Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why Do Republicans Hate America?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 12, 2011, 1:59:01 PM10/12/11
to
On Oct 12, 6:06 am, Lookout <mrLooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The republicans DON'T WANT you to have a job. It's a simple as that.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/senate-republicans-vote-kill-obamas-jobs-bill-2...
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) Senate Republicans have voted to kill the $447
> billion White House jobs bill despite weeks of barnstorming by
> President Barack Obama across the country.
>
> Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to delay the plan. The
> roll call was kept open Tuesday night to allow Democratic Sen. Jeanne
> Shaheen to vote. But it would have taken 60 votes in the 100-member
> Senate to keep the legislation alive.
>
> The plan would have included Social Security payroll tax cuts for
> workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270
> billion. There also was to be $175 billion in new spending on roads,
> school repairs and other infrastructure as well as jobless aid and
> help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters
> and police officers.
Because the Republicans represent those who profit from the downfall
of the middle class.
Not only have the Republicans offered NO ALTERNATIVE JOB BILL, they
are doing everything in their power to prevent Obama and the Democrats
from enacting any type of bill for job growth.
But yet all the Republican candidates say they are for putting America
back to work.
Liars.
Republicans HATE America.
If you are unemployed, you can thank a Republican for your
unemployment.
I adjusted the title and distribution for better coverage..thanks for
posting the article.
TMT
> The republicans DON'T WANT you to have a job. It's a simple as that.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/senate-republicans-vote-kill-obamas-jobs-bill-2...
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) Senate Republicans have voted to kill the $447
> billion White House jobs bill despite weeks of barnstorming by
> President Barack Obama across the country.
>
> Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to delay the plan. The
> roll call was kept open Tuesday night to allow Democratic Sen. Jeanne
> Shaheen to vote. But it would have taken 60 votes in the 100-member
> Senate to keep the legislation alive.
>
> The plan would have included Social Security payroll tax cuts for
> workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270
> billion. There also was to be $175 billion in new spending on roads,
> school repairs and other infrastructure as well as jobless aid and
> help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters
> and police officers.
Because the Republicans represent those who profit from the downfall
of the middle class.
Not only have the Republicans offered NO ALTERNATIVE JOB BILL, they
are doing everything in their power to prevent Obama and the Democrats
from enacting any type of bill for job growth.
But yet all the Republican candidates say they are for putting America
back to work.
Liars.
Republicans HATE America.
If you are unemployed, you can thank a Republican for your
unemployment.
I adjusted the title and distribution for better coverage..thanks for
posting the article.
TMT
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Oct 12, 2011, 2:11:11 PM10/12/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why did some Senate 'Rats vote against it too? Do THEY hate America??
Paul Newton
Oct 12, 2011, 2:25:18 PM10/12/11
to
Did they see it also, as a BADLY DESIGNED BILL?
Hey, EVEN they might be cathing on!
Bible Studies with Satan
Oct 12, 2011, 2:46:42 PM10/12/11
to
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:06�am, Lookout <mrLooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The republicans DON'T WANT you to have a job. It's a simple as that.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/senate-republicans-vote-kill-obamas-jobs-bill-2...
>>
>> WASHINGTON (AP) Senate Republicans have voted to kill the $447
>> billion White House jobs bill despite weeks of barnstorming by
>> President Barack Obama across the country.
>>
>> Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to delay the plan. The
>> roll call was kept open Tuesday night to allow Democratic Sen. Jeanne
>> Shaheen to vote. But it would have taken 60 votes in the 100-member
>> Senate to keep the legislation alive.
>>
>> The plan would have included Social Security payroll tax cuts for
>> workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270
>> billion. There also was to be $175 billion in new spending on roads,
>> school repairs and other infrastructure as well as jobless aid and
>> help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters
>> and police officers.
>
> Because the Republicans represent those who profit from the downfall
> of the middle class.
>
> Not only have the Republicans offered NO ALTERNATIVE JOB BILL, they
> are doing everything in their power to prevent Obama and the Democrats
> from enacting any type of bill for job growth.
That's the RUIN part of RULE or RUIN. Thet's been the GOP strategy ever since
Obama took office -- ruin the country and blame it on the president.
>
> But yet all the Republican candidates say they are for putting America
> back to work.
>
> Liars.
>
> Republicans HATE America.
>
> If you are unemployed, you can thank a Republican for your
> unemployment.
>
> I adjusted the title and distribution for better coverage..thanks for
> posting the article.
>
> TMT
--
Ezekiel 23:20
Benny Fishhole
Oct 12, 2011, 9:20:43 PM10/12/11
to
They all hate Obama.
Buster Norris (Smacks Pansy Dem's Heads and Laughs At Them)
Oct 12, 2011, 9:34:17 PM10/12/11
to
Summary: Not only the most prolific liar also the most prolific thief
of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on America.
of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on America.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:29:35 -0400, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>We're at this point because of the Bush tax cuts. That's the one
>biggest contributor to the deficit...
Oops! Caught lying...
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the
tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and
expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional
spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately
pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost
revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term
budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected
large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial
revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's
pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Buster Norris (Smacks Pansy Dem's Heads and Laughs At Them)
Oct 12, 2011, 9:34:28 PM10/12/11
to
Summary: A classic usenet zoo monkey. Liars, once they have been
exposed, frequently revert to behavior most similar to a zoo monkey
who sits in the cage throwing feces at passersby but saying nothing of
value.
exposed, frequently revert to behavior most similar to a zoo monkey
who sits in the cage throwing feces at passersby but saying nothing of
value.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:11:13 -0700, Bible Studies with Satan
<bi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Senator Rubio (R-FL)...........
>He's an anchor baby............
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rubio is the second son and third child of Cuban exiles Mario Rubio
(1927�2010)[2] and Oria Garcia (born 1931), and was born in Miami,
Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 12, 2011, 10:42:59 PM10/12/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Republicans HATE America.
If you are unemployed, you can thank a Republican for your
unemployment.
In November 2012 you have the opportunity to return the favor.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 12, 2011, 10:36:04 PM10/12/11
to
On Oct 12, 1:11 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"> Why did some Senate 'Rats vote against it too? Do THEY hate America??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Check out the bill...it would have cost some of the Democrats their
jobs with some of the extras.
The next version will pass.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 12, 2011, 10:36:41 PM10/12/11
to
Hawke
Oct 13, 2011, 8:28:55 PM10/13/11
to
New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
republicans' bullshit.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
Oct 13, 2011, 10:09:58 PM10/13/11
to
On Oct 13, 8:28 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
> republicans' bullshit.
>
> Hawke
So who did the polling and where was it published?
Dan
Gray Guest
Oct 13, 2011, 10:32:48 PM10/13/11
to
"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> wrote in news:21248347-621d-41b8-9716-
b79ee3...@g16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
b79ee3...@g16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
On the pages in his mind.
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 13, 2011, 11:48:11 PM10/13/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw that too.
History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
suffer.
Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
TMT
JohnJohnsn
Oct 14, 2011, 1:10:32 AM10/14/11
to
On Oct 13, 7:28 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> atamped out into the Ethe the following
DNC Propaganda::
<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> atamped out into the Ethe the following
DNC Propaganda::
The Tool Fool, El Stupido of the DNC, continually proves that he's
totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
>> Republicans HATE America.
>
>> If you are unemployed, you can thank a Republican for your
>> unemployment.
>
>> In November 2012 you have the opportunity to return the favor.
>
>> TMT
>
> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
> republicans' bullshit.
Looks like you've been hanging around with The Tool Fool and "Lookout
Andy!" Hull too long, Dave; you've picked up their "reading
compression" problem:
Gallup | October 12, 2011
At 13%, Congress' Approval Ties All-Time Low
Republicans and Democrats give identical ratings to the divided
Congress
PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
repeated in August.
"I don't get you. I don't get your act at all, and I don't
think you do either. I don't think you know what you're
trying to do or how to go about it. I think you're stupid.
Real stupid..."
-Sheriff Stew Singer- "The Wild One"
Q. Does Usenet help stamp out ignorance?
A. That depends on whether by `stamp out' you mean
`eliminate' or `reproduce rapidly in great quantity.'
-- Dr. Roger M. Firestone
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're
ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
de...@dudu.org
Oct 14, 2011, 7:23:46 AM10/14/11
to
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>> republicans' bullshit.
>>
>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I saw that too.
>
>History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>suffer.
>
>Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>
>The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
Broke too. With no leadership. And not only that they can't read the
EC map.
if I may: laugh laugh laugh....
>
>TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 14, 2011, 11:16:31 AM10/14/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...yeah..I forgot about being BROKE.
You would think the 1% would be throwing money at them.
As it is, it looks like a giant feces slinging contest.
And feel free to laugh..they are used to having small children point
and laugh at them
TMT
Hawke
Oct 14, 2011, 1:34:30 PM10/14/11
to
I think it was an NBC poll that I saw on one of the cable TV news shows.
I don't remember which show it was. The thing that was notable was the
ten point swing in a month. I'm sure there will be other polls looking
at the same thing and then we will see if that is the trend or if that
was just what one poll came up with.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 14, 2011, 1:42:11 PM10/14/11
to
Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
republicans have controlled congress and not a single jobs bill has come
out. Congresswoman Jackie Speier said there are only 20 legislative days
left in the year, and nothing of any value is getting done.
For example, yesterday in congress they spent the whole day on a bill
restricting women's right to abortions. They did this even though they
know the bill is not only dead on arrival in the Senate but president
Obama said publicly that he would veto it. So instead of dealing with
any of our real problems the republicans controlling congress are
instead dicking around with bullshit like abortion.
At this rate nothing is going to be done in congress for the entire
year. I can't imagine why people would be upset with that? Except maybe
they thought they were electing people to deal with their problems
instead of twiddling their thumbs and accomplishing nothing but keeping
the president from getting anything done.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 14, 2011, 1:50:39 PM10/14/11
to
On 10/13/2011 10:10 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>> republicans' bullshit.
>
> Looks like you've been hanging around with The Tool Fool and "Lookout
> Andy!" Hull too long, Dave; you've picked up their "reading
> compression" problem:
>
> Gallup | October 12, 2011
> At 13%, Congress' Approval Ties All-Time Low
> Republicans and Democrats give identical ratings to the divided
> Congress
>
> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
> repeated in August.
Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny. The new one I
saw was about which party was favored as far as which should be in
control of congress. A month ago it was like 47% to 41% people thought
republicans should be in control of congress. It has swung 10 points in
the other direction in the last month.
So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
punished at the polls next election.
Hawke
Scout
Oct 14, 2011, 5:57:27 PM10/14/11
to
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:j79s9l$v12$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the Senate.
Hawke
Oct 14, 2011, 7:06:34 PM10/14/11
to
On 10/14/2011 2:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress
>>>> has
>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>> favored
>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> I saw that too.
>>>
>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>> suffer.
>>>
>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>
>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>
>>> TMT
>>
>>
>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>> republicans have controlled congress
>
> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>
> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
> Senate.
Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress
>>>> has
>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>> favored
>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> I saw that too.
>>>
>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>> suffer.
>>>
>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>
>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>
>>> TMT
>>
>>
>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>> republicans have controlled congress
>
> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>
> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
> Senate.
