| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Responding to Ann Coulter; about the election | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 9 2006, 06:49 AM (355 Views) | |
| David Burton | Nov 9 2006, 06:49 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Carp
|
http://www.redstatesusa.com/archives/2006/...ric_victor.html Posted by: pilot at November 9, 2006 08:13 AM Nice column, Ann! It's one thing to be a sore loser - it's quite something else to be a sore winner. But Democrats, being the children they are, must openly gloat without truly understanding why they won. Notice there are no courts involved, hanging chads, dimpled chads, but there was the beginnings of fraud complaints over the new automated voting machines the Democrats touted as the end-all to election woes. I can't wait to see Nancy Pelosi's "new tone" of bipartisanship, bringing "civility" to Washington, working with Republicans, yada, yada, yada. Why wasn’t she very civil when her party was not the majority? Hers and Democrat civility comes and goes? Does Nancy Pelosi even know HOW to be civil? No party wins every election, just like each state votes based upon different issues. I heard something about how a national poll said 74% of voters, or some percentage close to that, voted based upon "ethics issues" - with Republicans appearing worse in that area due to the various recent scandals. If that were the case, then why did New Jersey vote for Menendez? If that were truly the issue, NJ would have voted for Tom Kean, Jr., who is not really a Republican anyway. New Jersey is a very corrupt state so maybe alleged ethics investigations and/or violations were the issue to vote FOR and not against. The biggest problem I see with Republicans is that when elected they simply refuse to ACT like Republicans. If I had wanted a Democrat, I would have just voted for one! Bush's strategy in his first term was to take Democrat issues out of their hands by giving the public everything Democrats were campaigning on whether the public really wanted it or not. Guess what? Now we have even more entitlement programs voters didn't seem to want in the first place, and a huge expansion in government and spending. Note to Republicans: Huge expansive government and increased spending on entitlement programs is NOT what Republicans stand for. The majority of voters, Republican and Democrat alike, want secure borders and illegal aliens found, sent home and kept from returning. Note to Republicans: Most Americans DO NOT want amnesty for illegal aliens. The majority of voters want terrorists found and "dispatched" so they can't attack us later. Note to Republicans: You weren't elected to be politically correct and pass ridiculous policies to strip search white-haired 94 year old grandma in her wheel chair, or Ann Coulter just to check out her choice of lingerie of the day. Conservative Republicans were not elected to nominate and support moderate or liberal judges, or judges with no opinions whatsoever, that are supported by the minority party. Note to Republicans: When you are elected to power, you have the right and the mandate to nominate and support judges that share your philosophy and the philosophy of those that gave you your job. Conservative Republicans need to go back to school and learn just what it is to be a Conservative AND a Republican. Stop worrying about what Democrats think of you as they will NEVER truly like you regardless and do what is best for America! Protect her, her citizens and her Constitution! ------------------------------------------------------------------ I did not write this but it expresses much of what I feel at this time. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 9 2006, 07:10 AM Post #2 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I don't know where you're getting your information, but here in my state, it was the Republicans (rather, the ones in office) who really pushed to have the voting machines, and it was the Democrats who opposed it. Leave it to Ann Foulmouth Coulter to take something like the election and turn it into another Democrat/liberal/whatever-bashing session. I thought the dems were the ones who were supposed to be the whiners. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 9 2006, 07:13 AM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Anyone who thinks that Ann Coulter is the voice of reason is hard to take seriously. The same could be said of Michael Moore, of course, but no one is posting articles written by him as if they were gospel. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 9 2006, 07:20 AM Post #4 |
|
I agree, around here at least it was definitely the democrats who had more of a problem with the electronic machines....so I didn't get that sentence either. Although I got the first part, which is kinda funny...you have to admit it's pretty damn quiet (relatively) compared to past elections where republicans won and it seemed everyone was flipping their lid about disenfranchised voters, voter fraud, election problems, etc. So it seems all we have to do is let democrats win each time and we wont have to worry about hearing all the bitching and moaning about election woes. ![]() ...wait, I dont like that idea. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 9 2006, 07:25 AM Post #5 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I won't admit that at all. The scene is no different than any other election that shifts powers of politicla parties. I can't believe you actually think republicans aren't complaining as much. What the hell do you call this article?
