An Observation

[Polk]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

 

[elvis]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

Climate, Polk...Climate. We've discussed that one quite a few times before.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

 

[Polk]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

Kerry's performance is stronger than I would have expected, but the weak economy was a largest factor in that. In House and Senate races, the outcome was pretty predictable. Republicans net four Senate seats based on open seat races in states that had been trending their way for a while anyway. The two races in swing states were Florida and Colorado, which the two parties split. On the House side, it was basically a wash.

 

[Modbert]

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

Yup, it was a election between Lurch and Uncle Fester. If that wasn't a example of bad choices, not sure what is.

 

[elvis]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

so being that the unjust war was so evil, they sold themselves for hillary?

 

[Modbert]

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

It was just another example of Democrats blowing it. They could of had easily won that election. Though they shot themselves in the foot by supporting the war, and then realizing "Oh shit! We made a mistake!" So when you go to the American people, they have the choice of Uncle Fester who stands by the war that hadn't gone to shit yet, or Lurch who was just simply terrible and said they made a horrible mistake. Hell, during the 2008 election I still thought somehow that they were going to blow it. Not to compare the two, but as a Red Sox fan it reminded me of them Pre-2004.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

it's not exactly legal to use either word. think hate crimes.

That's true, but as with all words, it's all about context.

For example: I can simply say the word fire in a conversation or whatever. However, if I yell it in a crowded movie theater, that's illegal.

For example: I can say, I hate "Black people" (sub the N word in there). That would be perfectly legal. However, if I say "I hate you "******" and I'm going to kill you. Then that would be a threat against one's life and illegal.

On the subject of Hate Crimes and their legality, that's a tough one.

Point of order here Bob...

"I hate you EDDY! And I'm going to KILL YOU!" Is a threat... and its illegal... that Eddy be black... don't add nuttin' to day threat.

'Hate crime' is nothing less than thought control; it serves against the principles of justice and is, in and of itself a detriment to the culture.

There's no crime in hating anything... as a matter of fact, there are many things that warrant being disliked intensely... Left-think is just one wonderful example of such... with dozens if not thousands of classic categories within it that deserve to be disliked... Now killing an advocate of Left-think, absent a sound moral justification is a crime... and it is a crime even when one ADORES Left-think... but is no more a crime because the person who acted without sound moral justification did so on their hatred of such advocates.

To imply that hate itself is a crime... is merely a means to promote the acceptance of that concept... PERIOD. And THAT is an abuse of power an immoral act which usurps the unalienable rights of the individual to freely think what they will... towards the pursuit of the fulfillment of their life... and as such is a crime unto itself; thus undermines the very concept of JUSTICE.

 

[Polk]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

Climate, Polk...Climate. We've discussed that one quite a few times before.

You're getting to the heart of the matter. Do I think the Republicans will pick up seats in 2010? Probably, because we'll be out of the recession but the employment picture will remain weak. That'll be the cause though, not a few people marching around with signs. It's not like the people at these protests are the mainstream of the nation. They're committed Republican partisans. Nothing wrong with that, but taking them as a reflection of the broader electorate would be an error.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

It was just another example of Democrats blowing it. Hell, during the 2008 election I still thought somehow that they were going to blow it. Not to compare the two, but as a Red Sox fan it reminded me of them Pre-2004.

The Pubs of 2008 were like the Dems of 2004, really.

 

[Polk]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

I think there was a surge in 2004. Kerry was just one of the worst candidates in history.

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

Absolutely. The environment at the early part of the cycle when people need to make decisions often doesn't look the same as the end stage. Same reason the list of candidates running for the Democratic nomination in 1992 wasn't the top tier of the party.

 

[Modbert]

The Pubs of 2008 were like the Dems of 2004, really.

The minute the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin as their Vice President, I knew they had given up.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Also, these small protests are emblematic of nothing. These protests point no more to a urge GOP upswing in 2010 (though the Republicans will more than likely gain seats in both houses) than anti-war protests in 2003 pointed to a Democratic surge in 2004.

Climate, Polk...Climate. We've discussed that one quite a few times before.

You're getting to the heart of the matter. Do I think the Republicans will pick up seats in 2010? Probably, because we'll be out of the recession but the employment picture will remain weak.

DELUSION ON PARADE KIDS... there is absolutely NOTHING on the horizin that indicates that the US will be anywhere NEAR 'out of the recession by November of 2010... ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH...

