How did you guys vote?

[Trevor Wilson]

Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
message?

So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?

I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.

**Cool.
When can I pick up my guns?
Rocket Launcher?
Do I get a new passport?
Here in Australia, we can eat the animals on our Coat of Arms (the Kangaroo
and the Emu). Can I eat a Bald Eagle? Maybe followed by a nice Buffalo
steak?
Can I have an SUV? (A big one, of course.)
Can I still drink Australian beer?



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.

**Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> > I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
> > expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.

> **Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?

Only if you want to be a Republican.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
> Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
> message?
>
> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?

I went to a polling station by work and obtained
a provisional ballot under the name Trevor Wilson
and wrote in G.W. Bush in every race.

When you get the request for confirmation of address,
just send 'em a copy of your utility bill.
BTW, you're now a registered republican.

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>> message?
>>
>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
> I went to a polling station by work and obtained
> a provisional ballot under the name Trevor Wilson
> and wrote in G.W. Bush in every race.
>
> When you get the request for confirmation of address,
> just send 'em a copy of your utility bill.
> BTW, you're now a registered republican.

**ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

So, what are you saying? Do I need to go and have half my brain removed?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[robert casey]

>
>>Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>>message?
>>
>>So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
>

I went down to the local polling site, showed picture ID, signed next to
my name in their log book, then got a pass to get in line for the voting
machine. Then I went behind the curtain, and pressed the X's next to
the candidates I wanted, and then hit the "Cast Ballot" button. That's
how I voted....

[paul packer]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:39:50 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:


>So, what are you saying? Do I need to go and have half my brain removed?


I think he's saying that half of it's already missing. :-)

[Trevor Wilson]

"robert casey" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
>>>Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>>>message?
>>>
>>>So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>>
>>
>
> I went down to the local polling site, showed picture ID, signed next to
> my name in their log book, then got a pass to get in line for the voting
> machine. Then I went behind the curtain, and pressed the X's next to the
> candidates I wanted, and then hit the "Cast Ballot" button. That's how I
> voted....

**Let me re-phrase the question:

Which party's candidate did you vote for?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ScottW]

"robert casey" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
>>>Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>>>message?
>>>
>>>So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>>
>>
>
> I went down to the local polling site, showed picture ID,

No picture ID required in Ca. State your name and address
and if your on the list...you vote.
Even if you're not you can still vote, just ask for a provisional.
They only validate the provisionals if they can influence the
election outcome.


> signed next to my name in their log book, then got a pass to get in line for
> the voting machine. Then I went behind the curtain,

No curtain...just a carboard hood

> and pressed the X's next to the candidates I wanted, and then hit the "Cast
> Ballot" button.

The electronic Diebold machines out here seemed to work fine.
The ballots on the machine were just like the sample so it was
pretty easy to follow. Only complaint I heard was the room lights were
dim presumably so it was easier to see the screens, but it was too
dim for some people to read their selections off the sample ballots.

Then when you were done, you had to review and confirm each page.
Thats pretty tedious and I'll bet most people just hit next page
a lot.
After confirming each page it printed on an internal paper tape
you could see thru a window but it wasn't visible long enough
to really follow.

Dumbasses are voting down cleanmoney. Thats 2 democratic
process enhancing inititiatives in the last 2 elections that have
both failed.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
> > message?
> >
> > So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
> I went to a polling station by work and obtained
> a provisional ballot under the name Trevor Wilson
> and wrote in G.W. Bush in every race.
>
> When you get the request for confirmation of address,
> just send 'em a copy of your utility bill.
> BTW, you're now a registered republican.

Sour grapes?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
> message?
>
> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?

Let me just say that I was at the Democratic party until 0300. Aside
fom one or two races, I am very, very happy with the outcome.

I was a Democratic poll-watcher here. No significant problems with the
elections, machines, or anything else at the precinct that I was
monitoring.

