VA lt governor now holds the tiebreaker vote against Democrats in the state house.
Bob McDonnell now controls the direction of the Commonwealth and Democrats can only complain.

How is anyone seeing this as a Democratic victory?

VA Rejects Dems Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VA lt governor now holds the tiebreaker vote
> against Democrats in the state house.
> Bob McDonnell now controls the direction of the
> Commonwealth and Democrats can only complain.
>
> How is anyone seeing this as a Democratic victory?

I don't see it as a Democratic win. I see it as a Republican loss.

When it is touted far and wide that there is going be a disastrous election for Democrats and it turns out to be, really, just another noise-level ho-hum election result, something wasn't right about the touting, no?

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VA Rejects Dems Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > VA lt governor now holds the tiebreaker vote
> > against Democrats in the state house.
> > Bob McDonnell now controls the direction of the
> > Commonwealth and Democrats can only complain.
> >
> > How is anyone seeing this as a Democratic
> victory?
>
> I don't see it as a Democratic win. I see it as a
> Republican loss.
>
> When it is touted far and wide that there is going
> be a disastrous election for Democrats and it
> turns out to be, really, just another noise-level
> ho-hum election result, something wasn't right
> about the touting, no?

This election was a mandate for Cuccinelli to end the spread of socialism
in the commonwealth of Virginia, and you don't believe that, just wait and see.

+1



georgeallen in '14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > VA Rejects Dems Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > VA lt governor now holds the tiebreaker vote
> > > against Democrats in the state house.
> > > Bob McDonnell now controls the direction of
> the
> > > Commonwealth and Democrats can only complain.
> > >
> > > How is anyone seeing this as a Democratic
> > victory?
> >
> > I don't see it as a Democratic win. I see it as
> a
> > Republican loss.
> >
> > When it is touted far and wide that there is
> going
> > be a disastrous election for Democrats and it
> > turns out to be, really, just another
> noise-level
> > ho-hum election result, something wasn't right
> > about the touting, no?
>
> This election was a mandate for Cuccinelli to end
> the spread of socialism
> in the commonwealth of Virginia, and you don't
> believe that, just wait and see.

What socialism? Virginia is as close to anti-socialist as you can get without moving to the level of Mississippi. Get out of Fairfax County once in a while.

I do however agree that it was a mandate on whether Virginia would "stay the course" with the type of government that it has had under people like Warner and so far has had under McDonnell, or whether it opts for a more aggressive approach such as that being advocated by Cuccinelli. With Democrats having an equal vote in the Senate (which is going to cause all sorts of problems when it comes to committee assignments) it is hard to say it is. With the Lt. Gov. holding the tie-breaking vote it creates the opportunity for a moe aggressive policy but there will be Republican senators from marginal districts who may be putting their continued residence in office at risk if they go too far.

Not saying it is a Democratic victory. They lost seats they could not afford to lose even if it was fewer than expected. Simply saying no mandate.

The voter turn out was low.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What socialism? Virginia is as close to
> anti-socialist as you can get without moving to
> the level of Mississippi. Get out of Fairfax
> County once in a while.
>
> I do however agree that it was a mandate on
> whether Virginia would "stay the course" with the
> type of government that it has had under people
> like Warner and so far has had under McDonnell, or
> whether it opts for a more aggressive approach
> such as that being advocated by Cuccinelli. With
> Democrats having an equal vote in the Senate
> (which is going to cause all sorts of problems
> when it comes to committee assignments) it is hard
> to say it is. With the Lt. Gov. holding the
> tie-breaking vote it creates the opportunity for a
> moe aggressive policy but there will be Republican
> senators from marginal districts who may be
> putting their continued residence in office at
> risk if they go too far.
>
> Not saying it is a Democratic victory. They lost
> seats they could not afford to lose even if it was
> fewer than expected. Simply saying no mandate.

Fewer than expected? The common line was always that the Republicans MIGHT get a majority in the Senate. Seems pretty accurate.

Disagree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fewer than expected? The common line was always
> that the Republicans MIGHT get a majority in the
> Senate. Seems pretty accurate.

"Might" is simply a way of covering your keester in case your prediction is off.

And 20-20 is not a majority. I believe the Senate rules provide for committee assignments based on party representation and with an even number things will be interesting.

There is no repug mandate. There was the continuation of the trend of Democratic bleeding seats in Virginia.

If we'd had the foresight to nominee Hillary Clinton we would probably never seen McDonnell or Kookanelli elected.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VA Rejects Dems Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > VA lt governor now holds the tiebreaker vote
> > against Democrats in the state house.
> > Bob McDonnell now controls the direction of the
> > Commonwealth and Democrats can only complain.
> >
> > How is anyone seeing this as a Democratic
> victory?
>
> I don't see it as a Democratic win. I see it as a
> Republican loss.
>
> When it is touted far and wide that there is going
> be a disastrous election for Democrats and it
> turns out to be, really, just another noise-level
> ho-hum election result, something wasn't right
> about the touting, no?


