Reps will have at least 51 seats :) - Page 3

11-06-2002, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar
These next two years are going to be really interesting.

Exactly.

And it all starts tonight. Or last night.

As high of cloud or whatever as Bush is riding, your right about the war with Iraq. That could certainly cost him the election. As popular as the war on terror makes him now the war with Iraq could change it all really quick.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

I admit, I don't know enough about politics to piece together much of an argument on how the economy is Clinton's fault other than to say that it is more logical to blame it on Clinton since he was in office when the seeds of economic ruin were sown.

Clinton is the one who fixed the economy after dumb ass Bush Sr. destroyed it. Like father, like son. Like '92, like '04.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gore is the President
yep, looks like the republicans have once again cheated their way into total control of the United States. time

http://home.nyu.edu/~sag249/gore2004.jpg

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:18 AM

And let's just all keep in mind that the division of seats is still very close...it's not like the Repubs have taken over by a huge majority. And it's not like any of the Repubs won by a landslide...all the races have been very very close.

cozmic · 11-06-2002, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by So very sad about me

conservatives blame clinton, democrats go "YOU FUCKING MORON BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH"

I'd say its about even.
That's why i voted libertarian

Yay!

I like a woman who is willing to deviate!

The Omega Concern · 11-06-2002, 05:22 AM

The bright side of all this... The chances of a backlash in 2004 are very likely...Democrat for president.

LOL!!!

Blue Star, lemme guess. You're a paid Democratic consultant, right?

The Dem party is in disarray and its not likely it'll be together in 2004.

cozmic · 11-06-2002, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
The bright side of all this... The chances of a backlash in 2004 are very likely...Democrat for president.

LOL!!!

Blue Star, lemme guess. You're a paid Democratic consultant, right?

The Dem party is in disarray and its not likely it'll be together in 2004.

WELCOME TO NETPHORIA

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
The Dem party is in disarray and its not likely it'll be together in 2004.

Unless there is a MAJOR turnaround in the economy, there are no more Enron, WorldCom scandals, we do not go to war with Iraq, and Bin Laden's head is hanging from the Brooklyn Bridge, Bush will lose in 2004.

Irrelevant · 11-06-2002, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
I love it when you liberals throw around whatever the phrase of the day. This year it's "civil liberties."

What "civil liberties" are you actually worried about Republicans taking from you?

If Democrats were so concerned about civil liberties, why did the candidates not make that a major issue during this year's election?

i'm not a liberal, dumbass.

civil liberties: supreme justices, "war on terrorism", cloning and stem cell research, continuance of ridiculous policies on cuba and against drugs, who knows what all will come up.

11-06-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar

Unless there is a MAJOR turnaround in the economy, there are no more Enron, WorldCom scandals, we do not go to war with Iraq, and Bin Laden's head is hanging from the Brooklyn Bridge, Bush will lose in 2004.

Corporate scandals and no Bin Laden aren't gonna cost W. the next election.

The economy is No.1. As for the war with Iraq, it depends on what happens. If we have a good plan and remove Sadam from power quickly and get out, this could actually have a positive effect on Bush's poplularity and the economy. War-time economy is ususally good right? As long as the war is not prolonged.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

CAN I GET A MOTHERFUCKING HELL YEAH FOR THE NEXT SENATOR FROM THE LAND OF 10,000 LAKES.

1 million voted yet to be counted before we know who the Senator from MN will be.

And I really hope it's Mondale. I would really like to see him back in politics. He would be a welcomed voice.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

Corporate scandals and no Bin Laden aren't gonna cost W. the next election.

The economy is No.1. As for the war with Iraq, it depends on what happens. If we have a good plan and remove Sadam from power quickly and get out, this could actually have a positive effect on Bush's poplularity and the economy. War-time economy is ususally good right? As long as the war is not prolonged.

No, those thing are not number 1, but they do factor in. Bush is still riding on 9-11 coat tails...Bin Laden will be a big factor.

In times of war, there is always an initial rally-around-the-flag effect. Even if it is a win and is quick (gee, isn't that what the last war n Iraq was considered?), I think it is still going to cost Bush. A war with Iraq is only going to worsen the economy.

11-06-2002, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar

1 million voted yet to be counted before we know who the Senator from MN will be.

And I really hope it's Mondale. I would really like to see him back in politics. He would be a welcomed voice.

That's what I just heard on the TV. Oh no. I obvioulsy spoke too soon.

Mondale would be neat to have back in politics but I thought he got throttled in the debate yesterday. In his defense, it's not like he had much time to prepare.

If they're getting some rest I might as well be too. But I don't wanna go to sleep and wake up to a Coleman defeat.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

Mondale would be neat to have back in politics but I thought he got throttled in the debate yesterday. In his defense, it's not like he had much time to prepare.

All the reports have Mondale kicking ass in the debate. (I didn't see/hear the debate.)

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 05:58 AM

According to MSNBC...

Dems- 46
Repubs- 50

3 races still to be decided

11-06-2002, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar

All the reports have Mondale kicking ass in the debate. (I didn't see/hear the debate.)

I don't have a real job so I was able to watch most of the debate.
Mondale was just not able to articluate a specific agenda. But he can't be blamed for that I guess. But Coleman called him out on it several times. Mondale also seemed clueless on the subject of Minnesota and technology, which is a big issue among the middle-class swing votes.

Mondale was effective in responding to Coleman.

It basically just seemed like watching Coleman argue with his father-in-law. It was wierd.

BlueStar · 11-06-2002, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

I don't have a real job so I was able to watch most of the debate.
Mondale was just not able to articluate a specific agenda. But he can't be blamed for that I guess.

