Democrats Go 0 For 40 On Iraq

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Because they don't have 2/3rds.

Nothing to see here.

Who says the Dems haven't benefitted? Every one of these votes puts the Republicans on record as as being Bushies.
2008 elections are looking better and better.

the public is not stupid.

They are seeing that ALL politicians state what they can not deliver.

But that's not what the election cycle ads are going to say. They are going to say your specific Republican congressman went along with Bush and voted against ending the war in Iraq. What ALL politicians do won't be very helpful to the incumbent facing those ads.

Last I checked, not every democrat voted to end the Iraq war either.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The Republican obstructionism isn't working with the public, and there is no plan B. It's going to be a terrible 2008 for them.
http://pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
Read it and weep, Pabster.

Those numbers are meaningless.

Until we have solid polling data in individual races polls are meaningless.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Because they don't have 2/3rds.

Nothing to see here.

QFMFT...

2/3rds. Do you get it you fucking retarded righties? 2/3rds, the Dems *do not* have it! Stop with these idiotic threads already. :| The Repugs are blocking all attempts. This alone is why the american public is dissatisfied with the congress. Are you righties still drunk from the 6 years of power?

They are 0 for 40.

The Dems DO NOT NEED 2/3rds in the House. The dems can pass ANY bill they want to because MAJORITY rules the House.

They havent doen so because oh whats this I keep trying to tell you fools on the far left, the Dems ONLY have a majority because of their moderates. The Moderate Dems oppose the far left dems withdrawl demands.

 

[theeedude]

By the time you see some meaningful numbers, it will be too late to do anything about them 😀

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And just think. No money, no war. Unfortunately for you, your heroes love war too. Otherwise they'd cut that shit and fast.

The Democrats don't have a sufficient majority to pass any bill that would stop the wart without at least SOME Republicans having the balls to join them to stop the Bushwhackos MURDER of American troops, and the TRAITOR IN CHIEF would veto it.

They havent even tried LOL

You think that's worth laughing? If you think the deaths of all those American troops is funny, please enjoy a large helping of FOAD, PUTZ! :|

It would help if they had everyone in their own party first...

 

[ProfJohn]

0 for 40 and now we have stories popping up that Republicans are being told that Iraq may not be that big of a factor in the 2008 election.

Unless we see a turn for the worse I think the fighting over the war is pretty much done. Bush is going to get what he wants and the next President will most likely follow a similar strategy to his.

Interestingly support for the war has been on the raise lately. Seems that less news coverage on Iraq equates to less bad news and therefore less desire by Americans to get out at any cost.

 

[nageov3t]

how can you say that the democrats are "losing" if democrats themselves are voting against it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well that was a stupid comment. I hate indulging you as I know you're just trolling, but "support the troops" has just become a way to stifle legitimate debate. You know better then that... you must know better then that... right?

I'm not stifling any debate. It's not a gray area. Support the troops, whether you agree with their mission or not. It really isn't that hard.

Riiiiiiight. You know why the argument you're making is stupid, you're just too embedded in your hackery to say it. I wish you would just go ahead and get banned already, as you're a useless pile of crap who does nothing other then post troll threads and derail other ones that have some potential for legitimate debate.

You truly are one of the most worthless posters on here, which is quite a statement considering your competition.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
0 for 40 and now we have stories popping up that Republicans are being told that Iraq may not be that big of a factor in the 2008 election.

Unless we see a turn for the worse I think the fighting over the war is pretty much done. Bush is going to get what he wants and the next President will most likely follow a similar strategy to his.

Interestingly support for the war has been on the raise lately. Seems that less news coverage on Iraq equates to less bad news and therefore less desire by Americans to get out at any cost.

I sometimes think that you believe your own posts.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Riiiiiiight. You know why the argument you're making is stupid, you're just too embedded in your hackery to say it. I wish you would just go ahead and get banned already, as you're a useless pile of crap who does nothing other then post troll threads and derail other ones that have some potential for legitimate debate.

I'm sure you do. That's a typical liberal mentality. Free speech, so long as I agree with the speech. Otherwise ban! Get over yourself, moonbat. :laugh:

You truly are one of the most worthless posters on here, which is quite a statement considering your competition.

I hope you aren't sitting too close to that mirror. Glass shards can do amazing amounts of damage at such close vicinity :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The Moderate Dems oppose the far left dems withdrawl demands.

Indeed, they do. Which is why, although Democrats are the majority now, and the far-left nutjobs are in control of the party faithful, they are batting .000. The vast majority of new Dem seats last election went to moderate, even conservative Democrats. They are far from lock-step with MoveOn and the far-lefties who have destroyed the party of FDR.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
0 for 40 and now we have stories popping up that Republicans are being told that Iraq may not be that big of a factor in the 2008 election.

Unless we see a turn for the worse I think the fighting over the war is pretty much done. Bush is going to get what he wants and the next President will most likely follow a similar strategy to his.

Interestingly support for the war has been on the raise lately. Seems that less news coverage on Iraq equates to less bad news and therefore less desire by Americans to get out at any cost.

I sometimes think that you believe your own posts.

No doubt! If he reads his bullshit posts enough times eventually they start sounding real to him? Must be a neocon thing since their mantra is "It isn't a lie if YOU believe it". Looks forward to the day that they are all rounded up and put into camps like the lepers they are.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how can you say that the democrats are "losing" if democrats themselves are voting against it?

Voting against what?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well that was a stupid comment. I hate indulging you as I know you're just trolling, but "support the troops" has just become a way to stifle legitimate debate. You know better then that... you must know better then that... right?

I'm not stifling any debate. It's not a gray area. Support the troops, whether you agree with their mission or not. It really isn't that hard.

Riiiiiiight. You know why the argument you're making is stupid, you're just too embedded in your hackery to say it. I wish you would just go ahead and get banned already, as you're a useless pile of crap who does nothing other then post troll threads and derail other ones that have some potential for legitimate debate.

You truly are one of the most worthless posters on here, which is quite a statement considering your competition.

Aaahhhhh intelligent debate wins out again!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
0 for 40 and now we have stories popping up that Republicans are being told that Iraq may not be that big of a factor in the 2008 election.

Unless we see a turn for the worse I think the fighting over the war is pretty much done. Bush is going to get what he wants and the next President will most likely follow a similar strategy to his.

Interestingly support for the war has been on the raise lately. Seems that less news coverage on Iraq equates to less bad news and therefore less desire by Americans to get out at any cost.

I sometimes think that you believe your own posts.

What is even more scary is that many of the blame everything on Bush crowd believes their own posts.

The day Bush leaves office all of the problems facing the country will magically go away with him, if it were only so simple.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
0 for 40 and now we have stories popping up that Republicans are being told that Iraq may not be that big of a factor in the 2008 election.

Unless we see a turn for the worse I think the fighting over the war is pretty much done. Bush is going to get what he wants and the next President will most likely follow a similar strategy to his.

Interestingly support for the war has been on the raise lately. Seems that less news coverage on Iraq equates to less bad news and therefore less desire by Americans to get out at any cost.

I sometimes think that you believe your own posts.

What is even more scary is that many of the blame everything on Bush crowd believes their own posts.

The day Bush leaves office all of the problems facing the country will magically go away with him, if it were only so simple.

What I think you already know PJ is if Dems even get 2/3 majority AND POTUS next election cycle, they still wont get anything of significance done, and their excuse will be "Bush fvcked things up so much we cant fix it!"

Just wait and see.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is even more scary is that many of the blame everything on Bush crowd believes their own posts.

What's even more scary is that lying Bushwhacko sycophants like you DON'T believe all the evidence condemning them as LIARS, MURDERERS and TRAITORS. :shocked:

The day Bush leaves office all of the problems facing the country will magically go away with him, if it were only so simple.

Your lying Bushwhacko assholes have screwed the pooch so bad that there are NO good endings for the hell they started, only relatively better and worse dismal choices, and it will take great and honest minds generations to pay off the financial burdenb they've left us.

If only YOU weren't so simple. :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The day Bush leaves office all of the problems facing the country will magically go away with him, if it were only so simple.

Nah, the moonbats will continue to suffer from advanced BDS, blaming GWB in much the same fashion as they do now. Whether they win in '08 or not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What I think you already know PJ is if Dems even get 2/3 majority AND POTUS next election cycle, they still wont get anything of significance done, and their excuse will be "Bush fvcked things up so much we cant fix it!"

Just wait and see.

Oh lookie! It's started already!!!!

Originally posted by: Harvey
Your lying Bushwhacko assholes have screwed the pooch so bad that there are NO good endings for the hell they started, only relatively better and worse dismal choices, and it will take great and honest minds generations to pay off the financial burdenb they've left us.

If only YOU weren't so simple.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What I think you already know PJ is if Dems even get 2/3 majority AND POTUS next election cycle, they still wont get anything of significance done, and their excuse will be "Bush fvcked things up so much we cant fix it!"

Just wait and see.

Oh lookie! It's started already!!!!

Originally posted by: Harvey
Your lying Bushwhacko assholes have screwed the pooch so bad that there are NO good endings for the hell they started, only relatively better and worse dismal choices, and it will take great and honest minds generations to pay off the financial burdenb they've left us.

If only YOU weren't so simple.

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The Moderate Dems oppose the far left dems withdrawl demands.

Indeed, they do. Which is why, although Democrats are the majority now, and the far-left nutjobs are in control of the party faithful, they are batting .000. The vast majority of new Dem seats last election went to moderate, even conservative Democrats. They are far from lock-step with MoveOn and the far-lefties who have destroyed the party of FDR.

The ignorance in this statement is breathtaking.

FDR, compared to modern Democrats, was off the scale to the left. In fact, many people you would currently characterise as "far left" wouldn't match up to his socialist credentials. Very interesting that you would revere FDR in the same post as you decry 'far left nutjobs' who likely aren't as far to the left as he was.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

Holy shit
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

Holy shit
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yep, the moonbats keep deluding themselves with that "we're the middle" BS. :laugh:

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
God, if I had one phrase I never needed to hear again in my entire life it would be "support the troops".

I know, liberals tend to shy away from that phrase quite frequently. :roll:

Maybe they shy away from it because it has no meaning. What does "support" mean? Does it mean throwing the troops into wars based on profit, greed, and power? Does it mean to take them out of harms way? "Support" them while they are stuck occupying a foreign country full of terrorists for no reason?

It has no clear defined meaning and is used as a ploy to guilt the public into supporting anything that "supports the troops" and who the hell wouldn't want to "support the troops"... Even when the actual bill or the actual action DOES NOT support the troops, but unnecessarily puts them in harms way!