Lucky...

>>>>>>>>>>>>And Jeanne: deficit spending is not a uniquely Republican feature. The new Republicans have merely proven that they can actualy do it better than the Dems of the past. If you're a historian, you're correct, if you are discussing contemporary spending trends, say the last 25+ yeas, you are flat wrong. So from a historical perspective, right, from a logical application of reality, couldn't be more wrong.

Holy crap, this is exactly what Bob Beckel, Democratic Strategist said this morning on the news. When eveyone was anticipating a huge drop in the dow today, he said that no one will give GWB credit for the 7 years of a relatively good economy, but they sure as hell will hang him should any sign of a recession happen in his last year. I'm sorry to hear that you just came out of your coma. Then and now... - Gas $1 gallon.............Gas $3 gallon - Houses $120 median...........Houses $250 median - Debt $5.5T..................Debt $9.2T Most other things way high too. Welcome to 2008, Rumpelstiltskin.

Ah, ok... so basically, all the stuff the Dems do now, then? Right, except that ours are founded. If you were allergic to addessing data that are number-based, we could arrive at that conclusion..... oh, shocker, perhaps that's why you don't address them! DING, DING, DING

>>>>>>>>>>1. The apologists on here will stop whining about "it was only a blowjob". Countered by the Repugs, "it was only a public disclosure of a federal agent, followed by a commutation of prison sentence, full pardon to come." >>>>>>>>>>>2. An end to the incessant outbreaks of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Are we wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>3. It gives the Dem Congress another "first 100 hours" to actually fulfill any of the promises they made. And this time w/o Mr. I lost my veto pen until now, meaning when the WH and congress is stacked with D's, we can start to unfuck the deeds of your party.

>>>>>>>>>>>>It still boggles my mind how our Congress is just fine with not pushing for an Impeachment with staggering numbers like this. The R's were and are pathetic. To follow their lead would only reinforce this, 'they're all the same' idiocy. With a large lead in the House, an impeachment is a lock, but for what, so the party of garbage can clammer how petty the D's are? Not worth it, let it go and get a Dem in office then really fuck you the R's with things like not depriving poor people and other things R's like to do.

And the ratings for the DEMOCRAT congress are even worse...so what's THAT tell ya? Tels me the anus u voted for is vetoing the Dems.

I hate him for not making hateful statement about Reagan .. How can anuone in their right mind not hate the fascist pig we call President Reagan?

Blame it on Bush! Seems to be the in thing to do no matter what the problem is. And there's nothing to support any of his goodies. Nothing, like the 3.8T in debt increase so far during his time, the wiretrapping that he condoned and no the move to exonerate the telecom co's for it, the war lies, etc, etc, etc... He's a victim of, well, THE TRUTH. All guys like you do is to to throw out garbage as you did, avoid any substantive conversations that include data, fact, etc. Perhaps he has one of the lowest ratings in history because he's fucked a lot of people.

Do you mean to ask wy prohibition was a bad idea, or are they weighing it again? Think about it, prohibition was a product of the moralists, just as the war on drugs is also the same. In good moralist hypocritical fashion, they were running drugs themelves and then jacking up the penalty for those who were also doing it. Drugs, booze, etc are for losers IMO, don't touch em, but to criminalize them makes an industry. If they legalized them and sold em cheap the black market would drop out. Just as smokers should b confined to their houses to smoke, if they keep jacking the price up, they will create another market that the drug makers can exploit. The moralists are apparently too stupid to understand this oh so easy phenomenon of how a market works.

No Neal, he's right, you're right, poor people suck and god damnit, SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN HEALTHCARE. Just as us good GOPers know that dropping 2 atomic bombs on women and children was a good idea to coerce their men fighting at war to relent, dissallowing grubby poor people from healthcare i a better idea. You nd me Neal, sing together: FUCK POOR PEOPLE, THIS IS AMERICA GOD DAMNIT!

Yea, Rockefeller is about as much a Dem as Lieberman or you are: John Davison Rockefeller IV (born June 18, 1937), generally known as Jay Rockefeller, has served as a Democratic U.S. Senator from West Virginia since 1985. He was Governor of West Virginia from 1977 to 1985. As a great-grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, he is the only current politician of the prominent six-generation Rockefeller family and the only Democrat in what has been traditionally a staunchly, albeit generally progressive, Republican dynasty.[1] He is related to several prominent Republican supporters and former officeholders: He is a great-grandson of Rhode Island Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, a nephew of banker David Rockefeller and Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller and of former U.S. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, son-in-law of former Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois, cousin of Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Winthrop Paul Rockefeller and former brother-in-law of Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller So shall I post what we got from the last 3 Republicans, 1T debt to now 9.2T debt, wiretapping, a pathetic war an a bevy of other goodies? And Hillary is a bitch? Sorry bud, even many stupid R's have awoken and are not showing up to support the criminals in your party, post all the propaganda you want. But I agree, it wpuld be horrible if poor people were given heakthcare, I mean, if they really wated it they would go get it. So I agree, heakthcare s/b exclusive for the, "good people."

But, what if Hillary is elected? I'm sure she likes to use a strap on every now and then. And she can just go find her local Republican if she wants a sexual deviant to play with.

