NationStates Jolt Archive

Let the punditry begin. I'm just wondering what people in Nationstates think will happen coming up in the 2010 Congressional elections.

I am guessing not much. The repubs aren't going to make much headway and will probably loose more seats.

I am guessing from their antics and the fact they are desperately trying to make people think the party stands for other things.....

The people will cast their votes, the corporations will make the decisions, and the politicians will win.

ARRGH! WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION, CAN'T YOU PEOPLE GIVE IT A BREAK!?!?
http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/images/smilies/dilbert.gif

ARRGH! WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION, CAN'T YOU PEOPLE GIVE IT A BREAK!?!?
http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/images/smilies/dilbert.gif
I don't think many people around here get tired of politics :)

I don't think many people around here get tired of politics :)

The US... Just had... An election... Must we start another now? Why can't we debate about France's politics, or the UK's? Hell, I'll settle for 'My countries gun of choice is teh bestorz!11!!!', just please, NO MORE US ELECTION THREADS!

The US... Just had... An election... Must we start another now? Why can't we debate about France's politics, or the UK's? Hell, I'll settle for 'My countries gun of choice is teh bestorz!11!!!', just please, NO MORE US ELECTION THREADS!
Alright, sure, no more US election threads, oh for about a year?

Probably stasis to mild R increase (less than five House, zero Senate)

Republicans will run on concerns of 'unchecked power' and, presuming Obama's approval rating stays high, against Nancy Pelosi with a heavy lean on the old time religion of 'fiscal responsibility.'

The Democrats will run on a 'help us keep fixing this shit' platform.

Republicans will run on concerns of 'unchecked power' and, presuming Obama's approval rating stays high, against Nancy Pelosi with a heavy lean on the old time religion of 'fiscal responsibility.'

The Democrats will run on a 'help us keep fixing this shit' platform.

And if elected, they'll both do whatever they can to stay in power for another two years. Joy and happiness.:wink:

The US... Just had... An election... Must we start another now? Why can't we debate about France's politics, or the UK's? Hell, I'll settle for 'My countries gun of choice is teh bestorz!11!!!', just please, NO MORE US ELECTION THREADS!

Hugo Chavez -- who's *ahem* not the most stable of heads of state -- is up for reelection. Why do I feel that he'll cheat?

Hugo Chavez -- who's *ahem* not the most stable of heads of state -- is up for reelection. Why do I feel that he'll cheat?

Chavez is a fair and even-handed leader, he would never do such a thing!:tongue:

And if elected, they'll both do whatever they can to stay in power for another two years. Joy and happiness.:wink:

I called it first:

The people will cast their votes, the corporations will make the decisions, and the politicians will win.

I called it first:

Eh, you've got it wrong. Corporations will choose their candidate, voters will be lead like sheep to the slaughter, and half of the Politicians will win.

Hugo Chavez -- who's *ahem* not the most stable of heads of state -- is up for reelection. Why do I feel that he'll cheat?

because there is totally a wolf coming to eat us all. everybody panic!

Chavez is a fair and even-handed leader, he would never do such a thing!:tongue:

And here I am, unable to grab a screenshot from Tropico because my main computer is down!

And here I am, unable to grab a screenshot from Tropico because my main computer is down!

OH MY GOD! I wasn't the only one who bought that game!? :eek2:

Probably stasis to mild R increase (less than five House, zero Senate)

the senate is actually in for a weird run. this time there are 36 seats up rather than 33 or 34, and there's a whole pile of retiring republicans in increasingly blue states.

here's the map of which states have elections and who currently holds the seat. the pink states have retiring republicans, biden's replacement isn't running in deleware, and dark blue new york has both of its dem seats up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/2010_Senate_election_map.svg/320px-2010_Senate_election_map.svg.png

charlie crist just threw his hat in the ring in florida, which means the seat is more-or-less his if he survives the primary. which in turn depends on how purity minded the flalala conservatives are feeling.

as always, 538 has some good analysis on it all (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/senate-rankings-may-2009-edition.html), and this handy chart of which seats are most likely to flip.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/Sf6iPPgsgBI/AAAAAAAADPI/1kPnAvaQblg/S1600-R/2010senmay.PNG

Obama's actions will clearly show the difference between Democrats and the G0P which will push the G0P further into extinction.

Obama's actions will clearly show the difference between Democrats and the G0P which will push the G0P further into extinction.

One can only hope.

Barring a Spitzerlike incident, Schumer's invincible (they rank him as safer than everyone except Idaho's Crapo -- yes, that's the guy's name).

