are outsourcing.

Are you of the opinion a given job is created with a tag that reads "For American Use Only"?


I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.

A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.

How the fuck does shit like that even exist?

Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.

They need to fucking axe all that shit out.

Not to excuse Republican abuse over the past several years, but it must be noted they were merely abusing a system created by 40+ years of a Democrat Congress.

Earmarks and feather-bedding, as well as some of the more creative strains of corruption were devised by the Dems.

I will say it again: There have been some real peachy Republicans, especially of late, but Democrats wrote the book.

Fact.


No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.

Wrong.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are all rock stars; so says the major media-hell, even FOXNEWS calls them that-gotta be true, right?


I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.

Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.

Careful, now.

These are the people you are expecting to "clean up" a "massive mess".

Meanwhile, Bush better keep his veto under wraps, 'cuz if he uses it, he's the obstructionist.

Would he be "obstructionist" if he vetoed a tax hike so massive it would kill the economy?

You realize, of course, the Dems are obligated to tax the hell out of somebody, if for no reason than to prove Bush wrong; they can't afford to acknowledge tax cuts have had a positive effect, can they? :noes:

[vidcc]

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.
"lower than projected"-

Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

[Busyman]

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.

So says you. I'm sure there are reports saying either way. And when you say lower than projected, I guess that means we are in a slightly less bubble fuck of a deficit yet it's still a bubble fuck of a deficit.:blink:


The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?

Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.

The jobless rate is at a low, yet we are exporting jobs?

I'll pick tax cuts as the reason unemployment is so low, but you can stick with "just because because" if it suits you.

BTW-We are not "exporting jobs", we are outsourcing.

Are you of the opinion a given job is created with a tag that reads "For American Use Only"?

Oh not all a job is a job is a job. It says nothing of what the job is....like if a company's entire call center is sent to India vs. 5 new WalMarts opened up.:ermm: Let's look forward to a nation of executives and grunt jobs (technicians, security guards....jobs requiring feet on American soil).


I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.

A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.

How the fuck does shit like that even exist?

Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.

They need to fucking axe all that shit out.

Not to excuse Republican abuse over the past several years, but it must be noted they were merely abusing a system created by 40+ years of a Democrat Congress.

Earmarks and feather-bedding, as well as some of the more creative strains of corruption were devised by the Dems.

I will say it again: There have been some real peachy Republicans, especially of late, but Democrats wrote the book.

Fact.

Hmmm why must it be noted? I sure didn't note anything inheritly Republican in that last blurb. You are always the partisan. Leave it to you to defend Repubs by attacking Dems....for no reason. The Dems and Repubs of now are not the parties of old.

As if the Republicans didn't abuse the system and even help vote it in?
As if the Republican's recent culpability is to be blamed on the Democrats?

What a joke.

Did I note that one of the last Repub strongholds is in the old confederacy? Nah there's no reason to do that.



No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.

Wrong.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are all rock stars; so says the major media-hell, even FOXNEWS calls them that-gotta be true, right?

What the hell are you on about now? Oh and fuck Fox News! They are an extension of the Republican party. They over and over demonstrate that and their fan base watches just to hear what they want to hear. Others that watch are simply laughing at them.


I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.

Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.

Careful, now.

These are the people you are expecting to "clean up" a "massive mess".

Meanwhile, Bush better keep his veto under wraps, 'cuz if he uses it, he's the obstructionist.

Would he be "obstructionist" if he vetoed a tax hike so massive it would kill the economy?

You realize, of course, the Dems are obligated to tax the hell out of somebody, if for no reason than to prove Bush wrong; they can't afford to acknowledge tax cuts have had a positive effect, can they? :noes:

Well wow, we've had tax hikes before and it didn't kill the economy.

You say this stuff as if the pre-Bush tax-cut tax rate was the reason the economy was fucked.

:glag:

edit: Oh and as far the Dems cleaning up a massive mess in 2 years that the Republicans created these past years, that's a tall order.

One can only hope. There was actually no hope with your party. The name of your party should have been changed since those folks in office didn't represent Republican ideals.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4;1546994]And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.


Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher? :whistling


And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

Growth?

Loss?

Lower rates? Higher rates?

What?





No matter what, the fact of the extraordinary health of the economy as well as the low jobless rate goes unacknowledged by the Dems.

This is undeniable.

To put it in a context liberals understand, the folly of denying the importance of economic health and the low jobless rate is akin to denying global warming.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=vidcc;1547090]Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher? :whistling


And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

Growth?

