Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 08:08:06 AM
I further predict massive wailing and gnashing of teeth from the leftists. There will be all sorts of accusations of voter fraud and various attempts to undermine the democratic process.
Be daring. Take a risk. Lay out your own predictions here. We'll see who was right and who was wrong on Wednesday.
Post by: wingnutx on November 06, 2006, 08:15:42 AM
The only thing I seriously predict are accusations that the Republicans "diebolded" the elections.
Post by: charby on November 06, 2006, 08:55:00 AM
People will complain that there was voter fraud and the Republicans hacked into the Diebold system.
In Iowa Jim Nussle will win the Governor seat by less than 1000 votes statewide, Chet Culver who is also running for governor and currently Sec of State will take months to verify the election and demand recounts upon recounts, maybe in June or July he will concede the election.
It will be interesting that the election verifier is also seeking the highest public office in our state.
-C
Post by: The Rabbi on November 06, 2006, 09:52:32 AM
I predict lawyers will make out like bandits no matter what happens.
Post by: AJ Dual on November 06, 2006, 09:58:47 AM
It will be presented as a "wake-up call" for the GOP, and the MSM will try to spin it as a "mandate" for bi-partisanship and "compromise", however, it'll be one more nail in the coffin of the DNC/MSM alliance that's controlled American politics from 1960 up until 2000. If they can't capture at least one house in what's probably their most fertile political ground since Watergate, they may never do it again this generation or even the next.
When you factor in that on average conservatives out-breed liberals, that the GOP has held the advantage in sub $1000 individual donations for several election cycles now, that the GOP has largely "won" the latest round of redistricting fights, and the continued decline of the left-MSM, any gains that the Democrats make in '06 or '08 will be temporary at best.
Even if I'm wrong about tomorrow, I still predict that "bright spots" aside, the Democratic party will be in the doldrums for the next 30-50 years or so, just like the GOP was from 1945-1994&
Here locally in WI. I predict Mark Green will win the Governorship, as will enough of the Republican Controlled Assembly and Senate to pass CCW, tax reform, and Voter ID bills in the next sessions.
I also predict that WI's '(anti) Gay Marriage Amendment' will pass.
I prove the authenticity of my predictions by NOT editing this post.
Post by: Car Knocker on November 06, 2006, 10:25:24 AM
Post by: charby on November 06, 2006, 10:36:03 AM
Post by: grampster on November 06, 2006, 10:38:59 AM
Post by: Dannyboy on November 06, 2006, 10:58:04 AM
It will be presented as a "wake-up call" for the GOP, and the MSM will try to spin it as a "mandate" for bi-partisanship and "compromise", however, it'll be one more nail in the coffin of the DNC/MSM alliance that's controlled American politics from 1960 up until 2000. If they can't capture at least one house in what's probably their most fertile political ground since Watergate, they may never do it again this generation or even the next.
I think this will probably depend on what the Republicans do over the next 2 years. If they continue down the path they've been on for the last 6 years, they(we) may be screwed royally in 2008. They need to pull their collective heads out of their collective butts.
Post by: StopTheGrays on November 06, 2006, 11:18:08 AM
Governor Doyle will be re-elected due to the 4000 additional votes cast by people voting twice, people who were compensated, living on a reservations and by felons.
Post by: HankB on November 06, 2006, 11:36:23 AM
If the GOP - barely - retains control, they'll continue moving to the left and spending money like drunken sailors, figuring we won't hold them accountable at the polls. We're better off without RINOs like Lincoln Chaffe, but I'm afraid that some not-so-bad Republicans will be axed, too, thanks to the dominant media's deliberate, calculated siding with the other side.
If
I predict Texas will re-elect its GOP senator and GOP governor.
I predict the Senate will - barely - remain in GOP hands.
I predict the House won't. (I really, really hope I'm wrong on this one.)
Post by: Standing Wolf on November 06, 2006, 12:56:57 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on November 06, 2006, 01:34:08 PM
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 01:37:07 PM
Post by: cosine on November 06, 2006, 02:09:31 PM
Republicans will only lose two or three seats each in both the Senate and the House. Here in WI, Green will be elected governor, and the Senate and Assembly will remain Republican.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 02:12:11 PM
I predict that the vote will go against Bush.
[whisper]Pssst. He's not running.[/whisper]
Post by: Ron on November 06, 2006, 02:16:59 PM
The thought of trying to get a decent Supreme Court nominee past a Patrick Leahy run Judicial committee will scare enough Republicans to vote.