And I think basically Mondale didn't have an agenda to run on...he was just running on Wellstone's memory (which is generally the best tatic in such circumstances).

Debaser · 11-06-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by killtheyouth
your complete ignorance over what republicans can do to our civil liberties in a paranoid time like this makes me ill.

Each year, Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Herb Kohl, D-Wis., release a list of video games to avoid, compiled by the National Institute on Media and the Family. This year's list, out last week:

• Grand Theft Auto III
• Return to Castle
• Wolfenstein
• Max Payne
• Metal Gear Solid 2
• Silent Hill 2
• Twisted Metal Black
• Time Crisis 2
• Conker's Bad Fur Day
• Devil May Cry
• Soldier of Fortune Gold
• Serious Sam

Source: National Institute on Media and the Family

bleh. lieberman sucks ass.

Samsa · 11-06-2002, 01:15 PM

"list of video games to avoid"

they're not telling people they can't buy it, just informing parents. maybe one day when you have kids you'll understand. or maybe you won't. but parents are allowed to try to control their children's access to certain unsavory things. why is it so bad? as long as they don't try to turn it into policy it shouldn't matter. you mean it sucks that they're anti-media violence or whatever?

Salena Child · 11-06-2002, 01:21 PM

wow this is still here.

O'Doyle Rules · 11-06-2002, 01:24 PM

whig party all the way, for me.

Debaser · 11-06-2002, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
"list of video games to avoid"

they're not telling people they can't buy it, just informing parents. maybe one day when you have kids you'll understand. or maybe you won't. but parents are allowed to try to control their children's access to certain unsavory things. why is it so bad? as long as they don't try to turn it into policy it shouldn't matter. you mean it sucks that they're anti-media violence or whatever?

well i have read that lieberman supports censorship of violent games. he believes that violent videogames lead to more violent people. so meh. he sucks in my book.

PkPhuoko · 02:30 PM

further proof netphorians are not a good example of the average american.

PkPhuoko · 11-06-2002, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

Peep this fool: The president alone has very little command over the economy. But the fact that he sucks the dick of big money corporations doesn't help us much.

i can believe you say that in comparison to the political and financial coruption clinton was involved in. Bush sucks corporate dick and Clinton steals money from them whats the fucking difference?

PkPhuoko · 11-06-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by killtheyouth

i take comfort in the fact that you are as ugly as you are dumb. there just might be some justice left in the world.

So suddenly the economy is no ones fault? Bush has had 2 years to fix it and its still going to hell. Wait, I thought he was going to turn it around. Can you please name for me a single economic policy of his that has been successfully opposed by Democrats? The tax cut went through and that was by far the most controversial...yep, sure done a lot of good.

are you an idiot? The Monopoly man could have been president at the time when 9-11 hit and it would have driven the economy into the ground. The economy was on the way down when clinton left office.... if al gore were elected president there would be fairly similar results.

frail_and_bedazzled · 11-06-2002, 02:35 PM

wow. i really don't know anything about our politics. whatever. i'm going to move to sweden, anyway.

MisterSquishyHalo · 11-06-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Salena Child

because i believe this will help turn things around.

Right like outlawing abortions, and outlawing stem cell research funding.

Yeah lets keep on turning things around.

MisterSquishyHalo · 11-06-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Salena Child

improving our economy.

MisterSquishyHalo · 11-06-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

But the fact that he sucks the dick of big money corporations doesn't help us much.

winner.

Samsa · 11-06-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Debaser

well i have read that lieberman supports censorship of violent games. he believes that violent videogames lead to more violent people. so meh. he sucks in my book.

you probably read wrong. i'll do research but i doubt he would flat out say he supports censorship. that's not a very popular opinion to hold especially in america. it's possible and i think i heard that he supports censorship to some extent....like maybe the v-chip or parental advisories or maybe even like putting an age limit on violent video games. but i doubt he'd go for full-out censorship.

11-06-2002, 02:20 PM	#83
PkPhuoko Minion of Satan Posts: 6,309	further proof netphorians are not a good example of the average american. Last edited by PkPhuoko : 11-06-2002 at 02:30 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-06-2002, 05:18 AM	#64
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	And let's just all keep in mind that the division of seats is still very close...it's not like the Repubs have taken over by a huge majority. And it's not like any of the Repubs won by a landslide...all the races have been very very close.

11-06-2002, 05:22 AM	#66
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,997	The bright side of all this... The chances of a backlash in 2004 are very likely...Democrat for president. LOL!!! Blue Star, lemme guess. You're a paid Democratic consultant, right? The Dem party is in disarray and its not likely it'll be together in 2004.

11-06-2002, 05:58 AM	#75
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	According to MSNBC... Dems- 46 Repubs- 50 3 races still to be decided

11-06-2002, 01:15 PM	#79
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	"list of video games to avoid" they're not telling people they can't buy it, just informing parents. maybe one day when you have kids you'll understand. or maybe you won't. but parents are allowed to try to control their children's access to certain unsavory things. why is it so bad? as long as they don't try to turn it into policy it shouldn't matter. you mean it sucks that they're anti-media violence or whatever?

11-06-2002, 01:21 PM	#80
Salena Child Apocalyptic Poster Location: Ohio Posts: 2,127	wow this is still here.

11-06-2002, 01:24 PM	#81
O'Doyle Rules Demi-God Location: nyc Posts: 374	whig party all the way, for me.

11-06-2002, 02:35 PM	#86
frail_and_bedazzled Ownz Location: lon guyland Posts: 880	wow. i really don't know anything about our politics. whatever. i'm going to move to sweden, anyway.