You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Following closely on the embarrassing heels of the Republican's Lirpa 2009 budget plan ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/nyregion/01election.html?th&emc=th

"A mere 65 votes separated the two candidates late Tuesday in a Congressional contest in upstate New York that received national attention and was widely seen as a referendum on the Obama administration

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Don't giggle yet..there are over 10,000 absentee ballots and most are republicans. The left will lose this one unless they try their normal program of disqualifying most of the military vote and as many ballots as possible.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Read the article. I bet you didn't even do that, did you? You just popped out that response like a good little soldier!

Here's the thing ...

There are about 6k absentee ballots that were returned.

The voter's registration in this district is weighted in favor of the Republicans by 70k registrants.

How do you suppose the Republican can pick up 70k votes with only 6k outstanding? Even if they would allow all 10k absentee ballots to be counted, he can't do it!

No one has said this race is over, the Republican might actually win in the end - though recent results indicate he might easily loose. Or he might cause endless havoc as Coleman is doing in Minnesota. Cornyn will have his WW IV!

But, you're missing the point. The Republicans have a 70k advantage in this district's registrations and even if the Republican wins, there are a lot of registered Republicans who - with unsually heavy voting for a special election - didn't vote Republican!

Michael Steele made this a referendum on his leadership and on Obama's administration. And, no matter what, the Republicans are loosing even if they win this one seat.

That's frickin' embarrassing!

LOL!!!!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

The final difference per tonight's news was 25 votes...there are thousands of absentees AND republicans heavily outnumber dems and the absentees vote heavily republican....

In short, unless the dems try to discount legal votes, the dems will lose.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Exactly! The Republicans outnumber the Democrats by huuuuuge margins in this district.

They have a 70,000 registered voter advantage over the Democrats.

And the Democrat is still ahead! LOL!!!

No matter what the Republicans will have lost by ... what .. at least 64,000 voters who didn't pull the lever for a Republican? You do the math; 70,000 minus (at best) 6,000 = Holy Shit! They should be walking away with this election!

And the Democrat is still ahead!!!!

You can keep repeating the Republican might win. I never denied that, there's always a chance. But the Republicans haven't won in this district in years now, not since George's popularity started caving in and they started getting themself indicted for puttzing aorund with things they shouldn't.

And they have 70,000 more registered Republicans than the Democrats have registered voters!

And they can't get closer than a 25 vote advantage for the Democrat?!!! Yowsers!

And this was Steele's test of leadership? This was the start of the Republican come back?

Man! That's gotta be frickin' embarrassing!

And the Lirpa budget plan on top of that?

Geeeeeez!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

You giggle now but when the final results are in and your fellow loses the republicans will have the last laugh and the seat....I await the final result to revisit the issue

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Giggle?!

I'm ROTFLMAO!

Why don't you hold on until the seat is awarded to the winner. The way Republicans do this now, we should know after about two years of court battles.

And if the Republicans win the seat, that will accomplish ... what? The Republicans are still loosing votes faster than Custer lost men and the Republicans will still be neutered rats in the House.

Say, did you see Franken won his court case today? That's not good news for Coleman! Strange isn't it how Coleman insisted Franken drop his legal challenges when it looked like Coleman was ahead and it wasn't even Al's choice to make. But now Coleman just won't let go and is depriving the people of Minnesota of their rightful representation. Is that what Republicans stand for now? That's quite a change from 2000 when they couldn't wait to shut down the state wide recount.

Now Cornyn only has to get this to Federal Court to make sure Al does not have his seat for another six months or better - that would give the Dems their filibuster proof majority on most votes you know.

So it's fight, fight, fight until you can fight no more no matter what benefits the people.

Gosh! You must be so proud of how your party goes about politics.

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 33 min ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

If you have been raped for 8 years by a gang of ducks, and someone gives you a hunting license and a loaded shotgun...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20785.html


Quote:
Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has said that such a legal challenge could take
JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Is fewer politicians in Washington a problem? Why?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Because the Constitution intends for the people to be represented.

Oh! That's right, you don't believe in the actual Constitution, just the version Michael Savage reads to you until you fall asleep.

Here - here's the real one ...

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html


Quote:
Article. I. Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. (Note 3: This Clause has been affected by Clause 1 of amendment XVII. )


Quote:
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

But does that not involve a real election and an accurate count of real votes...you know, no ACORN or legal fraud? Until those issues are fixed, the person sitting in the seat is simply a fraud.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

OOPS! The Republican goes ahead, by 12...I expect the dems to drag out every lawyer they can find to try to limit the absentee vote.

http://www.politickerny.com/2903/tedisco-now-leading-12

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 33 min ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Let's see...the registered Republicans outnumber the registered Democrats by 70,000.

If the Republican candidate wins by 5,000...isn't that still pretty embarrassing for him and the party???

Sounds like he, or someone, lost 65,000 Republicans somewhere along the way....

Is it possible that having a Republican Moron in the White House for 8 years was too much for them; even Republicans can eventually wake up to sustained idiocy....

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

You are not thinking...the district went Obama by almost 4%. The incumbent democrat congressman won by a larger margin..Both of those margins are gone...the republican picked up a lot of votes that HAD gone to Obama....