Post by: garyk/nm on November 06, 2006, 02:31:37 PM
Post by: Guest on November 06, 2006, 03:29:37 PM
Worst case senario, we end up where we were, but we've gained a better US Rep.
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on November 06, 2006, 04:05:25 PM
All three corrupt ballot issues pass.
Yawn...
- NF
Post by: Lee on November 06, 2006, 04:23:56 PM
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 05:32:00 PM
Quote
[whisper]Pssst. He's not running.[/whisper]
Actually if you've been paying attention, he certainly is... it's just not his name on the ballot. My point is that dems aren't going to win because they are good... they are going to win because Bush policy is that bad.
Post by: Guest on November 06, 2006, 07:06:52 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 06, 2006, 11:53:59 PM
Quote
[whisper]Pssst. He's not running.[/whisper]
Actually if you've been paying attention, he certainly is... it's just not his name on the ballot. My point is that dems aren't going to win because they are good... they are going to win because Bush policy is that bad.
Gee, I was fairly familiar with most of the major races throughout the country and I havent seen Candidate Bush on any ballot.
It is Democratic strategy to paint this election as a referendum on Bush. They do this because they see his low poll ratings and because they have nothing else to offer.
WHat is the Democratic position on Iraq? Dunno
What is the Democratic position on immigration? Dunno.
If Republicans have been that bad (and they have truly squandered their mandate imo) what are Dems going to do that will be that much better? The answer is nothing. And you can't beat someone with no one.
I think the Dems will be very disappointed tomorrow night.
Post by: lee n. field on November 07, 2006, 03:37:33 AM
(Duh.)
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 05:30:40 AM
Quote
It is Democratic strategy to paint this election as a referendum on Bush. They do this because they see his low poll ratings and because they have nothing else to offer.
WHat is the Democratic position on Iraq? Dunno
What is the Democratic position on immigration? Dunno.
WHat is the Democratic position on Iraq? Dunno
What is the Democratic position on immigration? Dunno.
You couldn't be more correct. it absolutely IS their strategy to paint this as a referendum on Bush. but they are doing this because his policies are so bad and his "Iraq plan" (whatever IT is) is so bad that EVEN they look good by comparison... the right's problem is (up until they started campaigning) they support him.
You don't know the democratic position on Iraq because their are numerous positions about what to do and when to do it... and as screwed up as they are about that they STILL look better to most americans.
If you don't know their position on immigration you must have slept through the past 9 months... ironically, they support the president.
Quote
I havent seen Candidate Bush on any ballot.
were you not paying attention again?
permit me to quote myself, I said...
Quote
Actually if you've been paying attention, he certainly is... it's just not his name on the ballot
talking points will get you nowhere.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2006, 06:17:02 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on November 07, 2006, 06:37:05 AM
The trite definition of insanity is "Trying the same thing again and again, expecting different results each time."
It's hard to stay upbeat, (assuming you don't want Democrat control of the house) under the constant onslaught of bias, and voter suppression, but you have to remember that the MSM truly became unhinged from America and the electoral process during the '94 Republican landslide, and hasn't really found their way back since. In some ways, it's like looking at the bum wearing the "END IS NEAR" sandwich board, and getting that little nervous twinge in your belly, "What if he's right?".
Simple answer, he's a crazy bum, ignore him...
The media made a big show of "regrouping" and "introspection" about their methods, after getting their asses handed to them yet again after the "early polling" in favor of Kerry in '04, but it was all window dressing. The Media bias was back, bigger than ever this time. The MSM dosen't even really care that the Democrats win, to them the DNC is just a means to an end. What's at play here is the fourth and fifth estates are desperately trying re-assert their power to "shape the debate" and drive elections.
It hasn't occurred to them for the past forty years to just report the damn news, and it won't come to them today either.
And every time the MSM tries to "referendize" an election, the media bias gets more and more blatant to middle-America. I don't know if everyone out there can put their finger on it as succinctly as I can, but the "Silent Majority" is on to them. And the consistently shrinking nightly news ratings, and the consistent 1-2% loss in circulation each year for the top 50 newspaper markets proves it.
Me? I want the MSM destroyed, or at least severely crippled, as a political player by '08. If the Democratic "landslide" fails to materialize, it'll be a near fatal-blow. The MSM will go bat-*expletive deleted*it insane.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 07, 2006, 07:26:47 AM
Quote
It is Democratic strategy to paint this election as a referendum on Bush. They do this because they see his low poll ratings and because they have nothing else to offer.
