Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[bedowin62]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here you go leftard; still using your source; the Dem's LARGER majority lasted ALL THE WAY TO JANUARY OF THIS YEAR


113th Congress (2013-2015)
Majority Party: Democrat (53 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) died on June 3, 2013. He was replaced by Jeffrey Chiesa (R-NJ) on June 6, 2013, making the party division 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who both caucus with the Democrats). On October 31, 2013, Cory Booker (D-NJ) replaced Chiesa, returning the party division to 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who both caucus with the Democrats).



the House is next; where Democrat majorities were also larger than Republican majorities most of the time

 

[Faun]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

yawn

you poor pathetic clown. you cant say what is inaccurate with the source; because inside you know you're wrong

so sad


tsk tsk tsk

You're fucking demented.

Of course I said what was wrong with your source ... the numbers don't match house.gov

You've now posted from two different sources and posted 2 different numbers and you think no one knows what's wrong with your sources.

Meanwhile, 288 Republicans in the 109th Congress is still more than the 284 Democrats in the 110th Congress.

And you're still not man enough to admit you're a moron.

Thanks again for playin'!

 

[bedowin62]

107th (2001–2003) 435 213 220 Independent (2) 4/1
108th (2003–2005) 435 205 229 Independent (1) 4/1
109th (2005–2007) 435 201 233 Independent (1) 4/1
110th (2007–2009) 435 233 202 0 4/1
111th (2009–2011) 435 257 178 0 5/1
112th (2011–2013) 435 193 242 0 5/1
113th (2013–2015) 435 201 234 0 5/1
114th (2015-2017) 435 188 247 0 5/1




finally here are the House numbers from NUTJOB FAUN'S OWN SOURCE;

the second column is Dems and the 3rd is Repubs

as you can see no Republican majority was ever over 59 members and that JUST STARTED THIS JANUARY; WHILE the Democrat majority actually reached SEVENTY-NINE members in the 111th Congress


what an idiot. did you really think your source was going to say something that differs from what I've been sayin all along leftard????????



BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

 

[Faun]

Look ..... another bedwetter meltdown.

Ta-daaa!

 

[bedowin62]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

yawn

you poor pathetic clown. you cant say what is inaccurate with the source; because inside you know you're wrong

so sad


tsk tsk tsk

You're fucking demented.

Of course I said what was wrong with your source ... the numbers don't match house.gov

You've now posted from two different sources and posted 2 different numbers and you think no one knows what's wrong with your sources.

Meanwhile, 288 Republicans in the 109th Congress is still more than the 284 Democrats in the 110th Congress.

And you're still not man enough to admit you're a moron.

Thanks again for plain'!

YOU'RE simply embarrassing yourself and it is truly sad.
nothing, nothing at all from YOUR sources disproves what I've been saying all along. the Democrat majorities were larger than the Republican majorities


YOU are the one not man enough to admit he's wrong




sad

 

[Faun]

107th (2001–2003) 435 213 220 Independent (2) 4/1
108th (2003–2005) 435 205 229 Independent (1) 4/1
109th (2005–2007) 435 201 233 Independent (1) 4/1
110th (2007–2009) 435 233 202 0 4/1
111th (2009–2011) 435 257 178 0 5/1
112th (2011–2013) 435 193 242 0 5/1
113th (2013–2015) 435 201 234 0 5/1
114th (2015-2017) 435 188 247 0 5/1




finally here are the House numbers from NUTJOB FAUN'S OWN SOURCE;

the second column is Dems and the 3rd is Repubs

as you can see no Republican majority was ever over 59 members and that JUST STARTED THIS JANUARY; WHILE the Democrat majority actually reached SEVENTY-NINE members in the 111th Congress


what an idiot. did you really think your source was going to say something that differs from what I've been sayin all along leftard????????



BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

You're completely deranged, ya fruit loop dingus.

What do those numbers show...?

2005, 288 Republicans
2007, 284 Democrats.

And you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

G'head, bedwetter... this is where your head explodes.

 

[bedowin62]

Meanwhile, 288 Republicans in the 109th Congress is still more than the 284 Democrats in the 110th Congress.

mean while that 4 member majority for republicans in that one year is considerably smaller than Democrat majorities in most years


seriously what a loser!!

 

[Rambunctious]

Gas is $3.90 here in Browns California. So F U Brown is that how it works? Up or down it's the leaders fault.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

I said the Democrat majorities were larger than republican ones'
and I proved it


using your own sources


no thank YOU for playing idiot!!

lol

 

[Faun]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

yawn

you poor pathetic clown. you cant say what is inaccurate with the source; because inside you know you're wrong

so sad


tsk tsk tsk

You're fucking demented.