And even if something like that somehow happens, if it doesn't force him to resign, there's a decent chance of him keeping his seat -- remember, he's a popular democrat in a deep blue state who got a whopping 70% of the vote in 2004. Since any serious republicans will challenge the much-weaker Gillebrand instead, there's no reason to watch both elections there.

Only someone optimistic to the point of being delusional would vote that the Republicans will gain a majority.

Only someone optimistic to the point of being delusional would vote that the Republicans will gain a majority.

Indeed. According to electoral-vote.com, eleven senate seats (five democrat and six republican) are competitive. They'd have to retain all their six seats, take all five competitive democratic seats, and take six* (five if Coleman is STILL going at it) of the "safe democrat" seats.

*If they only take five, it'll be split 50-50, with VP Biden as the tiebreaker.

What will happen in 2010 US Congressional elections?

People will get elected

http://www.rudezone.net/images/notThisShitAgain.gif

Can't we wait until October at least? I also second talking about non United States elections.

Al Franken still won't be able to join the senate.

Really? Really?

A year and a half before the elections happen?

Christ.

Al Franken still won't be able to join the senate.

LoL I think your right! We will only have 99 senators from now till doomsday!

The US... Just had... An election... Must we start another now? Why can't we debate about France's politics, or the UK's? Hell, I'll settle for 'My countries gun of choice is teh bestorz!11!!!', just please, NO MORE US ELECTION THREADS!

Just for that, I'm gonna start a new one every day.

Just for that, I'm gonna start a new one every day.http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/harakiri9/Elections-1.jpg

The US... Just had... An election... Must we start another now? Why can't we debate about France's politics, or the UK's? Hell, I'll settle for 'My countries gun of choice is teh bestorz!11!!!', just please, NO MORE US ELECTION THREADS!
Clearly, the rest of those countries just don't matter. As much as they would like them to have a place in the world, they'll always be runners-up to the US. At least until Obama destroys the economy and turns the rule of law upside down.

But 2010? We won't have felt the complete effect of Obama's conversion to a third world nation, yet. I expect the Democrats will pick up seats in both houses and in several states gubernatorial races.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/harakiri9/Elections-1.jpg

The font type makes that fail. I could barely read it, and if you can't read it it's just a random picture.

The font type makes that fail. I could barely read it, and if you can't read it it's just a random picture.It's not my fault you can barely read the font.

Photoshop is there for you if you want to change it. :p

Also, it's "Fantasy" font. Which would seem to impart that the message contained within is just that. ;)

The font type makes that fail. I could barely read it, and if you can't read it it's just a random picture.

It's from V for Vendetta. -.-

Really? Really?

A year and a half before the elections happen?

Christ.

important stuff is happening now. the races are starting to take shape as people decide to run or retire, for example. and sometimes the polling looks so bad in the primary for one candidate that he just changes party.

sure, only junkies care. but this place is crawling with those sorts.

It's from V for Vendetta. -.-

Yeah, I know that. I couldn't read the font.

Yeah, I know that. I couldn't read the font.

But it's still not random! :mad:

GOP wins seats because some people will feel Obama hasn't done enough, though they fail to get a majority because enough Americans are sane to recognize a pitiful troll party when they see one (the GOP's latest stunts include criticizing Obama for the type of mustard on his burger. No fucking joke).

At least, that's what I'd bet on. Its really too early to tell. The GOP is so pathetic right now that I can easily imagine them actually losing seats, but I'd rather err on the side of pessimism.

GOP will win a few seats if anything just because Americans distrust one party having the ability to be filibuster proof.

But it's still not random! :mad:

STOP YELLING AT ME! :mad:

GOP will win a few seats if anything just because Americans distrust one party having the ability to be filibuster proof.

by what mechanism do you propose that they'll do this? i mean, surely you don't think that "vote for me rather than 70% approval guy because it just might maybe sort of counterbalance some arcane senate rule" is a winning campaign, right?

IMHO, it's still a bit early for predictions.

I know that I'd like to see some checks on this Administration. Then, I have to admit that the indoctrination of the press over the years has been masterful. When the President walks into the press room, they all stand and cheer. At this last White House correspndants dinner, no ribbing of the Prez at all.

by what mechanism do you propose that they'll do this? i mean, surely you don't think that "vote for me rather than 70% approval guy because it just might maybe sort of counterbalance some arcane senate rule" is a winning campaign, right?

Because they are the minority party and it's mid terms and there will be persistently high unemployment by next november.

If real healthcare reform gets pulled off it might be different. But I doubt that'll happen.

So yeah, that might be a winning strategy.

I certainly can't see the Republicans winning any more seats unless they really shape up (which I find highly unlikely).

I also can't see the Democrats doing nearly as well as they did in the previous elections unless the Economy really does start to turn around or Obama gives every American a slice of pie.