WHat is the Democratic position on Iraq? Dunno
What is the Democratic position on immigration? Dunno.
WHat is the Democratic position on Iraq? Dunno
What is the Democratic position on immigration? Dunno.
You couldn't be more correct. it absolutely IS their strategy to paint this as a referendum on Bush. but they are doing this because his policies are so bad and his "Iraq plan" (whatever IT is) is so bad that EVEN they look good by comparison... the right's problem is (up until they started campaigning) they support him.
You don't know the democratic position on Iraq because their are numerous positions about what to do and when to do it... and as screwed up as they are about that they STILL look better to most americans.
So the Dems dont have a strategy they can articulate on a national level. And you're claiming they look better than the Republicans? In a sense that's true: every candidate looks good until he opens his mouth. Wesley Clark was the dark-horse darling candidate and polled his highest numbers on the day he announced. And it was all downhill from there.
But you can't beat someone/something with no one/nothing. And the Dems have nothing.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 07:49:04 AM
Quote
but they are doing this because his policies are so bad and his "Iraq plan" (whatever IT is) is so bad that EVEN they look good by comparison
I wasn't aware that the above is a talking point
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 08:10:28 AM
Quote
So the Dems dont have a strategy they can articulate on a national level. And you're claiming they look better than the Republicans?
Absolutely... and that should be telling on how bad the right is looking.
in case you failed to find the platform through the rhetoric here is the terrorism platform:
Quote
Improving intelligence to find and stop terrorists. We will train and equip the military to enhance
its capabilities to seek out and destroy terrorists. We will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law
Improving intelligence to find and stop terrorists. We will train and equip the military to enhance
its capabilities to seek out and destroy terrorists. We will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law
enforcement around the world by forging stronger international coalitions to provide better information
and communication.
We must also improve our intelligence here at home. From the failure to uncover the September 11th
plot to the deeply misguided reports about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have
experienced unprecedented intelligence failures in recent years. We must do what President Bush has
refused to do – reform our intelligence system by creating a true Director of National Intelligence with
real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages spoken by
terrorists. And we must break down the old communications barriers between national intelligence and
local law enforcement, taking care to fully preserve our liberties.
Cutting off terrorist funds. We will move decisively to cut off the flow of terrorist funds. We will
impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act
against it. We will strengthen our anti-money laundering laws to prevent terrorists from using hedge
funds and unregulated institutions to finance terror. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign
against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S.
financial system. And in the specific case of Saudi Arabia, we will put an end to the Bush
Administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money.
Preventing Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens. Nowhere is the
need for collective endeavor greater than in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has badly mishandled
the war's aftermath. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country.
Instead, he has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become again a potential haven for
terrorists.
We must expand NATO forces outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and
police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and
expanded into a mainstream strategy. We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush
Administration by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai Government and
reinvigorating the regional drug control program.
Beyond Afghanistan, terrorist attacks from Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to Kenya, Morocco, and
Turkey point to a widening network of terrorists targeting this country and our friends. Failed and failing
states like Somalia or countries with large areas of limited government control like the Philippines and
Indonesia need international help to close down terrorist havens.
Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. At
the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas: democracy and tolerance against those who
would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views. The war on terror is not a
clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos.
America needs a major initiative in public diplomacy to support the many voices of freedom in the
Arab and Muslim world. To improve education for the next generation of Islamic youth, we need a
cooperative international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. And we must support human rights
groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the
grassroots up. Democracy will not blossom overnight, but America should speed its growth by
sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments that work
toward this end.
its capabilities to seek out and destroy terrorists. We will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law
Improving intelligence to find and stop terrorists. We will train and equip the military to enhance
its capabilities to seek out and destroy terrorists. We will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law
enforcement around the world by forging stronger international coalitions to provide better information
and communication.
We must also improve our intelligence here at home. From the failure to uncover the September 11th
plot to the deeply misguided reports about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have
experienced unprecedented intelligence failures in recent years. We must do what President Bush has
refused to do – reform our intelligence system by creating a true Director of National Intelligence with
real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages spoken by
terrorists. And we must break down the old communications barriers between national intelligence and
local law enforcement, taking care to fully preserve our liberties.