Yeah if there was ever a political environment for a rout this was it and VA GOP dropped the ball. GOP is not happy about the results; trust me, especially having the tie breaker in the Lt. Govs hands when the Gov wants to be VP.

It's the kind of thinking that only money can buy. "It's a vicious circle," says Stiglitz. "The rich are using their money to secure tax provisions to let them get richer still. Rather than investing in new technology or R&D, the rich get a better return by investing in Washington."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1dEvmvgO6

Right - they bump up spending by over $600B per year in one year and wonder why they aren't even close to balancing.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Sure, there is a deficit and no doubt some tax increase will be necessary, but if no one is willing to cut spending, then why should people be willing to pony up more money - especially with the current economy. Federal receipts are down about 2% - spending has increased by 5% (as a percentage of GDP) since the Democrats took charge. Someone needs to be the adult up there and understand that tripling deficit spending spending while the economy is in a recession is about dumb.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right - they bump up spending by over $600B per
> year in one year and wonder why they aren't even
> close to balancing.
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
> ct.cfm?Docid=200
>
> Sure, there is a deficit and no doubt some tax
> increase will be necessary, but if no one is
> willing to cut spending, then why should people be
> willing to pony up more money - especially with
> the current economy. Federal receipts are down
> about 2% - spending has increased by 5% (as a
> percentage of GDP) since the Democrats took
> charge. Someone needs to be the adult up there and
> understand that tripling deficit spending spending
> while the economy is in a recession is about dumb.

Right, "They" do it. GOP has been attacking the middle class and the poor so the richest of the rich can weather any storm coming and the shit only rains on everyone else. TAX THE RICH.

Bush years exposed the bankruptcy behind the theory that tax cuts for the rich will spur economic growth. "Let the rich get richer and everybody will benefit?" says Stiglitz. "That, empirically, is wrong. It's a philosophy of trickle-down economics that's belied by the facts." Bush and Cheney proved once and for all that tax cuts for the wealthy produce only two things: "lower growth and greater inequality."

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush years exposed the bankruptcy behind the
> theory that tax cuts for the rich will spur
> economic growth. "Let the rich get richer and
> everybody will benefit?" says Stiglitz. "That,
> empirically, is wrong. It's a philosophy of
> trickle-down economics that's belied by the
> facts." Bush and Cheney proved once and for all
> that tax cuts for the wealthy produce only two
> things: "lower growth and greater inequality."

It's called 9/11. Maybe you missed that in all the shuffling - or you were probably too young to understand why things changed after that happened. Likely you are still too young. And the tax cuts proved nothing - revenue increased until 2007/2008 (a dip for right after 9/11 and before the tax cuts took effect plus the housing boom). Notice revenues while increasing, didn't expand by 20-25% in one year. Now we have a recession where revenue DECREASES, and suddenly spending goes UP 20%+. Yeah, that is pretty stupid in its own right.

Again, most americans, even conservatives, are for a modest increase in taxes for the ultra rich, but the main problem is SPENDING - period, end of sentence. If that is not put under control, no end of tax increases will pay for it. And it needs to be down to levels closer to 2006, not more than what we are spending today - which is where it is heading with the current Democratic buffoonery going on.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2011 10:26AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush years exposed the bankruptcy behind the
> > theory that tax cuts for the rich will spur
> > economic growth. "Let the rich get richer and
> > everybody will benefit?" says Stiglitz. "That,
> > empirically, is wrong. It's a philosophy of
> > trickle-down economics that's belied by the
> > facts." Bush and Cheney proved once and for all
> > that tax cuts for the wealthy produce only two
> > things: "lower growth and greater inequality."
>
> It's called 9/11. Maybe you missed that in all the
> shuffling - or you were probably too young to
> understand why things changed after that happened.
> Likely you are still too young. And the tax cuts
> proved nothing - revenue increased until 2007/2008
> (a dip for right after 9/11 and before the tax
> cuts took effect plus the housing boom). Notice
> revenues while increasing, didn't expand by 20-25%
> in one year. Now we have a recession where revenue
> DECREASES, and suddenly spending goes UP 20%+.
> Yeah, that is pretty stupid in its own right.
>
> Again, most americans, even conservatives, are for
> a modest increase in taxes for the ultra rich, but
> the main problem is SPENDING - period, end of
> sentence. If that is not put under control, no end
> of tax increases will pay for it. And it needs to
> be down to levels closer to 2006, not more than
> what we are spending today - which is where it is
> heading with the current Democratic buffoonery
> going on.

