| |
Main
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28
From: larry
Subject: Republicans will win!
|
Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
in waves.
I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
not going to lose either House or Senate.
Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
rash expectations.
Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
Larry
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:42:53
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
larry wrote:
> > Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
>
Republicans all want another big Al Qaeda attack on the US, right Lar?
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:54:44
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163043773.029345.209760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> larry wrote:
>> > Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
>> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
>> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
>> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
>>
>
> Republicans all want another big Al Qaeda attack on the US, right Lar?
>
A Democratic Congress pretty much guarantees it.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:17:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <4rh8b5Fr4a6jU1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163043773.029345.209760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > larry wrote:
> >> > Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> >> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> >> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> >> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
> >>
> >
> > Republicans all want another big Al Qaeda attack on the US, right Lar?
> >
> A Democratic Congress pretty much guarantees it.
Absolutely. Once they have finished their round at Torrey Pines, they'll
be right round to pop one in your mailbox.
Where do you guys get this stuff??!! :-)
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 01:28:31
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"larry" wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
How is it possible that someone is wrong 100% of the time in several
subjects (politics, economics and golf)?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 16:44:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
larry wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 11:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tex wrote:
> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> >> > >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> >> > >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> >> > >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> >> > >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> >> > >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> >> > >did in 2006.
> >> > >
> >> > >Larry
> >> >
> >> > You're demented.
> >>
> >> I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
> >> surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
> >> He's a lost cause.
> >>
> >> > If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
> >> > thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
> >>
> >> Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
> >> road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
> >> look at what that caused!
> >>
> >> If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
> >> conservative trend.
> >
> >
> >Sadly, I tend to agree. The election was not so much a victory for
> >Democrats as it was a loss for Republicans. Most of the Democratic
> >challengers who won were not liberals. A lot of factors, demographic
> >and otherwise, suggest that yesterday was the political equivalent of
> >the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
> >Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
>
> Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
>
> There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
> Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
> Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
> participate in). I am ready to write a check.
>
> The liberal media is responsible for much of this. We should refuse
> to watch or read liberal media and refuse to buy their sponsors'
> products.
>
> Larry
Unlike you, I have the guts to see things as they are. You still blame
it all on the media like a spoiled child. In your pathetic little
worldview, no Republicans did anything to deserve what they got
yesterday. It was all the media's fault. Why don't you go have some
milk and cookies and watch Finding Nemo?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:08:50
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <1163033053.515997.168460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > On 8 Nov 2006 11:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Tex wrote:
> > >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> > >> > >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> > >> > >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> > >> > >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> > >> > >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> > >> > >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> > >> > >did in 2006.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Larry
> > >> >
> > >> > You're demented.
> > >>
> > >> I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
> > >> surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
> > >> He's a lost cause.
> > >>
> > >> > If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
> > >> > thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
> > >>
> > >> Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
> > >> road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
> > >> look at what that caused!
> > >>
> > >> If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
> > >> conservative trend.
> > >
> > >
> > >Sadly, I tend to agree. The election was not so much a victory for
> > >Democrats as it was a loss for Republicans. Most of the Democratic
> > >challengers who won were not liberals. A lot of factors, demographic
> > >and otherwise, suggest that yesterday was the political equivalent of
> > >the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
> > >Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
> >
> > Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> > is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> > on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> > what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
> >
> > There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
> > Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
> > Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
> > participate in). I am ready to write a check.
> >
> > The liberal media is responsible for much of this. We should refuse
> > to watch or read liberal media and refuse to buy their sponsors'
> > products.
> >
> > Larry
>
>
> Unlike you, I have the guts to see things as they are. You still blame
> it all on the media like a spoiled child. In your pathetic little
> worldview, no Republicans did anything to deserve what they got
> yesterday. It was all the media's fault. Why don't you go have some
> milk and cookies and watch Finding Nemo?
I think Finding Nemo will be a little over his head. But I hear they are
running a Tellietubbies athon this week.
William CLark
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:39:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Tex wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> > >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> > >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> > >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> > >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> > >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> > >did in 2006.
> > >
> > >Larry
> >
> > You're demented.
>
> I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
> surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
> He's a lost cause.
>
> > If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
> > thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
>
> Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
> road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
> look at what that caused!
>
> If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
> conservative trend.
Sadly, I tend to agree. The election was not so much a victory for
Democrats as it was a loss for Republicans. Most of the Democratic
challengers who won were not liberals. A lot of factors, demographic
and otherwise, suggest that yesterday was the political equivalent of
the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
>
> But gridlock is good....over time, we'll see that help us all. Except
> for the Looney Tunes crowd on the right and left...they'll never be
> happy.
>
> Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:34:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 8 Nov 2006 11:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
>Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
Actually, within the context of second term, off year elections, Bush
did better than average. Clinton did better, but he had his
"disaster" in the off year of his first term.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 15:37:33
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 8 Nov 2006 11:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Tex wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
>> > >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
>> > >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
>> > >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
>> > >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
>> > >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
>> > >did in 2006.
>> > >
>> > >Larry
>> >
>> > You're demented.
>>
>> I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
>> surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
>> He's a lost cause.
>>
>> > If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
>> > thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
>>
>> Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
>> road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
>> look at what that caused!
>>
>> If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
>> conservative trend.
>
>
>Sadly, I tend to agree. The election was not so much a victory for
>Democrats as it was a loss for Republicans. Most of the Democratic
>challengers who won were not liberals. A lot of factors, demographic
>and otherwise, suggest that yesterday was the political equivalent of
>the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
>Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
participate in). I am ready to write a check.
The liberal media is responsible for much of this. We should refuse
to watch or read liberal media and refuse to buy their sponsors'
products.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 01:28:31
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Larry wrote:
> Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
>
> There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
> Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
> Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
> participate in). I am ready to write a check.
<snip >
Don't forget Larry, your huge $20 contribution may be tax deductible. In
your tax bracket, you could possibly recoup $2.50.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:07:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <91q4l218von7qg4evoe61ru472c8sq7vho@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 11:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tex wrote:
> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> >> > >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> >> > >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> >> > >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> >> > >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> >> > >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> >> > >did in 2006.
> >> > >
> >> > >Larry
> >> >
> >> > You're demented.
> >>
> >> I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
> >> surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
> >> He's a lost cause.
> >>
> >> > If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
> >> > thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
> >>
> >> Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
> >> road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
> >> look at what that caused!
> >>
> >> If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
> >> conservative trend.
> >
> >
> >Sadly, I tend to agree. The election was not so much a victory for
> >Democrats as it was a loss for Republicans. Most of the Democratic
> >challengers who won were not liberals. A lot of factors, demographic
> >and otherwise, suggest that yesterday was the political equivalent of
> >the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A brilliant but short-lived triumph.
> >Wounded Knee might be right around the corner.
>
> Yep, the country is becoming both older and more conservative. If (as
> is almost certain) there is another big Al Queda attack either here on
> on an ally-- many will realize that Bush was absolutely right to do
> what he did-- that he simply has no choice but to persist in Iraq.
>
> There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
> Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
> Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
> participate in). I am ready to write a check.
>
> The liberal media is responsible for much of this. We should refuse
> to watch or read liberal media and refuse to buy their sponsors'
> products.
>
> Larry
Oh, Jeez, after your stellar call yesterday, we are all going to believe
this latest piece of garbage? Tell you what - why don't you refuse to
read this liberal ng, and go off and get ready for that golf challenge
match we are all waiting for?
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 17:48:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:37:33 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
<clip >.
>
>There will be a huge correction in 2008. 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and
>Chuck Schumer will very likely ensure a massive Republican win of
>Presidency, House, and Senate. It will be fun to watch (and
>participate in). I am ready to write a check.
>Larry
So far your prognostications have all been wrong. Maybe you're
putting thea hex on the radical right wing. Keep it up.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:07:51
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> >LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> >country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> >is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> >more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> >years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> >did in 2006.
> >
> >Larry
>
> You're demented.
I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
He's a lost cause.
> If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
> thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
look at what that caused!
If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
conservative trend.
But gridlock is good....over time, we'll see that help us all. Except
for the Looney Tunes crowd on the right and left...they'll never be
happy.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:32:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
: Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
: road.
Um, no. The hand-picked-by-Rahm-Emmanuel centrists who got big
money from the DCCC, like Tammy Duckworth and Dan Seals, lost.
The centrist DSCC-picked candidate, Harold Ford, lost. Most of
the Dem winners were supported most by the progressive netroots.
Notable exception: CT-Sen. Lieberman is just too slithery to
lose, I guess.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:12:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 8 Nov 2006 10:07:51 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >Larry
>>
>> You're demented.
>
>I agree with you there Bobby. Larry lost it years ago...what I find
>surprising is that anyone even tries to discuss anything with him.
>He's a lost cause.
>
He's everything that he claims "lefties" are. Blind to anything other
than the one-sided dogma that he believes.
>> If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
>> thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
>
>Actually, most of the Dems that won, did so by being more middle of the
>road. The "right" side of the Dems kept quiet...except for Kerry...and
>look at what that caused!
>
I just wish that more, from both sides, would edge toward the middle
of the road.
>If you look at alot of the down ballot issues, there is still a strong
>conservative trend.
>
>But gridlock is good....over time, we'll see that help us all. Except
>for the Looney Tunes crowd on the right and left...they'll never be
>happy.
>
>Tex
Ain't it the truth!
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:03:05
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> > I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
> > referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
> > "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
> >
> Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt say
> the Repubs would win. :-)
>
> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
> to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are back.
Hide them? It's exactly why you keep your guns! :)
However, I look forward to 2 yrs of gridlock...means nothing will
change, and from Washington DC, that is *always* good for the rest of
country. And as much as the screams for impeachment will come, that
will never happen. The Clinton's won't allow it, it will ruin
Hillary's chances in '08.
Good news, the system worked, people voted and by a miracle of luck (?)
we don't hear of voting problems...I guess the whiners won so they
don't need to whine. Which is fine by me.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 8 Nov 2006 09:03:05 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>MnMikew wrote:
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >
>> > I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
>> > referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
>> > "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
>> >
>> Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt say
>> the Repubs would win. :-)
>>
>> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
>> to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are back.
>
>Hide them? It's exactly why you keep your guns! :)
>
>However, I look forward to 2 yrs of gridlock...means nothing will
>change, and from Washington DC, that is *always* good for the rest of
>country. And as much as the screams for impeachment will come, that
>will never happen. The Clinton's won't allow it, it will ruin
>Hillary's chances in '08.
>
>Good news, the system worked, people voted and by a miracle of luck (?)
>we don't hear of voting problems...I guess the whiners won so they
>don't need to whine. Which is fine by me.
>
>Tex
The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
Because so many are so lazy-- so many don't even read newspapers or
any responsible and balanced news source-- they are easy ks, easily
led. They were told what to think and when they went to the polls,
they voted as they were told. They were successfully brainwashed.