Loss?

Lower rates? Higher rates?

What?

What part don't you understand (again)?

THERE..HAS..BEEN..GROWTH..UNDER..HIGHER..TAX..RATES..TOO




No matter what, the fact of the extraordinary health of the economy as well as the low jobless rate goes unacknowledged by the Dems.

This is undeniable.

To put it in a context liberals understand, the folly of denying the importance of economic health and the low jobless rate is akin to denying global warming.

Again, you attribute a tax cut as the reason for the growth. I say you can't.

Correlation is not cause and effect. One could say that we bounced back since 9/11. Do you think absent a tax cut that our economy would have worsened (or even stayed the same)...forever?

Again, a job is a job and says nothing of the job, it's benefits or it's pay.

One is just employed.

[Busyman]

Btw, I was sickened by some major Democratic leaders supporting Michael Steele.

It was cos he was black.

Luckily the black folks voted their ideals versus skin color.

While I was in line at the polls I remember some folks I talked to talked about NOT voting for him.

Someone even said something really low and called him Clarence Thomas.:pinch:

[vidcc]

[

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher? :whistling

Are you saying the repubs predictions were lower than the achievement then?
So do you think that "projections" are not over or under estimated in advance to suit later talking points?

Do you really feel that it can be called a success when a deficit is lower than "projected" when it was even lower before your lot took charge.

It's like they deliberately created a mess that wasn't there so they could say "hey look, we can clean that up if we have more time"

[j2k4]

Btw, I was sickened by some major Democratic leaders supporting Michael Steele.

It was cos he was black.

Luckily the black folks voted their ideals versus skin color.

While I was in line at the polls I remember some folks I talked to talked about NOT voting for him.

Someone even said something really low and called him Clarence Thomas.:pinch:

With regard to Steele, the media missed a very telling series of events:

Barack Obama (the rock star, remember?) went to Maryland to support Ben Cardin against Steele.

He said blacks should not cast their votes based on skin color, and that Cardin was the better candidate to represent them.

He then went to Tennessee to support Harold Ford, Jr. against Bob Corker.

He exhorted the crowd to "Send another brother to Washington-I'm gettin' lonely in D.C.".

Question:

Is this pandering or racism?

No Republican with presidential aspirations making similar comments could have escaped a hailstorm of criticism.

I guess we need to get us a rock star, too, huh?







As to the other issues, I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?

Here come the Democrats, all pristine and pretty, to clean up the Republican mess...

I wonder whose ideas they'll use? :whistling

[MagicNakor]

Now, I don't really follow American news talking about their domestic economy, and I've been enjoying some fine wines, but wouldn't the (estimated) $1 trillion Iraq war and reliance on Chinese bankers indicate a not-so-healthy economy?

:shuriken:

[j2k4]

Now, I don't really follow American news talking about their domestic economy, and I've been enjoying some fine wines, but wouldn't the (estimated) $1 trillion Iraq war and reliance on Chinese bankers indicate a not-so-healthy economy?

:shuriken:

No. :)

[MagicNakor]

How so?

:shuriken:

[Busyman]

Btw, I was sickened by some major Democratic leaders supporting Michael Steele.

It was cos he was black.

Luckily the black folks voted their ideals versus skin color.

While I was in line at the polls I remember some folks I talked to talked about NOT voting for him.

Someone even said something really low and called him Clarence Thomas.:pinch:

With regard to Steele, the media missed a very telling series of events:

Barack Obama (the rock star, remember?) went to Maryland to support Ben Cardin against Steele.

No actually I don't remember....oh that's right, yes, yes, I do remember....it's something you made up.

He said blacks should not cast their votes based on skin color, and that Cardin was the better candidate to represent them.

He then went to Tennessee to support Harold Ford, Jr. against Bob Corker.

He exhorted the crowd to "Send another brother to Washington-I'm gettin' lonely in D.C.".

Question:

Is this pandering or racism?

Obviously, it's pandering.

No Republican with presidential aspirations making similar comments could have escaped a hailstorm of criticism.

I guess we need to get us a rock star, too, huh?

I don't know what you mean about rock stars.:wacko:








As to the other issues, I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?

Here come the Democrats, all pristine and pretty, to clean up the Republican mess...

I wonder whose ideas they'll use? :whistling

When you put forth questions in that manner they at least should be profound.:unsure:

Since fiscal responsibility has not been a Republican staple we'll put that idea in the Dems hands, mmmmmkkkk.

