|
03 Nov 06 - 09:12 AM (#1875334) Subject: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST Anyone seen what the bookies are giving as odds right now? |
|
03 Nov 06 - 10:00 AM (#1875364) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Sorcha Why are all the political threads started by Guest?????? |
|
03 Nov 06 - 10:04 AM (#1875367) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST,TIA from sportsbook.com: Who will win a House majority in the 2006 Midterm Elections 11-7-06 200 Democrats -375 off off 12:00 PM Republicans +275 off off Who Will win a Senate majority in the 2006 Midterm Elections 11-7-06 210 Democrats +220 off off 12:00 PM Republicans -300 off off |
|
03 Nov 06 - 11:13 AM (#1875409) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel I don't understand gambling lingo odds. But I do understand the gambling mentality. For example: When a gambler is losing he feels he has to keep going to win his money back. It ends with good money going after bad until they are broke. An addicted gambler can not cut their losses and run from the casino. So what ever you DON'T CUT AND RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! besides we can not leave until perpetual gambling/war is accomplished. All my bets are on Diebold electronic voting machines and their exe. software embedded in their memory chips. The other 3 electronic voting machine private corporate vendors are not significantly different from Diebold. Sequoia voting machines are now getting some press since an investment by a certain Latin American Company has been linked to Sequoia (then named Smartronics) |
|
03 Nov 06 - 11:46 AM (#1875432) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace Basically, the Dems are in. The Repubs are out. It will be a whole new H of R. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 11:48 AM (#1875433) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace Then Bush is going to be needing lots of lawyers. So will Cheney and a few other folks. Too bad they won't see the inside of Marion. I guess Leavenworth will have to do. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 11:54 AM (#1875439) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: pdq Don't get too smug yet. The Democrats are counting on a huge turnout from their traditional voters: felons, illegal aliens, prison inmates, mental patients and dead people. All have a poor history of getting to the polling place on time. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 11:57 AM (#1875443) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel Peace, W's latest bill that redefined torture and gave immunity to his crew was signed last week. IT WAS SIGNED TO LATE to be legal. W ended up making his second veto of his presidency. It is called a pocket veto but it is a veto nonetheless. I watched the signing ceremony which took all of nine seconds. Usually the president uses as many pens as possible to sign for historic gift purposes. W used only one and jumped up and left. This tells me he knew he was signing too late for the bill to be legal. Peace, watch the HBO "Democracy Hacked" |
|
03 Nov 06 - 12:14 PM (#1875455) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel W is spreading the cover story that Washington pundits will be proved wrong, that the smart people are the stupid ones, that exit polls are rigged and only the Diebold count is perfect. IF a crook has a master key that he has used successflly 3 times already, HE WILL USE IT AGAIN don't you think? the sad odds... The perfect Diebold count will allow an even split in Congress giving Cheney the tie breaker and 5 or six Dem seats in the house. Pundits expect 25 to 40 dem seats in the house and a Dem Congress if Virginia and Missouri lose. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 01:53 PM (#1875519) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel nobody likes a pessimist but By Greg Szymanski Arctic Beacon.com 11-3-6 In a private Oval Office session, treasonous President Bush signs law, allowing him to station troops anywhere in America without local or state consent. The treasonous, perverted and illegal occupant of the Oval Office, George W. Bush, moved America one step closer to martial law by signing into law a measure that would wipe-out the protections of The Insurrection Act. With one swipe of his pen, Bush further expanded his dictatorial power by eliminating protections against a President's power to deploy troops in the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331-335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law. Bush signed the legislation, which makes way for martial law, in a private Oval Office session Oct. 17 when he also signed into law The Military Commissions Act, allowing for torture and detention abroad. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2) allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America by taking federal control of state-based National Guard units "without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to suppress public disorder." The law, which was also hidden by the press while it focused on the so-called passage of the "torture bill", allows for swift federal military action on the streets of America by passing state and local authorities. Critics claim Bush, considered to be an "enemy within", passed the law because he is an integral part of the conspiracy to overthrow the United States, working together with the Vatican-led Illuminati as they continue to spread fear through their phony war on terror. "Let's not forget that Bush is the real enemy and he is the puppet spreading the New World Order's destruction of America," said a Washington D.C. insider who wishes to remain anonymous. "Nothing he does is motivated by good intentions and every word out of his mouth smells of lies and deception. When he says peace, he means war. When he says he's a Christian, he means he is a devil worshipper." Even Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) voiced