I think this may be the term we see a viable third party. I'm thinking a Libertarian-lite party might put up a showing, perhaps the Modern Whigs.

Because they are the minority party and it's mid terms and there will be persistently high unemployment by next november.

If real healthcare reform gets pulled off it might be different. But I doubt that'll happen.

So yeah, that might be a winning strategy.

that's a totally different strategy. and it relies on some particular senator taking the blame for things among his constituents. the chris dodd vulnerability, if you will.

effectively nobody votes on whether or not their senator will be numerically important.

that's a totally different strategy. and it relies on some particular senator taking the blame for things among his constituents. the chris dodd vulnerability, if you will.

effectively nobody votes on whether or not their senator will be numerically important.

My point is that they probably won't need a strategy. Absent some epic fuck up like another assault weapons ban they'll probably have no chance of winning back any form of control, so their best option is to do nothing and pick up maybe a couple of seats from the inevitable disgruntlement.

But yeah, nobody will actually vote for a senator (well hardly anyone) based on the filibuster. Though it will provide a good talking point to fill up air time.

I'm sure they don't really give much of a shit anyway. Who wants to pretend to run things during a lost decade?

Clearly, the rest of those countries just don't matter. As much as they would like them to have a place in the world, they'll always be runners-up to the US. At least until Obama destroys the economy and turns the rule of law upside down.

You mean turns the rule of law back up, right? Oh, right. You were asleep during the last eight years.

At least, that would explain some of the really delusional, stupid shit you say. Either that, or being a liar.

I've done a little research since my last post on the topic and can comfortably say that the Republican Party will gain seats.

IMHO, practically all of the Democrat Party Representatives and Senators rode to office on President Obama's coat-tails. Mid-term voter turnout will not be nearly as high without the Obama novelty.

I've done a little research since my last post on the topic and can comfortably say that the Republican Party will gain seats.

IMHO, practically all of the Democrat Party Representatives and Senators rode to office on President Obama's coat-tails. Mid-term voter turnout will not be nearly as high without the Obama novelty.

the house you may be right. Senators are elected to 6 years terms. that means those up for election in 2010 were voted in in 2004. Which if anything puts them in Bush's coattails.

At least until Obama destroys the economy and turns the rule of law upside down.


How can you destroy what has already been destroyed?

How can you destroy what has already been destroyed?

right now we are slighty better then the 1970's... we could turn this into the 1930's.

right now we are slighty better then the 1970's... we could turn this into the 1930's.

Time will tell.

The shrub would have put us there for sure. I am curious what the President's actions will result.

IMHO, practically all of the Democrat Party Representatives and Senators rode to office on President Obama's coat-tails.

Which is why a lot of them were elected in the 2006 election, right?

I mean, sure, it can be your honest opinion, but that doesnt make it any less missinformed.

Time will tell.

The shrub would have put us there for sure. I am curious what the President's actions will result.

If he tells the treasury secretary to mess with the economy to get a Scotus ruling he wants, like FDR, I will not be amused.

If he tells the treasury secretary to mess with the economy to get a Scotus ruling he wants, like FDR, I will not be amused.

Ahh you are one of those "free market" types no?

I don't believe a "free market" is possible. People will cheat all the time......

Ahh you are one of those "free market" types no?

I don't believe a "free market" is possible. People will cheat all the time......

There is a difference between moving toward socialized medicine(and the likely), and telling the treasury secretary to cause currency exchange issues so the economy worsens and Scotus rules that you can seize private gold caches.

Time will tell.

The shrub would have put us there for sure. I am curious what the President's actions will result.
When you consider the action is borrowing 50 cents out of every dollar spent, I don't think the results will be good.

When you consider the action is borrowing 50 cents out of every dollar spent, I don't think the results will be good.

Even more so when China doesn't want to buy any more bonds.

Even more so when China doesn't want to buy any more bonds.
I always wonder what happens when all the people we borrow money from want it back. The US government can't gaff off foreign debt like they can debt to citizens. So what happens when China presents all these IOUs?

I always wonder what happens when all the people we borrow money from want it back. The US government can't gaff off foreign debt like they can debt to citizens. So what happens when China presents all these IOUs?

Well they are bonds so they are on a time frame normally 20 or 30 years for most of our debt. Paying them back is normally automatically part of the budget the year it comes due. If it can't pay back the debt the government borrows more to pay back the debt. And if they can't find people to buy borrow from again the Federal reserve buys the debt (by printing money).

I always wonder what happens when all the people we borrow money from want it back. The US government can't gaff off foreign debt like they can debt to citizens. So what happens when China presents all these IOUs?

