Happy Midterm Elections!

[FuXnDajenariht]

dont screw it up. :p

and for those who dont know the importance of midterm elections.

take a gander: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FcZJqqA2AI

[MasterKiller]

and Santorum goes down!!!

[FuXnDajenariht]

too bad the opposition wont take the senate too.

i wanted them to really stick it to Bush. i heard that he's P-I-S-S: p!issed :D

[BoulderDawg]

Well, Bush has made no bones about it and has stated "If the democrats win then America loses".....

How is this man suppose to actually work with congress if that what he actually believes?

[Yum Cha]

How is this man suppose to actually work with congress if that what he actually believes?

LISTEN! Quit slagging Bush, he believes just exactly what he's told to believe, so don't blame it on him.


Sheesh...
:p

[FuXnDajenariht]

the Dems are already talkin subpoena's. this should be quite a show...lol

[rogue]

The Democrats have the House, now they have to come up with good solutions and not just supeona's.

[FuXnDajenariht]

well thats sort of one and the same. one problem is corruption. it all ties in together.

[Samurai Jack]

Are you guys talkin' subpoenas for WAR CRIMES?!?!

Somebody pass the pop-corn!

[FuXnDajenariht]

some of the talking heads covering the election makes it seem like the Dems are gonna go down the complete list of Bush's fuk-ups to find signs of corruption. some saying that certain Dems were filling out impeachment papers before all the votes even came back. that'll be too much to ask for so im not holding my breathe. Nancy Pelosi wants to play it moderate and not make the Dems seems bitter or like their harassing the opposition. they dont wanna ruin their '08 run basically. politicians are always looking to the future and never dealing with the present. :rolleyes:

personally i want them to go in and bust some fukin heads but thats just me, theres a reason im not a politician..cleaning house would of course hinge on the fact of the Dems not being the complete and utter pu$$ies that they act like so well. hopefully it was just a role they were playing.

to even get Rumsfeld fired or Rove indicted would be awesome. getting Halliburton shut down would be a wet dream.... impeaching Bush would go a long way in redeeming Americas credibility i think. but Hillary Clinton and **** Cheney would open mouth kiss on nationally tv before that happened

[FuXnDajenariht]

you know what... just to see those arrogant a$$es Cheney and Rumsfeld sweating and mumbling during questioning before a government panel would allow me to die happy.....and i mean the shirt soaking kind you get only after a 2 hour work out. :D

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Retribution and one-ups-manship.. is not the answer.. level-headed application of American principles is essential.. if the Dems go looking for trouble nothing will change.. Certainly, there is sufficient wrong-doing to keep courts busy for a while, but.. i pray that the focus is on fixing America, restoring its values and crafting a comprehensive national policy for the People..

People that run for office have, as their first priority, an obligation to SERVE the people that elected them.. to respect and honor the will of the people, that IS the American system.. even in loss, it is the "will of the People", and it is the cornerstone of the system they sought to serve.. gracious and respectful winners should appreciate the wisdom of the system's design, and.. loosers should applaud the the system they sought to serve, it is their responsibility to support the will of the people.. poor losers and vindictive winners misunderstand the wisdom of the American system.. public office is not about personal gain, it is a service to the nation.. an honor and a privilige..

Be well..

[BoulderDawg]

you know what... just to see those arrogant a$$es Cheney and Rumsfeld sweating and mumbling during questioning before a government panel would allow me to die happy.....and i mean the shirt soaking kind you get only after a 2 hour work out. :D

I too would also like to see Bush stand trial for war crimes....unfortunately this is not going to happen.

I do think that Rummy will be gone within 6 months. Of course the reasons will be "To spend more time with family" or "Failing health" just to save face but he will still be gone.

Cheney is like that jewish guy in the Godfather. He's been dying of the same heart attack for 20 years! I predict that he has no intention of giving up power and will run for president in 2008.

[CLFLPstudent]

I think everyone who is of voting age should watch the new HBO Documentary "Hacking Democracy". Check out HBO.com for scheduling - this is an amazing piece about Diebold, Inc. and their software that tabulates about 40% of the country's elections.

Pretty powerful stuff - check it out if you can!


-David

[BoulderDawg]

I do think that Rummy will be gone within 6 months. Of course the reasons will be "To spend more time with family" or "Failing health" just to save face but he will still be gone.


6 months...:D I shoulda said 6 hours. The war criminal just resigned!:eek:

[FuXnDajenariht]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld just resigned!

