Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (208062)	11/8/2006 11:25:34 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, you know I like you, but this time around you sound like a cry baby and you lack your usual sober head. >> why did Bush wait until AFTER the election to fire Rumsfeld? You already know the answer. Hubris and stupidity. >> if it weren't for Bush, we'd be doing fine. Oh DAH! Nobody wins; everyone loses because of their mistakes and weaknesses. You should know this from The Art of War. >> This election was not a repudiation of the Republicans Like hell! Of course it was. Who do you think enabled Bush to make as much mess as he did? Who rubber stamped whatever Bush sent over? Who refused to show any oversight of corruption and war profiteering? Are you suggesting those people were not Republicans?! >> Schwarzenegger easily won reelection as governor of California Ask any hard core Republican, they loath to consider Arnold as a "real" Republican. I've been listening to California Republicans for chunk of today and even they say so. >> If I were Democratic, I would be worried about how well the Republicans did in this election. Nope. You'd be celebrating and planning how to ensure your own permanent majority. >> What are the Democrats going to do when Bush's mistakes blow over? What are the chances of that happening? Bush's mistakes have been so huge and so long lasting that for the next 20 years everything will be blamed on him by both parties. I give it better than even odds that Republicans will run on an antiBush platform. Already several Reps did not mention their party name on their campaign and one guy did not even want to be seen with Bush. ST

To: Bilow who wrote (208062)	11/9/2006 1:59:09 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

1. Arnie went Democratic in order to win reelection. 2. This is a repudiation of radical Republicans and their incompetent, smarmy ways. They were even repudiated by other Republicans for their incompetent, smarmy ways. 3. All of the nastiness, lying, cheating, intimidation, repression, etc. did not work. Republicans don't have any other ideas so this is going to be a problem. 4. Iraq was very important but so were the endless Republican scandals: Cunningham, West, Haggard, DeLay, Libby, Abramoff, Safavian, Ney, Foley, etc. 5. In case you haven't noticed, none of the following is going away anytime soon with or without Bush: Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Medicare insanity, the slowing economy, the gap in the economy, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the giant sucking sound of manufacturing jobs, the healthcare crisis, etc. 6. Bush is bizarre. If he wasn't going to fire Rummy before the elections, he should at least wait a few weeks before firing him after them. It's just a slap in the face to all Republicans who lost as well as to the American public. It wasn't just Bush (although he certainly helped) but all Republicans who walked in goosestep with him to head us into the abyss.

To: Bilow who wrote (208062)	11/9/2006 8:42:56 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Guess what? Even the dearly departed won against a Republican! Message 22993284

To: Bilow who wrote (208062)	11/9/2006 11:55:56 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>>And despite all this, the Republicans still have over 200 house members elected. Not so fast. GOP only has 196 elected so far with 10 undecided. Second, I didn't know that the 200 number was a measure how "good" a party did. If that was the case then the Democrats should have been ecstatic in 2004 since they got 200. And that was their worst year. In 2004: GOP 231, DEM 200, IND 1 cnn.com In 2006: GOP 196, DEM 229, IND 0, UNDECIDED 10 cnn.com As far as Arnold's win, he had to become a Democrat to win. And a liberal Democrat at that. He was against every Republican hard core issue. From energy, environmental, fiscal, gun and abortion (he is pro-choice) issues. That's why he won. He is more of a Democrat in most issues than Angelidis was.