0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 03:06 pm
Republican patriots are saying: "The people have spoken--f*ckin bastards!"

Moveon.Org has said: "Mission Accomplished."
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 04:48 pm
Republican Rep. Mike Pence:

Quote:
I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way. [..]



He needed an election to tell him that. Shocked
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 05:54 pm
I would not have been too surprised if he concluded from the election results that the electorate had lost its way.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 07:10 pm
Poor Tico....

His rabid right nut cases have been exposed and many removed from office and all he can do is produce more Cato or other rightie articles.

One would think that after the disgusting, hate-mongering, campaigning of his lord and savior, king george, the past few weeks that he would be in hiding.

Hell, even I am embarrassed for the goofy republicans after that fruitcake called everyone who disagreed with him a terrorist or terrorist enabler. Didn't he notice that it was not just 70% of the US who are not buying his lies but just about the whole world thinks he is loonier than a bed bug?

Now the village idiot suddenly learned to say the word bi-partisan.... well, almost. Actually he almost choked on the word. Guess he needs little more practice.

I suspect that bully boy will continue to try to tell the Congress what to do and I suspect that he has an education coming.

Ah it was good to see Santorum, Katherine Harris and Chicken george totally humiliated! What a day!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 08:18 pm
Well, look who's crawled out of her hole ...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 08:19 pm
Quote:
Bush Gives Top Ten Positive Outcomes of Election
by Scott Ott


(2006-11-08) ?- President George Bush, in an effort to lift the spirits of dejected Republicans after Democrats yesterday took the House and perhaps the Senate, this morning issued his Top Ten list of Positive Outcomes from the Election.

10. New York Times and CNN will carry much less negative news about Congress.
9. Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee lost and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman won, a net gain of two for the GOP.
8. We may finally get to see the Democrat plan for victory in Iraq.
7. Taxpayers will be relieved of the burden of making so many investment decisions.
6. Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is now available for Supreme Court appointment.
5. Possible reduction in attacks on our troops in Iraq, since terrorists fear attorneys.
4. NSA agents could soon be freed from having to listen to annoying terrorist chatter.
3. Lynn Swann will be remembered as a great wide receiver during the Pittsburgh Steelers 1970s dynasty.
2. Since a lot of the polling places are in church buildings, millions of Democrats actually went to church yesterday.
1. C-Span could get a ratings boost for new reality show: Impeachment 2007

In addition, the president noted that "millions of American Democrats will sleep more peacefully now that they are assured that Karl Rove doesn't control everything."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:18 am
Okay rejoining the group here and moving this from the old thread:

This morning, I was watching an interview with Dick Morris on Fox and Friends. (Dick Morris is a scoundrel himself, but has earned my respect as having one of the best political instincts out there. He accurately predicted exactly how this last election would go and why it would go that way.)

Morris is peeved at Bush for not firing Rumsfield 30 to 60 days before the election and thinks that alone might have turned the tide for the Republicans as it might have brought out sufficient numbers of the GOP base to the polls. As he put it this morning, that would have spared the GOP from the endless succession of subpoenas and investigations that will be regular fodder for the next two years. He says don't believe for a minute that the Democrats will not do this despite their high sounding rhetoric of the moment. He says the Democrats are much more experienced and capable of using their power to their own advantage than is the GOP.

So I think there will be plenty of discussion material for this thread for some time to come.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:26 am
I saw that interview, but I don't agree that an earlier resignation by Rumsfield would have had the effect he suggests. But I do agree the leftists will not be satisfied with Rumsfield's head. This will only give them a blood-lust for more.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:34 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I saw that interview, but I don't agree that an earlier resignation by Rumsfield would have had the effect he suggests. But I do agree the leftists will not be satisfied with Rumsfield's head. This will only give them a blood-lust for more.


You may be right, but an ear to the ground heard a lot of groans and moans from the conservative base when the President announced before the election that he was sticking with Rummy. Rumsfield was not unpopular only with the libs.

