My 2010 prediction

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
House: Republicans +70
Senate: Republicans gain ND, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Nevada, California, Florida, Wisconsin, and retain Florida; Democrats make no gains, leaving senate 48-52 in Republican control.
 
For the rest of this year this is whats going to happen. More fossil fuels will be burned and not enough money will be invested into energy security. Politicians that don't care about America's dependence on foreign oil will get elected. Politicians with an irrational fear of nuclear energy will get elected. People with no clue how to fix the economy will be put into power but they can't be any worst then the ones who are all ready in power. It doesn't matter if someone is a democrat or a republican just so long as they want to solve the energy crisis.
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
House: Republicans +70
Senate: Republicans gain ND, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Nevada, California, Florida, Wisconsin, and retain Florida; Democrats make no gains, leaving senate 48-52 in Republican control.
Click to expand...

a true disaster for the republic
 
cawacko said:
how so?
Click to expand...

do you think that electing nut case repubs will make things better or worse

i think worse

but that is my opinion - look at what the candidates are saying

maybe not all of them, bohner is a rat and the repubs seem to vote in lockstep - you know, the party of NO
 
DonQuixote said:
do you think that electing nut case repubs will make things better or worse

i think worse

but that is my opinion - look at what the candidates are saying

maybe not all of them, bohner is a rat and the repubs seem to vote in lockstep - you know, the party of NO
Click to expand...

I happen to think split government is a good thing. And the Republicans are not the party of no. You are parroting Democratic talking points. If the Republicans were the party of no you would not see the outrageous spending we saw in the 2000's. Would the party of no have a President who doesn't veto a bill for six years? A party of no would say we can't live beyond our means, that's certainly not the Republicans. One party can't get the other party to vote for what they want? Typical partisan bickering.
 
cawacko said:
I happen to think split government is a good thing. And the Republicans are not the party of no. You are parroting Democratic talking points. If the Republicans were the party of no you would not see the outrageous spending we saw in the 2000's. Would the party of no have a President who doesn't veto a bill for six years? A party of no would say we can't live beyond our means, that's certainly not the Republicans. One party can't get the other party to vote for what they want? Typical partisan bickering.
Click to expand...

i tend to agree that no new laws is a good thing, but unless the repubs can get 60 seats in the senate, the dems can filibuster the repub agenda

and a 2/3 majority in both houses, bho can veto anything the repus manage to pass with less than that
 
DonQuixote said:
i tend to agree that no new laws is a good thing, but unless the repubs can get 60 seats in the senate, the dems can filibuster the repub agenda

and a 2/3 majority in both houses, bho can veto anything the repus manage to pass with less than that
Click to expand...

yeah, I don't have a problem with that. in fact I think its good. The '90's were a time when the Reps in Congress were battling tooth and nail with Clinton and it worked out well for the country. Total control by one party has not worked out well.

So contrary to your belief that it will hurt or destroy the Republic with both sides battling anything that gets passed will not be as bad as it could be because each side will have knocked out extreme elements of it.
 
cawacko said:
yeah, I don't have a problem with that. in fact I think its good. The '90's were a time when the Reps in Congress were battling tooth and nail with Clinton and it worked out well for the country. Total control by one party has not worked out well.

So contrary to your belief that it will hurt or destroy the Republic with both sides battling anything that gets passed will not be as bad as it could be because each side will have knocked out extreme elements of it.
Click to expand...

the one problem that is with us always is 'pork' - it feeds both parties...
 
DonQuixote said:
the one problem that is with us always is 'pork' - it feeds both parties...
Click to expand...

well sure but that's not going to change no matter who is in charge. If the Republicans were really the party of no they would eliminate pork. No chance of that happening.
 
The Republican party is big on national security but they don't seem to see that Global Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil is a threat to Global Security. Once oil is no longer important the middle east will sease to be a problem. Iran can't fund its nuclear program if noone wants to buy oil. Saudia Arabia want be able to finance terrorism if they no longer have an economy. Terrorist get their funding from oil money. Eleminate the need for oil and terrorism will die off. America will no longer need to maintain its presence in the middle east if the entire region no longer has any stragetic value.

The Democratic party on the other hand wants to bankrupt america with massive government spending. How much should the American market be controlled by the government?
The Government needs to be investing in the future and not the present. Weve all ready invested enough money into bailing out the financial sector.
 
Another prediction is this thread will rise to the top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top