Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 06:16:33 AM
On Iraq, they will obviously have no better success, but they can blame that on the Republicans who damaged it beyond repair, allegedly. If things do improve, they'll likely find some little change on their part they can use to take credit for the whole works.
Let's see some spending cuts.
Let's see more jobs created in the next two years than in the previous six, and without any credit going to tax cuts or other Bush measures.
I make a pretty low wage, let's see some of Bill Gates' money in my mailbox, along with a BIG refund of my own tax money. I'm waiting.
Let's see them remain free of corruption.
Let's see them liberate GITMO.
Let's see them lower prices on petrol products and pharmaceuticals by at least 20%.
Let's see some cures from embryonic stem cells. Micheal J. Fox should be back to normal in about a decade or so.
What promises would you like to see them keep?
Post by: Lennyjoe on November 08, 2006, 06:20:15 AM
Burry my guns, buy as much as I can before the 2007 AWB and hide my retirement dollars before they take it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 06:21:07 AM
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 06:43:30 AM
Quote
What promises would you like to see them keep?
the ones they actually said.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 06:52:34 AM
Post by: Lee on November 08, 2006, 07:01:14 AM
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 07:04:16 AM
Quote
But they did promise to do a better job. Let's see it.
I would go one step further... If they don't do a better job, fire the bastards. Kinda like what happened yesterday.
Quote
they didn't promise every detail of what I posted
speaking of strawmen.
Quote
I'm guessing the first bill introduced will legalize unions between Congressmen and underage boys.
Funny I thought that this congress did that already.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 07:28:02 AM
Post by: charby on November 08, 2006, 08:22:53 AM
You need your own Utube account and make daily broadcasts.
-C
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 08:27:44 AM
I've seen some rants on Youtube. Not sure I want to be compared to those guys. Oh, wait, I'm a loser, aren't I?
Post by: 280plus on November 08, 2006, 09:01:29 AM
Post by: charby on November 08, 2006, 09:03:15 AM
I think it's just an observation.
exactly.
Post by: Guest on November 08, 2006, 10:21:26 AM
C_yeager seems to think the Democrats will do more to reverse gun control than the Republicans did. I think he's on crack, but I'd love to be proven wrong. We'll see.
Quote it for the group, lets all see where I said it.
*edit* I'm not actually calling you out as a liar in public here, it is quite possible that your emotionally distraught state has gotten in the way of your reading comprehension.
Post by: charby on November 08, 2006, 10:24:03 AM
Post by: stevelyn on November 08, 2006, 01:20:33 PM
C_yeager seems to think the Democrats will do more to reverse gun control than the Republicans did. I think he's on crack, but I'd love to be proven wrong. We'll see.
+1. Democrats aren't going to reverse anything. Leopards don't change their spots and sexual predators can never be rehabilitated.
They will however manage to sell alot of military style semi-autos and standard cap mags. My buying priorities shifted from a couple of "sporting" rifles to AR lowers and mags lastnight.
Post by: Antibubba on November 08, 2006, 07:01:56 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 07:36:47 PM
C_yeager seems to think the Democrats will do more to reverse gun control than the Republicans did. I think he's on crack, but I'd love to be proven wrong. We'll see.
Quote it for the group, lets all see where I said it.
*edit* I'm not actually calling you out as a liar in public here, it is quite possible that your emotionally distraught state has gotten in the way of your reading comprehension.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4922.0
My position was that the Republican congress was a good thing for RKBA (having been the only congress ever to reduce gun control) and that the new Democrat congress would be a bad thing. You said I was wrong.
So, if we're starting from a position of the old Republican congress that decreased gun control, and we're moving into a new Democrat congress that isn't a downturn for RKBA, the only possible conclusion is that the new Democrats will do more to decrease gun control than the old Republicans did. The new D's will have to produce even better RKBA progress than the death of the AWB.
It ain't gonna happen.
Post by: Guest on November 08, 2006, 07:42:39 PM
Quote
Here's the thread, I link to it in its entirety so as to not take anything out of context:
Nowhere in that thread do the words that you claim I said appear. Don't put words in my mouth again. It sure coulda been played off as an honest mistake, I gave you the opportunity to take that road, and you didnt.
