Approval ratings

[Noir]

Just a quicky question.

I memo before the least ellection there were plenty of topics giving congress a 9% approval rating or numbers in that region, in the light of that, why did the dems keep the HOR and Senate if only nine in every one hundred were pleased with them?

[Nukeman]

Just a quicky question.

I memo before the least ellection there were plenty of topics giving congress a 9% approval rating or numbers in that region, in the light of that, why did the dems keep the HOR and Senate if only nine in every one hundred were pleased with them?
Their not up for reelection for 2 years, than we will see a change I believe!!!!!

different years for different branches of the government

[Noir]

Their not up for reelection for 2 years, than we will see a change I believe!!!!!

different years for different branches of the government


Oh, I may have it wrong then, I was taught that The Pres. was ellected every 4 years, the HOR every 2 years and a third of the Senate every 2 years (ergo a six year rule as senator)

[moderate democrat]

Oh, I may have it wrong then, I was taught that The Pres. was ellected every 4 years, the HOR every 2 years and a third of the Senate every 2 years (ergo a six year rule as senator)

you have it exactly right, and your question is a valid one...

republicans like to cast that congressional approval rating as synonymous with an approval rating of democrats IN congress.... when, in fact, the low rating was primarily driven by the prior congress' inability to get things done....and THAT was driven primarily by the fact that there were only 49 democrats in the senate. That democrats increased their majorities in both chambers is due primarily to the American people being sick and tired of failed republican policies coupled with their ability to understand the senate republicans as the true source of the inactivity in the last congress.

With solid majorities in both chambers, things happen, as the prompt passage of the stimulus bill illustrates. I would imagine that, when the positive effects of the stimulus legislation begins to be felt, the approval ratings of both the president and congress as a whole - as well as congressional democrats, specifically - will rise concurrently... and, given the republican's all but unanimous opposition to the stimulus, their approval ratings will not rise in a similar fashion.

[PostmodernProphet]

you have it exactly right, and your question is a valid one...

republicans like to cast that congressional approval rating as synonymous with an approval rating of democrats IN congress.... when, in fact, the low rating was primarily driven by the prior congress' inability to get things done....and THAT was driven primarily by the fact that there were only 49 democrats in the senate. That democrats increased their majorities in both chambers is due primarily to the American people being sick and tired of failed republican policies coupled with their ability to understand the senate republicans as the true source of the inactivity in the last congress.

With solid majorities in both chambers, things happen, as the prompt passage of the stimulus bill illustrates. I would imagine that, when the positive effects of the stimulus legislation begins to be felt, the approval ratings of both the president and congress as a whole - as well as congressional democrats, specifically - will rise concurrently... and, given the republican's all but unanimous opposition to the stimulus, their approval ratings will not rise in a similar fashion.

that's your gamble, all right......

[Noir]

So there were HOR ellections and Senate ellections this year, and with a 9% approval rating, which was blamed on the dems by the conservatives on the site yet the dems increased their seat numbers in both houses...

[emmett]

Democrats are the saviour of our country Noir and will install the socialist system we require to live healthy, practical lives where everyone benefits from the work of say..... oh.... 30% of us or so. Anyone who refuses will be beheaded on CBS during "The Cleansing Hour".

[MtnBiker]

So there were HOR ellections and Senate ellections this year, and with a 9% approval rating, which was blamed on the dems by the conservatives on the site yet the dems increased their seat numbers in both houses...

Seems odd. There was also a Presidential election this year, Obama brought alot of people out to the polls, more so than perhaps would have voted had he not been in the race. This translated into many votes for the dem canidates down the ticket. Watch for the 2010 elections, only a few Presidents have suceeded in gaining seats in the Congress of their own party in their first off year election.

[DannyR]

So there were HOR ellections and Senate ellections this year, and with a 9% approval rating, which was blamed on the dems by the conservatives on the site yet the dems increased their seat numbers in both houses...

To understand this, you need to know WHY the 9% approval rating existed. Was it because the people didn't like what congress actually did (and thus blamed the majority), or because they didn't like that congress wasn't able to do anything (and thus blamed the minority who blocked actions).

For this election, I think the people primarily blamed republicans, and thus gave democrats the majority they needed to get things done, and the president they needed to sign it into law.

I'm hoping we'll see somewhat of a reversal of this in 2010. I'd very much like to have a republican congress with a democratic President. That of late seems to be the only way to reduce spending.

