Predictions for Tonight - Page 2

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Dubya will watch the beginning of the end. He'll watch it on Fox News. And he won't understand the significance.

I hope he is eating pretzels alone again.

gaijindabe · 11-07-2006, 08:51 AM

We need a little Pilosi, Hillary, Dean, Boxer & Co. Take these folks out of the shadows and shine some real light on them.

lendaddy · 11-07-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
We need a little Pilosi, Hillary, Dean, Boxer & Co. Take these folks out of the shadows and shine some real light on them.

True, I think people have forgetten what you get with a liberal Congress........less spending ain't one of things you get.

But it ain't over yet, but the good guys

have an uphill battle in the House.

stevepaa · 11-07-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
True, I think people have forgetten what you get with a liberal Congress........less spending ain't one of things you get.

You never know. Butter doesn't cost as much as guns.

dd74 · 11-07-2006, 09:19 AM

Dems will/should win the House. The Senate, might be tougher. If anything, moderate Reps will probably take the seats up for grabs.

But rest assure, the neocon conservative that so many liked to refer to themselves as while they latched onto Bush, will be deader than a doornail.

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion
If the Democrats win...it will be covered as "the will of the people being served".

If the Republicans win...we'll have stories about voting irregularities, confusing ballots, and how electronic voting machines are rigged for the next few weeks (like we have the past two elections).

Either way, we're fuccked.

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Anyone who still wants to be governed by Republicans at this stage of the game needs a good swift kick in the balls, for their own good of course.

As if the socialists....errr.....dumbocratz are any better?

Our choice is between crooked and crookeder.

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by turbo6bar
coup by extremist pacifist group

Seems to be an inherently self-contradictory notion to me...

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I hope the Democrats win at least one house or the other of Congress. Not necessarily because I agree with them, but because it will render the balance of this administration's term dead in the water.

The less government can do - especially THIS government - the less they can f*ck it up and the better off the rest of us are.

Hear-hear!!!

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
We will hear these stories, and some of them will have merit to them. We both D's and R's should take this very seriously and make sure every vote counts - together.

Even though 90% of them are cast by moronic sheeple, half of whom are only interested in which party will bestow them with the most hand-outs?

No thanx.

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
We need a little Pilosi, Hillary, Dean, Boxer & Co.

I just threw up in my mouth a little...

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevepaa
You never know. Butter doesn't cost as much as guns.

No, it costs more. A LOT more.

Guns do not collect pensions or subsidies for the next 60 years like people expecting socialist handouts do.

stevepaa · 11-07-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
No, it costs more. A LOT more.

Guns do not collect pensions or subsidies for the next 60 years like people expecting socialist handouts do.

Go look at the expenditure for Iraq and say that.

lendaddy · 11-07-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevepaa
You never know. Butter doesn't cost as much as guns.

WWII called, they want their talking points back

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevepaa
Go look at the expenditure for Iraq and say that.

Look at the cumulative expenditure of "The New Deal" and say that.

Compared to socialism, war is cheap. And unlike socialism, war can actually produce a just result.

Superman · 11-07-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
True, I think people have forgetten what you get with a liberal Congress........less spending ain't one of things you get.

Recalling my McDonalds and American Idol examples from yesterday I think it is more than a little interesting that complete myths like this can survive, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I've always thought of Len as an unusually intelligent conservative, so I've got to believe he actually knows the spending records of recent Congresses. So for example, he fully knows that this current Congress and "president" are the all-time heavyweight champions of spending BY FAR. In the same mold as Reagan, who put up some spending numbers that most folks believed unreachable.

And......knowing all this, he reminds us of this myth that the liberals are the big spenders. The triumph of marketing over substance.

m21sniper · 11-07-2006, 09:41 AM

Both parties just spend, spend, spend. And they'll continue to do so until we take their T-bird away.

The difference btw libs and repubs is that the libs raise your taxes in the process.

Superman · 11-07-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Compared to socialism, war is cheap.

Greed is what is expensive. Commercial interests are greedy, and so are citizens. I'm aligned with the citizens.

Moneyguy1 · 11-07-2006, 09:48 AM

So....

It is far better to let children (who had no choice to be born), the elderly (who lost their money in places llike Enron, Global Crossings, etc) and the disabled to fend for themselves?

No, I do not believe in full scale assistance for all, but there are those who truly need help through no fault of their own. Obviously, our responses on threads like this ar limited and do not say everything as clearly as we probably would in person, but to dismantle social assistance completely would go a long way in transforming our society back to an almost feudal state with a majority of poor and disadvantaged, and a minority of landholders and decision makers. Then again, that might make some here rather happy.

BTW...Get a copy of the November Scientific American and read the article on page 42, or just go to www.sciam.com/ontheweb a comparison between the economies and services of high income low tax countries and high tax high income countries. You might find it enlightning.

Pray you never become one of the truly disadvantaged in this country.

lendaddy · 11-07-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Recalling my McDonalds and American Idol examples from yesterday I think it is more than a little interesting that complete myths like this can survive, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I've always thought of Len as an unusually intelligent conservative, so I've got to believe he actually knows the spending records of recent Congresses. So for example, he fully knows that this current Congress and "president" are the all-time heavyweight champions of spending BY FAR. In the same mold as Reagan, who put up some spending numbers that most folks believed unreachable.

And......knowing all this, he reminds us of this myth that the liberals are the big spenders. The triumph of marketing over substance.

Spending has incresed with every admin, you know that. It's a question of how much, not if. So when you say that the Republican congress increased spending you might as well tell us the sun came up.

The fact that you can claim with a straight face that Liberals are NOT big spenders is laughable. I thought you were a fairly intelligent guy too (back handed compliments are fun

).

In the end a mixed Congress will probably result in less spending, I'll concede that. But a Liberal President w/ a Liberal Congress will make Bush look like a tight fisted miser.