Mortgage rates at 15%+ obviously. Plan accordingly, because it will happen.

Which is why a lot of them were elected in the 2006 election, right?

I mean, sure, it can be your honest opinion, but that doesnt make it any less missinformed.

There is a BIG historical pattern at work. In recent history, the mid-terms lost seats for these two-term President: Bush (43), Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, and Eisenhower.

I can't yet explain the "why" of it, but that's the way things have been in the last fifty-five years.

Mortgage rates at 15%+ obviously. Plan accordingly, because it will happen.

And people thought I was a fool wanting a fixed rate.....

There is a BIG historical pattern at work. In recent history, the mid-terms lost seats for these two-term President: Bush (43), Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, and Eisenhower.

I can't yet explain the "why" of it, but that's the way things have been in the last fifty-five years.

The coattails effect is more of a house of Representative thing.
the senate effect is a more of a blame the party who's president is in power thing.

And people thought I was a fool wanted a fixed rate.....
The problem is for those getting new loans... The late '70s, early '80s weren't fun times for borrowers.

I always wonder what happens when all the people we borrow money from want it back. The US government can't gaff off foreign debt like they can debt to citizens. So what happens when China presents all these IOUs?

Nothing, because it wouldn't happen.

It's another one of those cases of being 'too big to fail'. China has far too much invested in the US to let it just fall over, so they'll never demand a massive repayment. They will - however - use huge debt as leverage... which is why we'll never give China that hard a time over human rights (apart from how that would look in light of our own recent past), and why we'll never fight them that hard on issues like Taiwan.

charlie crist just threw his hat in the ring in florida, which means the seat is more-or-less his if he survives the primary. which in turn depends on how purity minded the flalala conservatives are feeling.

well well
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/12/730604/-FL-Sen:-The-primary-battle-lines-are-being-drawn

Why can't we debate about France's politics...
No one cares about France. Damned stuck up frogs.

I think that the Republicans will pick up a few seats but not enough for a majority in the House. No everyone will be thrilled to learn that the Obama administration tried to balance the budget by borrowing and printing money.

Nothing, because it wouldn't happen.

It's another one of those cases of being 'too big to fail'. China has far too much invested in the US to let it just fall over, so they'll never demand a massive repayment. They will - however - use huge debt as leverage... which is why we'll never give China that hard a time over human rights (apart from how that would look in light of our own recent past), and why we'll never fight them that hard on issues like Taiwan.
That's probably the best case and most optimistic view of the situation. Wish I looked at the world with that kind of filter.

You mean turns the rule of law back up, right? Oh, right. You were asleep during the last eight years.

At least, that would explain some of the really delusional, stupid shit you say. Either that, or being a liar.
Clearly you aren't too worried about the actions of the Obama administration related to the Chrysler bankruptcy, i.e. which debts get paid first.

Clearly you aren't too worried about the actions of the Obama administration related to the Chrysler bankruptcy, i.e. which debts get paid first.

A bit to early to call that, though he did handle the attempted deal incompetently. He tried to screw over the group that would likely gain the most from bankruptcy court, and lose the most from the deal. Then acted surprised they didn't take the deal and tried to shame them into changing their minds by calling them greedy.

We will see how the courts handle this, looks like the government will be at the end of the line instead of the head of it under Obama's deal.

ARRGH! WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION, CAN'T YOU PEOPLE GIVE IT A BREAK!?!?
http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/images/smilies/dilbert.gif

Elections for the European parliament are coming up soon. You could try and start a thread on that.

A bit to early to call that, though he did handle the attempted deal incompetently. He tried to screw over the group that would likely gain the most from bankruptcy court, and lose the most from the deal. Then acted surprised they didn't take the deal and tried to shame them into changing their minds by calling them greedy.

We will see how the courts handle this, looks like the government will be at the end of the line instead of the head of it under Obama's deal.
The direction isn't going well. First we have Obama 'firing' CEOs. Congress tells them how to travel. Obama 'decides' which creditors get paid first. Now Obama tells (http://adage.com/article?article_id=136552)Chrysler how much to spend on advertising.

None of these are proper functions of government. In a pre-Obama world, these last two events would have been handled by bankruptcy trustees and judges. But not during the rule of Obama...The rule of law just doesn't apply.

That's probably the best case and most optimistic view of the situation. Wish I looked at the world with that kind of filter.

That 'filter' is called 'being objective and realistic'.

I've wished you looked at the world with that kind of filter, too.

That 'filter' is called 'being objective and realistic'.

I've wished you looked at the world with that kind of filter, too.

I don't think it's a matter of them dumping all their debt, more a case of them not being able to fund the gap. It's almost inevitable that they are going to have to substantially slow, or even halt, purchases of US government debt given the state of international trade. Which will pretty much end up with the same result.

