who was insulted again?

10/17/2006 2:31:22 PM

nutsmakr

10/17/2006 2:31:31 PM

Quote :

"who was insulted again?"

10/17/2006 2:33:32 PM

btw dude, kissel is NOT winning NC-8

10/17/2006 2:35:54 PM

he most certainly is.

Your boy down there just lost his biggest political backer in Mark Foley

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2006 2:46:17 PM

once again:

Quote :

"does anyone dispute the report? If so, let's hear it."

10/17/2006 3:12:05 PM

yes, they are unorganized, but that won't hurt them this time.

10/17/2006 3:13:19 PM

im looking at it from an analyst.

kissel doesnt have the resources or the numbers.

plus cook has him in the likely republican column still.

there are a whole slew of folks who will go down before he does

10/17/2006 3:16:07 PM

1) the article is 7 months old
2) all it really says is that dems don't agree
3) the same could be said about reps right now
4) this is a period of transition in american politics. give it a few years. there will be more defined goals by then.
5) i'd personally much rather support someone who can make judgements on their own rather than following a party's "blueprint" or "contract"
6) the article is 7 months old

10/17/2006 3:16:22 PM

^ yeah i dont really know why this thread had legs off the original post

if the same article was run two weeks ago, it would still be [old]

the time compression on [old] as the electoral cycle nears the end is huge.

10/17/2006 3:17:28 PM

Quote :

"im looking at it from an analyst. kissel doesnt have the resources or the numbers. plus cook has him in the likely republican column still. there are a whole slew of folks who will go down before he does"

It is a strong democratic district, Kissel now has his name out there, Cook voted for CAFTA, and Kissel is up 7 points in an independent poll.

10/17/2006 3:44:07 PM

it went R +3 in 04

the CAFTA vote was a misstep for Hayes, and it definitely hurt him, but it wont ultimately cost him his seat IMO



kissel is way underfunded and it will be an incredible coup if he is able to get out the message about the Hayes CAFTA vote

Cook is Charlie Cook btw, i dont know what you are talking about him voting for anything

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2006 3:49:52 PM

my fault. The fact remains though, that Kissel is up by 7 points in an independent poll.

10/17/2006 4:22:00 PM

you should know better,

not only are polls snapshots,

but they're also political tools

they dont predict. they assess.

the house flips no doubt, but hayes isnt one of the victims IMO

10/17/2006 4:23:50 PM

Hayes will fall. Mark my words.

10/17/2006 4:34:43 PM

well, may be. but neither i, nor it seems the entire staff of the cook report can get there from here off of one independent poll...

10/17/2006 4:48:56 PM

^^^ Yes. Push polls:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/02/parsing_the_polls_unmasking_th.html

sarijoul

Quote :

"i'd personally much rather support someone who can make judgements on their own rather than following a party's 'blueprint' or 'contract'"

(NB: By the way, you should have typed someone who can make judgments on his or her own. "Judgment" is preferred in America, and the singular "someone" must have singular, nonsexist pronouns.)

To sarijoul: I only need ONE point to show that--once again--you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Keep in mind, The Nation is VERY liberal. Point one:

"House leader Nancy Pelosi has stated that Democrats are working up their version of a Contract."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/borosage

The Democrats are doing this because the Contract with America in 1994 was SO successful. Since the Republicans don't have a contract approach this election cycle and you're evidently against contracts, can the Republicans count on your vote?

Don't forget, sarijoul, I own you. PWNT!

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ']

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:47 AM. Reason : )]

10/18/2006 12:43:57 AM

NB: i'm not a democrat.

and i prefer candidates without blind dogmas. (not saying i can always get that)

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 10:08:03 AM

hooksaw doesnt understand that kinda stuff

10/18/2006 10:52:05 AM

hooksaw is a retard.

10/18/2006 11:53:58 AM

oh yeah and:

Quote :

"their /ð??r; unstressed ð?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thair; unstressed ther] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –pronoun 1. a form of the possessive case of they used as an attributive adjective, before a noun: their home; their rights as citizens; their departure for Rome. 2. (used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her): Someone left their book on the table. Did everyone bring their lunch?"

and so i use alternate spellings of things. i read papers and books from all over the world. i'm sorry if some of my worldliness is leaking over into this american-spellings-only forum.

you even look like an idiot when you criticize grammar.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 11:58:23 AM

Leave your "world" english for some other forum. Most people here are, believe it or not, American!

Respect your elders, son.

If the dems have a plan, then yes, it is probably a liberal knock-off of the '94 Contract with America, which still lasts to this day. Who does America trust?

10/18/2006 12:18:44 PM

forgive me for wanting to have my own personal thoughts. i should concede to the will of what you deem the majority.

and did you call me son, you piece of shit?

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 12:19:52 PM

Yes, I did, son. I'm interested in seeing how you feel about your "free thinkers" when you get out of the ivory tower of the liberal universities and work for a family.

