AP: Democrats take control of the Senate

BogoEN

Purple Hawk wrote:

no, i agree with you...

my point is...is look at all the demcrats that won...you have heath shuler, tester, and webb...these guys are CONSERVATIVE. 94 was an election for conservatism, as was 2006. liberals know that this country rejects their ideology. and they cannot succeed longterm.

i totally agree with you, republicans had some infighting, and were not very unified. i want some leadership though...leadership that will call out the distortions of the left. notice how threads around here become suddenly silent when liberals have to debate facts instead of emotion? hell, notice how the posts by liberals decline once they have to talk about facts instead of emotion?

Those are broad strokes you paint on liberals. You make it sound as if you have jousted with all of them and won every time. Who's emotional?

Many liberals I know look to Science and logic and common sense, not ideaology for their positions.

ThumbingMyWay32

BogoEN wrote:

Those are broad strokes you paint on liberals. You make it sound as if you have jousted with all of them and won every time. Who's emotional?

Many liberals I know look to Science and logic and common sense, not ideaology for their positions.

Who are you to judge how people form their opinions? Talk about painting broad strokes.

BogoEN

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Who are you to judge how people form their opinions? Talk about painting broad strokes.

That didn't even make sense...

Purple Hawk

BogoEN wrote:

Those are broad strokes you paint on liberals. You make it sound as if you have jousted with all of them and won every time. Who's emotional?

Many liberals I know look to Science and logic and common sense, not ideaology for their positions.

no, liberals only look to science when convenient. they have no interest in science or the truth. look at any embryonic stem cell research debate here. liberals cannot win on the issues. and this was demonstrated in this campaign. the democrats ran a bunch of conservatives against incumbents and won and all the big time libs went into hiding.

i'm telling you, the libs can gloat all they want about this election, but this election has proved the far left is really nothing in this country....look at ned lement. you people cannot win elections if you state your beliefs. so good luck in the future.

VictoryGin

Purple Hawk wrote:

no, i agree with you...

my point is...is look at all the demcrats that won...you have heath shuler, tester, and webb...these guys are CONSERVATIVE. 94 was an election for conservatism, as was 2006. liberals know that this country rejects their ideology. and they cannot succeed longterm.

the reaching is hilarious. conservative how, exactly? are pro-choice people considered conservative? before the final dem wins were counted, here is something showing the gains for pro-choicers in Congress:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/choice-composition.html

so the house gained 20 pro-choicers and the senate at least one.

and hey, i never knew ted kennedy and hillary clinton were conservatives.

BogoEN

Purple Hawk wrote:

no, liberals only look to science when convenient. they have no interest in science or the truth. look at any embryonic stem cell research debate here. liberals cannot win on the issues. and this was demonstrated in this campaign. the democrats ran a bunch of conservatives against incumbents and won and all the big time libs went into hiding.

i'm telling you, the libs can gloat all they want about this election, but this election has proved the far left is really nothing in this country....look at ned lement. you people cannot win elections if you state your beliefs. so good luck in the future.

To be clear, I'm not stating I fall into your category of liberals. But actually I do agree with you, partially. I think that those who state modern leftist ideas (ex. Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, Progressive Tax, Uniform Health Care etc.) learn the hard way that most Americans, not just in the heartland or south seek issues that appeal to them, as it should since they are the voters. And many of those issues don't interest much of the non Urban culture, not even progressive tax. Dems and liberals would need to prove mathematically why progressive tax works and cuts don't-which they can't. But nevertheless, neither can Republicans PROVE that cuts bolster a long-lasting, strong economy. It's all talk because neither concept stays around long enough to be proven or disproven.

However, I think the subject of the Environment and global warming, is THE issue at hand today (next to anti-american extremists, here and abroad). It's the one issue "liberals" have been spot on about for quite some time, and even some moderates.

kenny olav

Time for the victory toke!!!

Purple Hawk

VictoryGin wrote:

the reaching is hilarious. conservative how, exactly? are pro-choice people considered conservative? before the final dem wins were counted, here is something showing the gains for pro-choicers in Congress:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/choice-composition.html

so the house gained 20 pro-choicers and the senate at least one.

and hey, i never knew ted kennedy and hillary clinton were conservatives.

why are you so obsessed with that issue? i could really give a shit about it. I'm more interested in winning Iraq, and almost ALL of your candidates disagree with losing (i.e. redeployment). is the guy who won tom delay's seat a lib? how about heath shuler? how about the moron that won foley's seat? how about webb? how about tester? seriously, you are pointing towards clinton and kennedy as big pickups? THEY are why the dems won? seriously? who's reaching? dems won in key races b/c they retreated and didn't talk about the issues.