But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
did in 2006.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:26:06
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
>country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
There is a lot of hate radio out there - but only a small minority of
it is friendly to Democrats.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 16:31:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:26:06 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
>>country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
>
>There is a lot of hate radio out there - but only a small minority of
>it is friendly to Democrats.
All radio together is a tiny fraction of what is reached every night
by TV, the big 3 and CNN, MSNBC, etc. Radio happens during the day,
when 995 of people are working. TV is about 100 times more efficient
communication for people who simply have too short an attention span
to listen to the radio. Increasing numbers of voters don't read a
newspaper at all! They get all their news from TV. The liberal
media uses that to implant ideas into stupid heads.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:05:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <3gt4l2t3421b3aapjuoeqjctjuh3abnkmi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:26:06 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
> >>country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
> >
> >There is a lot of hate radio out there - but only a small minority of
> >it is friendly to Democrats.
>
> All radio together is a tiny fraction of what is reached every night
> by TV, the big 3 and CNN, MSNBC, etc. Radio happens during the day,
> when 995 of people are working. TV is about 100 times more efficient
> communication for people who simply have too short an attention span
> to listen to the radio. Increasing numbers of voters don't read a
> newspaper at all! They get all their news from TV. The liberal
> media uses that to implant ideas into stupid heads.
>
> Larry
Crap, Larry, simply crap. Just like every other piece of garbage you
post - not one shred of supporting data, just big fat Rush Limbaugh's
blathering regurgitated on to the sidewalk.
So why don't you tell us how you were so far off the k yesterday?
Come on, we all need a laugh.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:14:08
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
larry wrote:
> In another few
> years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> did in 2006.
Let's have a poll:
Who's the biggest lame duck ... Bush or Larry?
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 17:45:01
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <s744l2lbussqbcoqo832epg2a16pbca2t7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:03:05 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >MnMikew wrote:
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >
> >> > I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
> >> > referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
> >> > "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
> >> >
> >> Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt
> >> say
> >> the Repubs would win. :-)
> >>
> >> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
> >> to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are
> >> back.
> >
> >Hide them? It's exactly why you keep your guns! :)
> >
> >However, I look forward to 2 yrs of gridlock...means nothing will
> >change, and from Washington DC, that is *always* good for the rest of
> >country. And as much as the screams for impeachment will come, that
> >will never happen. The Clinton's won't allow it, it will ruin
> >Hillary's chances in '08.
> >
> >Good news, the system worked, people voted and by a miracle of luck (?)
> >we don't hear of voting problems...I guess the whiners won so they
> >don't need to whine. Which is fine by me.
> >
> >Tex
>
> The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
> country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
> Because so many are so lazy-- so many don't even read newspapers or
> any responsible and balanced news source-- they are easy ks, easily
> led. They were told what to think and when they went to the polls,
> they voted as they were told. They were successfully brainwashed.
>
> But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> did in 2006.
You prediction that they're all losing viewers: is it from the same
secret information that Karl Rove had?
LOL
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:40:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:25:20 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
>LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
>country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
>is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
>more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
>years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
>did in 2006.
>
>Larry
You're demented. If there was a BIG ongoing shift to right wing
thinking, why is there so much more blue now on the political map?
Oh....because the liberal media MADE republicans vote for democrats
this election. Get serious. The Republican party let things get out
of hand with Iraq, family values that their elected didn't seem to
follow, and Bush's mistakes.
No matter. We've probably just swapped out some bad politicians for
other bad politicians anyway. It's just your blindness to fact that
is astounding.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:40:27
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <s744l2lbussqbcoqo832epg2a16pbca2t7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:03:05 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >MnMikew wrote:
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >
> >> > I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
> >> > referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
> >> > "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
> >> >
> >> Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt
> >> say
> >> the Repubs would win. :-)
> >>
> >> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
> >> to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are
> >> back.
> >
> >Hide them? It's exactly why you keep your guns! :)
> >
> >However, I look forward to 2 yrs of gridlock...means nothing will
> >change, and from Washington DC, that is *always* good for the rest of
> >country. And as much as the screams for impeachment will come, that
> >will never happen. The Clinton's won't allow it, it will ruin
> >Hillary's chances in '08.
> >
> >Good news, the system worked, people voted and by a miracle of luck (?)
> >we don't hear of voting problems...I guess the whiners won so they
> >don't need to whine. Which is fine by me.
> >
> >Tex
>
> The liberal media won. They set out right after 9/11 to make the
> country hate Bush and all Republicans and everything they tried to do.
> Because so many are so lazy-- so many don't even read newspapers or
> any responsible and balanced news source-- they are easy ks, easily
> led. They were told what to think and when they went to the polls,
> they voted as they were told. They were successfully brainwashed.
>
> But the trend is hopeful, CNN, MSNBC, the big 3 networks, the NY and
> LA Times and Washington Post are ALL losing viewers and readers. This
> country is growing more conservative all the time. As evidence, there
> is a BIG ongoing shift to Fox news, conservative talk radio, and even
> more responsible news sources like National Review. In another few
> years it will be impossible for liberals to dominate the media as they
> did in 2006.
>
> Larry
Got some windmills close by, Larry? ;-)
What won was America. Checks and balances that were in the Constitution
that you so love, were not in place. Now they are!
It was so funny last night watching Faux News trying to put on a game
face. If I had radio in the house, I would probably be laughing my ass
off at Rush today! I just know he is saying literally the same thing
you are.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:24:34
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <1163005385.032080.146780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >
> > > I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
> > > referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
> > > "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
> > >
> > Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt say
> > the Repubs would win. :-)
> >
> > The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
> > to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are back.
>
> Hide them? It's exactly why you keep your guns! :)
>
> However, I look forward to 2 yrs of gridlock...means nothing will
> change, and from Washington DC, that is *always* good for the rest of
> country. And as much as the screams for impeachment will come, that
> will never happen. The Clinton's won't allow it, it will ruin
> Hillary's chances in '08.
>
> Good news, the system worked, people voted and by a miracle of luck (?)
> we don't hear of voting problems...I guess the whiners won so they
> don't need to whine. Which is fine by me.
>
> Tex
I'm with you! The voters spoke and what they said was that they wanted
some balance. What somewhat surprised me was in the exit polling.
Corruption was the number one issue, I hadn't expected that.
A bit of gridlock, which is just another word for checks and balances in
this case, is just what the Constitution calls for.
And you've still got my vote! ;-)
Well, unless I get to work for Obama....
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 02:32:59
From:
Subject: Re: How much more wrong, can one man be? (was Re: Republicans will win!
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> I know it's not really very kind to stomp on someone like this, but in
> this case, it's simply too much fun. <g>
>
But he enjoys it.
Well, consenting adults and all that....
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:02:39
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>
> Larry
I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
"flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
Now, why don't you find something to distract you, and go play this golf
match you have been challenged to?
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:18:14
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-4A7C76.05023908112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> I hate to pile on, but . . . dammit, you asked for it. So take tonight's
> referendum on Dubya and his cronies, and choke on it. And DO enjoy
> "flipping through NBC, CBS, and ABC" tonight. I know I have.
>
Come on Bill, since when don't you like to pile on. And I'm glad I didnt say
the Repubs would win. :-)
The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though. Down
to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the Dems are back.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 18:50:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
MnMikew wrote:
> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though.
> Down to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the
> Dems are back.
There will not be a gun-grab. Dem's don't want to ruin what they just got.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:57:24
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:X2u4h.9890$GE1.3394@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> MnMikew wrote:
>> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though.
>> Down to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the
>> Dems are back.
>
>
> There will not be a gun-grab. Dem's don't want to ruin what they just
> got.
>
Bull. Dems have been waiting for this a loooong time.
CC class starts next week and I'm stocking up on AR15 mags just in case. :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:05:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:57:24 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote in message
>news:X2u4h.9890$GE1.3394@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> The house loss was a given, the senate was a bit of a shocker though.
>>> Down to the wire again. Hide your guns and open your wallets, the
>>> Dems are back.
>>
>>
>> There will not be a gun-grab. Dem's don't want to ruin what they just
>> got.
>>
>Bull. Dems have been waiting for this a loooong time.
>CC class starts next week and I'm stocking up on AR15 mags just in case. :-)
>
Please Mike! You're usually much ster than these last few posts. I
consider myself a centrist, with a liberal leaning when it comes to
civil rights, have guns and before retirement had my share of 6
figure income tax bills. I hated the last Congress, and Dubya's
policies, and am hoping that this one can put us on a better path.
It looks like I'm not alone.
You really shouldn't paint with such a large brush.
I always figure you for one of the more reasonable righties, but a
Democratic Congress guarantees an Al Quaeda attack on us? You can't
honestly believe that.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:57:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:u2r6l2tiqot2btle9cqmutgeh5c85q7sqt@4ax.com...
>
> Please Mike! You're usually much ster than these last few posts. I
> consider myself a centrist, with a liberal leaning when it comes to
> civil rights, have guns and before retirement had my share of 6
> figure income tax bills. I hated the last Congress, and Dubya's
> policies, and am hoping that this one can put us on a better path.
> It looks like I'm not alone.
Yes we'll see what the new landscape brings in the next couple years. Though
having been through a few Dem Congresses I get a feeling it will be much of
the same.
>
> You really shouldn't paint with such a large brush.
Randy does it all the time, why does he get a pass?
>
> I always figure you for one of the more reasonable righties, but a
> Democratic Congress guarantees an Al Quaeda attack on us? You can't
> honestly believe that.
Yes I may have been a bit over the top on that one. But any sign of weekness
we show, like pulling out of Iraq will only embolden the terrorist scum.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:28:46
From: Alan Baker
Subject: How much more wrong, can one man be? (was Re: Republicans will win!
|
The answer is: "None. None more wrong." (With grateful homage to Spinal
Tap)
But let's have fun, anyway!
In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
Wrong!
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
Wrong!
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
Wrong!
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
Wrong!
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
Wrong!
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
Hey! He got something right, and yet...
...he's still wrong!
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
Long faces: Wrong!
Bitter disappointment: Wrong!
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
And finally, one last...
...wrong!
I know it's not really very kind to stomp on someone like this, but in
this case, it's simply too much fun. <g >
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:09:10
From:
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
larry wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
You ought to support Bush. You are just as completely full of shit as
he is.
He represents you.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:50:57
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
larry wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
Tell us another one, Carnac.
Looks like a Democratic landslide to me!
LOL!
The only reason the Dems didn't swamp the Senate as well is that only
one-third of the Senate seats were up for grabs.
Yes, Larry, the people have spoken. They said, "You suck!"
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:24:07
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 7 Nov 2006 20:50:57 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>Looks like a Democratic landslide to me!
>LOL!
Looks like people voted against the Republicans to me. The Democrats
have a lot of work to do to convert what happened into support for
them. Otherwise it will be 1946 all over again (with the names
changed).