It's not really a question of too big to fail. More that the way the RMB works leaves little room for discretion. Personally I think they've written off a substantial amount of their holdings already. Hence the dash for commodities.

Japan is talking about samurai bonds too.

In any event, the average maturity of US gov debt is 4.3 years. So shit hits the fan sooner than later. Which makes talk of all these backstops rather laughable.

At least until Obama destroys the economy and turns the rule of law upside down.

Bush did both those things, and Obama's reversing his policies. Do you really want to set up a boke-tsukkomi routine?

None of these are proper functions of government. In a pre-Obama world, these last two events would have been handled by bankruptcy trustees and judges. But not during the rule of Obama...The rule of law just doesn't apply.
The current US administration is acting illegally?

The current US administration is acting illegally?

When the President does it, it's not illegal.

The current US administration is acting illegally?

Over the Chrysler thing, maybe. It's changing the priority of the capital structure (or at least strong arming people into it) so arguably its taking without due process.

Most people these days don't care about that sort of thing though.

When the President does it, it's not illegal.
I heard someone say that, once. I laughed then, just as I laugh now.

I heard someone say that, once. I laughed then, just as I laugh now.

I heard someone say it once, and thought I'd never hear it again. Then I heard it in a movie. Then I heard it from a member of the last administration.

That whole thing about 'not learning from history'. Yeah. People need to learn that one.

The direction isn't going well. First we have Obama 'firing' CEOs. Congress tells them how to travel. Obama 'decides' which creditors get paid first. Now Obama tells (http://adage.com/article?article_id=136552)Chrysler how much to spend on advertising.

None of these are proper functions of government. In a pre-Obama world, these last two events would have been handled by bankruptcy trustees and judges. But not during the rule of Obama...The rule of law just doesn't apply.

Republicans....Rule of law......Republicans......Rule of law?

Can those words be used in the same sentence?


So tell me how would your man the shrub have done it better?

Republicans....Rule of law......Republicans......Rule of law?

Can those words be used in the same sentence?


So tell me how would your man the shrub have done it better?
What the hell is it with this either/or mentality. Isn't it possible to detest both Obama AND GWB? Or don't you have the intellectual capacity to understand that?

What the hell is it with this either/or mentality. Isn't it possible to detest both Obama AND GWB? Or don't you have the intellectual capacity to understand that?

In all fairness, it's quite possible that Obama can basically do anything he wants, right now, and be 'covered', thanks to Bush.

Unless that 'state of emergency' that the Bush admin declared has been terminated? (If it has, I missed it).

What the hell is it with this either/or mentality. Isn't it possible to detest both Obama AND GWB? Or don't you have the intellectual capacity to understand that?

Well, you usually spout anybody but a democrat.

For that matter I remember you defending the shrub in the early days and had loser comments about the demos and the people that supported them.

It's rather amusing to see how many shrub supporters are now saying he wasn't really their guy.....

Ugh, politics.:mad:

Well, you usually spout anybody but a democrat.

For that matter I remember you defending the shrub in the early days and had loser comments about the demos and the people that supported them.

It's rather amusing to see how many shrub supporters are now saying he wasn't really their guy.....
I defended exactly two things -- his defense of the nation, with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his tax cuts.

I challenge you to find anything else.

Demos? Oh, you mean Democrats. Well they are losers. They nominated and elected a loser. A great number of losers, as a matter of fact. That doesn't mean I like Republicans any more. They're just not ruling the nation right now.

Assuming the Republicans keep up with the direction they're going right now, they'll lose seats. Their current strategy is to loudly refuse to do anything productive while engaging in childish name-calling. ("Let's re-brand the Democratic Party as the Democrat Socialist Party! HAR HAR HAR HAR!") Nobody is much impressed.

However, I do not underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to completely and utterly fail at everything. It's equally likely that the Dems will decide that they need to cow-tow to everything the Republicans demand, for fear of being called nasty names by Faux News, and will squander the mandate they've been given. Right now, the way for the Democrats to hold power is to categorically reject absolutely everything proposed by Republicans, without compromise, but I doubt they'll have the sense to do it.

his defense of the nation, with the war in (...) Iraq

From the WMDs that weren't there, from the nation that didn't attack him or from the 9/11 hijackers who weren't Iraqi?

Assuming the Republicans keep up with the direction they're going right now, they'll lose seats. Their current strategy is to loudly refuse to do anything productive while engaging in childish name-calling. ("Let's re-brand the Democratic Party as the Democrat Socialist Party! HAR HAR HAR HAR!") Nobody is much impressed.

One thing that the Republican party could do to resurrect themselves in a big way would be to come out campaigning for the Fair Tax. Whether one personally likes it, or not, it would still be an issue that breaks completely with the Democratic party, doesn't involve religion, and inspires a good number of people already.

From the WMDs that weren't there, from the nation that didn't attack him or from the 9/11 hijackers who weren't Iraqi?
How many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the US since September 11, 2001? It's definitely not open season on NYC anymore.

One thing that the Republican party could do to resurrect themselves in a big way would be to come out campaigning for the Fair Tax. Whether one personally likes it, or not, it would still be an issue that breaks completely with the Democratic party, doesn't involve religion, and inspires a good number of people already.

Don't nobody die of shock, here, but I'm gonna agree with this.

I think the only possible way for the Republican Party to save itself is to quietly abandon the culture wars. They lost, it's over, and the only way they can prevent themselves from becoming an irrelevant minority party is by simply declining to focus on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and anything that is remotely related in any way to immigration or race. Those are losing issues for them. Let the issues die out. Stop giving air time and attention to anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-brown crusaders. Don't flat-out say they're wrong or you don't support them, just weasel out of talking to them and refuse to give any substantive responses on their issues. It's very easy to to; Dems have been doing it for years with the pro sides of those issues.

Instead of fighting the losing battle over "culture," the GOP should pick very clearly defined economic issues to champion. Note: this is entirely different from their current strategy of basically saying "Nuh-Uh!" to anything Democrats propose, or howling incoherently about how Taxes R Bad. The Republicans need to pick a clear issue (or even two or three) and advocate FOR those, including laying out very specific explanations, justifications, and strategies to support their plans. They need to emphasize BALANCING THE BUDGET, and remember that most Americans right now are simply not going to buy that you can cut taxes and magically the economy will get all better. They need to show, not just tell, how their plan is going to make jobs, provide health care, improve education, and generally give the citizens of this country the things they want.

And, just FYI Myrm, it pretty much all does come right back to Dubya, because he's the #1 reason why the Republicans need to abandon everything they've been doing for the last 20 years. Bush was the ultimate manifestation of all those Republican beliefs and values and promises...and America damn well hated it. It's going to take at least a generation to repair the damage that the Bush administration did to the GOP, if it ever gets repaired at all, and the only way to fix things is going to be to get rid of every identifiable link to the disastrous reign of Bush The Lesser.

How many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the US since September 11, 2001? It's definitely not open season on NYC anymore.

And you really think it's the rock that kept away the tigers?

The Iraq War, besides being a horrible crime, made you less safe.

And you really think it's the rock that kept away the tigers?

The Iraq War, besides being a horrible crime, made you less safe.

I disagree. The wars in Ashcanistan and Iraq have kept Al-Quaida terrorists off balance and unable to plan or execute. What notable atrocities have they committed anywhere, besides in theater, since we started the SWA offensive?

I'm more worried about the BATF and the IRS than I am about Al-Quaida.

I disagree. The wars in Ashcanistan and Iraq have kept Al-Quaida terrorists off balance and unable to plan or execute. What notable atrocities have they committed anywhere, besides in theater, since we started the SWA offensive?

I'm more worried about the BATF and the IRS than I am about Al-Quaida.

There were no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before the war, the war skyrocketed the recruiting of Al Qaeda, and, most important, where the hell are the WMDs?

How many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the US since September 11, 2001? It's definitely not open season on NYC anymore.
Of course, it was about ten and a half years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11, longer than it has been since 9/11 so far. Yet I don't see you arguing that Bill Clinton's policies kept us all safe until Bush et al. decided to stop paying attention to terrorism and ignore clear warnings.

There were no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before the war, the war skyrocketed the recruiting of Al Qaeda, and, most important, where the hell are the WMDs?
As far as I know, the WMDs are buried in the sand, in Syria, or figments of someone's imagination. Doesn't especially matter anymore. We're sort of committed to a successful outcome.

And it's slowly happening. Probably the best thing about Obama's election is that the press will do anything to make him look good. That means more positive stories from SWA. That can only help.

But back to my question... When has Al-Quaida done anything besides hide from us? With the exclusion of actions in the war zone, of course.

Of course, it was about ten and a half years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11, longer than it has been since 9/11 so far. Yet I don't see you arguing that Bill Clinton's policies kept us all safe until Bush et al. decided to stop paying attention to terrorism and ignore clear warnings.

Nice one!

Of course, it was about ten and a half years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11, longer than it has been since 9/11 so far. Yet I don't see you arguing that Bill Clinton's policies kept us all safe until Bush et al. decided to stop paying attention to terrorism and ignore clear warnings.
Because Clinton had no policy. Except for reacting to polls and focus groups.

As far as I know, the WMDs are buried in the sand, in Syria, or figments of someone's imagination. Doesn't especially matter anymore. We're sort of committed to a successful outcome.

But back to my question... When has Al-Quaida done anything besides hide from us? With the exclusion of actions in the war zone, of course.

1- Yes, it does matter. No, you won't have a successful outcome.

2- That was IN SPITE of the Iraq War, not because of it.

Because Clinton had no policy. Except for reacting to polls and focus groups.

Neither did Bush, except for attacking random countries.

How many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the US since September 11, 2001? It's definitely not open season on NYC anymore.

as opposed to the previous normal situation, where they pulled off such attacks weekly, eh?

How many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the US since September 11, 2001? It's definitely not open season on NYC anymore.

Dozens.

I disagree. The wars in Ashcanistan and Iraq have kept Al-Quaida terrorists off balance and unable to plan or execute. What notable atrocities have they committed anywhere, besides in theater, since we started the SWA offensive?

I'm more worried about the BATF and the IRS than I am about Al-Quaida.

The fact that you don't pay attention to anything that happens outside of a tiny scope, would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

We're at war in Iraq (based on false intelligence) and in Afghanistan based on shadows. We've been pretty sure that bin Ladin wasn't in Afghanistan for almost the entire time we've been involved there.

Why is it so funny? Or tragic? Because you've clearly forgotten that us being entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan is what Osama openly said he wanted.

Remember back in 2004 when Osama described how the mujahedeen defeated the soviets? The comments about how Al Qaeda's 'war' only has to consist of sending two mujahedeen 'east' carrying a flag with 'al qaeda' written on it, and the US will respond with force?

Remember how he said that the combined tactics of guerrilla war and economic attrition defeated one superpower, and they were going to defeat another?

Remember how he said they were going to continue the same tactics until they bled America to the point of bankruptcy?


Al Qaeda won.

We're at war in Iraq (based on false intelligence)

need to update this line to fully encompass what went down. bush and cheney were actually ordering people be tortured to produce some of this false intelligence.

The fact that you don't pay attention to anything that happens outside of a tiny scope, would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

We're at war in Iraq (based on false intelligence) and in Afghanistan based on shadows. We've been pretty sure that bin Ladin wasn't in Afghanistan for almost the entire time we've been involved there.

Why is it so funny? Or tragic? Because you've clearly forgotten that us being entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan is what Osama openly said he wanted.

Remember back in 2004 when Osama described how the mujahedeen defeated the soviets? The comments about how Al Qaeda's 'war' only has to consist of sending two mujahedeen 'east' carrying a flag with 'al qaeda' written on it, and the US will respond with force?

Remember how he said that the combined tactics of guerrilla war and economic attrition defeated one superpower, and they were going to defeat another?

Remember how he said they were going to continue the same tactics until they bled America to the point of bankruptcy?


Al Qaeda won.

No denying that to all appearences, Al Qaeda has had the upper hand so far. Partly due to there cleverness, and partly due to Bush's stupidity and gross incompetence in the way he fought the war.

However, Afghanistan is not only about Bin Laden. He was clearly there at one point, but weather he is or not, he had a sizable base of opperations there that needed to be dismantled. Never mind the current fears of the Taliban taking Pakistan and gaining nuclear weapons. So attacking the war in Afghanistan based on Bin Laden having left the place (unconfirmed as far as I know), is ignorance at best and dishonesty at worst. It is not "based on shadows."

Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same war. I don't know if you meant to suggest otherwise, but I'll say it now anyways. Too many people seem to attack both wars in the same breath, and too many seem to forget that they have very different justifications and involve somewhat different situations.

need to update this line to fully encompass what went down. bush and cheney were actually ordering people be tortured to produce some of this false intelligence.

Horribly, that's not the most important part, though.

We got suckered into the middle east in a massive petroleum fuelled war, by people who own the petroleum. We ran from one corner of the world to another hunting ghosts.

The fact that our elected leaders acted like brutal dictators is part of the shame of our nation, but the bigger part is that they did it while acting as puppets.

No denying that to all appearences, Al Qaeda has had the upper hand so far. Partly due to there cleverness, and partly due to Bush's stupidity and gross incompetence in the way he fought the war.

However, Afghanistan is not only about Bin Laden. He was clearly there at one point, but weather he is or not, he had a sizable base of opperations there that needed to be dismantled. Never mind the current fears of the Taliban taking Pakistan and gaining nuclear weapons. So attacking the war in Afghanistan based on Bin Laden having left the place (unconfirmed as far as I know), is ignorance at best and dishonesty at worst. It is not "based on shadows."

Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same war. I don't know if you meant to suggest otherwise, but I'll say it now anyways. Too many people seem to attack both wars in the same breath, and too many seem to forget that they have very different justifications and involve somewhat different situations.

I pointed out that the two wars were separate, by pointing out that one was based on lies, and one was just fighting shadows.

Afghanistan isn't about bin Ladin at all - it's about the Taliban. Iraq isn't about bin Ladin at all, it's about Saddam, and then cleaning up the shitstorm we made. The previous administration made a habit of confusing Islam, Taliban, al qaeda, and 'the Middle East' as though they were talking about the same thing. I assume it was deliberate, because otherwise it was idiocy of an earthshattering proportion.

So - in a way you are right (as I said), but in a way you are wrong - 'both wars' are the same thing in as much as they were ideological wars that were never really attacking (or only attacking, incidentally) 'terror'.

We've long suspected that Osama was in the territory that claims both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We think he's been in Afghanistan at some points since 9/11. But that's it. We've not been fighting Osama in Afghanistan - so it's a little ironic that you talk about 'him leaving' as ignorance or dishonesty.

We shouldn't have reacted to 9/11 as we did. We shouldn't have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have attacked Saddam in Iraq. If we wanted to respond to al qaeda, we should have targetted al qaeda... but we never really have, except as an incidental.

I pointed out that the two wars were separate, by pointing out that one was based on lies, and one was just fighting shadows.

True, but false.;)

Afghanistan isn't about bin Ladin at all - it's about the Taliban.

Its about both. They are allies you know, or were. And how is the issue of a nuclear Taliban not a reason to keep fighting their?

Iraq isn't about bin Ladin at all, it's about Saddam, and then cleaning up the shitstorm we made.

Did I ever say otherwise?

The previous administration made a habit of confusing Islam, Taliban, al qaeda, and 'the Middle East' as though they were talking about the same thing. I assume it was deliberate, because otherwise it was idiocy of an earthshattering proportion.

Well, Bush was an incompetent S.O.B.

So - in a way you are right (as I said), but in a way you are wrong - 'both wars' are the same thing in as much as they were ideological wars that were never really attacking (or only attacking, incidentally) 'terror'.

Whatever other, perhaps less honorable motives were behind it, Afghanistan was conducted against terrorists and their state backers, in response to a terrorist attack on America. Unless you're a 911 Truther, of course.;)

We've long suspected that Osama was in the territory that claims both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We think he's been in Afghanistan at some points since 9/11. But that's it. We've not been fighting Osama in Afghanistan - so it's a little ironic that you talk about 'him leaving' as ignorance or dishonesty.

We're fighting his men, his movement and ideology. He doesn't have to personally be leading in the field for us to be fighting him.

We shouldn't have reacted to 9/11 as we did. We shouldn't have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Well frankly I'm glad to see them go. But if we could have got Bin Laden, his top aids, and his bases by diplomatic means, maybe we should have. In that case, however, please show that we could have done so.

We shouldn't have attacked Saddam in Iraq. If we wanted to respond to al qaeda, we should have targetted al qaeda... but we never really have, except as an incidental.

We have, though Iraq was a poorly handled, falsely justified distraction.

In theory, I have no problem with booting Sadam, mind. In practice, though, it was a cluster fuck that distracted from dealing with Al Qaeda and probably helped them significantly.

True, but false.;)



Its about both. They are allies you know, or were. And how is the issue of a nuclear Taliban not a reason to keep fighting their?



Did I ever say otherwise?



Well, Bush was an incompetent S.O.B.



Whatever other, perhaps less honorable motives were behind it, Afghanistan was conducted against terrorists and their state backers, in response to a terrorist attack on America. Unless you're a 911 Truther, of course.;)



We're fighting his men, his movement and ideology. He doesn't have to personally be leading in the field for us to be fighting him.



Well frankly I'm glad to see them go. But if we could have got Bin Laden, his top aids, and his bases by diplomatic means, maybe we should have. In that case, however, please show that we could have done so.



We have, though Iraq was a poorly handled, falsely justified distraction.

In theory, I have no problem with booting Sadam, mind. In practice, though, it was a cluster fuck that distracted from dealing with Al Qaeda and probably helped them significantly.

You're making the same mistake Bush made. Osama isn't the Taliban.

And they've no incentive to help us find him - indeed, if we've done anything with our ideology, it's give the Taliban, al qaeda, and previously non-affiliated Islam - reasons to find common ground against us.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck. After 9/11 we should have followed the money - which would have taken us to SA. We should have applied pressure to the Taliban, and probably would have got Osama handed to us.

If we end up with a nuclear Taliban, it's our fault.