[moderate democrat]

So there were HOR ellections and Senate ellections this year, and with a 9% approval rating, which was blamed on the dems by the conservatives on the site yet the dems increased their seat numbers in both houses...

precisely.

and now they claim that the nation is turning against Obama and his handling of the economy, however, the latest Gallup Poll shows exactly the opposite.

[PostmodernProphet]

and you have to recognize that the Dems promised to change the way things were being done......the question remains whether they are demonstrating change or demonstrating taking things up a notch......the 2010 congressional elections will be a better indication....

[moderate democrat]

and you have to recognize that the Dems promised to change the way things were being done......the question remains whether they are demonstrating change or demonstrating taking things up a notch......the 2010 congressional elections will be a better indication....

if America is dissatisfied with the democrat's leading congress, they can certainly turn them into the minority in 2010. I would not judge any minor midterm gains by the minority party - which routinely happen in nearly every president's first term - as a repudiation of the democratic party...but certainly a major shift, a la 1994, would be meaningful.

[glockmail]

So there were HOR ellections and Senate ellections this year, and with a 9% approval rating, which was blamed on the dems by the conservatives on the site yet the dems increased their seat numbers in both houses... The previous explanation was pure partisan bullshit. The fact is that most everyone hates Congress, except of course for their own representatives, who come up with one excuse after another (99 in the Senate and 534 in the House) on why they couldn't get things done.

No different that everyone hates lawyers, except for the one representing them.

[Yurt]

if America is dissatisfied with the democrat's leading congress, they can certainly turn them into the minority in 2010. I would not judge any minor midterm gains by the minority party - which routinely happen in nearly every president's first term - as a repudiation of the democratic party...but certainly a major shift, a la 1994, would be meaningful.

you absolutely can judge them if the minority party becomes the majority. obviously the folks are dissatisfied with the majority party and they get ousted.

simple really

[PostmodernProphet]

I would not judge any minor midterm gains by the minority party
well, unless the libertarians make a major move, a loss by the Democrats would be a gain the Republicans, would it not?.....

[DannyR]

you absolutely can judge them if the minority party becomes the majority

Thats exactly what he said: "but certainly a major shift, a la 1994, would be meaningful."

[moderate democrat]

Thats exactly what he said: "but certainly a major shift, a la 1994, would be meaningful."

thank you for clarifying it for him.

[Yurt]

Thats exactly what he said: "but certainly a major shift, a la 1994, would be meaningful."


thank you for clarifying it for him.

you both need to follow the bouncing ball a bit more...

he said a minor change you can't judge, i said you could. i wasn't talking about a major change now was i...i disagreed with him over his minor change and he is wrong.

[DannyR]

i wasn't talking about a major change now was iReally? Could have fooled me: "you absolutely can judge them if the minority party becomes the majority." Sorry, I thought a shift causing political control to change would be defined as a major change. But since you think its only a minor one, ok. :poke:

[manu1959]

so far.....

the change we hoped for:

apointment of four tax evaders
the first presidential interview was on arab tv
a trip to canada
funding for foreign abortion clinics
closure of gitmo with no plan what to do with the prisoners
17,000 troops being sent to afganistan
a trip to canada
flooding of the finacial market with 787 billion dollars
rewarding failed companies with money
rewarding failed personal behavior with money

[Trigg]

precisely.

and now they claim that the nation is turning against Obama and his handling of the economy, however, the latest Gallup Poll shows exactly the opposite.

What the gallop poll shows is an approval rating that is almost entirely devided along party lines.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114691/Obama-Signs-Stimulus-Law-Majority-Support.aspx



It has been well documented that public support for a stimulus bill is highly partisan, echoing what occurred in Congress. In Gallup's Feb. 11 update, 82% of Democrats supported the bill compared to just 28% of Republicans.

I know plenty of dems who voted for bambam but are firmly against this "stimulus" including my in-laws and my sister.

[hjmick]

Let's not forget that there is a census in 2010. Depending on how Rahm Emanuel and the White House manipulate the numbers, there could be a significant effect on the outcome of the elections that follow.

The fact that there is not more outrage about the hijacking of control of the upcoming census is curious.