So now I *am* calling you out as a liar, to your face, and in public. Go ahead and deny it all you want, anyone who is reading this can follow your link and see it for themselves.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 08:17:53 PM
If you felt I misunderstood your points in that other thread, the thing to do was explain yourself back then while we were still discussing it.
For the record, do you still disagree with my sentiment that a new Democrat congress means gun control?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 08:26:43 PM
Ok, so you did take the time to clarify that you don't believe the Democrat congress will lead to reduced gun control. I bailed out of that thread once it became apparent that it wasn't going anywhere, and thereby missed your clarification. Mea culpa. You're right and I'm wrong. I promise I'll never do it again. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Let's hug and make up. Can't we all just get along?
Consider, however, the fact that I wasn't the only one who initially had the wrong impression of your words. Taken strictly literally, you never said that you thought the democrats would repeal gun control. Yet that was exactly the impression you gave to several people. Will you acknowledge the fact that your words as written were prone to misinterpretation?
Post by: Guest on November 08, 2006, 09:02:35 PM
Consider, however, the fact that I wasn't the only one who initially had the wrong impression of your words.
You were the only one who couldnt take the time to actually read it again so that they would understand it, the only one who wasnt man enough to actually admit their error.
Quote
Taken strictly literally, you never said that you thought the democrats would repeal gun control. Yet that was exactly the impression you gave to several people. Will you acknowledge the fact that your words as written were prone to misinterpretation?
Taken "strictly literally" what i said was:
Quote
They [gun control repeals] stand a better chance with a republican party that understands it can loose its power if it doesnt actually do something to make people want them in office.
Now I dont really think that statement is too hard to understand, but I went ahead and bolded part of it so that it can be even more clear. No, I will not acknowledge that my words were prone to misinterpretation, because they really werent. I write under the assumption that the reader is capable of reading and understanding at an adult level, and I *will not* dumb things down to a point where the other end of the bell-curve will comprehend them. Just because there is more than one person here who cannot understand a simple statement doesnt mean that the fault lies within that statement. It does mean something, im sure, and I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 09:49:03 PM
You know, at first I thought this was about a simple misunderstanding. But it wasn't, was it? If it was, then it would have been enough for you to simply point out the error. You knew your comment was being misinterpretted and needed to be clarified. You even bothered to make that clarification. Obviously I hadn't seen it. You could have pointed it out or repeated it, and the matter would have ended amicably right then and there.
But you didn't want the matter to end there, did you? You didn't want things to remain amicable. Even after setting your trap and winning your vindication, you still couldn't let it go. You had to let loose with with your insults and ridicule.
You didn't want to fix a simple misunderstanding, you wanted to be a prick about it. Congratulations, you've succeeded.
It requires a person with a marginal intellect and a dearth of humility to seize oportunities like this to ridicule and insult others over simple misunderstandings. If you had a smidgen more of either quality, you might realize that you, too, are capable of simple misunderstandings. You might choose to be a bit more cautious about passing down punishment for such crimes, knowing that you could be on the receiving end next time around.
Post by: Monkeyleg on November 09, 2006, 12:23:32 AM
The Democrats are going to be overconfident in their victory, just as the Republicans were in 1994. The Dem's will believe that they were handed a mandate--just as the Republicans thought in 1994--and will try to pass legislation based on that mistaken notion.
However, there is a distinction between the midterm elections of 1994 and those of 2006.
In 1994, the country was still reeling from a series of moves by the Clinton administation that President Clinton (and Hillary) introduced too rapidly. Nationalized health care was the foremost issue, but there were others. For those in the "red" states, the AWB was just salt in the wounds.
The 1994 Republican revolution was based on Newt Gingrich's idea to actually write a platform--the Contract for America--that the public could easily digest and agree with.
The Contract was full of new ideas, ideas that appealed to the average voter.
A few years later, though, many Republicans wandered off the reservation, infatuated with their own media-hyped reputations.
