PDA

View Full Version : Who gets the blame?



Gaffer
10-08-2006, 03:47 PM
Lets say the dems don't pick up any new seats or even lose more seats. Who do they blame? Bush? the GOP in general? the voting machines? The courts? The voters? They always want to blame someone for their own faults.

The dems are making big plans. But they could be counting their chickens before they are hatched.

Beefy
10-08-2006, 03:55 PM
If they lose they should blame themselves. If they blow something this easy, then its time to gut their whole political thinktank and build from the ground up. If they lose, they're freaking idiots.

OrnotBitwise
10-08-2006, 04:13 PM
If they lose they should blame themselves. If they blow something this easy, then its time to gut their whole political thinktank and build from the ground up. If they lose, they're freaking idiots.Agreed. The Repugnants are doing everything but gift wrap the House for them.

Care4all
10-08-2006, 05:16 PM
Well, the electronic voting machines in MOST STATES are not secure and our vote is not sacred, until they have paper trails imo.

There is no way that Dems will not pick up a seat as your scenario UNLESS there was cheating imo.

Because we know that you will lose at least one seat, and that is Foley's seat in Florida...and probably Santorums in the senate and probably George Allen's, (God willing :) )

So yes, if we don't pick up a seat in these elections I will be standing on Desh's shoulders screaming that your side cheated with these machines! :)

care

maineman
10-08-2006, 05:19 PM
Lets say the dems don't pick up any new seats or even lose more seats. Who do they blame? Bush? the GOP in general? the voting machines? The courts? The voters? They always want to blame someone for their own faults.

The dems are making big plans. But they could be counting their chickens before they are hatched.

and what if the chickens they count all hatch? Who will be to blame when the republicans get slaughtered on election day? Bush and Iraq, or will the repugs merely marginalize the importance of their defeat by putting it all on poor Mark Foley?

Gaffer
10-08-2006, 05:25 PM
If they lose they should blame themselves. If they blow something this easy, then its time to gut their whole political thinktank and build from the ground up. If they lose, they're freaking idiots.

My thoughts exactly, but they won't blame themselves.

Gaffer
10-08-2006, 05:31 PM
Well, the electronic voting machines in MOST STATES are not secure and our vote is not sacred, until they have paper trails imo.

There is no way that Dems will not pick up a seat as your scenario UNLESS there was cheating imo.

Because we know that you will lose at least one seat, and that is Foley's seat in Florida...and probably Santorums in the senate and probably George Allen's, (God willing :) )

So yes, if we don't pick up a seat in these elections I will be standing on Desh's shoulders screaming that your side cheated with these machines! :)

care

already lining up to blame something other than their own actions.

maineman
10-08-2006, 05:58 PM
My thoughts exactly, but they won't blame themselves.

they won't need to asshole...we're gonna win a shitload of seats..... and if we get the house, we're gonna impeach that chimp

Beefy
10-08-2006, 06:53 PM
they won't need to asshole...we're gonna win a shitload of seats..... and if we get the house, we're gonna impeach that chimp

But you won't be able to remove him. Just waste a lot of time like the (R)etards did to Clinton in the 90's.

maineman
10-08-2006, 07:02 PM
I think it might be worth it if we can totally tie up his legislative agenda by doing so..... and then the R's have gotta find someone without any connection to bush to run in '08

Beefy
10-08-2006, 07:07 PM
I think it might be worth it if we can totally tie up his legislative agenda by doing so..... and then the R's have gotta find someone without any connection to bush to run in '08

That's true. It would benefit the entire universe if W, Retard in Chief, were rendered totally impotent. I can dig that.

maineman
10-08-2006, 07:11 PM
and the dirt on his administration that would be dug up by hearings run by democrats would stain the republican party for years....

and the skunk stench would be impossible to wash off. Imagine finding a republican who has NOT had his picture taken with Dubya to run in '08...

cuz any photo of the two of them together would be on democratic campaign ads 24/7. "Had enough of corrupt incompetence? then don't vote for THIS asshole"

Beefy
10-08-2006, 07:24 PM
I just hope we get 20 years of gridlock. One party in control of the house, senate, and Whitehouse is a freaking disaster. Especially when the Pres is a stupid, arrogant theocrat convinced that his legacy will be akin to that of Lincoln's so long as he keeps waging war and killing a lot of people for no reason.