The Left will be kicked to the door in 2010... and with God's help... the US Legislature will be returned to the Americans... NON-MODERATE; ZEALOUS, UNAPOLOGETIC AMERICANS... who will send up bill after bill, rescinding bill after bill of the would-be STIMULOUS... Returning GM to Public ownership... rescinding compensation restrictions... cutting taxes, cutting government liability which is strangling the markets... and FORCE the BOY King to vote those bills or ADHERE TO THEM... where he can reincarnate himself as the 'First Black President' did...

Best grab a clue sis... or your going to suffer an enormous emotional hit next year.

 

[Polk]

Climate, Polk...Climate. We've discussed that one quite a few times before.

You're getting to the heart of the matter. Do I think the Republicans will pick up seats in 2010? Probably, because we'll be out of the recession but the employment picture will remain weak.

DELUSION ON PARADE KIDS... there is absolutely NOTHING on the horizin that indicates that the US will be anywhere NEAR 'out of the recession by November of 2010... ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH...

Yeah, nothing at all that points to it...

Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's economist.com, said the current recession, the most serious one since the Great Depression in 1930s, will end in 2009 followed by a weak growth in 2010 and a much stronger growth in 2011-12.

According to Zandi, the recession will end this year largely due to America's massive monetary and fiscal stimulus.

"The economy will come back in 2010, but it won't come roaring back next year as the still weak housing and vehicle markets and the troubled financial system will constrain the availability of credit to households and businesses," he said in a written interview.

"I do expect the US economy to enjoy much stronger growth in 2011-12 as these impediments to growth fade and growth in the rest of the world improves and lifts US exports," he explained.

US economist: recession will end this year

Or, alternatively, the report released last week.

The Federal Reserve’s survey of business conditions in the 12 Fed districts provides more evidence that the hardest-hitting recession since the Great Depression is over.

The San Francisco Fed region, along with districts based in Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va., noted “signs of improvement.” All regions except for St. Louis said business conditions are improving.

Federal Reserve’s beige book says recession possibly over - Sacramento Business Journal:

The Left will be kicked to the door in 2010... and with God's help... the US Legislature will be returned to the Americans... NON-MODERATE; ZEALOUS, UNAPOLOGETIC AMERICANS... who will send up bill after bill, rescinding bill after bill of the would-be STIMULOUS... Returning GM to Public ownership... rescinding compensation restrictions... cutting taxes, cutting government liability which is strangling the markets... and FORCE the BOY King to vote those bills or ADHERE TO THEM... where he can reincarnate himself as the 'First Black President' did...

Best grab a clue sis... or your going to suffer an enormous emotional hit next year.

I see the talk of delusion above was simply projection.

 

[Modbert]

The U.S. will be out of the recession by the end of 2010, however the jobs probably won't be there yet for the most part.

 

[elvis]

Kerry was a sacrificial lamb...I think the DNC had that in mind, because they thought Hillary would be their formidable choice in 2008 (and then of course, Obama came along, and he was on top with her).

It was just another example of Democrats blowing it. Hell, during the 2008 election I still thought somehow that they were going to blow it. Not to compare the two, but as a Red Sox fan it reminded me of them Pre-2004.

The Pubs of 2008 were like the Dems of 2004, really.

who is the repubs' "hillary"?

 

[Polk]

It was just another example of Democrats blowing it. Hell, during the 2008 election I still thought somehow that they were going to blow it. Not to compare the two, but as a Red Sox fan it reminded me of them Pre-2004.

The Pubs of 2008 were like the Dems of 2004, really.

who is the repubs' "hillary"?

Do you really need to ask?

 

[edthecynic]

I earned a political science degree back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Nevertheless, I had my world turned upside down in the past few months, especially yesterday. Contrary to my cynicism, way more Americans turned out yesterday to protest the out of control spending on the federal level than I could have dreamed of.

The implications of yesterday are huge heading into 2010. Unless something happens which make the average Joe or Jane believe the administration, which is unlikely, there will be a turnover in Congress the likes of which have not been seen in many a year, if ever.

I'm flattered that CON$ are now trying to pass themselves off as CYNICS.

 

[Modbert]

who is the repubs' "hillary"?

Well how do you define "hillary"? Someone who was suppose to win but lost?