Cutting off terrorist funds. We will move decisively to cut off the flow of terrorist funds. We will
impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act
against it. We will strengthen our anti-money laundering laws to prevent terrorists from using hedge
funds and unregulated institutions to finance terror. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign
against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S.
financial system. And in the specific case of Saudi Arabia, we will put an end to the Bush
Administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money.
Preventing Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens. Nowhere is the
need for collective endeavor greater than in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has badly mishandled
the war's aftermath. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country.
Instead, he has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become again a potential haven for
terrorists.
We must expand NATO forces outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and
police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and
expanded into a mainstream strategy. We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush
Administration by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai Government and
reinvigorating the regional drug control program.
Beyond Afghanistan, terrorist attacks from Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to Kenya, Morocco, and
Turkey point to a widening network of terrorists targeting this country and our friends. Failed and failing
states like Somalia or countries with large areas of limited government control like the Philippines and
Indonesia need international help to close down terrorist havens.
Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. At
the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas: democracy and tolerance against those who
would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views. The war on terror is not a
clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos.
America needs a major initiative in public diplomacy to support the many voices of freedom in the
Arab and Muslim world. To improve education for the next generation of Islamic youth, we need a
cooperative international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. And we must support human rights
groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the
grassroots up. Democracy will not blossom overnight, but America should speed its growth by
sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments that work
toward this end.
Frankly I am skeptical that they can accomplish all of the above... but I certainly think that the above platform is better than anything I've seen from the right. The right has proven that, if they have a plan, they are unable to execute.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 07, 2006, 08:36:56 AM
If wishes were fishes...
Post by: The Rabbi on November 07, 2006, 08:37:41 AM
Frankly I am skeptical that they can accomplish all of the above... but I certainly think that the above platform is better than anything I've seen from the right. The right has proven that, if they have a plan, they are unable to execute.
It is the same Clinton "plan" that gave us 9/11: treat terrorism as a police matter. No wonder they havent articulated it: it is a known loser.
I love it when Dems say stuff like "we will move faster in getting the Iraqi army and police force up to speed." What do they think the Republicans have been doing? WHy do they think they can do this any faster? They can't. They won't. They will declare victory and go home.
Their last "plan" for Iraq, detailed by Kerry, was to get our loyal NATO allies like France to help us out in the peace-keeping process. That was dead before it left his mouth. The last thing the Euros want to do is actually commit troops anywhere. Heck, someone could get hurt, and how would that look? They'd rather talk about it for the umpteenth time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2006, 08:47:00 AM
I would say that the Right looks very good to most Americans, which is why Democrats have campaigned to the right since sometime around 1992. That also explains the electoral success of moderates (or neo-cons if you prefer) like Bush, Specter, etc. While the "far right," however defined, isn't that popular, the right looks better than the left.
The policies implemented by those who campaign to the right, however, is a different matter. The neo-cons are more less winning, which is why so little has been done to curb illegal immigration, Bush was re-elected so we could stay the course in Iraq, spending is up, and Bush's major domestic policy programs have been so spendy.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 09:53:14 AM
Quote
That's a list of platitudes, not a plan.
you're welcome to your opinion. for contrast... how about showing the board the republican plan?
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 10:09:55 AM
Quote
That's a list of platitudes, not a plan.
you're welcome to your opinion. for contrast... how about showing the board the republican plan?
[/quote]
Quote
treat terrorism as a police matter. No wonder they havent articulated it: it is a known loser.
hmmm... if I recalled right, in the most recent terrorism threat the military swooped down, stoping the blowing up of planes headed to the US from england... oh wait... I'd be wrong.
If I recall correctly the many of the clues to the 9/11 attacks came from law enforcement... but since we know that this is a military issue and NOT a law enforcement issue our president had the insight to ignore that information.
The dems position is that it requires both military and law enforcement. regardless of what you think of the dems, do you disagree with that concept?
fistful: I would agree that actual conservatives and the current administration are different... but when the administration and legislative branches claim to be conservatives, while spending like drunk sailors, increasing size of government, trying to merge religion and government, and trying to enter our private lives, it does cloud the difference. One thing I have noticed that while on this board is that many of those on the right, while slamming the dems (many with good reason) they seem to run from the administration's policies. At least that is encouraging.
I would agree with you that true conservatism is attractive. but the issue then becomes how one defines it, doesn't it?
I'm actually a big fan of Goldwater, and I believe that he was the last conservative that I can recall seeing. My politics are probably most closely aligned with him than any dem or republican out there now, Feingold is close but I disagree with his solution to campaign finance reform.