To his credit, Howard Dean has studied Newt's 1994 playbook and taken several pages from it. Those here who have been receiving Dean's emails on a regular basis have probably noted that he's toned down the screeching rhetoric. Compared to a few months ago, he sounds downright statesman-like.
But the comparison between Newt and Dean's contracts are stark. Gingrich's contract was one based not only on The Word of Ronald Reagan, but also upon Gingrich's own observations of the politics and affairs of the 20th century.
Dean's new contract just seems like a quieter version of his previous one: elect us, and we promise we won't be like Bush.
Dean talks about a "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq. Bush talks about "benchmarks."
Sounds like semantics to me.
Noticeablely absent from the debate is any discussion about Social Security reform. For decades, that was the Democrat's scare for the senior citizen voting bloc. After GW's failed attempt to rally support to reform the system, the Republicans seem likewise loath to touch that rail again. I guess both parties must now want to reduce the elderly to eating dog food.
Both parties talk about "affordable" health care, although "affordable" is a relative term. Over the past week or so, I've had a pretty serious respiratory infection. The cost for 10 pills to knock out the infection was $107, after prescription drug insurance. I don't expect anything from .gov, so my plans for my senior years are to make enough money to pay for the pills I'll need. Or at least make more money than saying "Good Morning" at a WalMart.
If Howard Dean were a lone voice in the wilderness, I would probably take him more seriously. But the global/strategic divide between Dean's beliefs and Gingrich's regarding the Middle East leaves little middle ground.
If I understand Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi and others (and feel free to correct me), they're comparing Iraq to Viet Nam. They're looking at the admittedly slow progress, counting the bodies of US soldiers, and saying it's not worth it.
As I compare the two, I see vast differences. In Viet Nam, we went in to essentially rescue an ally (France) to help a SEATO ally from being overrun by a government that--at least by that time--had forged alliances with the ChiComs.
Right? Wrong?
In Iraq, I see our country doing what we did by first invading and then rebuilding Germany and Japan: conquer, establish a friendly government, and leave with troops nearby, and staging areas that would discourage our enemy (the USSR) from trying to gain a foothold.
If CNN had interviewed the average Joe on the street in 1941 and asked if he would accept the idea of US troops still being in Germany and Japan as "occupying" forces for another 12 or 13 years...I'd bet the Average Joe would have said yes.
This is not Viet Nam. Pacification of the Middle East is just as important to us now as pacifying Europe and the Japanese regions was in the 1940's.
But, now we have a new leadership in Congress. And I fear that they will turn the Middle East into another Viet Nam: retreat with honor.
Post by: 280plus on November 09, 2006, 01:41:01 AM
Quote
If I understand Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi and others (and feel free to correct me), they're comparing Iraq to Viet Nam. They're looking at the admittedly slow progress, counting the bodies of US soldiers, and saying it's not worth it.
And unless I'm missing the big picture they are doing this to win seats and nothing more. Too bad just a little more than half of us fell for it. I find that scary. Now all we can do is wait and see. Maybe at some point they'll stop telling us how bad a job the other side is doing and actually tell us what THEIR great plan is. Apparently it's to play right into the hands of the enemy. They're doing very well at it too. 
Post by: 280plus on November 09, 2006, 01:47:39 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2006, 03:13:48 AM
Quote
If I understand Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi and others (and feel free to correct me), they're comparing Iraq to Viet Nam. They're looking at the admittedly slow progress, counting the bodies of US soldiers, and saying it's not worth it.
It's self-fulfilling prophecy. They screamed about it long enough and loud enough that it became just as bad as they claimed it was. I wish HTG was wrong, but the parallel to Spain is too apalling.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 09, 2006, 03:16:23 AM
BTW, and I thought about a separate thread for this:
Where are all the calls for bipartisanship? When the Republicans win everyone calls for them to exhibit bipartisanship and "heal the wounds." I havent heard one word of that here.
Post by: grampster on November 09, 2006, 05:16:22 AM
On the other hand, W may just give up and let them do their leftist/statist thing figuring the White House will stay in Republican hands in '08. Unfortunately it seems most of the governance is more about political posturing and power seeking rather than national interests. Status quo around the world.
