Were you surprised

[lookout123]

eh, whatever, you commie.

[lookout123]

i absolutely agree glatt. i expect in '08 we'll get a dem president, unless the D's really really really step on their crank in the next two years. that seems highly unlikely.

[Shocker]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i absolutely agree glatt. i expect in '08 we'll get a dem president, unless the D's really really really step on their crank in the next two years. that seems highly unlikely.

Watch out lookout... if you didn't see my prediction earlier, you should go back and read it, and then read tw's attack back and see how "illogical and fickle" you are for making any such prediction at this point. I mean forget that the majority of his response has nothing to do with what I said or even what this thread is all about and surely you will see the folley of your ways LOL

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shocker

I mean forget that the majority of his response has nothing to do with what I said or even what this thread is all about

If your post was not about a president in '08, then why did I quote that sentence and reply accordingly to that paragraph? Why would I mention your other paragraphs that are not disputable? Why waste bandwidth on paragraphs based in reasoning and history. Those other paragraphs were speculation based in sound logic and with historical precedent.

If using current attitudes, then a most likely president is Republican and one who is not wacko extremist. But history demonstrates that picking a future president in two years is about as reliable as making a profit from slot machines. Furthermore, sitting Congressmen rarely become a president.

BTW Shocker, where is the attack? Are you that touchy? Did I say your mother wears combat boots? Of course not. Did I challenge other parts of your post? No. Obviously no reason to. One paragraph in your post that is not based in history predicts a president two years early. Traditionally, presidential contenders are mostly unknowns two years before an election. That is not an attack. That is simple fact based is history. And that reply was exactly what you posted about in your paragraph 6. Where is this attack?

Do you deny that most readers of these posts are fickle? If yes, then why did you not post a reply? Your salience implies you agreed. Lookout123 examples the concept:

Originally Posted by Lookout123

]many people (the swing voters) didn't so much vote FOR something (democrats) as they voted against the negative emotions caused by the war which emotionally can be set squarely on the shoulders of the republicans.

His is a traditionally likely statement. Why such an emotional change? Well if you could answer that question, then there are many presidential contenders who would hire you.

An interesting discussion would be on why 'fickle' emotions changed so sharply. During Vietnam, it was called Tet. We had no such single event during "Mission Accomplished". And yet something changed sharply in but maybe six months causing independents - those who don't blindly follow the party line - to suddenly see George Jr lying. If so much can change so quickly over such little events, then how in hell does anyone hope to guess a next president? Better would be to use a dart board and monkey. Just ask Senator Gary Hart about sure bets.

That reply was exactly about your paragraph 6. Are you now retracting paragraph 6?

[Ibby]

I seriously dont understand how the USA became one of the furthest-right countries in the world...

[bluecuracao]

It's all the Pilgrims' fault.

[Undertoad]

By what definition of "right".

[Ibby]

Right as in conservative... I mean sure, there're some muslim nations, and some dictatorships and such that are further, but america is moving left a LOT slower than the rest of the world. They got the head-start, but have been lagging a lot every since.

[Undertoad]

By what definition of "conservative"?

[Happy Monkey]

That of the people who call Europe commie.

[lookout123]

give me a break HM. i called DanaC a commie. and we've both been around here long enough for you to know that wasn't a serious comment. ya freakincommie sympathizer.

[glatt]

Anyone who thinks we will have a lefty government now doesn't understand how it works.

The Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans.
The White House is controlled by Republicans.
Both branches of Congress have a thin majority of Democrats, so they now control the agenda there. But they don't have a large enough majority to override a veto.

The White House and Congress pretty much cancel each other out as far as passing laws, because of the veto power of the President.

But the President still has a huge amount of executive office power he can use to do what he wants. He dictates what the executive branch does, and the executive branch is huge and far reaching.

The Republican Supreme Court will have an impact on American society for decades.

The Republicans still have more power than the Democrats in the Federal government. The Democratic victory brings the government closer to the middle, but it's still clearly leaning to the Right.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

give me a break HM. i called DanaC a commie. and we've both been around here long enough for you to know that wasn't a serious comment. ya freakincommie sympathizer.

I used your wording because it was conveniently right there, but there are plenty of people who say it seriously- I occasionally listen to Bill O'Reilly's radio show.

[Clodfobble]

Which is funny because I, though generally more conservative than you, HM, have literally never once listened to Bill O'Reilly or seen his show, except for a clip or two replayed on the Daily Show.

I wonder how much the people who tune in just to get angry (or at best, to "know the opposition,") are actually bolstering his ratings.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Which is funny because I, though generally more conservative than you, HM, have literally never once listened to Bill O'Reilly or seen his show, except for a clip or two replayed on the Daily Show.

I wonder how much the people who tune in just to get angry (or at best, to "know the opposition,") are actually bolstering his ratings.

I listen (when I do) for the same reason I used to occasinally listen to G. Gordon Liddy - his show is between two shows that I do enjoy listening to.

I've never watched his TV show.