Amazon, is that you? Anvil, is that you?

Yes, it is hard to understand that they were both indicted of lying to congress, obstruction-type offenses, your boy was actually convicted in a criminal court; is this so hard to understand or are you just posturing? In case you further don't understand, Clinton was politically exonerated, your loser was convicted then had his prison term commuted, full pardon to follow. So was it about a BJ or about lying? Was it about revealing an agent or about lying? See ya later, I'm sure you won't be responding. *yawn* Exonerated by Congress, exonerated by pardon... so what? The person that actually LEAKED the info, Armitage, is STILL out on the street. Just shows that the whole thing was a blatant attempt to get a Repub...and they did. Time for the ABC's of legal terms. Clinton was politically indicted, Libby criminally. Clinton was never convicted by a jury of 100 senators, 67 were needed. Libby was convicted by a jury of 12 (unless that jurisdiction had a few less, but I doubt it), and 100% were needed with a standard of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, or >80-90%. Once more, Clinton was never convicted by using a lower (easier) standard of conviction, Libby was convicted and then let off the hook, just like former Republican president Nixon was let off the hook before the conviction. Is that easy enough for even you to understand? As for who did it, it being the leak, he wasn't convicted of the leak, he was convicted for lying to congress; do we have to go over that again? Your argument is tanatmount to that of the Dems: is it about a BJ or about a lie? Is it about a leak or about a lie? If you need further help to understand this I can make it a little easier, but not much. You can't clammer your, "It was about a lie not a BJ" rhetoric and not expect it be used against you with LIbby. Furthermore, a BJ is harmless, leaking the name of an agent is harmfull, so you would even lose on that front.

Yes, it is hard to understand that they were both indicted of lying to congress, obstruction-type offenses, your boy was actually convicted in a criminal court; is this so hard to understand or are you just posturing? In case you further don't understand, Clinton was politically exonerated, your loser was convicted then had his prison term commuted, full pardon to follow. So was it about a BJ or about lying? Was it about revealing an agent or about lying? See ya later, I'm sure you won't be responding.

The title of this thread is, "Less than one year to go!" So should I take it that you are defending this presidency?

What, no address to this: Funny how Repuklicans think like this: DEM: Can't believe Clinton was impeached for a BJ. REP: He wasn't, he was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction. DEM: Yea, but it was over a BJ, not something important. REP: It was over lying to Congress and obstruction, PERIOD. DEM: Then how is it that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction in a CRIMINL court, yet he then had his jail sontence commuted? REP: Uh, er, well, Clinton lied to Congress... ... weren't we talking about that? PURELY, WELL, PATHETIC....not to mention the loser heading the witchhunt was fucking his secretarty at the time. ____________________________________ Color me shocked

Hi Wendy! Yup, I agree - I just show that it's done on BOTH sides, not just one as some posters would have you believe. Those who's party sucks at the time want to convolute everything. Those who's party is currently considered the least offensive wants to separate the evils. Right now your party is considered the stinker, soon the Dems will unfuck things, time will go by and they will become the villains. Then the Dems will be the ones trying to make one big mixing bowl of the garbage. Truth is, the penduluum swung to the right in the mid-late 70's, now it is time to swing back. Jersey rejecting the DP is a start and I think healthcare will soon follow, we will have some sort of gov funded healthcare, even if in part. Military spending will also subside a bit. Sorry Charlie, I will take the demons from my party and you take the ones from yours, they are quite a bit worse.

TRue and you can tell what demons lurk behind which presidents / parties by the pardons they issue. The righties are sure n love with scum who rip people off, even good, everyday citizens.

And your party, headed by Lott who was, at the time, fucking his secretary, led the asault for the impeachemnt of Clinton for doing what; fucking an aide. Now you think it wasn't enough? Funny how Repuklicans think like this: DEM: Can't believe Clinton was impeached for a BJ. REP: He wasn't, he was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction. DEM: Yea, but it was over a BJ, not something important. REP: It was over lying to Congress and obstruction, PERIOD. DEM: Then how is it that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction in a CRIMINL court, yet he then had his jail sontence commuted? REP: Uh, er, well, Clinton lied to Congress... ... weren't we talking about that? PURELY, WELL, PATHETIC....not to mention the loser heading the witchhunt was fucking his secretarty at the time. I would think any Repubs out there would be intelligent enough to drop the clinton BS after the Lott and Libby fiasco..... but then we are talking about Republicans here

Of the very few citations you post, you can't even do 1 right.

As opposed to

Awesome, all we have to do is stomach a bunch of pardons like, Scooter Libby, the Enron guys and whatever other corporate scum and Republican criminals he can find. Can't wait, hopefully we get another fiscal tranwreck or war monger in there so we can finally finish ourselves off.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Statistics as stated mean nothing in and of themselves. The Republican mantra......

Who was that white woman who was postumously exonerated after a quick trial by an all white jury, judge, def lawyer, then quickly executed for allegedly killing a white man. Fuhrman V Georgia 1972 - moratorium on the DP due to racial inequalities, but I'm sure you have no issue with that.