The precinct I was at is traditionally a pretty strong conservative GOP
stronghold. When the election judge gave me the results it was about
2-1 Dem over GOP. I'd guess turnout at about 60% of registered voters.

I think a lot of republicans couldn't take bushie, rove and crew's
policies anymore. We were hoping for maybe 50%. On the entire ballot, I
think only 1-2 republicans won, and even those were very, very close.

We have term limits here: they're called elections. They were exercised
today by the population of the US.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:05:19 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>message?
>
>So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?


Trevor, stop bothering those poor Americans and come in and have your
dinner.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Dumbasses are voting down cleanmoney. Thats 2 democratic
> process enhancing inititiatives in the last 2 elections that have
> both failed.

We had a measure that made sense not pass here, too.

The reason wasn't voting it down so much as many people, Dem and GOP,
thought the measure was poorly written.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:13:20 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>wrote
>>in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>
>>>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>>>
>>> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
>>> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.
>>
>>**Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?
>
>
> Only if you move to Texas.

**Uh-huh. Texas is the most polluted US state. It is one of the most
dangerous US states. Texas murders more of it's own citizens than any other
US state. Yep. I can see myself living there. NOT!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:05:19 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>Did the Americans on this group send those criminals in The White House a
>>message?
>>
>>So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>
>
> Trevor, stop bothering those poor Americans and come in and have your
> dinner.

**I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war. Now,
the figures are substantially higher.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:13:20 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> >>wrote
> >>in message ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Trevor Wilson said:
> >>>
> >>>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
> >>>
> >>> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you can
> >>> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.
> >>
> >>**Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?
> >
> >
> > Only if you move to Texas.
>
> **Uh-huh. Texas is the most polluted US state. It is one of the most
> dangerous US states. Texas murders more of it's own citizens than any other
> US state. Yep. I can see myself living there. NOT!

You might like Austin. As white person, you needn't worry as much about
being murdered by the state.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war. Now,
> the figures are substantially higher.

Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.

[Trevor Wilson]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:13:20 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> >>wrote
>> >>in message ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Trevor Wilson said:
>> >>>
>> >>>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
>> >>>
>> >>> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you
>> >>> can
>> >>> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.
>> >>
>> >>**Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?
>> >
>> >
>> > Only if you move to Texas.
>>
>> **Uh-huh. Texas is the most polluted US state. It is one of the most
>> dangerous US states. Texas murders more of it's own citizens than any
>> other
>> US state. Yep. I can see myself living there. NOT!
>
> You might like Austin. As white person, you needn't worry as much about
> being murdered by the state.

**Ah, that makes me feel better. They only murder black guys there?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:13:20 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> >> >>wrote
> >> >>in message ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Trevor Wilson said:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> So, tell me: How did each of you vote today?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I voted to annex Oz as our 51st state. I had to write it in, but you
> >> >>> can
> >> >>> expect to feel some shockwaves pretty soon.
> >> >>
> >> >>**Oh yeah. Do I have to pronounce it Nukular?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Only if you move to Texas.
> >>
> >> **Uh-huh. Texas is the most polluted US state. It is one of the most
> >> dangerous US states. Texas murders more of it's own citizens than any
> >> other
> >> US state. Yep. I can see myself living there. NOT!
> >
> > You might like Austin. As white person, you needn't worry as much about
> > being murdered by the state.
>
> **Ah, that makes me feel better. They only murder black guys there?

Hispanic, too. Helps if you're mentally ill and/or retarded.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Dumbasses are voting down cleanmoney. Thats 2 democratic
>> process enhancing inititiatives in the last 2 elections that have
>> both failed.
>
> We had a measure that made sense not pass here, too.
>
> The reason wasn't voting it down so much as many people, Dem and GOP,
> thought the measure was poorly written.

I figured out why prop 89 got slaughtered.
At the last minute the media referred to it as a
"campaign tax".

ScottW

[ScottW]

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
> >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
> >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war. Now,
> >> the figures are substantially higher.
> >
> >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
>
> And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)

Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Here in Ohio wrote:
> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war. Now,
> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
> > >
> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
> >
> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
>
> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.

That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Here in Ohio wrote:
>> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
>> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
>> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
>> > >> Now,
>> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
>> > >
>> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
>> >
>> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
>>
>> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
>
> That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
> mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
> disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)

It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
most public lying sprees in doing it.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Here in Ohio wrote:
> >> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael Moore a
> >> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should not
> >> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
> >> > >> Now,
> >> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
> >> > >
> >> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
> >> >
> >> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
> >>
> >> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
> >
> > That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
> > mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >
> > BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
> > disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
>
> It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
> line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's

Using that definition, we have a 1-2 punch of traitors in bushie and
cheney.

Did you hear bushie talking about rummy? He tripped over himself a few
times before the story he wanted to finally came out.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> Here in Ohio wrote:
>> >> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael
>> >> > >> Moore a
>> >> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should
>> >> > >> not
>> >> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
>> >> > >> Now,
>> >> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
>> >> >
>> >> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
>> >
>> > That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
>> > mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>> >
>> > BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
>> > disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
>>
>> It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
>> line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
>
> Using that definition, we have a 1-2 punch of traitors in bushie and
> cheney.
>
> Did you hear bushie talking about rummy? He tripped over himself a few
> times before the story he wanted to finally came out.

I can't listen to him after he got all giddy at the idea of his amnesty
getting passed.

Hugh Hewitt has an interesting take on the election and how
the republicans blew it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Here in Ohio wrote:
> >> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael
> >> > >> Moore a
> >> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should
> >> > >> not
> >> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
> >> > >> Now,
> >> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
> >> > >
> >> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
> >> >
> >> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
> >>
> >> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
> >
> > That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
> > mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >
> > BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
> > disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
>
> It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
> line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
> most public lying sprees in doing it.
>
> ScottW

Nah, that's just "hyperbole" don'tcha know...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> Here in Ohio wrote:
> >> >> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael
> >> >> > >> Moore a
> >> >> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should
> >> >> > >> not
> >> >> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
> >> >> > >> Now,
> >> >> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
> >> >
> >> > That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
> >> > mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
> >> > disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
> >>
> >> It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
> >> line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
> >
> > Using that definition, we have a 1-2 punch of traitors in bushie and
> > cheney.
> >
> > Did you hear bushie talking about rummy? He tripped over himself a few
> > times before the story he wanted to finally came out.
>
> I can't listen to him after he got all giddy at the idea of his amnesty
> getting passed.
>
> Hugh Hewitt has an interesting take on the election and how
> the republicans blew it.
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority

I don't think that essentially railroading things through was the
answer. ("Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a
55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted
left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.") Remember too
bushie's recess nominations. Bolton, for example, only seemed liked by
the far right. No attempt at bipartisanship in appointing someone to
represent the US in an inernational body. Never any attempt at
bipartisanship. bushie seemed to say, "My way, or the highway. And if
you don't give me my way, I'll take it anyway."

And if you read between the lines, Hewitt is actually advocating
obstructionism --exactly what he accused the Dems of-- for the next two
years. ("But the majority is not going to return unless the new
minority leadership --however it is composed-- resolves to persuade the
public, and to be firm in its convictions, not concerned for the praise
of the Beltway-Manhattan media machine.") So republicans will be 'firm
in their convictions' but Dems were 'obstructionists.' I think that
will be fatal for them if they do that.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> oups.com...
>>> >
>>> > ScottW wrote:
>>> >> Here in Ohio wrote:
>>> >> > On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> **I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael
>>> >> > >> Moore a
>>> >> > >> traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America
>>> >> > >> should not
>>> >> > >> attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the
>>> >> > >> war.
>>> >> > >> Now,
>>> >> > >> the figures are substantially higher.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
>>> >
>>> > That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
>>> > mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>>> >
>>> > BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
>>> > disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
>>>
>>> It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
>>> line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
>>
>> Using that definition, we have a 1-2 punch of traitors in bushie and
>> cheney.
>>
>> Did you hear bushie talking about rummy? He tripped over himself a few
>> times before the story he wanted to finally came out.
>
> I can't listen to him after he got all giddy at the idea of his amnesty
> getting passed.
>
> Hugh Hewitt has an interesting take on the election and how
> the republicans blew it.
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority
>