Hawke
Scout
Oct 14, 2011, 7:58:30 PM10/14/11
to
news:j7af9q$lem$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2 YEARS they
ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
something you try to pin just on Republicans.
ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
something you try to pin just on Republicans.
pyotr filipivich
Oct 14, 2011, 8:14:17 PM10/14/11
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
still lose.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>
>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2 YEARS they
>ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>
>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
>something you try to pin just on Republicans.
We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come to
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>
>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2 YEARS they
>ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>
>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
>something you try to pin just on Republicans.
expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
still lose.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
Benny Fishhole
Oct 14, 2011, 9:08:11 PM10/14/11
to
got better when she was ousted, but it's hard to pull the numbers up
with that Muslim in Chief dragging the whole mess down.
Benny Fishhole
Oct 14, 2011, 9:11:42 PM10/14/11
to
JohnJohnsn
Oct 15, 2011, 12:41:48 AM10/15/11
to
On Oct 14, 12:50 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
where's yours?
> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
Where is this alleged poll, Dave? Are you saying that it's more
representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
> It has swung 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
Post the link here:
> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
> punished at the polls next election.
Are you saying that the voters are so stupid that they will ignore the
fact that the DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress _and_ the
White House for TWO YEARS, but was incapable of producing a budget
_or_ a "Jobs Bill" all by themselves?
BTW, Dave; from that same well-respected polling agency comes:
Friday, October 14, 2011 Updated 05:45 PM
Gallup Daily Obama Job Approval
Approve: 38% -2 ▼
Disapprove: 54% +1 ▲
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Vote for:
GOP Candidate 46%
Barack Obama: 38%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2011 10:10 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>> republicans' bullshit.
>
>> Looks like you've been hanging around with The Tool Fool and "Lookout
>> Andy!" Hull too long, Dave; you've picked up their "reading
>> compression" problem:
>
>> Gallup | October 12, 2011
>> At 13%, Congress' Approval Ties All-Time Low
>> Republicans and Democrats give identical ratings to the divided
>> Congress
>
>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>> repeated in August.
>>http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pz_o30c1juqbzmd1scwmiw.gif
>
> On 10/13/2011 10:10 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>> republicans' bullshit.
>
>> Looks like you've been hanging around with The Tool Fool and "Lookout
>> Andy!" Hull too long, Dave; you've picked up their "reading
>> compression" problem:
>
>> Gallup | October 12, 2011
>> At 13%, Congress' Approval Ties All-Time Low
>> Republicans and Democrats give identical ratings to the divided
>> Congress
>
>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>> repeated in August.
>
> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
Well, Dave; I posted the above from a well-respected polling agency:
> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
where's yours?
> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
> It has swung 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
> punished at the polls next election.
fact that the DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress _and_ the
White House for TWO YEARS, but was incapable of producing a budget
_or_ a "Jobs Bill" all by themselves?
BTW, Dave; from that same well-respected polling agency comes:
Friday, October 14, 2011 Updated 05:45 PM
Gallup Daily Obama Job Approval
Approve: 38% -2 ▼
Disapprove: 54% +1 ▲
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Vote for:
GOP Candidate 46%
Barack Obama: 38%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Message has been deleted
RD Sandman
Oct 15, 2011, 2:37:34 PM10/15/11
to
Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>
>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>
>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>
>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>> to
>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>still lose.
>
> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
> out the banks and car companies.
>
Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>
>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>
>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>
>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>> to
>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>still lose.
>
> out the banks and car companies.
>
Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
RD Sandman
Oct 15, 2011, 2:39:08 PM10/15/11
to
Benny Fishhole <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
news:03nh97lchfstl34m5...@4ax.com:
Congress has that low rating simply because they deserve it. Too many are
resting on ideology and have no impetus to really fix the problem when it
is easy to simply blame the other side.
news:03nh97lchfstl34m5...@4ax.com:
resting on ideology and have no impetus to really fix the problem when it
is easy to simply blame the other side.
de...@dudu.org
Oct 15, 2011, 2:53:15 PM10/15/11
to
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>
>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>> to
>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>still lose.
>>
>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>
>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>
>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>> to
>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>still lose.
>>
>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>
>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
regulations on the banks. The desperation of the right wing to blame
all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
has done cause any of this.
RD Sandman
Oct 15, 2011, 3:17:01 PM10/15/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:mglj97dipl0itf6in...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> This happened on Bush's watch.
And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and Bush
wanted 5.5 million more.
Regulations are the responsibility of
> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
> regulations on the banks.
Interesting since the people in charge of that monitoring and enforcement
were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their respective positions of House
and Senate Finance Committee Chairmen. As late as July of 2008, they
were giving a clean bill of health to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The desperation of the right wing to blame
> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
> has done cause any of this.
I didn't blame that on Obama. Put your knee jerk up your ass.
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> This happened on Bush's watch.
financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and Bush
wanted 5.5 million more.
Regulations are the responsibility of
> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
> regulations on the banks.
were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their respective positions of House
and Senate Finance Committee Chairmen. As late as July of 2008, they
were giving a clean bill of health to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The desperation of the right wing to blame
> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
> has done cause any of this.
Scout
Oct 15, 2011, 4:11:36 PM10/15/11
to
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:mglj97dipl0itf6in...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
> regulations on the banks.
Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
> regulations on the banks.
So who exactly should we be blaming?
dca...@krl.org
Oct 15, 2011, 5:33:19 PM10/15/11
to
On Oct 14, 1:50 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny. The new one I
> saw was about which party was favored as far as which should be in
> control of congress. A month ago it was like 47% to 41% people thought
> republicans should be in control of congress. It has swung 10 points in
> the other direction in the last month.
>
> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
> punished at the polls next election.
>
> Hawke
And the poll you were talking about is located where? Do you really
> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny. The new one I
> saw was about which party was favored as far as which should be in
> control of congress. A month ago it was like 47% to 41% people thought
> republicans should be in control of congress. It has swung 10 points in
> the other direction in the last month.
>
> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
> punished at the polls next election.
>
> Hawke
expect people to look at every poll to find the one you were referring
to? And even if they look at every poll, how do they know which one
you were referring to?
You are probably too young to remember the little signs that were on
the walls at IBM. They just said " Think ". Try it sometime.
Dan
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 10:22:34 PM10/15/11
to
house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you
can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans couldn't
stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to stop the
Democrats from passing legislation, what happened? Everything shut down.
Since the republicans have been in the majority in the house what has
the house passed? The answer is nothing. All that has happened is the
republicans put the brakes on everything.
You may like that, but it means we have a country stuck in the mud. We
can move ahead for two years because your party is going to say no to
everything the majority party tries to do. It's not like we don't need
to get some things done either. We really need a jobs bill but it's not
going to happen. Thank you republicans.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 10:25:03 PM10/15/11
to
On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>
>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>>> suffer.
>>>>
>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>
>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>
>>>> TMT
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>
>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>
>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the Senate.
>>
>>
>
> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of congress has
>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they favored
>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it has
>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>
>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>>> suffer.
>>>>
>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>
>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>
>>>> TMT
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>
>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>
>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the Senate.
>>
>>
>
> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 10:26:57 PM10/15/11
to
majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
Hawke
Scout
Oct 15, 2011, 10:30:13 PM10/15/11
to
news:j7df5a$kkg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real problems
rather than doing this other shit?
I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end, you're
always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
for ever doing anything wrong.
rather than doing this other shit?
I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end, you're
always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
for ever doing anything wrong.
Scout
Oct 15, 2011, 10:33:25 PM10/15/11
to
news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes Aye.
Democrats win.
That's called a majority.
So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes Aye.
Democrats win.
That's called a majority.
de...@dudu.org
Oct 15, 2011, 10:43:39 PM10/15/11
to
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:30:13 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the house
>> and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed Obamacare
>> and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you can clearly
>> see they only got things done when the republicans couldn't stop them. The
>> second that republicans got enough power to stop the Democrats from
>> passing legislation, what happened? Everything shut down.
>
>Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real problems
>rather than doing this other shit?
>
>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end, you're
>always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>
>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
>for ever doing anything wrong.
>
Once again you simply don't have the facts on your side.
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the house
>> and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed Obamacare
>> and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you can clearly
>> see they only got things done when the republicans couldn't stop them. The
>> second that republicans got enough power to stop the Democrats from
>> passing legislation, what happened? Everything shut down.
>
>Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real problems
>rather than doing this other shit?
>
>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end, you're
>always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>
>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
>for ever doing anything wrong.
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
de...@dudu.org
Oct 15, 2011, 10:44:27 PM10/15/11
to
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:33:25 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate. Then
>> try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>
>Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>
>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes Aye.
>
>Democrats win.
>
>That's called a majority.
>
Once again you prove you don't even know how our Congress works.
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate. Then
>> try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>
>Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>
>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes Aye.
>
>Democrats win.
>
>That's called a majority.
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 10:55:00 PM10/15/11
to
On 10/14/2011 9:41 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>>> repeated in August.
>>> http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pz_o30c1juqbzmd1scwmiw.gif
>>
>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
>
> Well, Dave; I posted the above from a well-respected polling agency:
> where's yours?
>
>> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
>> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
>> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
>
> Where is this alleged poll, Dave? Are you saying that it's more
> representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
You sure seem to want say what I'm saying instead of actually letting me
>>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>>> repeated in August.
>>> http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pz_o30c1juqbzmd1scwmiw.gif
>>
>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
>
> Well, Dave; I posted the above from a well-respected polling agency:
> where's yours?
>
>> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
>> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
>> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
>
> Where is this alleged poll, Dave? Are you saying that it's more
> representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
say it myself. I have no argument with the poll you cited. It's
legitimate and I'm familiar with it. Congress' overall rating stinks and
that poll shows it very well.
The poll I was talking about I saw on "Hardball". It just came out a day
or two ago and it may have been an NBC poll. What made it important was
that large shift away from the republicans in a month's time. But that's
all it said.
I wasn't looking for a poll that took the nation's temperature. I just
reported on one I saw that indicated the public was turning away from
the republicans and towards the Democrats. That doesn't surprise me in
the least. By now everyone can see the republican strategy is to just
say no. That pleases republican die hards but to the rest of us that is
not what we sent people to congress to do, nothing. So I'm not surprised
the public has about had it with the republicans blocking everything,
good or bad.
>
>> It has swung 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
>
> Post the link here:
>> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
>> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
>> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
>> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
>> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
>> punished at the polls next election.
>
> Are you saying that the voters are so stupid that they will ignore the
> fact that the DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress _and_ the
> White House for TWO YEARS, but was incapable of producing a budget
> _or_ a "Jobs Bill" all by themselves?
Obamacare. He got both done. Now he's trying to get jobs created and
it's pretty easy to see republicans aren't letting that happen. Because
if he's successful he might get re-elected. They don't want that, so
they are gumming up the works. It's pretty simple to understand and the
public doesn't seem to like it very much.
> BTW, Dave; from that same well-respected polling agency comes:
interpreting what they mean than you.
> Friday, October 14, 2011 Updated 05:45 PM
> Gallup Daily Obama Job Approval
> Approve: 38% -2 ▼
> Disapprove: 54% +1 ▲
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
kidding, tons of people are out of work and broke. They are in a bad
mood in general and things are not improving except at a snail's pace.