Care4all
10-08-2006, 07:28 PM
already lining up to blame something other than their own actions.
And you with this post are trying to set it up so that we will not have a valid voice in the security of our vote...

you are trying to do what republicans always do before an election with posts like this....

Ain't gonna work this time...this time there will be war, between the sides... if those electronic voting machines show ANYTHING "funny"....like giving the vote to republicans where we KNOW they should have lost....

the next post will be about HOW POLLING is inaccurate and doesn't work....is that your next post gaffer? that would follow the course for the conservatives on the last election...make it like the Dems are just being foolkish regarding this stuff or just cry babies...I got your story don't I??? :D


care

Cypress
10-08-2006, 07:36 PM
Lets say the dems don't pick up any new seats or even lose more seats. Who do they blame? Bush? the GOP in general? the voting machines? The courts? The voters? They always want to blame someone for their own faults.

The dems are making big plans. But they could be counting their chickens before they are hatched.

If the generic polls still show a 10-15% generic advantage for Dems right up to election day, and republicans still pick up seats, something is seriously fishy.

That would be unprecendeted. In fact, Bush demanded the Ukraine have an election do-over, because the results of the Ukraine election was so wildly off from the polls.

On the other hand, the polls could tighten up, and the GOP could still hold the house. Its definetly possible.

Damocles
10-08-2006, 08:22 PM
I think it might be worth it if we can totally tie up his legislative agenda by doing so..... and then the R's have gotta find someone without any connection to bush to run in '08
If you own the House and the Rs the Senate his legislative agenda would be tied up anyway. This is truly disingenuous nonsense and a waste of money, it isn't worth it. It wasn't worth it when the Rs did it either.

Cypress
10-08-2006, 08:42 PM
If you own the House and the Rs the Senate his legislative agenda would be tied up anyway. This is truly disingenuous nonsense and a waste of money, it isn't worth it. It wasn't worth it when the Rs did it either.

The house is powerless with regard to judicial and political appointees. Only the Senate can influence the agenda.

Just having the house is peanuts.

Holding the senate is where the real power is in the legislature. The house is just the red-headed stepchild compared to the senate.

Cypress
10-08-2006, 08:44 PM
The house is powerless with regard to judicial and political appointees. Only the Senate can influence the agenda.

Just having the house is peanuts.

Holding the senate is where the real power is in the legislature. The house is just the red-headed stepchild compared to the senate.


OH, and if Bush tries to pass more corporate-written free trade agreements like CAFTA, the Senate is the only one who has any say in approving Treaties.

the House can't do shit.

Damocles
10-08-2006, 08:48 PM
The house is powerless with regard to judicial and political appointees. Only the Senate can influence the agenda.

Just having the house is peanuts.

Holding the senate is where the real power is in the legislature. The house is just the red-headed stepchild compared to the senate.
If you don't have the same Bill and won't pass a compromise you can control the legislative agenda as easily with the house as you can with the Senate.

Damocles
10-08-2006, 08:49 PM
OH, and if Bush tries to pass more corporate-written free trade agreements like CAFTA, the Senate is the only one who has any say in approving Treaties.

the House can't do shit.
He doesn't appear to care about Treaties, look at the Meximericanada agreement that was signed and implemented without a Treaty vote of the Senate.

uscitizen
10-08-2006, 09:42 PM
Agreed. The Repugnants are doing everything but gift wrap the House for them.
agreed. the Dems shouid gain some this time, but Bush has two more years to convince people to vote demoncratic. A bit of patience its needed while the repugnantcans topple themselves from power.

maineman
10-09-2006, 05:52 AM
If you own the House and the Rs the Senate his legislative agenda would be tied up anyway. This is truly disingenuous nonsense and a waste of money, it isn't worth it. It wasn't worth it when the Rs did it either.

so then.... they really can't whine about it when the democrats do it, can they?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What goes around comes around.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

It must SUCK to be a republican these days.

Damocles
10-09-2006, 06:31 AM
so then.... they really can't whine about it when the democrats do it, can they?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What goes around comes around.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

It must SUCK to be a republican these days.
Whatever... I didn't say it because I think the Rs are doing all the right things or something. I said it because it is a waste of spending and time that can be better spent on a positive agenda.

maineman
10-09-2006, 07:15 AM
I am sure that democrats thought the same thing during the impeachment kangaroo court show trial days as well.....

all republicans should quit bitchin' about it.