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 07, 2006, 10:20:04 AM
Quote
when the administration and legislative branches claim to be conservatives, while spending like drunk sailors, increasing size of government, trying to merge religion and government, and trying to enter our private lives, it does cloud the difference.
I suppose it does cloud the difference to many people. I'm curious about this merging religion and government item. That is a charge usually levelled against actual conservatives, rather than RINO's. In case you're not aware, RINO means Republican In Name Only. The only two issues where I can see Bush being accused of this would be faith-based initiatives and school vouchers, on which the religious right is split between the more conservative and the more libertarian.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 07, 2006, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Lumpy
you're welcome to your opinion. for contrast... how about showing the board the republican plan?
Quote from: Lumpy
Quote
treat terrorism as a police matter. No wonder they havent articulated it: it is a known loser.
hmmm... if I recalled right, in the most recent terrorism threat the military swooped down, stoping the blowing up of planes headed to the US from england... oh wait... I'd be wrong.
If I recall correctly the many of the clues to the 9/11 attacks came from law enforcement... but since we know that this is a military issue and NOT a law enforcement issue our president had the insight to ignore that information.
The dems position is that it requires both military and law enforcement. regardless of what you think of the dems, do you disagree with that concept?
If I recall, law enforcement and investigation was instrumental in stopping the bombings of the USS Cole, the African embassies, and WTC 1 and 2. Oops, no I guess it didnt do diddly to stop any of those. Nor did pledging to "hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice" help either. Nope sure didnt. But sending the military into known centers of terrorist activity, degrading their ability to communicate and transfer funds (just like you would during war) has resulted in no terrorist attacks in this country in 5 years. But maybe it's just a fluke...
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 10:55:54 AM
Quote
If I recall, law enforcement and investigation was instrumental in stopping the bombings of the USS Cole, the African embassies, and WTC 1 and 2. Oops, no I guess it didnt do diddly to stop any of those. Nor did pledging to "hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice" help either. Nope sure didnt. But sending the military into known centers of terrorist activity, degrading their ability to communicate and transfer funds (just like you would during war) has resulted in no terrorist attacks in this country in 5 years. But maybe it's just a fluke...
You're right, you'd be wrong. Actually the FBI gathered much of the preliminary information on the WTC attacks, remember Moussaoui, remember the document OBL determined to strike in the US... that came fromt he CIA, remember how fast we knew who was on the planes... that was the FBI and CIA.
Ironically you brought up "hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice"... I surprised that if you agree with the current 'plan' you even go there. Or do you forget Bush 1992 press conference...
Quote
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
btw: using your standards Clinton did better at protecting us from terrorism because he had 8 years without an attack on our soil. in both cases, Bush and Clinton that measure is absolute nonsense.
Post by: 280plus on November 07, 2006, 11:11:13 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 07, 2006, 11:22:22 AM
Quote
If I recall, law enforcement and investigation was instrumental in stopping the bombings of the USS Cole, the African embassies, and WTC 1 and 2. Oops, no I guess it didnt do diddly to stop any of those. Nor did pledging to "hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice" help either. Nope sure didnt. But sending the military into known centers of terrorist activity, degrading their ability to communicate and transfer funds (just like you would during war) has resulted in no terrorist attacks in this country in 5 years. But maybe it's just a fluke...
You're right, you'd be wrong. Actually the FBI gathered much of the preliminary information on the WTC attacks, remember Moussaoui, remember the document OBL determined to strike in the US... that came fromt he CIA, remember how fast we knew who was on the planes... that was the FBI and CIA.
Ironically you brought up "hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice"... I surprised that if you agree with the current 'plan' you even go there. Or do you forget Bush 1992 press conference...
Quote
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
btw: using your standards Clinton did better at protecting us from terrorism because he had 8 years without an attack on our soil. in both cases, Bush and Clinton that measure is absolute nonsense.
Do you have a clue what you are even arguing anymore, other than Bush's policies are failures? No, I dont think so.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 11:31:35 AM
Quote
Do you have a clue what you are even arguing anymore, other than Bush's policies are failures?
Bush's policies are failures. my position is and has always been, that this election is a referendem on that. Did you find anything that I suggested otherwise?
