Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Poll: Who Will Win in 2006?
- Thread starter Ogami
- Start date
Ogami
New member
Rafterman wrote:
Dems win big, take both houses, impeachment proceedings begin.
Actually I would find that pretty funny to watch. The New York Times exposes any secrets we have, liberal judges strike down any operations we have, and the Democrats would impeach Bush for the crime of defending the country in a time of war. The only drawback would be the unbroken record of no more 9/11s. But as far as the Traitorcrats are concerned, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It's worth it to lose the war on terror if they get Bush. You gotta have priorities, right?
-Ogami
Dems win big, take both houses, impeachment proceedings begin.
Actually I would find that pretty funny to watch. The New York Times exposes any secrets we have, liberal judges strike down any operations we have, and the Democrats would impeach Bush for the crime of defending the country in a time of war. The only drawback would be the unbroken record of no more 9/11s. But as far as the Traitorcrats are concerned, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It's worth it to lose the war on terror if they get Bush. You gotta have priorities, right?
-Ogami
Rafterman
There's no place like home-
Ogami said:
The only thing better then impeachment is for Bush to be charged with war crimes.
Here is the latest polling data.
When asked, who they plan on voting for in 2006.
Voting for the Dem candidate:
Pew, 50%
Newsweek, 51%
Fox, 48%
AP, 55%
ABC, 52%
CNN, 53%
USA, 51%
(All polls taken in the last three weeks.)
With the thin exception of Fox, where the Republicans scored 30%, ALL OF THESE POLLS SHOW A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE DEMOCRATIC.
The lead BTW, for the dem slate are respectively, 9%, 12%,18%,18%,13%, and 11%.
Not just a majority, but a blowout.
Bush approval rating for 18-24 year olds: 20%.
The Republican party is in a generational decline, from which they might not recover for decades.
Ogami
New member
I remember the Democrats dancing in preparatory celebration as all the polls said they'd retake congress in 2002. Didn't happen. And they were clinking champagne glasses celebrating John Kerry's imminent win. After all, the polls said it was a done deal. Instead, Bush won with millions more votes.
The Democrat plan for 2006? Why the same exact "Bush lied" campaign plan they ran on in 2002 and 2004. It's too funny! If this wins, then I guess I should applaud them for their determination. But if it loses, we will wonder yet again how Democrats could run again and again verses the caricature of Bush rather than the man himself. That's why they lost before, and in my estimation, it's why they will lose again.
-Ogami
The Democrat plan for 2006? Why the same exact "Bush lied" campaign plan they ran on in 2002 and 2004. It's too funny! If this wins, then I guess I should applaud them for their determination. But if it loses, we will wonder yet again how Democrats could run again and again verses the caricature of Bush rather than the man himself. That's why they lost before, and in my estimation, it's why they will lose again.
-Ogami
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
Win what?
Rafterman
There's no place like home-
The United States military has been defeated. It is thoroughly decimated. Tens of thousands have been seriously wounded, many irreversibly disabled. Twenty-five hundred or so have died. Countless suffer psychological problems and will for a very long time - perhaps for the rest of their lives. Untold numbers of American military families have been ruined, destroyed by time and distance, destroyed by intolerable hardships, destroyed by loss of life.
For Bush's war in Iraq, we've called up the National Guard. We've called in the Reserves. We have seen military recruitment programs spend billions of taxpayer dollars on advertising. We've also witnessed our military spend billions more in offering special incentives for recruitment and re-enlistment. And despite needing the most capable people to operate the most sophisticated military in the world, we've seen unprecedented lowering of recruitment standards ... and then lowering them again ... and yet again ... with no end in sight. We've witnessed the raising of age limits for enlistment ... and then raising it again. And notwithstanding all of the above, we have record low enlistment and we have had to resort to stop-loss programs to keep some soldiers fighting in the field.
More ironic still, we cannot keep the most highly trained Special Forces combat veterans because they are being seduced with small fortunes by "private security" firms hired to protect American contractors in Iraq - who are also paid for by our tax dollars. So we spend billions of dollars trying to enlist more soldiers at the very same time we spend billions more luring them away from the military. Those are your taxes at work ... working at cross-purposes!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-02-spec-ops_x.htm...
Along with the protracted tours of duty, the hardships in Iraq, the uncertainty of the mission, the absence of any definition of victory or timetable for withdrawal and the lowering of enlistment standards, we see a precipitous decline in US troop morale.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0516-02.htm...
Admitedly, its tough to maintain high morale when the danger level is so high and there are few avenues of stress relief. Unlike serving in Europe and SE Asia, there is very little nightlife for our troops - few opportunities for sexual expression in Iraq, which has become an increasingly fundamentalist Islamic society since our invasion. So the logical conclusion seems to have become rape - not only of the native inhabitants - but of our own troops. Imagine trying to keep your sanity, keep up your morale when you are raped?
http://www.alternet.org/story/38942...
And if all this wasn't enough, now we've got racist graffiti in Baghdad, courtesy of skin-heads and Neo-Nazis who have become pervasive in our military ranks. It's just our way of "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis - and making Iraq a training-ground, not only for terrorists, but for future Timothy McVeighs. (a veteran, if you'll recall, of the first Gulf War ) How many will come home now with specialized training, only to blow up more Americans?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309...
Could our military be in any worse shape? Well ... yeah! There's also this bit of news obtained through the FoIA:
("The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.)
... and ...
(Twenty-two U.S. troops committed suicide in Iraq last year, accounting for nearly one in five of all non-combat deaths and was the highest suicide rate since the war started, the newspaper said.
'Chemically active time bombs' Some service members who committed suicide in 2004 and 2005 were kept on duty despite clear signs of mental distress, sometimes after being prescribed antidepressants with little or no mental health counseling or monitoring. Those findings conflict with regulations adopted last year by the Army that caution against the use of antidepressants for "extended deployments."
"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on (antidepressants), when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs.")
Where do all of these revelations leave us? In just three short years, we've witnessed the steady descent of what was once the best trained, best supplied, and most disciplined fighting machine in the world, with the highest morale of any armed forces on earth ...
... reduced to becoming racists and torturers ...
... reduced to becoming rapists and murderers ...
... and those who survive long enough to return home may be "ticking time bombs" !!!
And who is responsible for the incalculable wartime failure of the past three years? Who single-handedly brought the most powerful nation on earth to its knees? Who did this to us?
Was it Osama bin Laden?
No! It couldn't be. We don't even care where he is. The president himself has stated that he doesn't consider him a priority. The CIA has closed the section that was dedicated to finding him.
Was it Saddam Hussein?
Certainly not! He's in custody and currently on trial for acts he was committing with our sanction - back when he was our ally. (Yes, that's right. Look up the charges filed against Hussein and the dates when he was supposed to have committed those crimes )
Was it Iran? Could they have done this to our military? No.
How about North Korea? It must be Lil' Kim's long dongs, right? Wrong again!
Who could possibly be responsible for the crippling of the greatest military force on earth?
It was George W. Bush.
It was the commander in chief - who had no plan other than to invade.
It was the President of the United States - who had no exit strategy.
It was the chosen one - who still, after more time than it took to wage World War II, has not even a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq. And the REPUBLICAN PARTY still supports our FAILING OCCUPATION !!!
Yes, it's been George W. Bush ... and the people who have supported him. A man so proud of being the "decider" that he'll never admit when he's "decided" wrong. That is who is responsible for the devastation of our fighting forces after three years of utter failure in Iraq ... three years that can never be undone ... time that will forever be known as the failure of the president who wouldn't learn from his mistakes.
And it's three years ... AND COUNTING ... with no end in sight.
The assault on our military has been George W. Bush's ...
... and, by extension, those who support him.
For Bush's war in Iraq, we've called up the National Guard. We've called in the Reserves. We have seen military recruitment programs spend billions of taxpayer dollars on advertising. We've also witnessed our military spend billions more in offering special incentives for recruitment and re-enlistment. And despite needing the most capable people to operate the most sophisticated military in the world, we've seen unprecedented lowering of recruitment standards ... and then lowering them again ... and yet again ... with no end in sight. We've witnessed the raising of age limits for enlistment ... and then raising it again. And notwithstanding all of the above, we have record low enlistment and we have had to resort to stop-loss programs to keep some soldiers fighting in the field.
More ironic still, we cannot keep the most highly trained Special Forces combat veterans because they are being seduced with small fortunes by "private security" firms hired to protect American contractors in Iraq - who are also paid for by our tax dollars. So we spend billions of dollars trying to enlist more soldiers at the very same time we spend billions more luring them away from the military. Those are your taxes at work ... working at cross-purposes!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-02-spec-ops_x.htm...
Along with the protracted tours of duty, the hardships in Iraq, the uncertainty of the mission, the absence of any definition of victory or timetable for withdrawal and the lowering of enlistment standards, we see a precipitous decline in US troop morale.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0516-02.htm...
Admitedly, its tough to maintain high morale when the danger level is so high and there are few avenues of stress relief. Unlike serving in Europe and SE Asia, there is very little nightlife for our troops - few opportunities for sexual expression in Iraq, which has become an increasingly fundamentalist Islamic society since our invasion. So the logical conclusion seems to have become rape - not only of the native inhabitants - but of our own troops. Imagine trying to keep your sanity, keep up your morale when you are raped?
http://www.alternet.org/story/38942...
And if all this wasn't enough, now we've got racist graffiti in Baghdad, courtesy of skin-heads and Neo-Nazis who have become pervasive in our military ranks. It's just our way of "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis - and making Iraq a training-ground, not only for terrorists, but for future Timothy McVeighs. (a veteran, if you'll recall, of the first Gulf War ) How many will come home now with specialized training, only to blow up more Americans?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309...
Could our military be in any worse shape? Well ... yeah! There's also this bit of news obtained through the FoIA:
("The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.)
... and ...
(Twenty-two U.S. troops committed suicide in Iraq last year, accounting for nearly one in five of all non-combat deaths and was the highest suicide rate since the war started, the newspaper said.
'Chemically active time bombs' Some service members who committed suicide in 2004 and 2005 were kept on duty despite clear signs of mental distress, sometimes after being prescribed antidepressants with little or no mental health counseling or monitoring. Those findings conflict with regulations adopted last year by the Army that caution against the use of antidepressants for "extended deployments."
"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on (antidepressants), when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs.")
Where do all of these revelations leave us? In just three short years, we've witnessed the steady descent of what was once the best trained, best supplied, and most disciplined fighting machine in the world, with the highest morale of any armed forces on earth ...
... reduced to becoming racists and torturers ...
... reduced to becoming rapists and murderers ...
... and those who survive long enough to return home may be "ticking time bombs" !!!
And who is responsible for the incalculable wartime failure of the past three years? Who single-handedly brought the most powerful nation on earth to its knees? Who did this to us?
Was it Osama bin Laden?
No! It couldn't be. We don't even care where he is. The president himself has stated that he doesn't consider him a priority. The CIA has closed the section that was dedicated to finding him.
Was it Saddam Hussein?
Certainly not! He's in custody and currently on trial for acts he was committing with our sanction - back when he was our ally. (Yes, that's right. Look up the charges filed against Hussein and the dates when he was supposed to have committed those crimes )
Was it Iran? Could they have done this to our military? No.
How about North Korea? It must be Lil' Kim's long dongs, right? Wrong again!
Who could possibly be responsible for the crippling of the greatest military force on earth?
It was George W. Bush.
It was the commander in chief - who had no plan other than to invade.
It was the President of the United States - who had no exit strategy.
It was the chosen one - who still, after more time than it took to wage World War II, has not even a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq. And the REPUBLICAN PARTY still supports our FAILING OCCUPATION !!!
Yes, it's been George W. Bush ... and the people who have supported him. A man so proud of being the "decider" that he'll never admit when he's "decided" wrong. That is who is responsible for the devastation of our fighting forces after three years of utter failure in Iraq ... three years that can never be undone ... time that will forever be known as the failure of the president who wouldn't learn from his mistakes.
And it's three years ... AND COUNTING ... with no end in sight.
The assault on our military has been George W. Bush's ...
... and, by extension, those who support him.
Rafterman
There's no place like home-
Oy you people are simpletons. Here's something more your speed:
You see, once upon a time there were a small group of hornets that would sting you if you didn't keep a close eye on them.
One day the town fool (who had the job of watching the hornets and warning passers by), became distracted by a goat. As he was watching the goat some people got stung. After that the fool started throwing rocks at a different hornets nests and stirring them up.
Soon all the hornets in the woods near the village became agitated and started stinging everyone that came outside.
After awhile the villagers threw out the fool and the wise men of the town who had experience with hornets made it safe in the village again.
You see, once upon a time there were a small group of hornets that would sting you if you didn't keep a close eye on them.
One day the town fool (who had the job of watching the hornets and warning passers by), became distracted by a goat. As he was watching the goat some people got stung. After that the fool started throwing rocks at a different hornets nests and stirring them up.
Soon all the hornets in the woods near the village became agitated and started stinging everyone that came outside.
After awhile the villagers threw out the fool and the wise men of the town who had experience with hornets made it safe in the village again.
TJHairball
I love this place
So you're betting on widespread cheating and gerrymandered districts to keep the Republicans in Congress?Ogami said:
It's not a bad bet.
Ogami
New member
TJ, the Democrats defeat themselves every election by declaring that they were somehow cheated out of a win. Never blame themselves for their defeats, that would actually require them to look at their message.
Instead, Democrats give all signs of running on the same tired slogans that lost them the last few elections. They're not even at war with islamic terrorists, the Dems are at war with Wal-Mart! What a winning campaign theme. LOL
-Ogami
Instead, Democrats give all signs of running on the same tired slogans that lost them the last few elections. They're not even at war with islamic terrorists, the Dems are at war with Wal-Mart! What a winning campaign theme. LOL
-Ogami
TJHairball
I love this place
Not true. The only times I've heard the Democrats use the word "cheated" on a large scale to describe an election result were 2000 (studies have since shown beyond any doubt Gore was cheated of a deserved victory) and 2004 (year of the highly suspicious polls with suspicions running high as a result of 2000).Ogami said:
I've heard Republicans commonly claim that they were cheated out of presidencies in the 1960 and 1992 elections.
As a simple known fact, however, the way the districts are drawn right now favors the Republican Party. Successful gerrymandering in Texas and the tendency of Democratic strongholds to be highly concentrated (e.g., Chicago) and overwhelmingly Democratic to a much higher degree than Republican-leaning districts.
It's also a known fact from the last three elections that we have something of a problem with accurate and fair elections - primarily not as a result of the efforts of the Democratic party, but rather as a result of the efforts of primarily independent groups (e.g., the Greens and Libertarians in 2004).
What those talking about the dramatic lead the Democratic party is enjoying in polls right now are ignoring are that the Democrats need a very large popular lead, especially with the statistical anomalies displayed in the last election. What those statistical anamolies indicate is either poll bias by all professional polling agencies, or voter fraud on a broad scale, in either case favoring the Republican party by several percentage points over the polls' indications - in order to take control of the House, the Democrats need something like a 55-40 landslide. Control of the Senate would require the Democrats to pull off what the Republicans did in 1994 - these are, incidentally, the same seats the Democrats already won back many of in 2000, so there are actually more Democratic seats in the run than Republican seats.
In order to take control of Congress as a whole, we'd want to see polls indicating them commanding something like 60% of the vote, and there's plenty of time left until the elections.
The Wal-Mart bit is highly interesting; it also gives us a very firm indication of where we can expect political discourse to continue.
Ogami
New member
TJhairball wrote:
The only times... 2000 and 2004...
LOL Case closed. The Democrats are still refighting those campaigns because they claim they were cheated. It explains why they keep running on the same "issues", but not the insanity that grips them. Any sane organization would have realized that they needed a new message to win big in future elections, but they still keep chanting the same nonsense.
I've heard Republicans commonly claim that they were cheated out of presidencies in the 1960 and 1992 elections.
There was massive voter fraud in the 1960 election, courtesy of Mayor Daley's Illinois machine. 1992, on the other hand, was just complaints about Perot sapping votes.
As a simple known fact, however, the way the districts are drawn right now favors the Republican Party. Successful gerrymandering in Texas and the tendency of Democratic strongholds to be highly concentrated (e.g., Chicago) and overwhelmingly Democratic to a much higher degree than Republican-leaning districts.
Looks pretty contiguous to me. Gerrymandering was something Democrats came up with, too bad for them if they don't like how the Republicans de-gerrymandered their crap.
http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/
In order to take control of Congress as a whole, we'd want to see polls indicating them commanding something like 60% of the vote, and there's plenty of time left until the elections.
That's why it's fun to see where everyone stands now.
-Ogami
The only times... 2000 and 2004...
LOL Case closed. The Democrats are still refighting those campaigns because they claim they were cheated. It explains why they keep running on the same "issues", but not the insanity that grips them. Any sane organization would have realized that they needed a new message to win big in future elections, but they still keep chanting the same nonsense.
I've heard Republicans commonly claim that they were cheated out of presidencies in the 1960 and 1992 elections.
There was massive voter fraud in the 1960 election, courtesy of Mayor Daley's Illinois machine. 1992, on the other hand, was just complaints about Perot sapping votes.
As a simple known fact, however, the way the districts are drawn right now favors the Republican Party. Successful gerrymandering in Texas and the tendency of Democratic strongholds to be highly concentrated (e.g., Chicago) and overwhelmingly Democratic to a much higher degree than Republican-leaning districts.
Looks pretty contiguous to me. Gerrymandering was something Democrats came up with, too bad for them if they don't like how the Republicans de-gerrymandered their crap.
http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/
In order to take control of Congress as a whole, we'd want to see polls indicating them commanding something like 60% of the vote, and there's plenty of time left until the elections.
That's why it's fun to see where everyone stands now.
-Ogami
TJHairball
I love this place
In 2000, they clearly were.Ogami said:
Congratulations. Now add up the actual vote totals in the 2000 election; courtesy of Jeb's screwballs, George won.
Oh, does that sound familiar? Anybody remember how Nader got so much publicity in 2000-2001?
Those districts are neither compact nor logical - and that map is a proposed plan, not the current districts, the result of an ongoing court case.
The state Republicans re-drew the districts to get themselves more seats at the national level, in a highly irregular fashion.