his strong opposition to Bush's stealth maneuver to facilitate martial law: "At the same time, we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders. "A bill that began with such promise in empowering the National Guard now increasingly appears to be shaping up as a double setback for the Guard. That is inexplicable, that is indefensible, and that is wrong. The last thing Congress should be doing is making the National Guard's job more difficult. We urge the Defense Bill conferees to adopt the Empowerment Bill and drop the ill-advised changes to the Insurrection Act. "The Guard is always there for America. Now the ball is in Congress's court, and we cannot afford to let our Guard down." A recent article in the "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International", heavily mentioned in on-line forums, reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report states, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report also notes that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism." |
|
03 Nov 06 - 03:09 PM (#1875548) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies "treasonous, perverted, and illegal"--well OK, as long as it gets the consumers of such gentle prose to vote this time--it may be awhile yet til the perfect candidates appear. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 04:47 PM (#1875613) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace "counting on a huge turnout from their traditional voters: felons, illegal aliens, prison inmates, mental patients and dead people" Hey, man, the Repubs have Diebold and the Dems have people. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 05:10 PM (#1875642) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: bobad Yeah and why should some of them be discriminated against just because they've assumed room temperature? |
|
03 Nov 06 - 05:19 PM (#1875648) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Richard Bridge British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il. Survey. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html |
|
03 Nov 06 - 05:20 PM (#1875649) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Charley Noble Donuel- I usually agree with your viewpoint but the Vice-President is the tie-breaker in the U.S. Senate, not in the House as you've stated above. Anyway, I hope our friends work hard for a good turnout and I hope the "state of the art" voting machines don't screw it up! Charley Noble |
|
03 Nov 06 - 05:21 PM (#1875650) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST It is, as before, the Democrats to lose. Thay have been able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before, so there is no reason to think they will not do something foolish and lose this one, as well. |
|
04 Nov 06 - 04:23 PM (#1876281) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Kelticgrasshopper I think that GW and friends are counting on a LOW turn out..with everyone thinking the Democrats will win. Low turn out Republicans could take it again. SOOOOOOO get off our duffs and VOTE! KGH |
|
04 Nov 06 - 08:05 PM (#1876376) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Bobert Ummmmm, I wish I felt better about the current crooks gettin the boot and if the elections were honest, maybe I would... ...but the elections aren't honest and the votes don't get counted correctly... Maybe the US needs the UN to oversee our elections because the US hasn't don't to well of late in making the counting process transparent and the party in control at the state levels is doing the counting... Now, yeah, in some contests that will favor the Dems but in the a majority of the tough contests this time, the Repubs will be doing the counting... So like I've said many time, the Dems better have 3 to 5 point leads or the Repubs and Diebold will screw 'um like in 2000 and 2004... Bobert |
|
04 Nov 06 - 08:49 PM (#1876399) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel Charley of course Cheney is the tie breaker for the Senate, I never intended to say he presided over the house. It seems that Mexico took a lesson from our 2000 election. The vote suppression and fraud in Mexico is now at the stage of an armed invasion of the citizens of Mohhaka. I watched the video tape of the US journalist as he was shot dead by Mexican goverment agents. His screams of shock and pain and outrage as he died will forever be etched in my memory. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 06:39 AM (#1878946) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST PDQ, Wrote on the 3 Nov, "Don`t get too smug, The Democrats are counting on a huge turnout from their traditional voters, felons, illegal aliens, prison unmates, mental patients and dead people. All have a poor history of getting to the polling station on time". Smug?, PDQ you could make a career out of being smug. A far sighted indivudal like PDQ would go a long way in the Republican Party.---- Happy days. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 06:52 AM (#1878949) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace The Republicans still have a Party, but no longer in the House of Representatives. The Senate will no longer be their sandbox in 2008. Let's hope things are finally looking up. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 12:29 PM (#1879209) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST You have to gloat, just picture Rumsfeld,Cheney and the rest of this obnoxious crew watching their house come down around their ears, it is good to see the people at long last seeing through this awful government. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 01:10 PM (#1879257) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: ard mhacha Now you can really gloat, Rumsfeld has decided to resign. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 01:23 PM (#1879273) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: McGrath of Harlow No. Rumsfeld has decided to "resign". |
|
