I agree RE: take the Iran problem seriously.

I've set up a prediction market covering the likelyhood that there will be some sort of October surprise (attack Iran, find bin laden)prior to the Nov election.

Come by and share your thoughts.

I have a thought. You're an idiot.

October surprises exist only in the fevered imaginations of liberals, and in the nefarious minds and actions of their union thug allies. Democrats are like the cheating spouse. They're always sure that the other one is doing the same thing.

Actually, a more interesting market might look at what the Democrats'/media's October surprise(s) will be. It's much more certain that they will have a bunch of them lined up, since there hasn't been an election in recent memory that they haven't tried (thankfully unsuccesssfully) to throw by means of some strategically timed news story (often proved false after the election).

taking a flyer here - the competing Iranian quotes appear(superficially) to be an example of speaking different things to different audiences. Reminds of Arafat saying one thing in English, and another in Arabic.

It's a good point about the Dems/media recently always having October surprises. It doesn't take much, either, for the media/press to generate a breathless crisis which will surely bring down the Repubs. My money is on another Repub Congressperson found to have taken Jack Abromoff money. It's a crisis! Failing that, it will surely be a worldwide crisis that Tom Delay is running for election.

You guys hear that evil freak at the UN? He is straight up scary. He even busted out his 12th Imam stuff. Apparently the "news" services didn't think it necessary to report this. I'll bet though that they make it crystal clear that Iran has no intention of trying to build nuclear weapons and all his ranting about how the UN needs to be more representative of the world community.

One other thing: Every time I see this guy I am reminded that he is heir to what Jimmy Carter gave us. Was there ever a worse President? How many deaths can be linked to that imbecile?

Should this crop of Democrats ever gain power, we can all count on more Jimmy Carter-like foreign policy, which means American weakness and a lot more body bags.

Hey Blu,
Did you read the lead editorial in the Times today? Just read it and dont' whine to me how you woouldn't read that MSM, LW biased piece of drivel. Just read it.

I went to the site and read an editorial called Keep Away the Vote, which could have been written by a Howard Dean staffer as it was written so poorly and devoid of even a single shred of evidence that the current House Bill associated to Voter IDs was somehow "unconstitutional." (Who writes the NYT editorials? They read like the work of a slightly above-average 8th grader.) Is this the editorial of which you speak? If so, let me go on: They throw out the very lame argument about how there is "no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting." Says who? Where's the evidence supporting that argument? Yet, they feel perfectly comfortable throwing out this line of BS: "The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID." First of all, so what? They have a right to vote if they are citizens. BUT, they need to prove it. Secondly, where is the proof that this bill will somehow have such a huge impact on these groups? They act as if this would adversely impact large portions of each of these groups. It's nonsense. (Again, typical liberal logic: Members of "Groups" are all the same and must be treated as such. No individuals exist.) The "actual reason" the NYT is against this bill is their own political calculus: get as many undocumented, non-citizens voting as possible.

But, the topper was this inane crap: "Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote." Really? Again, can I have just a tiny bit of proof? Yeah, they are so afraid of "the law" that they congregate by the dozens at street corner all over America waiting for day-labor work. That's after they stroll across our borders in total disregard of our laws. Yeah, they are fucking petrified of the law. The NYT has NO proof of this load of crap. There are upwards of 20 MILLION illegals in this country that Democrat party is actively encouraging to vote fraudulently if possible. Political calculus indeed.

But, hey, if you were suggesting another editorial, then I apologize for the tangent - my bad.

bLU,

I think you have the concept of proof turned around. For Congress to become pro-active and produce a bill that throws impediments, any impediment in the way of voting THEY must produce the proof of the need: That the infractions and fraud occur. It would be pretty hard to prove the negative. The onus lies at the feet of the sponsors of the bill who either can or cannot produce the data that supports their and your claim that significant numbers of illegals, or dead folks, or felons (in states that prohibit felons) are voting.

Every god damned time the republicans pull this shit a court overturns it because they can't substantiate the claims and jee Blu, go figure, judges are more concerned that the constitution be protected and that ALL those with a right to vote have easy access than worry about an insignificant or non-existant amount of fraud.

"20 million potential voters from the ranks of the illegal pool" is just absurd.

How about absentee ballots? Used mostly by wealthier white Republican voters. This is a loop hole isn't it Blu? No picture ID is required. They just send you the ballot if you are a registered voter who voted in the last presidential election or a first time voter who is in the military. Why is the standard lowered for those who vote in this manner? if you go to the poll and do not thave the ID, regardless of whether or not you are in the book and voted in the last election you can't vote. Does this pass the smell test?

"Why is the standard lowered for those who vote in this manner?"

As much as I hate to admit it, you got me on this one. During this entire debate, I've totally forgotten about it.

At some point, this debate will get to the Supreme Court, and we will see who is right.

What will you say to those who will claim the mid-term election was stolen (should the RP maintain control of the H.) if the ID laws go into effect in some states and the Supremes strike them all down later?

Will you say this was Just honest American lawmakers trying, with good hearts and intentions to keep our democracy pure and fair? Honest men and women making a well meaning but unconstitutional law? Or might you take your head out of the sand and realize it was A crime purpetrated against the American people with malevalent intent and premeditation planned by the central committe and execuited by the party loyalists in the statehouses. Sounds like the old commies in the USSR don't it?

You'll let me know. I may yet meet you at the barracades.

"What will you say to those who will claim the mid-term election was stolen?

They are gonna say that regardless.

(In fact, watch the news over the next few weeks. I guarantee the MSM will start running stories about the "dangers" of electronic voting blah blah blah. The Reps are going to keep both Houses despite the MSMs best efforts. I can't wait to hear the excuses.)