Why YOU MUST vote against all Republican candidates for US House and Senate Nov. 7th

Lasher said:
Gridlock = good government

How does gridlock solve the issues of energy dependency, the eventual breakdown of Social Security, illegal immigration and the declining middle class? I would prefer a group of people that would actually put the good of the people ahead of politics.
 
quarkman said:
<edited out the mindless, incoherent ranting>
Whose side are you on? It's hard to present a more damning portrayal of a Republican.
 
Gil_Favor said:
How does gridlock solve the issues of energy dependency, the eventual breakdown of Social Security, illegal immigration and the declining middle class? I would prefer a group of people that would actually put the good of the people ahead of politics.
And what group is *that*? Our two parties only seem capable of creating problems. They fix neither the ones they created nor the ones their opponents did. I'm ready for a regime change, if only to say, "GOP, you can't suck that fucking bad and keep control of the gov't. Shape the fuck up!"
Yeah, Socialism is bad, but so is Fascism. In fact, let's start calling the two parties by their accurate names.
 
vetteman said:
Lasher said:

"Why YOU MUST vote against all Republican candidates for US House and Senate Nov. 7th"

Seeing your stated interest in Soviet history, I can see how you came to embrace the notion that America needs a one party system run by a bunch of socialist. Trouble is you need to read the rest of their history, particularly the ending.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1925518,00.html
 
quarkman said:
"Are these the words of DNC Chairman Howard Dean? John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Maybe other liberals? While all of these people and their many minions have regurgitated these words until we’re sick of hearing them, this quote is taken directly from a mid-term campaign appeal issued by The National Board of the Communist Party USA, released Sept. 25, 2006."

Whatever communists say must be bad. I certainly hope they want higher taxes and are for eating babies, because I don't want to have to raise taxes and be pro-baby eating.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

That said, I'd probably rather have a socialist in government than some of these Pubs.
 
Gil_Favor said:
I would prefer a group of people that would actually put the good of the people ahead of politics.

Politics = money

You think any person in either party is putting the good of the people ahead of money?

That's naive at best.
 
breakwall said:
Malkin and Crosby are going to have a big, big season. Especially if Therrien keeps playing them on the same lines.

Only only played them on the same line briefly. Most of the night he played Armstrong - Crosby - Ekman on one line and Malone - Malkin - Recchi on the other.

But I loved seeing Malkin out there on the point. He broke the glass on a slapshot last night... Of course the glass is 40 years old.
 
Lasher said:
You think any person in either party is putting the good of the people ahead of money?

.
Fuck no, and thats to bad because our children and grandchildren will be the ones who will pay for the current incompetence of our so called "leaders"

It would be outstanding to find a candidate who at least inspired the populace with some sort of positive vision.

As for naive, the older i have gotten the more cynical i have become. we as a populace get what we deserve.
 
thank you Lasher. its good to see somebody else imbodies my approach to political elections (well mostly). I say if the person up for election has not performed adaquately during his tenure vote him out (or his party if he's not available for re-election) Its the only way the populace can show the politicians we won't stand for it when they're not watching out for the people.

now find me a politician who opposes straight ticket voting and a collegiate system for presidential elections, and I'll show you a hungry politician (albeit a good one)
 
vetteman said:
Yet, the successful result of your call to vote against all republicans would result in absolute one party control of Congress.
Like... now?

Anyway, you don't have to vote Dem. Just don't vote Pub.
 
quarkman said:
"Democrats hope to focus voters upon Mark Foley and paint every republican a pervert between now and November. Why? Because their own agenda would never sell in America without making the opposition appear so unattractive that voters will opt for anything else."

Sound like the anti-war rhetoric of today’s Democrats and their lamestream press? Yes it does… However this quote was also taken directly from the Communist Party USA web site and references a column in the international Communist newspaper, The People's Weekly World Newspaper, dated 08/17/06.

Considering that the Foley story only broke 3 weeks ago, that's an amazing bit of clairvoyance on the part of the Communist Party USA. BTW, you're an idiot and so is your source.


airborne92 said:
I love how the liberals and media completely disregard what that sign means, and the sad part is that Bush even stated during that speech what the sign meant. :rolleyes:

For the last time genius, the sign "Mission Accomplished" means the carrier task faorce had completed its mission as it returned to its home port.

Yes, because the President always flies out to greet aircraft carriers when they return from a mission, and these appearances are always carried on every network in prime time.

What you're trying to tell us now is something that the Bush crowd made up after the fact because they couldn't admit they had fucked up by declaring the war over in the spring of 2003. But anyone who was conscious at the time knows exactly what the sign was supposed to connote. Live by the photo op, die by the photo op.
 
vetteman said:
Yet, the successful result of your call to vote against all republicans would result in absolute one party control of Congress.

Fortunately the powers that be have done quite a good job of gerrymandering disctricts that will safely vote for one party or the other regardless of what I may post on a porn board.

If I thought I had the power to create veto safe majorities in both houses I'd be much more careful in exercising it.

I love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but I still need to give a nod to common sense.
 
Last edited:
bluntforcemama said:
How about because Foley is now blaming his current actions upon a priest from his youth?

There's more than enough to indict the current administration and its enablers without involving Foley.

Although there are at least a handful in the House that deserve a much closer look for their actions - or lack there of - in relation to this.
 
phrodeau said:
The USS Abraham Lincoln completed their deployment in three Operations - Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The number of missions involved was probably in the hundreds.

Which one were they so proud of - flying the President aboard?

Oh, leave him alone. Everyone already knows he's one parachute shy of a full pack.
 
Just on principle I am voting against whoever is running against Maxine Waters... She's been there too long.
 
sweet soft kiss said:
Just on principle I am voting against whoever is running against Maxine Waters... She's been there too long.


I'm doing the same with Teddy Kennedy. In a way it's sort of odd. I've lived here in MA for 7 years now and I've yet to meet anyone who will admit they ever voted for him but he's been there forever.
 
Back
Top