So who does the public blame when their troubles aren't resolved
quickly? The president. Whether he's responsible or not he is who the
public blames. So his poll numbers are down. When the country is down
you would expect the president's rating to be down too, and it is. But
it goes back up the minute there is good news. This poll only shows the
public is angry. Nothing new there either.
Punch in the real names and no republican candidate wins. So what good
is that poll? Answer: it does no good at all. But I already told you
what is going to happen next year. Romney is going to be the republican
nominee and he's going to lose. That's all.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 10:56:25 PM10/15/11
to
On 10/15/2011 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>> to
>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>> still lose.
>>
>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>
> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
Someone who doesn't want to divide responsibility when it's not warranted!
>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>> to
>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>> still lose.
>>
>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>
> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:07:44 PM10/15/11
to
that the republicans did anything on their own that went wrong.
Everything they did that turned to shit he wants to say was also the
fault of the Democrats and he even goes back to Clinton's administration
in trying to put the blame somewhere besides on the Bush administration.
That argument doesn't fly because on so many things it's so clear that
Bush did the exact opposite of what Clinton and Obama believe in. Bush
reversed almost all of Clinton's policies the minute he got in office.
From deregulating the financial industry wholesale, to stopping federal
funding of stem cell research. This change from the Democrat's way of
running the government under Clinton was vast and across the board.
Where Clinton raised taxes to fund the government and build a surplus
Bush cut taxes and threw us into giant deficits. This was the difference
between Bush and the Democrats. It was like night and day. The
republicans did everything their way when they got power. But don't
forget that the republicans got the majority in congress and held it
from 1995 until 2007. This was the time Fannie May and Freddie Mac had
all the problems. But who was in charge of congress then?
After the dust settled and we all saw what the republican policies and
decisions did to us, out came their defenders saying, hey, this was the
Democrat's fault too. Yeah, sure it was. Just like it was the Democrat's
fault that Katrina was so badly mismanaged. Any way you slice it, in the
end it was Bush's administration that put the country in the ditch. Is
is a surprise conservative people look for every way they can to avoid
that reality?
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:08:52 PM10/15/11
to
On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>> regulations on the banks.
>
> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>
> So who exactly should we be blaming?
The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>> regulations on the banks.
>
> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>
> So who exactly should we be blaming?
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:16:11 PM10/15/11
to
Health care was a huge issue and it is what Obama ran on. He said he was
going to pass health care and spent a year doing it. This was and still
is a "real" problem.
If you can show me where I blame republicans for something that's not
their doing I'd sure like to see it. You may not believe it but I am
fair. If I don't think the republicans did something wrong I will say
so. Unfortunately, so much of what they do is off base I have no choice.
But I challenge you to show me where I was unfairly critical of
republicans. Did I say it was their fault the fast and furious plan went
wrong? No. Did I blame the Solyndra mess on them? No. Why not? Because
those were not things they did wrong.
So show me where I blame the republicans where they didn't deserve it.
You can't.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:22:21 PM10/15/11
to
incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority possible.
Not only that how many times do you see Democrats breaking ranks and
voting against the party? It happens all the time.
Want proof? Senators Testor, and Nelson of Wyoming and Nebraska both
voted against Obama's jobs bill. That kind of thing almost never happens
with republicans. They always vote as a block.
So now you can admit that in reality the Senate is virtually a tie, and
that you got it wrong.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:26:04 PM10/15/11
to
sit there and not accomplish one goddamn thing for the country even when
we're in this mess and they aren't the least concerned they won't lose
their jobs? You know why? Because they gerrymandered their districts so
that all of them are either all Democrats or all republicans. That way
none of them ever gets voted out. That's why I say if you put the same
people back in office every time don't expect them to do anything any
different.
Hawke
Gunner Asch
Oct 15, 2011, 11:31:10 PM10/15/11
to
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:17:01 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and Bush
>wanted 5.5 million more.
And the banks and financiers fucked up...incredibly badly..and with full
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and Bush
>wanted 5.5 million more.
knowledge they were fucking up by the numbers.
If either president wanted the banks to fund Sec 8 housing on Mars...the
banks should have simply told them to get fucked.
But no...the people in those banks saw gravy on the menu..and
splurged..and fucked things up ...really really fucked things up.
So while Clinton <spit> and Bush were calling for increased
homeownership...the banks simply and with forethought..shot themselves
in the head..repeatedly.
Gunner
"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)
Hawke
Oct 15, 2011, 11:35:31 PM10/15/11
to
be backed up with a citation. At some point you have to trust that when
I say I saw this or that on Hardball or Fox or some other show that I'm
not making it up. I don't really need to fabricate evidence to prove my
points.
But why don't you tell me how you would prove it to me it was true if
you saw on TV a graph or table that showed some bit of data. I'd like to
know. I can't do a screen capture on my TV and post it here for you all
to see. I would think that simply telling what I saw on a political TV
show would be acceptable. I mean, if you said you were watching Fox News
Sunday and they had a graph showing something I would not think you were
making that up or lying. I would expect you would do the same for me.
Clearly that's not happening.
Hawke
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Too_Many_Tools
Oct 16, 2011, 12:31:28 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 9:55 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 9:41 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
> >>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
> >>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
> >>> repeated in August.
> >>>http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...
> On 10/14/2011 9:41 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
> >>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
> >>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
> >>> repeated in August.
> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obama will be reelected...because the American people are seeing that
>
> - Show quoted text -
the Republicans are preventing thing from getting done.
The polls show it.
The Occupy Wall Street movement shows it.
As a liberal, I can't wait for 2012 and the Republican bloodbath.
TMT
Hawke
Oct 16, 2011, 1:10:56 AM10/16/11
to
On 10/15/2011 9:19 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> Nah. That shit has been going on since Regan. Granted, the
> Republicans had control more time that the Democrats did, but it went
> on regardless of party. The only explanation that makes sense to me
> is that both parties have been bought an paid for. Hence, it doesn't
> matter who controls, the agenda will continue unimpeded.
Take a look at what was on Obama's agenda his first two years in office
when he had majorities in both houses. Then compare them to what Bush's
agenda was when he had the majority. You'll see what they were trying to
do is like night and day. They were nothing alike, and I guarantee if
the republicans gain the White House again and congress you are going to
see things totally unlike what you see if Obama is president. Sure the
monied interests try to get influence in both parties but the
republicans are totally owned by business.
Hawke
> Republicans had control more time that the Democrats did, but it went
> on regardless of party. The only explanation that makes sense to me
> is that both parties have been bought an paid for. Hence, it doesn't
> matter who controls, the agenda will continue unimpeded.
Take a look at what was on Obama's agenda his first two years in office
when he had majorities in both houses. Then compare them to what Bush's
agenda was when he had the majority. You'll see what they were trying to
do is like night and day. They were nothing alike, and I guarantee if
the republicans gain the White House again and congress you are going to
see things totally unlike what you see if Obama is president. Sure the
monied interests try to get influence in both parties but the
republicans are totally owned by business.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 16, 2011, 1:14:27 AM10/16/11
to
On 10/15/2011 9:31 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>> Punch in the real names and no republican candidate wins. So what good
>> is that poll? Answer: it does no good at all. But I already told you
>> what is going to happen next year. Romney is going to be the republican
>> nominee and he's going to lose. That's all.
>>
>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Obama will be reelected...because the American people are seeing that
> the Republicans are preventing thing from getting done.
>
> The polls show it.
>
> The Occupy Wall Street movement shows it.
>
> As a liberal, I can't wait for 2012 and the Republican bloodbath.
>
> TMT
Yep. I think the public is finally catching on. If they put republicans
>
>> Punch in the real names and no republican candidate wins. So what good
>> is that poll? Answer: it does no good at all. But I already told you
>> what is going to happen next year. Romney is going to be the republican
>> nominee and he's going to lose. That's all.
>>
>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Obama will be reelected...because the American people are seeing that
> the Republicans are preventing thing from getting done.
>
> The polls show it.
>
> The Occupy Wall Street movement shows it.
>
> As a liberal, I can't wait for 2012 and the Republican bloodbath.
>
> TMT
in office nothing is going to change or get done. Too many people want a
lot of change to put the party of status quo back in charge.
Hawke
JohnJohnsn
Oct 16, 2011, 3:19:35 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
Uh, Dave:
197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
Senate Majority: Democrat Party
House Majority: Republican Party
"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
--Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Jake Fratelli
197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
Senate Majority: Democrat Party
House Majority: Republican Party
"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
--Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Jake Fratelli
JohnJohnsn
Oct 16, 2011, 3:10:20 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 9:55 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> I have no argument with the poll you cited. It's legitimate and I'm familiar
> with it. Congress' overall rating stinks and that poll shows it very well.
>
> The poll I was talking about I saw on "Hardball". It just came out a day
> or two ago and it may have been an NBC poll. What made it important was
> that large shift away from the republicans in a month's time. But that's
> all it said.
>
> I wasn't looking for a poll that took the nation's temperature. I just
> reported on one I saw that indicated the public was turning away from
> the republicans and towards the Democrats. That doesn't surprise me in
> the least. By now everyone can see the republican strategy is to just
> say no. That pleases republican die hards but to the rest of us that is
> not what we sent people to congress to do, nothing. So I'm not surprised
> the public has about had it with the republicans blocking everything,
> good or bad.
>
>>> It has swung 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
>
>> Post the link here:
>
> "Hardball", The Chris Matthew Show, MSNBC.
Feel free to search the "Hardball" web site
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
and see if you can find it: it didn't show up using "poll" as the
search word.
>>> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
>>> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
>>> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
>>> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
>>> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
>>> punished at the polls next election.
>
>> Are you saying that the voters are so stupid that they will ignore the
>> fact that the DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress _and_ the
>> White House for TWO YEARS, but was incapable of producing a budget
>> _or_ a "Jobs Bill" all by themselves?
>
> Most people know that Obama spent his first two years on stimulus and
> Obamacare. He got both done.
He also got a "Jobs Bill" through:
"In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority,
there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of
Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of
2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been
used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th
Congress of 1999-2000."
"During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this
year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote
with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate."
"That vanished last month when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown
captured the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last summer."
"Most notably, Brown's victory has stymied Obama's push to overhaul
health care just as the bill was approaching the finish line. Before
Brown's election, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had
passed separate versions of the reform legislation."
"Brown broke the Democratic 60-seat majority before the two chambers
could meld differences in their bills for a final vote in both
houses."
"However, one of Brown's first votes after taking office saw him
joining four other Republicans to help Democrats break a threatened
filibuster by his party's leaders against a job bill."
"The measure, $13 billion in tax incentives for businesses to hire
unemployed workers, was quickly passed the next day with 12
Republicans joining Brown and 55 Democrats in favor of it."
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.htm
> Now he's trying to get jobs created and it's pretty easy to see
> republicans aren't letting that happen. Because if he's successful
> he might get re-elected.
Chances are he's going to be impeached over "Fast and Furious" before
then, Dave.
You fail to see that poll for what it is actually saying, Dave:
Vote for:
Obama: 38%
Anyone OTHER THAN Obama: 46%
> But I already told you what is going to happen next year.
> Romney is going to be the republican nominee and he's going
> to lose. That's all.
