Are the Democrats stupid?

[dcpsoguy]

As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

 

[ElFenix]

this guy isn't particularly bright.

 

[ScottyB]

We are a lot smarter than the fascist regime known as the republicans.

 

[dcpsoguy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
this guy isn't particularly bright.

Me or Locke?

 

[dcpsoguy]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We are a lot smarter than the fascist regime known as the republicans.

Whos got the all round majority in the Senate, the House, and the White House? Wait, I can't hear you, I think it's the

REPUBLICANS.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Yes he just slammed the president on the envirement after Bush wanted to reduce emissions by 75% in the next 15 years. And is also looks like domestic oil is less important that wildlife.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We are a lot smarter than the fascist regime known as the republicans.

Whos got the all round majority in the Senate, the House, and the White House? Wait, I can't hear you, I think it's the

REPUBLICANS.

And? I never said all Americans are intelligent.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
this guy isn't particularly bright.

don't make excuses for them

 

[Babbles]

I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Yup, I can't believe none of the Democratic leaders wanted to step up and challenge GW.

Why wouldn't Daschle, Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the democratic presidential candidates make the rebuttal?

It seems as if Democrats picked Locke because they didn't believe in their own cause.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

Well you have a bad example. The arsenic executive order got studied and still stands.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

Well you have a bad example. The arsenic executive order got studied and still stands.

No he came out and changed what he said from when he was running. But then changed it again while in office from all the pressure. If not for the public and media riding him on it, he would not have changed.

 

[AU Tiger]

Yes

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

Well you have a bad example. The arsenic executive order got studied and still stands.

No he came out and changed what he said from when he was running. But then changed it again while in office from all the pressure. If not for the public and media riding him on it, he would not have changed.

No, he said it be reviewed and it stand as written.

 

[datalink7]

Democrates can suck it.

Republicans can suck it.

That is what I have to say on the subject

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

Well you have a bad example. The arsenic executive order got studied and still stands.

No he came out and changed what he said from when he was running. But then changed it again while in office from all the pressure. If not for the public and media riding him on it, he would not have changed.

That's not the way I remember it. He always said that there needed to be a study to prove the dangers of parts per billion levels of arsenic. The study was conducted. It confirmed the danger and IIRC the levels were tightened from what the previous rules were to be.

If you have something that contradicts that I would be willing to take a look.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

Another sign of lack of leadership in the democratic party?

 

[Babbles]

The limit was/has been 50µg/L (ppb) and it was suggested in 1999 to be implemented to lower it down to 10µg/L by 2002.

Read up HERE

I am sure over the past years, though, most people have been analyzing for 10µg/L or less.

 

[exp]

Responses to the State of the Union Address are always pathetic, but this may have been the worst one I've ever heard. It was so bad it actually made the President's speech look good by comparison. Yikes.

 

[flot]

I agree - the Locke guy came off as a complete and utter jackass.

WTH is wrong with our country and this absurd party system? I see, so we're in a time of serious national trouble, both domestically and internationally, so what do we do? Point fingers. Badly, at that.

Jackass.

 

[EXman]

We are a lot smarter than the fascist regime known as the republicans.

Yea Socialists usually are know-it-alls

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

Another sign of lack of leadership in the democratic party?

There's not alot of good leadership now in either party.