I'd just like to take a quick poll to see how the elections might swing things later this year. Hopefully they will stop the neo-con juggernaut in its tracks. US only please - if from outside US, hit null please.
Poll
How will you vote in the upcoming senate/congress elections?
| Democrat | 29% | 29% - 17 | ||||
| Republican | 42% | 42% - 24 | ||||
| Independent | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 22% | 22% - 13 | ||||
| Total: 57 | ||||||
Ever think the Dems are smarter than they look (I know, I know, but just work with me here)? My theory is that they purposely lost the 2004 election in order to break free from the 4-12 year power cycles of mediocracy. It's a delusional dream, but they don't see it that way. Dean was the clear pick but got too popular and they scaled back by nominating ol' horseface for the Democratic ticket. Dean's speach where he screamed like a psychopath was the excuse the Dems needed to spin his character. They knew Kerry wouldn't win the same that Rove and the rest of the Cons knew GW was going to win. Shit was mathed out way before the election. Kerry had no stance. Look at his retoric. He kept setting unrealistic timetables for Iraq. He is nothing more than some fat, billionaire bitch's bitchboy.
I don't know about the other two branches. If it wasn't on purpose, the accident of total Republican control was nothing less than a blessing. Now all the Dems have to do is point their boney, decrepid fingers back to the Bush years and say "Remember that? Remember what happened when they were in power!?!"
Dems will win back the White House and at least one house of Congress in '08 but nothing will change. They'll try to balance the budget and throw some more legislation about alternative fuels into the mix. In 2020 or 2024, Republicans will be in power. It's all one big slight of hand in front of the public's eyes. Anyway, that's my theory. My next project is to expose the secret CIA program that invented homosexuality as a means to sell more red convertables.
In short, I probably won't vote. The few decent people in Congress don't have to worry about losing re-election since they're actually bringing up worthwile issues, not the shock and awe sensationalism like gay marriage (or whatever the new Washington bangwagon is...). You'll see them on C-SPAN on the floor with 1 or 2 other people presenting information to a Speaker who looks like he/she would rather be out boating or something. It's like the only people who make the front pages are the ones with the least to offer.
Besides, the mutant aliens are going to eat all our brains on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway. Earth is doomed!!!!
I don't know about the other two branches. If it wasn't on purpose, the accident of total Republican control was nothing less than a blessing. Now all the Dems have to do is point their boney, decrepid fingers back to the Bush years and say "Remember that? Remember what happened when they were in power!?!"
Dems will win back the White House and at least one house of Congress in '08 but nothing will change. They'll try to balance the budget and throw some more legislation about alternative fuels into the mix. In 2020 or 2024, Republicans will be in power. It's all one big slight of hand in front of the public's eyes. Anyway, that's my theory. My next project is to expose the secret CIA program that invented homosexuality as a means to sell more red convertables.
In short, I probably won't vote. The few decent people in Congress don't have to worry about losing re-election since they're actually bringing up worthwile issues, not the shock and awe sensationalism like gay marriage (or whatever the new Washington bangwagon is...). You'll see them on C-SPAN on the floor with 1 or 2 other people presenting information to a Speaker who looks like he/she would rather be out boating or something. It's like the only people who make the front pages are the ones with the least to offer.
Besides, the mutant aliens are going to eat all our brains on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway. Earth is doomed!!!!
Mark Steyn wrote:
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Defeaticrat drumbeat
By Mark Steyn
Published June 19, 2006
Perusing reports of this month's World Naked Bike Ride in San Francisco, I was impressed by the way the acres of sagging mottled flesh stayed ruthlessly on message: "Re-elect Gore" was the slogan on one man's bottom, as fetchingly dimpled as a Palm Beach chad, while beneath the "Gore" of his butt his upper thighs proudly proclaimed "No War" (left leg) "For Oil" (right).
"I'd Rather Have this Bush for President" read one lady's naked torso with an arrow pointing down to the presidential material in question. What a bleak comment on the bitter divisions in our society that even so all-American a tradition as nude bicycling down Main Street should now be so nakedly partisan. It's as if the republic is divided into a red buttock and a blue buttock permanently cleaved by the bicycle seat of war.
OK, this metaphor has jumped the bike path. Let me see if I can find some historical analogy. Ah, here we go: Back in 1559, devastated by the loss of her last Continental possession, Mary Tudor, England's queen, said that when she died they would find "Calais" engraved on her heart. When the Democratic Party dies, you'll find "No War for Oil" engraved on its upper thighs.
Despite the Republicans' best efforts to self-destruct, I can't see the Democrats taking either the House or Senate this November. As I said a few months back, even a loser has to have someone to lose to, and the Dems refuse to fulfill even that minimum requirement. It may be true that on critical issues such as Iraq and immigration the GOP is divided. But it's a much bigger stretch to conclude the beneficiary of those divisions is likely to be the Democratic Party, which is about the last place one would look for a serious position on either issue.