Of course I said what was wrong with your source ... the numbers don't match house.gov

You've now posted from two different sources and posted 2 different numbers and you think no one knows what's wrong with your sources.

Meanwhile, 288 Republicans in the 109th Congress is still more than the 284 Democrats in the 110th Congress.

And you're still not man enough to admit you're a moron.

Thanks again for plain'!

YOU'RE simply embarrassing yourself and it is truly sad.
nothing, nothing at all from YOUR sources disproves what I've been saying all along. the Democrat majorities were larger than the Republican majorities


YOU are the one not man enough to admit he's wrong




sad

Nope, my source says there were more Republicans in 2005-2007 than there were Democrats in 2007-2009.

You can't post capital letters big enough to change that.

 

[bedowin62]

you're like a little sissy that loses a fight and the other guy is just holding him by his forehead as the sissy swings wildly!!

just pathetic

 

[bedowin62]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

yawn

you poor pathetic clown. you cant say what is inaccurate with the source; because inside you know you're wrong

so sad


tsk tsk tsk

You're fucking demented.

Of course I said what was wrong with your source ... the numbers don't match house.gov

You've now posted from two different sources and posted 2 different numbers and you think no one knows what's wrong with your sources.

Meanwhile, 288 Republicans in the 109th Congress is still more than the 284 Democrats in the 110th Congress.

And you're still not man enough to admit you're a moron.

Thanks again for plain'!

YOU'RE simply embarrassing yourself and it is truly sad.
nothing, nothing at all from YOUR sources disproves what I've been saying all along. the Democrat majorities were larger than the Republican majorities


YOU are the one not man enough to admit he's wrong




sad

Nope, my source says there were more Republicans in 2005-2007 than there were Democrats in 2007-2009.

You can't post capital letters big enough to change that.

because I don't have to loser

I said Dem majorities were larger, and I proved it using YOUR SOURCE



still crying????

 

[Faun]

YAWN

I said the Democrat majorities were larger than republican ones'
and I proved it


using your own sources


no thank YOU for playing idiot!!

lol

Sorry, but you don't get to change what you said. You said Democrats had larger majorities from day one in 2007 than Republicans had during Bush's prior years.

The numbers above prove conclusively that you're a raging imbecile.

Thanks for playin'!

 

[Faun]

you're like a little sissy that loses a fight and the other guy is just holding him by his forehead as the sissy swings wildly!!

just pathetic

Sure, Loser... you keep telling yourself that.

While you're at it, keep telling yourself that 284 is more than 288.

 

[bedowin62]

everybody can see you want to talk about one year as opposed to eight bush years and seven Obama years

you truly are a clown; and a pathetic one at that

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

I said the Democrat majorities were larger than republican ones'
and I proved it


using your own sources


no thank YOU for playing idiot!!

lol

Sorry, but you don't get to change what you said. You said Democrats had larger majorities from day one in 2007 than Republicans had during Bush's prior years.

The numbers above prove conclusively that you're a raging imbecile.

Thanks for playin'!

who's having a meltdown?????

 

[Faun]

everybody can see you want to talk about one year as opposed to eight bush years and seven Obama years

you truly are a clown; and a pathetic one at that

I'm talking about the [two] years which prove you're a moron. Who cares about the rest?

 

[Faun]

YAWN

I said the Democrat majorities were larger than republican ones'
and I proved it


using your own sources


no thank YOU for playing idiot!!

lol

Sorry, but you don't get to change what you said. You said Democrats had larger majorities from day one in 2007 than Republicans had during Bush's prior years.

The numbers above prove conclusively that you're a raging imbecile.

Thanks for playin'!

who's having a meltdown?????

You are. Just look back at how unhinged your posts are.

 

[bedowin62]

Democrat Senate majorities: 1, 2,18, 18, 4, 10
Senate majorities in six different Congresses equaling 53 and an average of 8.333
Repub Senate majorities: 2, 10, 10 = 22 and an average of 7.33



sorry nutjob you lose on the Senate!!!


let's do the House ok crybaby??

 

[bedowin62]

everybody can see you want to talk about one year as opposed to eight bush years and seven Obama years

you truly are a clown; and a pathetic one at that

I'm talking about the [two] years which prove you're a moron. Who cares about the rest?

you don't dummy of course; because they prove my premise was correct

and that you a crybaby