Also irregardless to the gifting, somewhat the same thing since the Dems are trying to change the rules.

edit: With the earmarks, I'll gladly give kudos to the one Republican that stands alone on that issue. If rules get changed for that I'll gladly give credit where credit is due.

I just want the rules changed. Damn if I care who spearheaded the change.

[peat moss]

Dave Dickenson's mother Sue, a Democrat, was re-elected as a Montana state representative in Tuesday's U.S. elections . Dickerson is our BC Lions Quarter back so found that interesting . Shows you what I know Busy ,unless its sports related I pay little attention .

[j2k4]

Barack Obama (the rock star, remember?) went to Maryland to support Ben Cardin against Steele.


No actually I don't remember....oh that's right, yes, yes, I do remember....it's something you made up.

I made it up?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/barack.obama/index.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1104/1162547544643.html

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/30/obamahere/

http://newsbusters.org/node/8449

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15820741.htm

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257724.htm

http://www.miamipoetryreview.com/2006/10/barack-obama-candicacy241006.html

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/1836.html

http://www.topix.net/forum/us-senate/barack-obama/TDNJBR6OKO2IU9UJQ

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2006/10/27/barack_obamas_future

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2006/10/obama-rock-star-at-9-am.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1934201,00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Obama_Visit.html

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_298205654.html

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html?fta=y

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1722578/posts

There's more, if you don't believe me yet.

Why did you even bother gainsaying the fact?

You work in D.C.

Do you have your own little personal cone-of-silence at all (at all).

[Busyman]

No actually I don't remember....oh that's right, yes, yes, I do remember....it's something you made up.

I made it up?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/barack.obama/index.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1104/1162547544643.html

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/30/obamahere/

http://newsbusters.org/node/8449

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15820741.htm

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257724.htm

http://www.miamipoetryreview.com/2006/10/barack-obama-candicacy241006.html

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/1836.html

http://www.topix.net/forum/us-senate/barack-obama/TDNJBR6OKO2IU9UJQ

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2006/10/27/barack_obamas_future

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2006/10/obama-rock-star-at-9-am.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1934201,00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Obama_Visit.html

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_298205654.html

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html?fta=y

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1722578/posts

There's more, if you don't believe me yet.

Why did you even bother gainsaying the fact?

You work in D.C.

Do you have your own little personal cone-of-silence at all (at all).

Okayyyyyy. Some media outlets called Barack a rock star for his popularity.

I could only remember what you said....you called them rock stars. I stand corrected about the media calling him that (you went through all that trouble?).

I still have no idea what relevance the popularity of a congressman has to what I said about them being civil servants.:ermm:

They can do all the interviews and talk shows they want. They just shouldn't be receiving gifts since it can lead to corruption.

Also what does working in DC have to do with it?

What's with the at all (at all)?

Someone says something about a rule that should be in place and you bring up, "Well CNN says they are rock stars. What about that, huh?".

I'll take uncharismatic asshole that gets the job done over a charismatic waste of time any day.

[j2k4]

I made it up?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/barack.obama/index.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1104/1162547544643.html

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/30/obamahere/

http://newsbusters.org/node/8449

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15820741.htm

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257724.htm

http://www.miamipoetryreview.com/2006/10/barack-obama-candicacy241006.html

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/1836.html

http://www.topix.net/forum/us-senate/barack-obama/TDNJBR6OKO2IU9UJQ

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2006/10/27/barack_obamas_future

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2006/10/obama-rock-star-at-9-am.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1934201,00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Obama_Visit.html

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_298205654.html

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html?fta=y

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1722578/posts

There's more, if you don't believe me yet.

Why did you even bother gainsaying the fact?

You work in D.C.

Do you have your own little personal cone-of-silence at all (at all).

Okayyyyyy. Some media outlets called Barack a rock star for his popularity.

I could only remember what you said....you called them rock stars. I stand corrected about the media calling him that (you went through all that trouble?).

I still have no idea what relevance the popularity of a congressman has to what I said about them being civil servants.:ermm:

They can do all the interviews and talk shows they want. They just shouldn't be receiving gifts since it can lead to corruption.

Also what does working in DC have to do with it?

What's with the at all (at all)?

Someone says something about a rule that should be in place and you bring up, "Well CNN says they are rock stars. What about that, huh?".

I'll take uncharismatic asshole that gets the job done over a charismatic waste of time any day.

I was under the impression you had a point when you downplayed my mention of the media's treatment of him.