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 9 2006, 07:27 AM Post #6 |
|
one of the angels
|
that's ann for you. seriously.. what do the dems want? what do they stand for? do you know? |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 9 2006, 07:28 AM Post #7 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I have no idea, but I imagine we'll find out in the months to come. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 9 2006, 07:31 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
But they *don't* know why they won. Pelossi is out talking about the "mandate" the voters gave the democrats...... mandate on WHAT? They didn't have any plan. All they did in essence was say "we're not republicans". Not one single solid plan or goal was ever revealed. The democrats won because of exactly what Coulter is saying about the republicans - they failed to do what they were expected to do. She is dead on the money with this: "Conservative Republicans need to go back to school and learn just what it is to be a Conservative AND a Republican." This is why the republicans lost. Democrats didn't "win" a thing - they just benefitted from the public's anger at republicans for failing to be conservatives. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 9 2006, 07:35 AM Post #9 |
|
MAMIL
|
Has Ann ever said anything nice about someone who wasn't on her side of the fence? It must be great to live in her world, everything's so simple. Right = good, Left =bad. Tedious tart. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 9 2006, 07:37 AM Post #10 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'd have to agree that the Dems didn't win, the Republicans lost. But I disagree with Larry as to why the Republicans lost. They didn't lose because they weren't conservative enough. They lost because the majority of the American public is sick of the direction of the war in Iraq, and sick of El Presidente refusing to acknowledge reality or change course even a little. Too bad he decided to change course the day AFTER the election. They lost because the American public has an amazingly low opinion of W, in general, and 40% of the people polled said they were voting against W. Astounding that that many people were willing to say they were voting against someone who isn't even on the ballot. They lost because the Republican Congress was a bunch of yes-men for Bush, and they want some checks and balances. They lost because of Bush's ill-advised attempt to spend political capital on Social Security reform. He touched the third rail, and he got singed. The Democrats didn't win. They just managed to avoid tripping over their own feet too much. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 9 2006, 07:46 AM Post #11 |
|
I'm not saying that NO republicans are complaining (double negative!), I'm just saying that in 2000, 2002, and 2004...there were countless protests, lawsuits, hanging chads, disenfranchised voter claims, election fraud here and there, etc....all over the media and it seems that isn't the case this time around, despite a MAJOR sweep for the democrats. All that we have that I've seen this year is a state-run automatic recount in Virginia. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 9 2006, 07:48 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yes, by all means we mustn't fix the SS program. Try to do that, and the democrats will all run out and scare the hell out of old people by telling tham a bunch of lies. SS *needs* to be reformed. It has nothing to do with republicans being "yes men", it has to do with a constant 6 year barrage of antiwar bullsh!t from the democrats as they sold their souls trying to get back in power. The reason people are frustrated with the war in Iraq is twofold - it's normal for people to find war unpleasant, and want it to end. It's also normal for the 80% of the public who aren't paying attention to be brainwashed by all the rhetoric. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 9 2006, 07:55 AM Post #13 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
The past elections (2000, 2004) were for the president, not for Congressional midterms, and those races were a lot closer, and affected everybody. It's kind of hard to complain about (or, if you're the media, brew up a story about) a "major sweep", as you put it, but an election that's close, well, look at Virginia. There's much talk of a recount because it's exciting and the media jumps on that. I don't even remember what happened in 2002; I don't recall much media coverage if at all. Given the uproar about the electronic voting machines, I don't see any evidence at all for what you're saying. I don't see any difference in the "level of complaining across party lines". |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 9 2006, 07:57 AM Post #14 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Sadly, I agree. However, it is still the third rail of politics. Anyone who votes for Social Security reform is going to pay with their job. The only way I can see it happening is to have bi-partisan reform of Social Security, phased in over let's say 30 years. That way, the voters won't feel it's being lifted from their personal piggy banks. It stinks, because the system needs reform NOW, but I don't see how it can happen.
Yeah, like in 2004 ... all that "soft on terrorism" rhetoric. Too bad it didn't work this time around. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 9 2006, 07:57 AM Post #15 |
|
MAMIL
|
I hear sirens!
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 9 2006, 08:07 AM Post #16 |
|
Well it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on something!
|
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 9 2006, 08:50 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
So....what's going to happen in 2008, when W ain't around to kick anymore? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 9 2006, 08:52 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Nope. It will run out of money, we'll create or borrow money out of thin air to fund it, along with socialized medicine. A lousy economy, balloning debt and social programs we can't pay for, with an electorate that won't let you trim a thing....in short, Europe West. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Nov 9 2006, 08:53 AM Post #19 |
|
Senior Carp
|
LOL!!! First off, the “article” I posted, which began this thread was NOT written by Ann Coulter but someone responding to it. If you Dems want to really get bashed, read her column. What do you expect? We on the right happen to think much of what the Left believes in amounts to fascism or communism, take your pick, with the “high and mighty” making decisions for the rest of us poor slobs who can’t think for ourselves. I also note that few on the Left are actually gifted with much else but idealism – note the continual rants about equality which never has and never will exist. And as for Q, if he wants not to take me seriously, that’s perfectly fine with me. – edit – |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Nov 9 2006, 09:04 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Nov 9 2006, 01:28 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
To complete the thought, here is Ann's column. Good column, Ann: Ann says democratic win is really the party's death throes. Go Ann. |
| |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 9 2006, 01:36 PM Post #22 |
|
MAMIL
|
Somebody made an election prediction that there would be a lot of lying, followed by both sides claiming a victory. Who was that masked man? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 9 2006, 01:40 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Well.....somebody's got to do it, and they better be pretty durn quick about it. As for another large government program - Medicare - the money runs out in 2018. Now we're talking about screwing with 1/7 of the U.S. economy.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 9 2006, 01:42 PM Post #24 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Cap'n Obvious. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 9 2006, 01:45 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
BTW, here's what Annie actually wrote: Historic Victory For Diebold! By: Ann Coulter History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated. So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet. Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three. Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb – I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming. Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards. Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas! But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont). In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" – especially in the sixth year. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate. In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate. In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats. Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" – as MSNBC calls it – rather than the death throes of a dying party. During eight years of Clinton – the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! – Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House – only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate – and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.) So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy. The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia." The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about – and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












4:33 PM Jul 10