I haven't suggested that anyone here vote one way or another, the thread is about predictions. I predicted that the Bush would lose becuase this is a vote on his policies, not the candidates. I have also said that the Bush policies and the legislature's support for them are so bad that, that the democrats are actually looking good by comparison.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 11:36:43 AM
Quote
Do you have a clue what you are even arguing anymore, other than Bush's policies are failures?
Bush's policies are failures. my position is and has always been, that this election is a referendem on that. Did you find anything that I suggested otherwise?
I haven't suggested that anyone here vote one way or another, the thread is about predictions. I predicted that the Bush would lose becuase this is a vote on his policies, not the candidates. I have also said that the Bush policies and the legislature's support for them are so bad that, that the democrats are actually looking good by comparison.
Quote
But sending the military into known centers of terrorist activity, degrading their ability to communicate and transfer funds
by the way... I would be facsinated to hear how one could think having the bulk of our military in Iraq accomplishes that goal, given that Al Qeada is primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post by: wingnutx on November 07, 2006, 11:38:03 AM
Im split on what I *want* to happen. Giving the Republicans the kind of mandate that would result from holding both houses at this point is going to make them feel bulletproof (figuratively) and that is a dangerous thing for a political party. I prefer the Rebublicans to the Democrats by the slimest of margins (i dont like politicians in general) but give them that sort of control and things wont be getting better. On the other hand giving the Democrats on opportunity to pass laws on their own wont work out for us at all.
I wish there was some way of punishing the Republicans without handing it all over to the Democrats.
Then again, I wish Libertarians would win, and santa would bring me a pony.
Post by: grampster on November 07, 2006, 11:41:51 AM
President Bush is a failure, eh? Where would that be? Especially if you put your comment in the context of what the Democrats have on the agenda.
Bush =
Taxes- Lower
Economy- Robust
Investments- The market broke 12,000 and business is good.
Terrorism- No further attacks and several planned ones foiled.
Interest rates- Low
Housing- Dampened in some areas, not in others, perhaps a needed correction.
Manufacturing- paradigm shifts and restructurings that have been needed for years.
Iraq and A'stan- Talk to some military folks who have been there rather than believing the left wing MSM.
Democrats =
Bile and invective most of which is not based in facts. One of your own (self described liberal) commentators remarked today that everyone should read the 31 page Democrat plan, but NOT until AFTER they vote. One of strongest supporters is amazed at the drivel in the plan.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2006, 11:50:11 AM
Quote
That's a list of platitudes, not a plan.
you're welcome to your opinion. for contrast... how about showing the board the republican plan?
A false comparison. If you didn't know the Rep. plan, you wouldn't be calling it a failure, you would be wondering what it was. Claiming there isn't a plan won't work, either. We all know there's a plan, even if we don't like it.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 12:19:43 PM
Quote
Bush =
Taxes- Lower
Economy- Robust
Investments- The market broke 12,000 and business is good.
Terrorism- No further attacks and several planned ones foiled.
Interest rates- Low
Housing- Dampened in some areas, not in others, perhaps a needed correction.
Manufacturing- paradigm shifts and restructurings that have been needed for years.
Iraq and A'stan- Talk to some military folks who have been there rather than believing the left wing MSM.
Taxes- Lower
Economy- Robust
Investments- The market broke 12,000 and business is good.
Terrorism- No further attacks and several planned ones foiled.
Interest rates- Low
Housing- Dampened in some areas, not in others, perhaps a needed correction.
Manufacturing- paradigm shifts and restructurings that have been needed for years.
Iraq and A'stan- Talk to some military folks who have been there rather than believing the left wing MSM.
actually you are correct the dow did break 12k congratulations! if you'd put $1000 in the dow index in 2001 you'd now have... let me grab my calculator... ... ... ... ... ... about $1004 today!
Economy robust? it's doing ok... robust? actually I think robust might be better suited for an economy that had backbone. one in which the government was reducing spending in relation to GDP. One where the government wasn't borrowing from the chinese to cover the reduction in tax revenues in a 'time of war'
Interest rates low? I noticed you didn't say dropping... is that because they've gone up?
Taxes down? hmmm I make about 100k and my taxes are pretty much the same. Gee if I only made a couple 100k more I could get some real savings! but what concerns me more is that the right is now spending the money they used to have ... not the money from the increase in revenue from the tax reduction. Do you think that might be because there is no increase in revenue as a result of that?
all that said... the policies I was referring to were foriegn policies (but that's not to say that bush's domestic policies don't suck)... we can save that for another thread if you'd like.
Why don't you ask the military what they think of our Iraq policies? Oh wait, they've pretty much made it clear... it's going so great they want Rumsfeld to take early retirement.
Quote
Democrats = Bile and invective most of which is not based in facts.
you must be a democrat.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 07, 2006, 01:07:05 PM
actually you are correct the dow did break 12k congratulations! if you'd put $1000 in the dow index in 2001 you'd now have... let me grab my calculator... ... ... ... ... ... about $1004 today!
And if you had put $1000 in a Dow Index in March 2003 you would now have, umm umm, help me here, yeah $1533, not including dividends. That's 50% in 3 years, historically pretty good. Yes, we can pick and choose our data too.
Economy robust? it's doing ok... robust? actually I think robust might be better suited for an economy that had backbone. one in which the government was reducing spending in relation to GDP. One where the government wasn't borrowing from the chinese to cover the reduction in tax revenues in a 'time of war'
Interest rates low? I noticed you didn't say dropping... is that because they've gone up?
Interest rates low? I noticed you didn't say dropping... is that because they've gone up?
Actually the deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP today than when CLinton left office.
Actually tax revenues are significantly higher today than they were 3 years ago, mostly thanks to Bush's tax program.
Actually real interest rates are lower today than they were under Clinton, and historically are very low.
Actually unemployment is about the same today as when Clinton left office. And that doesnt count the millions of jobs created since then.
But don't let those silly facts fool you. They are all manipulated by the gov't anyway. The economy really is terrible. That is why the Democrats have dusted off the slogan "it's the economy, stupid." Oops, no they havent mentioned the economy. Wonder why?
Why don't you ask the military what they think of our Iraq policies? Oh wait, they've pretty much made it clear... it's going so great they want Rumsfeld to take early retirement.
Actually I had a guy with two children in the military in my shop yesterday. Both his son and daughter are or are about to go on, their second and third tours of Iraq. I think re-enlistment is up. So I dont care what generals with axes to grind say. They guys in the field understand this war.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 02:34:05 PM
Quote
Yes, we can pick and choose our data too.
obviously, you did. But of course I was picking the data from the time Bush became president.
Please supply your sources. thanks.
Quote
Actually I had a guy with two children in the military in my shop yesterday. Both his son and daughter are or are about to go on, their second and third tours of Iraq. I think re-enlistment is up. So I dont care what generals with axes to grind say. They guys in the field understand this war.
got me there... that seems very scientific. btw: I believe that the axes the generals have to grind are with the fact that the policy sucks. come to think of it I asked for the policy... because I haven't seen it, have you?
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 03:30:55 PM
i'll post mine as I find them...
deficit as percent of GDP from GAO
Quote
Budget Deterioration of 6.0 Percent of GDP Is Very Large by Historical Standards
In fiscal year 2, the surplus stood at 2.4 percent of GDP. The shift to a deficit of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004 represents a deterioration of 6.0 percent of GDP over four years.
Few occasions in U.S. history have produced budget deteriorations this large over a four-year period. Deteriorations of this size occurred only during the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.
Of the 6.0-percent-of-GDP deterioration over the last four years, less than one percentage point can be attributed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, spending increases of all sorts totaled 1.4 percent of GDP over this period, thereby accounting for about one quarter of the deterioration. In contrast, revenues have fallen by 4.6 percent of GDP over the last four years, accounting for three-quarters of the deterioration. Only once before in U.S. history, when taxes were cut after World War II, have revenues fallen this sharply.
__________________
Sources: GAO for historical data; Treasury for 2004 data budget data, CBO for 2004 GDP.
In fiscal year 2, the surplus stood at 2.4 percent of GDP. The shift to a deficit of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004 represents a deterioration of 6.0 percent of GDP over four years.
Few occasions in U.S. history have produced budget deteriorations this large over a four-year period. Deteriorations of this size occurred only during the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.
Of the 6.0-percent-of-GDP deterioration over the last four years, less than one percentage point can be attributed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, spending increases of all sorts totaled 1.4 percent of GDP over this period, thereby accounting for about one quarter of the deterioration. In contrast, revenues have fallen by 4.6 percent of GDP over the last four years, accounting for three-quarters of the deterioration. Only once before in U.S. history, when taxes were cut after World War II, have revenues fallen this sharply.
