BREAKING NEWS: Democrats take control of congress with Webb win.

It's like Chrismas, my birthday, and the 4th of July rolled into one.

AMERICA ROCKS!

scseth

I keep highlighting the blank spaces for some hidden message or maybe a Lost spoiler.

FTW. This time it was PERSONAL.

Wild Bluebonnet

I guess they really do make things bigger in Texas.
Douchebag.

Dansker: Wow. Thanks.

SherKhan: I keep highlighting the blank spaces for some hidden message or maybe a Lost spoiler.

I thought I was the only one...

2006-11-08 07:50:39 PM TexasIsBetter

WHO CARES ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD

/SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE CON...BTW, TX IS NOT BETTER! BEEN THERE HATED IT!

for those of you who think the world should DIAF- guess what, that's no longer a realistic option, thanks to the possibility of global nuclear world. farking einsteins.

doh, nuclear WAR not world. though I guess that works too sorta.

Sloth_DC

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter plz.

Yamara

Ya know my kid does that. Usually after alot of sugar or when he sneaks sips of my coffee.

/Highlighted, got nothin.

It's 49-49-2 you math-challenged sycophant. The caucus totals may be Dem (yay divided govt - one shot) but 49/100 is not the massive majority you seem to think.

I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Sloth_DC. A lot of the guys that won that have "D" in front of there name are pissed off conservatives that wanted to put Bush in his place.

That said, the objective for the dems was accomplished - the house and senate are no longer glorified rubber-stamping mechanisms.

This election wasn't about the liberal agenda - it was payback time.

Off on a stogie and beer run. I'd goodnight-poem all your asses but I'm feeling benevolent.

Until tomorrow.

Then I'll be hung-over and ornery.

pvrhye: I was hoping for a nice 50/50ish split in both wings of the senate.

I'm still trying to figure out why Bush didn't offer Lieberman the SecDef position - would've been an excellent "token Democrat" in the cabinet, and opened Lieberman's seat for a Republican selected by the CT governor. Chalk it up to their general incompetence, I guess.

Paulson

Wild Bluebonnet: .... and all of my candidates won.

/Republican
//God Bless Texas

**PUKE**

How can you be Republican and proud? You people are traitors AT BEST.

You lost, get over it. Maybe take a lesson from the majority of us who know what we're doing with this country.

****

Apparently you didn't read my post, I said that all of my candidates won.

/nothing to get over here

These articles serve a great purpose for a "perspective" from the rest of the world, but the reality is that you go a country in Africa, Asia, or South America and yes, they wiredly both despise the US and buy lots of US celebrity stuff . . .

But mostly you're just entirely cutoff from the barrage of blather that runs rampant every day here.

The Inquirer

scseth

i would say seek out and vote for trully worthy candidates but even at the city council level in any city of decent size you will rarely find someone running that is not already rich or politically connected..
i would say vote 3rd party but unless the majority of americans wake up and realize the lies of the current 2party administration that wont help

in conclusion
beats the crap outa me

Apparently you didn't read my post, I said that all of my candidates won.

I'm glad you're happy with the outcome of the election and have seen the error of your ways. I hope you continue to vote for America in the future.

As longs as Republicans whine and complain, I will say "you lost, get over it", because I know how it feels to hear that tripe. You freaks have been screaming yourselves hoarse saying the same thing the last six years.

We're over it now, and we're ready. The question is: are you?

Sloth_DC: I'm still trying to figure out why Bush didn't offer Lieberman the SecDef position - would've been an excellent "token Democrat" in the cabinet, and opened Lieberman's seat for a Republican selected by the CT governor. Chalk it up to their general incompetence, I guess.

Might not have been a horrible idea. Though I imagine by the time the new guy's settled in and figured out what's going on his term is over. In any case, I would think an ex cia guy would know his stuff.

Who cares about the world they live in?

Non-morons

Seriously, even dogs care about the rest of the world, and so do these Bush supporting straight-ticket Republican types.

They just like to pretend they don't care because their lizard brains think it makes them look "tough" somehow. It doesn't; it makes them look stupid. But to be fair, these two states are often one and the same in their minds.

This is how the anti-intellectual thinks.

Yeah for subpoena power. Suck it Crusader Bunnypants.

pvrhye: In any case, I would think an ex cia guy would know his stuff.

Probably - but he already has a history of "not noticing" malfeasance by his superiors/peers.

Dave The Slushy: They'll go one better and sell you the technology. We're buying a shiatload of the things off the Danes at the moment (a good idea given we've got one of the windiest countries in the world).

I'd bet we could power the country off a dozen wind turbines in Wellington.

orclover: Goodbye hopes for fixing anything..and HELLO GRIDLOCK!!