That's putting the voters' intelligence in a poor light, Dave:
I believe that Cain will fair better than you think and the voters
will ultimately choose to elect a proven businessman/"rocket
scientist" in place of the Chicago, Illinois, rabble-rousing Liberal
Socialist democRat "Community Organizer."
BTW, Dave; in case you missed this indicator of the U.S. under another
four years of Obama ineptitude:
Deadbeat state: Ill. owes billions in unpaid bills
By Christopher Wills - Associated Press | AP – 14 hrs ago
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Drowning in deficits, Illinois has turned to
a deliberate policy of not paying billions of dollars in bills for
months at a time, creating a cycle of hardship and sacrifice for
residents and businesses helping the state carry out some of the most
important government tasks.
Once intended as a stop-gap, the months-long delay in paying bills has
now become a regular part of the state's budget management, forcing
businesses and charity groups to borrow money, cut jobs and services
and take on personal debt. Getting paid can be such a confusing
process that it requires begging the state for money and sometimes has
more to do with knowing the right people than being next in line.
As of early last month, the state owed on 166,000 unpaid bills worth a
breathtaking $5 billion, with nearly half of that amount more than a
month overdue and hundreds of bills dating back to 2010, according to
an Associated Press analysis of state documents.
The true backlog is even higher because some bills have not yet been
approved for payment and officially added to the tally. This includes
the Illinois health care agency, which says it is sitting on about
$1.9 billion in bills from Medicaid providers because there's no money
to pay it.
While other states with budget problems have delayed paying their
bills, the backlog in Illinois is unmatched, experts say. Year after
year, Illinois builds its budget on the assumption that it will pay
its bills months late — essentially borrowing money from businesses
and nonprofits that have little choice but to suffer the financial
hardship.
...
Illinois ranked No. 1 in the country in the percentage of nonprofit
groups facing payment delays, an Urban Institute survey found. Eighty-
three percent said late payments from state and local government were
a problem in Illinois, compared to a nationwide average of 53 percent.
That survey was conducted in 2009, when Illinois' backlog was still in
the middle of its dramatic rise.
"We are basically bankrolling the state. It's a ridiculous situation,"
said Abha Pandya, CEO of Asian Human Services, a Chicago organization
awaiting payment on $609,000 in bills, some of them stretching back to
November of last year. "It's just absolutely awful and there seems to
be no end in sight."
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/deadbeat-state-ill-owes-billions-unpaid-bills-164646417.html
"Fast & Furious", "SolarGate" and "CronyGate": Obama's Watergate(s)
Barack Hussien Obama, Jr.:
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!
"A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for
Colonel Sanders."
--Bud Gregg
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
"There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there
is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States."
—Ronald Wilson Reagan
"There are two ways to enslave a country....
One is by the Sword.
The other is by Debt."
— John Adams
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/14/2011 9:41 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>>>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>>>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>>>> repeated in August.
>>>>http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...
>
> On 10/14/2011 9:41 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>>> PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans who approve of the job
>>>> Congress is doing returned to 13% in October, matching the all-time
>>>> Gallup low on this measure, first recorded in December 2010 and
>>>> repeated in August.
>
>>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
>
>> Well, Dave; I posted the above from a well-respected polling agency:
>> where's yours?
>
>>> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
> >> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
>>> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
>
>> Where is this alleged poll, Dave? Are you saying that it's more
>> representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
>
> You sure seem to want say what I'm saying instead of actually letting me
> say it myself.
You wanna try that again, Dave? What you wrote makes no sense.
>>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny.
>
>> Well, Dave; I posted the above from a well-respected polling agency:
>> where's yours?
>
>>> The new one I saw was about which party was favored as far as
> >> which should be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47%
>>> to 41% people thought republicans should be in control of congress.
>
>> Where is this alleged poll, Dave? Are you saying that it's more
>> representative of the nation's "temperature" than Gallup's?
>
> You sure seem to want say what I'm saying instead of actually letting me
> say it myself.
> I have no argument with the poll you cited. It's legitimate and I'm familiar
> with it. Congress' overall rating stinks and that poll shows it very well.
>
> The poll I was talking about I saw on "Hardball". It just came out a day
> or two ago and it may have been an NBC poll. What made it important was
> that large shift away from the republicans in a month's time. But that's
> all it said.
>
> I wasn't looking for a poll that took the nation's temperature. I just
> reported on one I saw that indicated the public was turning away from
> the republicans and towards the Democrats. That doesn't surprise me in
> the least. By now everyone can see the republican strategy is to just
> say no. That pleases republican die hards but to the rest of us that is
> not what we sent people to congress to do, nothing. So I'm not surprised
> the public has about had it with the republicans blocking everything,
> good or bad.
>
>>> It has swung 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
>
>> Post the link here:
>
> "Hardball", The Chris Matthew Show, MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
and see if you can find it: it didn't show up using "poll" as the
search word.
>>> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring to
>>> and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what exactly
>>> can you point to that the republican congress has accomplished? It's
>>> nothing. That's what the republicans' have to show for the year. They
>>> have done nothing. If they keep that up I guarantee they will be
>>> punished at the polls next election.
>
>> Are you saying that the voters are so stupid that they will ignore the
>> fact that the DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress _and_ the
>> White House for TWO YEARS, but was incapable of producing a budget
>> _or_ a "Jobs Bill" all by themselves?
>
> Most people know that Obama spent his first two years on stimulus and
> Obamacare. He got both done.
"In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority,
there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of
Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of
2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been
used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th
Congress of 1999-2000."
"During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this
year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote
with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate."
"That vanished last month when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown
captured the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last summer."
"Most notably, Brown's victory has stymied Obama's push to overhaul
health care just as the bill was approaching the finish line. Before
Brown's election, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had
passed separate versions of the reform legislation."
"Brown broke the Democratic 60-seat majority before the two chambers
could meld differences in their bills for a final vote in both
houses."
"However, one of Brown's first votes after taking office saw him
joining four other Republicans to help Democrats break a threatened
filibuster by his party's leaders against a job bill."
"The measure, $13 billion in tax incentives for businesses to hire
unemployed workers, was quickly passed the next day with 12
Republicans joining Brown and 55 Democrats in favor of it."
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.htm
> Now he's trying to get jobs created and it's pretty easy to see
> republicans aren't letting that happen. Because if he's successful
> he might get re-elected.
then, Dave.
Vote for:
Obama: 38%
Anyone OTHER THAN Obama: 46%
> But I already told you what is going to happen next year.
> Romney is going to be the republican nominee and he's going
> to lose. That's all.
I believe that Cain will fair better than you think and the voters
will ultimately choose to elect a proven businessman/"rocket
scientist" in place of the Chicago, Illinois, rabble-rousing Liberal
Socialist democRat "Community Organizer."
BTW, Dave; in case you missed this indicator of the U.S. under another
four years of Obama ineptitude:
Deadbeat state: Ill. owes billions in unpaid bills
By Christopher Wills - Associated Press | AP – 14 hrs ago
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Drowning in deficits, Illinois has turned to
a deliberate policy of not paying billions of dollars in bills for
months at a time, creating a cycle of hardship and sacrifice for
residents and businesses helping the state carry out some of the most
important government tasks.
Once intended as a stop-gap, the months-long delay in paying bills has
now become a regular part of the state's budget management, forcing
businesses and charity groups to borrow money, cut jobs and services
and take on personal debt. Getting paid can be such a confusing
process that it requires begging the state for money and sometimes has
more to do with knowing the right people than being next in line.
As of early last month, the state owed on 166,000 unpaid bills worth a
breathtaking $5 billion, with nearly half of that amount more than a
month overdue and hundreds of bills dating back to 2010, according to
an Associated Press analysis of state documents.
The true backlog is even higher because some bills have not yet been
approved for payment and officially added to the tally. This includes
the Illinois health care agency, which says it is sitting on about
$1.9 billion in bills from Medicaid providers because there's no money
to pay it.
While other states with budget problems have delayed paying their
bills, the backlog in Illinois is unmatched, experts say. Year after
year, Illinois builds its budget on the assumption that it will pay
its bills months late — essentially borrowing money from businesses
and nonprofits that have little choice but to suffer the financial
hardship.
...
Illinois ranked No. 1 in the country in the percentage of nonprofit
groups facing payment delays, an Urban Institute survey found. Eighty-
three percent said late payments from state and local government were
a problem in Illinois, compared to a nationwide average of 53 percent.
That survey was conducted in 2009, when Illinois' backlog was still in
the middle of its dramatic rise.
"We are basically bankrolling the state. It's a ridiculous situation,"
said Abha Pandya, CEO of Asian Human Services, a Chicago organization
awaiting payment on $609,000 in bills, some of them stretching back to
November of last year. "It's just absolutely awful and there seems to
be no end in sight."
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/deadbeat-state-ill-owes-billions-unpaid-bills-164646417.html
"Fast & Furious", "SolarGate" and "CronyGate": Obama's Watergate(s)
Barack Hussien Obama, Jr.:
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!
"A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for
Colonel Sanders."
--Bud Gregg
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
"There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there
is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States."
—Ronald Wilson Reagan
"There are two ways to enslave a country....
One is by the Sword.
The other is by Debt."
— John Adams
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
JohnJohnsn
Oct 16, 2011, 3:37:46 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 10:22 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
yet provioded.
>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
The Tool Fool, El Stupido of the DNC, continually proves that he's
totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>>>>>> suffer.
>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>
>>>>>>> TMT
Too Many Toddies
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>> Senate.
>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>> Aye.
>
>> Democrats win.
>
>> That's called a majority.
>
> Sorry but you said the Democrats have a "solid" majority. That's
> incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority possible.
You seem to want to confuse a "solid (allbeit, "simple")
majority" (50% + 1 vote) as compared to a "super majority" (60+
votes).
[Also: see below]
> Not only that how many times do you see Democrats breaking ranks and
> voting against the party? It happens all the time.
And vice versa.
> Want proof? Senators Testor, and Nelson of Wyoming and Nebraska both
> voted against Obama's jobs bill. That kind of thing almost never happens
> with republicans. They always vote as a block.
Except for the RINOs.
> So now you can admit that in reality the Senate is virtually a tie, and
> that you got it wrong.
112th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2011 – January 3, 2013)
Senate Party standings (at the beginning of this Congress)
51 Democrats
2 Independents, both caucusing with Democrats
47 Republicans
IOW:
Democrats: 53%
Republicans: 47%
"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
--Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Jake Fratelli
"I don't get you. I don't get your act at all, and I don't
think you do either. I don't think you know what you're
trying to do or how to go about it. I think you're stupid.
Real stupid..."
-Sheriff Stew Singer- "The Wild One"
>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month.
>>>>>>>> A month ago people said they favored the republicans in congress
>>>>>>>> over Democrats. A month later and it has reversed.
>>>>>>>> Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
Thusfar, all we have is your assertion of that "poll;" no source link
>
>>> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month.
>>>>>>>> A month ago people said they favored the republicans in congress
>>>>>>>> over Democrats. A month later and it has reversed.
>>>>>>>> Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
yet provioded.
>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans will
>>>>>>> suffer.
>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>
>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>> Senate.
>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>> Aye.
>
>> Democrats win.
>
>> That's called a majority.