[Yurt]

Really? Could have fooled me: "you absolutely can judge them if the minority party becomes the majority." Sorry, I thought a shift causing political control to change would be defined as a major change. But since you think its only a minor one, ok. :poke:

a minor change could give them the majority, and still not be as big as the 94 situation...you are ignoring the other major changes/happenings that happened in 94

so go poke yourself

[moderate democrat]

you both need to follow the bouncing ball a bit more...

he said a minor change you can't judge, i said you could. i wasn't talking about a major change now was i...i disagreed with him over his minor change and he is wrong.
in 2010, it would take a major shift for the democrats to become the minority and the republicans to become the minority. A minor change of a handful of seats happens fairly predictably in every president's midterm election... it would not be a meaningful shift if it were only a few seats and it did not alter the majority status of the party in power.

you may disagree with that, but your disagreement hardly makes my opinion, therefore, WRONG.

[moderate democrat]

a minor change could give them the majority, and still not be as big as the 94 situation...you are ignoring the other major changes/happenings that happened in 94

so go poke yourself


a net pick up of 23% in congressional seats would be a major change for the republicans. a net pick up of 24% in senate seats would be a major change for the republicans. Those are the percentage gains they would need to capture majorities in the two chambers.

[Yurt]

in 2010, it would take a major shift for the democrats to become the minority and the republicans to become the minority. A minor change of a handful of seats happens fairly predictably in every president's midterm election... it would not be a meaningful shift if it were only a few seats and it did not alter the majority status of the party in power.

you may disagree with that, but your disagreement hardly makes my opinion, therefore, WRONG.

of course it does, i'm always right and you're always wrong, do i really need to remind you of that....:slap:

[moderate democrat]

I say again
a net pick up of 23% in congressional seats would be a major change for the republicans. a net pick up of 24% in senate seats would be a major change for the republicans. Those are the percentage gains they would need to capture majorities in the two chambers.

[glockmail]

All members of the Democrat Party should be taken out in the street and shot.

[Yurt]

I say again

this isn't an echo chamber

and really, you forfeited your right to demand anyone answer your questions or to provide proof

[moderate democrat]

this isn't an echo chamber

and really, you forfeited your right to demand anyone answer your questions or to provide proof


I have neither demanded you answer any questions nor provide any proof.

The factual nature of my post stands on its own... I merely noted that you had apparently missed it.

The FACT remains... for the republicans to regain the majority in EITHER chmaber of congress in 2010 would require a MAJOR victory and a MAJOR shift in the feelings of the electorate. That IS FACT. continue to dodge it if you like...I really don't care.

[moderate democrat]

All members of the Democrat Party should be taken out in the street and shot.

how patriotic of you.

[Yurt]

how patriotic of you.

why, you think conservatives should be in prison for a long time...right

[moderate democrat]

why, you think conservatives should be in prison for a long time...right

don't put words in MY mouth, yurt.... try answering post #30 instead.

[Yurt]

don't put words in MY mouth, asshole.... try answering post #30 instead.

ah, couldn't last a day without the insults....it was a question...:poke:

and you forfeited your right to demand anyone to answer your questions, until you recip....you forfeit as you say that you do not have to answer anyone's questions, nor provide proof...you sir, are a hypocrite in this regard.

do you believe conservatives should be locked up for a long time? i thought maybe you had said that or something similar...

[moderate democrat]

why, you think conservatives should be in prison for a long time...right

and actually, I don't think anything of the kind... probably my very best friend in the whole wide world other than my wife, is my kid brother, who is an avowed conservative. I think you should stand up and say whether YOU support this position as espoused by glockmail. Do YOU think that all democrats should be shot? yes or no?

[moderate democrat]

ah, couldn't last a day without the insults....it was a question...:poke:

and you forfeited your right to demand anyone to answer your questions, until you recip....you forfeit as you say that you do not have to answer anyone's questions, nor provide proof...you sir, are a hypocrite in this regard.

do you believe conservatives should be locked up for a long time? i thought maybe you had said that or something similar...


and again...I have not asked you for any proof of any of your positions....you seem to adhere to the positions of glockmail... yet don't QUITE have the intestinal fortitude necessary to state it as such.

You obviously think that democrats should be shot, but can't quite muster the gumption necessary to actually say so.

pretyty weak... pretty pathetic... what else ya got?