ThumbingMyWay32

VictoryGin wrote:

the reaching is hilarious. conservative how, exactly? are pro-choice people considered conservative? before the final dem wins were counted, here is something showing the gains for pro-choicers in Congress:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/choice-composition.html

so the house gained 20 pro-choicers and the senate at least one.

and hey, i never knew ted kennedy and hillary clinton were conservatives.

Did ya know Ted Kennedy is a murderer? And Hillary, well, she's a girl! Ewwwwww!

VictoryGin

Purple Hawk wrote:

why are you so obsessed with that issue? i could really give a shit about it. I'm more interested in winning Iraq, and almost ALL of your candidates disagree with losing (i.e. redeployment). is the guy who won tom delay's seat a lib? how about heath shuler? how about the moron that won foley's seat? how about webb? how about tester? seriously, you are pointing towards clinton and kennedy as big pickups? THEY are why the dems won? seriously? who's reaching? dems won in key races b/c they retreated and didn't talk about the issues.

um, you totally avoided the issue here. i'm just saying your conservative theory is laughable, using reproductive choice an a glowing example.

drew0

Purple Hawk wrote:

my point is...is look at all the demcrats that won...you have heath shuler, tester, and webb...these guys are CONSERVATIVE. 94 was an election for conservatism, as was 2006. liberals know that this country rejects their ideology. and they cannot succeed longterm.

Stop trying to downplay the election, because it's not working. It wasn't a win for conservatism, as Republicans win. Not even slightly. How you can honestly say it was a "crushing" defeat for liberalism is laughable, but I don't find anything surprising come from your aisle after these last six years. yes, Webb, Casey, and a slew of other Democrats who won yesterday are not as liberal as their counterparts, because they're moderate. A word you might want to start teaching to the GOP, because they seem to not know what that is. They're more liberal than they are conservative, although they're not "liberal", their left of center, or "moderate".

If the country rejects liberalism as fiercely as you proclaim, then the GOP would have prevailed yesterday, and George Bush would be more popular than he currently is - because they sure as hell don't like him. They would have voted for the abortion ban in South Dakota, and against the minimum wage increases in Missouri and Ohio. They would have not given the Democrats control of both Chambers of Congress yesterday. George Bush didn't win by a hefty margin at all in 2004, so don't act like he won in a landslide, please, like most Republicans try to play off. America is moderate - they don't want partisan bickering and radical policies, they want compromise, and what is best for America - not a political party. Whoever governs from the center wins, and Democrats realized that yesterday. The GOP didn't, and maybe they'll learn their lessons, as two radicals of power, Santorum and Hastert, will no longer be in power come January - and another radical, Allen, was unseated - so they can fill their shoes with moderates, people who will move America forward.

God bless this great nation of ours.

cincybearcat

VictoryGin wrote:

the reaching is hilarious. conservative how, exactly? are pro-choice people considered conservative? before the final dem wins were counted, here is something showing the gains for pro-choicers in Congress:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/choice-composition.html

so the house gained 20 pro-choicers and the senate at least one.

and hey, i never knew ted kennedy and hillary clinton were conservatives.

Great 21 more murderers joining their ringleader (Big Ted).

The truth is that the country proved that they care more about the letter next to a name rather than what they have done. They have proven that negative campaigning is th emost effective as people won their seats based on voting AGAINST an issue, instead of FOR anything.

I would have loved this election if the majority of Conservatves still lost, but if many incumbent Dems lost as well. It was time ot throw out the trash...instead people picked a few pieces out of their can and threw them in the dumpster...meanwhile the majority of the stinky, rotting garbage remains.

Oh well...the country is moving far away from me. Apparently the US wants to be taxed and spend (but not on a war) and they are still against gay marriage and killing babies. Great. Long way to go for my utopia.

drew0

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I've stated what you just did in other threads. That's exactly what happend here. By the numbers, there was no difference between Webb and Allen. Allen had an R beside his name at the wrong time. Once again, I think it inherently odd that these "centrist" Democrats will be giving us Pelosi and Ried as their leadership.

Reid is easy to see, as he's fairly moderate, and a strong leader. Nancy Pelosi, while extremely liberal, and not a good face for the Democratic Party at this point, more than earned it. She is one of the architects responsible for the victory yesterday, and she deserves title of speaker for her hard work. But, hey, we can't get much more partisan than Dennis Hastert, so it's all good.

Purple Hawk

VictoryGin wrote:

um, you totally avoided the issue here. i'm just saying your conservative theory is laughable, using reproductive choice an a glowing example.

