I think that Democrats are in trouble
Dionysus
HEAD: Congressional openings
SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy
By Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
A number of House Democrats have announced they are retiring, and party
officials say more could follow in a tough midterm election year of high
unemployment, a slow economic recovery, and a very angry electorate.
A growing number of Democrats have read the handwriting on the wall that
tells of bleak prospects for their party in 2010 when Republicans are
expected to pick up seats in the House and possibly the Senate, too.
Historically, the party out of power makes gains in an administration's
midterm point, and that seems to be what is in store for the Democrats this
time around as well, if recent polls are any guide.
It is difficult to remember when the American people have expressed such a
deep level of disdain for Congress as they do now under the leadership of
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The latest
NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll finds a pathetic 7 percent of Americans
give Congress an above average job approval score. Worse, 34 percent now
call this Congress one of the worst.
The survey numbers are especially bleak among incumbents. Only 38 percent
say their representative should be re-elected, and 49 percent say it's time
to give a new person a chance - the same percentage who said that before
Republicans took control of the House in 1994.
No one is saying that retirements alone endanger the Democrats' 258-seat
majority. Independent election analysts I've talked to say the number would
have to climb a lot higher before than can happen.
"Democrats aren't at the panic point in this process. Keep in mind that
Democrats lost 22 open seats in 1994. Right now, they only have seven
potentially open vulnerable seats, including the four recent retirements,"
said David Wasserman, senior House elections analyst at the Cook Political
Report, which closely tracks congressional races.
If Democrats can keep their retirements among vulnerable seats to between 10
to 15, "then I think they are in reasonably good shape," he said. "But if
that number balloons past 15, then I think that Democrats are in trouble."
As this is written, four Democrats have announced their retirement in the
past few weeks, including Reps. Dennis Moore of Kansas, John Tanner and Bart
Gordon of Tennessee, and Brian Baird of Washington state. Three other
Democrats were leaving the House to run for Senate seats: Reps. Joe Sestak
of Pennsylvania, Paul W. Hodes of New Hampshire and Charlie Melancon of
Louisiana.
The seats of the four pure retirements are vulnerable and considered tossups
at best. Arizona Sen. John McCain carried both Tennessee districts in the
2008 presidential election, and President Bush carried all four of the
retirement districts in his 2004 re-election.
Among them, Mr. Gordon was the most candid about the tough political climate
he faced next year and the factors that caused him to call it quits: "My
shelf life was starting to run out. Our district clearly is a more difficult
environment," he said in his retirement announcement.
Some are already being put in the Republican Party's column. "Democrats have
one open seat that might pretty much be a goner," analyst Charlie Cook said
of Mr. Melancon's conservative-leaning district.
Republican campaign officials say that they expect more retirements to come
as Democrats in more conservative districts acknowledge that their
re-election prospects are shaky.
"What a difference a year makes," said Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman
of the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a memo to his House
colleagues. "Democrats were at the peak of their political power following a
sweeping and historic election. Since then, Speaker Pelosi has successfully
steered her party into a political abyss so daunting that senior members of
her caucus would rather throw in the towel than face a disgruntled
electorate back home."
House Democratic campaign officials fear there may be more retirements to
come, but they dismiss Republican talk of a large exodus as mere "wishful
thinking by the Republicans."
"There could be some more Democratic retirements," said Ryan Rudominer,
spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, although he
declined to say how many.
For now, election handicappers do not think House Democrats are in danger of
losing majority control, although they are forecasting a larger Republican
pickup in seats.
"There is a good chance that Republicans can gain back the number of seats
they lost in 2008, 21 seats, which is about half of what they need to get
control of the House again," Mr. Wasserman told me. "Our current outlook is
a Democratic loss of 20 to 30 House seats."
Those losses could grow even larger next year if joblessness remains high,
forecasts of a weak recovery take hold, and there is an angry voter backlash
against the Democrats' big government tax-and-spend binge at the expense of
long-term economic growth and job creation.
****************
"Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up.� --Da Li'l Prick
"Comparing what the Democrats in Congress are doing to making sausage is an
insult to sausage makers."--Sen. John Barrasso (R), NV
�Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans�--Will Rogers
No surrender!
