So how are you going to vote today?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: Aisengard
So you'd rather have today's proven terrible Republican party rather than a party who the last time they could affect change was in 2002. Makes sense...

So all change is good, huh. How terrible are things?

1. The stock market is dancing around an all time high,
2. Economy is good,
3. Unemployment is low, etc.

I'm old enough to remember 1980 when Jimmy Carter was leaving office...

1. Stock market doesn't mean squat. All that is happening is irrational exuberance and asset flight from housing to the stock market, driving prices up. P/E ratios are rediculously high and do not reflect fundamentals.

2. The economy is not good. Last time I checked, even the most optimistic numbers erased 30%+ from GDP in the next year as housing continues to slide. This of course, was only housing, but not including the debt spending and equity cash-out the average American has been utilizing to pay for plasmas and new cars. According to most expert estimates, GDP would be in negative territory had this equity cash-out not taken place.

As housing continues to tank, many who utilized equity that was a ghost, paper tiger, or a mirage, will be flipped on mortgages as they become more house-poor, further contracting the economy.

3. Low unemployment isn't spectacular. All it means is that more money is chasing fewer people, resulting in above-normal wages, which causes inflation. Furthermore, as housing and the ancillary markets are affected, this number should go down quite a bit.

The economy of today is no more real than 2000. Both ignored fundamentals, both were based upon irrational exuberance, both ignored potential down-times. What makes this one even worse is that it is not based upon asset sales and realized gains, but based upon leverage, unrealized gains, and mortgages that can reprice.

The last time a broker gave somebody a 1% 300,000 loan with 10% collateral was in 1929. Look what happened there. Now that's what has happened as we have allowed lenders to shrug off oversight.


All of this could have been prevented by moderate talk from the President. However, moderation doesn't win elections or keep your poll numbers up, it makes people wary, something a sitting President doesn't want. Furthermore, "monkey see monkey do" is a perfect analogy, people see him spending like there is no tommorrow so they do the same.

I am voting straight democrat. 6 years ago, when I voted for Bush I would *NEVER* have thought I would do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

(not even the baboon got that one right)

Classic Democrat Response, thanks!! Negitivity and Fear-Mongering ..Doom and Gloom. I'm really surprised you admitted that you voted for bush in 2000 (or was that just a ploy to give your statement some semblance of credibilty?)

I can't say I was around in '29, but most economic experts would agree that the global financial network is far too interwoven these days for depression like in 1929 to ever occur again.

I remember you dems shouting depression-is-a-coming over the huge credit card balances people were carrying in the '80' & 90's. Or course that never happened either. Doom and Gloom ..the sky is falling.

What, no comment on Carter? Lets talk about a dems poster boy here. Everybody wants change ..change is always good, huh. Wiki 1979 - 80 and read about the: economy, double digit inflation, interest rates in the upper teens, housing market hitting bottom and a president that was too wussy to deal with the hositage fiasco in Iran.

3. 1929 can happen again and it has nothing to do with the interconnectedness of the global economy. 1989 it got pretty dang close and was only stopped by the speed bumps in the trading systems and increased margin requirements. Irrational exuberance seen in 1929 and prior (tulip bulbs) is still abound. Just take a look at the housing thread I post in.

4. America owes 700 BILLION dollars in credit cards. Even adjusted for inflation, that number is 3x higher than *ANY* number in history. Most of that is funded by secondary marketed bonds (securitization) sold to investors, many of whom are international. Added to that, we owe *MUCH* more in secured debt than any time in history.

Compound that with the fact that most of that borrowing was secured by inflated housing which is now crashing.

My comparison to '29 was to highlight that back then, people would borrow on margin a few hundred dollars to buy stocks, which almost collapsed the country. Now, we are handing people 300,000 with low credit, low rates, and either 10% or 0% down and letting them gamble that they can pay *AND* the house will appreciate.

You might want to read up on the actual causes of the Great Depression. You seem to think it was a failure of the market. While it's true all of the speculation of the stock market wasn't exactly great, that by itself could never have caused the Depression. Actually looking at the rate the stock market rose, it doesn't look too different from the rates it rose in the '80s and '90s.

The problem was the Fed not lowering rates fast enough. When the economy started to recover the Fed raised rates by 1% (a huge jump) due to an outflow of gold to France which was building up gold reserves.