>
> Sorry but you said the Democrats have a "solid" majority. That's
> incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority possible.
majority" (50% + 1 vote) as compared to a "super majority" (60+
votes).
[Also: see below]
> Not only that how many times do you see Democrats breaking ranks and
> voting against the party? It happens all the time.
> Want proof? Senators Testor, and Nelson of Wyoming and Nebraska both
> voted against Obama's jobs bill. That kind of thing almost never happens
> with republicans. They always vote as a block.
> So now you can admit that in reality the Senate is virtually a tie, and
> that you got it wrong.
Senate Party standings (at the beginning of this Congress)
51 Democrats
2 Independents, both caucusing with Democrats
47 Republicans
IOW:
Democrats: 53%
Republicans: 47%
"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
--Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Jake Fratelli
think you do either. I don't think you know what you're
trying to do or how to go about it. I think you're stupid.
Real stupid..."
-Sheriff Stew Singer- "The Wild One"
dca...@krl.org
Oct 16, 2011, 8:02:28 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 11:35 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> I don't expect that every time I relay something I saw that this has to
> be backed up with a citation. At some point you have to trust that when
> I say I saw this or that on Hardball or Fox or some other show that I'm
> not making it up. I don't really need to fabricate evidence to prove my
> points.
>
> But why don't you tell me how you would prove it to me it was true if
> you saw on TV a graph or table that showed some bit of data. I'd like to
> know. I can't do a screen capture on my TV and post it here for you all
> to see. I would think that simply telling what I saw on a political TV
> show would be acceptable. I mean, if you said you were watching Fox News
> Sunday and they had a graph showing something I would not think you were
> making that up or lying. I would expect you would do the same for me.
> Clearly that's not happening.
>
> Hawke
I do not think you are lying, but I can not make intelligent replies
>
> I don't expect that every time I relay something I saw that this has to
> be backed up with a citation. At some point you have to trust that when
> I say I saw this or that on Hardball or Fox or some other show that I'm
> not making it up. I don't really need to fabricate evidence to prove my
> points.
>
> But why don't you tell me how you would prove it to me it was true if
> you saw on TV a graph or table that showed some bit of data. I'd like to
> know. I can't do a screen capture on my TV and post it here for you all
> to see. I would think that simply telling what I saw on a political TV
> show would be acceptable. I mean, if you said you were watching Fox News
> Sunday and they had a graph showing something I would not think you were
> making that up or lying. I would expect you would do the same for me.
> Clearly that's not happening.
>
> Hawke
if I do not have any idea of who did the polling and can analyse the
data. Even if it is a TV program they say who conducted the poll and
when the poll was conducted. So you should be able to find the actual
poll results and see if the TV program slanted the data. TV programs
do that all the time. That is take selected data from a poll that
makes the best story.
So in the future if you see a poll referenced on some TV program, note
who conducted the poll and look at the data before you post something
about the results. I do this and would expect you to do the some.
I tried to find the poll you said was done by NBC and only found poll
results that were different from what you stated.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
Oct 16, 2011, 8:09:51 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 11:26 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
.
>
> Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? These people seem to think they can
> sit there and not accomplish one goddamn thing for the country even when
> we're in this mess and they aren't the least concerned they won't lose
> their jobs? You know why? Because they gerrymandered their districts so
> that all of them are either all Democrats or all republicans. That way
> none of them ever gets voted out. That's why I say if you put the same
> people back in office every time don't expect them to do anything any
> different.
>
> Hawke
Well they ratified the trade agreements that have been waiting action
.
>
> Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? These people seem to think they can
> sit there and not accomplish one goddamn thing for the country even when
> we're in this mess and they aren't the least concerned they won't lose
> their jobs? You know why? Because they gerrymandered their districts so
> that all of them are either all Democrats or all republicans. That way
> none of them ever gets voted out. That's why I say if you put the same
> people back in office every time don't expect them to do anything any
> different.
>
> Hawke
for a couple of years while the Democrats were in the majority.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
Oct 16, 2011, 8:16:46 AM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 10:55 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> > Post the link here:
>
> "Hardball", The Chris Matthew Show, MSNBC.
>
I did not spend much time, but still did not find the actual poll.
> > Post the link here:
>
> "Hardball", The Chris Matthew Show, MSNBC.
>
What you posted is not an actual link, just a vague reference to a TV
program.
Dan
Benny Fishhole
Oct 16, 2011, 11:02:09 AM10/16/11
to
unverifiable. I don't trust him.
Benny Fishhole
Oct 16, 2011, 11:06:54 AM10/16/11
to
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:10:56 -0700, Hawke
lots of vacations.
>Then compare them to what Bush's
>agenda was when he had the majority.
Keeping the nation safe from terrorism, driving the market into the
14Ks, keeping food on the table, promoting diversity.
>You'll see what they were trying to
>do is like night and day. They were nothing alike, and I guarantee if
>the republicans gain the White House again and congress you are going to
>see things totally unlike what you see if Obama is president. Sure the
>monied interests try to get influence in both parties but the
>republicans are totally owned by business.
>
>Hawke
We can only HOPE for CHANGE. Change it back!
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>On 10/15/2011 9:19 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:56:25 -0700, Hawke
>> <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2011 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>>> still lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone who doesn't want to divide responsibility when it's not warranted!
>>
>> Nah. That shit has been going on since Regan. Granted, the
>> Republicans had control more time that the Democrats did, but it went
>> on regardless of party. The only explanation that makes sense to me
>> is that both parties have been bought an paid for. Hence, it doesn't
>> matter who controls, the agenda will continue unimpeded.
>
>
>
>Take a look at what was on Obama's agenda his first two years in office
>when he had majorities in both houses.
Gay marriage, gays in the military, bankrupting our country, taking
>On 10/15/2011 9:19 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:56:25 -0700, Hawke
>> <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2011 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>>> still lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone who doesn't want to divide responsibility when it's not warranted!
>>
>> Nah. That shit has been going on since Regan. Granted, the
>> Republicans had control more time that the Democrats did, but it went
>> on regardless of party. The only explanation that makes sense to me
>> is that both parties have been bought an paid for. Hence, it doesn't
>> matter who controls, the agenda will continue unimpeded.
>
>
>
>Take a look at what was on Obama's agenda his first two years in office
>when he had majorities in both houses.
lots of vacations.
>Then compare them to what Bush's
>agenda was when he had the majority.
14Ks, keeping food on the table, promoting diversity.
>You'll see what they were trying to
>do is like night and day. They were nothing alike, and I guarantee if
>the republicans gain the White House again and congress you are going to
>see things totally unlike what you see if Obama is president. Sure the
>monied interests try to get influence in both parties but the
>republicans are totally owned by business.
>
>Hawke
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 12:48:23 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7dh4p$o2t$2...@speranza.aioe.org:
But it is. None are so blind as those who just won't see.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
news:j7dh4p$o2t$2...@speranza.aioe.org:
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 12:49:45 PM10/16/11
to
Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gimk97t29jrt8v8bn...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> their complicity.
>
Many in here deny that.......from both sides.
news:gimk97t29jrt8v8bn...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> Oh, I see all of history. I'm just trying to get them to admit to
>>>>>that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>> to
>>>>expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>still lose.
>>>
>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
> their complicity.
>
Many in here deny that.......from both sides.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 12:56:21 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7disd$rk9$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
Interesting since that only happens every ten years or new census. Let's
see....the last census hasn't affected those districts in any state
election yet and the census before that was in 2000. Too late to affect
those races, so the first time a state or national election could have
been effected would have been in 2002.
Now, I admit that gerrymandering is a problem and is an affront done by
the party in power, but even in national elections that is still a state
by state effect, not a national one.
That way none of them ever gets voted out. That's why I
> say if you put the same people back in office every time don't expect
> them to do anything any different.
What is interesting is that folks hate the people in Congress....but they
also seem to like the one that they have. Ergo, it is always someone
else's problem to fix. For example, you will see folks in Arizona or
Utah whining about Schumer and you will see folks in Massachusetts
whining about McCain.
news:j7disd$rk9$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
see....the last census hasn't affected those districts in any state
election yet and the census before that was in 2000. Too late to affect
those races, so the first time a state or national election could have
been effected would have been in 2002.
Now, I admit that gerrymandering is a problem and is an affront done by
the party in power, but even in national elections that is still a state
by state effect, not a national one.
That way none of them ever gets voted out. That's why I
> say if you put the same people back in office every time don't expect
> them to do anything any different.
also seem to like the one that they have. Ergo, it is always someone
else's problem to fix. For example, you will see folks in Arizona or
Utah whining about Schumer and you will see folks in Massachusetts
whining about McCain.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 12:58:01 PM10/16/11
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qqjk97h8srodfjf20...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:17:01 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>
>>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and
>>Bush wanted 5.5 million more.
>
>
> And the banks and financiers fucked up...incredibly badly..and with
> full knowledge they were fucking up by the numbers.
>
> If either president wanted the banks to fund Sec 8 housing on
> Mars...the banks should have simply told them to get fucked.
Bankers get greedy......just like real estate people and many potential
homeowners.
> But no...the people in those banks saw gravy on the menu..and
> splurged..and fucked things up ...really really fucked things up.
>
> So while Clinton <spit> and Bush were calling for increased
> homeownership...the banks simply and with forethought..shot themselves
> in the head..repeatedly.
>
> Gunner
>
> "In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's
> goal in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man
> to run our country." - David Lloyyd (2008)
>
news:qqjk97h8srodfjf20...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:17:01 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>
>>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and
>>Bush wanted 5.5 million more.
>
>
> And the banks and financiers fucked up...incredibly badly..and with
> full knowledge they were fucking up by the numbers.
>
> If either president wanted the banks to fund Sec 8 housing on
> Mars...the banks should have simply told them to get fucked.
homeowners.
> But no...the people in those banks saw gravy on the menu..and
> splurged..and fucked things up ...really really fucked things up.
>
> So while Clinton <spit> and Bush were calling for increased
> homeownership...the banks simply and with forethought..shot themselves
> in the head..repeatedly.
>
> Gunner
>
> "In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's
> goal in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man
> to run our country." - David Lloyyd (2008)
>
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 12:58:38 PM10/16/11
to
Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:ilmk97h40juajvc5p...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:31:10 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:17:01 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>>>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and
>>>Bush wanted 5.5 million more.
>>
>>
>>And the banks and financiers fucked up...incredibly badly..and with
>>full knowledge they were fucking up by the numbers.
>>
>>If either president wanted the banks to fund Sec 8 housing on
>>Mars...the banks should have simply told them to get fucked.
>>
>>But no...the people in those banks saw gravy on the menu..and
>>splurged..and fucked things up ...really really fucked things up.
>>
>>So while Clinton <spit> and Bush were calling for increased
>>homeownership...the banks simply and with forethought..shot themselves
>>in the head..repeatedly.
>
> It's OK. Bush made sure that they got plenty of taxpayer money to
> bail them out.
>
As did Obama. They discussed the bailout.
news:ilmk97h40juajvc5p...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:31:10 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:17:01 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And Clinton's. Both were involved in deregulating the housing and
>>>financial industries as Clinton wanted 8 million new homeowners and
>>>Bush wanted 5.5 million more.
>>
>>
>>And the banks and financiers fucked up...incredibly badly..and with
>>full knowledge they were fucking up by the numbers.