[Yurt]

and actually, I don't think anything of the kind... probably my very best friend in the whole wide world other than my wife, is my kid brother, who is an avowed conservative. I think you should stand up and say whether YOU support this position as espoused by glockmail. Do YOU think that all democrats should be shot? yes or no?

now that is an amazing fact about you...well, i think the facts are a little off, but amazing nonetheless

and i really don't care what you think, you have no say, you forfeited that right with your hypocritical stance...until you change that, you will remain a hypocrite and thus forfeit certain debate rights

[Yurt]

and again...I have not asked you for any proof of any of your positions....you seem to adhere to the positions of glockmail... yet don't QUITE have the intestinal fortitude necessary to state it as such.

You obviously think that democrats should be shot, but can't quite muster the gumption necessary to actually say so.

pretyty weak... pretty pathetic... what else ya got?

that is an outright lie and hypocritical as you are the one who just whined about me putting words in your mouth. kindly cut the hypocrisy and debate in a mature fashion.

thank you

[moderate democrat]

now that is an amazing fact about you...well, i think the facts are a little off, but amazing nonetheless

and i really don't care what you think, you have no say, you forfeited that right with your hypocritical stance...until you change that, you will remain a hypocrite and thus forfeit certain debate rights

according to you, who agrees with glockmail that democrats should be shot.

I am hypocritical about NOTHING.

as if I give a fuck what douchebags like you have to say about me. I have done more in my life than you will ever do, loser.

I don't care what you think...and I must admit that my pistol whipping you is a guilty pleasure that is probably akin to beating a retarded person in a game of horse. It is not really all that kind, but I love it nonetheless.

[moderate democrat]

that is an outright lie and hypocritical as you are the one who just whined about me putting words in your mouth. kindly cut the hypocrisy and debate in a mature fashion.

thank you

sit and spin... address post #30 or go home

[Yurt]

according to you, who agrees with glockmail that democrats should be shot.

I am hypocritical about NOTHING.

as if I give a fuck what douchebags like you have to say about me. I have done more in my life than you will ever do, loser.

I don't care what you think...and I must admit that my pistol whipping you is a guilty pleasure that is probably akin to beating a retarded person in a game of horse. It is not really all that kind, but I love it nonetheless.

why do you complain about others putting words in your mouth and making stuff about you when you do the same things to others? honestly, you don't need to lie about me in order to debate a point. and gee...you're so right about the difference in profanity :rolleyes:

and you're really sick if you take pleasure from such things, wow, what a stud, beating a handicap person at a game of horse, you right, you have done more than me...pathetic


sit and spin... address post #30 or go home

same thing, you say you are not obligated to answer anyone's questions, yet you insult others who don't answer yours....

thanks for ruining another thread moderate democrat!

[manu1959]

hey jim....you hot muslim thing.....flash us......

[Yurt]

hey jim....you hot muslim thing.....flash us......

i'm afraid of the man hands

[manu1959]

i'm afraid of the man hands

:laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

wannatry again on this one?

I have neither demanded you answer any questions nor provide any proof.

The factual nature of my post stands on its own... I merely noted that you had apparently missed it.

The FACT remains... for the republicans to regain the majority in EITHER chamber of congress in 2010 would require a MAJOR victory and a MAJOR shift in the feelings of the electorate. That IS FACT.

[Yurt]

wannatry again on this one?

see...now you are asking me to answer...you forfeited that right.

are you going to apologize for your profanity laced post where you personally attacked me? i knew you couldn't last a day....

[PostmodernProphet]

, is my kid brother, who is an avowed conservative.

and here I thought it was the older brother who was supposed to be the smarter one.....

[moderate democrat]

and here I thought it was the older brother who was supposed to be the smarter one.....

:lol:

[moderate democrat]

see...now you are asking me to answer...you forfeited that right.

are you going to apologize for your profanity laced post where you personally attacked me? i knew you couldn't last a day....

I apologize for any profanity... I actually edited it out of one, but you had replied while I was editing it... I wonder if you could address the point I made, that the republicans WOULD need a MAJOR victory and a MAJOR shift in public sentiment to regain majorities in congress.

[glockmail]

I asked my Dad the other day, how could people be so dumb to be Democrat?

