Do Democrats Comprehend?

Dixie.... it is not a "perception" it is fact. You have a well deserved reputation as a wacko neocon who is nearly universally incorrect in your "opinions".

And as I demonstrated above, and you refuted with an ad hominem attack, this is your irrelevant opinion. I have been correct more than I've been wrong. And I understand why you take this approach, I just don't understand the fear.

Regarding this election: the democrats ran to the middle and the republicans ran away from it. republicans had been tarred with Iraq and with incompetence and corruption and that was entirely self-inflicted.

Iraq isn't really a right-left issue. The democrats indeed ran to the middle, because they understand the country is 60% conservative, majority pro-life, and majority 'values' oriented. The democrats couldn't run on what they really believe in, liberalism, because the American people would have rejected that. So, they essentially lied about who they were, and won an election on the emotional appeal of Iraq.

And the middle came our way precisely because of the issues of Iraq, corruption and incompetence. And we will do nothing to cede any of those issues back to you in the upcoming two years.

Well, the middle came your way because you ran to the middle. You just admitted that. They gave you leadership power because they want change in Iraq, and if they haven't had results in two years, they will not suddenly see the enlightenment of liberalism any more than they did this time, and are not likely to continue keeping you in power. So, the next election might be about Iraq, from the perspective of the democrats lack of a plan or lack of interest to do anything to change the direction of Iraq, corruption has already proven to be a break-even proposition at best, and Bush will be retired from politics, so incompetence isn't likely to be an issue either.

Lookit, I know this recent win is still new, and you've not had a chance to digest it completely, you are still reacting like the retarded kids on a field trip, but when you start to settle down, after the first of the year, you are going to realize that Bush is not running again, and the anti-Bush agenda is now effectively DOA. You can't hide behind your lack of power, you have control of Congress, and people will expect more from you than the usual criticisms of Bush, you will have to step up to the plate now, and take your swings. If you strike out by trying to push the Liberal Agenda, as I anticipate you will do, then 2008 will usher in a Conservative landslide. I doubt it will be Democrat-led.
 
"I know this recent win is still new, and you've not had a chance to digest it completely, you are still reacting like the retarded kids on a field trip"

Will all due, Dixie, I think the retarded kids on the field trip are more likely to come here the day after the election, put their hands on their hips & start threads demanding why Iraq isn't fixed yet, telling Democrats that every life lost from 11/7 on was their fault, screaming that there are tons of threads & Democrats calling the election a mandate for far-left values (which I still haven't heard even one say) and clamoring why there aren't any more threads on election problems (there have been more than a dozen on the other site since the election).

I think you're a little confused on that one...
 
He's a lot confused...and his ridiculous statement that he has been right more than he has been wrong is false on its face.

Schiavo: wrong
nuclear option: wrong
culture of corruption success as campaign issue: wrong
number of dead americans: wrong
outcome of midterm elections: wrong
death of the insurgency after Zarqawi's demise: wrong

Bush beats Kerry: right.

Like I said, the retarded kid on my son's little league team had a better batting average.
 
Schiavo: said it wouldn't be issue in election- was right.
nuclear option: said R's would pay for not having balls- was right.
culture of corruption success as campaign issue: said it would harm dems more in the end. -will be right.
number of dead americans: still far below Vietnam- was right.
outcome of midterm elections: said it depended on how 'conservative' democrats could make themselves look, and republicans self destruction- was right.
death of the insurgency after Zarqawi's demise: said 'begining of end' for alqaeda- will be right.

Looks like I've done fairly well from my perspective.
 
Last edited:
Schiavo: said it would haunt democrats in election. wrong
nuclear option: said that republicans would exercise it. wrong
number of dead americans: on 12/1/05, said we wouldn't lose 500 more. wrong
outcome of midterm elections: said that democrats would not gain one seat in either chamber: wrong
death of the insurgency: the carnage is increasing, not decreasing. If some event is going to be the beginning of some trend, then the effects should be seen at the time of the event...not the opposite. That is like saying that the Boston Tea Party was the cause of the civil war.

from your perspective, you are the world's greatest authority and have never been wrong about anything.....

you need to know that your perspective is shared by NO ONE ELSE.
 
Dixie said:
Schiavo: said it would be issue in election- was right.
nuclear option: said R's would pay for not having balls- was right.
culture of corruption success as campaign issue: said it would harm dems more in the end. -will be right.
number of dead americans: still far below Vietnam- was right.
outcome of midterm elections: said it depended on how 'conservative' democrats could make themselves look, and republicans self destruction- was right.
death of the insurgency after Zarqawi's demise: said 'begining of end' for alqaeda- will be right.

Looks like I've done fairly well from my perspective.
Click to expand...