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:41:44
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
: On 7 Nov 2006 20:50:57 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: >Looks like a Democratic landslide to me!
: >LOL!
:
: Looks like people voted against the Republicans to me.
Yeah, that's how these things work. You do know this is
America, right?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:23:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Here he goes AGAIN! What follows is more OT Republican drivel from the
clown prince of usenet abusers, ol' Larry.
Notice, however, that he is joining in the tried and true GoP tactic of
lowballing expectations, so that even the predicted outcome will seem
like a huge triumph.
God, we are so sick of these lies.
William Clark
In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>
> Larry
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:00:39
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com...
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
You're just as dumb as a box o' rocks larry.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 03:54:22
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com...
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted.
That didn't seem to bother Bush in Florida.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:00:19
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com...
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>
> Larry
After making so many lousy predictions in the last 6 years --- your side
should just STFU about any more predictions.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:20:25
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com >
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
How would you like to be a republican and have larry as your main
brainfart. Be enough to turn a lifelonger to the other party.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:59:03
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
bad news for you too. you just don't know it. But your grandkids will, when
they have to pay off your presidents debt that he doubled.
>--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
most laughable line on the "internets", ever. And I even know how to use
"the google" and have found some pretty funny stuff.
RJ
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:37:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:59:03 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net > wrote:
>
>> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>>
>
>bad news for you too. you just don't know it. But your grandkids will, when
>they have to pay off your presidents debt that he doubled.
The national debt, as a percentage of GNP, is smaller than it has been
many times in our recent history. No big deal.
Larry
>
>
>
>>--and go where there is
>> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
>
>most laughable line on the "internets", ever. And I even know how to use
>"the google" and have found some pretty funny stuff.
>
>RJ
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 03:59:44
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2m3vk2lvi6qen468mesoii6qnnvrjf9i8k@4ax.com...
>
> The national debt, as a percentage of GNP, is smaller than it has been
> many times in our recent history. No big deal.
As a percentage of the combined wealth of the combined wealth of the
"Federal" Reserve private bankers, it's small too. What does that have to
do with anything.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:53:27
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <2m3vk2lvi6qen468mesoii6qnnvrjf9i8k@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:59:03 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >>
> >
> >bad news for you too. you just don't know it. But your grandkids will, when
> >they have to pay off your presidents debt that he doubled.
>
> The national debt, as a percentage of GNP, is smaller than it has been
> many times in our recent history. No big deal.
And has been rising since shortly after 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg
Didn't you guys elect a new president about then? It was falling pretty
steadily under the last half of his predecessor's administration...
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:45:47
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> > >
> > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
> > >
> > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> > >
> > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> > > in waves.
> > >
> > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> > >
> > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> > > rash expectations.
> > >
> > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> > >
> > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> > >
> > > Larry
> >
> > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> >
> > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> >
> > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
> > differently...
>
> WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
> crap!
>
> Here's a link to their headline :
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
bandwidth.
It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
"electronic voting machines"...
She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:51:21
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <1162838746.710302.185460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> > > >
> > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
> > > >
> > > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> > > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> > > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> > > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> > > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> > > >
> > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> > > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> > > > in waves.
> > > >
> > > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> > > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> > > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> > > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> > > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> > > >
> > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> > > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> > > > rash expectations.
> > > >
> > > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> > > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> > > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> > > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> > > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> > > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> > > >
> > > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> > > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> > > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> > > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> > > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > >
> > > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> > > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> > >
> > > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> > >
> > > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
> > > differently...
> >
> > WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
> > crap!
> >
> > Here's a link to their headline :
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
>
> The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
> bandwidth.
> It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
> "electronic voting machines"...
> She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
>
> Tex
You are absolutely correct! But tweaking Larry's BS is always
worthwhile, isn't it? ;-)
Now we see whether people will come out to actually vote. I mean, it is
easy to answer the phone, harder to get off your ass and get in the car,
drive to the polling place and k your ballot (or whichever other way
the vote is taken in your state).
IMO, voting not only is a right, it is a responsibility! So get out
there and VOTE!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:58:48
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:51:21 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>In article <1162838746.710302.185460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
>> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
>> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>> > > >
>> > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
>> > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
>> > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
>> > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
>> > > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
>> > > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
>> > > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
>> > > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>> > > >
>> > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
>> > > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
>> > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
>> > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
>> > > > in waves.
>> > > >
>> > > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
>> > > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
>> > > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
>> > > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
>> > > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
>> > > >
>> > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
>> > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
>> > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
>> > > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
>> > > > rash expectations.
>> > > >
>> > > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
>> > > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
>> > > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
>> > > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
>> > > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
>> > > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>> > > >
>> > > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
>> > > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
>> > > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
>> > > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
>> > > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>> > > >
>> > > > Larry
>> > >
>> > > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
>> > > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
>> > >
>> > > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
>> > >
>> > > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
>> > > differently...
>> >
>> > WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
>> > crap!
>> >
>> > Here's a link to their headline :
>> >
>> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
>>
>> The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
>> bandwidth.
>> It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
>> "electronic voting machines"...
>> She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
>>
>> Tex
>
>You are absolutely correct! But tweaking Larry's BS is always
>worthwhile, isn't it? ;-)
>
>Now we see whether people will come out to actually vote. I mean, it is
>easy to answer the phone, harder to get off your ass and get in the car,
>drive to the polling place and k your ballot (or whichever other way
>the vote is taken in your state).
>
>IMO, voting not only is a right, it is a responsibility! So get out
>there and VOTE!
Republicans will-- democrats won't. There is a basic difference in
lifestyle-- One is industrious --- the other is lazy and probably
never quite finished school or much of anything. Now later in life
one owns the company-- the other works there-- coming in as late as
possible, doing as little work as possible, and leaving as early as
possible.
And for the democrat it will be just too much trouble to either fill
out a registration card, send in an absentee ballot, or go to the
polls.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:04:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <g81vk2hkauqlomh4hob0ef85b890n8upbi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:51:21 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1162838746.710302.185460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
> >> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> >> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> >> > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> >> > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO
> >> > > > Senate
> >> > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both
> >> > > > houses.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> >> > > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in
> >> > > > order
> >> > > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the
> >> > > > winning
> >> > > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> >> > > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> >> > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> >> > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming
> >> > > > home'
> >> > > > in waves.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted
> >> > > > by
> >> > > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> >> > > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> >> > > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> >> > > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are
> >> > > > ruefully
> >> > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous."
> >> > > > It
> >> > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> >> > > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> >> > > > rash expectations.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then
> >> > > > flipping
> >> > > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> >> > > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> >> > > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total
> >> > > > advocates
> >> > > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> >> > > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> >> > > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
> >> > > > Be
> >> > > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> >> > > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Larry
> >> > >
> >> > > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> >> > > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show
> >> > > it
> >> > > differently...
> >> >
> >> > WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
> >> > crap!
> >> >
> >> > Here's a link to their headline :
> >> >
> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
> >>
> >> The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
> >> bandwidth.
> >> It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
> >> "electronic voting machines"...
> >> She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> >You are absolutely correct! But tweaking Larry's BS is always
> >worthwhile, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> >Now we see whether people will come out to actually vote. I mean, it is
> >easy to answer the phone, harder to get off your ass and get in the car,
> >drive to the polling place and k your ballot (or whichever other way
> >the vote is taken in your state).
> >
> >IMO, voting not only is a right, it is a responsibility! So get out
> >there and VOTE!
>
> Republicans will-- democrats won't. There is a basic difference in
> lifestyle-- One is industrious --- the other is lazy and probably
> never quite finished school or much of anything. Now later in life
> one owns the company-- the other works there-- coming in as late as
> possible, doing as little work as possible, and leaving as early as
> possible.
>
> And for the democrat it will be just too much trouble to either fill
> out a registration card, send in an absentee ballot, or go to the
> polls.
>
> Larry
Indeed it was, so it seems as though your industrious Republicans are as
ticked off as everyone else with the GoP and the WH. Even the Christian
right is disgusted by the continuing GoP scandals.
Better luck next time.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:02:45
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
>
> Republicans will-- democrats won't. There is a basic difference in
> lifestyle-- One is industrious --- the other is lazy and probably
> never quite finished school or much of anything. Now later in life
> one owns the company-- the other works there-- coming in as late as
> possible, doing as little work as possible, and leaving as early as
> possible.
Fuck you and the horse you're ried too
>
> And for the democrat it will be just too much trouble to either fill
> out a registration card, send in an absentee ballot, or go to the
> polls.
>
> Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <g81vk2hkauqlomh4hob0ef85b890n8upbi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:51:21 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1162838746.710302.185460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
> >> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> >> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> >> > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> >> > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO
> >> > > > Senate
> >> > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both
> >> > > > houses.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> >> > > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in
> >> > > > order
> >> > > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the
> >> > > > winning
> >> > > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> >> > > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> >> > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> >> > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming
> >> > > > home'
> >> > > > in waves.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted
> >> > > > by
> >> > > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> >> > > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> >> > > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> >> > > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are
> >> > > > ruefully
> >> > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous."
> >> > > > It
> >> > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> >> > > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> >> > > > rash expectations.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then
> >> > > > flipping
> >> > > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> >> > > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> >> > > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total
> >> > > > advocates
> >> > > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> >> > > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> >> > > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
> >> > > > Be
> >> > > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> >> > > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Larry
> >> > >
> >> > > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> >> > > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show
> >> > > it
> >> > > differently...
> >> >
> >> > WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
> >> > crap!
> >> >
> >> > Here's a link to their headline :
> >> >
> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
> >>
> >> The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
> >> bandwidth.
> >> It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
> >> "electronic voting machines"...
> >> She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> >You are absolutely correct! But tweaking Larry's BS is always
> >worthwhile, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> >Now we see whether people will come out to actually vote. I mean, it is
> >easy to answer the phone, harder to get off your ass and get in the car,
> >drive to the polling place and k your ballot (or whichever other way
> >the vote is taken in your state).
> >
> >IMO, voting not only is a right, it is a responsibility! So get out
> >there and VOTE!
>
> Republicans will-- democrats won't. There is a basic difference in
> lifestyle-- One is industrious --- the other is lazy and probably
> never quite finished school or much of anything. Now later in life
> one owns the company-- the other works there-- coming in as late as
> possible, doing as little work as possible, and leaving as early as
> possible.
>
> And for the democrat it will be just too much trouble to either fill
> out a registration card, send in an absentee ballot, or go to the
> polls.