I never said the whole cause of the depression was the stock market, please don't put words in my mouth. The 29 crash was a symptom of a wider problem, which was rooted in the stupidity of the capital markets, the inability of the Fed to regulate rates, and the ignorance regarding monetary controls. However, the '29 crash was a catalyst that highlighted the weaknesses in all of this areas.

The raising of rates wasn't the primary reason. If one were to look at the fundamentals of the capital markets compared to the relative returns and levels, you would see that it was so grossly inflated as to be a bloated pig.

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

 

[DealMonkey]

I noticed just now that Fox News is starting to report early results. Interestingly, the early results are favoring Republicans in just about every race.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Even thought I'm a moderate with leanings towards the Republican Party, I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket. Tired of the corruption, lies, trampling of the constitution, federal deficit, horrific Stem Cell policy, religous hypocrisy and outright lies of this adminstration and the Congress that gave the adminstration the green light to do whatever it felt like.
I tried to like George W Bush, I really did. I admired his tenacity, but at the end of the day his hypocrisy on fighting the war while preventing medical advances through science show how near sighted he is and how out of touch his party is with the welfare and well being of the American people.

Amen!

 

[jogiba]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I noticed just now that Fox News is starting to report early results. Interestingly, the early results are favoring Republicans in just about every race.

Fox news is clueless.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

 

[Rapier]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

LegendKiller you are really starting to sound like a communist. (ok course true Dems always do). You know if you really don't like this country you can always leave... Can I help you pack your things?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

LegendKiller you are really starting to sound like a communist. (ok course true Dems always do). You know if you really don't like this country you can always leave... Can I help you pack your things?

Ahhh, the good ole fascist come-back. IF you don't have anything intelligent to add, then llabel the other side a communist, or something else.

This has nothing to do with "love it or leave it" buckwheat, and if you weren't busy enough frothing at your fascist mouth, you'd realize that I am about as communist as Warren Buffet. Considering my job, my education, and my beliefs are about as far away as you can get. I work in the capital markets (aka free market capitalist)!!

It doesn't take a communist to realize Americans are being idiots with their money. It takes a logical person who analyzes macro economic factors and has a solid grounding in finance and economics. You, on the other hand, would rather label anything left of a fascist, a communist, because you cannot begin to comprehend the reality of the economic situation we currently face. Your fear of knowledge only highlights your inability to understand anything but what the talking heads and the DJIA show you as you sit in front of the boob tube every night.

Instead of learning, you'd rather hide and call people communists when they don't keep the "go go go" mentality you so love to grasp to in your zeal to clutch anything that resembles forever-good times.

Hide all you want. I don't. I learn, I see, I read, I experience.

Why don't you just go burn some books, since anything that might teach you anything inside of them is worthless to you. You'd rather listen to talking heads and ideologues on Fox. In 9-12 months I am going to PM you, asking if you want to emigrate to another country. Because you hate this country so much that you and your ilk have ruined it.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

LegendKiller you are really starting to sound like a communist. (ok course true Dems always do). You know if you really don't like this country you can always leave... Can I help you pack your things?

Nothing he said was even remotely related to communism. Please stop trolling.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

LegendKiller you are really starting to sound like a communist. (ok course true Dems always do). You know if you really don't like this country you can always leave... Can I help you pack your things?

Nothing he said was even remotely related to communism. Please stop trolling.

Reality = communism Comrade...

 

[Moonbeam]

My democratic congressman voted for the war so I voted for his Republican challenger. My Senator did the same thing and I voted Green.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I voted a mixed ticket both nationally and locally. I voted for our Democratic Senate candidate, but for independent candidates in the House and gubernatorial races.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Rapier

Originally posted by: Aisengard
So you'd rather have today's proven terrible Republican party rather than a party who the last time they could affect change was in 2002. Makes sense...

So all change is good, huh. How terrible are things?

1. The stock market is dancing around an all time high,
2. Economy is good,
3. Unemployment is low, etc.

I'm old enough to remember 1980 when Jimmy Carter was leaving office...

1. Stock market doesn't mean squat. All that is happening is irrational exuberance and asset flight from housing to the stock market, driving prices up. P/E ratios are rediculously high and do not reflect fundamentals.

2. The economy is not good. Last time I checked, even the most optimistic numbers erased 30%+ from GDP in the next year as housing continues to slide. This of course, was only housing, but not including the debt spending and equity cash-out the average American has been utilizing to pay for plasmas and new cars. According to most expert estimates, GDP would be in negative territory had this equity cash-out not taken place.