911 was exacerbated by Dick Cheney's TAX shenanigans. REAGAN RAISED TAXES AND UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS NEEDED. STOP hiding behind BS.

A true student of Reagan would have understood that 2002 was the moment for a tax increase. When his 1981 tax cut overshot the mark, Reagan had put aside ideology and raised taxes, putting the needs of the country above the desires of the wealthy. Bush's father had also raised taxes to avoid passing massive deficits on to future generations. Moreover, the Bush administration had already committed the country to a costly war in Afghanistan, and was on the brink of invading Iraq. Historically, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had met the financial burdens of war by raising taxes. But this was a new Republican Party, one determined to aid the rich even as it sent the military budget soaring. As House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would soon declare, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."

Wow, you get more Vince(1)-ish with every post. Pretty soon the spittle will be coming out of the screen. You believe everything you read huh? Or at least, what you read from "your" opinion providing sources. God knows you have to share a brain cell with someone for all the lack of brainpower you put into your posts.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Bump

Only thing the election really means is McDonnel will loose his next election.

Bush was cutting taxes for the rich while sending the poor to fight two wars. One that was fought purely to make money for the rich.

Does the Republican victory still mean I can get my section 8 luxury home? Please say yes!

I have heard the republicans have won the iowa straw pull

I think im being witty

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush was cutting taxes for the rich while sending
> the poor to fight two wars. One that was fought
> purely to make money for the rich.


I feel so bad for you if this is how you really think. Im just happy for you the you have WIFI in your OWS tent

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only thing the election really means is McDonnel
> will loose his next election.


McDonnell can only serve one term so he can't run for reelection. Ken "the cooch" Cuccinelli will be your next governor. Gov. Cooch. Sounds cool don't it.

You're paid what your worth. Payton Manning (as is now obvious) was worth his $10mil. Someone who builds shitty Chevy Cameros is worth $40 an hour. Free markets baby. Gotta love 'em.

Nutmeg Eyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> McDonnell can only serve one term so he can't run
> for reelection. Ken "the cooch" Cuccinelli will
> be your next governor. Gov. Cooch. Sounds cool
> don't it.

And that may be part of the attraction. Charisma is an asset in his line of work. Coochiman (as my eldest referred to him after attending one of his events) has an ability to sell himself to people who will tell you they don't agree with his philosophies.
>

> You're paid what your worth. Payton Manning (as
> is now obvious) was worth his $10mil. Someone who
> builds shitty Chevy Cameros is worth $40 an hour.
> Free markets baby. Gotta love 'em.

Not quite. In many jobs you are worth what people think they can get away with paying you. However at a certain point what you pay someone becomes an ego boost for the payor. If FCPS offered its next school board head significantly less than the last one it would be seen as an admission that they were willing to accept less than a top flight candidate.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you get more Vince(1)-ish with every post.
> Pretty soon the spittle will be coming out of the
> screen. You believe everything you read huh? Or at
> least, what you read from "your" opinion providing
> sources. God knows you have to share a brain cell
> with someone for all the lack of brainpower you
> put into your posts.


wow you really are that RIGHT wing brain dead republican conservative constipated hopeless. Pretty soon the John Birch Society will give you a statue, a pension and an embossed card with your name on it as well as a fine degree in stupidity.

Really? You decide to come back 11 days later and respond to this? LOL

Maybe you should just call yourself lametard - because that about sums you up.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? You decide to come back 11 days later and
> respond to this? LOL
>
> Maybe you should just call yourself lametard -
> because that about sums you up.


Yes dumbTard cuz I prioritized this to be looked at on the 11th day, you are 11 days later important than doing just about EVERYTHING else! Congrats! You're not THAT IMPORTANT!

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Really? You decide to come back 11 days later
> and
> > respond to this? LOL
> >
> > Maybe you should just call yourself lametard -
> > because that about sums you up.
>
>
> Yes dumbTard cuz I prioritized this to be looked
> at on the 11th day, you are 11 days later
> important than doing just about EVERYTHING else!
> Congrats! You're not THAT IMPORTANT!

Wow furtard, you care.

You are still one of the biggest fucking idiots on this site - be proud!

lol

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Really? You decide to come back 11 days later
> > and
> > > respond to this? LOL
> > >
> > > Maybe you should just call yourself lametard
> -
> > > because that about sums you up.
> >
> >
> > Yes dumbTard cuz I prioritized this to be
> looked
> > at on the 11th day, you are 11 days later
> > important than doing just about EVERYTHING else!
>
> > Congrats! You're not THAT IMPORTANT!
>
> Wow furtard, you care.
>
> You are still one of the biggest fucking idiots on
> this site - be proud!
>
> lol

im proud to know im better than you you SUCK at LIFE!