Dionysus
zzpat
> FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy
> By Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
And republicans will run on what issue? They spent all our money and
then some. They put us so deeply in debt that we had a Great
Recession. They took us to war for no reason. They stayed in that war
years AFTER they learned the war was based entirely on lies s the
violated the Geneva Conventions and tortured POWs and now they want to
govern again? Com'on!
If there are enough people who want to reward that kind of failure and
immorality, let them have it, but if they get power again what little
is left of the US we grew up in will be gone.
Bert Hyman
news:e4f27ffe-85e6-4c11...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
zzpat <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And republicans will run on what issue? They spent all our money and
> then some. They put us so deeply in debt that we had a Great
> Recession. They took us to war for no reason. They stayed in that war
> years AFTER they learned the war was based entirely on lies s the
> violated the Geneva Conventions and tortured POWs and now they want to
> govern again? Com'on!
Apparently, the current administration liked those policies so much that
they're continuing them, or expanding on them.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
ray
<e4f27ffe-85e6-4c11...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
zzpat <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. The people are really getting power with hundreds of new
bureaucracies, being forced to buy health insurance, and possibly being
locked up in prison if they don't. Yeah, that's people power all right.
We didn't end up in a recession because of debt. We ended up in a
recession because of the housing market crash that had plenty of
Democrat fingerprints on it. And Obama's answer to all this is put us
trillions more in debt.
Why would people want Republicans back? Because AutoBama lied on just
about everything he promised. The trillions he is spending is for
nothing more but paying off his union buddies, environmentalists and
trial lawyers. And all this in less than one year of Presidency.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
zzpat
I think it's fair to say Presidents like war because it gives them
power. Obama is power hungry, like any president. He supports
everything Bush just like Nixon supported every LBJ because war gave
both power.
When Nixon lied about getting us out of Vietnam he was reelected.
Obama will not be reelected if we're still at war in three years.
That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. Us liberals
give a damn and we hold Obama responsible for breaking his word so
many times.
Conservatives will vote for a fellow conservative no matter how many
times he lies to them.
Btw, don't forget liberals opposed LBJ and his lies, conservatives
supported him. Conservatives supported Bush and his lies and liberals
did not.
There's something nice about consistency from both sides. I know what
conservatives will do on every issue before the issue comes up.
Michael Coburn
As has been cited over and over again: It is typical for the party of
the sitting president to lose seats in the off year election. And it is
_ALSO_ true that the economy is in bad shape and that the congress gets
the blame for it unless there is a _BOOGERMAN_ threat to the nation
behind which the congress can hide. But looking at where the Democrats
will be losing seats, the loss is not harmful. The seats being lost
normally vote with the Republicans anyway. It can be argued that the
maintenance of these representatives as spies in the Democratic camp
Serves the bat shit nut party better than having them declare themselves
to be members of the bat shit party. A more center _LIBERAL_ Democratic
party would be a BETTER Democratic party for the common people.
The center liberal democrats oppose open borders and support enforcement
of immigration law at the employer level. They support a Public Option
NOT FUNDED BY TAXES, and they support a much more progressive income tax
with new brackets above one million dollars while leaving the middle
class rates as is. That _should_ elect Democrats even if the moonbat wing
of the party doesn't like it.
We have a ways to go in this campaign season. And losing some DINO's
isn't going to hurt anything.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
ray
<f855443e-e9cd-4255...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
zzpat <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
>
> I think it's fair to say Presidents like war because it gives them
> power. Obama is power hungry, like any president. He supports
> everything Bush just like Nixon supported every LBJ because war gave
> both power.
>
> When Nixon lied about getting us out of Vietnam he was reelected.
> Obama will not be reelected if we're still at war in three years.
> That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. Us liberals
> give a damn and we hold Obama responsible for breaking his word so
> many times.
>
> Conservatives will vote for a fellow conservative no matter how many
> times he lies to them.
>
> Btw, don't forget liberals opposed LBJ and his lies, conservatives
> supported him. Conservatives supported Bush and his lies and liberals
> did not.
>
> There's something nice about consistency from both sides. I know what
> conservatives will do on every issue before the issue comes up.
You don't know anything. Bush took a lot of heat from Conservatives
when he was lax on the Mexican border. Conservatives bashed Bush for
things like the McCain/ Finegold bill and debit cards to Katrina
victims. We were all against worthless spending like the Bridge to
Nowhere. No conservative was thrilled with Bush sending our tax dollars
to Africa, all in effort to bring more American blacks to the Republican
party. And we continued bashing him right to his last day in office for
bailing out every damn company that screwed themselves up.
Daniel
> On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> > HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy
> > By Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>
> And republicans will run on what issue?
Take your pick. nobamacare, card check, cap and trade, etc. The
American people are speaking, but the democrats aren't listening.
nobama, the most inept President since democrats elected a peanut
farmer.
Tim Crowley
> On Jan 1, 1:06 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> > > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> > > HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> > > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy
> > > By Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>
> > And republicans will run on what issue?
>
> Take your pick. nobamacare,
I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
hint: you lied about serving our nation. You have no say. Ever.
hide, kunt.
Dionysus
"Tim Crowley" <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ac038bb-cdef-4a95...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
hide, kunt.
*******
Hey, everyone, look, it's Priggy Timmy Turmoil (Jello Biafra, really!). Hi,
Prigs? How ya doin'?
No surrender!
Dionysus
Daniel
> On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 1:06 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> > > > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> > > > HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> > > > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy
> > > > By Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>
> > > And republicans will run on what issue?
>
> > Take your pick. nobamacare,
>
> I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
You have yet to explain how being against nobamas policies is racist,
why is that?
>
> hint: you lied about serving our nation.
Hint: Nope, active duty US Army since 1995. Nice try though.
Michael Coburn
> "Tim Crowley" <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac038bb-cdef-4a95...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 1:06 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>
>> > > HEAD: Congressional openings
>>
>> > > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy By Donald
>> > > Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>>
>> > And republicans will run on what issue?
>>
>> Take your pick. nobamacare,
>
> I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
>
> hint: you lied about serving our nation. You have no say. Ever.
The congresspersons in trouble are the right leaning blue dogs. They
will get no assistance from the party and will need to defect to the
Republicans or retire. That is AS IT SHOULD BE. The Democratic party has
ended its rebuild at all costs phase in which Republican rightards were
welcomed into the party. The Democrats currently have too many rightards
in the tent and LIEberman in the Senate (along with Baucus) are the
poster kids.
We can afford the loss in numbers because we have enough support from the
people to get rid of the outright spies. "Keep your friends close and
your enemies closer" does not actually work in party politics. It allows
the opposing party to blame shortcomings on your ideology as opposed to
the actions of their spies in undermining progressive efforts wanted by
the people.
Michael Coburn
A person who is against certain Obama policies is not racist. But a
white racist will be against almost all Obama policies. Rasmussen proves
this every day in that Rasmussen oversamples the south:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Tim Crowley
hint: prove it, bitch. you never, ever will. you lied. shitty try,
though.
Daniel
Hint: Active duty US Army since 1995. Deal with it bitch. You lose,
again.
Daniel
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:34:38 -0800, Daniel wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 6:28 pm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 1, 1:06 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> >> > > > HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> >> > > > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy By Donald
> >> > > > Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>
> >> > > And republicans will run on what issue?
>
> >> > Take your pick. nobamacare,
>
> >> I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
>
> > You have yet to explain how being against nobamas policies is racist,
> > why is that?
>
> >> hint: you lied about serving our nation.
>
> > Hint: Nope, active duty US Army since 1995. Nice try though.
>
> A person who is against certain Obama policies is not racist. But a
> white racist will be against almost all Obama policies.
Actually, any person with a little common sense would be against
nobamas policies, regardless of skin color.
> Rasmussen proves
> this every day in that Rasmussen oversamples the south:
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
>
Funny, your cite doesn't support your claim.
Tim Crowley
cool. prove it.
and danny proves again that she's nothing more than a lying bitch.