As housing continues to tank, many who utilized equity that was a ghost, paper tiger, or a mirage, will be flipped on mortgages as they become more house-poor, further contracting the economy.

3. Low unemployment isn't spectacular. All it means is that more money is chasing fewer people, resulting in above-normal wages, which causes inflation. Furthermore, as housing and the ancillary markets are affected, this number should go down quite a bit.

The economy of today is no more real than 2000. Both ignored fundamentals, both were based upon irrational exuberance, both ignored potential down-times. What makes this one even worse is that it is not based upon asset sales and realized gains, but based upon leverage, unrealized gains, and mortgages that can reprice.

The last time a broker gave somebody a 1% 300,000 loan with 10% collateral was in 1929. Look what happened there. Now that's what has happened as we have allowed lenders to shrug off oversight.


All of this could have been prevented by moderate talk from the President. However, moderation doesn't win elections or keep your poll numbers up, it makes people wary, something a sitting President doesn't want. Furthermore, "monkey see monkey do" is a perfect analogy, people see him spending like there is no tommorrow so they do the same.

I am voting straight democrat. 6 years ago, when I voted for Bush I would *NEVER* have thought I would do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

(not even the baboon got that one right)

Classic Democrat Response, thanks!! Negitivity and Fear-Mongering ..Doom and Gloom. I'm really surprised you admitted that you voted for bush in 2000 (or was that just a ploy to give your statement some semblance of credibilty?)

I can't say I was around in '29, but most economic experts would agree that the global financial network is far too interwoven these days for depression like in 1929 to ever occur again.

I remember you dems shouting depression-is-a-coming over the huge credit card balances people were carrying in the '80' & 90's. Or course that never happened either. Doom and Gloom ..the sky is falling.

What, no comment on Carter? Lets talk about a dems poster boy here. Everybody wants change ..change is always good, huh. Wiki 1979 - 80 and read about the: economy, double digit inflation, interest rates in the upper teens, housing market hitting bottom and a president that was too wussy to deal with the hositage fiasco in Iran.

3. 1929 can happen again and it has nothing to do with the interconnectedness of the global economy. 1989 it got pretty dang close and was only stopped by the speed bumps in the trading systems and increased margin requirements. Irrational exuberance seen in 1929 and prior (tulip bulbs) is still abound. Just take a look at the housing thread I post in.

4. America owes 700 BILLION dollars in credit cards. Even adjusted for inflation, that number is 3x higher than *ANY* number in history. Most of that is funded by secondary marketed bonds (securitization) sold to investors, many of whom are international. Added to that, we owe *MUCH* more in secured debt than any time in history.

Compound that with the fact that most of that borrowing was secured by inflated housing which is now crashing.

My comparison to '29 was to highlight that back then, people would borrow on margin a few hundred dollars to buy stocks, which almost collapsed the country. Now, we are handing people 300,000 with low credit, low rates, and either 10% or 0% down and letting them gamble that they can pay *AND* the house will appreciate.

You might want to read up on the actual causes of the Great Depression. You seem to think it was a failure of the market. While it's true all of the speculation of the stock market wasn't exactly great, that by itself could never have caused the Depression. Actually looking at the rate the stock market rose, it doesn't look too different from the rates it rose in the '80s and '90s.

The problem was the Fed not lowering rates fast enough. When the economy started to recover the Fed raised rates by 1% (a huge jump) due to an outflow of gold to France which was building up gold reserves.

I never said the whole cause of the depression was the stock market, please don't put words in my mouth. The 29 crash was a symptom of a wider problem, which was rooted in the stupidity of the capital markets, the inability of the Fed to regulate rates, and the ignorance regarding monetary controls. However, the '29 crash was a catalyst that highlighted the weaknesses in all of this areas.

The raising of rates wasn't the primary reason. If one were to look at the fundamentals of the capital markets compared to the relative returns and levels, you would see that it was so grossly inflated as to be a bloated pig.

As soon as the market popped, confidence was lost and people tried to pull money out. Since bad loans were written to people who couldn't pay after it popped, the banks had no assets with which to pay back depositors, creating an even bigger run on the banks. As the reserves dried up, banks went under. Billions in assets were "lost" to bad loans given to people on margin for stock market investments that were over-inflated.

