Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
GrimmaceXX wrote:
i can just picture mccain doing this.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I hate being an American.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
B wrote:
I hate being an American.
Never would have seen that statement coming from a lib
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
GrimmaceXX wrote:
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
GrimmaceXX wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
GrimmaceXX wrote:
i can just picture mccain doing this.
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
I have to admit, at times, dems can be "interesting" in an unintentional sort of way.
what I'm waiting for is a dem to be funny without being angry at the same time. I don't think i've EVER seen that in my lifetime.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
Just to add...I look back at the Great Purge of 1994 and see nothing about the 2006 election results that would warrant the label "historic proportions."
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
yes. It's silly to say otherwise. There hasn't been this large a swing in a President's sixth year midterm since Eisenhower. Both Reagan and Clinton saw negligible results in their sixth year midterms, with Clinton even gaining seats because of the retarded Republican strategy that year.
Who said anything about liberals? And how, exactly, is Jon Tester not a liberal, anyway?
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:31 am Posts: 2622 Location: South of Boston, North of Stoughton
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
GrimmaceXX wrote:
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
yes. It's silly to say otherwise. There hasn't been this large a swing in a President's sixth year midterm since Eisenhower. Both Reagan and Clinton saw negligible results in their sixth year midterms, with Clinton even gaining seats because of the retarded Republican strategy that year.
Who said anything about liberals? And how, exactly, is Jon Tester not a liberal, anyway?
let's get back on topic.... YaY Hillary!!!!! Go Hillary Go!!!!! Stand by your man! be a strong woman! YaY!!!!
_________________ 06' Shows: Albany, Hartford, Boston 1&2, Denver 1&2
Panties aren't the best thing in the world but they are the closest thing to it
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
GrimmaceXX wrote:
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
yes. It's silly to say otherwise. There hasn't been this large a swing in a President's sixth year midterm since Eisenhower. Both Reagan and Clinton saw negligible results in their sixth year midterms, with Clinton even gaining seats because of the retarded Republican strategy that year.
Who said anything about liberals? And how, exactly, is Jon Tester not a liberal, anyway?
What were the positions he ran on?
Was he a cut and runner like Mickey Moore? Was he anit-gun? How about that other dope that won in Montana? You see him beating the drumbeat of Pelosi and the far, radical left-wing nutcases you find on pearl jam message boards? If they do, they are out. This majority you have is hardly historic b/c 1994 was about ideology. Conservatism won. Liberalism lost. In this election, again, liberalism couldn't win. Pelosi, Reid, all of them went into hiding. Why? Because they recognize American Exceptionalism. They know Americans despise liberalism, and it will never win here.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Purple Hawk wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
GrimmaceXX wrote:
This is gonna be fun... I just wish the dems could make things interesting...
The Dems sweeping the midterms in historic proportions wasn't interesting?
historic proportions?
how many of those "swept" into office are actually liberal? I'm sure John Tester and Heath Shuler would really fit in Pelosi's and Kennedy's crowd.
yes. It's silly to say otherwise. There hasn't been this large a swing in a President's sixth year midterm since Eisenhower. Both Reagan and Clinton saw negligible results in their sixth year midterms, with Clinton even gaining seats because of the retarded Republican strategy that year.
Who said anything about liberals? And how, exactly, is Jon Tester not a liberal, anyway?
What were the positions he ran on?
Was he a cut and runner like Mickey Moore? Was he anit-gun? How about that other dope that won in Montana? You see him beating the drumbeat of Pelosi and the far, radical left-wing nutcases you find on pearl jam message boards? If they do, they are out. This majority you have is hardly historic b/c 1994 was about ideology. Conservatism won. Liberalism lost. In this election, again, liberalism couldn't win. Pelosi, Reid, all of them went into hiding. Why? Because they recognize American Exceptionalism. They know Americans despise liberalism, and it will never win here.
The content of your observations is both candidly penentrating and insightful.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Was he a cut and runner like Mickey Moore? Was he anit-gun? How about that other dope that won in Montana? You see him beating the drumbeat of Pelosi and the far, radical left-wing nutcases you find on pearl jam message boards? If they do, they are out. This majority you have is hardly historic b/c 1994 was about ideology. Conservatism won. Liberalism lost. In this election, again, liberalism couldn't win. Pelosi, Reid, all of them went into hiding. Why? Because they recognize American Exceptionalism. They know Americans despise liberalism, and it will never win here.
You tell me, because apparently the positions a candidate runs on determines his or her ideology and apparently his were conservative or moderate. He might not have been beating the drum for Pearl Jam message board posters, but he certainly did for Pearl Jam themselves.
He's pro choice, against the war, against the PATRIOT ACT, for an increased minimum wage, liberal on health care and so on. But that just comes from his campaign website, so I guess he didn't run on it.
Republicans trying to spin this election to their side of the argument is pathetic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