Damocles
10-09-2006, 07:24 AM
I am sure that democrats thought the same thing during the impeachment kangaroo court show trial days as well.....

all republicans should quit bitchin' about it.
Rubbish. I bitched about it then, and will continue to do so. I hate waste, and I'm not going to go all google-eyed about it regardless of which party is throwing it around.

uscitizen
10-09-2006, 07:28 AM
Damo, Our govt policy "A waste is a terrible thing to mind"
;)

Care4all
10-09-2006, 07:36 AM
Damo...I saw on the news last night a story that mentioned the MEXICO TO CANADA Highway that you all said WAS NOT TRUE, and just rumored about the American union treaty of sorts that bush is instituting with Mexico, canada and us...no Senate involved in that either...

which is unconstitutional...but maybe not because I believe when Bush first came in to office he asked for full control of treaties and I believe the Senate voted to give up their responsibility on treaties... :(

and on the highway thing, why should American tax payers PAY for this highway to canada from mexico? How does it help the usa? I don't get it?

Damocles
10-09-2006, 07:38 AM
I didn't say anything about a highway. Man, you really do read into my posts whatever pleases you!

Damocles
10-09-2006, 07:40 AM
This is what I was talking about:

http://www.spp.gov/

And it is implementing as we type today.

Care4all
10-09-2006, 07:42 AM
I didn't say anything about a highway. Man, you really do read into my posts whatever pleases you!

well, maybe it was Gafer that chalked it up to conspiracy and you did not come to my defense and say that it was true...

but as you say, MAYBE I read you wrong on that post.... ;)

Damocles
10-09-2006, 07:45 AM
No, I posted what is actually true. I even stated that there is no evidence that anybody is building a highway. I do post the link to what I am talking about and what was agreed to without a Treaty vote...

Care4all
10-09-2006, 08:00 AM
Well, I guess your LINK was wrong, because they are building it, they went over it last night on the News, even the part that said that they would not use the hoover dam to cross the Colorado, but that they were building a new bridge to cross the Colorado river for supposed homeland security vs crossing the hoover damn for this MEXICO TO CANADA HIGHWAY, THEIR EXACT words...not mine. And they SHOWED THEOR WORK being done on this highway....

They also mentioned that people who own land in Arizona have plans to add 60,000 homes in the middle of the dessert...because of the access this highway will give them....they want to make a new las vegas of sorts in the middle of nowhere because of this NEW highway....

just an fyi

Damocles
10-09-2006, 08:06 AM
Read the link... It is the government site about the agreement signed by Bush that was not voted on in the Senate. It is why I gave the link.

If they are building a superhighway across the nation, I haven't seen any real evidence of it, is beside the point. Up until I posted on the subject there was no evidence of a superhighway, but there is the signed agreement that was never voted on but is being implemented that I gave the actual government link to.

I'm not out for paranoid fantasy, I have posted my link. Just stating that they are buidling a superhighway isn't helping me much here Care.

The Superhighway that they talk about wouldn't go through Colorado. The first "exit" is a checkpoint in Kansas...

Cypress
10-09-2006, 09:31 AM
If you don't have the same Bill and won't pass a compromise you can control the legislative agenda as easily with the house as you can with the Senate.

I can't speak for mainman, but I profoundly disagree with you that simply controlling the House, is the same as controlling both House and Senate.


I think judicial nominations, political appointments, and so-called "free trade" agreements and other treaties are absolutly parts of the Bush agenda that should be blocked.

You can't block those things with just the House.

Damocles
10-09-2006, 09:37 AM
I can't speak for mainman, but I profoundly disagree with you that simply controlling the House, is the same as controlling both House and Senate.


I think judicial nominations, political appointments, and so-called "free trade" agreements and other treaties are absolutly parts of the Bush agenda that should be blocked.

You can't block those things with just the House.

Strawman. That isn't what I stated. One person said that they needed both houses to control Legislation, I have pointed out that you do not need both houses to control Legislation.

Treaties are different and so are Judicial nominations. Those are not legislation.