Due to an uncapped and unregulated market, rampant speculation, and irrational exuberance, the economy overheated and people overextended. Regression to the mean occurred, as it will in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

The Fed was responding to the irrational exuberance by raising rates from 5% to 6%. Despite the fact that inflation went down to 0% and output started to decline, they kept interest rates high until after the stock market crashed. Had they eased up interest rates as opposed to having a 1% jump, the stock market probably wouldn't have crashed nearly as hard.

I'm not exactly sure the stock market was "bloated like a pig." I will agree that much like the blue chip stocks of the late '90s, the late '20s saw large speculation in utilities which was uncalled for. The rest of the sectors were nowhere near as bloated though.

As for the bank failures, I would again chalk that one up to the Fed considering they were supposed to be a lender of last resort which they decided not to be in the early 1930s.

 

[Avalon]

I didn't vote because my state didn't need my vote for senate, and for governor I hated both of the guys in running.

 

[prontospyder]

voted mixed

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno


The Fed was responding to the irrational exuberance by raising rates from 5% to 6%. Despite the fact that inflation went down to 0% and output started to decline, they kept interest rates high until after the stock market crashed. Had they eased up interest rates as opposed to having a 1% jump, the stock market probably wouldn't have crashed nearly as hard.

I'm not exactly sure the stock market was "bloated like a pig." I will agree that much like the blue chip stocks of the late '90s, the late '20s saw large speculation in utilities which was uncalled for. The rest of the sectors were nowhere near as bloated though.

As for the bank failures, I would again chalk that one up to the Fed considering they were supposed to be a lender of last resort which they decided not to be in the early 1930s.

O RLY?

http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event=showavgDecades&decade=1920

Hmmm, lets do a reality check here. Lets consider first that the historical return of the Dow is ~8%. In 1924 the DJIA was at 100, in 1929 it was almost 400. Hmmm, 300% appreciation in 5 years? Yeah, that's about a 30% annual appreciation.

Nah, that's not a bubble! Of course, *ONLY* the utilities were bubblicious!

The fed could have not raised rates by 1%, sure. However, to say that is the lynchpin of the complete and utter collapse of the economy is just silly.

If you have people investing in equities, on margin (sometimes 100%) that are essentially worthless with minimal regulatory oversight and then, those margin calls fail as the market collapses, BANKS FAIL because they have worthless assets to back their all to real liabilities.

*THAT* is why the financial markets collapsed. As banks failed then depositors lost all of their money. They lost their savings, their farms, and their livelihoods.

THat isn't to say that the current situation is the same, but in some respects it is. We have allowed people to mortgage their families to the hilt, based upon an over-heated market. It's interesting how this link is so reminiscent of recent (or past) boom/busts.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

But, of course, I am a communist who knows nothing and have no idea that the DJIA was a bloated pig.

 

[Vic]

This whole thing is really off-topic to the thread, but the boom of the 20's was actually supported by some solid fundamentals. It was an era of technological advance unprecedented in history. American went from horse-driven outhouse-using farm folks to car-driving radio-listening city dwellers almost overnight. The sudden prosperity put lots of money in the hands of people who had never had it before, didn't know what to do with it, and then did poorly with it, and bad monetary policy from newly-created Fed didn't help one bit.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic
This whole thing is really off-topic to the thread, but the boom of the 20's was actually supported by some solid fundamentals. It was an era of technological advance unprecedented in history. American went from horse-driven outhouse-using farm folks to car-driving radio-listening city dwellers almost overnight. The sudden prosperity put lots of money in the hands of people who had never had it before, didn't know what to do with it, and then did poorly with it, and bad monetary policy from newly-created Fed didn't help one bit.

Amazingly, they said exactly the same thing in 1999. "Old fundamentals don't work, this is the information age!".

Pfft. Fundamentals are just that, fundamental. They rarely changed and are a good measure of the foundations of finance. When a 100+ year average is at 8% or so and in 5 years you return 30% or so, thats a bubble, no matter how you cut it. New, old, aged, nubed, all fundamentals showed that it was hogwash.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic
This whole thing is really off-topic to the thread, but the boom of the 20's was actually supported by some solid fundamentals. It was an era of technological advance unprecedented in history. American went from horse-driven outhouse-using farm folks to car-driving radio-listening city dwellers almost overnight. The sudden prosperity put lots of money in the hands of people who had never had it before, didn't know what to do with it, and then did poorly with it, and bad monetary policy from newly-created Fed didn't help one bit.

Amazingly, they said exactly the same thing in 1999. "Old fundamentals don't work, this is the information age!".

Pfft. Fundamentals are just that, fundamental. They rarely changed and are a good measure of the foundations of finance. When a 100+ year average is at 8% or so and in 5 years you return 30% or so, thats a bubble, no matter how you cut it. New, old, aged, nubed, all fundamentals showed that it was hogwash.

It's the exhuberence that causes the boom-and-bust. The fundamentals of advancing technology causing increased productivity are still in effect. Yes, the radio boom of the 20s busted, but look at the media today! Yes, the dot-com boom of the 90s busted, but look at the internet today! That is not hogwash.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I voted a mixed ticket both nationally and locally. I voted for our Democratic Senate candidate, but for independent candidates in the House and gubernatorial races.

I'm a little suprised you'd do that considering you know your Gov. race is down to the wire.

Less than 1% margin separates both candidates(47R-46D) currently.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Where do you see anything about Ted Haggart?

So no, Haggard has nothing to do with this. But it is a perfect example of the moral hypocrisy and bulls*it of the religous right, from Haggard to Lott to Abrahmoff to the rest of the holier than thou crowd that is as bad, if not worse than the people they scapegoat.

Makes sense. First you say Haggard has nothing to do with it and then list him in part of the "religious right" hypocracy you are voting against.

So, what's your point, Corbett? That it's only okay to be gay and morally corrupt (not that the two always go together) if you're a Republican? I think America just decided that we were no longer going to put up with all of this holier-than-thou hypocrisy bullsh*t.

 

[0roo0roo]

voted swartzenegacrat like a great deal of californians. for senate/house straight dem though. repubs have seriously problems with corruption. got that enron mentality... i voted chuck reed though.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic
This whole thing is really off-topic to the thread, but the boom of the 20's was actually supported by some solid fundamentals. It was an era of technological advance unprecedented in history. American went from horse-driven outhouse-using farm folks to car-driving radio-listening city dwellers almost overnight. The sudden prosperity put lots of money in the hands of people who had never had it before, didn't know what to do with it, and then did poorly with it, and bad monetary policy from newly-created Fed didn't help one bit.

Amazingly, they said exactly the same thing in 1999. "Old fundamentals don't work, this is the information age!".

Pfft. Fundamentals are just that, fundamental. They rarely changed and are a good measure of the foundations of finance. When a 100+ year average is at 8% or so and in 5 years you return 30% or so, thats a bubble, no matter how you cut it. New, old, aged, nubed, all fundamentals showed that it was hogwash.

It's the exhuberence that causes the boom-and-bust. The fundamentals of advancing technology causing increased productivity are still in effect. Yes, the radio boom of the 20s busted, but look at the media today! Yes, the dot-com boom of the 90s busted, but look at the internet today! That is not hogwash.

I have never disputed the progress that was made, perhaps you misread my posts. I have merely stated that the economy is, yet again, based upon a bubble. Much like 1929, 1989, 1999, that bubble will, and is, bursting.

The 1929 crash can happen again and it was not the fault of the Fed. Considering what I said is grounded in reality and most of it can't be repeated in the stock market (FDIC, SEC, 1934 securities act...etc). However, much of it can be repeated elsewhere, such as the mortgage industry. If immature Fed practices were the cause of the 29 crash and the great depression, then why didn't we have one 30 years ago when the Fed still carried out such practices? Taking both times in isolation, rate shocks do not cause depressions. Massive asset inflation and leveraging do.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thank You America for showing signs of waking up.

I truly hope the Country can be saved that it was not too late.

Hopefully come Nov 2008 I can no longer call you "Sheeple" but my fellow Americans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I voted a mixed ticket both nationally and locally. I voted for our Democratic Senate candidate, but for independent candidates in the House and gubernatorial races.

Because an independent got 11% of the vote, the slug of Congress Marylyn "Manson" Musgrave will be going back to Congress.

Thankfully she will be thoroughly handcuffed from doing any further damage to the Country because her fellow slugs are gone.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Voted for Ford. Oh well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thank You America for showing signs of waking up.

I truly hope the Country can be saved that it was not too late.

Hopefully come Nov 2008 I can no longer call you "Sheeple" but my fellow Americans.

LOL! How gracious of you!