In that respect, the most significant portent for the Dems may not be their stupendous flopperoo in the California special election nor the death of Abu Musab Zarqawi nor the nonindictment of Karl Rove -- though, taken together, they render pretty threadbare the Democrat strategy of relying on Republican immigration splits, bad news in Iraq and the GOP's "culture of corruption.?
No, the revealing development is Joseph Lieberman's troubles in Connecticut. Six years ago, he was the party's beaming vice-presidential nominee. Two years ago, he was an also-ran for the presidential nomination. This summer, he's an incumbent senator struggling not to lose in his own primary to a candidate who's the darling of the antiwar netroots left. What has the senator done to offend the base? Nothing -- except broadly support the Iraq campaign and other military goals in the war on terror. He's one of a very few Democrats who give the impression they would like America to win.
But in today's Democratic Party it's the mainstream that gets marginalized. Forty years ago, George Aiken recommended that in Vietnam America "declare victory and go home." Today, the likes of Rep. Jack Murtha and Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have come up with their own ingenious improvement: declare defeat and go home.
Having voted for the war before he voted against it, Mr. Kerry has now effortlessly retwisted his pretzel of a spine: Last week, he voted to lose Iraq even though we're winning it. Even if there's no civil war, even if the insurgents' leader is dead and his network in ruins, even if the Iraqis are making huge progress in self-government, even if by any historical standard everything's going swell, the Defeaticrats refuse to budge: America needs to throw in the towel and hightail it out of there by the end of the year, which is the date Kerry is demanding we surrender by.
It's often said that in our bitter fractious partisan politics much of the Democratic base's anger boils down to sheer loathing of Mr. Bush. If he were gone, if it were a Clinton or Gore waging war in Iraq, the Dems would be cool with it. I think not. Their fury with Joe Lieberman suggests a corrosion far deeper than mere Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Democrats may be prepared to go along with some Clintonian pseudo-warmongering -- the desultory lobbing of a few Cruise missiles at Slobodan Milosevic or that Sudanese aspirin factory -- but, when it comes to the projection of hard power in the national interest, the left cannot get past Vietnam. Indeed, the reaction to Peter Beinart's ringing call for a reassertion of "liberal internationalism" -- ringing in the sense that nobody's picking up -- suggests even his quaintly dated Eurocentric September 10 ineffectually respectable multilateralism has few takers among today's left.
In the early 1970s, when John Kerry was insisting we would get out of Vietnam at very little cost, he at least could plead ignorance: he didn't know what would come after. In 2006, we all know what followed -- boat people, Cambodia's killing fields, globalized dominoes falling from Grenada to Iran. When Murtha, Kerry and Company effectively demand that America agree to retraumatize itself in the humiliation of an even bigger geopolitical bug-out, one assumes they're failing to consider where the dominoes would fall this time round -- in Afghanistan, in Jordan, in Turkey, and beyond. It would end the American moment: Why would Russia, China or even Belgium take American power seriously ever again?
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's "approval numbers" are back up. Maybe even in double figures again. The mistake the media makes is to assume that the 60, 80, 97.43 percent of the electorate that "disapproves" of George Bush is therefore pro-Democrat. I doubt it.
On the Republican side, some of those antipathetic to Mr. Bush were never in favor of liberating Iraq but figure now we're in it we need to win it. Others were in favor but revile Mr. Bush for pussyfooting around not just with the insurgents but with the Iranians and the Syrians. Others are broadly supportive of Mr. Bush on the war but are furious with him for supporting the No Mexican Left Behind immigration bill.
None of these demographics seems particularly fertile soil for the Democratic Party, especially one willing to devour Joe Lieberman in the interests of Defeaticrat purity.
Those naked bicyclists are emblematic. The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak, too weak to articulate what ideas animate the party other than disrobed defeatistism. Was it a male or female bottom that said "War is Not the Answer"? It seems likelier that this November the electorate will conclude, yet again,the Democrats are not the answer.
Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
© Mark Steyn, 2005
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 … -1993r.htm
Posting articles=let other people think for you
If I hadn't +1 you earlier today I'd +1 you again!!!Ikarti wrote:
Posting articles=let other people think for you
Yeah I skimmed through the article. More stupid shit about voting along party lines instead of who's best for the job that fucks the country up.
Last edited by Ikarti (2006-06-19 13:27:15)
funny since you are not from the US but who cares, nice pick in you sig hey put a new one if you got one since you have been everywhereCameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to take a quick poll to see how the elections might swing things later this year. Hopefully they will stop the neo-con juggernaut in its tracks. US only please - if from outside US, hit null please.
...Opinion article from Fleder...check...
I'm going to be voting for Democrats, and as is always the case, California will have Democratic Congressional leaders. It's really up to the rest of the country to make the decision to keep their Republican incumbents or switch them out with a Democrat or other-party candidate. It'd be interesting to get more Independents into Congress for once...
I'm going to be voting for Democrats, and as is always the case, California will have Democratic Congressional leaders. It's really up to the rest of the country to make the decision to keep their Republican incumbents or switch them out with a Democrat or other-party candidate. It'd be interesting to get more Independents into Congress for once...