Some take. His view "we didn't nuke em (the Dems, the Constitution, the
Senate protocol, the NYT) when we could have", so the gang of fourteen and
our erstwhile leaders are also traitors. Nice reading material you surround
yourself with there, Scott.

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>snip<
..
>
> Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
> good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

>
> My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message

> > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> > over.
>
> I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> turned independent.

I talked with a lot of republicans (the more moderate variety) that
could not vote for them this cycle.

Re: Chaffee, I do find it sad that we have to have wild swings in the
electorate where good, solid candidates like him get swept out because
of the backlash against the ultra-right-wing nutjobs.

I can't believe that I'm defending a republican...:-)

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >snip<
> .
> >
> > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
> > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> > too.
>
> The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
> fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
> lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.


>
> >
> > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> > over.
>
> I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> > Hugh Hewitt has an interesting take on the election and how
> > the republicans blew it.
> >
> > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority
> >
>
> Some take. His view "we didn't nuke em (the Dems, the Constitution, the
> Senate protocol, the NYT) when we could have", so the gang of fourteen and
> our erstwhile leaders are also traitors.

Traitors to the party and traitors to conservatism.

> Nice reading material you surround
> yourself with there, Scott.

Too lofty for you Harry?

BTW..you're about the only person I have ever hear who implied the
"senate protocol" doesn't deserve nuking. The NYT definitely does but
instead they're going to slowly bleed to death.

ScottW

[ScottW]

ScottW wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > >snip<
> > .
> > >
> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> > > too.
> >
> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
>
> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
>
> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
> isn't.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> > > over.
> >
> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> > turned independent.

BTW....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.dayafter09nov09,0,2471157.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

http://tinyurl.com/yyaxr9

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> message
>
>> > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
>> > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
>> > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
>> > over.
>>
>> I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
>> turned independent.
>
> I talked with a lot of republicans (the more moderate variety) that
> could not vote for them this cycle.
>
> Re: Chaffee, I do find it sad that we have to have wild swings in the
> electorate where good, solid candidates like him get swept out because
> of the backlash against the ultra-right-wing nutjobs.
>
> I can't believe that I'm defending a republican...:-)

I saw him interviewed on NECN (New England Cable Network, for you
outlanders) tonight. He was asked if he could take people who thought
highly of him voting for the Dems to send Bush a message....was it right?
He visibly grimaced, thought about it a few seconds, and said with some pain
"unfortunately it was". That's class. As is announcing he will not vote
for John Bolton and stopping Bushie's "bi-partisan" ram-through in its
tracks. Now we'll probably get another "bi-partisan" recess appointment.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> > message
>> > oups.com...
>> >
>> > >snip<
>> > .
>> > >
>> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
>> > > a
>> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
>> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
>> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
>> > > too.
>> >
>> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
>> > doing a
>> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
>> > Repubs a
>> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
>>
>> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
>>
>> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
>> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
>> isn't.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
>> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
>> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned
>> > > him
>> > > over.
>> >
>> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
>> > turned independent.
>
> BTW....
>
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.dayafter09nov09,0,2471157.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yyaxr9
>
> Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why are openly conservative dems centrist?
>
> Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
> "centrist" by Republican standards.

Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > >snip<
> > .
> > >
> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> > > too.
> >
> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
>
> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
>
> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
> isn't.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> > > over.
> >
> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> > turned independent.
>
> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> power..
> it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
> the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

> I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
> to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> power..

BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.

One party has consistently been for civil rights. One party has
consistently been pro-choice.

Can you name that party in, say, two guesses?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Why are openly conservative dems centrist?
> >
> > Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
> > "centrist" by Republican standards.
>
> Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
so years...

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >
>> > >snip<
>> > .
>> > >
>> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
>> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
>> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
>> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
>> > > too.
>> >
>> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
>> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
>> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
>>
>> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
>>
>> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
>> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
>> isn't.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
>> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
>> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
>> > > over.
>> >
>> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
>> > turned independent.
>>
>> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
>> power..
>> it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
>> the conservative party.
>
> The Dems used to be the conservative party.
>
> The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06? :)
>
>> I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
>> to insignificance.
>
> I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
> the problem.

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

>
> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Look to Texas for outrageous gerrymandering.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
>> power..
>
> BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.
>
> One party has consistently been for civil rights.

Not exactly...do you forget the Southern democrats
filibuster against the Civil Rights Amendment?

Or the original Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery?

Which side did the democrat take in that debate?

> One party has
> consistently been pro-choice.

Are you telling me there are no pro-life democrats?

Seems to me the democratic party is very willing
to embrace candidates that can get elected
even though they won't agree with the party on
these core issues.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/


ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Why are openly conservative dems centrist?
>> >
>> > Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
>> > "centrist" by Republican standards.
>>
>> Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"
>
> I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
> so years...
>

You does suck but that is beside the point.

Here's a bit dated analysis from an unbiased source
(I think) but I don't think things have changed
much and perhaps have gotten worse as the media fragments
and tries to cater to its "base" of listeners.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > >snip<
> >> > .
> >> > >
> >> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
> >> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> >> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> >> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> >> > > too.
> >> >
> >> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
> >> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
> >> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
> >>
> >> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
> >>
> >> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
> >> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
> >> isn't.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> >> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> >> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> >> > > over.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> >> > turned independent.
> >>
> >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> >> power..
> >> it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
> >> the conservative party.
> >
> > The Dems used to be the conservative party.
> >
> > The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.
>
> So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06? :)

I hope not, and I doubt it. But if so, I was a republican before I was
a Dem. I cannot align myself with anti-science, anti-rights,
anti-environment, anti-...

> >> I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
> >> to insignificance.
> >
> > I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
> > the problem.
>
> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> against gerrymandering reform?

Not really, as it's the republicans elsewhere.

I'd rather neither of them did. But both do. I'm not sure if the
chicken came before the egg though. Something would probably have to
happen at the Federal level.

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
>> against gerrymandering reform?
>
> I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
> to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > >snip<
>> >> > .
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
>> >> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
>> >> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
>> >> > > too.
>> >> >
>> >> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
>> >> > doing a
>> >> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
>> >> > Repubs a
>> >> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
>> >>
>> >> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
>> >> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
>> >> isn't.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
>> >> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
>> >> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
>> >> > > over.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
>> >> > turned independent.
>> >>
>> >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
>> >> power..
>> >> it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
>> >> the conservative party.
>> >
>> > The Dems used to be the conservative party.
>> >
>> > The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.
>>
>> So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06? :)
>
> I hope not, and I doubt it. But if so, I was a republican before I was
> a Dem. I cannot align myself with anti-science, anti-rights,
> anti-environment, anti-...
>
>> >> I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
>> >> to insignificance.
>> >
>> > I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
>> > the problem.
>>
>> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
>> against gerrymandering reform?
>
> Not really, as it's the republicans elsewhere.
>
> I'd rather neither of them did. But both do. I'm not sure if the
> chicken came before the egg though. Something would probably have to
> happen at the Federal level.

You may be right...but I'm reluctant to reduce states rights and I think
the chances of federal action are even less than finally getting a state
referendum passed.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> >> against gerrymandering reform?
> >
> > I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
> > to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?
>
> Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".

> I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.

I said "national," not "federal."

Stephen

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> > >> against gerrymandering reform?
> > >
> > > I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
> > > to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?
> >
> > Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.
>
> Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".

Stop it...you're depressing me with the hopelessness of it all.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the
> > > >> effort
> > > >> against gerrymandering reform?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national
> > > > effort
> > > > to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?
> > >
> > > Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.
> >
> > Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".
>
> Stop it...you're depressing me with the hopelessness of it all.

Federalizing it could actually help, along with campaign reform.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> > >> against gerrymandering reform?
> > >
> > > I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
> > > to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?
> >
> > Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.
>
> Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".
>
> > I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.
>
> I said "national," not "federal."

I agree. This is a topic that the states cannot handle piecemeal.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> I agree. This is a topic that the states cannot handle piecemeal.

You think Pelosi is gonna address this issue?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> >> power..
> >
> > BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.
> >
> > One party has consistently been for civil rights.
>
> Not exactly...do you forget the Southern democrats
> filibuster against the Civil Rights Amendment?

Recent history. That was where the republican party was born. bushie's
"I'm from the party of Lincoln" was accurate, but far more recently
they're the party of Nixon and McCarthy.

> Or the original Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery?
>
> Which side did the democrat take in that debate?
>
> > One party has
> > consistently been pro-choice.
>
> Are you telling me there are no pro-life democrats?.

No I'm not.

Party is the key word, not candidate or Congressman, individual etc.

I do not believe the Dems have ever had an anti choice platform. If I'm
wrong sue me.

> Seems to me the democratic party is very willing
> to embrace candidates that can get elected
> even though they won't agree with the party on
> these core issues.

So they should be kicked out unless they conform to every plank in a
platform?

So Chaffee wasn't really a republican after all. Nor are any
republicans who disagree with Bolton, for example.

It's gonna be tough for both parties now. Nobody conforms strictly
enough to belong.

> http://www.democratsforlife.org/

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > >snip<
> >> > .
> >> > >
> >> > > Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
> >> > > a
> >> > > good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
> >> > > for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
> >> > > opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
> >> > > too.
> >> >
> >> > The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
> >> > doing a
> >> > fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
> >> > Repubs a
> >> > lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)
> >>
> >> Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.
> >>
> >> I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
> >> someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
> >> isn't.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
> >> > > whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
> >> > > sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
> >> > > over.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
> >> > turned independent.
> >>
> >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> >> power..
> >> it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
> >> the conservative party.
> >
> > The Dems used to be the conservative party.
> >
> > The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.
>
> So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06? :)
> >
> >> I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
> >> to insignificance.
> >
> > I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
> > the problem.
>
> Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> against gerrymandering reform?
>
> ScottW
Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >
> > I agree. This is a topic that the states cannot handle piecemeal.
>
> You think Pelosi is gonna address this issue?

I don't think it's on either party's radar. Do you?

Would the republican leadership address it, if they were still in power
next session?

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree. This is a topic that the states cannot handle piecemeal.
> >
> > You think Pelosi is gonna address this issue?
>
> I don't think it's on either party's radar. Do you?

No.

>
> Would the republican leadership address it, if they were still in power
> next session?

No...as I see it the only hope is states with referendums.
If enough of them clamor for it...perhaps the congress will take it up.
But the BS they pulled in campaign finance with McCain Feingold is
enough to
show me the parties have no interest in doing anything that loosens
their grips.

Did Bernie Sanders election in Vermont have anything to do with their
recent campaign finance reform? Last I heard the supreme court was
tossing it out in June.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> > >> power..
> > >
> > > BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.
> > >
> > > One party has consistently been for civil rights.
> >
> > Not exactly...do you forget the Southern democrats
> > filibuster against the Civil Rights Amendment?
>
> Recent history. That was where the republican party was born. bushie's
> "I'm from the party of Lincoln" was accurate, but far more recently
> they're the party of Nixon and McCarthy.
>
> > Or the original Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery?
> >
> > Which side did the democrat take in that debate?
> >
> > > One party has
> > > consistently been pro-choice.
> >
> > Are you telling me there are no pro-life democrats?.
>
> No I'm not.
>
> Party is the key word, not candidate or Congressman, individual etc.
>
> I do not believe the Dems have ever had an anti choice platform. If I'm
> wrong sue me.
>
> > Seems to me the democratic party is very willing
> > to embrace candidates that can get elected
> > even though they won't agree with the party on
> > these core issues.
>
> So they should be kicked out unless they conform to every plank in a
> platform?

Ask Lieberman.

>
> So Chaffee wasn't really a republican after all. Nor are any
> republicans who disagree with Bolton, for example.
>
> It's gonna be tough for both parties now. Nobody conforms strictly
> enough to belong.

No...its tough for voters....nobody adheres to their principle they run
a campaign on.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> > against gerrymandering reform?
> >
> > ScottW
> Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.
eF'in brilliant.

Even Daily Kos argued against the policy of dems in Ca to create safe
incumbent districts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/133630/220

Did you notice that it worked...again. No encumbent lost and no
district changed party hands...again. My state representative ran
unopposed. If it weren't for the initiatives...which are mostly
government sponsered now (wth is that?), there'd be no reason to vote
in Ca.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:


> Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Sorry, should read "...the KING of that kind...."

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
> > > against gerrymandering reform?
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.
>
> Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.

I'm not politicizing it anymore than you are. Delay is well known to be
the SOTA for this activity.

> eF'in brilliant.

Sigh...

>
> Even Daily Kos argued against the policy of dems in Ca to create safe
> incumbent districts.
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/133630/220
>
> Did you notice that it worked...again.

Of course I noticed. The district boundries are idiotic where I live.

[mrlefty]

I was on of the 12% of Texans who voted for Kinky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQKuk21Zxm8

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
>> > > against gerrymandering reform?
>> > >
>> > > ScottW
>> > Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.
>>
>> Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.
>
> I'm not politicizing it anymore than you are.

BS... but even if you believe I am and you believe that is
wrong...doing it because I do is .....(fill in the blank).


> Delay is well known to be
> the SOTA for this activity.

Only thing Delay did that was really different was redraw districts
between census, ie, districts now aren't locked for 10 years
based on whoever happenned to be in power at that moment.

BTW...the courts didn't find anything really wrong in Texas
outside of 1 district. If Ca got scrutinized, I don't think
that would be the case at all.

Anyway, I freely admit both parties gerrymander.

But in Ca. the republican gov tried to create a system that
prevents gerrymandering and the dems killed it.
Clearly a situation of the haves opposing the have nots but it
is also one step further down the road of continuing to subert
the democratic process.
There was nothing in that proposal that tilted the system
the republican way as even the Kosters could see.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the
> >> > > effort
> >> > > against gerrymandering reform?
> >> > >
> >> > > ScottW
> >> > Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.
> >>
> >> Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.
> >
> > I'm not politicizing it anymore than you are.
>
> BS... but even if you believe I am and you believe that is
> wrong...doing it because I do is .....(fill in the blank).

You left out one variable: I don't think that either of us was
politicizing it.

>
>
> > Delay is well known to be
> > the SOTA for this activity.
>
> Only thing Delay did that was really different was redraw districts
> between census, ie, districts now aren't locked for 10 years
> based on whoever happenned to be in power at that moment.
>
> BTW...the courts didn't find anything really wrong in Texas
> outside of 1 district. If Ca got scrutinized, I don't think
> that would be the case at all.
>
> Anyway, I freely admit both parties gerrymander.
>
> But in Ca. the republican gov tried to create a system that
> prevents gerrymandering and the dems killed it.
> Clearly a situation of the haves opposing the have nots but it
> is also one step further down the road of continuing to subert
> the democratic process.
> There was nothing in that proposal that tilted the system
> the republican way as even the Kosters could see.
>
> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are openly conservative dems centrist?
> >> >
> >> > Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
> >> > "centrist" by Republican standards.
> >>
> >> Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"
> >
> > I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
> > so years...
> >
>
> You does suck but that is beside the point.

