I will NOT accept the results of this election ...

['Skins_&_'Stons]

and neither should you if you are a true conservative.

Nothing made me sicker than to see that ugly, bug-eyed ***** standing at the podium Wednesday morning, surrounded by liberal freaks that look like they came straight out of the Star Wars cantina. She and her merry band of freaks can thank the left wing liberal media for painting a picture of America that just isn't true. Tim Russert is living proof that a man can have multiple orgasms within minutes of each other.

Don't get me wrong. Bush and his ball-less, gut-less war on terror policies didn't help. And guys like George Allen who ran away from his conservative record during the campaign contributed to this defeat. I became physically ill seeing Bush and Pelosi making nice yesterday. Why would he do that? She is the enemy. She stands for everything that is wrong with America. Do you know why he's doing this? Because Bush is not a true conservative. He's a gutless leader who has compromised his conservative values for six years now. It didn't just start yesterday.

So, I'm calling on all real conservatives to stand up to the enemies of this country and to the compromisers of the enemies of this country. Do not accept it. If you see someone with a Jim Webb bumper sticker, pull up next to them and flip them off. What are they going to do, shoot you the peace sign? Call your local rep, Democrat or Republican, and let them know that there are true conservatives still out there and they are not happy. Do not accept the results of this election. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent me. I could give a rat's ass what she thinks of the war. Stand up and make some noise. Am I rambling? Yes, because I am pissed off. I am pissed off at the missed opportunities from this so-called conservative president. And now the commiecrats are going to economically rape all of us. Be prepared to bend over and take it. And you can just leave the lube in the drawer because it's gonna hurt.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

This is where you are being biased. It isn't just the liberals. In fact, what you are suggesting by "shake up" can be viewed as a liberal stance, regardless if you mean getting back to true constitutional conservatism. Fact is, true constitutionalism may not be what we need in today's era.

Yes it is the Liberals. What it isn't is just Democrats or just Republicans. It is both sides of the political aisle that are to blame.

What I am suggesting is not "Liberal" at all. To be truly honest I don't believe this system can be fixed without bloodshed. I don't really believe there is a "political" fix to the problems of this country. I really wish there was, but I don't see one.... and violent revolution is NOT a concept that Liberals have any interest in.

I VEHIMENTLY disagree with your assertion that Constitutionalism is not what this country needs. I really think that a slightly updated version of the document that was ratified in 1784 is EXACTLY what this country needs right now.

[GibbsFactor]

I really think that a slightly updated version of the document that was ratified in 1784 is EXACTLY what this country needs right now.

Then you agree with me.

A slightly changed document is a changed document.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Then you agree with me.

A slightly changed document is a changed document.

I doubt that what you and I would change are even close in detail or scope. The level of changes that I'm talking about are exceptionally minor. Updating of language from the more arcane form to a more modern linguistic and ensuring the proper meaning is clarified, and the inclusion of the appropriate amendments into the document itself while discarding those amendments that are not appropriate. That's pretty much it.

[GibbsFactor]

I doubt that what you and I would change are even close in detail or scope. The level of changes that I'm talking about are exceptionally minor. Updating of language from the more arcane form to a more modern linguistic and ensuring the proper meaning is clarified, and the inclusion of the appropriate amendments into the document itself while discarding those amendments that are not appropriate. That's pretty much it.

Such as?

[MurrayH81]

Funny how the libs call us cry babies.. i mean did you see hordes of Lawyers and Hordes of republicans screaming ELECTION FRAUD and go dumpster diving for chads, and have people actually say ( hey look ) this vote card punch out area near Gores name well kinda looks like they made a mistake when they voted for Bush. As a matter of fact you heard nothing of that sort from republicans, but if the republicans would have won, the manufactured election fraud law suites would be flying right now..

That's too funny. I believe most newspapers and other media outlets had well publicized that both sides had deployed teams of lawyers to make sure it was a clean election. With all that additional scrutiny, we appear to have actually had one for the first time in the last 6 years. That's why there was no whining and other forms of infantile behavior, because the election (by and large) appears to have been played straight under all the scrutiny and public awareness.

Ok fine Republicans are upset. Its hard to be happy knowing now we will get higher taxes, watch them demonize small business, watching how they will try and put very liberal supreme court justices on the bench so they can finish destroying our constitution. Anyone who pays taxes to a liberal needs to pay more and needs to pay for those who don't.. The tax payers are the rich..