10/18/2006 12:21:32 PM

you are a perfect example of why age should not dictate respect.

10/18/2006 12:22:58 PM

Have you ever actually worked for yourself? For a family?

10/18/2006 12:23:57 PM

what in the fuck are you talking about?

yes. i've earned my own living for years now.

OH I GUESS IF I HAD A FAMILY I WOULD BUY INTO PROPAGANDA AND IDEOLOGIES. YOU WIN.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 12:24:43 PM

you dont mind not getting to keep more of your money?

10/18/2006 12:26:19 PM

yeah i do. especially when the rich get to keep as much as they do.

but to tell you the truth. i don't get that much taken because i don't make that much.

10/18/2006 12:27:41 PM

Who gets to keep more of their money? Oh that's right, the filthy rich. The republicans keep forgetting that the democrats wanted a Middle Class tax cut and not a tax cut for the top 1%

10/18/2006 12:28:12 PM

^

10/18/2006 12:28:39 PM

boo hoo, the rich make too much.

the rich provide jobs
the rich provide goods and services
the rich donate to charities, which do a better job of caring for people than the government

10/18/2006 12:29:39 PM

Quote :

"The republicans keep forgetting that the democrats wanted a Middle Class tax cut and not a tax cut for the top 1% "

10/18/2006 12:30:06 PM

Quote :

"the rich donate to charities, which do a better job of caring for people than the government"

that may not entirely be untrue

10/18/2006 12:30:14 PM

did you read my post?

tax cuts for the top people who own the businesses=more jobs, more pay

^show me how the government does a better job taking care of people than private entities

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 12:30:46 PM

yes I did read your post and it is the same ole republican talking points.

Boo Hoo the rich are repressed.

The government has the means and the ability to get aid to the largest number of people the fastest.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 12:32:11 PM

the successful should not be punished

10/18/2006 12:32:45 PM

how are they being punished?

And the rich should have to help the poor. It's an obligation they have because the rich get rich off the working class.

10/18/2006 12:33:26 PM

they should be rewarded even when they don't need it?

10/18/2006 12:33:28 PM

Quote :

"tax cuts for the top people who own the businesses=more jobs, more pay"

^Myth

Quote :

"Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and DAVID LEONHARDT With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period. As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data. At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ei=5070&en=3b2ed8b63853b1f2&ex=1161316800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1161189116-TQ40GZagOfNvFT0Th9KIWQ&pagewanted=print

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ^Myth]

10/18/2006 12:34:38 PM

Quote :

"the rich get rich off the working class."

^i can't say im the greatest economics expert, so i'll let one of our experts on here rip that apart

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 12:35:20 PM

oh noes I've been compared to Lenin.

10/18/2006 12:36:48 PM

To Dentaldamn: Wrong.

To nutsmackr (in my best "retard" voice): Double fuck you.

To sarijoul: Yes, "worldliness" sounds better than wrong. Oh, and triple fuck you. I own you.

10/18/2006 7:08:20 PM

If you really want to be pedantic, I can return it in kind.

10/18/2006 7:18:47 PM

^ I don't find a concern for proper use of the English language or an allergy to bullshit particularly pedantic. You may return in kind what you see fit or are able to return. DON'T call me names and I'll return that small courtesy in kind.

10/18/2006 7:37:58 PM

sarijoul tries to present himself here as the "alternative", out of the mainstream. he uses the claim that he is a "open thinker" the same way most liberals do. you are open-minded...as long as it doesnt mean agreeing with the other side of the political aisle. you dont like agendas? every party has an agenda. obviously YOU have an agenda. now match it up. who are you closest to, son?

10/18/2006 7:49:10 PM

Because it has to be one side or the other, right? You ceratinly are a black and white republican.

10/19/2006 12:46:59 AM

^ Unfortunately, "one side or the other" is one of the byproducts of the two-party system and its built-in either-or fallacy of logic. When the day comes that we break this system and have third and fourth parties, coalition governments will likely give more people what they want. Things may not unfold exactly as I have described, but I'm certainly willing to give it a try.

10/19/2006 11:31:30 AM

i can deal with choosing between one candidate or another. but that doesn't mean i have to stick with the same parties across the board.

why is that SO hard to believe?

currently i don't support either of our senators, but i do support my house member.

you know why?

a while back i looked at their voting records and while i didn't look at EVERY vote they did, i looked at a cross section over a few years.

i agreed with many of the votes that my house member had. and not that many that my senators had.

i wrote my senators and house member letters addressing these concerns twice.

the senators sent stock replies that didn't really even address what i had said. the house member (or someone in his office at least) took the time to write a response specifically to the points that i brought up.

i don't just vote down the party line like it seems many of you do.

10/19/2006 1:19:20 PM

btw, nutsmakr

latest polls have hayes/kissel at 49/33

4.9% ME (400 people polled)

doesnt look like he's coming on so strong like you think...

10/19/2006 2:24:33 PM