Just over a month to go, and Dems still have NOTHING!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Also... NO ONE suggested the Dems had 'nothing'. "

Did you by any chance check the title of the thread you're posting on?

Yeah, did you bother to read the context of that? Democrats have nothing to run on! Yes, we all understand the Democrats still have the White House, and will not lose it in the 2010 mid-term elections! We also understand the Democrats hold a majority in Congress, that wasn't what was meant by "democrats have nothing" in the thread topic, you moron!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A) I'm not campaigning. Nor do I particularly care much if the Dems lose in November or not.

B) What a shock that you're the first to step in & defend someone's right to exaggerate wildly in order to make a point.

C) Have you read some of Dixie's other writings? Yes, I believe it's very possible he really thinks the Dems controlled Congress for the past 8 years. Why else would he write such a thing? Can you think of a reason?

The Democrats have effectively controlled Congress for the past 8 years. Aside from a short 2-year stint, where the R's had a slight majority if you counted the RINO's, the Democrats have had complete control of both houses.

 

[Onceler]

The Democrats have effectively controlled Congress for the past 8 years. Aside from a short 2-year stint, where the R's had a slight majority if you counted the RINO's, the Democrats have had complete control of both houses.

A 2-year stint? Really?

Do you want to double-check on that?

Klaatu - are you reading this?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Democrats have effectively controlled Congress for the past 8 years. Aside from a short 2-year stint, where the R's had a slight majority if you counted the RINO's, the Democrats have had complete control of both houses.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

The Dems have controlled Congress for the past FOUR years....

The above link might help you out.

The Reps held both Houses of Congress from 1995-2006 with the exception of a 2 years stint in the Senate where the Dems briefly took over thanks to the defection of Jeffords.

 

[Cancel7]

The Democrats have effectively controlled Congress for the past 8 years. Aside from a short 2-year stint, where the R's had a slight majority if you counted the RINO's, the Democrats have had complete control of both houses.

I don't understand. Is this a Glenn Beck University thing?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

The Dems have controlled Congress for the past FOUR years....

The above link might help you out.

The Reps held both Houses of Congress from 1995-2006 with the exception of a 2 years stint in the Senate where the Dems briefly took over thanks to the defection of Jeffords.

If by "controlled congress" you mean, the R's got to pound the gavel, you are correct. But if you mean "controlled congress" in terms of how they voted, with 6-8 "Republicans" routinely siding with the Democrats, then I am correct. It all depends on the context, and you apparently didn't understand mine.

 

[Onceler]

If by "controlled congress" you mean, the R's got to pound the gavel, you are correct. But if you mean "controlled congress" in terms of how they voted, with 6-8 "Republicans" routinely siding with the Democrats, then I am correct. It all depends on the context, and you apparently didn't understand mine.

Ah, no. You said that the short 2-year stint was the period where they "technically" had control, albeit with RINO's.

No context there. It's what you stated. It's just a few posts back if you want to check it out.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ah, no. You said that the short 2-year stint was the period where they "technically" had control, albeit with RINO's.

No context there. It's what you stated. It's just a few posts back if you want to check it out.

No, I tell ya what, shithead.. YOU check it out... YOU post and repost it! In fact, let's all spend the next month focusing on what Dixie said, (which you couldn't read in context), instead of discussing issues. Because you really don't want to discuss the issues, you have no solutions to our problems to offer, so it's best that we spend all our waking hours pouring over what Dixie said. It keeps everyone distracted from the issues, of which you have no answer or solution.

 

[klaatu]

I wholeheartedly agree with this post ... The Dems cant campaign on Health care, instead they run away from it, cant campaign on a growing economy when it doesnt exist, They run away from the stimulus plan, distance themselves from their sitting Prez and raising taxes. So, what is a Dem to do? How should they campaign? How about things like "she says she's a witch! Haha." "She knew her maid was an illegal! haha! "The Gov of NJ is fat! Haha!" , "The Tea Party is racist!" For crying out loud, Stop the hate! ...oh wait in a minute stop the hate... is a Dem talking point.... jeeesh

 

[Cancel7]

No, I tell ya what, shithead.. YOU check it out... YOU post and repost it! In fact, let's all spend the next month focusing on what Dixie said, (which you couldn't read in context), instead of discussing issues. Because you really don't want to discuss the issues, you have no solutions to our problems to offer, so it's best that we spend all our waking hours pouring over what Dixie said. It keeps everyone distracted from the issues, of which you have no answer or solution.

So you admit we should all ignore anything you say since it is unimportant and likely to be factually incorrect? And you are angry that Onceler took your words to have any meaning because he should know everything you post is nothing more than rage-filled diatribes against the pinheads with no basis in reality?

 

[Onceler]

No, I tell ya what, shithead.. YOU check it out... YOU post and repost it! In fact, let's all spend the next month focusing on what Dixie said, (which you couldn't read in context), instead of discussing issues. Because you really don't want to discuss the issues, you have no solutions to our problems to offer, so it's best that we spend all our waking hours pouring over what Dixie said. It keeps everyone distracted from the issues, of which you have no answer or solution.

I'm happy to discuss issues, but as a rule of thumb, I always like to establish the level of sanity with whoever I am engaging with prior to really delving into things.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm happy to discuss issues, but as a rule of thumb, I always like to establish the level of sanity with whoever I am engaging with prior to really delving into things.....

Yes, I can certainly understand why you would only wish to converse with people equally as insane as yourself.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, I can certainly understand why you would only wish to converse with people equally as insane as yourself.

Hey, you don't hear me saying "Democrats didn't control the White House at all in the '90's," and then try to cover the idiocy of that with "Well, Clinton technically was President, but he was only really a Democrat for a short 2-year stint, before he started working with Newt," followed by "If you read what I just wrote in context, you'll see that I never said anything about Democrats not controlling the White House in the '90's."

I'm tellin' ya, it's all very Rod Serling...

 

[cawacko]

Dixie I'm a Republican and I hope they win back one or both houses of Congress. But to me Republicans won't have shown sh*t until they get back into office and actually do something different than they did in the 2000's. They have to earn back the voters trust. I'm all for doing what they can to Obamacare and all that. I like that. But man the whole full me once... deal applies here. If these a*holes win they better perform.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie I'm a Republican and I hope they win back one or both houses of Congress. But to me Republicans won't have shown sh*t until they get back into office and actually do something different than they did in the 2000's. They have to earn back the voters trust. I'm all for doing what they can to Obamacare and all that. I like that. But man the whole full me once... deal applies here. If these a*holes win they better perform.

Well, much has been said about the '94 republican congress, but actually, Newt and the House did fulfill the promises made in the Contract With America. They promised to bring a list of issues to the floor for a vote within the first 100 days, and they did that. They never promised their plans would be passed or that the Senate would pass them.

I think it is important to be realistic with our expectations here. Republicans aren't going to be able to accomplish very much, if Democrats remain in solidarity opposition. They would need a super-majority with a Republican president, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now... you want to give the Republicans the House and Senate with enough votes to override a filibuster, and a Republican president to not veto their legislation? ...Stand back and watch the Republicans do everything you wish for them to do! Otherwise, they are going to be forced to work with moderate Democrats to get legislation passed, and that will likely mean you don't get everything you wish for. That's just how politics works. I think it's a mistake to be under the impression, if the R's win the house, suddenly we're going to see all these strongly conservative issues being dealt with. They have to have the power to do that, and right now, they don't.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, much has been said about the '94 republican congress, but actually, Newt and the House did fulfill the promises made in the Contract With America. They promised to bring a list of issues to the floor for a vote within the first 100 days, and they did that. They never promised their plans would be passed or that the Senate would pass them.

I think it is important to be realistic with our expectations here. Republicans aren't going to be able to accomplish very much, if Democrats remain in solidarity opposition. They would need a super-majority with a Republican president, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now... you want to give the Republicans the House and Senate with enough votes to override a filibuster, and a Republican president to not veto their legislation? ...Stand back and watch the Republicans do everything you wish for them to do! Otherwise, they are going to be forced to work with moderate Democrats to get legislation passed, and that will likely mean you don't get everything you wish for. That's just how politics works. I think it's a mistake to be under the impression, if the R's win the house, suddenly we're going to see all these strongly conservative issues being dealt with. They have to have the power to do that, and right now, they don't.

Shorter Dixie: If you take the Republicans back things'll be different this time, honest.

 

[cawacko]

Well, much has been said about the '94 republican congress, but actually, Newt and the House did fulfill the promises made in the Contract With America. They promised to bring a list of issues to the floor for a vote within the first 100 days, and they did that. They never promised their plans would be passed or that the Senate would pass them.

I think it is important to be realistic with our expectations here. Republicans aren't going to be able to accomplish very much, if Democrats remain in solidarity opposition. They would need a super-majority with a Republican president, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now... you want to give the Republicans the House and Senate with enough votes to override a filibuster, and a Republican president to not veto their legislation? ...Stand back and watch the Republicans do everything you wish for them to do! Otherwise, they are going to be forced to work with moderate Democrats to get legislation passed, and that will likely mean you don't get everything you wish for. That's just how politics works. I think it's a mistake to be under the impression, if the R's win the house, suddenly we're going to see all these strongly conservative issues being dealt with. They have to have the power to do that, and right now, they don't.

To me the '90's were great. With the Republican Congress battling Clinton the American people were the winner in that one imo. I want to see that again. Of course it's a lot easier when you are the opposition party. I think Republicans know if they win back the House and blow it this time they will be in the wilderness for awhile.

 

[tinfoil]

Shorter Dixie: If you take the Republicans back things'll be different this time, honest.

Couldn't be much worse than the dumbasses in control right now, you fucking idiot

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey dixie. What are republicans gonna do to get jobs back in america?

Gee Asshat...that's such a tough question...but I bet I know the answer....they will cut taxes for the rich!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Gee Asshat...that's such a tough question...but I bet I know the answer....they will cut taxes for the rich!

lmao.... so if they only cut taxes for the rich.... why is Obama trying to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle class? What is there to extend if the only cuts are for the rich?