I just love these higher taxes quotes. Hello folks, if you look at the costs of the Iraq war, the money has to come from somewhere. Oh, here's an idea, why don't the people and corporations that directly benefited, or those individuals who believe that the Iraq war was really waged to make the people of the United States safer can pay for it. We can readily identify the corporations, the private individuals can send a self-addressed stamped return envelope so we can send them a bill for their fair share.

The best the Democratic party can do for the next two years is to refuse to place right wing extremists into the judiciary, or other appointment areas where oversight is mandated.

and the final comment I have seen here is that the subpeonas will fly. I would say there is more publicly available evidence of more violations of the law and Constitution during the last 5 years (approximately). I am not talking about single congress people behaving badly, I am talking about the President and his buddies eroding our Constitution and being determined to attack Iraq before 9/11. The evidence is there (read the report - Constitution in Crisis by John Conyers). I even saw Sarge wonder why the Democrats havent been investigating such things already. Well, the answer is that the Minority party (by such large numbers) is about as ineffective as a blind man on an unfamiliar, silent pop up target gun range. They don't have legislative control, money, meeting places, agenda opportunity, or really much of anything. During the last year specifically, the Democrats were, and will most likely continue to be handicapped by new rules, last minute legislative ammendments, legislation designed to retroactively legalize criminal behavior, and very little information.

And like any crowd of criminals (which most of our current politicians are), when there is no oversight, they have done a lot of terrible things. Now it's time to air out the dirty laundry, and get the country back where it needs to be (solving problems and not creating new hidden ones).

/hail:helmet:

['Skins_&_'Stons]

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Such as?

Probably the one serious change I would make would be the inclusion of a new section in Article I, stating what defined a "Citizen" is, what their responsibilities and duties are, and what their rights are.

If you're asking about which Amendments I would change/remove; here you go....

Amendment XVI would be modified to indicate that a single income tax rate for all citizens regardless of income would be the only acceptable income tax system

Amendment XVIII would be removed all-together

Amendment XIX would be removed all-together

Amendment XXI would be removed all-together

Amendment XXII would be modified to regulate the number of overall terms a single citizen could serve as an elected official and in any one office or combination of offices in order to maintain an Amateur, not Professional political system.

[redskingluvr]

That's too funny. I believe most newspapers and other media outlets had well publicized that both sides had deployed teams of lawyers to make sure it was a clean election. With all that additional scrutiny, we appear to have actually had one for the first time in the last 6 years. That's why there was no whining and other forms of infantile behavior, because the election (by and large) appears to have been played straight under all the scrutiny and public awareness.

I just love these higher taxes quotes. Hello folks, if you look at the costs of the Iraq war, the money has to come from somewhere.

/hail:helmet:

I agree, and Walmart is the only one with that amount of money. So they should pay up.

Guys like you should be forced to put the bodies in bags after the coming terror attacks. But I have the funny feeling you will be at home, posting how somehow it was conservatives who caused it to happen and will do absolutely nothing to help or serve.

[MurrayH81]

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that in making a change the citizens of the United States of America made THE WRONG change. They have moved us BACKWARDS instead of forwards. They've chosen people who would have been more at home in the 1960's than in the 2000's. They chose Liberalism over True Conservatism. In effect they signed the Death Warrant of this country so far as I am concerned.

Was there any other change option available MSF, that would immediately check the destruction being caused by the Republican party?

A vote to place the opposition party into power isn't a vote for (or an attempt to condone) the most whacked-out liberal ideaologies of any of the that party's membership.

The stance you are adopting is a lot like seeing a few meteors and doing a Chicken Little impression.

I love intensity, but any force without a governor will destroy itself.

/hail:helmet:

[redskingluvr]

BTW this election was probably the most corruptly done in decades, they just found new ways that can't be prosectued yet.

[Burgold]

BTW this election was probably the most corruptly done in decades, they just found new ways that can't be prosectued yet.

Exactly. It's so blatantly obvious I don't know why the press is obscuring it. How can an election whose results parallel public opinion and every national poll taken by democratic and republican pollsters for the last few weeks be anything but a result of a rigged election. Clearly, the fact that everyone was predicting the House would fall this way and that the Senate was close and that national sentiment was hugely anti-Republican means that a pro-democrat election is the result of "corruption"

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Was there any other change option available MSF, that would immediately check the destruction being caused by the Republican party?

