Historic Day for Diebold

[JerrySeinfeld]

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

[Black Dog]

Plagarism makes baby Jesus cry.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Plagarism makes baby Jesus cry.

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?

[jdobbin]

Plagarism makes baby Jesus cry.

Can't you be banned for that? I thought he wrote that himself.

[Riverwind]

Plagarism makes baby Jesus cry.

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?

I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist

[Black Dog]

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?

Forgot to credit it, link to it, quote it...nice try, budday.

Can't you be banned for that? I thought he wrote that himself.

Oh yeah:

Forum Rules and Guidelines

POSTING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums. Therefore, please do not post articles in their entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a throurough summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc. Find out more information on Fair Dealing in Canada. http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf

Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely.

I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist

Your first impression remains accurate.

[Liam]

I can't read her. Not because I disagree with her, but because her writing style is so manically choppy. Ann, slow down on the meds, they're making you jumpy.

Of course Ann Coulter has all the answers. Only she knows what's the right direction in Iraq. After all, the Bush policy we've followed all along has been a success. No need to rethink things, no need to question the Dear Leader.

I have so much more respect for conservatives who have shown a capacity for intellectual curiosity, self-questioning, and thoughtful consideration of various solutions. Needless to say, Ann scores a zero on all accounts.

[PolyNewbie]

Of course E voting machines are only built to steal elections.

Many engineers have testified to their role in developing code to cheat elections in congressional hearings.

Personally I think many independents won and many dems won. The E voting machines manipulated the vote to only let globalists/fascists in except in a very few cases.

What amtters is if the rep is a gloabalist or not, not whether they are democrat or republican. Both of those parties have been bought and paid for by the globalists.

[Argus]

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

I greatly distrust those voting machines. They have repeatedly been shown to be easy to alter. I trust them no more now, when a couple of the major companies are controlled by Venezuala, than I did when they were controlled by Rebublican nutbars.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

What's wrong with higher taxes? If you've got a deficit, you either cut services, or raise taxes. It's become almost a religious article of faith in the US, due largely to the Republicans, that you can cut taxes indefinitely without any problem. They're idiots. That's one of the reasons so many people who are ostensibly consercatives didn't bother going out to the polls. Cutting taxes for the rich is pretty unimpressive, too. As for Iraq, whatever the Democrats feel about it, the Republicans screwed it up royally.

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call.

True enough, but this is no defence of Republicans. What it is is an indictment of the current democratic system which almost always returns incumbents to office no matter what, simply because they can draw on a huge pool of money given them by the special-interest lobby groups they REALLY work for. This is something which has been growing worse and worse over the years and threatens their democracy.

[PolyNewbie]

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

Someone is likely still lauging cheering and celebrating the fact that they got Americans to accept computers for voting machines !! - without a verifiable paper trail !!. This acheivement will be celebrated all over the world among dictators for years to come. We will need them so that Harper can win the next election.

[sunsettommy]

Plagarism makes baby Jesus cry.

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?

I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist

Please tell us where she went wrong on those "tenuous facts".

[sunsettommy]

Of course E voting machines are only built to steal elections.

Many engineers have testified to their role in developing code to cheat elections in congressional hearings.

Personally I think many independents won and many dems won. The E voting machines manipulated the vote to only let globalists/fascists in except in a very few cases.

What amtters is if the rep is a gloabalist or not, not whether they are democrat or republican. Both of those parties have been bought and paid for by the globalists.

[sunsettommy]

Argus:

I greatly distrust those voting machines. They have repeatedly been shown to be easy to alter. I trust them no more now, when a couple of the major companies are controlled by Venezuala, than I did when they were controlled by Rebublican nutbars.

Please elaborate.

What's wrong with higher taxes? If you've got a deficit, you either cut services, or raise taxes. It's become almost a religious article of faith in the US, due largely to the Republicans, that you can cut taxes indefinitely without any problem. They're idiots. That's one of the reasons so many people who are ostensibly consercatives didn't bother going out to the polls. Cutting taxes for the rich is pretty unimpressive, too. As for Iraq, whatever the Democrats feel about it, the Republicans screwed it up royally.

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

Cutting Taxes are great for the economy.

The Republicans when in power reduce the tax burden.

The Democrats when in power increase the tax burden.

The problem is that there is no reduction in congressional spending.Both parties have this problem.

The Democrats however have created the bigger problem.They created Medicare and medicaid along with Social Security.These programs are heading for the cliff into bankrupcty.

True enough, but this is no defence of Republicans. What it is is an indictment of the current democratic system which almost always returns incumbents to office no matter what, simply because they can draw on a huge pool of money given them by the special-interest lobby groups they REALLY work for. This is something which has been growing worse and worse over the years and threatens their democracy.

I agree with you about the incumbents.

Many of them get corrupted and also knee deep into pork barrel spending.

The voters seems oblivious to the fact that their vote gets wasted regularly.

The Blacks vote for a party that takes them for granted.

The Jews vote for a party that does not share their vision of supporting Israel.

America is a Constitutional Republic.NOT a Democracy.

[Riverwind]

I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist

Please tell us where she went wrong on those "tenuous facts".

She spent most of the piece ranting about how small the Democrat landside was and conveniently forgot to mention the effect of gerrymandering on congressional districts. Gerrymanding has made it very difficult to unseat Republican incumbants in many districts so the fact that Democrats were still able to make in roads is a sign of a major shift in public opinion in the US.

[sunsettommy]

I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist

Please tell us where she went wrong on those "tenuous facts".

She spent most of the piece ranting about how small the Democrat landside was and conveniently forgot to mention the effect of gerrymandering on congressional districts. Gerrymanding has made it very difficult to unseat Republican incumbants in many districts so the fact that Democrats were still able to make in roads is a sign of a major shift in public opinion in the US.

Gerrymandering has been going on for more than 100 years and both parties have done it.

You will need to show more to support your claim.

[Riverwind]

Gerrymandering has been going on for more than 100 years and both parties have done it.

Anybody that had a passing interest in the last few US elections would know that the parties have take gerrymandering to new heights in recent years. Republicans have controlled most state gov'ts so they have been the prime beneficiaries. Only 50 or so seats were even competitve and the democrats took many of them.

If you doubt the effect of gerrymandering look at the percentage of popular vote vs percentage of congressional seats for the Democrats: 57.7% vs 53.6%. The democrats should have 250 seats if you look at their popular vote (a landslide by any definition) yet they only received 233 seats. In this election, the Democrats were at a disadvantage and Coulter's rant that failed to mention this important detial demostrates how poorly informed she really is.