Reply With Quote
oh wait the last time other then the first couple of years of the clinton admin. that dems had complete power were during the great carter years... anybody still remember those years... and lest we forget the LBJ era?
in the context of the forum... I mean you post like 20 threads a day... on how bad the repugs are..... sheeesh take a deep breath and realize the world isn't always going to agree with your pissy rants about how bad repugs are in office..."allow one side to dominate the agenda "
oh wait the last time other then the first couple of years of the clinton admin. that dems had complete power were during the great carter years... anybody still remember those years... and lest we forget the LBJ era?
"like 20 threads a day."
quality AND quan y, what's not to like?
Since you can't refute, just IGNORE me.
nah I like a good laugh... seems the more you post .. the more you scare the truly sane blue dog dems into voting for the conservatives...
It's not about SIDES. This isn't a sport with a winning team vs. a losing team. I know that's what it's become thanks to people like you who think politics is just some Cable TV reality show.
The debate (if there is one) would be this: Those in favor of banning Internet Gambling and tacking it on the end of an unrelated bill vs. those against it. Forget the partisan bull .
Exactly. I don't understand why it is so hard to get through to people like him. I spelled out that this isn't a Democrat v Republican gripe but a gripe on how the Republicans are handling themselves. It amazes me how dude can't grasp such a simple concept.
How does one refute bull ? By posting more bull ? Do tell, it's something you're an expert in the subject area of.Since you can't refute, just IGNORE me.
Manny, he may try to run, but he'd come in dead last in his own party. Dude sucks.Frist may have cost everyone port security becuase of this internet gambling ban. Chew on that for a second and think about this guy running for president.
The Democrats were doing the same thing before the Republicans took power, you just didn't get to see it because you were crawling around in diapers (so, basically the only thing that has changed is who's in chargemuch of the blame lies with how the Repugs have conducted themselves as dividers, polarizers, smash-mouth/no-compromise partisans, poisoners since Gingrich in 1994. That is not saying I'm a Dem or pro-Dem, just that the Repugs have been playing "Repugs first, last, and always, and the USA".).
Congress sucks. Both parties. It really doesn't matter who is in charge. Both parties could give a about this country. They care about two things - the lobbies filling their pockets, and throwing enough bones to the general public to get re-elected so the lobbies can continue filling their pockets.
Unfortunatedly we're pretty much ed no matter who is in charge. There's just not enough folks like Sen. Warner still left on the Hill to stop the nonsense.
"Ya Vez"
... there he goes again. Asked to defend the Repugs by listing there accomplishments, goes back 30, 40 years to mention Carter, Johnson, but NOT the current Repug assholes. Q E D
Aggie, your trash is so ing weak. go play in the kiddie pool. or:
Repug accomplishments in 6 years:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
etc.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-29-2006 at 08:39 PM.
Well, Frist attatched it to the Port Security Bill and it appears the bill will pass tonight.
I'm going to be looking for new work in the future.
Bottom line....this Congress is the ultimate in "Do Nothing Congress"; it would almost be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. Sure they give some tax cuts to wealthier americans but at the same time they're spending like there's no end in sight. A true conservative would treat the taxpayers' money as if it was their very own but these bozos don't seem to give a . Everyone needs to make sure they vote at this next election!
The truth is, however, the Democrats would have treated your money worse and without the benefit of raising revenues through tax cuts.
Yes, the Republicans have spent like drunken sailors. But, most of the public recognizes the Democrats would have been no different and probably worse in that respect.
On the other hand, the Republicans have passed important legislation that has made this country more secure. Something the Democrats wouldn't do. Well, about 2/3 of them anyway.
See how they voted and ask yourself. Would a Democratic Congress have been willing to fight terrorism the way it must be done?
Ringing Endorsement forum.
The only defense the Repugs and their supporters have is "the Repugs are no more ty than the Dems".
Out of context forum.
Thread le: Republicans show their support of our TroopsExactly. I don't understand why it is so hard to get through to people like him. I spelled out that this isn't a Democrat v Republican gripe but a gripe on how the Republicans are handling themselves. It amazes me how dude can't grasp such a simple concept.
simple concepts...?
simple concepts...
as opposed to democrats support..How ridiculous is that? At a time when we have brave American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership is more worried about Americans playing poker online than in protecting our troops in the field. The Republicans talk about patriotism and supporting our fighting men and women, but when it comes to voting for our nation's defense department, they're more interested in banning internet gaming than they are in providing what our troops need in the field of battle.
Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq
By Bob Cusack
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.
“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”
Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.
Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/T...raqfunding.html
Well, in a two party system, it's always good to compare one against the other. When there is a viable third party that has a smidgen of a chance of ever significantly affecting politics in this country, you'll have a point.
Until then, it's always good to point out how much worse the Democrats would be if in power.
Eh, I'm moving to Spain.
Or maybe Costa Rica.
Trinidad and Tobago would be really nice too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