A vote to place the opposition party into power isn't a vote for (or an attempt to condone) the most whacked-out liberal ideaologies of any of the that party's membership.

The stance you are adopting is a lot like seeing a few meteors and doing a Chicken Little impression.

I love intensity, but any force without a governor will destroy itself.

I have to agree that there wasn't another option for change that would have worked immediately.

Unfortunately I have to seriously disagree that voting the most whacked-out Liberal idealogues into power by such a wide margin in many places isn't going to give them the idea that they now have a mandate to press their disgusting, soulless, demonic agenda on the American people. Especially since the special interest groups that helped the Democrats are now going to come looking for their pound of flesh.

The stance I'm adopting is simply what I believe you're going to see. The POTUS is a gutless schmuck who spent his time as Governor of Texas making deals with the soulless Democrats in the legislature there. What is there to make you think that the big boy Democrats in DC are not going to run rings around Bush and have him signing every piece of ****ed up legislation they get through Congress in the next two years. Hell, Bush let Edward "The Murderer" Kennedy write the ****ing education bill a couple years ago.

I don't know a lot about cars, but I didn't think a governor only allowed the vehicle to work in reverse.

[MurrayH81]

I get the feeling I'd get more than one vote, but expecially in this state, there is no way I could actually WIN an election. You might be frightened to think about how many votes a real Conservative could actually garner out in this part of the state if either party were to actually run one, chom. I know I couldn't get votes in Boston with my beliefs. That's part of why I don't live inside Rt. 128. The reason why Patrick won so convincingly out here in Worcester county and places further West in the state.... Kerry Healy had turned her back on the people who got her elected to the state legislature in the first place years ago. People with philosophies like mine don't forgive easily and we NEVER forget.

I would vote for MSF, because:

1. He says what he means

2. He doesn't appear to be lying

3. He holds to a political logic that I can espouse

4. He can't be any worse than the current worst from either party

5. He doesn't write like a bumpkin

6. and he is fairly polite, even to those he disagrees with.

that's two votes, are there more?

/hail:helmet:

[Zuck]

I doubt that what you and I would change are even close in detail or scope. The level of changes that I'm talking about are exceptionally minor. Updating of language from the more arcane form to a more modern linguistic and ensuring the proper meaning is clarified, and the inclusion of the appropriate amendments into the document itself while discarding those amendments that are not appropriate. That's pretty much it.

hmmmm, change the constitution so it meets your liking and excludes views of others you disagree with?

Maybe you can change it to ensure that citizens won't be able to vote in liberals who don't represent your belief system?

The fact is the Conservative movement is as hypocrital as it ever was. They are for small government except when it come's to the part about telling people how to live their lives.

If Republicans follow your tract you can be certain they won't see the majority for years and years and years. The fact is the country for the most part is centrist.

[MurrayH81]

I agree, and Walmart is the only one with that amount of money. So they should pay up.

Guys like you should be forced to put the bodies in bags after the coming terror attacks. But I have the funny feeling you will be at home, posting how somehow it was conservatives who caused it to happen and will do absolutely nothing to help or serve.

Sorry, all my body bag experience was spent on the boating public when I served honorably in the US Coast Guard in the 80's.

Sorry, I am also a registered Republican who fell for Bush's lies and voted for him in 2000. Now I vote for the Presidential or Government candidate that I believe is the best person to be in charge. I will continue to vote for the opposition party in the legislative branches until a 3rd party comes into being that I can wholly support (and who has an opportunity to win and restore federal government to it's intended size and function via legislation).

As for attacks, we wouldn't have had to worry about that issue if the competely Republican dominated Executive and Legisaltive branches had not failed to secure "our house" properly during the last 5+ years, before they went to fight the street hoods in another area of town. The only way we have of actually catching and preventing a terrorist attack is luck and the people, or if the attack comes in the form of shoes or a belt buckle through the airport.

/hail:helmet:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

hmmmm, change the constitution so it meets your liking and excludes views of others you disagree with?

Maybe you can change it to ensure that citizens won't be able to vote in liberals who don't represent your belief system?