If I had said the liberally-biased media loves him for reasons which have naught to do with politics, you'd have downplayed that, too, because "everybody knows the only media bias is conservative", right?

As to your last, we are in complete agreement-I've said it before:

If being a "public servant" were more akin to jury duty, these pricks would be less concerned with getting re-elected and more concerned with getting the job done so they could get back home.

They ought to elect people by lottery, then drag them kicking and screaming to Washington.

My opinion.

[peat moss]

Yikes were do you two get the energy from ? j2k4 and Busyman as running mates , that would be fun . :ph34r:

[MagicNakor]

That's an interesting application of "fun." I'm still waiting for an answer to my question though, since my curiousity didn't diminish with my sobriety. :P

:shuriken:

[j2k4]

How so?

:shuriken:

Sorry, MN.

Got to thinking about all the permutations of being the #1 economy in the world, and why everything hinges on us, and how our vulnerabilities are, in a sense, our strengths, and totally lost track of what I was about.

Anyway, it's like that.

In short form, kind of a mutually-assured destruction scenario for anyone to call in the note, so to speak.

[JPaul]

That's why you shat a brick when various countries decided they might want to trade oil in euros.

Iraq I believe was one of them, oh and didn't Iran also talk about it.

[j2k4]

That's why you shat a brick when various countries decided they might want to trade oil in euros.

Iraq I believe was one of them, oh and didn't Iran also talk about it.

Did it happen?

Check and mate.

[JPaul]

No, you invaded or threatened the other countries who talked about doing it. In the playground that would be described as bullying. You must be so proud.

However, when Europe decides that, yes we will trade the Euro for oil, with the major producers, what do you have left to offer. The only thing you export which other countries need is the $US. Where will you be when they don't need it. A one commodity economy is a very dangerous way to go.

I'll give you "check", no problem. However "mate", I think not.

[j2k4]

My point stands.

[JPaul]

I'll give you check, but not checkmate.

That's the thing with the younger chessist. They see check as an end in itself and often fail to see the long game.

[j2k4]

I've gotten beyond chess as a metaphor for political machinations. :dabs:

[Busyman™]

I found it quite funny that Steele and Ehrlich had "election guides" handed out in my area depicting themselves as Democrats with the backing of Kweisi Mfume and other black Democratic leaders.:smilie4:

They both lost. I guess folks weren't fooled. :idunno:

[JPaul]

I've gotten beyond chess as a metaphor for political machinations. :dabs:

Busy couple of days you had there then.

[Biggles]

How so?

:shuriken:

Sorry, MN.

Got to thinking about all the permutations of being the #1 economy in the world, and why everything hinges on us, and how our vulnerabilities are, in a sense, our strengths, and totally lost track of what I was about.

Anyway, it's like that.

In short form, kind of a mutually-assured destruction scenario for anyone to call in the note, so to speak.


Yup if you are going to go down the deficit route it is best to do it big style - that way those owed have an interest in keeping the wheels on the cart. :)

However, that suggests a degree of intelligent intervention that I am not convinced the Bush administration actually had in arriving at this point. So it might be better to view it as merely fortutitous. That said the idea that the Chinese much less the EU are looking for the US stumble is a little wide of the mark imho. In our global village everybody is far too busy selling stuff to each other to worry overly about dogma.

[j2k4]

I've gotten beyond chess as a metaphor for political machinations. :dabs:

Busy couple of days you had there then.

Busy had nothing to do with it, but time flies, just the same. :D

[JPaul]

Busy couple of days you had there then.

Busy had nothing to do with it, but time flies, just the same. :D

It certainly does metaphorically.

[j2k4]

However, that suggests a degree of intelligent intervention that I am not convinced the Bush administration actually had in arriving at this point. So it might be better to view it as merely fortutitous. That said the idea that the Chinese much less the EU are looking for the US stumble is a little wide of the mark imho. In our global village everybody is far too busy selling stuff to each other to worry overly about dogma.

Quite right, especially your last.

Other large players are learning the benefits of a flat-earth system of trading goods and services, and this bodes well for global stability.

The U.S. has to adapt as well as everyone else; India and China, for example, have no reason to make the mistakes the U.S. has, nor the same ruts to clamber out of.

Some decry the trend, and mischaracterize it as outsourcing, but it has been the greatest contributor to global economic formation and growth to date.

[j2k4]

Busy had nothing to do with it, but time flies, just the same. :D

It certainly does metaphorically.

Yes.

I got over the chess thingie in, what......just a little more than 24 hours?

You know it, you were there for the whole thing. :yup: