1. Virginia's Democratic governor-elect says his victory proves "people are more interested in fiscal responsibility than ideological bickering." In a contest considered a barometer of Republican influence, GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore was defeated by Democrat Tim Kaine despite an election-eve campaign appearance by President Bush. University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says there is "no way to spin" the results as nothing but a major defeat for the GOP and the president. Bush twice carried Virginia.
2. Corzine wins New Jersey governor's race. Key issues in the race were government corruption, and property taxes that are the highest in the nation. But the political mud fights drew most of the attention. Forrester (actually) used criticism from Corzine's ex-wife in one campaign spot.
3. California voters have rejected four ballot measures backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special election. Voters also turned down three other measures, including competing measures on prescription drugs and one dealing with re-regulation of the power industry. Voters said NO to Schwarzenegger on a plan to turn over redistricting of legislative districts to a panel of three retired judges. Also rejected: Schwarzenegger's call for a state spending cap. (It would appear that Schwarzenegger should prepare for political EXILE.)
4. Cincinnati elects first black mayor - A Democrat
5. In Maine, voters turned away an attempt by conservatives to repeal a gay-rights law passed by the state legislature earlier this year. The law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
6. Finally (and as anyone should have expected) TEXAS voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It's already illegal in the state, but supporters of the amendment touted it as an extra safeguard.
The handwriting is on the wall. Neo-Conservatism is being rejected, all across the nation (with the exception of TEXAS, of course. Can't have any gay-birds with equal-rights there, after all).
"And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come."
I don't know about that.
" Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely."
I don't what this says about Bush, either. In the end, I'd say not much. But Kelly went down. I wish somehow Zellout Miller could have been taken down. But he threw his bombs as he was heading out the door, like a coward.
Well, in the two states where Bush actively promoted HIS choices, the candidates were soundly defeated. In Virginia they are blaming Gdubbya.
What sort of "Indication" in any election might cause you to say that the political pendulum is swinging BACK towards moderation and away from the conservative agenda?
Silly? No utterly stupid. But then democrats are mostly stupid. Thank God I no longer live with such ignorant people. Hell, I may never go back. I am sure as hell no going to spend any money in that town.
It would appear that MANY Democrats won, and decisively,all across the U.S. There were not that many elections and there is no indication of any strong sentiment toward democrats. You keep living in that fantasy land.Â
And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come. Not likely. Most people know that the democrats have little if any common sense. That is why they have been turned away in large numbers for the most of the last 10 years. it will keep happening because the face of the party is the face of people like you, crabs and pieter. Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely. I know you want to believe that but the fact is most elections are local. St. Paul being an anomaly. This fantasy that you and others of your ilk keep living is is the chief reason democrats have been removed from power over the last decade.
1. Virginia's Democratic governor-elect says his victory proves "people are more interested in fiscal responsibility than ideological bickering." Running away from the democrats. That is a good sign.GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore was defeated by Democrat Tim Kaine despite an election-eve campaign appearance by President Bush. University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says there is "no way to spin" the results as nothing but a major defeatfor the GOP and the president. Bush twice carried Virginia. Considering the seat was an open seat held by the democrats it really isn't a defeat for Bush. Keep spinning that fantasy web for yourself.Â
The handwriting is on the wall. Neo-Conservatism is being rejected, all across the nation (with the exception of TEXAS, of course. Can't have any gay-birds with equal-rights there, after all). You are one out of touch individual. You know Bush won reelection just one year ago. So even if your wacked out ideas had a scintilla of validity it has no bearing on next year. So, please do let us know what you "think" next November. Once the troops start coming home next fall democrats could even lose liberal strongholds.
"And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come."
I don't know about that. As I have always known the Rat has a better grasp on things than do his liberal cohorts. It may be wise to disassociate yourself from them, Rick.
" Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely."
I don't what this says about Bush, either. In the end, I'd say not much. But Kelly went down. I wish somehow Zellout Miller could have been taken down. Do you really think so? In Georgia?But he threw his bombs as he was heading out the door, like a coward. No he stood on principle.
Well, in the two states where Bush actively promoted HIS choices, the candidates were soundly defeated. In Virginia they are blamingGdubbya. Virginia replaced one democrat governor with another. It seems the problem may be with the Republican candidate for that office.
What sort of "Indication" in any election might cause you to say that the political pendulum is swinging BACK towards moderation and away from the conservative agenda? If you think you represent moderation you are much more mentally ill than I thought.
Do you think Bush plans to abandon the Iraqis to malevolent forces within the country so Republicans can score in the mid-term elections? No, I think within the next year that the Iraqi security forces will be able to handle a much larger role allowing a good number of troops to return.
Then why are you saying it will happen in the fall? Why not summer, why not winter? Because that is just how it is going to work out.  Of course, that the Iraqi forces are capable will become evident earlier than the fall, probably mid summer, but withdrawal will take time and it won't be a total withdrawl.
Is there something magical about the period just before the elections? Whether it starts in August or September it will be a gradual process that will continue for quite a while.
And in further news, all eight incumbent Dover PA school board members -- the ones who decreed that "intelligent design" should be taught in high school biology classes -- were voted out of office.
There was a time when the nomination of someone with Judge Alito's high qualifications to be on the Supreme Court would be confirmed by the Senate with little discussion and the confirmation reported with little comment in the media. But that was in earlier times, when common decency could be taken for granted.
Recently, in Athens, Ohio, I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators – former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators – absolutely crazy. That idea is called “Marry Anything Day.”
The idea behind “Marry Anything Day” is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On “Marry Anything Day” you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy).
Working with a broadly inclusive pantheon of "the Left" that places Ralph Nader and Barbra Streisand on equal footing with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, Schweizer (The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty) suggests that liberalism's heroes conduct their lives in ways that prove their philosophy to be "ultimately self-defeating, self-destructive, and unworkable." While acknowledging that conservatives can be high-profile hypocrites as well, Schweizer employs a double standard, arguing that "when conservatives betray their publicly stated principles, they harm only themselves and their families," but when liberals misbehave, they harm their principles first and foremost. Sometimes his research uncovers significant contradictions, as when Schweizer points out that Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research. But many of his charges are egregiously hyperbolic, as when he suggests that Cornel West is a "segregationist" because he bought a home in a largely Caucasian suburb. Schweizer clearly knows the limitations of his argument, since he backpedals from many of his most damning statements in his closing remarks. For all its revelations, in the end, this volume reads less like a critique of liberal philosophy than a catalogue of ammunition for ad hominem bloggers.
No, I believe that Torp feels that a Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House, and a soon to be conservative Supreme Court might just be a mandate.
From contraceptives to same-sex marriage is a distance that no one 40 years ago could have imagined the courts would travel. The thread connecting them is Griswold's judicially concocted "right to privacy" -- amorphous, free-floating, and wonderfully handy for writing judges' personal opinions into constitutional law.  "I think this is an uncommonly silly law," wrote Justice potter Stewart, one of the two dissenters in Griswold, of Connecticut's ban on contraceptives. But it is not the job of judges "to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine." A statute can be foolish and unfair without being unconstitutional. And the majority's penumbras and emanations notwithstanding, Stewart could "find no . . . general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."  The other dissenter was Hugo Black, a champion of freedom who saw what was coming. He too found Connecticut's contraceptives law absurd. But it is not the court's role to be "a day-to-day constitutional convention," he warned, and adopting a standard as loose as the "right to privacy" would set in motion "a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which . . . will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country."  http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/11/10/175035.html
problems that we as society and as individuals will have more control of. isn't that what liberals say they want more control by the people? but of course, that is just talk. liberals don't want the people to have control they only want people like themselves to have control.
And you only want people like yourself to have control. Yes and I will vote for such people. But I do not advocate usurping power through the courts to impose that will.