08 Nov 06 - 02:59 PM (#1879392) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Donuel Rumsfeld was always the disposable member of the triumverent. If there is anything to the planned pearl harbor type event, there is only one way to be sure your partner doesn't spill the beans. I would love to see the shredding party going on all over town right now ;-) |
|
08 Nov 06 - 04:07 PM (#1879464) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST,TIA Update - Current odds are 100% |
|
09 Nov 06 - 04:46 AM (#1879986) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: ard mhacha Maybe PDQ could forecast who next President will be, going by his predicitions on the present vote, we await anxiously, his latest attempt at crystal gazing. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 04:58 AM (#1879994) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Wolfgang Update - Current odds are 100% (TIA) Ouch! If p is the probability of something happening then the odds of this happening are defined as p/(1-p) So if the probability of p is 1 (known outcome) the odds are undefined for being larger than any finite number. Odds are never given in percent. Wolfgang |
|
09 Nov 06 - 08:30 AM (#1880071) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Seamus Kennedy Not a chance! Seamus |
|
09 Nov 06 - 11:36 PM (#1880900) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies Yes, as I recall, pdq recently assured us that the Democratic net gain in the House would be no more than one seat. But somehow, he wasn't willing to bet--a nickel--on his prediction. Perhaps a little problem--either with a crystal ball which needed cleaning--or with ego. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 02:03 AM (#1880951) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace |
|
10 Nov 06 - 02:04 AM (#1880953) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace In hindsight, the odds of the Dems taking over Congress are 1 to 0. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 03:07 AM (#1880972) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Paul Burke Hindsight? The ability to see (possibly magical) deer? But it looks at the moment like the Democrats will try so hard not to look triumphant that they'll let Bush go on blithely as before, but with the house majority now picking up its share of the opprobrium. That's what happened with Blair and Brown in the UK, who just continued Tory policies after 1997. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 03:44 AM (#1880987) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Peace It is very sad to hear the Speaker (Pelosi) saying that 'impeachment is not on the table'. Perhaps the Dems are afraid they'll find some of their own members being investigated. Neat message to send: You can do what you want for six years because no new government will look into what you did anyway. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 09:55 AM (#1882016) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: BuckMulligan I suspect that Pelosi does not wish a replay of the idiotic waste of time, effort and money that attended the Clinton impeachment, given that the administration is lame duck anyway, and the new congress can at least put the brakes on further damage, and there really is a repair process that needs to get under way. But if "smoking guns" came to light, I'd guess all bets would be off. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 11:14 AM (#1882237) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST,TIA Ouch back atcha. Notice the use of the colloquial word "odds" as opposed to the word "probability" which does, as you point out, have a formal mathematical definition. Odds may, on occasion, be used formally as a synonym for probability, but it is also used as a synonym for the informals "likelihood", or "chances of...", or "prospects for..." But, in any case, I am in too good a mood to be annoyed by an attempted "gotcha". Best wishes, TIA |
|
10 Nov 06 - 11:31 AM (#1882254) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Bill D Once more....if we impeached Bush, and were ABLE to get a conviction (no slam dunk) we get **CHENEY**... The impeachment process is tedious and distracting and the stuff that Bush did is not 'exactly' High Crimes & Misdemeanors....(though a renowned member of the faculty at Georgetown Law School 'thinks' a case can be made the he violated the intent of the Constitution with his many 'signing statements') It IS awkward, and I DEARLY wish we had a system that allowed for govt. change mid-stream, such as exists in the UK. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 12:49 PM (#1882337) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies The Republicans did themselves no favors by impeaching Clinton--and they realize that now. It appears the Democrats have learned from this. But that will not prevent a deep investigation into such matters as the contradictions between what the Bush regime told the country in the run-up to the Iraq war and what the intellgence community knew at the time. Learning exactly how the propaganda campaign worked would be very instructive-- and useful--both politically and as a warning to the public for the future. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 12:49 PM (#1882338) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies "intelligence" |
|
10 Nov 06 - 12:51 PM (#1882340) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Barry Finn Both should be tried for war crimes & crimes against humanity & therefore impeached on those grounds besides the many others. BUT, I don't want to see this new face of government lose it's power for good changes in the process. They are now the lamest of ducks & can always be tried down the road. The 1st priority is to bring back the government to the people, as others have mentioned the repeal of the Patriot Act, now & completely. Fix up New Orleans, pull out of Iraq now, start working on a national health plan, upgrade & make education a priority, help to mend the UN that we helped to dismantal, fix social soc, raise the min wage, not build a fence. These & other things are more important, we can try & hang Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the Wolf, Rice, Hell-by-in later, along with the many others in a national purge, lest we forget, never again. But we need to care for the body 1st & we can clean the soul later. Barry |
