JUDGES -- THE ONE REASON to VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Don't make a mistake you will regret for the rest of your life!

Have you had enough of activist liberal judges making our nation's laws?

The Constitution provides that you -- through your elected members of Congress -- make America's laws. Democrat supported liberal judges have usurped that power and are forcing their liberal agenda on America. The rulings by these liberal judges are contrary to the Constitution and against everything that has made America the great nation it is!

REMEMBER... the SENATE APPROVES Appellate and Supreme Court Judges. Democratic Senators have and will continue to oppose and block judges who interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders of this nation.

REMEMBER... it will be 6 YEARS before you even have another chance to vote out Democratic senators elected in the upcoming election. During that 6-year reign, those Democrat senators will be voting to approve even more liberal judges who will impose even more of their liberal agenda on you and America.

You will NEVER have a chance to vote out the liberal judges those Democratic senators approve! Appellate and Supreme Court JUDGES SERVE FOR LIFE. They will be legislating from the bench and imposing their liberal views and rulings on you, your children, and America for years and years in the future.

Although you can NEVER vote those judges out of office once they are approved, you CAN VOTE AGAINST the Democratic senators who will vote for them!!!

If you want to amend the Constitution, then you vote to do it... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to do it contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

If you want Christmas carols and Christmas trees removed from your schools and public places, then you vote for that... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to remove them against your will!

If you want "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, then you vote to remove it... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to remove it over your objections!

If you want crosses -- that have stood for decades or centuries -- removed from our national monuments, war memorials, and public view, then you vote for it... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to remove them because they offend a liberal!

If you want the courts rather than parents to have the say over your children, then you vote to make that the law... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to take away your parental rights!

If you want gay marriages, then you vote to approve it... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to force it on America as part of the liberal Democratic agenda!

If you want illegal aliens to have free medical care, schooling, housing, and other services at your -- the tax payer's expense -- then you vote to permit that... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to dictate it!

If you want foreign terrorists to have the same rights as you -- an American citizen -- then you vote to allow that... do not allow Democratic supported liberal judges to make that decision for you!

If you want judges to base their rulings on the laws of foreign nations rather than those of the United States, then you vote for that... do not allow Democratic supported liberals judges to decide that!

DO NOT sit out this election in PROTEST and allow Democrats to approve more activist liberal judges. A protest vote may make you feel good for one day, but the damage from the 6-year term of a liberal Democratic senator, and the lifetime appointment and rulings of activist liberal judges, will affect you and all Americans for generations to come!

Vote to protect your Constitutional rights from Democratic supported liberal judges.

Vote for REPUBLICAN Senators!

Spread the word!!!

Wow, that's a great success! More people disapprove of Bush's economic record than approve! Onward to victory for the GOP!

Oh wait, that's right the poll is biased. Or its worthless. Or something. Anyway, go GOP!

...

Right, right, everyone loves polls, right? The stock market did very well under Clinton too, but we wouldn't dare give him any credit for it.

Approval ratings notwithstanding, I found a couple of interesting stories illustrating the trouble with the Bush administration's fiscal policies:

GAO chief warns economic disaster looms [news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt] Treasury says it will borrow $32 billion [news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/treasury_borrowing]

In fiscal terms, president Bush is a classic Big Government, Big Spending liberal. I continue to be dumbfounded that people who call themselves conservatives can defend his fiscal promiscuity.

Yeah, Im with ya, the stock market was absolutely cruising under Clinton. In fact, I still have some K-Tel stock for sale; I bought it for $400 a share and would be happy to release some of it.

Now, I know its normal for a cheap record company to watch its share price go from $1.40 to $400 per share in a week, but even so, I was a bit dumbfounded how such a thing could happen. So dumbfounded that I jumped right in and bought all the shares I could afford with the idea that the price would surely climb to $800 the following week.

Ever wonder why the 'great' stock market under Clinton's watch had thousands of companies which no longer exist, such as catfood. com? Ever wonder why so many people point back to being either on the right or wrong side of the dot.com bubble?

In fiscal terms, liberals should be raising President Bush on their shoulders with undisguised love, as he seems to be a "classic Big Government, Big Spending liberal".

High gas prices are bad and lets blame Bush...wait...they just went down and we need to congratulate the dems...but...er...no, according to the dems low gas prices will cause inflation so its bad and lets blame Bush...or...uhhh...high gas prices are...ummm...good...I think..or its bad...and...lets see...uhhh...

Where was I again?

Oh yeah, blame Bush for everything bad and the dems will fix it all and everything will be bunnies and sunshine if they get control.

Joy.

Vote Republican.

Join the cult of Bush.

Assimilate.

Become the Bush Borg.

Dopple-ganging Nate,
That’s how the Government works, the Treasury sells securities, and then loans the proceeds to the government to pay the bills. This is the way it’s always worked.

The $63.0 billion is $41.0 billion less than budgeted.

As to your other linked article; Bush has tried to get the liberals to do something ~ ANYTHING about the pending disaster in Social Security! Your heroes of the left have repeatedly claimed that there is “no crises in Social Security.” Well, guess what … there is and remember, when the system collapses, Bush tried to warn you. I suggest you write your congresscritter and get them to negotiate with the White House to save Social Security, either that or quite bitchin' about it and accept it.

Bane, funny you should bring up the Social Security issue. When President Bush first proposed the 6% privitization, Rep. Harold Ford(D-TN) jumped on board. However, less than a month later, he jumped off. What does this tell you about Harold Ford, who's running as a conservative DemocRAT for the Senate?

It tells me he's running a phony campaign, right up to his condemnation of Spitball's comments. Go Corker!!!

just a week to go before you find yourself eating those words of yours mark. I am just counting the hours until you will have to come on here and try to spin why you were so far off and lost partial or total control of congress...

Bane -

As I'm sure you know, social security is a SMALL problem compared to Medicare. And what has Bush done to screw us with Medicare debt? Let's all say it together:

Prescription Drug Benefit

And yes, I understand that July budget estimate was 41 billion dollars higher, god forbid, and I understand the reason why. I am very much in favor of Bush's tax cuts, but the fact still remains that, as that article points out, government spending is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

Bush's administration has smashed the record for government spending and national debt. Am I to understand that you, Bane, find this to be completely acceptable.

And by the way, I'm not a doppleganger. Compare my typekey thingy with my previous posts under nate and you'll see. I will remind you, and everyone else here, that I am a republican, and a very fiscally conservative one at that. Hence my utter disgust at Bush's policies.

Axis, we probably will lose partial control of congress....almost all adminstrations in power lose during the mid term elections. No surprise there.

Will it be the blowout that Howard Dean and you goofballs have been stating the last 6 months...doubtful.

The only reason kooks such as other_gnat are whining about the prescription drug expenditure is that the kooks think the entitlements are their issue. How dare a Republican president increase an entitlement!

axass, how ya doin', little guy? How's your boyfriends, CO and Canuckgay, doin'?

I know I’ve pointed this out before, but the article you sourced said it even better, “And though the federal debt has grown in dollar terms since 2001, it hasn't grown dramatically relative to the size of the economy. ” Every administration has “smashed the record” for spending. We are not the economy we were in the 19th Century, or even the economy we were in the last ½ of the 20th Century. Acceptable? I wouldn’t spend on the social engineering stuff, but it hasn’t caused any damage to the economy; and all indications are that it won’t. What will destroy our economy is the rampant spending in the Social Security areas if the government doesn’t get ahead of the problem; funding the war is chump change compared with this gorilla in the living room.

Medicare and Social Security are the same problem; they are both funded via payroll taxes, and both have the legislative restrictions that prevent the proceeds from being invested to produce an ROI needed to sustain the system. AND both will be bankrupt in the near future.

The article you used did a fine job of blurring the lines between spending and the economy; but the author made a few illogical leaps that an accountant or economist wouldn’t. He writes of foreign investment “More serious is the possibility that foreign lenders might lose their enthusiasm for lending money to the United States. Because treasury bills are sold at auction, that would mean paying higher interest rates in the future.” But, I’ve already demonstrated that if foreign investors pull out of the securities, it is they, not the Treasury that loses. It is also other foreign investors that buy the securities. Foreign investment, while only 7% of our economy is significant to the investors’ economies. Japan continues investing more in our economy than they do in their own; ditto China. When investors are storming the walls to get into a market, that’s not a bad thing.

The author also makes the disingenuous statement that “closing those gaps … and paying off the existing deficit” as if we’ve ever anticipated paying off the debt. The next administration will “smash the record” of this one on spending as will the one after that and the one after that.

I know which Nate you are, that's why I addressed you; the other Nate is a liberal-nose picker that couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of governmental accounting. But, you need to differentiate the Bush economic policies from the Congressional spending; remember that during the Reagan years, the economic policies of the White House brought in heretofore unheard of revenue; the Congress-critters were then, as now addicted to buying votes with the largess the Administration provided them. Aim your indignation at the House, but don't expect the dummycrats to be fiscally responsible.

You know, Justice Stevens is past 85...

Does this mean that you and Pat Robertson are going to pray for him to die? Because that would be uber-Christian of you.

Axis,

I have had to eat my words from time to time, and always found it an excellent meal. This time, however, I won't have to...I'm figuring us for 57 Senators (a gain of 2 seats; one GOP incumbant will likely lose, but if he pulls it off, we'll have 58): I haven't got a solid prediction on the House yet, probably won't have it before Sunday.

other_nut:

Why should Dems complain about the Prescription Drug Benefit expenditures?

Kennedy and the Left wanted a far bigger and costlier program.

Too much fun! The Republican Hordes are massed and prepared to rush the line to vote on Tuesday. Woe, the libs who get in the way..Kerry says it was a joke, but the joke is Kerry. The rats are scurrying and Pelosi has gone into her medical bunker to stop the mascara from dripping... she understands Halloween is now over. But we are about to put the final fear in these libs! Onward Americans...stand for our traditions!

Mark...you are incredibly optimistic. I love the approach, I just don't see it.

Thanks, Hermie, for pointing out the lunacy of the Left whining about Bush's spending. You are so right---at the time, their rant was that the prescription drug plan was too skimpy. But now that it is working, they complain that he is spending too much.

And BTW, gnat and other annoying creatures, Bush got a LOT of grief from conservatives over that bill. But most of us realize that it was a political reality, not palatable but unavoidable. Such a bill would have come down the pike anyway, the Dems had been pusing it for years and had gotten some momentum on the idea as the population aged, and Bush was smart enough to see the reality of the fact that it was going to happen, one way or another, and to take the issue away from the Dems and make it his own. While, I might add, keeping the cost far below what it would have been with a Dem in charge.

Everyone knows that the debt has to be viewed as a percentage of GDP. Don't be so silly.

This is why we don't want Dems in charge of the economy. In 1967, my brother bought a brand new VW for $2,700. Last year, he bought a brand new VW for almost exactly ten times that. But the ratio of the cost of each new car to his income and assets is what mattered, not the actual cost of the car. He can afford the new car much more easily than he was able to afford the old one. He financed the first one for three years, and he wrote a check for the last one. But a Dem would focus only on the vastly increased cost of the second car, and not be able to grasp the relationship of the cost to income and assets.

In much the same way they fixate on the "pie" always remaining the same size, so if one segment of the population gets a bigger slice then of course someone else is getting less. They don't get it, that good economics means the pie gets bigger.

They don't get it, that good economics means the pie gets bigger.

Almiranta, I don't get why they don't get it. Surely Liberals took the same economics classes as the rest of us, and yet they think, almost exclusively, in static terms, while, simultaneously reminding us how much smarter they are. I have yet to EVER have a Liberal explain why they believe the way they do.

President Bush seems to disagree with you that it will be a major deal, because he is campaigning more and harder now than he did during his re-election and he is not even running. What does that tell you? LOL It tells you that he knows that if democrats gain control, his dirty laundry will come out and he will have a good chance at going to prison or possibly trial at the Hague

Posted by Warriornation

Axis, we probably will lose partial control of congress....almost all adminstrations in power lose during the mid term elections. No surprise there.

Will it be the blowout that Howard Dean and you goofballs have been stating the last 6 months...doubtful.

Just as a reminder - Remember the little unborn Babies this election!!

Vote in a Republican who is Pro-life this coming tuesday November 7!

You owe, your vote, to the children!!

"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"
-Deut. 30:19

Jeremiah

Bravo Jerry! How utterly predictable of you. (Just don't you think twice about all that death and destruction stuff going on in your Presidents and country's name).

Onward...

"Olbermann’s Special Comment : There is no line this President has not crossed — nor will not cross — to keep one political party, in power.

I thank God for true patriots like Keith. Ballsy, gutsy, and tells the American people the truth.

How, oh how do you look yourselves in the mirror.

fascists.

Raker:
Fascists huh? Are you allowed to speak your drivel here? Do fascists allow people to publicly dissent?

Out of curiosity, explain to me how Keith Olberman, a TV hack who couldn't cut it on Sportscenter is this great pontificator on what constitutional rights are.

Now... I'm going to call your BS out for what it is... explain to me exactly how Americans are being denied their civil rights by the Patriot Act, or the NSA surveillance program... show me the US Code.

Don't quote the DU or the Daily Kos... SHOW me... if ANY of you can.

And Axis... you clearly don't know ANYTHING about American government or REALITY.

You'd rather have Bush in the Hague than Saddam... remember you TARD that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Iranians with mustard gas and other germ warfare while raping and murdering other Iraqis. It seems to me you're completely DEVOID of commonsense.

I assume you are indeed a lot like the South Park version of the Devil. You have this love/hate relationship with Saddam right?

So Raker, we'll wait for your Constitutional Law education swing into action and SHOW in US Code where any of the blatant lies you've spewed is true.

(Just don't you think twice about all that death and destruction stuff going on in your Presidents and country's name).

Yes, It's helping to save my family, my friends families, not to mention the millions other innocent families in America!!not to mention the poor and depressed families of Iraq! EVEN YOU RAKER!
God bless our men and women in uniform, that have dedicated themselves to the cause of freedom of America! and lend a helping hand to our neighboring countries! They do it because they love America, unlike some who have contempt and despise for America i,e. John Kerry and YOU raker, Sure you are'nt Mr. Kerry's nephew or something raker??

We will continue to fight EVIL, despite the snake in the grass remarks by the foreigner Alien, John Kerry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...And depite his hate for America we shall sweep his words under the rug, get on with other matters, until it is time to have his trial of TREASON and put him in PRISON!!!!!

It is now time though! To fight the more crucial battle in America, the battle for MORAL ETHICS, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SOUND AND CHRISTIAN BASED EDUCATION SYSTEMS, CHRISTIAN FREEDOM! AND...
...LIFE FOR THE UNBORN!!!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah

Axis, you are a comedian right? It's the only thing that possibly could explain the joke that you are.

Bush and Blair have already been exonerated by the Butler Report, the Robb Report, the Senate Intelligence 500 page report, and on and on.

There were no lies as much as you would like to dream them up.

Bush is going to no prison my friend, you better wake up.

Warrior,

We'll know on Tuesday if I'm prescient, or just whistling past the graveyard...but I will note that the predictions of Democratic blowout from a week ago are now "GOP holds the Senate, Democrats barely win House". Personally, I think the punditry is just slowly coming 'round to my position - looking at the objective factors, the whole advantage is with the GOP.

Now, this doesn't mean we don't have weakness - thanks to Bob Taft we have a massively strong anti-GOP headwind in Ohio...but I think our GOPers are coming home, while our Ohio GOTV is superb (as proven in 2004). We are also facing an uphill climb with Chaffee...and then, if we win, we're stuck with the most RINO of all RINOs...

All in all, though, if there is the "strong Democratic wave" that, for instance, Charlie Cook says is out there, then we should be nowhere near victory in Michigan, Maryland and New Jersey...and Maryland, one of the bluest of blue States, could become a double win for the GOP - we are looking good to elect Steele, but also re-electing Ehrlich, whom we all wrote off months ago, but who has now come roaring back.

Sees,

Nope - just pointing out a salient fact: one of the most liberal Justices is, well, very old...God bless him if he stays until he's past 95...but the odds are...

Bane -

I'm glad you don't think I'm a nose-picker. Except that I was picking my nose at the time that I read your post. And then I ate my boogs, so you are mistaken my friend.

Don't forget about the pressure that our national debt puts on the dollar. I don't imagine that you're the kind of guy who can justify any amount of debt. Surely we can at least agree that there are negative effects of an 8 trillion dollar leverage?

You say,

-"What will destroy our economy is the rampant spending in the Social Security areas if the government doesn’t get ahead of the problem."

This is exactly my point! In "Social Security areas" I assume that you mean to include medicare, which leads me right back around to the..

Prescription Drug Benefit

...one of the largest expansions of an entitlement program in our history. Maybe THE largest, I don't know. Bush wasn't pressured to do this, and he didn't offer it as a carrot to get something else done. He PUSHED it. If ever there was a time that we should have been safe from this kind of nanny-state catastrophe, it should have been now, with a republican president, and a republican-controlled congress.

-"And though the federal debt has grown in dollar terms since 2001, it hasn't grown dramatically relative to the size of the economy."

So what? For that to make you feel safe, you'll need to rule out the possibility of contraction in our economy like Clinton did at the end of the 90's, and I don't see anyone willing to do that now. What happens if our economic output slows enough to make it difficult to service the interest on our debt?

-"Every administration has “smashed the record” for spending."

No, not true. Not like our current president. Tell me how Father Bush even came CLOSE to expanding our government the way Little Bush has done. Besides, do you mean to use that as an excuse for Little Bush's profligacy with his checkbook? Is it ok for him to be wasteful because everyone else is too? What the hell is the point to being a fiscal conservative, then?

Your criticism of Mr. Crenson's take on the debt misses his point. His point is that a massive debt put us in danger if we ever have to raise interest rates in order to woo reluctant investors. The bigger the debt, the greater the danger, that simple. Are you saying that the GAO is full of crap on this issue?

-"Aim your indignation at the House, but don't expect the dummycrats to be fiscally responsible."

Preaching to the choir bud. But apparently the choir doesn't include our current president.

I just love to see your passion flare Jerry.

(Ed. Note; insult deleted)

Geez Jer...I just see the faces of the INNOCENT children with real life blood spattered all over them. Some of the little brown people have arms and legs missing. Some have great big bandages covering their little eyes. CHILDREN. Children who are caught as collateral damage in a war over the oil used to power you and the other right wing religious fanatics to your next recruitment camp.

See Jer...the little brown people caught in the cross fire mean nothing to you.

Shame. Shame on you Jerry.

You will meet your maker (some may feel not soon enough) and atone for your attitudes Sir.

Of that, you should be very afraid.

Almiranta, what in the hell are you talking about?

-"Such a bill would have come down the pike anyway"

So that makes it OK? It's OK that a republican president saddled us with the largest single expansion of an entitlement program ever? I'll say it again, if ever there was a time that we should have been safe from this kind of nanny-state catastrophe, it should have been now, with a republican president, and a republican-controlled congress.

-"Bush was smart enough to see the reality of the fact that it was going to happen, one way or another, and to take the issue away from the Dems and make it his own."

Well that's just great. I'm glad that we could help George Bush politically by letting him COMPLETELY screw us. And all you "conservatives" here, thank you so much for patting him on the back. Excuse me now while I go cry.

Raker,

Indeed we all will have to account for our actions - but not just our actions, but what we failed to do. You know: like if we were to leave our brothers and sisters in Christ to suffer under the boot of a godless oppressor...that, too, will have to be answered for.

Mark,

How do you know that you will like Bush's appointees any more than Justice Stevens?

Alito has already voted in favor of doctor-assisted suicide.

Brian,

One can never read the future - but President Bush's appointees have been very good at the most crucial element of the problem of activist judges: their usurpation of the powers reserved to the States, or to the people. Our problem with Roe, you know, isn't so much that it legalised abortion, but that it usurped the rights of the people to determine what shall be on the issue.

I don't want Supreme Court which will ban assisted suicide - such a thing isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it being pretty much unthinkable in 1789...given this, it should be left to the States unless and until there is an amendment to the Constitution dealing with the issue. I think assisted suicide is an abomination, but I won't tear down the law in order to get what I want.