Post by: lumpy on November 09, 2006, 06:05:20 AM
Quote
Where are all the calls for bipartisanship?
if you noticed... the dems won... the calls for bipartisanship should come from your side this time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2006, 07:23:13 AM
Post by: lumpy on November 09, 2006, 07:50:01 AM
Quote
Did you hear Bush's press conference yesterday? That's about all he talked about.
I missed it. thanks for the info. Rabbi, that should answer your question.
Post by: Guest on November 09, 2006, 09:34:01 AM
Quote
It requires a person with a marginal intellect and a dearth of humility to seize oportunities like this to ridicule and insult others over simple misunderstandings.
You publicaly accuse me of being something that I am not (in a thread that I HADNT EVEN POSTED IN), I call you out on it, and now I am the bad guy because your embarrased about it? Tough. You had the chance to admit it was a misunderstanding on your part (hell you had the CHANCE not to pull that kind of BS in the first place), but instead you wanted to put it on me, like its my fault that you didnt take the time to understand what you were saying. That isnt going to happen, when a man makes a mistake he gets to own it all by himself or not at all. Cry about it all you want, but you arent the victim here, you just got caught.
Oh yeah, and MR Moral High Ground, lets just refer back to your original post before you get yourself too worked up. THIS is what you said, it is the THIRD POST in thread THAT I HAD NOT POSTED IN:
Quote
C_yeager seems to think the Democrats will do more to reverse gun control than the Republicans did. I think he's on crack, but I'd love to be proven wrong. We'll see.
\Read that FIVE TIMES and tell me that I dont have a right to be pissed off, then tell me that you have a right to cry about getting called out on it in a firm manner, go ahead, you answer now is gonna say a lot about you.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 09, 2006, 09:50:49 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 09, 2006, 10:23:20 AM
Jim Webb, for one, is not going to vote the Socialist/Green/Hippy party line on guns or anything else. There are a lot of other new Dems in Congress who weren't just "acting" more conservative, they actually are. It'll start driving the leadership nuts when more of their folks start crossing the aisle on hot button issues.
I haven't looked but if we lost RINO's to Dems (pro or anti) and the Dems blow it, we'll be in an even better place next round. The incumbent (but useless) Repub's will be out, opening up room for younger, more Republican (Goldwater) Republicans or for true non-hippy Dems to remain..
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 09, 2006, 10:26:27 AM
Quote
It requires a person with a marginal intellect and a dearth of humility to seize oportunities like this to ridicule and insult others over simple misunderstandings.
You publicaly accuse me of being something that I am not (in a thread that I HADNT EVEN POSTED IN), I call you out on it, and now I am the bad guy because your embarrased about it? Tough. You had the chance to admit it was a misunderstanding on your part (hell you had the CHANCE not to pull that kind of BS in the first place), but instead you wanted to put it on me, like its my fault that you didnt take the time to understand what you were saying. That isnt going to happen, when a man makes a mistake he gets to own it all by himself or not at all. Cry about it all you want, but you arent the victim here, you just got caught.
Oh yeah, and MR Moral High Ground, lets just refer back to your original post before you get yourself too worked up. THIS is what you said, it is the THIRD POST in thread THAT I HAD NOT POSTED IN:
Quote
C_yeager seems to think the Democrats will do more to reverse gun control than the Republicans did. I think he's on crack, but I'd love to be proven wrong. We'll see.
\Read that FIVE TIMES and tell me that I dont have a right to be pissed off, then tell me that you have a right to cry about getting called out on it in a firm manner, go ahead, you answer now is gonna say a lot about you.
If it makes you feel any better, I still think you're on crack, just for different reasons now.
Post by: Guest on November 09, 2006, 10:46:41 AM
Quote
you answer now is gonna say a lot about you.
Quote
Oh, I see it so perfectly now. I'm just a dumb hick who can't read.
I guess you do occassionaly post an item with some amount of insight.
I'm done with this thread, I learned what I needed to.