__________________
Sources: GAO for historical data; Treasury for 2004 data budget data, CBO for 2004 GDP.
interesting article from Bloomberg on this subject...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aSG5oGNyt3Ms
Quote
Interest rates- Low
... Look up historical prime rate data. Since 2004 the prime rate has gone from 4% to 8.25% (today). Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2006, 03:35:49 PM
Quote
I believe that the axes the generals have to grind are with the fact that the policy sucks. come to think of it I asked for the policy... because I haven't seen it, have you?
So, you haven't seen the policy. So, you wouldn't offer an opinion on whether Bush's Iraq policy is good or bad, because you haven't seen it? Post by: garyk/nm on November 07, 2006, 04:16:04 PM
Your position here seems to be that the Dems are good because "they aren't Bush". Every argument is about "Bush". It seems to me that after the last 2 pres elections, the rabid Dems have been totally preoccupied with the evil Satan Bush. Here's a news flash for you: Bush is not running in this election. Regardless of how you try to spin it, Bush is a non-entity in this election.
It is time for the (sane) Dems to let go of the Bush hatred and build a solid platform (one that does NOT include any reference to G.W. Bush) if they want to be taken seriously. If that were to happen ( one in how many million?), and with a solid promise not to gut the 2nd amendment, I might give them the time of day. Otherwise, piss off. You and your ilk are not worth my time.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 07, 2006, 06:27:04 PM
Post by: cosine on November 07, 2006, 06:51:23 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on November 07, 2006, 06:53:06 PM
Post by: Guest on November 07, 2006, 07:05:58 PM
A vote for gridlock is a vote for a better tomorrow (IMHO). The house and sente controlled by different parties, niether with a big majority, and both with a lot of dissent in the ranks spells (hopefully) a lawmaking body that has a hard time passing too much ridiculous crap (or anything for that matter).
Post by: AJ Dual on November 07, 2006, 07:14:58 PM
So there will be some initial Democratic unity, but it won't be overwhelming for the next two years.
Post by: lumpy on November 07, 2006, 08:04:36 PM
Quote
Your position here seems to be that the Dems are good because "they aren't Bush".
Is it me or does reading comprehension not seem like a strong suit here... I have consistenly said, that Bush's policies are so bad that they even make the Dems looks good. What part of that are you not understanding?
fistful... you're correct I haven't seen a printed copy of his policy, that's because we have front row seats to the execution of his policy (whatever the hell it is).
I think my prediction is was correct, Bush lost.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2006, 08:15:09 PM
Quote
I think my prediction is was correct, Bush lost.
Let's not lose our heads in triumph or in tidings of woe. Gaining the house for two years is but a shadow of the power the Dem. party held for decades. And no matter how much some would like to dream about this being a proxy pres. election, Bush was elected twice. He's the president. Would have been a lame duck anyway, considering that Cheney's not a likely candidate for '08.Unless you want us to believe that America would elect Pelosi to the Oval Office.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 04:52:39 AM
No, the issue to me was that the Republican Congress was behaving just like the Democratic Congress they replaced. The lack of program, the uncontrolled spending, the scandals, the protectionism, etc etc all suggested a party that had lost touch with the people who put them there. They deserved to lose. The worst RINOs are probably finished, and good for us. The party can sit back and consider what happened and return to Reaganism, just like in 1994. Overall I think that the new Congress wont get anything done, especially an AWB. And the Republicans will get their act together for '08.
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 06:31:45 AM
Quote
I would hardly say that Bush lost. First, as pointed out ad nauseam, he wasn't running. Second, what to make of Lincoln Chafee, one of Bush's strongest opponents on Iraq, and lost anyway. And what to make of Joe Lieberman, one of Bush's strongest supporters on Iraq, who won anyway?
I agree, based on what I've seen of your posts, you probably wouldn't say that. As I pointed out ad nauseam... he wasn't on the ballot but his policies were. Much of the exit polling last night had 2 reasons that the republicans lost.
1.) corruption
2.) Iraq
Chaffe had the misfortune of having a (r) after his name in one of the most leberal states in the country.
Liberman had the fortune of getting the bulk of his votes from republicans, who apparently ran to the "independent democrat" becuase the
Quote
republican
candidate was so bad. He got 28% support among democrats.If you think this wasn't a Bush loss, I'm guessing you think we're winning in Iraq.
Let's not lose our heads in triumph
fistful... I would point out that while I have stated simply that Bush lost... a review of this board will show if anyone is 'losing their heads' it would be some of those on the losing side of this election.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 07:46:37 AM
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 09:20:40 AM