fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: I guess i assumed with the "conservative circle jerk" that this site has been referred to, I would be able to have somebody bring up some issues that may have been forgotten. I guess that I was wrong.

It's only referred to as that by the pansies tired of getting their asses kicked for 12 months...seems they're finding that playing defense isn't nearly as fun as playing offense.

As your response to the question seems to be one of Defense you seem to be speaking of yourself, perhaps you could go on offense and answer the initial question.

I already did. Read back.

Sidebar: You need a new avatar. That's the gayest tornado I've ever seen.

so your answer is balancing a budget part way through, only to destroy it?

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: I guess i assumed with the "conservative circle jerk" that this site has been referred to, I would be able to have somebody bring up some issues that may have been forgotten. I guess that I was wrong.

It's only referred to as that by the pansies tired of getting their asses kicked for 12 months...seems they're finding that playing defense isn't nearly as fun as playing offense.

As your response to the question seems to be one of Defense you seem to be speaking of yourself, perhaps you could go on offense and answer the initial question.

I already did. Read back.

Sidebar: You need a new avatar. That's the gayest tornado I've ever seen.

so your answer is balancing a budget part way through, only to destroy it?

Yeah, they destroyed it...all by themselves. Stupid Pubs, huh? :rolleyes:

Apple wrote: Welfare reform was a big success that the republicrats brought WJC kicking and dragging to finally sign.

Welfare reform was a pinnacle campaign promise of WJC in 92.

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: I guess i assumed with the "conservative circle jerk" that this site has been referred to, I would be able to have somebody bring up some issues that may have been forgotten. I guess that I was wrong.

It's only referred to as that by the pansies tired of getting their asses kicked for 12 months...seems they're finding that playing defense isn't nearly as fun as playing offense.

As your response to the question seems to be one of Defense you seem to be speaking of yourself, perhaps you could go on offense and answer the initial question.

I already did. Read back.

Sidebar: You need a new avatar. That's the gayest tornado I've ever seen.

so your answer is balancing a budget part way through, only to destroy it?

Yeah, they destroyed it...all by themselves. Stupid Pubs, huh? :rolleyes:

They had total control.....

zhon44622 wrote:

Apple wrote: Welfare reform was a big success that the republicrats brought WJC kicking and dragging to finally sign.

Welfare reform was a pinnacle campaign promise of WJC in 92.

Which doesn't change the fact in the least that he had to be beaten over the head to sign it.

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: I guess i assumed with the "conservative circle jerk" that this site has been referred to, I would be able to have somebody bring up some issues that may have been forgotten. I guess that I was wrong.

It's only referred to as that by the pansies tired of getting their asses kicked for 12 months...seems they're finding that playing defense isn't nearly as fun as playing offense.

As your response to the question seems to be one of Defense you seem to be speaking of yourself, perhaps you could go on offense and answer the initial question.

I already did. Read back.

Sidebar: You need a new avatar. That's the gayest tornado I've ever seen.

so your answer is balancing a budget part way through, only to destroy it?

Yeah, they destroyed it...all by themselves. Stupid Pubs, huh? :rolleyes:

They had total control.....

Total? Please give us the periods from 1995-2007 that they had 60 votes, or even close to it for that matter.

Obama has total control, junior. Well, for another 24 yours anyway.

I'll make it easy.
History of Legislative and Executive control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

fish82 wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: I guess i assumed with the "conservative circle jerk" that this site has been referred to, I would be able to have somebody bring up some issues that may have been forgotten. I guess that I was wrong.

It's only referred to as that by the pansies tired of getting their asses kicked for 12 months...seems they're finding that playing defense isn't nearly as fun as playing offense.

As your response to the question seems to be one of Defense you seem to be speaking of yourself, perhaps you could go on offense and answer the initial question.

I already did. Read back.

Sidebar: You need a new avatar. That's the gayest tornado I've ever seen.

so your answer is balancing a budget part way through, only to destroy it?

Yeah, they destroyed it...all by themselves. Stupid Pubs, huh? :rolleyes:

They had total control.....

Total? Please give us the periods from 1995-2007 that they had 60 votes, or even close to it for that matter.

Obama has total control, junior. Well, for another 24 yours anyway.

reconciliation...

reconciliation...

Is a perfect illustration of why Conservatives know how to govern and liberals don't.

Obama couldn't get 60 votes for his healthcare plan, and gave away the store to everyone to get to 60.

Bush couldn't get to 60 for his tax cut in 2001, and instead of bribing politicians he told the Democrats to go buzz off and went the reconciliation route needing only 50 votes.

Notice how Republicans got nearly everything they ever wanted when they were in power without 60 votes, and even with 60 votes Obama can't get anything done.

It is because Democrats are scared to threaten reconciliation on anything, much less ever use it.

Where as Republicans threaten and then follow through, thus negating the need to have 60 votes for major pieces of legislation.

And 15 states are considering a law suit over the bribes and kickbacks. Add in the union exemption and most Americans are smelling an awful stench coming from Washington.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A5E720100113

With the MASS victory for Brown last night, the writing is on the wall, DEMS better do an about face or they will get crushed in November. Abandon health care and stop spending will be the only way they will have a chance. "Blame Bush" era is ending, people aren't buying it anymore.

I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of political party affiliation.

dwccrew wrote: I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of political party affiliation.

I expect it to be an insider vs outsider vibe on the campaign trail, and incumbents will be the underdog across the board. Socially moderate to liberal and fiscally conservative seems to be the position to take. The "tea party" candidates are not gonna fly in most of the country and will only help the incumbent Dems in most areas.

http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898

40 more years

40 more years

Yeah, in hindsight it seems about as smart as Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" claim after the 2004 election, only to love total control 2 years later.

It seems the American people have little tolerance right now for arrogant/non-responsive government, and that seems to be a hallmark of single party control as we have been "throwing the bums out" for about 3 election cycles now.