Marconius wrote:
I'm going to be voting for Democrats
Okie Dokie.Marconius wrote:
It'd be interesting to get more Independents into Congress for once...
this time im gonna do as much research on the canidates as humanly possible. I dont want another bush. Im sorry but.........nah he's not worth my time.
hmmm...this topic was laying around dead until I posted the article, ..... zzzt! You're good to go!CameronPoe wrote:
If I hadn't +1 you earlier today I'd +1 you again!!!Ikarti wrote:
Posting articles=let other people think for you
Your welcome.
It does take a bit of banter to get a post going. Cheers.Darth_Fleder wrote:
hmmm...this topic was laying around dead until I posted the article, ..... zzzt! You're good to go!CameronPoe wrote:
If I hadn't +1 you earlier today I'd +1 you again!!!Ikarti wrote:
Posting articles=let other people think for you
Your welcome.
I'd be curious as to what exactly neo-con means to a liberal ( I'm assuming from your other posts that you are, and nothing inherently wrong with that )?CameronPoe wrote:
Hopefully they will stop the neo-con juggernaut in its tracks.
To me, it seems a subtle anti-semitism as thats a phrase used to talk smack in describing the pro-Jewish elements in the White house.
In other words, neo-con is perceived by conservatives to mean " new conservative, one that is beholden to Israel at the expense of common sense and justice ".
Is that what you mean by neo-conservative?
And, I as a staunch conservative would consider voting for ANY person that I believed was going to lead America in the right direction.
As the two party system is a failed one in that it allows the people two shitty choices ( usually ) and amounts to the average voter going for whomever they perceive to be the lessor of two evils, I will be leaning towards anybody but a democrat or Republican. Anybody.
Well...
"Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and believe in limited restrictions on social spending." -- Wikipedia
The rest of the article.
"Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and believe in limited restrictions on social spending." -- Wikipedia
The rest of the article.
Last edited by Spark (2006-06-19 16:21:59)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Republican
i hate people who vote strictly along party lines. they should track every vote and if you vote party line you loose your voting privledges.. you are not doing anyone a favor by voting that way. If the politicians had any clue as to what a real american is, or wants, this country would be a drastictally different and hopefully better place. But we have politicians who vote for things before they vote against things
well according to the previous description of a neocon -- I've never met one. there may be more to an American's vote than a one word descriptor. that may take too much time to consider though. just use the one word descriptors and go to sleep soundly tonight believing you have the answers.
Ive hit every continent except 2, does that make me special
For neo-con principles go to the website of 'The Project For The New American Century'. Basically they're ultra capitalists who want to expand their influence across the world (economic imperialism) using whatever means necessary. I disagree with the term being deemed subtly anti-semitic. 'Anti-semitic' is a term most often used by people who don't want to hear someone criticising Israeli governmental policy or the nature of the state of Israel, which in itself is not anti-semitic. Neo-conservatism does have strong links to the US-Israeli sought hegemony of the middle east and the oil resources there however.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-19 16:53:33)
Yes. Congratulations, your medal is in the post. Expect a 10 day wait for delivery.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ive hit every continent except 2, does that make me special
you are going to have go deeper here. you're talking of text- not experience. you're missing history and perspective. your answers are superficial and shallow and generally what is reported on the news.
remember; the most valued of every society is the children. why would a society sacrifice it's children? know that answer and know their perspective.
it's not oil.
remember; the most valued of every society is the children. why would a society sacrifice it's children? know that answer and know their perspective.
it's not oil.
No conservative politician can afford to openly advocate "big government" -- that's obvious. What's maybe less obvious is why their rhetoric is more influential than their record.
As for partisan voting, there's actually a party at the civic level here in Vancouver called the NPA -- the Non-Partisan Association. They tend to do quite well and, not surprisingly, they are in fact highly partisan.
As all good magicians know, if you keep people focused on your words, they tend not to notice what your hands are doing.
Lastly, the vast majority of the pro-Israel electorate in the US is not Jewish. US Jews themselves largely take a dim view of Israel's aggressive policies, so it really doesn't make much sense to label critics of Israel anti-Semitic.
As for partisan voting, there's actually a party at the civic level here in Vancouver called the NPA -- the Non-Partisan Association. They tend to do quite well and, not surprisingly, they are in fact highly partisan.
As all good magicians know, if you keep people focused on your words, they tend not to notice what your hands are doing.
Lastly, the vast majority of the pro-Israel electorate in the US is not Jewish. US Jews themselves largely take a dim view of Israel's aggressive policies, so it really doesn't make much sense to label critics of Israel anti-Semitic.
I will vote on the person that I think will do the best. Party-line voting...usually a very bad thing.
Seconded.RAIMIUS wrote:
I will vote on the person that I think will do the best. Party-line voting...usually a very bad thing.
I accidently hit Null Vote, but I would have voted Republican.