I avoided the issue? seriosly? I'm the one that presented the issue, so how can I avoid it? Do you even know what you are responding to?

fact is, all of the democratic pick ups were by conservative democrats. I welcome them and look towards a serious discussion. but it's an obvious rejection of liberal values.

BogoEN

Purple Hawk wrote:

I avoided the issue? seriosly? I'm the one that presented the issue, so how can I avoid it? Do you even know what you are responding to?

fact is, all of the democratic pick ups were by conservative democrats. I welcome them and look towards a serious discussion. but it's an obvious rejection of liberal values.

Ok, since you keep saying, I have to ask;
What are these "liberal values" you talk about?

drew0

Purple Hawk wrote:

i'm telling you, the libs can gloat all they want about this election, but this election has proved the far left is really nothing in this country....look at ned lement. you people cannot win elections if you state your beliefs. so good luck in the future.

The Democrats elected were moderate, being moderate, or not entirely liberal does not mean you're conservative. Obviously this election said something about the far right, as people seem to not want that either.

VictoryGin

Purple Hawk wrote:

I avoided the issue? seriosly? I'm the one that presented the issue, so how can I avoid it? Do you even know what you are responding to?

fact is, all of the democratic pick ups were by conservative democrats. I welcome them and look towards a serious discussion. but it's an obvious rejection of liberal values.

is this really happening? okay. i asked you what made them 'conservative' because normally pro-choicers aren't considered to be 'conservative'. then i said that at least 20 new pro-choicers were elected to the house and 1 to the senate. so are pro-choicers conservative now? because if not, that is just one example showing why your theory is laughable.

so--is it now a fact that pro-choicers are conservative?

Purple Hawk

drew0 wrote:

Stop trying to downplay the election, because it's not working. It wasn't a win for conservatism, as Republicans win. Not even slightly. How you can honestly say it was a "crushing" defeat for liberalism is laughable, but I don't find anything surprising come from your aisle after these last six years. yes, Webb, Casey, and a slew of other Democrats who won yesterday are not as liberal as their counterparts, because they're moderate. A word you might want to start teaching to the GOP, because they seem to not know what that is. They're more liberal than they are conservative, although they're not "liberal", their left of center, or "moderate".

If the country rejects liberalism as fiercely as you proclaim, then the GOP would have prevailed yesterday, and George Bush would be more popular than he currently is - because they sure as hell don't like him. They would have voted for the abortion ban in South Dakota, and against the minimum wage increases in Missouri and Ohio. They would have not given the Democrats control of both Chambers of Congress yesterday. George Bush didn't win by a hefty margin at all in 2004, so don't act like he won in a landslide, please, like most Republicans try to play off. America is moderate - they don't want partisan bickering and radical policies, they want compromise, and what is best for America - not a political party. Whoever governs from the center wins, and Democrats realized that yesterday. The GOP didn't, and maybe they'll learn their lessons, as two radicals of power, Santorum and Hastert, will no longer be in power come January - and another radical, Allen, was unseated - so they can fill their shoes with moderates, people who will move America forward.

God bless this great nation of ours.

do you even know the positions of any of the democratic candidates that won? if not, sorry, you're not smart. they were all conservatives. and that's great, i don't care if you're a democrat, i'm not a GOP lapdog. i just loath the liberal philosophy, as most sane people do. what dem candidate beat a gop incumbent by going to the left?

answer: 0

so if the dems want to move to the right, i welcome them.

ThumbingMyWay32

drew0 wrote:

Reid is easy to see, as he's fairly moderate, and a strong leader. Nancy Pelosi, while extremely liberal, and not a good face for the Democratic Party at this point, more than earned it. She is one of the architects responsible for the victory yesterday, and she deserves title of speaker for her hard work. But, hey, we can't get much more partisan than Dennis Hastert, so it's all good.

"The President is a loser." - Harry Reid

This is not a strong leadership characteristic.

Nancy fixed her face fortunately, with your tax dollars, but that's another issue.

Who cares if she earned it? What the hell does that have to do with being capable? Students earn D's. That doesn't mean their smart. It means they give a lot of effort. Effort doesn't define greatness as former President Clinton might have you believe.

And if you define being an architect of victory by completely disappearing from the public eye for two weeks leading up to the election then you clearly have no idea how this narrow victory occured.

Purple Hawk

VictoryGin wrote:

is this really happening? okay. i asked you what made them 'conservative' because normally pro-choicers aren't considered to be 'conservative'. then i said that at least 20 new pro-choicers were elected to the house and 1 to the senate. so are pro-choicers conservative now? because if not, that is just one example showing why your theory is laughable.

so--is it now a fact that pro-choicers are conservative?

yes, it is really happening b/c i really don't care about abortion. apparently, you do...this just in...the world doesn't revolve around that issue.