>>
>>If either president wanted the banks to fund Sec 8 housing on
>>Mars...the banks should have simply told them to get fucked.
>>
>>But no...the people in those banks saw gravy on the menu..and
>>splurged..and fucked things up ...really really fucked things up.
>>
>>So while Clinton <spit> and Bush were calling for increased
>>homeownership...the banks simply and with forethought..shot themselves
>>in the head..repeatedly.
>
> bail them out.
>
As did Obama. They discussed the bailout.
JohnJohnsn
Oct 16, 2011, 12:51:42 PM10/16/11
to
On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
Uh, Dave:
107th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
107th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
Senate Majority: Democrat Party
House Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:00:19 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7df5a$kkg$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>> news:j7af9q$lem$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
stimulus....or unemployment.
But as you
> can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans
> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened? Everything
> shut down. Since the republicans have been in the majority in the
> house what has the house passed? The answer is nothing. All that has
> happened is the republicans put the brakes on everything.
>
> You may like that, but it means we have a country stuck in the mud. We
> can move ahead for two years because your party is going to say no to
> everything the majority party tries to do. It's not like we don't need
> to get some things done either. We really need a jobs bill but it's
> not going to happen. Thank you republicans.
Interesting that the Senate killed it.
news:j7df5a$kkg$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>> news:j7af9q$lem$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 10/14/2011 2:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>> has reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>> has reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since
>>>>> the republicans have controlled congress
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>
>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in
>>>> the Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> the republicans have controlled congress
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>
>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in
>>>> the Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>
>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>
>
>>
>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>
>
> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
> Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things.
They concentrated on Obamacare a lot more than they did the
> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
> Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things.
stimulus....or unemployment.
But as you
> can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans
> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened? Everything
> house what has the house passed? The answer is nothing. All that has
> happened is the republicans put the brakes on everything.
>
> You may like that, but it means we have a country stuck in the mud. We
> can move ahead for two years because your party is going to say no to
> everything the majority party tries to do. It's not like we don't need
> to get some things done either. We really need a jobs bill but it's
> not going to happen. Thank you republicans.
Interesting that the Senate killed it.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:01:33 PM10/16/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:36hk971oohe00dap2...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:30:13 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
>>> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
>>> Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as
>>problems rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>>you're always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame
>>them for ever doing anything wrong.
>>
>
> Once again you simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_48
> 0722.html
>
The Democrats have always had the nuclear option.
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:30:13 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
>>> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
>>> you can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans
>>> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
>>> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened?
>>> Everything shut down.
>>
>>Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real
>>> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
>>> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened?
>>> Everything shut down.
>>
>>problems rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>>you're always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame
>>them for ever doing anything wrong.
>>
>
> Once again you simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_48
> 0722.html
>
The Democrats have always had the nuclear option.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:05:51 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>
>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month. A month ago
>>>>>> people said they favored the republicans in congress over
>>>>>> Democrats. A month later and it has reversed. Looks like the
>>>>>> "folks" are getting fed up with the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>
>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> TMT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>
>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>
>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>> Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>
Democrats).
> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
What do you consider a "solid majority"?
news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>
>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month. A month ago
>>>>>> people said they favored the republicans in congress over
>>>>>> Democrats. A month later and it has reversed. Looks like the
>>>>>> "folks" are getting fed up with the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>
>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> TMT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>
>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>
>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>> Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>
>
> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
Democrats 57, Republicans 41, other 2 (both of whom caucus with the
>
>
> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
Democrats).
> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:06:45 PM10/16/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:k7hk97h6vdvapts8o...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:33:25 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_48
> 0722.html
>
Once again, you demonstarte an unawareness of the "nuclear option".
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:33:25 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>>
>>Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat
>>votes Aye.
>>
>>Democrats win.
>>
>>That's called a majority.
>>
> Once again you prove you don't even know how our Congress works.
>>
>>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat
>>votes Aye.
>>
>>Democrats win.
>>
>>That's called a majority.
>>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_48
> 0722.html
>
Once again, you demonstarte an unawareness of the "nuclear option".
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:10:37 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7dild$r8a$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>> news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
independents who usually caucus with the Democrats. That makes it 59 and
41. All they need is to convince *ONE* Republican to cross over.
That's
> incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority
> possible.
No, that would be 50-50 with Biden being the decisive vote.
Not only that how many times do you see Democrats breaking
> ranks and voting against the party? It happens all the time.
>
That kind of thing almost never
> happens with republicans. They always vote as a block.
No, they don't.
> So now you can admit that in reality the Senate is virtually a tie,
> and that you got it wrong.
Hmmmmm, 59 (or 57) to 41 is a tie?
news:j7dild$r8a$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>> news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said
>>>>>>>> they favored
>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and
>>>>>>>> it has reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with
>>>>>>>> the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since
>>>>>> the republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in
>>>>> the Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said
>>>>>>>> they favored
>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and
>>>>>>>> it has reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with
>>>>>>>> the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>> will suffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since
>>>>>> the republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in
>>>>> the Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat
>> votes Aye.
>>
>> Democrats win.
>>
>> That's called a majority.
>
>
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat
>> votes Aye.
>>
>> Democrats win.
>>
>> That's called a majority.
>
>
> Sorry but you said the Democrats have a "solid" majority.
They do. They have 57 Senators while the GOP has 47. There are two
independents who usually caucus with the Democrats. That makes it 59 and
41. All they need is to convince *ONE* Republican to cross over.
That's
> incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority
> possible.
Not only that how many times do you see Democrats breaking
> ranks and voting against the party? It happens all the time.
>
> Want proof? Senators Testor, and Nelson of Wyoming and Nebraska both
> voted against Obama's jobs bill.
Perhaps, it should have been a better bill from their viewpoint.
> voted against Obama's jobs bill.
That kind of thing almost never
> happens with republicans. They always vote as a block.
> So now you can admit that in reality the Senate is virtually a tie,
> and that you got it wrong.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:11:45 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7dfdh$kkg$4...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/14/2011 6:08 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:50:39 -0700, Hawke
>> <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation the
> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
news:j7dfdh$kkg$4...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/14/2011 6:08 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:50:39 -0700, Hawke
>> <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2011 10:10 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month. A month ago
>>>>> people said they favored the republicans in congress over
>>>>> Democrats. A month later and it has reversed. Looks like the
>>>>> "folks" are getting fed up with the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>> congress has swung ten points in the last month. A month ago
>>>>> people said they favored the republicans in congress over
>>>>> Democrats. A month later and it has reversed. Looks like the
>>>>> "folks" are getting fed up with the republicans' bullshit.
>>>>
> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:19:09 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:j7dhq0$pgo$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 11:53 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
>> has done cause any of this.
>
>
> I have had this discussion with Sandman in the past. He refuses to
admit
> that the republicans did anything on their own that went wrong.
Actually, you have a major comprehension problem since I have never said
that.
> Everything they did that turned to shit he wants to say was also the
> fault of the Democrats and he even goes back to Clinton's
administration
> in trying to put the blame somewhere besides on the Bush
administration.
That is for housing and it is true that Clinton wanted 8 million new
homeowners.....and Bush wanted 5.5 million new homeowners. The fact that
you cannot understand that is not my problem but your lying about it is.
> That argument doesn't fly because on so many things it's so clear that
> Bush did the exact opposite of what Clinton and Obama believe in. Bush
> reversed almost all of Clinton's policies the minute he got in office.
> From deregulating the financial industry wholesale, to stopping
federal
> funding of stem cell research.
The last one you got right. Congratulations.
This change from the Democrat's way of
> running the government under Clinton was vast and across the board.
>
> Where Clinton raised taxes to fund the government and build a surplus
> Bush cut taxes and threw us into giant deficits. This was the
difference
> between Bush and the Democrats. It was like night and day. The
> republicans did everything their way when they got power. But don't
> forget that the republicans got the majority in congress and held it
> from 1995 until 2007.
Which would include the Clinton years, you moron.
This was the time Fannie May and Freddie Mac had
> all the problems. But who was in charge of congress then?
No, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went down the toilet in 2008. BTW,
Democrats were in charge of Congress then. Thanks for asking.
> After the dust settled and we all saw what the republican policies and
> decisions did to us, out came their defenders saying, hey, this was the
> Democrat's fault too. Yeah, sure it was. Just like it was the
Democrat's
> fault that Katrina was so badly mismanaged. Any way you slice it, in
the
> end it was Bush's administration that put the country in the ditch. Is
> is a surprise conservative people look for every way they can to avoid
> that reality?
You really are a moron, Hawke. You can't even keep straight what people
say. However, if you truly believe I said what you claim above, you
should have no problem producing it or be known as a liar. Your choice.
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 11:53 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>> news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scout"<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>> 2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scout"<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>> 2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just
come
>>>>> to
>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>> still lose.
>>>>
come
>>>>> to
>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>> still lose.
>>>>
>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>> regulations on the banks. The desperation of the right wing to blame
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
>> has done cause any of this.
>
>
> I have had this discussion with Sandman in the past. He refuses to
admit
> that the republicans did anything on their own that went wrong.
Actually, you have a major comprehension problem since I have never said
that.
> Everything they did that turned to shit he wants to say was also the
> fault of the Democrats and he even goes back to Clinton's
administration
> in trying to put the blame somewhere besides on the Bush
administration.
That is for housing and it is true that Clinton wanted 8 million new
homeowners.....and Bush wanted 5.5 million new homeowners. The fact that
you cannot understand that is not my problem but your lying about it is.
> That argument doesn't fly because on so many things it's so clear that
> Bush did the exact opposite of what Clinton and Obama believe in. Bush
> reversed almost all of Clinton's policies the minute he got in office.
> From deregulating the financial industry wholesale, to stopping
federal
> funding of stem cell research.
The last one you got right. Congratulations.
This change from the Democrat's way of
> running the government under Clinton was vast and across the board.
>
> Where Clinton raised taxes to fund the government and build a surplus
> Bush cut taxes and threw us into giant deficits. This was the
difference
> between Bush and the Democrats. It was like night and day. The
> republicans did everything their way when they got power. But don't
> forget that the republicans got the majority in congress and held it
> from 1995 until 2007.
Which would include the Clinton years, you moron.
This was the time Fannie May and Freddie Mac had
> all the problems. But who was in charge of congress then?
No, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went down the toilet in 2008. BTW,
Democrats were in charge of Congress then. Thanks for asking.
> After the dust settled and we all saw what the republican policies and
> decisions did to us, out came their defenders saying, hey, this was the
> Democrat's fault too. Yeah, sure it was. Just like it was the
Democrat's
> fault that Katrina was so badly mismanaged. Any way you slice it, in
the
> end it was Bush's administration that put the country in the ditch. Is
> is a surprise conservative people look for every way they can to avoid
> that reality?
You really are a moron, Hawke. You can't even keep straight what people
say. However, if you truly believe I said what you claim above, you
should have no problem producing it or be known as a liar. Your choice.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:19:42 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:j7dhs4$pgo$2
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
him.
>>
>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
Yep. Which has been stated in here several times.
him.
>>
>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:23:58 PM10/16/11
to
JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2cd9c600-95ec-4f12...@x7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>> him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
> House Majority: Republican Party
Hmmmm, it was the 107th Congress, John, and the numbers were:
Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
a Republican House.
news:2cd9c600-95ec-4f12...@x7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>> him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
> House Majority: Republican Party
Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
a Republican House.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 1:26:17 PM10/16/11
to
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:j7dje4$sj2$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 2:33 PM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> really expect people to look at every poll to find the one you were
>> referring to? And even if they look at every poll, how do they know
>> which one you were referring to?
>>
>> You are probably too young to remember the little signs that were on
>> the walls at IBM. They just said " Think ". Try it sometime.
>>
>>
>> Dan
Youtube.
I'd like
> to know. I can't do a screen capture on my TV and post it here for you
> all to see. I would think that simply telling what I saw on a
> political TV show would be acceptable.
Will you accept whatever other people tell you under the same conditions?
So now what do you think should happen when those accounts differ?
I mean, if you said you were
> watching Fox News Sunday and they had a graph showing something I
> would not think you were making that up or lying. I would expect you
> would do the same for me. Clearly that's not happening.
news:j7dje4$sj2$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/15/2011 2:33 PM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 1:50 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny. The new
>>> one I saw was about which party was favored as far as which should
>>> be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47% to 41% people
>>> thought republicans should be in control of congress. It has swung
>>> 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
>>>
>>> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring
>>> to and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what
>>> exactly can you point to that the republican congress has
>>> accomplished? It's nothing. That's what the republicans' have to
>>> show for the year. They have done nothing. If they keep that up I
>>> guarantee they will be punished at the polls next election.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> And the poll you were talking about is located where? Do you
>>
>>
>>> Sorry but that's not the poll I was talking about, Johnny. The new
>>> one I saw was about which party was favored as far as which should
>>> be in control of congress. A month ago it was like 47% to 41% people
>>> thought republicans should be in control of congress. It has swung
>>> 10 points in the other direction in the last month.
>>>
>>> So you're looking at a different poll from the one I was referring
>>> to and what do you expect? We're coming up on a year now and what
>>> exactly can you point to that the republican congress has
>>> accomplished? It's nothing. That's what the republicans' have to
>>> show for the year. They have done nothing. If they keep that up I
>>> guarantee they will be punished at the polls next election.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> really expect people to look at every poll to find the one you were
>> referring to? And even if they look at every poll, how do they know
>> which one you were referring to?
>>
>> You are probably too young to remember the little signs that were on
>> the walls at IBM. They just said " Think ". Try it sometime.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
>
> I don't expect that every time I relay something I saw that this has
> to be backed up with a citation. At some point you have to trust that
> when I say I saw this or that on Hardball or Fox or some other show
> that I'm not making it up. I don't really need to fabricate evidence
> to prove my points.
>
> But why don't you tell me how you would prove it to me it was true if
> you saw on TV a graph or table that showed some bit of data.
By posting a cite of which show it was on. Much of that shows up on
>
>
> I don't expect that every time I relay something I saw that this has
> to be backed up with a citation. At some point you have to trust that
> when I say I saw this or that on Hardball or Fox or some other show
> that I'm not making it up. I don't really need to fabricate evidence
> to prove my points.
>
> But why don't you tell me how you would prove it to me it was true if
> you saw on TV a graph or table that showed some bit of data.
Youtube.
I'd like
> to know. I can't do a screen capture on my TV and post it here for you
> all to see. I would think that simply telling what I saw on a
> political TV show would be acceptable.
So now what do you think should happen when those accounts differ?
I mean, if you said you were
> watching Fox News Sunday and they had a graph showing something I
> would not think you were making that up or lying. I would expect you
> would do the same for me. Clearly that's not happening.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 2:12:56 PM10/16/11
to
JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fe079ff7-c799-44e4...@l7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>> him.
>>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 107th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
In the 107th Congress, the Senate was split 50 - 50 with a Republican VP
for the deciding vote.
news:fe079ff7-c799-44e4...@l7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>> him.
>>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 107th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
for the deciding vote.
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 3:58:29 PM10/16/11
to
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:k7hk97h6vdvapts8o...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:33:25 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then
>>> try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>>Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>>Aye.
>>
>>Democrats win.
>>
>>That's called a majority.
>>
>>> Then
>>> try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>>Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>>So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>>Aye.
>>
>>Democrats win.
>>
>>That's called a majority.
>>
> Once again you prove you don't even know how our Congress works.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
Which does NOT affect the majority control.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
Sheese Dudu, maybe you need to learn how Congress works.
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 3:59:23 PM10/16/11
to
news:j7dild$r8a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
<snip further attempts at spin>
> On 10/15/2011 7:33 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>
>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:j7df9v$kkg$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 10/14/2011 6:11 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>> congress has
>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> suffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>> Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> suffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>> Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop, you're confusing the tweety bird.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay smart guy, tell us the break down of the parties in the Senate.
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>> Aye.
>>
>> Democrats win.
>>
>> That's called a majority.
>
>
> Sorry but you said the Democrats have a "solid" majority. That's
>>> Then try to tell us it's a solid majority for the Democrats again.
>>
>> Simple. They controlled 50 votes and the tie-breaker vote.
>>
>> So, 50 Democrats vote Aye, 50 Republicans vote Na, and a Democrat votes
>> Aye.
>>
>> Democrats win.
>>
>> That's called a majority.
>
>
> incorrect, isn't it? The Democrats have the narrowest majority possible.
So? A narrow is STILL a majority, and it was solid.
<snip further attempts at spin>
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 4:01:48 PM10/16/11
to
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:36hk971oohe00dap2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:30:13 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
>>> house
>>> and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed Obamacare
>>> and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you can clearly
>>> see they only got things done when the republicans couldn't stop them.
>>> The
>>> second that republicans got enough power to stop the Democrats from
>>> passing legislation, what happened? Everything shut down.
>>
>>Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real problems
>>rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>>you're
>>always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
>>for ever doing anything wrong.
>>
>
> Once again you simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
Show me that any of the important stuff was subject to filibuster?
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
>>> house
>>> and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed Obamacare
>>> and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you can clearly
>>> see they only got things done when the republicans couldn't stop them.
>>> The
>>> second that republicans got enough power to stop the Democrats from
>>> passing legislation, what happened? Everything shut down.
>>
>>Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real problems
>>rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>>I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>>you're
>>always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>>That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame them
>>for ever doing anything wrong.
>>
>
> Once again you simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
Simply throwing this up Dudu doesn't win you points unless you can show it
had an impact on what needed to be accomplished.
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 4:02:38 PM10/16/11
to
news:j7di9s$qjk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> news:j7df5a$kkg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> care was a huge issue and it is what Obama ran on. He said he was going to
> pass health care and spent a year doing it. This was and still is a "real"
> problem.
Seems to me he also said he would take care of the economy.....
>> news:j7df5a$kkg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 10/14/2011 4:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:j7af9q$lem$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> On 10/14/2011 2:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>>> congress
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> suffer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>>> Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> New poll that came out today shows that the favorability of
>>>>>>>>> congress
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> swung ten points in the last month. A month ago people said they
>>>>>>>>> favored
>>>>>>>>> the republicans in congress over Democrats. A month later and it
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> reversed. Looks like the "folks" are getting fed up with the
>>>>>>>>> republicans' bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I saw that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> History shows that as we approach election year, the Republicans
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> suffer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note how they can't decide on a favorite candidate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The GOP is a broken Party...very broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you see what they did yesterday? It's been ten months since the
>>>>>>> republicans have controlled congress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but the Republicans don't control Congress..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last time I checked the Democrats still have a solid majority in the
>>>>>> Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2 YEARS
>>>> they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
>>>> something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2 YEARS
>>>> they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups, that's
>>>> something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't do what? The Democrats did do things when they controlled the
>>> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
>>> Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you
>>> can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans
>>> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
>>> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened? Everything
>>> shut down.
>>
>> Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real
>> problems rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>> I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>> you're always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>> That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame
>> them for ever doing anything wrong.
>
>
> You can say anything you want. But the facts speak for themselves. Health
>>> house and the senate. That was Obama's first two years. They passed
>>> Obamacare and the stimulus bill to name a couple of things. But as you
>>> can clearly see they only got things done when the republicans
>>> couldn't stop them. The second that republicans got enough power to
>>> stop the Democrats from passing legislation, what happened? Everything
>>> shut down.
>>
>> Then maybe they should have spent their time working on the real
>> problems rather than doing this other shit?
>>
>> I will simply note yet again, no matter what you say.....in the end,
>> you're always blaming your problems on the Republicans.
>>
>> That's because you are a partisan Democrat and you simply can't blame
>> them for ever doing anything wrong.
>
>
> care was a huge issue and it is what Obama ran on. He said he was going to
> pass health care and spent a year doing it. This was and still is a "real"
> problem.
Seems to me he also said he would take care of the economy.....
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 4:04:41 PM10/16/11
to
news:j7dhq0$pgo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
or went wrong.
It's always the fault of the Republicans, according to you.
> On 10/15/2011 11:53 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>> news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scout"<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>> 2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:37:34 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>> news:tb4i97pmu00olu2fm...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:14:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scout"<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Fri, 14 Oct
>>>>> 2011 19:58:30 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I meant to say they control the House.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Now ask the same question why Democrats didn't do so in the 2
>>>>>> YEARS they ACTUALLY DID CONTROL CONGRESS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, that's right, you can't blame Democrats for being fuck-ups,
>>>>>> that's something you try to pin just on Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't blame Democrats for being screw-ups, we have just come
>>>>> to
>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>> still lose.
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>> expect it of them. They could screw up a one man rock fight - and
>>>>> still lose.
>>>>
>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>> regulations on the banks. The desperation of the right wing to blame
>> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
>> has done cause any of this.
>
>
> I have had this discussion with Sandman in the past. He refuses to admit
> that the republicans did anything on their own that went wrong.
Likewise you refute to admit that the Democrats did ANYTHING that was wrong,
>> all this on Obama's policy is absurd, because clearly nothing Obama
>> has done cause any of this.
>
>
> I have had this discussion with Sandman in the past. He refuses to admit
> that the republicans did anything on their own that went wrong.
or went wrong.
It's always the fault of the Republicans, according to you.
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 4:06:01 PM10/16/11
to
news:j7dhs4$pgo$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
You've been told this before. You've acknowledged this before.
I can only assume that you are intentionally engaged in lying now.
> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>>
>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
Republicans didn't control Congress for all of 1995-2007
>>
>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
You've been told this before. You've acknowledged this before.
I can only assume that you are intentionally engaged in lying now.
Scout
Oct 16, 2011, 4:07:01 PM10/16/11
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9F8069C9E...@216.196.121.131...
> JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2cd9c600-95ec-4f12...@x7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
>> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>>
>>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>>> him.
>>>
>>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>>
>>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>>
>> Uh, Dave:
>>
>> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 - January 3, 2003)
> news:2cd9c600-95ec-4f12...@x7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
>> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>>>
>>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>>
>>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>>>
>>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>>> him.
>>>
>>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>>
>>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>>
>> Uh, Dave:
>>
>> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
>> House Majority: Republican Party
>
>
> Hmmmm, it was the 107th Congress, John, and the numbers were:
>
> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>
> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
> a Republican House.
Actually for most of the term the deciding vote was Democrat.
>> House Majority: Republican Party
>
>
> Hmmmm, it was the 107th Congress, John, and the numbers were:
>
> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>
> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
> a Republican House.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 4:38:07 PM10/16/11
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:j7fdh4
$ff0$1...@dont-email.me:
And just who on the Democratic side had that deciding vote? Where did
Cheney go? Republicans had control of both Houses since the 1994
election and January of 1995. Until 107th Congress in 2001 there would
have been little or no need for a VP vote.
In the 106th Congress, the Senate was:
Dems 45 Reps 55 or a Republican Senate.......
And the House was:
Dems 211 Reps 223 with 1 independent who caucased with the Dems.
Which made a Republican House......
And in the 108th, the Senate was Dems 48 Reps 51 and one other
So it was still a Republican Senate....
And the House was: Dems 205 Reps 229 with one other.
And a Republican House....
That would be Republicans for all three of those Congresses because of
the VP vote and he was Dick Cheney IIRC.
It remained a Republican control of both houses in the 109th Congress.
It changed with the 2006 elections with the Senate becoming 49 for each
party with 2 others and the House going to 233 Dems and 198 Reps for
110th Congress.
$ff0$1...@dont-email.me:
Cheney go? Republicans had control of both Houses since the 1994
election and January of 1995. Until 107th Congress in 2001 there would
have been little or no need for a VP vote.
In the 106th Congress, the Senate was:
Dems 45 Reps 55 or a Republican Senate.......
And the House was:
Dems 211 Reps 223 with 1 independent who caucased with the Dems.
Which made a Republican House......
And in the 108th, the Senate was Dems 48 Reps 51 and one other
So it was still a Republican Senate....
And the House was: Dems 205 Reps 229 with one other.
And a Republican House....
That would be Republicans for all three of those Congresses because of
the VP vote and he was Dick Cheney IIRC.
It remained a Republican control of both houses in the 109th Congress.
It changed with the 2006 elections with the Senate becoming 49 for each
party with 2 others and the House going to 233 Dems and 198 Reps for
110th Congress.
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 4:39:01 PM10/16/11
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:j7fd14$boo$1...@dont-email.me:
Correct........
> Sheese Dudu, maybe you need to learn how Congress works.
news:j7fd14$boo$1...@dont-email.me:
> Sheese Dudu, maybe you need to learn how Congress works.
Gunner Asch
Oct 16, 2011, 5:09:59 PM10/16/11
to
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:11:45 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation the
>> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
>
>And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
Which reminds me...where is the 2010 budget?
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation the
>> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
>
>And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
Didnt the Demos have control of both houses of Congress AND the
presidency in that year?
Gunner Asch
Oct 16, 2011, 5:10:56 PM10/16/11
to
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 00:19:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
><davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
>Uh, Dave:
>
>197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
><davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
>Uh, Dave:
>
>Senate Majority: Democrat Party
>House Majority: Republican Party
>
>House Majority: Republican Party
>
>"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
> --Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
>
>"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
>pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
>--Jake Fratelli
Dave really does shine as a fine example of Leftwing stupidity doesnt
> --Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard
>
>"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
>pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
>--Jake Fratelli
he?
JohnJohnsn
Oct 16, 2011, 5:09:44 PM10/16/11
to
On Oct 16, 12:23 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
That was a typo that was caught and corrected; you're answering the
pre-correction posting.
> ...and the numbers were:
2. When the Congress began, the Senate was divided 50-50. Because the
Vice President's tie-breaking vote would change control from Democrats
to Republicans on January 20, the Senate elected Byrd to serve until
noon and Thurmond to serve from noon on January 20. Control changed
again from June 6, 2001, when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party
and Byrd was once again elected President pro tempore.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#cite_note-party_control-1
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:2cd9c600-95ec-4f12...@x7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
>> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>
>>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
>>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>
>>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>>> him.
>
>>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
>>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
>> Uh, Dave:
>
>> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
>> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
>> House Majority: Republican Party
>
> Hmmmm, it was the 107th Congress, John,...
>
>> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
>> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to
>>>>>>> bail out the banks and car companies.
>
>>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>
>>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility
>>>>> of the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce
>>>>> financial regulations on the banks.
>
>>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore
>>>> him.
>
>>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>
>>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
>> Uh, Dave:
>
>> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
>> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
>> House Majority: Republican Party
>
That was a typo that was caught and corrected; you're answering the
pre-correction posting.
> ...and the numbers were:
>
> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>
> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
> a Republican House.
Au contraire:
> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>
> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
> a Republican House.
2. When the Congress began, the Senate was divided 50-50. Because the
Vice President's tie-breaking vote would change control from Democrats
to Republicans on January 20, the Senate elected Byrd to serve until
noon and Thurmond to serve from noon on January 20. Control changed
again from June 6, 2001, when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party
and Byrd was once again elected President pro tempore.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#cite_note-party_control-1
RD Sandman
Oct 16, 2011, 5:13:45 PM10/16/11
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:avhm97dpfdhrtmptj...@4ax.com:
Budget?? What's a budget?
news:avhm97dpfdhrtmptj...@4ax.com:
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 16, 2011, 6:47:59 PM10/16/11
to
RD Sandman wrote:
>
> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:avhm97dpfdhrtmptj...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:11:45 -0500, RD Sandman
> > <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation
> >>> the majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the
> >>> point.
> >>
> >>And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
> >
> > Which reminds me...where is the 2010 budget?
> >
> > Didnt the Demos have control of both houses of Congress AND the
> > presidency in that year?
> >
> > Gunner
> >
> > "In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's
> > goal in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man
> > to run our country." - David Lloyyd (2008)
> >
>
> Budget?? What's a budget?
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Hawke
Oct 16, 2011, 11:56:46 PM10/16/11
to
On 10/16/2011 12:19 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
> House Majority: Republican Party
So what are you saying? That during the period from 1995 through 2007
> On Oct 15, 10:08 pm, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2011 1:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it was you guys who got us to the point where we needed to bail
>>>>>> out the banks and car companies.
>>
>>>>> Ahhhh, someone who doesn't see all of history. Sorry......
>>
>>>> This happened on Bush's watch. Regulations are the responsibility of
>>>> the Executive. He did not adequately monitor and enforce financial
>>>> regulations on the banks.
>>
>>> Yep, and he issued warning, several times. Congress chose to ignore him.
>>
>>> So who exactly should we be blaming?
>>
>> The congress the republicans were in control of from 1995-2007?
>
> Uh, Dave:
>
> 197th U.S. Congress (January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003)
> Senate Majority: Democrat Party
> House Majority: Republican Party
when the republicans were in control of congress, there was one two year
period where it was a divided congress? Okay, that's fine with me. For
one two year period the congress was split between the two parties. But
that still means that except for that short window the republicans were
in control of congress for ten out of the 12 years, and during the two
years when the Democrats had the Senate the republicans still had the
house and the presidency.
In my book, that is convincing evidence that it was the republicans who
did things their way for about 12 straight years. But you bring up the
one exception where the Democrats got one house of congress. Like that
makes a real difference? I think you just proved it was the republicans
who are responsible for what went wrong for a long time in this country
because they ran it.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 17, 2011, 12:15:27 AM10/17/11
to
is the fault of the republicans? Any way you want to look at it, the
republicans ran things in congress from 1995-2007. That means they are
the ones to blame for the fact that things went wrong. But instead of
just coming out and saying it, these right wing apologists go to all
kinds of contortions and distortions so that they can somehow blame the
Democrats for everything. It's ridiculous. The Democrats make the
mistakes and screw things up all by themselves. We're seeing that with
bad loans to Solyndra and in bad law enforcement programs like fast and
furious. Democrats do a bad job when they have power too. At least they
don't pretend everything is the republican's fault though.
I have said that all along. But the problem is that we can't get the
people on the right to go along at all with the idea that the
republicans are responsible for anything. The truth is the Bush years
turned out to be a total unmitigated failure and a disaster for the
country. You can't blame the Democrats for that. Unless you're a right
winger. In that case you can blame the Democrats. What you do is say it
was the Democrats fault because they allowed the republicans to get in
office because they didn't defeat them in the elections. That's about
right, isn't it? To the right wing all screw ups are the fault of
Democrats. That's how you roll, Johnny. Forget about reality.
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 17, 2011, 12:16:48 AM10/17/11
to
On 10/16/2011 2:09 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>>
>> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
>> a Republican House.
>
> Au contraire:
>
> 2. When the Congress began, the Senate was divided 50-50. Because the
> Vice President's tie-breaking vote would change control from Democrats
> to Republicans on January 20, the Senate elected Byrd to serve until
> noon and Thurmond to serve from noon on January 20. Control changed
> again from June 6, 2001, when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party
> and Byrd was once again elected President pro tempore.
> ...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#cite_note-party_control-1
Now that is what I call splitting hairs!! Nice job, Johnny.
>> Senate: 50 Dems 50 Reps VP Rep House: 212 Dems 221 Rep 2 other.
>>
>> That would be an even Senate with the deciding vote being Republican and
>> a Republican House.
>
> Au contraire:
>
> 2. When the Congress began, the Senate was divided 50-50. Because the
> Vice President's tie-breaking vote would change control from Democrats
> to Republicans on January 20, the Senate elected Byrd to serve until
> noon and Thurmond to serve from noon on January 20. Control changed
> again from June 6, 2001, when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party
> and Byrd was once again elected President pro tempore.
> ...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#cite_note-party_control-1
Hawke
Hawke
Oct 17, 2011, 12:23:26 AM10/17/11
to
durning the Clinton presidency? I was and things were as good as I can
ever recall them. Things went great.
Bush turned that all to shit. So who the fuck do you think we should
blame. The party that was in the minority and out of power? Sorry I'm
not going to refuse to blame the republicans the way you are.
When the Democrats fuck up I blame them. See the difference? You never
have a bad word to say about republicans. I criticize the Democrats all
the time. I have a number of beefs with Obama. You have none with the
republicans. See the difference?
Hawke
pyotr filipivich
Oct 17, 2011, 12:29:00 AM10/17/11
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:09:59 -0700
only thought they had Elected a Senator from Illinois to be President.
The reality is that Obama is just a droid created by Haliburton, and
operated by George Cheny's minions, to continue the Bush policies.
Now you know why the Democrats continue to blame Bush, because
Obama lack the character and force of will to throw off the Mind
Control Beans.
BWahahahahahahaha. Ha!
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:11:45 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation the
>>> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
>>
>>And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
>
>Which reminds me...where is the 2010 budget?
>
>Didnt the Demos have control of both houses of Congress AND the
>presidency in that year?
The Media thought they did, but the reality is that the Democrats
><rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see you can't tell us of a single piece of important legislation the
>>> majority party in the house has passed in a year. That's the point.
>>
>>And all of that is *completely* due to Republicans?
>
>Which reminds me...where is the 2010 budget?
>
>Didnt the Demos have control of both houses of Congress AND the
>presidency in that year?
only thought they had Elected a Senator from Illinois to be President.
The reality is that Obama is just a droid created by Haliburton, and
operated by George Cheny's minions, to continue the Bush policies.
Now you know why the Democrats continue to blame Bush, because
Obama lack the character and force of will to throw off the Mind
Control Beans.
BWahahahahahahaha. Ha!
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages