AP Whining Over Dem Failures - Attacks Republicans

[red states rule]

So there is no bias toward Democrats in the MSM eh? This "news story" is nothing more then a campaign ad


snips

Democrats running Congress for the first time in more than a decade faltered at key points this year as they grudgingly passed important bills opposed by many, or even most, of their House members. When Republicans were in charge, they generally avoided a similar fate.

Republican solidarity also forced House Democrats to abandon a campaign promise to avoid new deficit spending by paying for new programs with tax increases or budget cuts.

In the Senate, Republicans repeatedly used their filibuster powers to block or weaken Democratic proposals. Backed by President Bush's veto threats, the minority party managed to sharply limit the Democrats' influence on a range of issues throughout the year.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDjf1bw6hE6RyU7smF-pMTycWoFQD8TMJPF80

[retiredman]

is talking about your party's solidarity against the democrats in congress a bad thing? Is talking about your party's effective use of filibusters to foil democratic legislative initiatives a negative thing from your perspective? I would think you would be quite pleased with the AP's acknowledgement of your skillful use of the powers of the minority and the democrat's inability to overcome them.

[red states rule]

is talking about your party's solidarity against the democrats in congress a bad thing? Is talking about your party's effective use of filibusters to foil democratic legislative initiatives a negative thing from your perspective? I would think you would be quite pleased with the AP's acknowledgement of your skillful use of the powers of the minority and the democrat's inability to overcome them.

The liberal media (and Dems) called it "minority rights" during the last 12 years and praidssed it

Now that Republicans are doing it - it is an outrage

The "news story" is nothing else but a plea to elect more Dems

[retiredman]

The liberal media (and Dems) called it "minority rights" during the last 12 years and praidssed it

Now that Republicans are doing it - it is an outrage

The "news story" is nothing else but a plea to elect more Dems

there is no outrage in this story. It accurately points out the effectiveness of the republican caucus in congress. they have done their jobs well. I will gladly admit that.

[red states rule]

there is no outrage in this story. It accurately points out the effectiveness of the republican caucus in congress. they have done their jobs well. I will gladly admit that.

I knew you would not see the liberal bias in the story, and the whining the AP put in what was supposed to be a new story

[stephanie]

I love how the Democrats thought they we just going to waltz in and steamroll over the Republicans..

Thank goodness they've been able to hold off most of their socialist agenda, even though the Democrats have used just about every dirty trick they could think of...

Now here's the Democrats...just like usual...
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/Rant.jpg

:laugh2:

[retiredman]

I love how the Democrats thought they we just going to waltz in and steamroll over the Republicans..

Thank goodness they've been able to hold off most of their socialist agenda, even though the Democrats have used just about every dirty trick they could think of...



I agree with your point about the effectiveness of the republicans.... I only suggest that there is no OUTRAGE in this news story. It reports, quite accurately, the effectiveness of your party in thwarting the democrat's legislative agenda.

Honestly stephanie.... do you see some slanted outrage in this news story?

[red states rule]

I love how the Democrats thought they we just going to waltz in and steamroll over the Republicans..

Thank goodness they've been able to hold off most of their socialist agenda, even though the Democrats have used just about every dirty trick they could think of...

Now here's the Democrats...just like usual...
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/Rant.jpg

:laugh2:

I really liked the quotes form Republicans explaining why they were blocking Dem proposals

Oh, THERE WERE NONE!!!!!!!!!!

So much for objective journalism

[stephanie]

I agree with your point about the effectiveness of the republicans.... I only suggest that there is no OUTRAGE in this news story. It reports, quite accurately, the effectiveness of your party in thwarting the democrat's legislative agenda.

Honestly Stephanie.... do you see some slanted outrage in this news story?

You have to have our powers to be able to see the "hidden message"..it's there..:coffee:

[red states rule]

You have to have our powers to be able to see the "hidden message"..it's there..:coffee:

To him it was a fair and balanced article - the liberal way

All Democrats interviewed for the article - and not a single Republican. Does this article count as a campaign contribution to the DNC?

[retiredman]

It certainly paints the democrats in an unflattering light...and it treats the leadership of speaker hastert much more favorably than it does speaker pelosi.... where is the outrage?

[actsnoblemartin]

i love you to death, but your too antagonistc

:salute:


To him it was a fair and balanced article - the liberal way

All Democrats interviewed for the article - and not a single Republican. Does this article count as a campaign contribution to the DNC?

[red states rule]

It certainly paints the democrats in an unflattering light...and it treats the leadership of speaker hastert much more favorably than it does speaker pelosi.... where is the outrage?

Where? How? The entire article is full of excuses for the Dems failures. They are whining and blaming Republicans like you have been doing

The article says "so what if they Democrats have not accomplished anything in their first year? Vote more into office and we will give you more"

[red states rule]

It seems the liberal agenda Dems want is dying a slow death as the end of their first year in power approaches

So many Dems are breaking ranks with Dem leadership - where was this fact in the AP puff piece?


Majority on Hill thwarted on bills
Associated Press
December 23, 2007

Democrats running Congress for the first time in more than a decade faltered at key points this year as they grudgingly passed important bills opposed by many, or even most, of their House members. When Republicans were in charge, they generally avoided a similar fate.

Republican solidarity also forced House Democrats to abandon a campaign promise to avoid new deficit spending by paying for new programs with tax increases or budget cuts.

In the Senate, Republicans repeatedly used their filibuster powers to block or weaken Democratic proposals. Backed by President Bush's veto threats, the minority party managed to sharply limit the Democrats' influence on a range of issues throughout the year.

The Democrats' dilemma was clear in two House votes this past week just before Congress went on vacation.

The House voted 352-64 on Wednesday to delay an expansion of the alternative minimum tax. All 64 "no" votes came from Democrats who wanted the $50 billion cut in anticipated revenues to be offset, either with spending cuts or tax increases on wealthy groups. They were dismayed that the party had abandoned its no-deficit-spending pledge.

The House then voted 272-142 to set aside $70 billion for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly twice as many Democrats voted against the spending as voted for it, because the measure imposed no restrictions on Mr. Bush's war policies.

In all, 174 of the House's 232 Democrats voted against one or both of the high-profile measures, an obvious setback for a party that rose to power last year on voters' discontent with Mr. Bush and the Iraq war.

The Iraq spending bill came to a vote only because Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, refused to embrace the hard-line partisan philosophy of her predecessor. Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, allowed major legislation to reach the full House only if it was backed by a "majority of the majority" — meaning, in his case, most Republicans.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071223/NATION/589231339/1001

[red states rule]

is talking about your party's solidarity against the democrats in congress a bad thing? Is talking about your party's effective use of filibusters to foil democratic legislative initiatives a negative thing from your perspective? I would think you would be quite pleased with the AP's acknowledgement of your skillful use of the powers of the minority and the democrat's inability to overcome them.

Dems have shown their inability to accomplish as little as possible in the time allowed

Dems are determined to drive Congressional approval ratings into the single digits :lol:

[retiredman]

Dems have shown their inability to accomplish as little as possible in the time allowed

Dems are determined to drive Congressional approval ratings into the single digits :lol:


that was not my question. YOu seem to suggest that an article which highlights the inability of democrats to get anything done and the effectiveness of republicans at stopping them is a bad thing from your perspective. Please highlight the sentences in that article that express the "outrage" you claim exists there. THAT is the subject of this thread. Can you back up this assertion or not?

[red states rule]

that was not my question. YOu seem to suggest that an article which highlights the inability of democrats to get anything done and the effectiveness of republicans at stopping them is a bad thing from your perspective. Please highlight the sentences in that article that express the "outrage" you claim exists there. THAT is the subject of this thread. Can you back up this assertion or not?

The tone of the article (without ANY Republican quotes) paints the Dems as the vicitms

You would not se it as you also see the Dems as vicitms

[retiredman]

The tone of the article (without ANY Republican quotes) paints the Dems as the vicitms

You would not se it as you also see the Dems as vicitms

you claimed "outrage". when you gonna show it?

and the democrats are "victims" of a highly coordinated and effective republican legislative caucus. I am envious. If we had been able to have been as effective as a minority party, maybe we could have stopped the war in Iraq! I applaud the effectiveness of the republican congressional delegation.... bat as always, it is not winning them points with the american people who consistently give republicans in congress lower grades than democrats. :lol:

[red states rule]

you claimed "outrage". when you gonna show it?

and the democrats are "victims" of a highly coordinated and effective republican legislative caucus. I am envious. If we had been able to have been as effective as a minority party, maybe we could have stopped the war in Iraq! I applaud the effectiveness of the republican congressional delegatoin.

As usual, you see a left leaning article as unbiased. Dems never are at fault for their failures - it is always someone elses fault

Oh yes MM, keep screaming for surrender as we are winning

[retiredman]

As usual, you see a left leaning article as unbiased. Dems never are at fault for their failures - it is always someone elses fault

Oh yes MM, keep screaming for surrender as we are winning

DO try to stand still while I word-whip you!

I don't see any outrage. You claimed "outrage". Can you provide the quote from the article that expresses outrage at the republicans?

or is maybe widdle RSR the drama queen being a teensy weensy bit melodramatic? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

DO try to stand still while I word-whip you!

I don't see any outrage. You claimed "outrage". Can you provide the quote from the article that expresses outrage at the republicans?

or is maybe widdle RSR the drama queen being a teensy weensy bit melodramatic? :laugh2:

The AP is pissed and they publicsh a puff piece on the Dems inability to get things done.

Again, being a partiasn liberal, this left leaning article seems perfectly balanced to you

Again, no Republicans interviewed in the article - this is fair and balanced to the liberal media

[retiredman]

The AP is pissed and they publicsh a puff piece on the Dems inability to get things done.

Again, being a partiasn liberal, this left leaning article seems perfectly balanced to you

Again, no Republicans interviewed in the article - this is fair and balanced to the liberal media

I am just trying to find this OUTRAGE that you suggested was in the piece. Can you not quote it for me?:laugh2:

The article was about the ineffectiveness of the democrats. THEIR failures to advance their agenda. What would you have a republican interviewed for that article for? To say "Yeah...we've kicked their asses"? The article as about democratic failure and RSR the koolaid soaked melodramatic drama queen sees OUTRAGE. Show me the outrage...or slink away. YOur choice, barrymore.:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

I can't stand this anymore! The reason for the article was in the concluding paragraphs:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says little can be done until and unless more Democrats replace Republicans in the Senate.

"We need to do more" on numerous fronts, he said in his party's weekly radio address Saturday, "but time after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way."

[red states rule]

I can't stand this anymore! The reason for the article was in the concluding paragraphs:

So they are saying they can do less with more?

[red states rule]

and another take on the Dems first year failure


Democrats’ big ideas yielded small results
By Clive Crook

Published: December 23 2007 18:08 | Last updated: December 24 2007 02:56

Checks and balances are all very well, but sometimes you have to wonder. The first session of the 110th Congress came to a close last week in a disorderly crush of half-baked legislation. It was the end of a year that gave the new Democratic leadership little to boast about. Seizing control of House and Senate in the 2006 elections, the Democrats had big ideas about holding the Bush administration to account, forcing a prompt withdrawal from Iraq and radically realigning the government’s domestic priorities. Measured against those early promises, their record has been dismal.

The budget process was an unintelligible mess – not for the first time, admittedly. An omnibus $555bn spending bill, lumping together who knows how many appropriations bills, finally passed. The president gave it his blessing, because it gave him enough of what he wanted – including $70bn additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, that is less than half the extra war funding the administration had asked for, but enough for the army to keep going without another supplemental until June.

The rush of unfinished business also included the long-anticipated fix of the alternative minimum tax. This is a parallel income tax, allowing only limited deductions, initially devised to curb tax avoidance by the very rich. Due to years of neglect and rising incomes, it threatened to drag millions of middle-class taxpayers into its net. Patching it up so that this would not happen cost $53bn in forgone revenue.

This was another defeat for the Democrats because pay-as-you-go rules, which require the money to be made up somewhere else and which the new Congressional majority had promised to abide by, were waived at Republican insistence.

So what has the Democrats’ electoral victory of November 2006 actually yielded? During the year there were 60-odd Iraq-related votes. The pledge to force a withdrawal of American forces went unfulfilled. The new energy bill, also part of the end-of-session rush, does include the first increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards since the 1970s (though new taxes and renewable energy provisions that Democrats also wanted were stripped out). A minimum wage increase survived. There was action on one or two recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and revised ethics rules for Congress. Let us not forget student-loan relief. If you add it all up, and multiply by 10, it is still much less than a seismic shift.

for the complete article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49a1a2a8-b176-11dc-9777-0000779fd2ac.html

[retiredman]

and another take on the Dems first year failure

is this your way of admitting that the first article was also a take on democrat's failures and NOT outrage against republicans as you initially asserted but have been unable to demonstrate?

I thought so. Merry Christmas!

[typomaniac]

you claimed "outrage". when you gonna show it?
Never. Looks like RSR is studying to become the next "Little-Acorn." :puke3:

[red states rule]

is this your way of admitting that the first article was also a take on democrat's failures and NOT outrage against republicans as you initially asserted but have been unable to demonstrate?

I thought so. Merry Christmas!

The writer was pandering for votes for Dems - and it was a sympathy piece painting Dems as victims

Again, not a single quote from Republicans. That is the liberal medias version of fair and balanced

[retiredman]

The writer was pandering for votes for Dems - and it was a sympathy piece painting Dems as victims

Again, not a single quote from Republicans. That is the liberal medias version of fair and balanced

you claimed there was "outrage". Are you retracting that claim?

[red states rule]

you claimed there was "outrage". Are you retracting that claim?

The AP, the liberal media, and the Dems kook base are outraged Reid and Pelosi did not deliver on the long list of promises they made

Again, being a liberal hack, the article seemed fair and balanced een though the reporter never bothered to interview a single Republican for the story

[actsnoblemartin]

:) check your pms


The AP, the liberal media, and the Dems kook base are outraged Reid and Pelosi did not deliver on the long list of promises they made

Again, being a liberal hack, the article seemed fair and balanced een though the reporter never bothered to interview a single Republican for the story

[red states rule]

:) check your pms

I did

It seems MM still can't read an article from the liberal media and see the liberal bias and pandering for votes

Being a liberal make him immune from common sense and basic reasoning

[actsnoblemartin]

political bias is a bad thing indeed, and we already know the media is biased, so those who believe them are not getting the truth


I did

It seems MM still can't read an article from the liberal media and see the liberal bias and pandering for votes

Being a liberal make him immune from common sense and basic reasoning

[red states rule]

political bias is a bad thing indeed, and we already know the media is biased, so those who believe them are not getting the truth

People like MM are not interested in the truth when it goes against their predetermned views and their own facts

[actsnoblemartin]

thats really sad


People like MM are not interested in the truth when it goes against their predetermned views and their own facts

[red states rule]

thats really sad

but you know it is true

Look at him defending the smears and insults his party has made toward the troops

and his blaming Republicans for the Dems failures in Congress

[actsnoblemartin]

aww yes, i remember.

the dems sucked this year.

We will have to see if year #2 is any better, your thougths?


but you know it is true

Look at him defending the smears and insults his party has made toward the troops

and his blaming Republicans for the Dems failures in Congress

[red states rule]

aww yes, i remember.

the dems sucked this year.

We will have to see if year #2 is any better, your thougths?

not if they keep trying to push their kook left aganda of higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, the Terrorist Bill of Rights, and endless investagations in to non-issues

Do you really think they wil give that up?

[actsnoblemartin]

not unless we stop them :)

you cant throw money at a problem, you have to manage it


not if they keep trying to push their kook left aganda of higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, the Terrorist Bill of Rights, and endless investagations in to non-issues

Do you really think they wil give that up?

[red states rule]

not unless we stop them :)

you cant throw money at a problem, you have to manage it

but to the liberal media and libs like MM, the Dem platform seem perfectly reasonable.

Those who oppose that platform are meanspirited and selfish to want to keep more of the money they ear

After all, it is all about the "common good" with them

[actsnoblemartin]

their is a fine line between common good and arrogance.

Obviously those who need help should get it, but those who dont, should not.

its not complicated.


but to the liberal media and libs like MM, the Dem platform seem perfectly reasonable.

Those who oppose that platform are meanspirited and selfish to want to keep more of the money they ear

After all, it is all about the "common good" with them

[red states rule]

their is a fine line between common good and arrogance.

Obviously those who need help should get it, but those who dont, should not.

its not complicated.

Arrogance is what makes a liberal and a RINO

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly.


Arrogance is what makes a liberal and a RINO

[red states rule]

exactly.

Arrogance is part of their soul Martin

[actsnoblemartin]

arrogance is a mistake and will catch up with them


Arrogance is part of their soul Martin

[red states rule]

arrogance is a mistake and will catch up with them

It has sunk them before and it will again

[red states rule]

and how do libs see the role of government?

What are you going to do for me?


Ponytail Guy Lives: 'How Are You Going to Fix My Life?'
By Mark Finkelstein | December 24, 2007 - 20:13 ET

You remember Ponytail Guy, who during a 1992 presidential townhall pathetically implored the candidates to "treat us as your children." I don't know what's become of Ponytail Guy, but his Big Mommy Government-loving spirit was celebrated on CNN this evening.

At 5:40 PM ET on the Situation Room, anchor Suzanne Malveaux asked congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin what she was seeing out on the Dem campaign trail in Iowa that the TV cameras might be missing.

JESSICA YELLIN: [Iowa voters] really take this process as a legitimate experience and feel entitled to ask "how are you going to fix my life?"

Yellin said she found the approach "refreshing." I'd say that asking Hillary Clinton -- or any politician for that matter -- to "fix my life" is foolhardy . . . and sad
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/24/spirit-ponytail-guy-celebrated-cnn

[retiredman]

The AP, the liberal media, and the Dems kook base are outraged Reid and Pelosi did not deliver on the long list of promises they made

Again, being a liberal hack, the article seemed fair and balanced een though the reporter never bothered to interview a single Republican for the story

MY take on the article is not the question here...it is YOURS. YOU are the one who claimed that the article demonstrated MSM OUTRAGE (your word, not mine) at the Republican party.

All I am asking is for you to cut and paste (and we all know how well you can do that) the sentence or sentences from the original article that show the OUTRAGE that you have claimed is contained therein.

[red states rule]

MY take on the article is not the question here...it is YOURS. YOU are the one who claimed that the article demonstrated MSM OUTRAGE (your word, not mine) at the Republican party.

All I am asking is for you to cut and paste (and we all know how well you can do that) the sentence or sentences from the original article that show the OUTRAGE that you have claimed is contained therein.

The liberal media is outraged abd showed it in the article. As Kathy said, read the last 2 paragraphs, or have you mnot finished your hop.com course as of today?

[red states rule]

In case you have not finished your hop.com course


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says little can be done until and unless more Democrats replace Republicans in the Senate.

"We need to do more" on numerous fronts, he said in his party's weekly radio address Saturday, "but time after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way."

[retiredman]

repeating the same, ineffective arguments over and over again will not turn them into winners. If you are persisting in your claim that those last two paragraphs depict OUTRAGE on the part of the AP or the MSM, then clearly, you either are clueless about the meaning of the word "OUTRAGE" is, or you you clueless about the entire concept of ethics and honor, or both.

I am guessin' "both". :laugh2:

[Yurt]

repeating the same, ineffective arguments over and over again will not turn them into winners. If you are persisting in your claim that those last two paragraphs depict OUTRAGE on the part of the AP or the MSM, then clearly, you either are clueless about the meaning of the word "OUTRAGE" is, or you you clueless about the entire concept of ethics and honor, or both.

I am guessin' "both". :laugh2:

what is:

ethics and honor

to you?

[retiredman]

what is:

ethics and honor

to you?

ethics: moral principles of conduct

honor: integrity in word and deed

[actsnoblemartin]

A Problem as I see it..

If a democrat or republican takes a good, moral, and/or correct position on an issue, or does an action as an extension of it, he or she 9/10 wont get credit from the other party, or the other parties voters, or those with differing views because god forbid, we acknowledge someone we disagree with doing the right thing, he is just a donkey or an elephant.

[red states rule]

repeating the same, ineffective arguments over and over again will not turn them into winners. If you are persisting in your claim that those last two paragraphs depict OUTRAGE on the part of the AP or the MSM, then clearly, you either are clueless about the meaning of the word "OUTRAGE" is, or you you clueless about the entire concept of ethics and honor, or both.

I am guessin' "both". :laugh2:

Not at all. You are the one who is clueless. Your beloved Dems are falling on their asses, and you and the liberal media are looking for someone else to blame

Both of you are outrages Republicans wil not roll over and give Reid and Pelosi a free hand to do as they damn well please

[typomaniac]

A Problem as I see it..

If a democrat or republican takes a good, moral, and/or correct position on an issue, or does an action as an extension of it, he or she 9/10 wont get credit from the other party, or the other parties voters, or those with differing views because god forbid, we acknowledge someone we disagree with doing the right thing, he is just a donkey or an elephant.

You have people like Rush and Karl Rove (and the echoes from their flock members like RSR) to thank for that.

[retiredman]

Not at all. You are the one who is clueless. Your beloved Dems are falling on their asses, and you and the liberal media are looking for someone else to blame

Both of you are outrages Republicans wil not roll over and give Reid and Pelosi a free hand to do as they damn well please

still having a tough time finding those instances of "OUTRAGE" in that article you cut and pasted, eh?

Why am I not surprised? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

still having a tough time finding those instances of "OUTRAGE" in that article you cut and pasted, eh?

Why am I not surprised? :laugh2:

Agian, you would not admit it even if the facts did get through to your blue brain

Dems and the liberal media are blaming other for their failures and they are angry Republicans did not roll over and allow Dems to do as they damn well please

[stephanie]

Agian, you would not admit it even if the facts did get through to your blue brain

Dems and the liberal media are blaming other for their failures and they are angry Republicans did not roll over and allow Dems to do as they damn well please

I really don't think I would play some peoples games...
you know what I mean??:cheers2:

[red states rule]

I really don't think I would play some peoples games...
you know what I mean??:cheers2:

It is fun to slap him around stephanie

[retiredman]

Agian, you would not admit it even if the facts did get through to your blue brain

Dems and the liberal media are blaming other for their failures and they are angry Republicans did not roll over and allow Dems to do as they damn well please

where does the Associated Press express any "outrage"? If it were there, one would think the king of cutting and pasting would just slap a sentence down and prove his point!

and, in fact, the whining the democrats are doing now sounds an awful lot like the whining the republicans were doing back when Bill Frist was so upset at the parliamentary moves of the minority senate democrats, that he was trying to toss out the senate rules concerning filibusters that you republicans are using to such advantage now that YOU are in the minority. It's all just political posturing from both sides of the aisle and the AP reports on it.... there may be some feigned outrage, but it is CERTAINLY not on the part of the main stream media in general or the associated press in specific.

[red states rule]

where does the Associated Press express any "outrage"? If it were there, one would think the king of cutting and pasting would just slap a sentence down and prove his point!

and, in fact, the whining the democrats are doing now sounds an awful lot like the whining the republicans were doing back when Bill Frist was so upset at the parliamentary moves of the minority senate democrats, that he was trying to toss out the senate rules concerning filibusters that you republicans are using to such advantage now that YOU are in the minority. It's all just political posturing from both sides of the aisle and the AP reports on it.... there may be some feigned outrage, but it is CERTAINLY not on the part of the main stream media in general or the associated press in specific.

The lioberal media was giddy when Dem took over. They ran glowing stories on how they would change things, roll back the Bush tax cuts and surrender in Iraq

Now they are pissed over the Dems long list of failures, As the Dems poll numbers tank, they now make excuses and beg voters to vote more Dems into power

[retiredman]

The lioberal media was giddy when Dem took over. They ran glowing stories on how they would change things, roll back the Bush tax cuts and surrender in Iraq

Now they are pissed over the Dems long list of failures, As the Dems poll numbers tank, they now make excuses and beg voters to vote more Dems into power

I guess you can't really find that "OUTRAGE" you were talking about....

why not just say so?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I guess you can't really find that "OUTRAGE" you were talking about....

why not just say so?:laugh2:

The outrage is there - go here first - www.hop.com

then read the article again - without your blinders on

[retiredman]

The outrage is there - go here first - www.hop.com

then read the article again - without your blinders on

you moronic attempt at humor wasn't funny the first ten times you used it. Why can't you just cut and paste the sentence that shows OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press? You made the claim. Why are you so fucking scared of backing it up? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

you moronic attempt at humor wasn't funny the first ten times you used it. Why can't you just cut and paste the sentence that shows OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press? You made the claim. Why are you so fucking scared of backing it up? :laugh2:

Did you use the link? If you did you might be able to see how the writer was pissed and begging for the masses to vote or the Dems

You are the moron MM - and you prove it on a daily basis

[retiredman]

Did you use the link? If you did you might be able to see how the writer was pissed and begging for the masses to vote or the Dems

You are the moron MM - and you prove it on a daily basis


cut and paste one sentence that shows the Associated Press's OUTRAGE. That's all I ask. You made the claim. back it up. if you can.

[red states rule]

cut and paste one sentence that shows the Associated Press's OUTRAGE. That's all I ask. You made the claim. back it up. if you can.

the last 2 paragraphs moron

even Kathy pointed that out to you several pages ago

[retiredman]

last two paragraphs from your article: Please highlight the words that show that the Associated Press is outraged about anything:

"GOP senators used vote-delaying filibusters this year to thwart House and Senate majorities on efforts to offset the $50 billion cut in projected revenue from the alternative minimum tax; allow the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices; impose new taxes on oil companies; require more use of renewable fuels in generating electricity; grant congressional representation to the District of Columbia; and require more rest time from troops deployed to Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says little can be done until and unless more Democrats replace Republicans in the Senate.

"We need to do more" on numerous fronts, he said in his party's weekly radio address Saturday, "but time after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way."

[red states rule]

Still having trouble with your reading comprehension?

[retiredman]

just hit quote button for post #69 and then just bold the sentences that show the outrage of the associated press. go ahead. I made it really easy for you. quit running away.

[red states rule]

just hit quote button for post #69 and then just bold the sentences that show the outrage of the associated press. go ahead. I made it really easy for you. quit running away.

It has been pointed out not only be me, but others as well

To you, it seems very reasonable to balme others for the Dems failures

[retiredman]

It has been pointed out not only be me, but others as well

To you, it seems very reasonable to balme others for the Dems failures

Harry Reid blamed the cohesiveness of the republican caucus.

THAT is what is discussed in the last two paragraphs.
YOU claimed that the article showed the OUTRAGE of the ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Hit the quote button on post #69 and bold those sentences that display the OUTRAGE of the AP... you claimed it...back it up or retract it. your pick.

[red states rule]

Harry Reid blamed the cohesiveness of the republican caucus.

THAT is what is discussed in the last two paragraphs.
YOU claimed that the article showed the OUTRAGE of the ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Hit the quote button on post #69 and bold those sentences that display the OUTRAGE of the AP... you claimed it...back it up or retract it. your pick.

Th AP was outraged, it showed in the bias of the article, and the fact they did not include any remarks from Republicans

Like you they are outraged Republicans did not roll over for the Dems

The entire artcile was writtren to paint Dems as victims

[retiredman]

Th AP was outraged, it showed in the bias of the article, and the fact they did not include any remarks from Republicans

Like you they are outraged Republicans did not roll over for the Dems

The entire artcile was writtren to paint Dems as victims

so...you really can't find the OUTRAGE??" Why not just say so??

I asked you where it was...you said the last two paragraphs...I copied them for your ease of use.... you still can't just highlight the outrage, you now just claim that the outrage is implied???? LOL:laugh2:

and no liberals expected the republicans to roll over for anything...we all knew that they would dig their heels in and use every parliamentary trick they could find.... just like we did when we were in the minority.

[red states rule]

so...you really can't find the OUTRAGE??" Why not just say so??

I asked you where it was...you said the last two paragraphs...I copied them for your ease of use.... you still can't just highlight the outrage, you now just claim that the outrage is implied???? LOL:laugh2:

and no liberals expected the republicans to roll over for anything...we all knew that they would dig their heels in and use every parliamentary trick they could find.... just like we did when we were in the minority.

Much like John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry did not call the troops terrorists and uneducated, the AP did not show any outrage in this pity piece for the Dems

Sorry MM, the outrage is there for all to see - as Kerry's smears were clear and reflected how he reaaly feels about the troops

[waterrescuedude2000]

Did you use the link? If you did you might be able to see how the writer was pissed and begging for the masses to vote or the Dems

You are the moron MM - and you prove it on a daily basis

Yes and he does it well on a daily basis doesn't he????

[red states rule]

Yes and he does it well on a daily basis doesn't he????

He has a Phd in the subject

[waterrescuedude2000]

Harry Reid blamed the cohesiveness of the republican caucus.

THAT is what is discussed in the last two paragraphs.
YOU claimed that the article showed the OUTRAGE of the ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Hit the quote button on post #69 and bold those sentences that display the OUTRAGE of the AP... you claimed it...back it up or retract it. your pick.


Yes and I can tell you Reid is nothing but a pussy. He wants to surrender every chance he gets and I say the only thing that retard needs to surrender is his senate seat. Reid does not speak for this native Nevadan. I was born and raised here. I guarantee in 2010 he will not get re elected he has dug himself too deep now. We had a nice protest at his office a while back go look at you tube and see the video. Or in a few I will post it in here.

[red states rule]

Yes and I can tell you Reid is nothing but a pussy. He wants to surrender every chance he gets and I say the only thing that retard needs to surrender is his senate seat. Reid does not speak for this native Nevadan. I was born and raised here. I guarantee in 2010 he will not get re elected he has dug himself too deep now. We had a nice protest at his office a while back go look at you tube and see the video. Or in a few I will post it in here.

Reid has led the Dem Senate into the toilet when it comes to approval ratings. I read in a poll where he is in the low 30's in his home state

Much like San Fran Nan is in her district

[waterrescuedude2000]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMrfy0d01sE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMrfy0d01sE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMrfy0d01sE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMrfy0d01sE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Lets hope folks have a long memory at reelection time

[retiredman]

Much like John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry did not call the troops terrorists and uneducated, the AP did not show any outrage in this pity piece for the Dems

Sorry MM, the outrage is there for all to see - as Kerry's smears were clear and reflected how he reaaly feels about the troops

quit spinning and running away. If you can't highlight the OUTRAGE expressed by the AP in the two paragraphs where you yourself said that such OUTRAGE resided, just fucking say so.

[Chessplayer]

is talking about your party's solidarity against the democrats in congress a bad thing? Is talking about your party's effective use of filibusters to foil democratic legislative initiatives a negative thing from your perspective? I would think you would be quite pleased with the AP's acknowledgement of your skillful use of the powers of the minority and the democrat's inability to overcome them.

Wasn't it a BAD thing mentoined here when the Democrats were the minority and used filibusters to overcome Republican initiatives?

[retiredman]

Wasn't it a BAD thing mentoined here when the Democrats were the minority and used filibusters to overcome Republican initiatives?


the republicans hated it so much they nearly shot themselves in the foot by changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster option for the minority.

[trobinett]

the republicans hated it so much they nearly shot themselves in the foot by changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster option for the minority.

So, just so I get this right, for once, the Republicans DID accomplish something?

[retiredman]

So, just so I get this right, for once, the Republicans DID accomplish something?


of course...the AP story was reporting on the democrat's admissions that the republicans had stifled their legislative initiatives.

Despite RSR's wriggling and spinning, there is NOTHING in that article that expresses OUTRAGE on the part of ANYONE - least of all the Associated Press - in the successes of the republican minority. Reid acknowledges their success....begrudgingly...but there is no OUTRAGE anywhere in the article.

[red states rule]

So, just so I get this right, for once, the Republicans DID accomplish something?

They prevented Dems from raising taxes, made them back down from surrender in Iraq, reducing the pork and over spending, and held them accountable to what they said they were going to do.

[typomaniac]

They prevented Dems from raising taxes, made them back down from surrender in Iraq, reducing the pork and over spending, and held them accountable to what they said they were going to do.

This is getting truly pathetic.

As hard as this is for you, just man up and admit you didn't see the word outrage. Jesus Fucking Christ... :rolleyes:

You look like even more of a pussy than usual now.

[gabosaurus]

Poor RSR. Not happy unless he can find some way to bash libs and dems.
RSR needs to hook up with Stephanie. They would be very happy together.

[Sir Evil]

Poor RSR. Not happy unless he can find some way to bash libs and dems.
RSR needs to hook up with Stephanie. They would be very happy together.

Like you don't sign in to bash republicans.
http://i5.tinypic.com/6shekio.gif

[Kathianne]

Like you don't sign in to bash republicans.
http://i5.tinypic.com/6shekio.gif

Yup, right now Gabby and Pale have a love fest going.

[gabosaurus]

Hard to argue with someone who makes sense on certain issues.
Plus, Pale is a manly man.

[retiredman]

They prevented Dems from raising taxes, made them back down from surrender in Iraq, reducing the pork and over spending, and held them accountable to what they said they were going to do.

you ever gonna show us the outrage from the AP in those laswt two paragraphs like you said?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

This is getting truly pathetic.

As hard as this is for you, just man up and admit you didn't see the word outrage. Jesus Fucking Christ... :rolleyes:

You look like even more of a pussy than usual now.

You are the resident expert at being pathetic.

The word outrage was not used - the liberal writer was outraged over the fialures of the Dems and blamed Republicans for their failures

[red states rule]

you ever gonna show us the outrage from the AP in those laswt two paragraphs like you said?:laugh2:

Again, to you the article was perfectly fair and balanced. No Republicans quotes and gave the Dems a pass for their failures

Hell, you could have wrote the article given the left wing slant

[retiredman]

Again, to you the article was perfectly fair and balanced. No Republicans quotes and gave the Dems a pass for their failures

Hell, you could have wrote the article given the left wing slant


whoever wrote the article may have written it from some perspective...clearly it was all about democrats admitting that the republicans had thwarted their efforts...but that does NOT change the FACT there there is no fucking OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press in that article.

That is what you claimed...it was flatulent rhetoric without basis in fact the when you first stated it and you do not have the grace to admit that you overstated your case.

[red states rule]

whoever wrote the article may have written it from some perspective...clearly it was all about democrats admitting that the republicans had thwarted their efforts...but that does NOT change the FACT there there is no fucking OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press in that article.

That is what you claimed...it was flatulent rhetoric without basis in fact the when you first stated it and you do not have the grace to admit that you overstated your case.

MM you have even said Chris Matthews does not have a liberal view - or most of the media for that matter :laugh2:

[retiredman]

MM you have even said Chris Matthews does not have a liberal view - or most of the media for that matter :laugh2:

why don't you just admit that there is no OUTRAGE expressed by the AP in that article?

[red states rule]

why don't you just admit that there is no OUTRAGE expressed by the AP in that article?

They are outraged at the Dems failures as much as you are - and they blame Republicans just as you do

[retiredman]

They are outraged at the Dems failures as much as you are - and they blame Republicans just as you do


funny that you can't simply highlight the sentences that express that "outrage". why do you continually run away from your silly statement? Just prove me wrong by quoting the "outrage". It is a strong word. back it up.

pussy

[red states rule]

funny that you can't simply highlight the sentences that express that "outrage". why do you continually run away from your silly statement? Just prove me wrong by quoting the "outrage". It is a strong word. back it up.

pussy

The entire tone of the article MM is pure outrage - but you are to liberal to se it. Like most libs it seems perfectly reasonable, much like Little Adolf from Iran seems a perfectly reasonable man to you and your fellow kooks on the left

[retiredman]

The entire tone of the article MM is pure outrage - but you are to liberal to se it. Like most libs it seems perfectly reasonable, much like Little Adolf from Iran seems a perfectly reasonable man to you and your fellow kooks on the left


outrage? nobody else sees that outrage except you, RSR.... and you cannot show me a single sentence where outrage is expressed.

and I don't think that the little prick from Iran is reasonable at all, nor have I ever even implied that he was. YOur mention of him is simply a smokescreen to avoid admitting that you cannot back up your own words.

pathetic.

[red states rule]

outrage? nobody else sees that outrage except you, RSR.... and you cannot show me a single sentence where outrage is expressed.

and I don't think that the little prick from Iran is reasonable at all, nor have I ever even implied that he was. YOur mention of him is simply a smokescreen to avoid admitting that you cannot back up your own words.

pathetic.

To you, the Gen Betray US ad was not an attack of a 5 star General

and Sen Durbin did not compare our troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot

If it benefits the Dems, the ends do justify the means to you

[stephanie]

Poor RSR. Not happy unless he can find some way to bash libs and dems.
RSR needs to hook up with Stephanie. They would be very happy together.

You're such a Special "little girl"..
It just warms my heart..:dance:

[retiredman]

To you, the Gen Betray US ad was not an attack of a 5 star General

and Sen Durbin did not compare our troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot

If it benefits the Dems, the ends do justify the means to you

quit tap dancing. show me the OUTRAGE on the part of the AP or admit that there is none.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

quit tap dancing. show me the OUTRAGE on the part of the AP or admit that there is none.:laugh2:

Your perspective is very biased and very liberal. That is why you continue to deny the truth about the article

When it comes to tap dancing you are the expert. After all you said how the word betray did not mean Gen. David Petraeus did not betray his country - it has other meanings

[retiredman]

Your perspective is very biased and very liberal. That is why you continue to deny the truth about the article

When it comes to tap dancing you are the expert. After all you said how the word betray did not mean Gen. David Petraeus did not betray his country - it has other meanings

I am not tap dancing a bit here. YOU were the one who claimed the article showed the OUTRAGE of the Associated Press, yet, when pressed, you have continually failed in your efforts to show that outrage.

pathetic

[red states rule]

I am not tap dancing a bit here. YOU were the one who claimed the article showed the OUTRAGE of the Associated Press, yet, when pressed, you have continually failed in your efforts to show that outrage.

pathetic

You are pathetic MM - saying someone should be shot becuase he has a different opinion then you do on an issue

[retiredman]

You are pathetic MM - saying someone should be shot becuase he has a different opinion then you do on an issue


I am saying that enemies of the constitution of the united states here within our own shores should be shot. Every member of the US military swears to uphold the constitution against just such enemies as you.

[red states rule]

I am saying that enemies of the constitution of the united states here within our own shores should be shot. Every member of the US military swears to uphold the constitution against just such enemies as you.

But when we capture terrorists we have to ensure their comfort

The liberal thought process is a sight to behold

[retiredman]

But when we capture terrorists we have to ensure their comfort

The liberal thought process is a sight to behold

I have NEVER said any such thing. YOU, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated your desire to ignore - and thus piss upon - article VI of our constitution.

you are a domestic enemy.

[red states rule]

I have NEVER said any such thing. YOU, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated your desire to ignore - and thus piss upon - article VI of our constitution.

you are a domestic enemy.

Oh you have. You want to ensure the rights of terrorists - but want to murder US citizens

[retiredman]

Oh you have. You want to ensure the rights of terrorists - but want to murder US citizens

do you, or do you not, admit that you wish to ignore article VI of the constitution?

[red states rule]

do you, or do you not, admit that you wish to ignore article VI of the constitution?

If it comes down to stopping terrorist attacks or honoring a piece of paper a terrorist signed (and has no intention mof honoring) I saide with stopping the terrorist attack

What would you do?

[retiredman]

If it comes down to stopping terrorist attacks or honoring a piece of paper a terrorist signed (and has no intention mof honoring) I saide with stopping the terrorist attack

What would you do?

why can't you just answer a simple question? do you, or do you not, advocate ignoring Article VI of the US Constitution?

[red states rule]

why can't you just answer a simple question? do you, or do you not, advocate ignoring Article VI of the US Constitution?

You are a putz

I answer the question and you still keep asking it over and over

We know you would rather have the attack then use all methods to stop it

Party before country with you as usual

[retiredman]

You are a putz

I answer the question and you still keep asking it over and over

We know you would rather have the attack then use all methods to stop it

Party before country with you as usual


your answer is that you DO advocate pissing on Article VI. I find that icredibly traitorous.

[red states rule]

your answer is that you DO advocate pissing on Article VI. I find that icredibly traitorous.

Defending the US is now traitorous? My am I glad you are no longer in uniform

[retiredman]

Defending the US is now traitorous? My am I glad you are no longer in uniform


you advocate ignoring the constitution. that is fact.

[red states rule]

you advocate ignoring the constitution. that is fact.

Oh really? You would defend the rights of terrorist while having US citizens shot, and killed in terrorist attacks

[retiredman]

Oh really? You would defend the rights of terrorist while having US citizens shot, and killed in terrorist attacks

I have NEVER defended the rights of terrorists. I have only pointed out that you have admitted that you would piss on the constitution.

domestic enemy. traitor.

[red states rule]

I have NEVER defended the rights of terrorists. I have only pointed out that you have admitted that you would piss on the constitution.

domestic enemy. traitor.

Yea, the same way you said Dems did not want to raise taxes on all wage earners, and how John Kerry did not call the troops terrorists

You are a piss poor liar MM

[retiredman]

Yea, the same way you said Dems did not want to raise taxes on all wage earners, and how John Kerry did not call the troops terrorists

You are a piss poor liar MM

you are an admitted domestic enemy of the constitution. you have stated that you are perfectly willing to ignore article VI.

no way to get around that!

:lol:

[red states rule]

you are an admitted domestic enemy of the constitution. you have stated that you are perfectly willing to ignore article VI.

no way to get around that!

:lol:

To save the lives of US citizens (even your sorry ass) damn right I will do what is needed

You on the other hand, issue death threats to people who dare to disagree with you, and coddle terrorists rather then save the lives of Americans and US troops

[retiredman]

To save the lives of US citizens (even your sorry ass) damn right I will do what is needed

You on the other hand, issue death threats to people who dare to disagree with you, and coddle terrorists rather then save the lives of Americans and US troops

so....you admit that you will piss on the constitution if you think that is what is needed?

that is all I needed to hear.

traitor.

[red states rule]

so....you admit that you will piss on the constitution if you think that is what is needed?

that is all I needed to hear.

traitor.

Should you be up this late - you are goofy then normal tonight

[retiredman]

Should you be up this late - you are goofy then normal tonight


spin all you want. You are on record tonight advocating ignoring Article VI of the constitution. I never thought I would see you come right out and admit it.

[red states rule]

spin all you want. You are on record tonight advocating ignoring Article VI of the constitution. I never thought I would see you come right out and admit it.

Usiing your method of word twisting and spinning - I guess so

But when it comes to saving lives of Americans and our troops you would do nothing but make sure the UN is pleased and the terrorists are portected

Meanwhile others die

[retiredman]

Usiing your method of word twisting and spinning - I guess so

But when it comes to saving lives of Americans and our troops you would do nothing but make sure the UN is pleased and the terrorists are portected

Meanwhile others die


there is no spinning or twisting. you advocate ignoring article VI. fact.

[red states rule]

there is no spinning or twisting. you advocate ignoring article VI. fact.

If you say so windbag

You side with the nations enemies to score cheap political points - nothing new in that

[retiredman]

If you say so windbag

You side with the nations enemies to score cheap political points - nothing new in that


getting you to admit that you advocate pissing on the constitution is certainly not a cheap political point.

It pretty much undermines anything else you have to say.

are you aware of the oath all members of the military take?

It states:

I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

and here you are, admitting to the fact that you would piss on the constitution.

you are, by definition, an enemy of the constitution.

[red states rule]

getting you to admit that you advocate pissing on the constitution is certainly not a cheap political point.

It pretty much undermines anything else you have to say.

are you aware of the oath all members of the military take?

It states:

I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

and here you are, admitting to the fact that you would piss on the constitution.

you are, by definition, an enemy of the constitution.

I am glad you are not in uniform right now - you would ignore that oath and go out of your way to coddle the terrorists as their boms go off killing our servicemen and women and civilians

Then blame Pres Bush for the attacks

[retiredman]

I am glad you are not in uniform right now - you would ignore that oath and go out of your way to coddle the terrorists as their boms go off killing our servicemen and women and civilians

Then blame Pres Bush for the attacks

I would, and never did ignore my oath to protect and defend the constitution...against enemies both foreign - like AQ...and domestic - like YOU.

[red states rule]

I would, and never did ignore my oath to protect and defend the constitution...against enemies both foreign - like AQ...and domestic - like YOU.

But you would rather protect the rights of terrorists then stop the attacks.

Caught in yet another lie MM

[retiredman]

But you would rather protect the rights of terrorists then stop the attacks.

Caught in yet another lie MM

no. I merely suggest that I would support and defend the constitution while you would piss on it. I would never do anything to allow terrorists to attack america.

[red states rule]

no. I merely suggest that I would support and defend the constitution while you would piss on it. I would never do anything to allow terrorists to attack america.

Execpt coddle them, make sure Useless Treaties are observed, and they have all US Constitutional rights extended to them

By that time the attacks are history and the bodies are being buried

[retiredman]

Execpt coddle them, make sure Useless Treaties are observed, and they have all US Constitutional rights extended to them

By that time the attacks are history and the bodies are being buried

what you refer to as "useless treaties", the constitution refers to as "the law of the land".

And I have NEVER suggested or advocated that all US constitutional rights be extended to anyone who is not a US citizen. NEVER.

try again, loser.

[red states rule]

what you refer to as "useless treaties", the constitution refers to as "the law of the land".

And I have NEVER suggested or advocated that all US constitutional rights be extended to anyone who is not a US citizen. NEVER.

try again, loser.

Your lies will not change the facts. You are nothing more then a 2008 version of neville chamberlain

[retiredman]

Your lies will not change the facts. You are nothing more then a 2008 version of neville chamberlain

it is certainly not a LIE that you have advocated ignoring article VI of the constitution. it is fact.

[red states rule]

it is certainly not a LIE that you have advocated ignoring article VI of the constitution. it is fact.

By all means, put your party and the UN ahead of the country MM. That is your top priority in your life anyway

[retiredman]

By all means, put your party and the UN ahead of the country MM. That is your top priority in your life anyway

I have always put defending the constitution above party...clearly, you do not.

[actsnoblemartin]

The u.n. should not be responsible for our safety or sovereignty, and yes... I think in most cases the u.s. should keep it words, but the u.s. she cannot trust the u.n.

The u.s. must be able to modify and dis continue bad agreements, agreements that hinder it from protecting her citizens.

It cant be a moral absolute.


I have always put defending the constitution about party...clearly, you do not.

[LuvRPgrl]

I have always put defending the constitution about party...clearly, you do not.

OK, Freudian slip?? YOU SAID it "...the Constitution about Party....",,, which party??? Of course your favorite, the Libecrats.

Regarding this

" The Iraq spending bill came to a vote only because Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, refused to embrace the hard-line partisan philosophy of her predecessor. Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, allowed major legislation to reach the full House only if it was backed by a "majority of the majority" — meaning, in his case, most Republicans.",

It is clearly slanted to make the Dems (Libecrats) look good and the Republicans look mean and bad.


Actually, in all honesty, I do believe that YOU believe YOU defend the Constitution. However, in order to get around it, cuz you dont REALLY support it as written, you agree to the "iiving and breathing" version of it, which means you can distort it to say whatever you want. If you, or any other liberal truly wanted to defend the Constitution, you would have to change your stance to support original intent, instead of side stepping it about claims that it was written so long ago....

[LuvRPgrl]

Wasn't it a BAD thing mentoined here when the Democrats were the minority and used filibusters to overcome Republican initiatives?

Yes, but that is irrelevant. What is imortant is how the AP presented it at the time, compared to how they are presenting it this time. Fair and balanced? I think not. !!!

[red states rule]

OK, Freudian slip?? YOU SAID it "...the Constitution about Party....",,, which party??? Of course your favorite, the Libecrats.

Regarding this

" The Iraq spending bill came to a vote only because Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, refused to embrace the hard-line partisan philosophy of her predecessor. Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, allowed major legislation to reach the full House only if it was backed by a "majority of the majority" — meaning, in his case, most Republicans.",

It is clearly slanted to make the Dems (Libecrats) look good and the Republicans look mean and bad.


Actually, in all honesty, I do believe that YOU believe YOU defend the Constitution. However, in order to get around it, cuz you dont REALLY support it as written, you agree to the "iiving and breathing" version of it, which means you can distort it to say whatever you want. If you, or any other liberal truly wanted to defend the Constitution, you would have to change your stance to support original intent, instead of side stepping it about claims that it was written so long ago....

Every once in awhile MM does post a fact

This was one of those rare happenings

[retiredman]

The u.n. should not be responsible for our safety or sovereignty, and yes... I think in most cases the u.s. should keep it words, but the u.s. she cannot trust the u.n.

The u.s. must be able to modify and dis continue bad agreements, agreements that hinder it from protecting her citizens.

It cant be a moral absolute.
Where have I EVER suggested that the UN be responsible for our safety or sovereignty???

I have no problem with the United States abrogating our participation in any treaty...but there is a process for doing so.....just deciding one day to quit abiding by them is NOT that process.

[red states rule]

Where have I EVER suggested that the UN be responsible for our safety or sovereignty???

I have no problem with the United States abrogating our participation in any treaty...but there is a process for doing so.....just deciding one day to quit abiding by them is NOT that process.

You are fellow libs have said it often. Remember Kerry's "global test"?

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of this thread

Here is another article blaming Pres Bush and Republicans - and not the Dems - for their year of failure

For liberals in the US, 2007 seems destined to go down as a year of dashed hopes and frustrations. After six years in the political wilderness, including an infuriating 2005 when we were treated to several essays and at least two books about the doomed state of the Democratic party, the good guys were back in the saddle. It's hard now to remember the sense of elation that greeted the results. Pickups were widely expected, and a change in control of the House even forecast as somewhat likely, but almost nobody believed Democrats would secure control of both chambers of Congress. And yet, they did! Things were gonna change.

Except, by and large, they didn't.

The hoped-for dramatic expansion of the child health insurance programme S-Chip? Didn't happen. Transformation of American energy policy? Didn't happen. The "carried interest" loophole that lets private equity billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries? Still open. No Child Left Behind? Unchanged, despite the hubbub. Surveillance? Same as ever. And, of course, the war in Iraq continues despite its steady unpopularity.

What went wrong?

Many lash out in anger at the Democratic leadership for fumbling the ball. And it's true that the leaders, especially senator Harry Reid, have made some mistakes. Mostly, though, the problem isn't the Democrats - it's the Republicans. The combination of George Bush's veto pen and the Republican party's unprecedented use of the filibuster has made it essentially impossible to pass much of anything that's worthwhile

for the complete article

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matthew_yglesias/2007/12/year_when_nothing_happened.html

[retiredman]

You are fellow libs have said it often. Remember Kerry's "global test"?


I asked martin where I had ever made that statement. I have never said that we should rely on the United Nations for our safety or our security...

but don't let a brief interlude of actual discussion get in the way of your spam fest.... anything, I guess, to avoid admitting that you cannot find any OUTRAGE from the AP.

[red states rule]

I asked martin where I had ever made that statement. I have never said that we should rely on the United Nations for our safety or our security...

but don't let a brief interlude of actual discussion get in the way of your spam fest.... anything, I guess, to avoid admitting that you cannot find any OUTRAGE from the AP.

But you stand up and wave not only a white flag, but the pieces of paper from the UN, as you fight your never ending fight to surrender to terrorists

Not only was the AP pissed off over the Dems ywar of failure, but so is the Guardian :laugh2:

[retiredman]

But you stand up and wave not only a white flag, but the pieces of paper from the UN, as you fight your never ending fight to surrender to terrorists

Not only was the AP pissed off over the Dems ywar of failure, but so is the Guardian :laugh2:

I wave no pieces of paper from the UN. YOU are the one who pisses on the constitution - the supreme law of the land. traitor. domestic enemy,

[red states rule]

I wave no pieces of paper from the UN. YOU are the one who pisses on the constitution - the supreme law of the land. traitor. domestic enemy,

At least you admit you wave the white flag MM :lol:

[retiredman]

At least you admit you wave the white flag MM :lol:

you need to learn how to read, RSR....I have NEVER admitted waving a white flag.

You have admitted that you would piss on the constitution. traitor.:fu:

[red states rule]

you need to learn how to read, RSR....I have NEVER admitted waving a white flag.

You have admitted that you would piss on the constitution. traitor.:fu:

You did not deny it either - another freudian slip?

You would rather defend a treaty rather then save lives MM.

Party before country as usual

[retiredman]

You did not deny it either - another freudian slip?

You would rather defend a treaty rather then save lives MM.

Party before country as usual

If I were forced to deny all the scurrilous bullshit you type about me, I would never have time to say anything else. I would rather defend the constitution. Constitution and country over party - all the time. YOu would piss on the constitution in order to protect your party. traitor.

[red states rule]

If I were forced to deny all the scurrilous bullshit you type about me, I would never have time to say anything else. I would rather defend the constitution. Constitution and country over party - all the time. YOu would piss on the constitution in order to protect your party. traitor.

What is the difference - you have nothing to say anyway

Except the DNC surrender and bash Amercia talking points :lol:

[retiredman]

What is the difference - you have nothing to say anyway

Except the DNC surrender and bash Amercia talking points :lol:

why do you keep talking to me, if I have nothing to say?

The reason that I keep talking to you, in case you're interested, is that I believe, that somewhere in there, is a person who is capable of carrying on a reasonably intelligent conversation and I have not given up yet on getting you to let that person step up to the keyboard!

And you really need to lose the DNC talking points stuff. I don't get my material from anyone. I write all my own stuff. Imagine the conversation that you and I might have if you were to do the same!

[red states rule]

why do you keep talking to me, if I have nothing to say?

The reason that I keep talking to you, in case you're interested, is that I believe, that somewhere in there, is a person who is capable of carrying on a reasonably intelligent conversation and I have not given up yet on getting you to let that person step up to the keyboard!

And you really need to lose the DNC talking points stuff. I don't get my material from anyone. I write all my own stuff. Imagine the conversation that you and I might have if you were to do the same!

I enjoy the humor your provide and leading you around like a dog on a leash

[retiredman]

so....no chance of us ever actually having a real debate? RSR's words versus MFM's words? Original statements? Original questions? Original answers?

No chance?

[red states rule]

so....no chance of us ever actually having a real debate? RSR's words versus MFM's words? Original statements? Original questions? Original answers?

No chance?

When hit with facts you fall back on the insults and smears

I understand that is all you have left to offer since the facts always go against you

[retiredman]

When hit with facts you fall back on the insults and smears

I understand that is all you have left to offer since the facts always go against you

RSR...I am not smearing you. YOu made a statement. YOu claimed that the article displayed OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press. I asked you for two or three days to show me where the outrage was in the article.... finally, you pointed me to the "last two paragraphs". I copied those paragraphs for you and asked that you just quote my post and highlight the "outrage" expressed by the Associated Press. You have never done so.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS:laugh2:

[red states rule]

RSR...I am not smearing you. YOu made a statement. YOu claimed that the article displayed OUTRAGE on the part of the Associated Press. I asked you for two or three days to show me where the outrage was in the article.... finally, you pointed me to the "last two paragraphs". I copied those paragraphs for you and asked that you just quote my post and highlight the "outrage" expressed by the Associated Press. You have never done so.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS:laugh2:

The outrage is there. But being a lib you see it as a fair and balanced article blaming Republicnas for the Dems failures

[retiredman]

The outrage is there. But being a lib you see it as a fair and balanced article blaming Republicnas for the Dems failures

if the outrage is there, why didn't you simply highlight the sentence that contained the outrage of the AP when I gave you the chance(s)???

[red states rule]

if the outrage is there, why didn't you simply highlight the sentence that contained the outrage of the AP when I gave you the chance(s)???

I have, but you are to liberal to allow the facts to make it through to your "brain"

[retiredman]

I have, but you are to liberal to allow the facts to make it through to your "brain"

no...you didn't. I posted the two paragraphs and you have never highlighted any of those paragraphs showing AP OUTRAGE.

You're a liar. Go back and give me the post number where you quoted my paste of the two paragraphs and highlighted anything.

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

no...you didn't. I posted the two paragraphs and you have never highlighted any of those paragraphs showing AP OUTRAGE.

You're a liar. Go back and give me the post number where you quoted my paste of the two paragraphs and highlighted anything.

I'll wait.

You are a sorry liar MM. The liberal media is pissed oof the Dems have accompliched nothing, and they are helpless as they watch the Dems aproval numbers continue to sink

Like you, the liberal media blames Republicans for the failure - so you would not see the outrage

You agree with the AP and the liberal media

[retiredman]

You are a sorry liar MM. The liberal media is pissed oof the Dems have accompliched nothing, and they are helpless as they watch the Dems aproval numbers continue to sink

Like you, the liberal media blames Republicans for the failure - so you would not see the outrage

You agree with the AP and the liberal media


can't find that post of your where you highlighted the OUTRAGE from the AP in those last two paragraphs? why didn't you just say so?:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

can't find that post of your where you highlighted the OUTRAGE from the AP in those last two paragraphs? why didn't you just say so?:laugh2:

It's not there. Nor was the point of whining being something to 'prove' important. *sigh*