Tim Crowley
> On Jan 2, 3:35 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:34:38 -0800, Daniel wrote:
> > > On Jan 1, 6:28 pm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 1, 1:06 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Jan 1, 9:07 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> > >> > > > HEAD: Congressional openings
>
> > >> > > > SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy By Donald
> > >> > > > Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times.
>
> > >> > > And republicans will run on what issue?
>
> > >> > Take your pick. nobamacare,
>
> > >> I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
>
> > > You have yet to explain how being against nobamas policies is racist,
> > > why is that?
>
> > >> hint: you lied about serving our nation.
>
> > > Hint: Nope, active duty US Army since 1995. Nice try though.
>
> > A person who is against certain Obama policies is not racist. But a
> > white racist will be against almost all Obama policies.
>
> Actually, any person with a little common sense would be against
> nobamas policies, regardless of skin color.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someones policies. That's not what
you do.
hint: you're a lying racist kkkunt.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:01:43 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
"Keep your enemies closer." doesn't work, period. It's a complete
misreading of what Sun Tzu meant. What he really meant was that you
needed to know your enemies even better than you knew your friends.
On topic, I hope that now they've served their purpose, the Democrats
destroy the Blue Dogs. Including Lieberman.
Siobhan Medeiros
And let's face it, we have a year to go. And while the trend is for
the Democrats to lose seats, well, we've never had a decade as shitty
as this one since the Reagan years.
I think it all depends on the economy. If things keep improving and
the unemployment rate drops substantially, the trend won't mean fuck
all. The Democrats will wind up gaining seats in the House and
Senate, maybe enough so they won't have to kiss up to the Blue Dogs.
Here's hoping....
ray
<ab746dab-5c76-4189...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> And let's face it, we have a year to go. And while the trend is for
> the Democrats to lose seats, well, we've never had a decade as shitty
> as this one since the Reagan years.
>
> I think it all depends on the economy. If things keep improving and
> the unemployment rate drops substantially, the trend won't mean fuck
> all. The Democrats will wind up gaining seats in the House and
> Senate, maybe enough so they won't have to kiss up to the Blue Dogs.
The economy is only part of it. People don't like all this spending on
unnecessary things.
Daniel
Hint: I just did.
Daniel
And you still refuse to explain how being against nobamas policies
makes someone a racist. You lose, again.
Daniel
wrote:
> In article <adaffd4a-9b9d-4e3a-8ca5-421e9af70...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> scumbag, that only demeans the army; it doesn't rehabilitate you.
waaaaaa....deal with it bitch.
Siobhan Medeiros
> In article
> <ab746dab-5c76-4189-ad4b-044ad5eb1...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > And let's face it, we have a year to go. And while the trend is for
> > the Democrats to lose seats, well, we've never had a decade as shitty
> > as this one since the Reagan years.
>
> > I think it all depends on the economy. If things keep improving and
> > the unemployment rate drops substantially, the trend won't mean fuck
> > all. The Democrats will wind up gaining seats in the House and
> > Senate, maybe enough so they won't have to kiss up to the Blue Dogs.
>
> The economy is only part of it. People don't like all this spending on
> unnecessary things.
>
Oh? You think cleaning up the mess Bush left behind is "unnecessary"?
Are you forgetting who started the practice of spending like a drunken
sailor? How many trillions did Bush spend on the Iraq War, which was
totally unnecessary? Do think that Bush's ten-trillion dollar tax cut
was "necessary"?
Idiot.
Siobhan Medeiros
Not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist, but pretty much every
racist opposes Obama.
Daniel
Cite?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> In article
> <ab746dab-5c76-4189-ad4b-044ad5eb1...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > And let's face it, we have a year to go. And while the trend is for
> > the Democrats to lose seats, well, we've never had a decade as shitty
> > as this one since the Reagan years.
>
> > I think it all depends on the economy. If things keep improving and
> > the unemployment rate drops substantially, the trend won't mean fuck
> > all. The Democrats will wind up gaining seats in the House and
> > Senate, maybe enough so they won't have to kiss up to the Blue Dogs.
>
> The economy is only part of it. People don't like all this spending on
> unnecessary things.
Well, since the only thing the cranks even know about spending is
Cell Phones,
the only people who even work for the idiots anymore is David
Letterman
and Fox News anyway.
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or, you could say it as, the idiots are too idiotic to up come
with
technology that doesn't involve snake charmers and atom bombs,
so it only works in New York. And since the Pugs are too
idiotic to up come with technology that doesn't involve orbiting
laser beams,
it only works on 42nd Street.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Q Public
> On Jan 3, 1:14�ｿｽam, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 10:12�ｿｽpm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 5:14�ｿｽpm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 2, 1:47�ｿｽpm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 2, 3:35�ｿｽpm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:34:38 -0800, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 6:28�ｿｽpm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote
> :
>>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 1:11�ｿｽpm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 1:06�ｿｽpm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 9:07�ｿｽam, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> w
> rote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HEAD: Congressional openings
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SUB-HEAD: Democratic retirements in troubled economy By
> Donald
>>>>>>>>>>> Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington
> Times.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And republicans will run on what issue?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Take your pick. nobamacare,
>>
>>>>>>>> I hope they run on your insane racist fantasy.
>>
>>>>>>> You have yet to explain how being against nobamas policies is r
> acist,
>>>>>>> why is that?
>>
>>>>>>>> hint: you lied about serving our nation.
>>
>>>>>>> Hint: Nope, active duty US Army since 1995. Nice try though.
>>
>>>>>> A person who is against certain Obama policies is not racist. �ｿｽ
> But a
>>>>>> white racist will be against almost all Obama policies.
>>
>>>>> Actually, any person with a little common sense would be against
>>>>> nobamas policies, regardless of skin color.
>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someones policies. That's not wha
> t
>>>> you do.
>>
>>>> hint: you're a lying racist kkkunt.
>>
>>> And you still refuse to explain how being against nobamas policies
>>> makes someone a racist. You lose, again.
>>
>> Not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist, but pretty much every
>> racist opposes Obama.
>
Actually using race baiting as the bell weather most racists support O'bama
because they use race as their argument when the talking points BS they
spew doesn't wash so they fall back on their weak position!
Morton Davis
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ab746dab-5c76-4189...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
-----
The Reagan years returned prosperity after the disaster of Carter.
Siobhan Medeiros
Tell you what...name one racist who likes the idea of a black
President, and I'll happily eat my words.
Michael Coburn
Reagan presided over a long _fake_ recovery that followed the Volcker
destruction of the economy and the destruction of the inflation monster.
It was a _fake_ economy because it was based on debt, just like the Bush
economy and just like the current economy must be supported. If we have
any hope of sustaining American life styles then we will need to print mo
(as opposed to borrowing it) and inject it at the bottom of the economy,
developing infrastructure and/or simply handing out money. Giving more
money to banks and to the rich is not the answer.
If the Democrats are "in trouble" it is because of the lies that have
been perpetrated by the rightarded for the last 30 years. An uneducated
and mis-educated populous is a very serious problem.
Michael Coburn
> On Jan 2, 12:13 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:01:43 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>> > "Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:5ac038bb-
cdef-4a95-98d...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. The Democrats will be losing seats occupied by Blue Dogs. That
is not actually a loss.
Daniel
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:32:32 -0600, Morton Davis wrote:
You are sure right about that. Uneducated idiots like YOU are a very
serious problem.
Siobhan Medeiros
Yoo hoo? Still waiting!
Morton Davis
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhtc1...@news4.newsguy.com...
You word has no value.
Michael Coburn
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hhtc1...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:32:32 -0600, Morton Davis wrote:
>>
>>> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ab746dab-5c76-4189-
ad4b-044...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/ntdt.htm
We see that the economy has been in "fake" mode since 1980. We see that
the tax act of 1993 and the bubble machine tax act of 1997 reverses the
debt slope but that the debt returns as soon as the stock market bubble
blows and the Republicans take back control of the white house.
Here's a picture of the GDP for you:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/gdp/historical-
gdp_html_m30d66db9.jpg