Schiavo was a non-issue - none of the backlash Dixie promised again & again.

Chaffee lost in New England because - as moderate as he was - he's a Republican, and they are becoming an endangered species in the Northeast. If he had been more conservative, he would have gotten more trounced.

The culture of corruption theme was one of TWO reasons Democrats won this election. On that one, you couldn't possibly have been more wrong; you never said "in the end" - you talked about the CA election as showing, definitely, that it would not work in '06.

# of dead Americans - you couldn't have been more wrong, unfortunately; you're cherrypicking your prediction (oh, forgive me - I mean your OPINION. You have never predicted anything in your life).

You said the outcome of the elections would depend on how conservative Dems became? Interesting, because I never really saw many threads from you talking about how conservative they were becoming prior to election night. Just a lot of shrill, repetitive "you'll never win with a hate Bush agenda!" garbage...

As far as Zarqawi, if Al Qaeda does go down ultimately, it will have nothing to do with his death. What we saw with him is that everyone on their end is pretty much replaceable.

"Looks like I've done fairly well from my perspective"

Wrong again.
 
Just a lot of shrill, repetitive "you'll never win with a hate Bush agenda!"

And with Democrats running to the middle and opposing Republicans with Conservative Democrats in key races, it looks as if I was correct. You simply didn't win on the militant Bush-Hate agenda. You won because you fooled enough gullible people into thinking you were conservative, and had some sort of plan for Iraq, both of which were lies, and will be exposed over the next two years. This is why you see the Liberals scurrying to get healthcare on the agenda, butcher the tax cuts, and push their liberal socialist bullshit on us.
 
Dixie said:
Just a lot of shrill, repetitive "you'll never win with a hate Bush agenda!"

And with Democrats running to the middle and opposing Republicans with Conservative Democrats in key races, it looks as if I was correct. You simply didn't win on the militant Bush-Hate agenda. You won because you fooled enough gullible people into thinking you were conservative, and had some sort of plan for Iraq, both of which were lies, and will be exposed over the next two years. This is why you see the Liberals scurrying to get healthcare on the agenda, butcher the tax cuts, and push their liberal socialist bullshit on us.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you weren't paying any attention to key races around the country, and to how campaigns were being run? That's a startling admission for you, Dixie.

Of course, you're delusional. You've been wrong every step of the way - as has been well documented - and you will be wrong about the next 2 years, and your party's prospects for '08. Did you know that in the Senate alone, 22 Republican incumbents will be up for re-election in '08, compared to just 11 Dems? As far as the House goes, the majority of state houses & governorships that the Dems now own should help a great deal, as well as a common sense agenda over the next 2 years of helping with college costs, cleaning up Congress, investing in alt energy & stem cell research, raising the minimum wage & providing the oversight of the executive branch which Congress is entrusted to do by the American people, but which they have been negligent on for about 6 years or so.

Keep making those predictions, er...opinions, though...
 
Of course, you're delusional. You've been wrong every step of the way -

Well, I think I just showed you how I was right, and you've not been able to refute me. So, you analysis is incorrect. As I said, I understand the reasoning behind trying to diminish my opinions, I just don't understand why you are so afraid of them.
 
Dixie said:
Of course, you're delusional. You've been wrong every step of the way -

Well, I think I just showed you how I was right, and you've not been able to refute me. So, you analysis is incorrect. As I said, I understand the reasoning behind trying to diminish my opinions, I just don't understand why you are so afraid of them.
Click to expand...

Um...I gave you a whole list of refutations, and you cherrypicked the one piece of a line that you could twist for any kind of advantage, no matter how dishonest it was.

You remind me a lot of Bush, actually...
 
Onceler said:
Um...I gave you a whole list of refutations, and you cherrypicked the one piece of a line that you could twist for any kind of advantage, no matter how dishonest it was.

You remind me a lot of Bush, actually...
Click to expand...


No, you gave a whole list of things you call refutation, which you can't back up with any tangible evidence or anything more than your incompetent misinterpretations of what I have said. I didn't cherry pick anything, I demonstrated how you were incorrect in stating that I was wrong about everything. You do comprehend how, if I was right about one thing, I couldn't be wrong about everything, right? And if I was right about one thing, it stands to reason I could be right about other things, and certainly not wrong about everything. By the way, I am also correct in stating that your statement about me not being right about anything, is incorrect, so that makes at least two things I am right about.
 
Liberal/Socialist Mantra...

Bash-Bash-Bash...Lie-Lie-Lie...Twist-Twis-Twist...bring nothing to the table or debate...if all else fails...contact the ACLU...they will bring the fight to the Supreme court...yeah that will solve it!...puke!
 
Dixie said:
Schiavo: said it wouldn't be issue in election- was right.

-Wrong. You have no exit polling to allow you to conclude this. Pollers didn't ask. Schiavo was part of a larger issue of GOP overreach and incompetence. Same way disbanding the iraqi army was part of the larger issue of the war.

nuclear option: said R's would pay for not having balls- was right.

-Lame. Who gives a shit? I said you were never right about anything of Consequence. And you have no polling or empirical data to make that conclusion.

culture of corruption success as campaign issue: said it would harm dems more in the end. -will be right.

-"Will be right"??? LOL. This thread is about what you have been right about. Not what you "might" be right about "someday"

number of dead americans: still far below Vietnam- was right.

-Well, since I never heard anyone ever say there would be more american dead than vietnam, this was a lame prediction. Like predicting the Chicago Bears could beat a high school football team

outcome of midterm elections: said it depended on how 'conservative' democrats could make themselves look, and republicans self destruction- was right.

Liar. You bet maineman $100 dollars that the Dems wouldn't pick up a single seat in congress

death of the insurgency after Zarqawi's demise: said 'begining of end' for alqaeda- will be right.

-"Will be right"??? LOL. Plus, you're lying. You didn't say that. See me sig line. You said Zarqawis death spelled "the end of al qaeda" in iraq....not "the beginning of the end" of al qaeda.

Looks like I've done fairly well from my perspective.

Nope.
Click to expand...


.
 
Last edited:
-Wrong. You have no exit polling to allow you to conclude this.

Sure I do! Go search out every single poll that was taken, and see how many people cited Terri Sciavo's case as the reason for their vote. It is Nil! Not a soul in America indicated this was the reason for their vote, either way. So, unless you have some tangible data to refute this, you can sit down and shut your smart-ass mouth now.

Lame. Who gives a shit? I said you were never right about anything of Consequence. And you have no polling or empirical data to make that conclusion.

I give a shit, and you said I was never right about ANYTHING. This is WRONG. I certainly do have empirical data, every Congressman running for re-election, who was part of McCain's chickenshit brigade, went down in flames.

This thread is about what you have been right about. Not what you "might" be right about "someday"

No, this thread is about whether Democrats Comprehend what happened in this election. Again, something I am right about and something you are wrong about, which seems to be a trend in this thread.

Well, since I never heard anyone ever say there would be more american dead than vietnam, this was a lame prediction.

Well I guess you must have missed the 2,897 threads about how Iraq is exactly like Vietnam, over the past 3 years. My opinion that was twisted into a "prediction" was on the point of fatalities in war, and how Iraq is miniscule compared to other wars, and hardly even compares to some major battles. This point still remains salient.

Liar. You bet maineman $100 dollars that the Dems wouldn't pick up a single seat in congress

No lie... Again, I am correct, you are incorrect.... *sigh* it's getting too easy! I made a bet, and readily admitted I would probably lose the bet, I didn't 'predict' anything. It would have been a rather 'historical first' if Republicans had gained seats in this election. As I said, and have said repeatedly, my bet was not predicated on a belief or prediction of anything, it was made for the sole purpose of shutting someones running mouth, and the strategy unfortunately failed.

See me sig line. You said Zarqawis death spelled "the end of al qaeda" in iraq....not "the beginning of the end" of al qaeda.

And where is your empirical data and polls to show that alQaeda is vibrant and flourishing as strongly as ever in Iraq? When someone uses the phrase "spells the end" it means the same as "beginning of the end" in most cases. I am sorry this didn't sink into your pinhead, maybe it's why you have such a profound problem misunderstanding what I say.

Looks like I've done fairly well from my perspective. Nope.

Uhm, I hate to be a stick in the mud for ya here, but I believe I know and understand MY perspective, better than YOU do.
 
how can you possibly say that you are right about what democrats do or do not comprehend about what happened in this election when you have failed to comprehend the ramifications yourself?
 
"No, this thread is about whether Democrats Comprehend what happened in this election."

No worries - we get it. You put all of your eggs in a poorly planned, unnecessary war, you took too much bad money & you catered too much to the evangelical base. By the time the election season rolled around, all you had to run on was another cynical attempt to ban gay marriage constitutionally, and $100 million to spend on negative ads attacking things like novels your opponent wrote or their race.

As a result, two things happened: you got your arse handed to you on a platter - NO ONE saw both houses of Congress realistically happening; a few months ago, even the House was a stretch. AND, you opened up the middle for the Dems to take. Much as you would like to believe the country is ultimately red, they're really pretty purple, and you have given the Dems a huge opportunity to win over that middle for a generation.

I hope they take it. That way, I'll only have to listen to you screaming & shaking your fist, making one innane prediction after another, as you stand at the outskirts of the political wilderness.

But that's where you & the GOP like it, right? Didn't you say that the GOP works best in a minority?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top