Not really changing it much at all, Zuck. Clarifying and updating it a little bit. Getting rid of a lot of the language that causes confusion among people who don't want to read what is actually written there. What I'm espousing doesn't exclude anyone. Like any reasonable contract it spells out the duties of each side, what the limitations on each side anre, and what each side gets for living up to those duties and not exceeding the limitations.

IF Liberals could exist inside the limitations of those duties and limitations, they'd be more than welcome in the system. I'm not so sure they'd want to stay here in the United States under the slightly revised Constitution that I'm talking about, but if they did they would have the same rights and duties as every other citizen.

The fact is the Conservative movement is as hypocrital as it ever was. They are for small government except when it come's to the part about telling people how to live their lives.

Zuck, I'm getting really friggin tired of hearing that lie. True Conservatives have no interest in the government being involved in the personal lives of the citizenry any more than absolutely necessary. Note that I said Conservatives, not Republicans or Evangelists. However, there has to be a line drawn in the sand as to what any society will and will not accept in terms of social behavior. Personally I prefer society to set that standard, not the government; but on the rare occassions when society fails to do that, the government may have to step in and make sure that society's lack of limitation doesn't destroy the country.

If Republicans follow your tract you can be certain they won't see the majority for years and years and years. The fact is the country for the most part is centrist.

BULL****!!!!! This country is largely LEFTIST, not Centrist. Especially since there is no such thing as a Centrist philosophy. "I don't know" and "I don't care" ARE NOT political philosophies. The LEFTISM of the majority of American citizens is what is destroying this country. Pure and Simple.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Probably the one serious change I would make would be the inclusion of a new section in Article I, stating what defined a "Citizen" is, what their responsibilities and duties are, and what their rights are.

From previous posts, I imagine that you would also want all mentions of "the people" or "persons" in the Constitution changed to "citizens." Is that correct?

Amendment XVI would be modified to indicate that a single income tax rate for all citizens regardless of income would be the only acceptable income tax system

Amendment XVIII would be removed all-together

Amendment XIX would be removed all-together

Amendment XXI would be removed all-together

Amendment XXII would be modified to regulate the number of overall terms a single citizen could serve as an elected official and in any one office or combination of offices in order to maintain an Amateur, not Professional political system.

18 and 21 cancel each other out anyway, so what you're proposing is the following:

* flat income tax

* women lose the right to vote

* term limits for all elected officials (thereby removing accountability from the voters)

Is this correct?

[Joe Sick]

I have an idea for you that you could spend your time on constructively. Write a manifesto on what you think this country is about, where it's going, where it needs to go, etc etc etc. Maybe you can start a movement.

He might need to buy a shack in Montana, too. Extra points for hooded sweatshirt...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

From previous posts, I imagine that you would also want all mentions of "the people" or "persons" in the Constitution changed to "citizens." Is that correct?

Something like that.

18 and 21 cancel each other out anyway, so what you're proposing is the following:

* flat income tax

* women lose the right to vote

* term limits for all elected officials (thereby removing accountability from the voters)

Is this correct?

Pretty much. Obviously an official could be voted out of office before their term limits were met, but at a certain point they would be required to return to the private sector. There's a little more to my plan regarding the Amateurization of the political system, but it's not critical to the discussion we're currently having. I don't see term limits as removing accountability from the voters. I see it as an assurance that the Professional Political System of our current day society is done away with permanently.

[LApunkrocker72]

Well, here's my :2cents: :

I happily accept the results of the election. Having a Democratic Congress means that bozo of a President becomes a lame duck in every sense of the word.

For me, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006 will mark the day that we the American people took our country back from corruptive forces such as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. In other words, these election results were a victory for the American people.

Boy it feels great to be a Democrat! Now it's time for us to deliver. Hopefully, we could make America a better place for all.

[Ignatius J.]

man, sometimes people frm california are just so darn eloquent....

[Mass_SkinsFan]

For me, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006 will mark the day that we the American people took our country back from corruptive forces such as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. In other words, these election results were a victory for the American people.

Here's how I suspect history will see what happened on Tuesday:

On Tuesday November 7th, 2006 Socialist operatives staged a coup in the United States of America. They did so in the polling places of the cities and towns of the United States, effectively destroying the USA and in its place creating the United Socialist States of America. Over the following two years the country lost what small amount of interest in Rightness, Morals and Values had still existed under the auspices of the United States of America. In 2008 with the election of ----- ----- as President, the Socialist elements gained complete control of the country. Shortly thereafter all remaining resistance was systematically wiped out. Those Conservatives who resisted were executed. Those who capitulated were sent to re-education centers.