>
> Larry
Larry, Check out the following from 2004. Enjoy!@
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm
AVERAGE
POP PRESIDENT
LIST STATE IQ ELECT
1 Connecticut 113 John Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 John Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 John Kerry
4 New York 109 John Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 John Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 John Kerry
7 yland 105 John Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 John Kerry
9 Illinois 104 John Kerry
10 Delaware 103 John Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 John Kerry
12 Vermont 102 John Kerry
13 Washington 102 John Kerry
14 California 101 John Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 John Kerry
16 Maine 100 John Kerry
17 Virginia 100 George Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 John Kerry
19 Colorado 99 George Bush
20 Iowa 99 George Bush
21 Michigan 99 John Kerry
22 Nevada 99 George Bush
23 Ohio 99 George Bush
24 Oregon 99 John Kerry
25 Alaska 98 George Bush
26 Florida 98 George Bush
27 Missouri 98 George Bush
28 Kansas 96 George Bush
29 Nebraska 95 George Bush
30 Arizona 94 George Bush
31 Indiana 94 George Bush
32 Tennessee 94 George Bush
33 North Carolina 93 George Bush
34 West Virginia 93 George Bush
35 Arkansas 92 George Bush
36 Georgia 92 George Bush
37 Kentucky 92 George Bush
38 New Mexico 92 George Bush
39 North Dakota 92 George Bush
40 Texas 92 George Bush
41 Alabama 90 George Bush
42 Louisiana 90 George Bush
43 Montana 90 George Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 George Bush
45 South Dakota 90 George Bush
46 South Carolina 89 George Bush
47 Wyoming 89 George Bush
48 Idaho 87 George Bush
49 Utah 87 George Bush
50 Mississippi 85 George Bush
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:57:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
> AVERAGE
> POP PRESIDENT
>LIST STATE IQ ELECT
Complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks that IQ is distributed
differently by state knows nothing about IQ and population.
I thought you were st Bill.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 00:12:33
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:57:47 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>> AVERAGE
>> POP PRESIDENT
>>LIST STATE IQ ELECT
>
> Complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks that IQ is distributed differently
> by state knows nothing about IQ and population.
>
> I thought you were st Bill.
William did not say that IQ was distributed differently by state. You seem
to have somehow assumed that he did.
There is a relationship between IQ and quality of education. And those
with better educations tend to vote Democrat.
What state do you live in, Jack?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:05:09
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <6502l2dre8ooe7hhipio9n048ht4h309cg@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > AVERAGE
> > POP PRESIDENT
> >LIST STATE IQ ELECT
>
> Complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks that IQ is distributed
> differently by state knows nothing about IQ and population.
>
> I thought you were st Bill.
Well, the table says I live in Ohio, so I'm about average.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:51:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:05:09 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>In article <6502l2dre8ooe7hhipio9n048ht4h309cg@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > AVERAGE
>> > POP PRESIDENT
>> >LIST STATE IQ ELECT
>>
>> Complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks that IQ is distributed
>> differently by state knows nothing about IQ and population.
>>
>> I thought you were st Bill.
>
>Well, the table says I live in Ohio, so I'm about average.
>
>William Clark
I'm afraid that you have been the victim of a hoax Professor.
"Some sources, such as The Economist, 15th-21st May 2004 (p.44 in the
UK edition), have reported a list of average IQs of U.S. states,
supposedly from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In fact, such data do
not appear in the book. At about the same time, conservative American
commentator Steve Sailer exposed the table as a hoax that had already
circulated among hundreds of liberal-leaning blogs and other Internet
sites [13]. In the following week's edition of The Economist, the
editors admitted their error and stated in the column On the trail
that they "were the victim of a hoax." The hoax recurred after the
2004 U.S. election, and it was again falsely attributed to IQ and the
Wealth of Nations [14], but the incident prompted yet another hoax—a
claim that a computer scientist had compiled a genuine state-by-state
chart using SAT and ACT scores [15]. This was allegedly compiled by
Psychology "Professor k Jones, from Virginia Tech," who does not
exist. While there is a faculty member by that name, he is an
Assistant Professor in the computer science department [16].
Furthermore, no link to such a study, or evidence that he did such a
study, has ever been provided."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Just goes to show you that even well-educated people will look foolish
if they fail to check out the credibility of their sources. Don't
worry Bill, you have some good company at The Economist.
Besides, the whole concept of intelligence is not something that
theorists agree upon. Given the fact that no one really knows exactly
what intelligence is, it's hard to be sure what IQ tests actually
measure.
In any case, if you read some of the data on national IQ in the Wealth
of Nations, you will see that it's absurd.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:20:59
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:51:44 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
>Just goes to show you that even well-educated people will look foolish
>if they fail to check out the credibility of their sources.
Which proves that the liberal media have successfully brainwashed the
well-educated as well as all the unwashed. After years of
concentrated misinformation, those who were not curious, who watched
only CNN and read only the NY Times, etc. who were very very lazy,
now helplessly believe the patently ridiculous "information" they were
fed. They can't explain why they hate Bush, they can't explain what
is wrong with our current economy, they can't explain what is wrong
with 4% unemployment, yet they keep screaming--and now voting as they
were programmed to do. They are brainwashed. I would be ashamed to
have been so used.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:27:42
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <ucf2l25v8n9j7v2eeokhmu2gst1i3sfkcn@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:51:44 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>
> >Just goes to show you that even well-educated people will look foolish
> >if they fail to check out the credibility of their sources.
>
> Which proves that the liberal media have successfully brainwashed the
> well-educated as well as all the unwashed. After years of
> concentrated misinformation, those who were not curious, who watched
> only CNN and read only the NY Times, etc. who were very very lazy,
> now helplessly believe the patently ridiculous "information" they were
> fed. They can't explain why they hate Bush, they can't explain what
> is wrong with our current economy, they can't explain what is wrong
> with 4% unemployment, yet they keep screaming--and now voting as they
> were programmed to do. They are brainwashed. I would be ashamed to
> have been so used.
>
> Larry
Why? You've been influenced by the drug-addled gasbag Limbaugh for
years.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:14:25
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <1ib2l2t0d087jj2uitaqc1692li62flbko@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:05:09 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <6502l2dre8ooe7hhipio9n048ht4h309cg@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:29:30 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > AVERAGE
> >> > POP PRESIDENT
> >> >LIST STATE IQ ELECT
> >>
> >> Complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks that IQ is distributed
> >> differently by state knows nothing about IQ and population.
> >>
> >> I thought you were st Bill.
> >
> >Well, the table says I live in Ohio, so I'm about average.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I'm afraid that you have been the victim of a hoax Professor.
>
>
> "Some sources, such as The Economist, 15th-21st May 2004 (p.44 in the
> UK edition), have reported a list of average IQs of U.S. states,
> supposedly from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In fact, such data do
> not appear in the book. At about the same time, conservative American
> commentator Steve Sailer exposed the table as a hoax that had already
> circulated among hundreds of liberal-leaning blogs and other Internet
> sites [13]. In the following week's edition of The Economist, the
> editors admitted their error and stated in the column On the trail
> that they "were the victim of a hoax." The hoax recurred after the
> 2004 U.S. election, and it was again falsely attributed to IQ and the
> Wealth of Nations [14], but the incident prompted yet another hoax—a
> claim that a computer scientist had compiled a genuine state-by-state
> chart using SAT and ACT scores [15]. This was allegedly compiled by
> Psychology "Professor k Jones, from Virginia Tech," who does not
> exist. While there is a faculty member by that name, he is an
> Assistant Professor in the computer science department [16].
> Furthermore, no link to such a study, or evidence that he did such a
> study, has ever been provided."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
>
>
> Just goes to show you that even well-educated people will look foolish
> if they fail to check out the credibility of their sources. Don't
> worry Bill, you have some good company at The Economist.
>
> Besides, the whole concept of intelligence is not something that
> theorists agree upon. Given the fact that no one really knows exactly
> what intelligence is, it's hard to be sure what IQ tests actually
> measure.
>
> In any case, if you read some of the data on national IQ in the Wealth
> of Nations, you will see that it's absurd.
Sorry, Jack, the joke's on you. That table was doing the rounds right
after the 2004 election, and it was well known to be suspect almost
immediately. Of course, the paragraph above is from Wikepedia, so your
source is no more reliable than street gossip.
Still, it was plenty good enough to fool a mighty intellect like Larry,
so we could all enjoy a chuckle.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:53:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:14:25 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>Sorry, Jack, the joke's on you. That table was doing the rounds right
>after the 2004 election, and it was well known to be suspect almost
>immediately. Of course, the paragraph above is from Wikepedia, so your
>source is no more reliable than street gossip.
>
>Still, it was plenty good enough to fool a mighty intellect like Larry,
>so we could all enjoy a chuckle.
>
>William Clark
First, I never believed the data for a minute.
Second, I don't buy your story either.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:58:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <7gh2l2pu7nun82ebm56fue2nbbhme9v3rf@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:14:25 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Jack, the joke's on you. That table was doing the rounds right
> >after the 2004 election, and it was well known to be suspect almost
> >immediately. Of course, the paragraph above is from Wikepedia, so your
> >source is no more reliable than street gossip.
> >
> >Still, it was plenty good enough to fool a mighty intellect like Larry,
> >so we could all enjoy a chuckle.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> First, I never believed the data for a minute.
>
> Second, I don't buy your story either.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 23:09:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:58:17 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>> Second, I don't buy your story either.
>
>Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
>
>William Clark
Why should you?
However, you better hope none of your students run across this ng.
Even so, I wouldn't expect a materials scientist to know squat about
general population trends and intelligence.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 04:50:49
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <3pl2l25kunskm3ae1hfjsaf2hf65ijugku@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:58:17 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Second, I don't buy your story either.
> >
> >Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> Why should you?
>
> However, you better hope none of your students run across this ng.
> Even so, I wouldn't expect a materials scientist to know squat about
> general population trends and intelligence.
Oh, my, aren't we getting tetchy? Must be those election results getting
to you.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:20:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
> >
> >Rudy might.
> >
> >As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
> >hope she can't. Too polarizing.
> >
> >I've got some others in mind that I like better.
>
>
> McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
> you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
> ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
> Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
Hillary has the nomination practically sewed up already. She has the
name recognition, the money, and all the best campaign people in the
Democratic Party will be working for her. I don't think she can be
elected president, though.
>
> Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
> Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
> kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:07:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:50:49 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>> However, you better hope none of your students run across this ng.
>> Even so, I wouldn't expect a materials scientist to know squat about
>> general population trends and intelligence.
>
>Oh, my, aren't we getting tetchy? Must be those election results getting
>to you.
>
>William Clark
I don't get too emotional about politics because what happened last
night wont change things very much. It will make the life of a
Democrat in Congress a lot more fun, but they wont be able to do
anything substantial.
The one thing they will be able to do is prevent Bush's judicial
nominees from getting out of committee. Obviously they can't get
judges that they want up for a vote, but they can hold up the process.
Bush's tax cuts don't expire until 2010, so they're safe. Despite
what the Republicans said before the election, the Democrats can't
raise taxes. Bush really doesn't need to compromise with Congress
because he doesn't have any domestic agenda that he's set on getting
through. It's a formula for gridlock and I've never been too worried
about the government doing nothing.