[FuXnDajenariht]

he committed the equivalent of politicial seppuku methinks. leave before they fire me.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717

[FuXnDajenariht]

6 months...:D I shoulda said 6 hours. The war criminal just resigned!:eek:


lol you beat me to it..... :p

[Baqualin]

I can't believe you all are talking politic's on a kung fu forum, plus acting like there's going to be a major change......garbage in garbage out.:rolleyes:

[FuXnDajenariht]

dont act like such a clown. out of the half dozen political threads we have each month you chose to b!tch about this one? lemme guess...you voted Republican and now they're the minority, so your gonna act like a baby about it.

this midterm election was probably the most important one that we've had in a long long time and it was used to send a clear message to the snickering "royalty" up in Washington. do you think Rumsfeld would of resigned if not for the results yesterday? you seriously can't be that naive. what his resignation means to me is: "message received". even if it was political maneuvering on the Presidents part to take away steam from the Dems its still a major change that would not have occured if not for the election.

so yea garbage in, garbage out...keep takin it up the a$$ from the government....

[@PLUGO]

Rummy's been set out to pasture... though I'd prefer Exile to say the least.

Looks like the senate could end up 50-50 though Virgina racist George Allen may come to his senses and not ask for a recount. (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/nov/08/va_sen_allen_deliberating_whether_to_request_recou nt)


one can only hope this means a slightly less corrupt and slightly more accountable government in the near future.


There probably worse things than a post impeachment President Pelosi thought . . .

[FuXnDajenariht]

The World Weighs-in on the U.S. Election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15618695/

[GLW]

OK...let me be the first to bring some thngs up...

First, don't expect major changes. Bush had a do nothing Congress when he had both controlled by his party. they had 5 years plus to do things...

With the opposing party in charge of the House now...and when the smoke clears, maybe in charge of the Senate, they have a majority...but Bush still holds the veto and pocket veto...and there is NOT a 2/3 majority there likely to override a presidential veto.

So, the things that CAN happen are those that do not require a presidential signature or those things that are within the presidential agenda... and DON'T forget his infamous signing statements.

Then there are the voting machines. I will make no pretense, I am glad the Democrats seem to have won. But, even so, the electronic voting needs to be revamped with a verifiable paper trail

What needs to happen : one option:

You go to vote, you sign in and get a dongle key to the voting machine.
You vote and it spits out a paper ballot. You review it and when you are in agreement, you take the paper ballot and the dongle to the election desk. They take the dongle, you put the paper in the ballot box. The act of taking the dongle out of the machine commits the vote as well electronically.
Now, when the election is over, a percent is mandated to be picked lottery style for verification count. AFTER the election is over. That way, no one can make sure the precincts counted are the only ones that are right.
Those precincts must match the paper ballots or double the percent of precincts must be counted. If there is more of a discrepancy, 15% of the precincts are counted by hand. If there is still a problem, the entire state must be recounted AND the BILL for this goes to the manufacturer of the voting machine.

This is an easy and modifiable approach... and COULD have been done on the machines in use.....but WHY not?

Last time, I suggested fixing the voting machines were flawed...and was accused of sour grapes. NOW...the folks I liked won..and I am suggesting it again...

[FuXnDajenariht]

not to sound all conspiratorial but i wonder if the race for Senate would of been this close if not for electronic voting. one election analyst says the house and senate were never split like this before.

[wdl]

I'm going to post only once on this thread, you can say what you want to about my points, I don't care. Let me explain this, I am a conservative not a neo con, or a Barry Goldwater special, just politically conservative, I'll vote for whoever best reflects that on the ballot regardless of party, particularly on a local level.

As a conservative I'm happy about yesterday for only one reason, the republicans will be FORCED to start representing ME again instead of just trying to hold onto power. Congress has been a stagnant pool for years now where BOTH parties go to play and waste time.

Dems/Libs: Celebrate while you can. Just remember how much of a fight it was while you had power when the republicans were in the underdog position. Democrats one by one during the 80s/90s would say, "we need a tax increase to cover cost x, y and z", one by one they would get defeated in election, and it's been downhill for the liberals ever since. Look at happened to Bush Sr. and "No new Taxes", he didn't get reelected. If republicans are smart they will start debating again on tried and true conservative issues such as, omg, government spending. Now, I know all of the dems promised to cut government spending during the elections, it's a page out of the republican handbook. They at this juncture have an opporitunity to change their track record on government management. If they do it, it'll be a shock, and it will be the thing that keeps their newly regained power, not endless investigations.

The truth of the investigation matter is that if it had been a democratic president and a democratic congress loosing it's majority this year the republicans would be crying they were going to start investigations. Big freaking deal, rarely has a high profile investigation from either side of the isle in the past 25 years really amounted to anything. Examples: Oliver North, Bill Clinton, Carl Rove and Valerie Plame, etc. Clinton got impeached, big deal flippen deal. The only investigations that usually carry any clout are handled by the justice department and are ended in conviction. The repubs probably got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the American people know it. It's not like the dems haven't had their hand it in either.

Many libs/dems were downtrodden just a year ago about he future of the Democratic party and feared it was going to die. Running some conservative candidates in select districts and states was a smart move and won congress back, a very important step in surviving. The voters put the ball in your court, prove your worthy of it as most of the republicans weren't and do something.

Edit: Didn't hit the iraq issue:

Don't think America is in love with Democrats all of a sudden, America said a change of policy in Iraq is needed and we are going to force the issue. They forced it. The dems can't really force the troops out of Iraq, but the president needed to change policy and we've seen that already happening today. If he'd made these changes MONTHS ago, the election probably would have been completely different. The republicans in congress aren't entirely to blame for their defeat.

This is a fairly narrowly divided country, and most people haven't been head over hills for either political party for a LONG time now. If the dems don't ante up, they'll be punished just as the republicans had it coming to them.

[FuXnDajenariht]

thats all fine and well wdl, but i dont really give 2 sh!ts about Democrats either, let alone Republican. to tell the truth they both have no idea what their doing. its just common sense not have too much power in the hand of 1 party for any period of time. you've seen the end result. im waiting for the day when a politician will stop using the liberal/conservative ideals as a godda.mn crutch and just govern with some common sense.

[Chief Fox]

So what is going to happen now?

Some people are saying that GW will just be a lame duck for the next two years. Some are saying that he will get out his veto pen.

What needs to happen IMO is this. GW needs to decide what his legacy is going to be.

Does he want to continue to be known as the president that was in office when the nation was most unified (right after 911) and turned it into a nation that has never been more divided (right after the last election)?

Does he want to continue to be known as the president who went to war under false pretences?

Does he want to continue to be the president who is in favor of a war that most people are not in favor of?

He needs to ask himself these questions. The choice is now his.

The people have spoken. After the last election he said that the people have granted him a certain amount of political capital and that he intended to spend it. Well he has spent it. In fact, he's over spent it. He's on credit and the bill collectors are knocking at his door.

Will he "stay the course" or will he work with the new majority?

My guess is he will "stay the course" and eventually be know as a man who lied to his people and divided a nation.

[Anthony]

I'm sure all of our lives are now gonna change so drastically.....oh wait....I still have to go to work tomorrow and pay my bills......darn! I thought, with the election, that things in my life would actually be different the next day :rolleyes:

[The Willow Sword]

Minimum Wage will get increased. That's about it. yay:rolleyes:

[FuXnDajenariht]

buncha whiners....

[rogue]

Yay, I just made a bunch more money in the stock market! It's still good to be a nasty Republican. :p

[Samurai Jack]

"The wealth of a nation is measured not by it's financial holdings, but by the quality of life of it's citizens." - Mark Twain

I work with the mentally ill in a local hospital, and boy have I ever seen a difference over the last six years. With the Bush controlled federal government cutting funds to human services on a bi-annual basis, I've seen nursing home patients become homeless people, and read thier obituaries written by thier former nurses. I've seen mentally ill people turned out of the hospital and taken off of thier medications, only to be arrested and returned to us in a month to be stabalized... then turned out again. I've seen food banks close. I've seen the needle exchange disappear, and HIV rates go up state wide. I've watched our HIV testing programs for teens and homeless disappear.

Voting matters.

[Merryprankster]

Dems/Libs: Celebrate while you can. Just remember how much of a fight it was while you had power when the republicans were in the underdog position. Democrats one by one during the 80s/90s would say, "we need a tax increase to cover cost x, y and z", one by one they would get defeated in election, and it's been downhill for the liberals ever since. Look at happened to Bush Sr. and "No new Taxes", he didn't get reelected. If republicans are smart they will start debating again on tried and true conservative issues such as, omg, government spending. Now, I know all of the dems promised to cut government spending during the elections, it's a page out of the republican handbook. They at this juncture have an opporitunity to change their track record on government management. If they do it, it'll be a shock, and it will be the thing that keeps their newly regained power, not endless investigations.


They already did change their track record - or have you forgotten the Clinton Administration years. Claim what you want about economic recovery and a Republican congress forcing him to come to terms with realistic spending. It's a giant load of crap. OMB - the president's budget requesting office - consistently came in with numbers every year he was in office that were sane. Add the tax increases, and you have what's called a POLICY of deficit reduction. It worked so well we started running surpluses. This was a plank of his 1st campaign platform, so I'm not certain how anybody can suggest "something else" was responsible.

I'm not suggesting anything but this simple fact: That the Clinton administration took a look at the math and said "the numbers don't add up." Then, they went and raised taxes a bit, and decreased the rate of spending increases to just about the inflation rate, which essentially kept spending fairly stagnant.

That's just decent business practice. It's balancing the checkbook. It's the most NON-political, wonky, administrative thing I can think of, and other people trying to make political hay out of it is blatant stupidity. He was HELPED by a strong economy. But he didn't HAVE to do it.

I'm sure now I will hear about "waste in government." My response to this is, having worked on a $65M federal acquisition project, there was no waste. I was required to account for every penny. Guess how many people were managing that project? TWO. Me as the business lead and a technical expert. Gee, now THAT's a bloated beaurocracy...in fact, that's the state of most government agencies. Resources, are, in fact, scarce. Incidentally, we landed with a soft non-negative balance, and the work I did with the boat forces manager convinced the Coast Guard that it would be cheaper to buy two new boats off the shelf than try and retrofit and maintain two non-standard boats (we auctioned those off). So, no, we didn't go over budget...And, our business plan overall forced the contractor to revamp their production line into a highly efficient one that realized as much as a 33 to 40% savings comparing the 1st boat to the last (learning curve savings and contract changes -which always cost - becoming standard).

Yeah, that's a LOT of frickin waste. 28 46 foot work boats at $65 mil (including overhead and management costs, AND contract changes), designed to tend the nation's navigation buoys and last for 20+ years. Never mind the savings generated by the fact that this is now crewed by 3 fewer people each thanks to improvements in navigation and safety equipment, the standardization of the fleet reduces maintenence costs...the NEWNESS reduces maintenance costs (other boats were over 35), and that with better range, speed and seaworthiness, the project was a 1 for 1.5 replacement. I never had to ask for a supplemental. Ever.

I'd estimate the CG recoups the project value in 2010 (project ended in 2001).

In fact, most people don't even study the budget at all and just ***** about "waste." What they really mean are "government funded programs I don't agree with." That is "waste." No, it's not. It's a government funded program you don't agree with. But since this is a republic, compromise is the name of the game. You're going to have to deal with some programs you don't like.

What about administrative overhead?! they scream. That keeps rising. Yes, it does. Because it takes a ****ing army of accountants and regulatory experts to keep up with the laws and policies that keep people from doing intentionally corrupt or unintentionally illegal things with YOUR public funds. Oh, and by the way, that "buy american and work with only american companies" thing (except under extremely rare circumstances, such as a JSF type situation, or a single-source justification, or some other pre-arranged deal) - that's really freakin expensive.

Or would you rather just eliminate all that overhead and have people hire their cousins, go with the first bid on a project, etc...

Finally, the vast majority of our government funds are spent on what is called non-discretionary items. This includes stuff like Medicare and Social Security. You can't turn the faucet off, except through congressional action because that spending is mandated by law.

Some people call non-discretionary spending a myth. This is bull****. The Administration in power HAS to come up with funds for it, by law. If congress CHANGES the law, that's a different thing, but as it stand, the Admin has no, repeat NO recourse other than to fully fund the mandated programs.

My thoughts on the mid-term elections:

1. I am cautiously optimistic that we are NOT headed for gridlock. Rumsfeld's dismissal was not wanted by the Bush admin, IMO. However, I'm guessing there were some phone calls between the legislative Dem leaders and the White House that set a pre-condition for conciliation - Rumsfeld out. Bush sending Rumsfeld packing is a serious nod to Dems that he might be willing to work with them. He resigned because that's what appointees do, rather than get fired in public. He didn't "leave before he was fired." He resigned BECAUSE he was fired as a measure to curry favor with the Dems.

2. If we do get gridlock, Republican attempts to blame the Democratic Congress for inaction will fail. This is a deeply unpopular administration, with a bad 6-year track record. Barring a major gaffe, the next 2 years won't be enough to shift blame.

3. We will "stay the course" in Iraq with some modifications and compromise, possibly including a timetable of somekind, but not a very short one. Democrats will continue to demand that the troops come home, but have only one weapon in their arsenal - Authorization and Appropriation. They can yank funding for Iraq war items. They WILL NOT USE THIS WEAPON. If they do, it's the equivalent of going nuclear, and it will backfire. Why? Because if they yank funding, they will be accused of ripping the rug out from under our forces, and placing soldiers' lives in danger (and it would be true). Dems will try to force the Admin to begin drawing up plans for withdrawal by using any OTHER political measures. But they can't force a wholesale change without using their A and A authority....and that's not going to happen.

4. Republicans will bring a moderate centrist to the fore for 2008. It will be a close race again - EVEN if Hillary gets nominated. People forget that while she has strong negatives, she has incredibly strong positives as well (I'm referring to people's perception positive or negative of her, NOT her personal abilities). She's divisive, but she's also very popular. Dems will maintain control of both houses.

[David Jamieson]

*grabs popcorn and settles in for 2 years of ineffective governance and historically unprecedented number of presidential vetos*

[Baqualin]

thats all fine and well wdl, but i dont really give 2 sh!ts about Democrats either, let alone Republican. to tell the truth they both have no idea what their doing. its just common sense not have too much power in the hand of 1 party for any period of time. you've seen the end result. im waiting for the day when a politician will stop using the liberal/conservative ideals as a godda.mn crutch and just govern with some common sense.

OMG..you do have a brain..like I said, garbage in garbage out:D

[rogue]

A good overview of why my guys lost (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/923kemje.asp?pg=2).

By lost I mean "F#%^ed Up". And I mean big time.

[bodhitree]

There is a big problem in both parties of administrations packing their cabinets with 'yes men'. The problem dates back to the Vietnam era, specifically Johnson admin. When the 'hawks' started to turn on the Vietnam war Johnson replaced them as they left and since then presidents packed their cabinets with like minded. Colin Powell could have been an example of a counter balance within the admin, but he 'resigned' (or was forced out for not believing in the policy). Prior to the Vietnam war presidents valued having a diverse cabinet. Kennedy was surrounded by people who were not affraid to tell him "your wrong Mr. President" and disagree, and these were people whose opinions he valued. Things were different back then. There were more cooperation amoung factions of parties as well as the parties themselves. I hope in 2008 we see Barack Obama because I can see him actually 'reaching out' or 'cooperating'. That is what this country needs.

[FuXnDajenariht]

OMG..you do have a brain..like I said, garbage in garbage out:D

even though i know they're all completely imcompetent im not gonna take a self defeatist attitude about it. change doesn't happen instantaneously, the revolutionary war wasn't fought overnight bro.

the problem i see with people saying, oh its all politics, what am i supposed to do about it? and coppin a garbage in garbage out mentality is exactly the reason Bush was allowed to get away with the BS that he did for so long. its why government corruption is so prevalent. people need to keep a collective boot in the governments a$$ and demand answers from their elected officials. all we have is apathy. "oh nothing is gonna change, i still hafta go to work in the morning" :rolleyes:

its like people thinking they pay taxes for the government to spend on whatever they please. i think thats what the government believes too. but thats your tax money being used for your own services and needs. for the publics common good. not for a bridge to nowhere.

and for those that dont think we need investigations....i wrote about this in another thread. i personally wont be satisfied with the Dems till they do cuz this sh!t is still going on right now. these are treasonous acts bankrolled by the government. its pathetic.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=718399&postcount=261

getting taxes raised is the least of our problems. who do you think is gonna pay for a multi-trillion dollar deficit? Britain? China? Canada? you guys gonna foot the bill for this debt hole DJ? your such sweethearts up there. we'd owe you one. :D

[FuXnDajenariht]

i kinda wanna see Senator Obama too but i dont think he'll win unfortunately. people wanna see experience in the white house again. Bush ruined it for young upstarts for a while. im kinda 50-50 on whether he should run at all. i think he might need a few more years in Senate, and a failed Presidential run could amount to career suicide. if he does wait for more Senatorial experience and without any major crises, i think hes almost guaranteed to win in 2012 or 2016.

[FuXnDajenariht]

A good overview of why my guys lost (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/923kemje.asp?pg=2).

By lost I mean "F#%^ed Up". And I mean big time.

i read the article, but i think they lost cuz not one of them would speak up against the President when it mattered. thats the price you pay for towing the party line. if the party line fails you go down with the ship.

[mantis108]

And on the day after ... Bush Jr said, "Huston, we have a problem." (in the cool calm voice of Tom Hanks) :D But wait may be he can run to his little brother in the north (Steven Harper) for a little good old fashion right wing TLC.

Both the Congress and the Senate are now under Democrate control. :eek: What a nail biting cliff hanger.

Mantis108