Like I said, one set of problems for another. Like I said the people will have control over those problems and what methods to utilize in resolving them. But you don't ant that. You want people like Ginsburg and Stevens to decide for everyone.Â
of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
That is called democracy. But I understand you are a person of limited perspective. Once again you indicate that you have no comprehension of the Constitution. Apparently you don't know why it was drafted the way it was or what is was supposed to accomplish. Your rights under the federal government were set out fairly clearly. But those were rights protected only against intrusion by the feds. The states had their own way of doing things and their own constitutions. And that is where you should look to have your "rights" addressed in most cases.
Then it's a good thing we live in a Republic. The fact is you aren't interested in either one you want an oligarchy.
Once again you indicate that you have no comprehension of the Constitution
The Constitution recognizes men's inalienable rights and was written to protect same. Protection from the federal government not the states, except in limited circumstances. that is what you can't or won't comprehend.
Your rights under the federal government were set out fairly clearly. But those were rights protected only against intrusion by the feds.
Look up the word "inalienable". It doesn't just cover the Feds. Like I said, you have no grasp of why the Constitution was written or what it was supposed to accomplish.
1. Virginia's Democratic governor-elect says his victory proves "people are more interested in fiscal responsibility than ideological bickering." In a contest considered a barometer of Republican influence, GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore was defeated by Democrat Tim Kaine despite an election-eve campaign appearance by President Bush. University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says there is "no way to spin" the results as nothing but a major defeat for the GOP and the president. Bush twice carried Virginia.
2. Corzine wins New Jersey governor's race. Key issues in the race were government corruption, and property taxes that are the highest in the nation. But the political mud fights drew most of the attention.
Forrester (actually) used criticism from Corzine's ex-wife in one campaign spot.
3. California voters have rejected four ballot measures backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special election. Voters also turned down three other measures, including competing measures on prescription drugs and one dealing with re-regulation of the power industry. Voters said NO to Schwarzenegger on a plan to turn over redistricting of legislative districts to a panel of three retired judges. Also rejected: Schwarzenegger's call for a state spending cap. (It would appear that Schwarzenegger should prepare for political EXILE.)
4. Cincinnati elects first black mayor - A Democrat
5. In Maine, voters turned away an attempt by conservatives to repeal a gay-rights law passed by the state legislature earlier this year. The law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
6. Finally (and as anyone should have expected) TEXAS voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It's already illegal in the state, but supporters of the amendment touted it as an extra safeguard.
The handwriting is on the wall. Neo-Conservatism is being rejected, all across the nation (with the exception of TEXAS, of course. Can't have any gay-birds with equal-rights there, after all).
"And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come."
I don't know about that.
" Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely."
I don't what this says about Bush, either. In the end, I'd say not much. But Kelly went down. I wish somehow Zellout Miller could have been taken down. But he threw his bombs as he was heading out the door, like a coward.
Well, in the two states where Bush actively promoted HIS choices, the candidates were soundly defeated. In Virginia they are blaming Gdubbya.
What sort of "Indication" in any election might cause you to say that the political pendulum is swinging BACK towards moderation and away from the conservative agenda?
I think I'd know it if I saw it. It's not in off-year elections, though.
When Harriet Miers got hounded out of her shot at the Supreme Court, you saw where the power is.
I don't think the pendulum has stopped swinging yet.
"It may sound silly, but Kelly was for Bush and I'm not," said retiree Audrey Guith after casting her vote for Coleman.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175003,00.html
Silly? No utterly stupid. But then democrats are mostly stupid. Thank God I no longer live with such ignorant people. Hell, I may never go back. I am sure as hell no going to spend any money in that town.
It would appear that MANY Democrats won, and decisively,all across the U.S. There were not that many elections and there is no indication of any strong sentiment toward democrats. You keep living in that fantasy land.Â
And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come. Not likely. Most people know that the democrats have little if any common sense. That is why they have been turned away in large numbers for the most of the last 10 years. it will keep happening because the face of the party is the face of people like you, crabs and pieter. Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely. I know you want to believe that but the fact is most elections are local. St. Paul being an anomaly. This fantasy that you and others of your ilk keep living is is the chief reason democrats have been removed from power over the last decade.
1. Virginia's Democratic governor-elect says his victory proves "people are more interested in fiscal responsibility than ideological bickering." Running away from the democrats. That is a good sign.GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore was defeated by Democrat Tim Kaine despite an election-eve campaign appearance by President Bush. University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says there is "no way to spin" the results as nothing but a major defeatfor the GOP and the president. Bush twice carried Virginia. Considering the seat was an open seat held by the democrats it really isn't a defeat for Bush. Keep spinning that fantasy web for yourself.Â
The handwriting is on the wall. Neo-Conservatism is being rejected, all across the nation (with the exception of TEXAS, of course. Can't have any gay-birds with equal-rights there, after all). You are one out of touch individual. You know Bush won reelection just one year ago. So even if your wacked out ideas had a scintilla of validity it has no bearing on next year. So, please do let us know what you "think" next November. Once the troops start coming home next fall democrats could even lose liberal strongholds.
"And it would appear that this is a clear indication of things to come."
I don't know about that. As I have always known the Rat has a better grasp on things than do his liberal cohorts. It may be wise to disassociate yourself from them, Rick.
" Justice? Perhaps. The result of faulty leadership from the White House? Surely."
I don't what this says about Bush, either. In the end, I'd say not much. But Kelly went down. I wish somehow Zellout Miller could have been taken down. Do you really think so? In Georgia?But he threw his bombs as he was heading out the door, like a coward. No he stood on principle.
"Once the troops start coming home next fall democrats could even lose liberal strongholds."
Do you think Bush plans to abandon the Iraqis to malevolent forces within the country so Republicans can score in the mid-term elections?
"Do you really think so? In Georgia? "
No, but like I said, I was just wishing.
Well, in the two states where Bush actively promoted HIS choices, the candidates were soundly defeated. In Virginia they are blamingGdubbya. Virginia replaced one democrat governor with another. It seems the problem may be with the Republican candidate for that office.
What sort of "Indication" in any election might cause you to say that the political pendulum is swinging BACK towards moderation and away from the conservative agenda? If you think you represent moderation you are much more mentally ill than I thought.
Do you think Bush plans to abandon the Iraqis to malevolent forces within the country so Republicans can score in the mid-term elections? No, I think within the next year that the Iraqi security forces will be able to handle a much larger role allowing a good number of troops to return.
Then why are you saying it will happen in the fall? Why not summer, why not winter?
Is there something magical about the period just before the elections? The time around Ramadan may be particularly tense.
Then why are you saying it will happen in the fall? Why not summer, why not winter? Because that is just how it is going to work out.  Of course, that the Iraqi forces are capable will become evident earlier than the fall, probably mid summer, but withdrawal will take time and it won't be a total withdrawl.
Is there something magical about the period just before the elections? Whether it starts in August or September it will be a gradual process that will continue for quite a while.
"Because that is just how it is going to work out."
Oh, OK. Â
And in further news, all eight incumbent Dover PA school board members -- the ones who decreed that "intelligent design" should be taught in high school biology classes -- were voted out of office.
Naw, but if it would get Bush 10 votes, Rove would cut your heart out and then go finish his lunch.
Now that's fucking "Loyalty"!
Speaking of loyalty, where's my loyal lap-dog, Bill Fold?
Clearly. The Bushes demand it.
You must be proud, considering it's your religion and all.
Oh, it's my religion, now.
I respect it.
There was a time when the nomination of someone with Judge Alito's high qualifications to be on the Supreme Court would be confirmed by the Senate with little discussion and the confirmation reported with little comment in the media. But that was in earlier times, when common decency could be taken for granted.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/11/09/174864.html
Recently, in Athens, Ohio, I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators – former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators – absolutely crazy. That idea is called “Marry Anything Day.”
The idea behind “Marry Anything Day” is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On “Marry Anything Day” you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy).
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2005/11/09/174866.html
Oh, it's my religion, now.
Not really. I think you give it more importance than it's due.
Of course, I've discovered the past few days that your selective in your respect for it.
Heard someone remark about Charles Colson, "If he'd run over his grandmother for Richard Nixon, what would he do for Jesus?"
"If he'd run over his grandmother for Richard Nixon, what would he do for Jesus?"
Hehehehehe
Now that's funny!
Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy
Â
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=6416&schedID=385
Looks like it could be time well spent.
Publishers Weekly:
Poor Morti. He thinks a couple of minor election wins = a mandate.
TFF!
the candidate that Bush publicly supported?
a problem?
yeah, I would say so.
Poor torp. He thinks that a squeaker of a presidential election win constitutes a mandate.
No, I believe that Torp feels that a Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House, and a soon to be conservative Supreme Court might just be a mandate.
If there is anything that is certain in American Politics right now, it is that there is no "Mandate" for anything.
What miracles should we expect with this mandate, CSC?
None, right now neither side is doing much for our interests.
I thought the role was to stay out of your business, not do something "for our interests" whatever that means.
"our interests" are to return to strict construction of the Constitution.
What good things will befall us then?
society, and even you as an individual, would have more control over the laws you are required to live under.
From contraceptives to same-sex marriage is a distance that no one 40 years ago could have imagined the courts would travel. The thread connecting them is Griswold's judicially concocted "right to privacy" -- amorphous, free-floating, and wonderfully handy for writing judges' personal opinions into constitutional law.Â
Â
"I think this is an uncommonly silly law," wrote Justice potter Stewart, one of the two dissenters in Griswold, of Connecticut's ban on contraceptives. But it is not the job of judges "to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine." A statute can be foolish and unfair without being unconstitutional. And the majority's penumbras and emanations notwithstanding, Stewart could "find no . . . general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."
Â
The other dissenter was Hugo Black, a champion of freedom who saw what was coming. He too found Connecticut's contraceptives law absurd. But it is not the court's role to be "a day-to-day constitutional convention," he warned, and adopting a standard as loose as the "right to privacy" would set in motion "a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which . . . will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country."
Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/11/10/175035.html
I think that's trading in one set of problems for another set of problems.
problems that we as society and as individuals will have more control of. isn't that what liberals say they want more control by the people? but of course, that is just talk. liberals don't want the people to have control they only want people like themselves to have control.
And you only want people like yourself to have control.
Like I said, one set of problems for another.
And you only want people like yourself to have control. Yes and I will vote for such people. But I do not advocate usurping power through the courts to impose that will.
Like I said, one set of problems for another. Like I said the people will have control over those problems and what methods to utilize in resolving them. But you don't ant that. You want people like Ginsburg and Stevens to decide for everyone.Â
of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
what good is that?
of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
That is called democracy. But I understand you are a person of limited perspective. Once again you indicate that you have no comprehension of the Constitution. Apparently you don't know why it was drafted the way it was or what is was supposed to accomplish. Your rights under the federal government were set out fairly clearly. But those were rights protected only against intrusion by the feds. The states had their own way of doing things and their own constitutions. And that is where you should look to have your "rights" addressed in most cases.
Then it's a good thing we live in a Republic.
The Constitution recognizes men's inalienable rights and was written to protect same.
Look up the word "inalienable". It doesn't just cover the Feds.
Then it's a good thing we live in a Republic. The fact is you aren't interested in either one you want an oligarchy.
The Constitution recognizes men's inalienable rights and was written to protect same. Protection from the federal government not the states, except in limited circumstances. that is what you can't or won't comprehend.
Look up the word "inalienable". It doesn't just cover the Feds. Like I said, you have no grasp of why the Constitution was written or what it was supposed to accomplish.
You can't even comprehend the word "inalienable", how I'm I supposed to believe you understand the rest of it?
Do you know where the term "inalienable" is found? It is simply a platitude that has no bearing on the specifics of the document.