The USSA then went on to join with Canada, Cuba, and Mexico in the North American Union, a sister organization to the European Union, the Islamic Union (which now covers all of the Middle East including the territory formerly known as Israel), China (which now controls most of the Far East), and a couple other Socialist countries.

[Zuck]

Not really changing it much at all, Zuck. Clarifying and updating it a little bit. Getting rid of a lot of the language that causes confusion among people who don't want to read what is actually written there. What I'm espousing doesn't exclude anyone. Like any reasonable contract it spells out the duties of each side, what the limitations on each side anre, and what each side gets for living up to those duties and not exceeding the limitations.

IF Liberals could exist inside the limitations of those duties and limitations, they'd be more than welcome in the system. I'm not so sure they'd want to stay here in the United States under the slightly revised Constitution that I'm talking about, but if they did they would have the same rights and duties as every other citizen.

Zuck, I'm getting really friggin tired of hearing that lie. True Conservatives have no interest in the government being involved in the personal lives of the citizenry any more than absolutely necessary. Note that I said Conservatives, not Republicans or Evangelists. However, there has to be a line drawn in the sand as to what any society will and will not accept in terms of social behavior. Personally I prefer society to set that standard, not the government; but on the rare occassions when society fails to do that, the government may have to step in and make sure that society's lack of limitation doesn't destroy the country.

BULL****!!!!! This country is largely LEFTIST, not Centrist. Especially since there is no such thing as a Centrist philosophy. "I don't know" and "I don't care" ARE NOT political philosophies. The LEFTISM of the majority of American citizens is what is destroying this country. Pure and Simple.

By your standards the country is probably leftist because you are so far to the right. The fact is there are very few in the country that are as far right as you are. And this is a democracy where people vote so your type of ultra-right wing candidates don't dominate the political spectrum.

The only way you can think of achieving that is to change the constitution to minimize the will of the so called "leftist" majority that vote for the politicians.

As for changing the constitution I hear that a lot from hypocritical conservatives. "there has to be a line drawn in the sand occassionally",

That's the hypocritcal part right there. The line is drawn whenever it is outside the liking of conservatives.

Example. Gay marriage. Based on the way conservatives define where government fits in there should be no place for marriage as a government recognized function anyhow. What place does the government have deciding what constitutes a marriage anyhow, gay,straight, religious or otherwise?

But let me guess. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere right?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

By your standards the country is probably leftist because you are so far to the right. The fact is there are very few in the country that are as far right as you are. And this is a democracy where people vote so your type of ultra-right wing candidates don't dominate the political spectrum.

The only way you can think of achieving that is to change the constitution to minimize the will of the so called "leftist" majority that vote for the politicians?

Yes I am quite far to the Right, and I'll agree with you that there are very few people in this country who are as far Right as I am. Unfortunately you're also correct that most people don't understand what this country was intended to be and do generally do everything possible to avoid voting for Right-leaning candidates.

I'm still not seeing how the minimal changes I'm talking about would run all these Liberals out of the system like you seem to believe. Unless you're truly telling me that Liberals don't have the best interests of this country at heart.

That's the hypocritcal part right there. The line is drawn whenever it is outside the liking of conservatives.

Example. Gay marriage. Based on the way conservatives define where government fits in there should be no place for marriage as a government recognized function anyhow. What place does the government have deciding what constitutes a marriage anyhow, gay,straight, religious or otherwise?

But let me guess. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere right?

Zuck, personally I'd like to draw that line in the sand between ANY form of marriage and the government. Personally I believe marriage should be a religious institution similar to baptism, confirmation, or burial ceremonies; but I think we both know THAT is never going to happen.

While I am not personally in favor of the homosexual lifestyle I don't believe it's my place to tell people what they can and cannot do in their own bedrooms. So long as they're not creating an unnecessary scene out of it, I have no problem with it in public. Once they do start going beyond those limits, I really think then need to be politely asked to take a step backwards, as I believe any couple who is being blatantly disrespectful of other people's sensibilities in public should.