Gridlock is a huge farking blessing when compared to the fiasco that has been! How far are we supposed to dig ourselves into a hole before some people realize that burying yourself alive is not a good idea?!

I keep needing to come up with explanations for why libs are Cutters & Runners when it comes to Iraq but bold stay-the-course warriors when it comes to battling conservatives and neocons. I've finally done it, and it was so simple. It's simple but the explanation is complicated so follow along closely. I'm removing most of the pronouns so there will be less confusion. Ready?

The reason liberals are so prone to Cut & Run on the war is they've seen how Republicans react to the liberals belligerence on every issue they care about. The Republicans reaction is almost always appeasement toward the liberals. So the libs then think that the libs can then continue to be Cutters & Runners on Iraq and the War on Terror, because that is the way you're supposed to respond to strength. It turns out the only thing the Pubbies are staunch on is the WOT. And according to press reports, and Rush Limbaugh, the staunch ranks seem to be dwindling, with a growing number of conservatives who are Cutting & Running in two areas - from voting (at all) in the election and the WOT itself. Might this be a clever strategy designed to throw the libs for a loop? I mean, if enough cons start advocating Cutting & Running, the libs won't have anything to disagree with the cons on and be forced into disagreeing with the cons' agreement on C&Ring by changing the lib position and staunchifying their position vis a vis staying the course in Iraq and the WOT.

But let's look at this from the other perspective, why are the Cons being such appeasers to libs? I think it's because they have such a misguided sense of fairness that they figure, "Well, I want my way on homeland security (and abortion and gay marriage), so the fair thing to do would be concede on spending, affirmative action and maintaining, indeed inflating, an obscene number of federal bureaucracies."

What these idiot Pubbies don't realize is that if the libs had their way, they would have their way - on EVERYTHING they're debating. That's why it would be so dangerous to let them have control of the whole operation. Republicans are, on the whole, reasonable people. Libs, who tend to believe in fairness in all things, which has no basis in reality, are in fact, very unfair. They want it all, and will not hear that trade-offs are necessary in life. This makes them totally untrustworthy.

Paulson. While I can't say I especially like the recent brand of republican, I can't imagine you can in earnest support democrats (well on the national level, locally the crap doesn't necessarily rise to the top - exception being NW Indiana where the Democrats that have sat in office as long as a can remember are invariably horrible people.)

Bon_Scott: How far are we supposed to dig ourselves into a hole before some people realize that burying yourself alive is not a good idea?!

But...but...if you look up from the bottom of the hole, you can see the light at the end of the tunnel!

SinisterG:

Wild Bluebonnet
I guess they really do make things bigger in Texas.
Douchebag.


Now was that rudeness really called for? I don't think so.

******

Xtermin8tor:

2006-11-08 07:50:39 PM TexasIsBetter

WHO CARES ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD

/SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE CON...BTW, TX IS NOT BETTER! BEEN THERE HATED IT!


Then that's an excellent reason to never return. We will miss your sunny disposition and sweet smile.

/sheds a tear

84Charlie:

I keep needing to come up with explanations for why libs are Cutters & Runners when it comes to Iraq but bold stay-the-course warriors when it comes to battling conservatives and neocons. I've finally done it, and it was so simple. It's simple but the explanation is complicated so follow along closely. I'm removing most of the pronouns so there will be less confusion. Ready?

The reason liberals are so prone to Cut & Run on the war is they've seen how Republicans react to the liberals belligerence on every issue they care about. The Republicans reaction is almost always appeasement toward the liberals. So the libs then think that the libs can then continue to be Cutters & Runners on Iraq and the War on Terror, because that is the way you're supposed to respond to strength. It turns out the only thing the Pubbies are staunch on is the WOT. And according to press reports, and Rush Limbaugh, the staunch ranks seem to be dwindling, with a growing number of conservatives who are Cutting & Running in two areas - from voting (at all) in the election and the WOT itself. Might this be a clever strategy designed to throw the libs for a loop? I mean, if enough cons start advocating Cutting & Running, the libs won't have anything to disagree with the cons on and be forced into disagreeing with the cons' agreement on C&Ring by changing the lib position and staunchifying their position vis a vis staying the course in Iraq and the WOT.

But let's look at this from the other perspective, why are the Cons being such appeasers to libs? I think it's because they have such a misguided sense of fairness that they figure, "Well, I want my way on homeland security (and abortion and gay marriage), so the fair thing to do would be concede on spending, affirmative action and maintaining, indeed inflating, an obscene number of federal bureaucracies."