Foreign policy is still in the President's hands. He still can do
what he sees fit to do in Iraq. The only thing the House can do is
cut funding, but they wont do that and even if the Democratic
leadership wanted to do it, I doubt they could get enough of their own
party to get it passed.
The one thing that the Democrats did achieve is to take a big step
towards gaining control. If they can hold on to the Senate and House
and take the WH in 2008, then they will be able to do something.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:36:40
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:43:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Jack, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your
> >sincerity, but you're just flat wrong about this and you should
> >probably drop it. You're entitled to your opinion but not to
> >your own facts.
>
> Sorry Chris, but I'm right.
You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
will live longer.
Tex
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:12:32
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Jack Hollis wrote:
: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:43:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > >Jack, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your
: > >sincerity, but you're just flat wrong about this and you should
: > >probably drop it. You're entitled to your opinion but not to
: > >your own facts.
: >
: > Sorry Chris, but I'm right.
:
: You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
: will live longer.
Ha, I had already decided to drop it! :-p
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:37:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:12:32 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
>: will live longer.
>
>Ha, I had already decided to drop it! :-p
A wise tactic if you know you're wrong.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 23:35:37
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:12:32 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >: You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
: >: will live longer.
: >
: >Ha, I had already decided to drop it! :-p
:
: A wise tactic if you know you're wrong.
Then why do you continue?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 23:40:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:35:37 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>: On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:12:32 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>:
>:>: You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
>:>: will live longer.
>:>
>:>Ha, I had already decided to drop it! :-p
>:
>: A wise tactic if you know you're wrong.
>
>Then why do you continue?
Perhaps I'm hoping that you might read the data that came from the SSA
and the GAO and say that perhaps I'm right that SS has some serious
troubles. Are you somehow emotionally attached to Social Security to
the point that you don't want to admit that there might be some
serious problems? Or perhaps you're unwilling to admit that your
belief that the program is funded until 2040 might be wrong.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:09:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:35:37 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: >: On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:12:32 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >:>: You are barking up a tree that will grow 101 branches. Stop now, you
: >:>: will live longer.
: >:>
: >:>Ha, I had already decided to drop it! :-p
: >:
: >: A wise tactic if you know you're wrong.
: >
: >Then why do you continue?
:
: Perhaps I'm hoping that you might read the data that came from the SSA
: and the GAO and say that perhaps I'm right that SS has some serious
: troubles.
I've read it. I've pointed out to you how each year they push
that date back. You continue to act as though time has frozen
and only the latest snapshot has any meaning. I've pointed out
to you that the SSA models are based on economic growth more
anemic than any we've seen in the industrial era. You continue
to act as though those assumptions are reasonable. Why, I can't
say.
And the notion that the trust fund doesn't exist is crackpot
lunacy, frankly, right up there with "the WTC was detonated by
the government." Two trillion dollars of FICA taxes have gone
into that trust fund, those dollars are as real as any in our
federal reserve currency system. Your argument amounts to gold
standard mentality and simply does not apply. OK?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:14:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:09:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>And the notion that the trust fund doesn't exist is crackpot
>lunacy, frankly, right up there with "the WTC was detonated by
>the government." Two trillion dollars of FICA taxes have gone
>into that trust fund, those dollars are as real as any in our
>federal reserve currency system.
There is no real money in the SSTF. It's all in Treasuries. Do you
know what a Treasury Bond is? Explain to me how it's real money.
Here's the SSA's response in their FAQs regarding the SSTF:
"The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly
benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses
and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such
spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need
to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.
Funds not withdrawn for current expenses (benefits, the financial
interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and administrative
expenses) are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as
required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust
fund."
The key passage is "are invested in interest-bearing Federal
securities." Do you know what this means? Just in case you don't, it
means that the government takes the money out of the trust fund and
issues Treasuries which are basically IOUs. The government then
spends the money like general revenue.
There is no money in the SSTF. Only a fool could deny this.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 17:36:43
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:09:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >And the notion that the trust fund doesn't exist is crackpot
: >lunacy, frankly, right up there with "the WTC was detonated by
: >the government." Two trillion dollars of FICA taxes have gone
: >into that trust fund, those dollars are as real as any in our
: >federal reserve currency system.
:
: There is no real money in the SSTF. It's all in Treasuries. Do you
: know what a Treasury Bond is?
Do you know what a dollar is? That's not a rhetorical question.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:46:39
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:36:43 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: There is no real money in the SSTF. It's all in Treasuries. Do you
>: know what a Treasury Bond is?
>
>Do you know what a dollar is? That's not a rhetorical question.
Absolutely, dollars are what's not in the SSTF.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:16:23
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:36:43 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >: There is no real money in the SSTF. It's all in Treasuries. Do you
: >: know what a Treasury Bond is?
: >
: >Do you know what a dollar is? That's not a rhetorical question.
:
: Absolutely, dollars are what's not in the SSTF.
Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
Put another way, there is nothing that the SSA could be holding
in its vaults that would satisfy you, unless the United States
went back to the gold standard and the SSA held that money in
gold bars in Fort Knox. And obviously that's not about to happen.
Your argument is simply as specious as it gets.
*Interest notwithstanding
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 06:12:29
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
> as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
> the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
Yet $1 is "public tender for all debts public an private" and a T-Bond is
not.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:52:19
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:12:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>> Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
>> as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
>> the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
>
>Yet $1 is "public tender for all debts public an private" and a T-Bond is
>not.
>
>--
>bill-o
And, what Chris fails to understand is that when the government issues
Treasuries to itself, that are not an asset. If someone were to put
$1 in the SSTF, it would be worth more in real terms than all the
Treasuries in the fund.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 23:44:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:12:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
: wrote:
:
: >> Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
: >> as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
: >> the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
: >
: >Yet $1 is "public tender for all debts public an private" and a T-Bond is
: >not.
: >
: >--
: >bill-o
:
: And, what Chris fails to understand is that when the government issues
: Treasuries to itself, that are not an asset.
The government didn't issue Treasuries to itself. The government
started converting FICA revenue into T-Bills in 1983.
I'll repeat: except for interest, M does not change when the bonds
are converted back into currency.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 13:56:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:44:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>The government didn't issue Treasuries to itself. The government
>started converting FICA revenue into T-Bills in 1983.
Then they spend the money which converts an asset (real money) into
debt (Treasuries).
This conversation is getting nowhere.
Chris, there's an old saying that it takes a big man to admit that
he's wrong. Unfortunately, in this respect, you're coming up short.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 19:31:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:44:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >The government didn't issue Treasuries to itself. The government
: >started converting FICA revenue into T-Bills in 1983.
:
: Then they spend the money which converts an asset (real money) into
: debt (Treasuries).
Why do you insist on being so obtuse? They converted liquid
M2 assets into more illiquid M4 assets. M remained unchanged.
Later, they will convert the M4 assets back into M2. M will
still remain unchanged, save for any interest generated by the
M4 bonds.
Every financial institution on earth recognizes those T-Bonds
as part of the money supply, and the value of the dollar is
pegged with that information universally known. The conversion
of the bonds back into dollars will basically be a fiscal
non-event. It's not as though the treasury is about to dump
$2 trillion into the economy out of nowhere, as you make it
sound. Jesus.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:27:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
: > as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
: > the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
:
: Yet $1 is "public tender for all debts public an private" and a T-Bond is
: not.
I can't think of a more succinct way to put this than to use
Economics 101 jargon, so here it is: Both are counted when
calculating M, the total amount of money circulating within
the economy. T-Bonds are counted in M4, which is the swath
of M of least liquidity, but they are counted.
The government could merely print the dollars to replace the
T-Bonds, burn the T-Bonds on the spot, and M would remain
unchanged. The only thing the government has to come up is
the interest on the T-Bonds, which may be non-trivial but it's
hardly enough to sink Social Security. That said, it's also
reasonable to guess that the steady conversion of M4 bonds
into M2 dollars (guessing they won't all go straight to M1,
though some will) will introduce liquidity to the economy
and stimulate growth without being inflationary (due to M
remaining static). That, in turn, would help SS remain
solvent, but of course that's a mere hypothesis which would
be largely overridden by numerous externalities.
(As usual, I find the best way of explaining something only
after wasting hundreds of words explaining it less clearly.
Sorry for that.)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:58:12
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> (As usual, I find the best way of explaining something only
> after wasting hundreds of words explaining it less clearly.
> Sorry for that.)
Well, Alan Greenspan you're not! :-P
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:37:54
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > (As usual, I find the best way of explaining something only
: > after wasting hundreds of words explaining it less clearly.
: > Sorry for that.)
:
: Well, Alan Greenspan you're not! :-P
Mea culpa. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:32:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:16:23 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Put another way, there is nothing that the SSA could be holding
>in its vaults that would satisfy you,
If the SSA was holding money, that would satisfy me. However there is
no money in the SSTF. All of the money to pay back the SSTF will have
to come from future general taxes.
Quote of the day: "Having a government trust fund is exactly the same
as not having a government trust fund."
Here's a passage from the 2006 SSA Report to the Public:
"The fundamentals of the financial status of Social Security and
Medicare remain problematic under the intermediate economic and
demographic assumptions. Social Security's current annual surpluses of
tax income over expenditures will soon begin to decline, and will be
followed by deficits that begin to grow rapidly toward the end of the
next decade as the baby-boom generation retires. Expenditures of
Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund that pays hospital
benefits are projected to exceed taxes and other dedicated revenues in
2006, with annual cash flow deficits expected to continue and to grow
rapidly after 2010 as baby boomers begin to retire. The projected
growing deficits in both programs will exhaust HI trust fund reserves
in 2018 and Social Security reserves in 2040, under current financing
arrangements. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical
Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the
new prescription drug benefit will require substantial increases over
time in both general revenue financing and beneficiary premium
charges. As Social Security and HI reserves are drawn down and SMI
general revenue financing requirements continue to grow, pressure on
the Federal budget will intensify. We do not believe the currently
projected long-run growth rates of Social Security or Medicare are
sustainable under current financing arrangements."
This is a pretty grim report. Of course, the report also fails to
explain that both the HITF and the SSTF have no money in them.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:22:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:16:23 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Do you understand that the worth of a $1 T-Bond is exactly the same
>as the worth of a $1 Federal Reserve Note*, that both are backed by
>the full faith and credit of the United States and nothing else?
This is funny. If I owned the Treasury (which I do) I can call it an
asset because the government owes me the money. However, when the
government issues a Treasury to itself it is not an asset because the
asset of the Treasury and the government debt associated with it
cancel each other out.
There is no money in the SSTF, zero, nada. The money to pay off the
debt owed to the SSTF will have to come from future revenue. There is
nothing there now.
This is simple to understand.
This is just like what Enron would do. They would start a company and
lend it $100 million. The company would issue a promissory note for
the money which Enron would report as an asset. Then in another part
of the financial statement they would report that they owned a company
with assets of $100 million.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:43:56
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: There is no money in the SSTF, zero, nada.
Even after it's explained to you, you still cling to this
lunacy. That makes you a loon. Your choice, I suppose, but
understand that your credibility has shrunk to nil. Maybe
you should read up what conservative icon Alan Greenspan
has to say on this subject, since I couldn't reach you.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 06:10:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> Even after it's explained to you, you still cling to this
> lunacy. That makes you a loon.
If you dare mention the gold standard you can go to looney land too! :-P
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:13:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:43:56 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: There is no money in the SSTF, zero, nada.
>
>Even after it's explained to you, you still cling to this
>lunacy. That makes you a loon. Your choice, I suppose, but
>understand that your credibility has shrunk to nil. Maybe
>you should read up what conservative icon Alan Greenspan
>has to say on this subject, since I couldn't reach you.
Here is a quote from the Office of Management and Budget under the
Clinton Administration in 1999:
"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future
benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a
bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds,
like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real
economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or
reducing benefits or other expenditures."
Do you understand what "They do not consist of real economic assets"
means?
You have to be an idiot to think that there's anything othe than IOUs
in the trust fund becaue that's all that there.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 03:58:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:07:27 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>Bush's tax cuts don't expire until 2010, so they're safe. Despite
>what the Republicans said before the election, the Democrats can't
>raise taxes. Bush really doesn't need to compromise with Congress
>because he doesn't have any domestic agenda that he's set on getting
>through. It's a formula for gridlock and I've never been too worried
>about the government doing nothing.
The Democrats can continue with the biggest non-mandated tax - the
debt.
TANSSAAFL
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:28:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:58:03 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>Bush's tax cuts don't expire until 2010, so they're safe. Despite
>>what the Republicans said before the election, the Democrats can't
>>raise taxes. Bush really doesn't need to compromise with Congress
>>because he doesn't have any domestic agenda that he's set on getting
>>through. It's a formula for gridlock and I've never been too worried
>>about the government doing nothing.
>
>The Democrats can continue with the biggest non-mandated tax - the
>debt.
>
>TANSSAAFL
Bush will be much less likely to sign bills full of pork for Democrats
than he was to sign bills full of pork for Republicans.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:06:25
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:28:48 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>Bush will be much less likely to sign bills full of pork for Democrats
>than he was to sign bills full of pork for Republicans.
I'm a big believer that having the same party control everything is
dangerous.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:06:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:06:25 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>Bush will be much less likely to sign bills full of pork for Democrats
>>than he was to sign bills full of pork for Republicans.
>
>I'm a big believer that having the same party control everything is
>dangerous.
I can't disagree with that, at least as far a fiscal expenditures are
concerned. On the other hand, having different parties in control can
make it difficult for the government to do very much. I've never been
too worried about gridlock, but sometimes things do need to be done.
Bush is in his last two years, so there's very little pressure on him
to compromise with the Democrats. If Congress sends anything to
Bush's desk that he doesn't like he'll veto it without a second
thought.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:03:14
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <5v17l2t84te7bsqseqv2794fh3e283jka7@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:06:25 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Bush will be much less likely to sign bills full of pork for Democrats
> >>than he was to sign bills full of pork for Republicans.
> >
> >I'm a big believer that having the same party control everything is
> >dangerous.
>
> I can't disagree with that, at least as far a fiscal expenditures are
> concerned. On the other hand, having different parties in control can
> make it difficult for the government to do very much. I've never been
> too worried about gridlock, but sometimes things do need to be done.
>
> Bush is in his last two years, so there's very little pressure on him
> to compromise with the Democrats. If Congress sends anything to
> Bush's desk that he doesn't like he'll veto it without a second
> thought.
I want it to be hard for them to 'get much done'. It's getting things
done that didn't need to be that happens when one party is in total
control.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 21:38:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:03:14 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>> Bush is in his last two years, so there's very little pressure on him
>> to compromise with the Democrats. If Congress sends anything to
>> Bush's desk that he doesn't like he'll veto it without a second
>> thought.
>
>I want it to be hard for them to 'get much done'. It's getting things
>done that didn't need to be that happens when one party is in total
>control.
If you feel that most of what the government does is bad, then doing
nothing isn't that bad. However, there are things that need to be
done
For example, Social Security really needs to be addressed. The
current projection is that the shortfall will start in 2014 and that's
not that far off. The longer they wait, the worse it will get. This
is the 500 pound gorilla in the room and neither party wants to go
near it because they're likely to get mauled.
Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
the sand.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <gto7l2pg924nrubbmc6ee4r0viuf9hmti6@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:03:14 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Bush is in his last two years, so there's very little pressure on him
> >> to compromise with the Democrats. If Congress sends anything to
> >> Bush's desk that he doesn't like he'll veto it without a second
> >> thought.
> >
> >I want it to be hard for them to 'get much done'. It's getting things
> >done that didn't need to be that happens when one party is in total
> >control.
>
>
> If you feel that most of what the government does is bad, then doing
> nothing isn't that bad. However, there are things that need to be
> done
>
> For example, Social Security really needs to be addressed. The
> current projection is that the shortfall will start in 2014 and that's
> not that far off. The longer they wait, the worse it will get. This
> is the 500 pound gorilla in the room and neither party wants to go
> near it because they're likely to get mauled.
>
> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
> the sand.
Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
Take the income cap off it and it will go much longer.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:42:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
>> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
>> the sand.
>
>Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
The last SS report issued has that projected date revised to 2040. If
you read the fine print, 2040 is when the SS Trust Fund runs out and
will no longer be able to cover the shortfall which will start in
2014. The problem is that there is no actual money in the SSTF. The
SSTF is full of US Treasuries to the tune of almost $2 Trillion. In
2014 money from general revenue will be needed to cover the shortfall.
The fact that the money is going to pay off debt (from 2014 to 2040)
rather than pay benefits directly (after 2040) is only a matter for
accountants. The shortfall will start out as a relatively small
amount, but gets bigger and bigger every year as more and more baby
boomers retire. Some estimate are that in the 2020s the shortfall
will reach $300 billion a year.
There are only so many options to cover the shortfall. The government
could reduce benefits and/or raise the retirement age. The government
could raise taxes and/or divert money from other programs. The
government could borrow the money. My guess is that it will do all of
these things.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:43:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
: <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
:
: >> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
: >> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
: >> the sand.
: >
: >Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
:
:
: The last SS report issued has that projected date revised to 2040. If
: you read the fine print, 2040 is when the SS Trust Fund runs out and
: will no longer be able to cover the shortfall which will start in
: 2014. The problem is that there is no actual money in the SSTF.
Jack, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your
sincerity, but you're just flat wrong about this and you should
probably drop it. You're entitled to your opinion but not to
your own facts.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:16:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:43:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Jack, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your
>sincerity, but you're just flat wrong about this and you should
>probably drop it. You're entitled to your opinion but not to
>your own facts.
Sorry Chris, but I'm right.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:18:38
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. If and when Social
Security redeems notes in the SSTF, Congress has but two choices - borrow
the money on the open ket or raise general taxes.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3k52iqIsjmN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> : <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> :
> :>> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
> :>> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
> :>> the sand.
> :>
> :>Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
> :
> :
> : The last SS report issued has that projected date revised to 2040. If
> : you read the fine print, 2040 is when the SS Trust Fund runs out and
> : will no longer be able to cover the shortfall which will start in
> : 2014. The problem is that there is no actual money in the SSTF.
>
> Jack, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your
> sincerity, but you're just flat wrong about this and you should
> probably drop it. You're entitled to your opinion but not to
> your own facts.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:46:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:18:38 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. If and when Social
>Security redeems notes in the SSTF, Congress has but two choices - borrow
>the money on the open ket or raise general taxes.
Everything about Social Security Trust Fund is an accepted fiction.
Social Security is a tax on the workers to pay for insurance and
retirement.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:19:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:18:38 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. If and when Social
>Security redeems notes in the SSTF, Congress has but two choices - borrow
>the money on the open ket or raise general taxes.
There are some other options, but starting in 2017 the shortfall
begins.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:43:47
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1kn9l2pa3hpaisht0ibn0c8mqbk5k4h0mq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:18:38 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. If and when Social
>>Security redeems notes in the SSTF, Congress has but two choices - borrow
>>the money on the open ket or raise general taxes.
>
As is the case if *you* redeem some, China redeems some. There is an over
reaction here about the redemption of treasury notes. The problem is the
reversal of being a net gain to general revenue to a net drain. But in 2017
the effect will be pretty miniscule. It is in the out years that the
problem becomes something to really worry about.
Right NOW we are throwing something like what - a half trillion $$$ at Iraq
and pushing that into debt (while also not including it when we talk about
the deficit). At the same time we are underwriting the drug companies
bottom line with Medicare part D. At the same time we are trying to make
permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and new tax cuts for the dead.
We always have a choice about spending and borrowing. Six years ago we
thought we'd made the choice to stop the borrowing - if the Republicans can
do *anything* (we thought) - they are fiscal tightwads. How wrong we were.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:43:00
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Borrowing money or using general tax revenue by reducing spending which
isn't going to happen or increasing taxes are the only options available to
redeem SS notes at the Treasury. Reducing SS benefits or raising SS taxes
delays the need for SS to redeem the notes.
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1kn9l2pa3hpaisht0ibn0c8mqbk5k4h0mq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:18:38 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. If and when Social
>>Security redeems notes in the SSTF, Congress has but two choices - borrow
>>the money on the open ket or raise general taxes.
>
> There are some other options, but starting in 2017 the shortfall
> begins.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:53:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:42:31 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
>>> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
>>> the sand.
>>
>>Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
>
>
>The last SS report issued has that projected date revised to 2040. If
>you read the fine print, 2040 is when the SS Trust Fund runs out and
>will no longer be able to cover the shortfall which will start in
>2014. The problem is that there is no actual money in the SSTF. The
>SSTF is full of US Treasuries to the tune of almost $2 Trillion. In
>2014 money from general revenue will be needed to cover the shortfall.
>The fact that the money is going to pay off debt (from 2014 to 2040)
>rather than pay benefits directly (after 2040) is only a matter for
>accountants. The shortfall will start out as a relatively small
>amount, but gets bigger and bigger every year as more and more baby
>boomers retire. Some estimate are that in the 2020s the shortfall
>will reach $300 billion a year.
Update.
First my date for the beginning of the shortfall was in error,
according to the May 2006 projection it's 2017. Sorry.
In any case, here is the current news release from the SS
Administration.
"2006 Trustees Report
Long-Term Financing Challenges Remain
The 2006 Social Security Trustees Report shows little change in the
projected financial status of the Social Security program over last
year. The Trustees Report projects that the Social Security Trust
Funds will be exhausted in 2040, one year sooner than last year’s
projection. And, as they have done for more than a decade, the
Trustees recommend that projected trust fund deficits be addressed in
a timely way to allow for gradual changes and advance notice to
workers.