Insult noted.

> Here's a bit dated analysis from an unbiased source
> (I think) but I don't think things have changed
> much and perhaps have gotten worse as the media fragments
> and tries to cater to its "base" of listeners.
>
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

I think this one was discussed here some time ago. IIRC nob originally
posted this here. I disagree that quoting think-tanks properly measures
or shows bias one way or another. Has this one been peer-reviewed yet?
It wasn't as of when nob posted it a few months ago. Here's one
response that I found:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0602a/uclaliberalmediabias.html

I posted a different study recently that polled journalists themselves
and their opinions. The one I posted showed that anti-business or
anti-business interests, or pro labor or pro liberal idea articles were
often not run, even at the (gasp) NYT. It has a much better methodology
than the severly flawed report that you posted IMO:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

Here are some other opinions dissenting with the myth of 'liberal
media bias':

http://quinnell.us/politics/media.html

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/intro.pdf

(Note the William Kristol quote at the bottom of page two)

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/OffTheRail/1015.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 (an older one, but still
pertinent IMO)

I for one do not buy the old 'liberal media' saw, especially since one
of the founding fathers of American conservatism admits it's just BS.

But you and nob can quote this Stanford/UCLA 'study' as long and as
often as you want if it makes you feel good.:-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
> > > >> power..
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.
> > > >
> > > > One party has consistently been for civil rights.
> > >
> > > Not exactly...do you forget the Southern democrats
> > > filibuster against the Civil Rights Amendment?
> >
> > Recent history. That was where the republican party was born. bushie's
> > "I'm from the party of Lincoln" was accurate, but far more recently
> > they're the party of Nixon and McCarthy.
> >
> > > Or the original Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery?
> > >
> > > Which side did the democrat take in that debate?
> > >
> > > > One party has
> > > > consistently been pro-choice.
> > >
> > > Are you telling me there are no pro-life democrats?.
> >
> > No I'm not.
> >
> > Party is the key word, not candidate or Congressman, individual etc.
> >
> > I do not believe the Dems have ever had an anti choice platform. If I'm
> > wrong sue me.
> >
> > > Seems to me the democratic party is very willing
> > > to embrace candidates that can get elected
> > > even though they won't agree with the party on
> > > these core issues.
> >
> > So they should be kicked out unless they conform to every plank in a
> > platform?
>
> Ask Lieberman.

That wasn't the party that kicked him out. It was the voters in his
state. The voters also kicked out Lincoln Chaffee, when he agreed with
the voters more often than he agreed with the republicans. And the
voters overwhelmingly liked him. Again, not the party. The republicans
actually supported Chaffee when he wasn't to their template. Maybe
that's what hurt him...

You need to disengage the party from the voters.

> > So Chaffee wasn't really a republican after all. Nor are any
> > republicans who disagree with Bolton, for example.
> >
> > It's gonna be tough for both parties now. Nobody conforms strictly
> > enough to belong.
>
> No...its tough for voters....nobody adheres to their principle they run
> a campaign on.

I guess they'll have to listen to the candidates now.

Wasn't it the republicans that said 'all politics is local' in an
attempt to distance national policies and platforms from local races?
It didn't work, BTW...

You obviously want a 'republicans are this and Democrats are that'
scenario. I get the strong impression from things that you've said that
you think the Dems not having everybody in a single lock-step is a bad
thing.

I like it that way. It balances out the extremes. Harry Reid is not
pro-choice. Should he only be allowed in the republican party?