J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:
-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken
post-election showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.
Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The
ones they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts
based on a bunch of assumptions that they made up.
Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research"
orgnizations don't count.
But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real
political traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that
they lost, but that their only remaining recourse is to try and
prostitute rules of order, parliamentary procedure and so forth to
have any hope of ever getting back to a majority.
Uh, the Left _does_ have a majority. On what planet are you living
that you are unaware of this?
They have an impotent "majority". Their "48 hour plan" or whatever
it was called was laughable. They have *no* traction. Their
constant whining and anti-Western rhetoric has finally taken root and
been noticed by the much more moderate voting public. The Left is a
farce - a dangerous one, but a farce nonetheless. Their "majority",
even if they win the
US Whitehouse will simply serve to illuminate their foolishness,
callow lust for power, and generally vile ideas.
Look, if you want to believe that the Democrats do not control both
houses of Congress be my guest, but don't blame me when you get
blindsided.
Let me help you with an elementary explanation of how the US
legislative branch works. Ordinarily this is something you learn
in in, say, 7th Grade Civics class, but then again, ever since
the Lefty Loons took over the 'education' process, very little
of substance gets taught in this area.
The Democrats have the majority in both houses. This does not
remotely equate to them "controlling" anything for two important
reasons:
1) They do not have the supermajority needed to actually force
certain critical kinds of legislation into law. They can
sit there with their token woman Speaker Of The House (isn't
that precious), but the cannot, for instance, override
a presidential veto.
2) A good many Democrats are actually sane people and not rabid
Lefties. The so-called "Blue Dog" Dems leap to mind as does
Joe Lieberman, for example (he is an "independent" for purposes
of electoral mechanics only). It is entirely possible to be
a Democrat and not buy into the ridiculous and malodorous ideas
of what passes for the Left these days. Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.
The gasps of indignation about the Supremes doing their job properly in
the whole Bush v. Gore thing were not largely coming from mainstream Dems.
They were moreso coming from the rectal warts that inhabit the radical
ideological left who - as I said - have finally had their ideas rejected
by normal human beings and thereby hastened the implosion of the Left.
Good riddance, I say, to a foul and moronic worldview that requires
utter moral compromise to be embraced even slightly.
So this "majority" the Dems have is tenuous at best, certainly temporal,
not monolithically Left, and will require centrist compromises for any
real power to be wielded. And that, Grasshopper, is more-or-less why
your ideas in the matter are off the mark...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/