In the 2006 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:
The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below
program costs comes in 2017 -- the same as the estimate in last year’s
report.
The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted
comes in 2040 -- one year earlier than the projection in last year’s
report.
From a more detailed report:
"Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in
2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 74 percent of scheduled
annual benefits in 2040, when the combined OASDI trust fund is
projected to be exhausted.
Also, here is their description of the Trust Fund:
"The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is a separate account
in the United States Treasury. A fixed proportion (dependent on the
allocation of tax rates by trust fund) of the taxes received under
the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Self-Employment
Contributions Act are deposited in the fund to the extent that such
taxes are not needed immediately to pay expenses. Taxes are deposited
in the fund on every business day.
The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly
benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses
and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such
spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need
to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.
Funds not withdrawn for current expenses (benefits, the financial
interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and administrative
expenses) are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as
required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust
fund."
I love the part about how the fund not withdrawn are "invested" in
Federal Securities.
Basically, anyone who tells you that SS is funded until 2040 is full
of shit.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:48:20
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <c2e9l29ee86gh6s4qd39989h7cirrj212v@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:42:31 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> ><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Bush's privatization plan really didn't address the issue and telling
> >>> people that the plan is funded until 2040 is just burying your head in
> >>> the sand.
> >>
> >>Last GAO report I remember reading said it is solvent until beyond 2042.
> >
> >
> >The last SS report issued has that projected date revised to 2040. If
> >you read the fine print, 2040 is when the SS Trust Fund runs out and
> >will no longer be able to cover the shortfall which will start in
> >2014. The problem is that there is no actual money in the SSTF. The
> >SSTF is full of US Treasuries to the tune of almost $2 Trillion. In
> >2014 money from general revenue will be needed to cover the shortfall.
> >The fact that the money is going to pay off debt (from 2014 to 2040)
> >rather than pay benefits directly (after 2040) is only a matter for
> >accountants. The shortfall will start out as a relatively small
> >amount, but gets bigger and bigger every year as more and more baby
> >boomers retire. Some estimate are that in the 2020s the shortfall
> >will reach $300 billion a year.
>
>
> Update.
>
> First my date for the beginning of the shortfall was in error,
> according to the May 2006 projection it's 2017. Sorry.
>
> In any case, here is the current news release from the SS
> Administration.
>
> "2006 Trustees Report
>
> Long-Term Financing Challenges Remain
>
> The 2006 Social Security Trustees Report shows little change in the
> projected financial status of the Social Security program over last
> year. The Trustees Report projects that the Social Security Trust
> Funds will be exhausted in 2040, one year sooner than last year’s
> projection. And, as they have done for more than a decade, the
> Trustees recommend that projected trust fund deficits be addressed in
> a timely way to allow for gradual changes and advance notice to
> workers.
>
> In the 2006 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:
>
> The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below
> program costs comes in 2017 -- the same as the estimate in last year’s
> report.
>
> The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted
> comes in 2040 -- one year earlier than the projection in last year’s
> report.
>
>
>
> From a more detailed report:
>
> "Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in
> 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 74 percent of scheduled
> annual benefits in 2040, when the combined OASDI trust fund is
> projected to be exhausted.
>
>
> Also, here is their description of the Trust Fund:
>
> "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is a separate account
> in the United States Treasury. A fixed proportion (dependent on the
> allocation of tax rates by trust fund) of the taxes received under
> the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Self-Employment
> Contributions Act are deposited in the fund to the extent that such
> taxes are not needed immediately to pay expenses. Taxes are deposited
> in the fund on every business day.
>
> The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly
> benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses
> and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such
> spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need
> to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.
>
> Funds not withdrawn for current expenses (benefits, the financial
> interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and administrative
> expenses) are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as
> required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust
> fund."
>
>
> I love the part about how the fund not withdrawn are "invested" in
> Federal Securities.
>
> Basically, anyone who tells you that SS is funded until 2040 is full
> of shit.
Others, such as GAO don't agree with this.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:17:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:48:20 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>Others, such as GAO don't agree with this.
This is directly from the Social Security Administration.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:07:52
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <phn9l2pe6gbls1u7t19agdnofoc405n9oa@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:48:20 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Others, such as GAO don't agree with this.
>
> This is directly from the Social Security Administration.
And their report has been viewed as the most pessimistic of the bunch.
Virtually all other reports say they are wrong because of wrong
assumptions.
Personally I'm not st enough or motivated enough to dig deeper, but
the SSA is controlled by the admin that wants to jigger SS...
GAO is most often the most correct of all the incorrect reports that
come out of the gov't.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:36:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:07:52 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>GAO is most often the most correct of all the incorrect reports that
>come out of the gov't.
Here's a quote from the GAO's testimony to Congress in February 2005:
"Social Security will begin to constrain the budget long before the
trust fund is exhausted in 2042. The trust fund cash
surpluses that are now helping to finance the rest of the government’s
budgetary needs will begin to decline after 2008, and by 2018, the
cash surpluses will turn into deficits. At that point, Social
Security’s cash shortfall will begin to place increasing pressure on
the rest of the budget to raise the resources necessary to meet the
program’s costs."
http://aging.senate.gov/public/_files/hr136dw.pdf
I don't see any difference in the GAO analysis and what the SSA is
putting out other that the shortfall prediction for the GAO is 2018
rather than 2017.
What each organization fails to mention is that there is no money in
the trust fund.
Again, this notion that SS is funded until 2040 is a fantasy.
If nothing is done, starting in 2017 there will be a shortfall and
money will have to be put into the program from general revenue. This
shortfall will originally be small but it will continue to grow and by
2040, it will be around 24% of the total benefits paid.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:20:00
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <5v17l2t84te7bsqseqv2794fh3e283jka7@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:06:25 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Bush will be much less likely to sign bills full of pork for Democrats
> >>than he was to sign bills full of pork for Republicans.
> >
> >I'm a big believer that having the same party control everything is
> >dangerous.
>
> I can't disagree with that, at least as far a fiscal expenditures are
> concerned. On the other hand, having different parties in control can
> make it difficult for the government to do very much. I've never been
> too worried about gridlock, but sometimes things do need to be done.
>
> Bush is in his last two years, so there's very little pressure on him
> to compromise with the Democrats. If Congress sends anything to
> Bush's desk that he doesn't like he'll veto it without a second
> thought.
Yes, but that will make it all more easy for the Democrats to label the
GoP as obstructionist, and blocking the path to progress. Hardly a
favorable climate for the next GoP Presidential candidate to run in.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 21:27:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:
>Yes, but that will make it all more easy for the Democrats to label the
>GoP as obstructionist, and blocking the path to progress. Hardly a
>favorable climate for the next GoP Presidential candidate to run in.
>
>William Clark
It depends on exactly what Bush is obstructing. If it's tax
increases, it wont hurt him. If it's something that a majority of
people want, like ESCR, then it could hurt him. You also have to
remember that Bush isn't running in 2008. It's debatable if what he
does will rub off on the Republican candidate in 2008.
2008 is a long way off. Right now I like the Republican chances of
keeping the WH if the nominate McCain or Rudy. Of course, there is a
question if either one of them can get the nomination. On the other
side, if the Democrats put up Hillary, it will be a disaster for them.
Some of the polls I've seen say that anywhere from 37% to 43% of
voters would be very unlikely to vote for her. There are even a lot
of Democrats who don't like her.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <rqm7l25f0t7hrt2kb7sl9vu03aej3eqbeh@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but that will make it all more easy for the Democrats to label the
> >GoP as obstructionist, and blocking the path to progress. Hardly a
> >favorable climate for the next GoP Presidential candidate to run in.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> It depends on exactly what Bush is obstructing. If it's tax
> increases, it wont hurt him. If it's something that a majority of
> people want, like ESCR, then it could hurt him. You also have to
> remember that Bush isn't running in 2008. It's debatable if what he
> does will rub off on the Republican candidate in 2008.
>
> 2008 is a long way off. Right now I like the Republican chances of
> keeping the WH if the nominate McCain or Rudy. Of course, there is a
> question if either one of them can get the nomination. On the other
> side, if the Democrats put up Hillary, it will be a disaster for them.
> Some of the polls I've seen say that anywhere from 37% to 43% of
> voters would be very unlikely to vote for her. There are even a lot
> of Democrats who don't like her.
McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
Rudy might.
As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
hope she can't. Too polarizing.
I've got some others in mind that I like better.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:44:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
>hope she can't. Too polarizing.
With her it isn't about issues. People who like "uppity women" will
like her no matter what she does. People who don't like "uppity
women" will find reasons to dislike her.
Good Old Boys win the presidency.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:08:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
>
>Rudy might.
>
>As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
>hope she can't. Too polarizing.
>
>I've got some others in mind that I like better.
McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:24:15
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <vqt9l2pk8hj63i73ohup9caljlqt9t85b0@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
> >
> >Rudy might.
> >
> >As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
> >hope she can't. Too polarizing.
> >
> >I've got some others in mind that I like better.
>
>
> McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
> you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
> ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
> Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
>
> Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
> Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
> kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
I wouldn't bet either. But then, she won't have ME working for her.
I'm more interested in a different candidate and hope to work on their
campaign should he decide to run.
For McCain, I know he's popular with some. But something about him just
doesn't sit well with me and I can't put my finger on it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 18:36:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <lloydparsons-6D74B6.16241510112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <vqt9l2pk8hj63i73ohup9caljlqt9t85b0@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
> > >
> > >Rudy might.
> > >
> > >As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
> > >hope she can't. Too polarizing.
> > >
> > >I've got some others in mind that I like better.
> >
> >
> > McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
> > you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
> > ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
> > Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
> >
> > Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
> > Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
> > kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
>
> I wouldn't bet either. But then, she won't have ME working for her.
> I'm more interested in a different candidate and hope to work on their
> campaign should he decide to run.
>
> For McCain, I know he's popular with some. But something about him just
> doesn't sit well with me and I can't put my finger on it.
I agree with you about McCain. I was standing next to him at a function
recently where he spoke, and he looks so much frailer in real life. He
is incredibly pasty-looking, and his presentation was bland in the
extreme. I worry about a guy who can stand against his party on the one
hand on major issues of conscience, but then toddles off to Jerry
Falwell's Liberty U. to make nice with the extreme religious right.
As you say, something just doesn't quite ring true.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 22:22:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> First, I never believed the data for a minute.
>>
>> Second, I don't buy your story either.
>
> Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
OK - voting is over - so let's move back to golf.
I have this bootie on my foot because of the torn tendon (I detailed that
last week). With the bootie; I have been a 40 handicap instead of a 20
handicap. Shooting with one foot is a bitch. That having been said; I am
thinking if I just do a 3/4 swing and use only the 7 iron, PW, and putter;
I shouldn't pick up any bad habits. The other choice is not to play for a
month or two; but I don't think I can handle being away from the links for
that long.
Q: Why was Frosty the Snowman smiling?
A: He saw the snow blower coming down the street.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:12:04
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <g81vk2hkauqlomh4hob0ef85b890n8upbi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:51:21 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1162838746.710302.185460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net>,
> >> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> >> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> >> > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> >> > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO
> >> > > > Senate
> >> > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both
> >> > > > houses.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> >> > > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in
> >> > > > order
> >> > > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the
> >> > > > winning
> >> > > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> >> > > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> >> > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> >> > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming
> >> > > > home'
> >> > > > in waves.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted
> >> > > > by
> >> > > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> >> > > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> >> > > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> >> > > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are
> >> > > > ruefully
> >> > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous."
> >> > > > It
> >> > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> >> > > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> >> > > > rash expectations.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then
> >> > > > flipping
> >> > > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> >> > > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> >> > > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total
> >> > > > advocates
> >> > > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> >> > > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> >> > > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume.
> >> > > > Be
> >> > > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> >> > > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Larry
> >> > >
> >> > > I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> >> > > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show
> >> > > it
> >> > > differently...
> >> >
> >> > WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
> >> > crap!
> >> >
> >> > Here's a link to their headline :
> >> >
> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
> >>
> >> The only Poll that matters is taken on Nov. 7...anything else is wasted
> >> bandwidth.
> >> It was interesting to already hear Pelosi start the rant about
> >> "electronic voting machines"...
> >> She's already putting the word out in case they lose.
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> >You are absolutely correct! But tweaking Larry's BS is always
> >worthwhile, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> >Now we see whether people will come out to actually vote. I mean, it is
> >easy to answer the phone, harder to get off your ass and get in the car,
> >drive to the polling place and k your ballot (or whichever other way
> >the vote is taken in your state).
> >
> >IMO, voting not only is a right, it is a responsibility! So get out
> >there and VOTE!
>
> Republicans will-- democrats won't. There is a basic difference in
> lifestyle-- One is industrious --- the other is lazy and probably
> never quite finished school or much of anything. Now later in life
> one owns the company-- the other works there-- coming in as late as
> possible, doing as little work as possible, and leaving as early as
> possible.
>
> And for the democrat it will be just too much trouble to either fill
> out a registration card, send in an absentee ballot, or go to the
> polls.
>
> Larry
You really are a toad, aren't you?
Based on the last Presidential election alone, turnout was pretty
balanced in case you hadn't noticed.
I expect the turnout to be better than most mid-term elections, but not
as much as I would like to see. In states that have other contentious
issues than congressional elections, turnout will probably be very
strong. In other states, a lot depends on how well the respective
parties do in firing up the voters to get out there.
Based on what I see here, with nothing really up for grabs, I think
turnout will be stronger than in the past, but still relatively weak.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 03:56:30
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-5B2B35.13120406112006@individual.net...
>> Larry
>
> You really are a toad, aren't you?
You don't spend much time here, do ya Lloyd?
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:44:09
From: multi
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
>most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
>all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
>to get Republicans to stay home
So why did they reveal the "truth" a day early?
And why is Fox News saying the Dems are up by 13 in their final
pre-election poll?
"FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:25:04
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <md0vk2p24j2v075sjar6urss5ibrepuum7@4ax.com >,
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
> >It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> >most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> >all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> >to get Republicans to stay home
>
> So why did they reveal the "truth" a day early?
>
> And why is Fox News saying the Dems are up by 13 in their final
> pre-election poll?
> "FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress"
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
Simple, to try to energize the GoP voters to turn out.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:00:26
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:44:09 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>>It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
>>most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
>>all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
>>to get Republicans to stay home
>
>So why did they reveal the "truth" a day early?
>
>And why is Fox News saying the Dems are up by 13 in their final
>pre-election poll?
>"FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress"
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
Duhhh, could it be voter turnout? We don't want our folks to become
overconfident and think others will vote.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:52:41
From: multi
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:00:26 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:44:09 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>wrote:
>>>It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
>>>most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
>>>all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
>>>to get Republicans to stay home
>>
>>So why did they reveal the "truth" a day early?
>>
>>And why is Fox News saying the Dems are up by 13 in their final
>>pre-election poll?
>>"FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress"
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
>
>Duhhh, could it be voter turnout? We don't want our folks to become
>overconfident and think others will vote.
So you're saying that fair and balanced Fox News will lie in order to
help the Republicans?
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:08:15
From: larry
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:52:41 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:00:26 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:44:09 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
>>>>most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
>>>>all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
>>>>to get Republicans to stay home
>>>
>>>So why did they reveal the "truth" a day early?
>>>
>>>And why is Fox News saying the Dems are up by 13 in their final
>>>pre-election poll?
>>>"FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress"
>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
>>
>>Duhhh, could it be voter turnout? We don't want our folks to become
>>overconfident and think others will vote.
>
>So you're saying that fair and balanced Fox News will lie in order to
>help the Republicans?
They just report the polls from yesterday. Not a lie, ha.
larry
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:40:35
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Nov 6, 9:34 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> larry <l...@deldata.com> wrote:
> > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> > in waves.
>
> > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> > not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> > rash expectations.
>
> > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>
> > LarryI see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
>
> http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
>
> Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
> differently...- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Rush is looking at "internals" that we can't see. The Pew Poll in
particular is extremely revealing -- showing a 25 point swing in some
of the big trends-- from Democrat to Republican.
We are starting to hear interviews from luminaries like Senator Mitch
McConnell (R) Kentucky--now unafraid to go on national media and
predict victory tomorrow. Gonna be fun!!!!!
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:52:19
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <1162838435.101321.179620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:34 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0...@4ax.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > larry <l...@deldata.com> wrote:
> > > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >
> > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
> >
> > > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> > > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> > > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> > > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> > > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> >
> > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> > > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> > > in waves.
> >
> > > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> > > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> > > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> > > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> > > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> >
> > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> > > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> > > rash expectations.
> >
> > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> > > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> > > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> > > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> > > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> > > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> >
> > > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> > > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> > > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> > > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> > > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> >
> > > LarryI see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct
> > > today
> > or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
> >
> > http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
> >
> > Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
> > differently...- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> Rush is looking at "internals" that we can't see. The Pew Poll in
> particular is extremely revealing -- showing a 25 point swing in some
> of the big trends-- from Democrat to Republican.
>
> We are starting to hear interviews from luminaries like Senator Mitch
> McConnell (R) Kentucky--now unafraid to go on national media and
> predict victory tomorrow. Gonna be fun!!!!!
>
> Larry
The only 'internal' Rush is looking at is up his ass! He gets his very
best news from there.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:34:31
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
>
> It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
>
> It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
>
> And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> in waves.
>
> I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> not going to lose either House or Senate.
>
> Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> rash expectations.
>
> Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
>
> There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
>
> Larry
I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
differently...
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:45:33
From: Del Ray
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Gee. REALLY?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:38:49
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <lloydparsons-1B4625.12343106112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <avuuk2l8gb8pv9j0ftkkjqtk6ceiaa0anu@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, sorry to bring bad news to some of you libs....
> >
> > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been
> > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging
> > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate
> > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses.
> >
> > It is becoming obvious that these numbers (Bush nearly 50% popular and
> > most races either even or leaning republican) were the real numbers
> > all along-- that the liberal media has been withholding that in order
> > to get Republicans to stay home-- and independents to join the winning
> > team-- if they thought it was to be the democrats.
> >
> > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions
> > have already voted. Many will vote tomorrow, but are
> > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and
> > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home'
> > in waves.
> >
> > I really expect to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by
> > the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius
> > didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he
> > knows. He has had private polling information and he knew we were
> > not going to lose either House or Senate.
> >
> > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully
> > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It
> > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly
> > ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash
> > rash expectations.
> >
> > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and CNN tomorrow night-- and then flipping
> > through NBC, CBS, and ABC-- to see the long faces and the bitter
> > disappointment. They tried their best to influence the electorate
> > with wildly partisan reporting and distortions MSNBC and CNN seemed to
> > have dropped all pretense of neutrality as they became total advocates
> > for the DNC-- but it didn't work.
> >
> > There will be hell to pay. Advertisers will pull their ads as
> > viewers abandon these channels and newspapers--and go where there is
> > credibility--FNC with Bill O'Rellly and Sean Hannity, Brit Hume. Be
> > sure to watch them Tuesday evening as they chalk up another
> > humiliating Democrat defeat. Back to the wilderness.
> >
> > Larry
>
> I see Rush is on so you could check to see if polling is correct today
> or not. BTW, here's the link to nearly all polling:
>
> http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm
>
> Some show the way you want it to be, others (just as reputable) show it
> differently...
WOW! Even the 'republican news network' AKA Fox News shows you full of
crap!
Here's a link to their headline :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227707,00.html
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 07:14:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <dqf2l2p78brt8c2kn7bbhnt3nj418silfu@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:56:56 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:28:58 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >>Oh yeah, that is why Churchill said, "if you are older and not
> > >>conservative, you have no brain."
> > >
> > >First, that was the punchline of a joke. Second, other than its
> > >belief that huge corporations are their most important constituents,
> > >there is very little conservative about the present Republican
> > >leadership. Conservatives would not run huge deficits, would not
> > >revoke constitutional rights, and would not put our troops in the
> > >middle of a foreign civil war.
> >
> > Conservatives or moderates or even liberals who honestly assessed the
> > risk would have done what Bush did. When Radical Islam resumes their
> > attacks making NYC look like Baghdad, the police helpless to stop car
> > bombings and destruction of our most treasured monuments, you may have
> > cause to reconsider. Bush persisted in Iraq because he knows they are
> > coming. The Democrats know too, but they pretend NOT to know, hoping
> > against common sense that they can finish their terms, enjoy power for
> > a while. They should be tarred and feathered if they force us to
> > withdraw from Iraq and thus accelerate the inevitable homeland
> > attacks.
> >
> > Larry
>
> What I'd really like to know is how occupying Iraq prevents terrorists
> from attacking the U.S...
>
Because ALL terrorists are in Iraq, fighting US forces. What you hear
about a civil war going on there is liberal propaganda propogated by
the liberal media. And so, if we remove our 130,000 sitting ducks from
Iraq, all the terrorists will make a bee-line to New York, where the US
immigration service will happily let them in, no questions asked. I
have to admit I don't understand why the terrorists aren't attacking US
forces in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, so I'll defer to Larry on that one.
I'm also a little confused by all the talk of al Qaeda and Taliban
terrorists massed in western Pakistan, which led Pervez Musharraf to
blow up a madrassa last week. Or why we don't consider Hezbollah and
Hamas terrorist groups (remember: ALL the terrorists are in Iraq). But
one thing is certain: if we win in Iraq, terrorism will disappear from
the face of the Earth forever. And you can quote me on that.
|
|