What these idiot Pubbies don't realize is that if the libs had their way, they would have their way - on EVERYTHING they're debating. That's why it would be so dangerous to let them have control of the whole operation. Republicans are, on the whole, reasonable people. Libs, who tend to believe in fairness in all things, which has no basis in reality, are in fact, very unfair. They want it all, and will not hear that trade-offs are necessary in life. This makes them totally untrustworthy

This is your brain...
This is your brain on hyper-delusion.
This is your brain when you continue to ignore common sense and reality.
This is your brain until well AFTER it's biting your ass off.
This is your brain when your dead.
Brain dead...

the oob

I'd bet we could power the country off a dozen wind turbines in Wellington.

Stick a couple next to the Beehive - problem solved.

/Well, except for the problem of getting it all over the bombays

 

It's not the space bar.

That doesn't work, try it.

 

 

 

 

It's magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PRESTIGE

 

 

 

orclover

Goodbye hopes for fixing anything..and HELLO GRIDLOCK!!

What hope? They controlled the entire federal government for 6 years and produced nothing but disaster. Bring on the gridlock. Standing still is better than moving backward, after all.

This is good for how the rest of the world views america. Maybe they'll give us a second chance

StillH2O: What hope? They controlled the entire federal government for 6 years

4 years - they got the Senate in 2002.

I'm just glade that Pelosi seemed to have learned from the '94 election when the republicans thought they had a 'mandate'... she seems to realize America wants the Democrats to 1) Keep Bush in check 2) try to get us out of Iraq without loosing face.

mickcollins:

people who take the time to post to try to convince others that they don't care what other people think.....obviously care what other people think

Who the fark cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Smarshmallow:
Who the fark cares what the rest of the world thinks?

You could care less.

Hickory-smoked: So, just to take an informal poll... how many of you "fark-the-rest-of-the-worlders" backed a winning candidate yesterday?

I did, thanks.

Aldon

2) try to get us out of Iraq without loosing face.

That ain't gonna happen. There will be a significant lose of face before Iraq is fixed, because there is no other way.

George will have to beg the UN for help. And that will be the end of him.

Smarshmallow: Who the fark cares what the rest of the world thinks?

How very French of you...

<i><b>Dave The Slushy:</b>

Aldon

2) try to get us out of Iraq without loosing face.

That ain't gonna happen. There will be a significant lose of face before Iraq is fixed, because there is no other way.

George will have to beg the UN for help. And that will be the end of him.</i>

****

Surrender much? Seems like you have quite a bit of practice in that area.

vwfst55: Rest of world. We have our own interests and as a sovereign nation, we will protect our interests. If that upsets you, tough crap.

Seconded

I'm a democrat, and I don't support the US's complete lack of diplomacy in recent years, but that doesn't mean that I give a rat's ass about what these people think about my election.

Those in glass houses, let he is without sin, and all that.

Sloth_DC: How very French of you...

I'm not sure how that's French. When was the last time the people of any of these countries asked us if we approved of their elections?

2006-11-08 07:58:30 PM mrbach

"WHO CARES ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD"

If we could get rid of that 50 percent of Americans that hold that attitude, the world would be a peaceful place.
Less homophobes, less wife beaters, less pedophiles, less Christians (that's the collective name now, right?). Less warmongers, gun lovers, kkk members, tax dodgers, oil bagmen, lobbyists, bad hair, book burning, water walking, smog makin, turd blossoms. Did I miss anyone?

Don't forget our rednecks, hicks, spicks, white people,, black people, asian people, SUV moms, skinheads, Indians (the original ones, not the wannabees in India), innocent children, innocent puppies, innocent mothers and fathers and teenagers that would burn your house down and sell their mothers for some snatch, um.... innocent kitties, innocent soldiers, various buildings of different length and width, all our swimming pools, half our ocean, Bill Gates, Canada, Paris Hilton, various bubble gum factories, and Hillary Clinton.

/Get to work.

It's great to read all the hate filled angry loners come out for that "dead cat bounce" frothing rant. They can go back into the cabins and bunkers that they were living in before bush gave them a voice.

Smarshmallow: I'm not sure how that's French. When was the last time the people of any of these countries asked us if we approved of their elections?

Exactly my point - Who the fark cares what the rest of the world thinks? is an extremely French attitude.

Smarshmallow:
When was the last time the people of any of these countries asked us if we approved of their elections?

Being interested in what other people think, is not the same as asking for their approval.

Wild Bluebonnet

No, perhaps not, but then why should I care what you think ? You certainly don't seem extend the courtesy of politeness to others.
Or did I read this wrong ?

I couldn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks......

Is that really the message you'd like to send the world ?