But yes, there is now blood in the water and the sharks are circling. The next casualty will be Cheney's office (as President of the Senate) in the Capital building. Rangel has his eye on that I believe. And once the dust settles over the Murtha/Hoyer dogfight over who will be House majority leader, we can expect the attempt at a legal massacre to commence.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I saw that interview, but I don't agree that an earlier resignation by Rumsfield would have had the effect he suggests. But I do agree the leftists will not be satisfied with Rumsfield's head. This will only give them a blood-lust for more.


You may be right, but an ear to the ground heard a lot of groans and moans from the conservative base when the President announced before the election that he was sticking with Rummy. Rumsfield was not unpopular only with the libs.

But yes, there is now blood in the water and the sharks are circling. The next casualty will be Cheney's office (as President of the Senate) in the Capital building. Rangel has his eye on that I believe. And once the dust settles over the Murtha/Hoyer dogfight over who will be House majority leader, we can expect the attempt at a legal massacre to commence.

If you swim with sharks, never bleed.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:49 am
Quote:
8. We may finally get to see the Democrat plan for victory in Iraq.


Ha ha hmmmmmm........
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:21 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The next casualty will be Cheney's office (as President of the Senate) in the Capital building.


Usually well informed sources are expecting Bolton ... as the next scape goat in this matter.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:31 am
This one goes with the comment from Hugh Hewitt I posted before. More words to heed for any conservative. It's Dean Barnett at HughHewitt.com:

Quote:
The first thing I want to do is enumerate a few things that did not cost us this election. It wasn't the media. We faced the same media in 2002 and 2004 and prevailed. And it wasn't the savvy campaigning orchestrated by a suddenly gifted group of Machiavellian Democrats. That one doesn't fly either. The Democratic Party remains the organization that allowed John Kerry access to a microphone a week before the election.

Most importantly, we didn't lose because our countrymen suddenly misplaced the virtues that make America great. It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame "the people" when they don't vote as one would dictate. I'll brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican Congress. We made a case to the American people. They didn't buy it because they thought it was a weak case.


link
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:37 am
bm
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 01:12 pm
Quote:
Going Quietly?
Cultural degeneration has paralyzed the West in the face of its enemies.


By Thomas Sowell

European nations protesting Saddam Hussein's death sentence, as they protested against forcing secrets out of captured terrorists, should tell us all we need to know about the internal degeneration of Western society, where so many confuse squeamishness with morality.

Two generations of being insulated from the reality of the international jungle, of not having to defend their own survival because they have been living under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, have allowed too many Europeans to grow soft and indulge themselves in illusions about brutal realities and dangers.

The very means of their salvation have been demonized for decades in anti-nuclear movements and protesters calling themselves "antiwar." But there is a huge difference between being anti-war in words and being anti-war in deeds.

How many times, in its thousands of years of history, has Europe gone 60 years without a major war, as it has since World War II? That peace has been due to American nuclear weapons, which was all that could deter the Soviet Union's armies from marching right across Europe to the Atlantic Ocean.

Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know that you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely antiwar. Chamberlain's appeasement brought on World War II and Reagan's military buildup ended the Cold War.

The famous Roman peace of ancient times did not come from negotiations, ceasefires, or pretty talk. It came from the Roman Empire's crushing defeat and annihilation of Carthage, which served as a warning to anyone else who might have had any bright ideas about messing with Rome.

Only after the Roman Empire began to lose its own internal cohesion, patriotism, and fighting spirit over the centuries did it begin to succumb to its external enemies and finally collapse.

That seems to be where Western civilization is heading today.

Internal cohesion? Not only does much of today's generation in Western societies have a "do your own thing" attitude, but defying rules and flouting authority are actually glorified. Balkanization through "multiculturalism" has become dogma.

Patriotism? Not only is patriotism disdained, the very basis for pride in one's country and culture is systematically undermined in our educational institutions at all levels.

The achievements of Western civilization are buried in histories that portray every human sin found here as if they were peculiarities of the west.

The classic example is slavery, which existed all over the world for thousands of years and yet is incessantly depicted as if it was a peculiarity of Europeans enslaving Africans. Barbary pirates alone brought twice as many enslaved Europeans to North Africa as there were Africans brought in bondage to the United States and the American colonies from which it was formed.

How many schools and colleges are going to teach that, going against political correctness and undermining white guilt?

How many people have any inkling that it was precisely Western civilization that eventually turned against slavery and began stamping it out when non-Western societies still saw nothing wrong with it?

How can a generation be expected to fight for the survival of a culture or a civilization that has been trashed in its own institutions, taught to tolerate even the intolerance of other cultures brought into its own midst, and conditioned to regard any instinct to fight for its own survival as being a "cowboy"?

Western nations that show any signs of standing up for self-preservation are rare exceptions. The United States and Israel are the only Western nations which have no choice but to rely on self-defense ?- and both are demonized, not only by our enemies but also by many in other Western nations.

Australia recently told its Muslim population that, if they want to live under Islamic law, then they should leave Australia. That makes three Western nations that have not yet completely succumbed to the corrosive and suicidal trends of our times.

If and when we all succumb, will the epitaph of Western civilization say that we had the power to annihilate our enemies but were so paralyzed by confusion that we ended up being annihilated ourselves?

?- Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 01:45 pm
I doubt many will take the time to read that Tico. But Dr. Sowell is right on target as he most usually is.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 01:50 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I doubt many will take the time to read that Tico. But Dr. Sowell is right on target as he most usually is.


To bad he doesn't ever get the credit he deserves.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:00 pm
Yeah, Sowell is right - we oughta be crushing a few countries so that anyone else who thinks of messing with the US will know what will happen to them.

Hey, while we're at it, let's crush some countries who didn't think of messing with the US, just so everyone knows what will happen to them if we decide it to be so.

Sowell glorifies ancient Rome without once thinking of the extreme brutality inherent in their rule.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:04 pm
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I doubt many will take the time to read that Tico. But Dr. Sowell is right on target as he most usually is.


To bad he doesn't ever get the credit he deserves.


Too bad he sometimes makes things up as he goes along.

Quote:
Breaking news from another planet: A headline at the National Review Online describes John Kerry as a "media darling" and complains that the press has "circled the wagons around the junior senator from Massachusetts."

That bit of handiwork tops a column by Thomas Sowell that's chock full of stuff you might charitably call "truthiness." Sowell quotes Kerry saying that he would "apologize to no one" for what he said about Iraq, but he neglects to mention that Kerry subsequently apologized to anyone who was offended. [..] Sowell says that Kerry "to this day ... has never signed the simple form" required to release his military records. In fact, as the Boston Globe reported at the time, Kerry signed Standard Form 180, which "waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records," in May 2005.

What about this notion that the media has "circled the wagons" around Kerry? Maybe we missed all the wagon circling amid the 24/7 coverage of Kerry's blunder. Every time we turned on CNN or MSNBC Wednesday, we saw somebody beating up Kerry for his comments; at one point Wednesday, Fox's John Gibson went so far as to refer to Kerry's words as "off-color remarks."

What did Sowell see this week that we didn't? He focuses almost entirely on a San Francisco Chronicle headline that said, "Bush, GOP seize on Kerry's gibe to turn focus from war in Iraq." Sowell asks: "Has any Democrat ever been accused by the mainstream media of 'seizing on' some statement by a Republican, much less have bad motives imputed?"

Well, let's see. From the New York Times, June 24, 2005: "Democrats seized on Mr. Rove's comments, clearly hoping to put Republicans on the defensive." From the Washington Post, July 12, 2005: "Democrats seized on" Bush's vow to fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity [..]. From the Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2004: "Kerry seized on Bush's comments" about a national sale tax in an effort to "reverse partisan stereotypes by portraying the Republican president as the tax raiser and himself as a tax cutter." From Knight Ridder. Oct. 27, 2006: "[..] some Democrats seized on Cheney's comments" about "dunking" detainees in water [..].

Sowell should try "the Google" sometime. There's no telling what you can find out there.

(link)

Makes it kinda hard to take what he says at face value.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:22 pm
Gee Nimh, no one here mentioned Rush had apologized the same day he made remarks about Michael J. Fox... do they get the same treatment you have given Sowell here, or do people get a free pass depending on whether or not you agree with their politics?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/27/2026 at 08:41:04