|
10 Nov 06 - 04:27 PM (#1882504) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST,petr actually the odds were stacked against the democrats. In pure numbers the republicans actually need less total votes to win due to the population differences between the states. The democrats went into the elections carrying a bag of sand. so to win both houses is actually a landslide. (even though the election was probably a sharp rebuke of the Republicans than a vote for the Dems) |
|
10 Nov 06 - 06:50 PM (#1882671) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: pdq Ron Davies... I have no problem sending you a nickel on that bet. Please send the 39¢ postage to cover shipping. BTW, I do prefer postal money orders. Thank you. |
|
10 Nov 06 - 07:38 PM (#1882701) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Rapparee Okay, I'm ready to bet anybody that the Democrats win both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections! Come on all you big-time gamblers! Let's get it on! |
|
10 Nov 06 - 07:45 PM (#1882706) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Charley Noble I still can't believe that we won the whole thing! We also did well in my home state of Maine, and even our "Live Free Or Die" neighbors to the south (NH) had their first Democratic sweep in decades! There is a challenge or two left, however. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
10 Nov 06 - 07:55 PM (#1882722) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: dianavan Bush and Cheney should both be tried for war crimes. If they get away with it, whats going to stop governments (regardless of political party) from abusing their power? What good enough for Saddam is good enough for Bush and Cheney. Whats the difference? Its time the U.S. people sent a message to the world that they will not tolerate blood-thirsty tyrants. Rumsfeld already got away with it. What now? Do you really think Bush and Cheney are any different than they were before the election? |
|
11 Nov 06 - 11:01 AM (#1883104) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Charley Noble Dianavan- Redicule is probably the most effective instrument of torture we have to deal with Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang. As an example, here's a little ditty I just received to commemorate Election Night: 'Twas The Eve of Elections - a Blue State Parody 'Twas the eve of elections in GOP land. George, Karl, Dick and Rummy, the Great Asshole Band Were playing their song, "We're Great," ad infinitum, Not knowing the people were all poised to bite 'em. "Hey Karl," says our George with his head full of holes, "Now you know I cain't read but I don't like these polls." "The evening is young, George. Let's not make a fuss. My strategic plan says the win is for us." Dick sits on the side tying flies and just wishin', "This sounds just like Katrina, I think I'll go fishin'." While Rummy who's smart feels his gut passing gas As he's starting to think, "I'll be out on my ass." The evening wears on, the Dems can't be ignored, But our prez reads the comics and looks pretty bored. When the polls finally close, Karl hits George in the head. "Hey, wake up, buddy boy, I believe we're all dead." "It's the riff-raff who've won, they want minimum wage. They want health care and clean air, I'm just in a rage!" Georgie panics and says, "They all think I'm a baddy," So he gets on the phone and he wails to his daddy, "Daddy help me, I'm stumped. Help me please - please do sompin' I'm afraid we've been walloped, it's a real Texas thumpin'." "Now my boy, you remember in '04 way, way back. I slapped up your head, said don't go to Iraq." "But no, you had to beat me, show your dad you're a man. So you marched into war, missing one thing - a plan. OK, this time you listen and you do what I say, Follow all my advice and then you'd better pray." "First give Rummy the boot, he's the one they all hate. And I'll get on the stick and deliver Bob Gates. Then you get on the phone, say congrats to that Nancy. Just say one or two words, you'll flub up if it's fancy." "Then get out on TV to the millions of folks. And whatever you do, don't tell any dumb jokes. You've just never been bright, son, now you're a lame duck. Georgie, what can I say, face the facts, you've been fucked." Written by Ann W, Ithaca, NY, 9 Nov 2006 Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
11 Nov 06 - 11:11 AM (#1883114) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies pdq--So your ego is not that fragile after all--that's nice. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM (#1883129) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies pdq-- Then the question becomes: why would you be so foolish as to make a transparently obvious losing bet? I mean, I was a pessimist--I thought giant intellects on the Left, such as we've seen on Mudcat among our anonymous posters, would sit at home, still waiting for their perfect candidate. Meanwhile the "religious Right" would see that they had to vote to defend "traditional marriage", "the rights of the unborn" etc.--and come out in their accustomed droves. So I thought the Democrats would take about 16-17 seats in the House--and not take the Senate. But even I realized that the net gain for the Democrats would be more than 1 seat in the House. So your prediction--of only one seat gain for the Democrats--was absurd on its face. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 11:45 AM (#1883130) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies Charley--that's a good one--especially the part about whining to his father. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 11:54 AM (#1883137) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: pdq Ron...you take things too seriously. Remember: "don't waste your time worrying about things you have no control over". |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:31 PM (#1883162) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies I just like people to stand behind what they write--or it's not worth writing. But, nice dodge. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:34 PM (#1883164) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies pdq-- But you're certainly right in that I have no control over posters who make stupid statements. It's just that it's so much fun to call them on it. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:35 PM (#1883166) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST You are so full of shit, Ron. All kinds of very important pieces of writing throughout history has been written anonymously. You know it, I know it, the rest of the forum that perpetually whines about it knows it. You are just looking to demonize anonymous posters who don't whistle along to your tune. Which is really stupid. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM (#1883168) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies QED I don't shadow box Ghosts. Enjoy your soliloquy. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:07 PM (#1883196) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST ROTFLMAO!!! SUCH A LOSER! |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:14 PM (#1883199) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: pdq Ron... Actually, you do have control over ONE poster who makes stupid statements. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:18 PM (#1883202) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Charley Noble TROLL ALERT!!! |
|
11 Nov 06 - 05:53 PM (#1883422) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: Ron Davies Gee, pdq--did you think my posting of 12:34 PM was aimed at you? I never said so--but if you think so, it must be true--after all, up to now you've never been wrong. I bow to your superior wisdom. If the shoe fits.... |
|
12 Nov 06 - 03:43 PM (#1884042) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: GUEST,Gassed Dems? Republicans? Reds? Blues? Right? Left? Huh? I'm hoping that the intelligent people of this planet may figure out that there are more than two parties in the USA. Your vote counts - so vote for the person or party that shares your ideals! Republicans and Democrats have two things in common, they don't tell you their real agenda and they don't do anything that will in any way step on the toes of the rich (sorry about using a dirty word). Their real agenda is to court the corporations (sorry about using a dirty word again) for dollars to keep them in office. Their candidates and office holders are boot lickers for big business. They will only act upon things which don't hurt big money such as abortion, education, etc. In fact they spend most of their breath on meaningless attacks on each other. Just look at the Dems. "We need more money for education" (for what? more coaches, asst coaches, stadiums, practice fields, weight training, team medical, etc). We believe a woman's body is .... we need to fight racism..... blah, blah, blah. They still don't dare say much about the War, big business, or any anti-corporate issues. Why do the Dems not ever DO anything. When they do get into office they always say, "let's go slow on these issues, we don't want to anger big business"! "Let's not rush". Republicans steer the issues towards "national security and religion. The biggest jokes are "we need to reduce the size of govt." and "family values". And what about National security? The reason that planes were hijacked on 911 in the first place is because of poor airport security! We payed plenty of money to these security companies and they were asleep at their post. What happens to a soldier who is asleep at his post, allowing his fellow soldiers to be massacred? Is he rewarded with more money? Why was the investigation into the bombing of the Trade Center told to back off when they got too close to certain issues? Huh? Why did I hear a news commentator in NY on the radio the day this happened say "Luckily, all the heads of the big companies weren't in the office today". Huh? What? Oh, yeah! Right! How about before 911? How many plane crashes and other instances were blamed on Arabs along with the "let's go get 'em" cries from the right. Did you know that the corporations give money to both candidates in any political race so that after the election they have either winner in their pocket? Anyone else see what I'm seeing? The Corporations are playing a little good guy, bad guy game. first let the Dems win, then the Reps. They are deathly afraid of a country with multiple parties. Deathly afraid! This is because their control over the country would be broken. Too many people to pay off! Other parties do not mean the end of control. Actually they enhance it as coalitions must be formed between the various ideologies. Real democracy!!!!!!! Vote for and support third parties. Start your own party. Let freedom truly ring! |
|
13 Nov 06 - 08:50 AM (#1884613) Subject: RE: BS: Odds on Dems taking over Congress? From: kendall Guest Gassed, that all sounds good. However, we have something called reality here. No third party ever got elected, and if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it, who can? It's unfortunate, but most of us vote not FOR someone, but rather AGAINST someone, and as long as that's the case, no third party will ever succeed. I once supported and voted for an independent candidate for governor and he won, but that was on the state level. He ran against two fairly ok candidates, neither of which would do a bad job, just mediocre. Of course, the fact that he used to be a democrat may have had something to do with it. |