This reversal happened in under 3 months...where will folk be in 3 years?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

70,000 minus 12 = 69,988 registered "R" voters you don't have.

Your math and your thinking suck!

Despite heavy turn out for a special election, special elections tend to attract only the most fervent of the base for both parties. Figure out how many voters didn't turn out at all. That's a lot of R's who didn't bother to show up no matter what figures you use.

Do the math, then you'll have a better idea of which O voters have already turned their back on the Dems and how many haven't voted for an R in years. Until you can show those numbers the only other figure that matters is the 69,988 registered "R" voters that have given up on R's.

Where will we be in three years? That's an easy one! Back in the booth voting for a second term.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Since that idea of your's went nowhere, would you like to address the referendum on Steele's leadership this election was supposed to represent? This was supposed to demonstrate his effectiveness as Chairman of the RNC.

Let's see ...

Twelve votes, huh?

Minus 69,988, huh?

OOOH! OUCH!

That's got to be embarrassing!

OK, that didn't work out either. A shame really. OOOOOPS!Sorry, I forgot you don't know that word.

So let's move on to more fertile ground and address the election as a beginning of the RNC's comeback.

Twelve votes, huh?

Minus the 70,000 advantage.

Minus the registered R's that haven't shown up in years.

That leaves us with .... let's see ...

OOOH! OUCH! DOUBLE OOOH AND OUCH AND ANOTHER OOOOOOOOH!!!

That's got to be embarrassing II!

LOL!!!

what a bunch of looosers

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

I'll try it again as you do not seem to get it...You are hanging your argument on registration and ignoring actual election results..The district has voted dem in the last two or 3 elections...that has just changed...the REAL change, the one that matters is not how folk register but how they vote and that is a loser for Obama.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II


Quote:
that has just changed...the REAL change, the one that matters is not how folk register but how they vote and that is a loser for Obama.

Oh! I didn't see the news. When did they stop counting votes? When the R was ahead?

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

You mean the Gore plan? No, the next thing that will appear, now that the dem is behind, is the lefts lawyers will try to disenfranchise absentee votes in the courts...If the margin in those votes is several hundred after the count, the lawyers will huddle and try to come up with plan B.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

So O hasn't lost? Well, that is good news, eh?


Quote:
If the margin in those votes is several hundred after the count, the lawyers will huddle and try to come up with plan B.

It's called an "automatic recount". I know your party isn't familiar with this concept and tries to shut them down all the time but that's what happens in virtually every state when the margins fall beneath a certain %.

Don't tell me you're not keeping up with Minnesota and Franken beating Coleman? I would have thought a partisan such as you would be praying to Karl Rove each night for spiritual guidance in this matter.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

So what about that Steele "thing"?

Geez, that's embarrassing!

Really embarrassing!

And that whole comeback thing and then it has to go on and on and on and it's not a comeback at all 'cause the R didn't really get a majority and ... well, you know why it's embarrassing II.

Or maybe you don't. You believe Cavuto, don't you? Krauthheimer? Barnes?

Yeah, well then you probably think this isn't as embarrassing as the rest of the nation does.

hehehehe

looosers

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

I wrote in November that, as Coleman had only won by a few hundred votes, that he should immediately concede as the demes would use the courts to steal the election, as they are doing..

Recount, when a dem uses the word, means fraud, found votes and counting only democrat votes...

I guess you have not figured out the consequence of the NY vote so I will leave you to be surprised.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Gotcha again!

Laws!

The Constitution!

Judges!

Treaties!

International conventions!

Pay them no mind.

Gonzo says.

Gotcha!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Unlike some, when I use the words 'laws' and 'Constitution'...I have read both

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

I'm impressed, there are quite a few laws I have yet to read. Particularly the ones from Alabama that concern goats. You must be, like, one of those speed reading freaks of nature.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

I don't reference a court opinion I have not read...you simply avoid that problem by not reading or referencing the decisions at all

As they say, ignorance is bliss...

You have admitted to giggling insanely for no reason..real bliss

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

I did?! When?

I think you have me confused with another liberal.

Actually, I think you have a lot of things confused.

I wasn't "giggling", I was ROTFLMAO. I couldn't help it. You should try it some time, you obviously don't have much in the way of a sense of humor. And right now the R's are hilarious.

I was ROTFLMAO because you write funny stuff. Not intentionally funny I know but still - "funny" stuff.

Like saying you've read "the laws". But you haven't read "the laws". You've read "the laws" that you want to read and you've interpreted them as you want them interpreted without any assistance from anyone I assume and you've decided what they mean and what you can ignore like you do all the stuff you read.

That's not the same thing as reading "the laws".

It's not even funny for that matter.

(And I did read the arguments you tried to pass off as "case law". It wouldn't take a scholar to figure out what you tried to do would have got you laughed out of a real court. You still haven't shown me either "case" you think I should know.)

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

But is far more than getting my legal views off the DNC Fax....

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

They have one?! Gee, I would have thought they would be using email by now.

Did you know most of the D's in Congress are lawyers? That's gotta count for something!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: OOOH! That's got to be embarrassing II

Too easy to dump not the spam filter...

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading