Congressional D's vs. R's

[maineman]

Time will tell. At least some Republicans are moving back to the right as Dems move more toward their old style liberal roots

The choice will be clear in Nov 08

the point of this thread is that time has told, and you refuse to acknowledge the FACT that the public has thought WORSE of congressional republicans than they have democrats since before the last election.

Of course neither of us can state who will win in '08...but the facts are pretty unamibuous that the public would chose democrats over republicans today.

 

[red states rule]

the point of this thread is that time has told, and you refuse to acknowledge the FACT that the public has thought WORSE of congressional republicans than they have democrats since before the last election.

Of course neither of us can state who will win in '08...but the facts are pretty unamibuous that the public would chose democrats over republicans today.

This should do wonders for the Dems poll numbers

House leader raps Bush's threat to veto spending
By S.A. Miller and Sean Lengell
June 30, 2007

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer yesterday flouted President Bush's threat to veto spending bills for being too costly, and he chided Republicans for criticizing the fiscal restraint of the Democrat-led Congress.

"They don't have anything else to say. They have a failed administration, a failed Congress preceding this Congress," the Maryland Democrat said. "The American public turned them out."

In a wide-ranging interview [Transcript] at his Capitol Hill office, Mr. Hoyer told The Washington Times that Democrats would keep pushing for a troop pullout from Iraq and that the House was unlikely to take up immigration — either as a comprehensive bill or in pieces — after it died Thursday in the Senate.

He said he was confident his party still would control the House of Representatives after 2008, in large part because of the obvious public dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush and Republicans in general.

"I think this administration is probably the most unpopular administration ... to rival [Richard M.] Nixon's," he said.

Mr. Hoyer said Republican charges that the Democrats are taxing and spending their way through the appropriations process rings hollow.

"That is bogus. It is a tired, old — the only argument Republicans ever have any success with," he said.

Mr. Hoyer said Democratic spending increases are modest and necessary, and he questioned how Mr. Bush could object to $23 billion extra in a $2.7 trillion budget, especially when the additional spending goes to education, health care, veterans, police and firefighters.

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070630/NATION/106300042/1001

 

[Larkinn]

Lets see 3 points either way is what it says AND the dems are only 6 points ahead of the republicans. Yup that SURE proves your point. As I recall didn't your last poll numbers have Republicans at like 26 percent? That means a 4 Percent increase for them and as I recall Dems were higher than 36, thus some kind of LOSS for them.

But hey don't let facts get in the way of a poor argument. Perhaps you would like to read my signature line, the one about facts and statistics?

Try and stop being such a partisan hack, please.

He was responding to rsr's point of pointing out the low approval rating for Congress and blaming it solely, and completely, on the Democrats. I doubt many people here are supportive of Congress, the Democrats, or the Republicans, but regardless rsr posting that the low approval ratings are all the democrats fault is a lie. One you, of course, didn't feel the need to respond too. After all...why disagree with your own side, right?

 

[red states rule]

Try and stop being such a partisan hack, please.

He was responding to rsr's point of pointing out the low approval rating for Congress and blaming it solely, and completely, on the Democrats. I doubt many people here are supportive of Congress, the Democrats, or the Republicans, but regardless rsr posting that the low approval ratings are all the democrats fault is a lie. One you, of course, didn't feel the need to respond too. After all...why disagree with your own side, right?

Dems are in charge, they are moving to the left, they want higher taxes, surrender to terrorists, government run health care, and restricting political speech on the radio.

No wonder why their numbers are tanking

 

[Larkinn]

Dems are in charge, they are moving to the left, they want higher taxes, surrender to terrorists, government run health care, and restricting political speech on the radio.

No wonder why their numbers are tanking

Its amazing that about 50% of what you say is just a lie. Are you dishonest or just incredibly stupid?

 

[jillian]

Its amazing that about 50% of what you say is just a lie. Are you dishonest or just incredibly stupid?

Both.

 

[red states rule]

Its amazing that about 50% of what you say is just a lie. Are you dishonest or just incredibly stupid?

What is a lie?

Oh, libs also are increasing pork, and Congressional perks

 

[jillian]

What is a lie?

Oh, libs also are increasing pork, and Congressional perks

Yet another lie... .it was the repubs who gave us "the bridge to nowhere"....

but do feel free to provide a link that isn't some psycho's opinion.

 

[red states rule]

Yet another lie... .it was the repubs who gave us "the bridge to nowhere"....

but do feel free to provide a link that isn't some psycho's opinion.

The House Democrats' $23 Billion Pork Slush Fund and Spending Spree
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1503
In response to voter outrage over earmark scandals, the House Democratic leadership pledged to bring transparency to the earmark process. Specifically, the House rewrote its rules to require that earmarks be included in the reports that accompany spending bills so that lawmakers can debate earmarks before passing each spending bill. Now, in a remarkable reversal, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) has announced that all earmarks will be kept secret from the American people until after the spending bills have cleared the House of Representatives. Not until soon before spending bills return from the conference committee would the list be released, leaving lawmakers without the chance to debate or amend any earmarks, only to vote up-or-down on entire conference reports. The House Democratic majority should stick to its pledge of transparency and abandon this scheme.

$23 Billion in Added Pork?

Because earmarks are set to remain secret for two more months, taxpayers are left guessing about how much pork-barrel spending Congress plans to enact. Representative Obey claims to have received 32,000 earmark requests, an average of 74 from each of the 435 House members.[1] Representative Obey has also stated that earmarks account for less than 2 percent of discretionary spending, which would place earmarked spending at just under $19 billion.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1503.cfm



Demanding more perks on the Taxpayer’s dime
Posted by: mcq on Friday, June 15, 2007

Would someone tell Speaker Pelosi that the taxpayer isn't here to pay for junkets for kids?
Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free.

Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.

“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”

Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6234

 

[Larkinn]

surrender to terrorists,

That, idiot, is a lie.

 

[red states rule]

That, idiot, is a lie.

Oh?

When you tell the enemy when you are leaving the fight, turn the country over to the enenmy - so they will have a base of operation to launch future attacks -

IT IS SURRENDER

 

[maineman]

Oh?

When you tell the enemy when you are leaving the fight, turn the country over to the enenmy - so they will have a base of operation to launch future attacks -

IT IS SURRENDER

but clearly...we are not advocating doing that. We are advocating turning the country over to the country.

it is not surrender.

Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

And who is this "enemy"?

YOu never really answer that. is it AQ? (the "handful of deadenders in their final throes) is it Sadr's mahdi army which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the shiites in Iraq who happen to also be the overwhelming majority of the population? Is it the sunni insurgents who were killing us up until we started giving them armament because they promised they would kill AQ instead of us? (that reminds me of us giving stinger missiles to the afgani mjuahadeen who promised to use them against the russians....you know that group, don't you? the founding fathers of AQ itself??)

and your "theory" about what will transpire when all those "enemies" converge is totally hilarious and completely divorced from reality

 

[red states rule]

but clearly...we are not advocating doing that. We are advocating turning the country over to the country.

it is not surrender.

Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

And who is this "enemy"?

YOu never really answer that. is it AQ? (the "handful of deadenders in their final throes) is it Sadr's mahdi army which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the shiites in Iraq who happen to also be the overwhelming majority of the population? Is it the sunni insurgents who were killing us up until we started giving them armament because they promised they would kill AQ instead of us? (that reminds me of us giving stinger missiles to the afgani mjuahadeen who promised to use them against the russians....you know that group, don't you? the founding fathers of AQ itself??)

and your "theory" about what will transpire when all those "enemies" converge is totally hilarious and completely divorced from reality

Call it what you will. The terrorists are hoping the Dems can help them win this fight - Dems have been helping them for the last 5 years

 

[actsnoblemartin]

A few things.

At some point, we may have to say, this is a stalemate, the united states did do that as a matter of fact, in 1953 in korea.

Is it surrender, thats a matter of opinion.

Britain, left in 1948, because they could not win, it was not a surrender, infact, britain was in land that belonged to the jews, and some arabs who were living there, NOT palestinians, palestine never existed.

The enemy is iraqies who are sabotaging the effort or iraq to be a country that is free.

madr army included

you make some further good points,

I cant really argue against them.

but clearly...we are not advocating doing that. We are advocating turning the country over to the country.

it is not surrender.

Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

And who is this "enemy"?

YOu never really answer that. is it AQ? (the "handful of deadenders in their final throes) is it Sadr's mahdi army which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the shiites in Iraq who happen to also be the overwhelming majority of the population? Is it the sunni insurgents who were killing us up until we started giving them armament because they promised they would kill AQ instead of us? (that reminds me of us giving stinger missiles to the afgani mjuahadeen who promised to use them against the russians....you know that group, don't you? the founding fathers of AQ itself??)

and your "theory" about what will transpire when all those "enemies" converge is totally hilarious and completely divorced from reality

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The dems are not the one killing our soldiers. why this whole issue is partisan ill never know

Call it what you will. The terrorists are hoping the Dems can help them win this fight - Dems have been helping them for the last 5 years

 

[red states rule]

The dems are not the one killing our soldiers. why this whole issue is partisan ill never know

But Dems are encouraging them to continue the fight, wth visions of surrender

 

[maineman]

Call it what you will. The terrorists are hoping the Dems can help them win this fight - Dems have been helping them for the last 5 years

and you "can call it what YOU will".... just know that the word "surrender" is nothing that any democrat wants to see happen.....and it is your partisan opinion that you repeatedly attempt to pass off as "fact", as if you have EVER had a fucking CLUE what the word "fact" even meant!

And I notice that, once again, you fail to address the points made against you.

try again:

Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

And who is this "enemy"?

YOu never really answer that. is it AQ? (the "handful of deadenders in their final throes) is it Sadr's mahdi army which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the shiites in Iraq who happen to also be the overwhelming majority of the population? Is it the sunni insurgents who were killing us up until we started giving them armament because they promised they would kill AQ instead of us? (that reminds me of us giving stinger missiles to the afgani mjuahadeen who promised to use them against the russians....you know that group, don't you? the founding fathers of AQ itself??)

and your "theory" about what will transpire when all those "enemies" converge is totally hilarious and completely divorced from reality.

 

[red states rule]

and you "can call it what YOU will".... just know that the word "surrender" is nothing that any democrat wants to see happen.....and it is your partisan opinion that you repeatedly attempt to pass off as "fact", as if you have EVER had a fucking CLUE what the word "fact" even meant!

And I notice that, once again, you fail to address the points made against you.

try again:

Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

And who is this "enemy"?

YOu never really answer that. is it AQ? (the "handful of deadenders in their final throes) is it Sadr's mahdi army which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the shiites in Iraq who happen to also be the overwhelming majority of the population? Is it the sunni insurgents who were killing us up until we started giving them armament because they promised they would kill AQ instead of us? (that reminds me of us giving stinger missiles to the afgani mjuahadeen who promised to use them against the russians....you know that group, don't you? the founding fathers of AQ itself??)

and your "theory" about what will transpire when all those "enemies" converge is totally hilarious and completely divorced from reality.

Dems are for appeasement and surrender

I am waiting for the left to whine about the timing of the terrorist attacks in London this weekend and blame Bush for them

This is what we will get here if the Dems get their surrender wish

 

[maineman]

ANM:

you should know that this statement of yours is factually incorrect:

Britain, left in 1948, because they could not win, it was not a surrender, infact, britain was in land that belonged to the jews, and some arabs who were living there, NOT palestinians, palestine never existed.

Britain voluntarily ended its protectorate of Palestine that it WON by being on the winning side of WWI and Palestine was one chunk of the former Ottoman Empire that went to Britain as spoils of war.

The LAND had been in arab hands for centuries. When the UN convinced Britain to give up its protectorate and allow palestine to be partitioned, it left a divided territory that immediately dissolved into war. But leaving was certainly the right thing for Britain to do, just as it is certainly the right thing for us to do in Iraq. Britain did not surrender anything. They left to allow the people living on the land to determine their own destiny. That is what the majority of the people of Iraq want us to do, regardless of how apprehensive they are about what might happen.

 

[maineman]

[Dems are for appeasement and surrender
bullshit

I am waiting for the left to whine about the timing of the terrorist attacks in London this weekend and blame Bush for them
hold your breath. no liberal will "whine" in such a way.

This is what we will get here if the Dems get their surrender wish.
again.... flatulent rhetoric from the king.... nobody liberal wishes for surrender

and I am waiting for you to quit running away like a fucking girlie man and address the points made to you.