Dems to take the Senate
Well, it looks like it's over folks. With an 8500 vote lead in Virginia, and a 1500 vote lead in Montana, with 99% of precints reporting in both states, it's pretty much said and done.
The automatic recount in Montana will be the last chance... and we all know the Democrats are fully in favour of recounts. ;-) Both parties need this state to win the Senate, and 1500 votes is not an insurmountable amount... especially if not all the overseas military ballots have been counted yet. (they sometimes take a couple of days to be included in the final totals, and they often favour the Republicans)
Watching elections in the USA is the one and only time time I HATE seeing BLUE on an electoral map...
The automatic recount in Montana will be the last chance... and we all know the Democrats are fully in favour of recounts. ;-) Both parties need this state to win the Senate, and 1500 votes is not an insurmountable amount... especially if not all the overseas military ballots have been counted yet. (they sometimes take a couple of days to be included in the final totals, and they often favour the Republicans)
Watching elections in the USA is the one and only time time I HATE seeing BLUE on an electoral map...
posted by Christian Conservative @ 8:47 a.m.
4 Comments:
At Wed Nov 08, 12:44:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
You may be unduely(sp?) pessimistic wrt the US Senate. The Senate total for the Democrats includes the two elected Independents: Sanders from Vermont, and Joe Lieberman from Connecticut. The Democrats need the support of both for any chance of a majority. I don't know about Sanders (from what I gather, he's taking over from another Independent), but in the case of Lieberman (who needed the support of Independents and Republicants to get his 50% to 40% victory), it is anything but a given.
Brian in Calgary
At Fri Nov 10, 10:04:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"I HATE seeing BLUE on an electoral map..."
Yep, Jesus was big on hate too I suppose according to your take on things. How could anyone be so self deluded?
Don't worry, The Democrats are just as supportive of the New World order and putting the anti-christ on the throne just as much as you are. Be prepared to worship at Hilary's feet.
Question, how come all you Christian Consevatives turn out to be drug addicted perverts?? Every week more and more of you, especially your leaders get exposed.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2625645
Oh yeah, and the not only did Republican House leader Mehlman not only was financed by the Gay Porn industry he is also about to be outted.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/LKing-BillMaher-MehlmanGay.mov
Wake up!! Homosexual Cult anti-family Globalists posing as Conservative Christians.
you will be exposed!
At Fri Nov 10, 11:03:00 a.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
Ammm, right... after debating for about 10 seconds, I decided to leave your post up for all to see. Now, on to my reply...
1) I don't hate anybody at all... and what's wrong with hating a colour? If you wanted to get really creative, you could have accused me of national discrimination of colour, because I hate seeing blue only in the USA... whereas in Canada, I love seeing blue on an electoral map... dark blue that is. And I love RED south of the border, but hate seeing it up here.
2) The Dems win this week might help keep Hilary off the throne, if you had actually read any of my other posts.
3) Hey, the only drug I'm on is caffeine!
4) I think that your post qualifies as being an accusation of me being a "pervert" too. Are you ready to back that one up? Because it's false, which would mean that you can be charged with libel. Good think I believe in that whole "turn the other cheek" thing that the Lord Jesus Christ preached.
5) Yea, I'm an anti-family, homosexual, globalist, Christian poser... R-I-G-H-T. I think even my adversaries amongst my regular readers would disagree with your accusations... since you're accusing me of secretly holding views that run contrary to about 95% of my posts.
6) - I hear Weston Ontario is a nice place to live, what do you think?
- Personally, I hate Bell Sympatico... I'm more of a Rogers guy myself. (oops, there's that "hate" thing again... my bad)
- As for my browser, I use IE 6.0, not Firefox... but to each their own.
- Did you know that a hard drive will retain a record of all websites you've ever visited, even if you wipe the drive? I learned that from my buddy, who's one of the best data forenics guys in Canada. He does good work for various police departments, you should look him up.
But thanks for visiting anyway, visitor number 26,029! Oh yea, almost forgot, that whole turn the other cheek thing... lucky for you! ;-)
At Sat Nov 11, 11:53:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"- Did you know that a hard drive will retain a record of all websites you've ever visited, even if you wipe the drive?"
I'm curious if that's the case on the latest Macs. I'm running Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger) at home which is a Unix-like environment on which I can run the "srm" command for a 1, 7 or 35 pass file deletion (delete -> overwrite -> delete -> overwrite -> delete, up to 35 times) algorithm. Plus, Safari also now has Private Browsing mode where nothing (history, cookies, or anything else) is actually saved or cached at all. The NSA could maybe recover the srm-deleted files, but I don't believe a local data forensics lab tech could, although I would be curious to find out if that is actually the case. That said, if someone really wanted to find out what sites someone surfed to they could just take a court order to the user's ISP and check their logs, although if they're using a proxy to browse then it would be a little more difficult. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home