[Yurt]

I apologize for any profanity... I actually edited it out of one, but you had replied while I was editing it... I wonder if you could address the point I made, that the republicans WOULD need a MAJOR victory and a MAJOR shift in public sentiment to regain majorities in congress.

you did it twice and both times were insults, the second was personal insults and you DIDN'T edit that one, nice try at deflection...funny...you don't apologize for the personal attacks :poke:

until you change your policy that you are not obligated to provide proof or answer people's questions, you are forfeit from demanding others do so. your stance is hypocritical.

[moderate democrat]

you did it twice and both times were insults, the second was personal insults and you DIDN'T edit that one, nice try at deflection...funny...you don't apologize for the personal attacks :poke:

until you change your policy that you are not obligated to provide proof or answer people's questions, you are forfeit from demanding others do so. your stance is hypocritical.

I am trying to have a discussion here. You made a statement about one of my posts...I disagreed with your position and gave you my reasons for doing so. Do you care to have this discussion or not? If not, then please refrain from replying to my posts so I won't be confused and think that a dialog is what you are after.

[Yurt]

according to you, who agrees with glockmail that democrats should be shot.

I am hypocritical about NOTHING.

as if I give a fuck what douchebags like you have to say about me. I have done more in my life than you will ever do, loser.

I don't care what you think...and I must admit that my pistol whipping you is a guilty pleasure that is probably akin to beating a retarded person in a game of horse. It is not really all that kind, but I love it nonetheless.


I am trying to have a discussion here. You made a statement about one of my posts...I disagreed with your position and gave you my reasons for doing so. Do you care to have this discussion or not? If not, then please refrain from replying to my posts so I won't be confused and think that a dialog is what you are after.

great discussion....why don't you try apologizing for your disgusting personal attacks and then we can have a discussion. is it really too much to ask you to apologize for your unwarranted personal attacks? i was discussing things just fine until you went into crazy mode.

you apologize, and no problem discussing things. simple.

i look forward to your apology and resuming our discussing.

[moderate democrat]

I apologize for calling you a "douchebag" and a "loser". Propriety should have caused me to refrain from using those terms, regardless of whether or not they were warranted.

now...do you HAVE an an answer to my post about your statements concerning your assertion that only a minor victory would be required to give republicans a majority in congress?

[Yurt]

I apologize for calling you a "douchebag" and a "loser". Propriety should have caused me to refrain from using those terms, regardless of whether or not they were warranted.

now...do you HAVE an an answer to my post about your statements concerning your assertion that only a minor victory would be required to give republicans a majority in congress?

thank you

you compared a major victory to 1994...more than just a party majority switch happened, i assumed you knew that and thus imo, a simple party majority switch would not be major as compared to 1994.

as you said, it has been quite common for the other party to gain seats when the other party becomes presidents, those seats normally result in a majority shift...isn't that correct?

[moderate democrat]

you compared a major victory to 1994...more than just a party majority switch happened, i assumed you knew that and thus imo, a simple party majority switch would not be major as compared to 1994.

as you said, it has been quite common for the other party to gain seats when the other party becomes presidents, those seats normally result in a majority shift...isn't that correct?

what happened in '94 that was any more "major" than what would be required for a republican majority in 2010?

and no...your second statement is not correct.

[glockmail]

how patriotic of you.Thank you for realizing how patriotic that would be.

[moderate democrat]

Thank you for realizing how patriotic that would be.


clearly, sarcasm is a literary form with which you are unfamiliar.

[Yurt]

what happened in '94 that was any more "major" than what would be required for a republican majority in 2010?

and no...your second statement is not correct.

i believe you nearly always tell me that you aren't going to do my research for me...i offer the same

[moderate democrat]

i believe you nearly always tell me that you aren't going to do my research for me...i offer the same

so...you got nothing?:laugh2:

house membership in 94 was essentially the same as it is today, and the reepublican gain needed is also essential the same.

republicans picked up eight seats in the senate in '94...they'd need 10 in 2010

[Yurt]

so...you got nothing?:laugh2:

house membership in 94 was essentially the same as it is today, and the reepublican gain needed is also essential the same.

republicans picked up eight seats in the senate in '94...they'd need 10 in 2010

nope, not true at all....i offered you the same, that of course does not mean i have nothing. guess you don't like it when it is done to you.....

there are other major differences and events surrounding 94, and as you tell people....do your own research :poke:

[moderate democrat]

nope, not true at all....i offered you the same, that of course does not mean i have nothing. guess you don't like it when it is done to you.....

there are other major differences and events surrounding 94, and as you tell people....do your own research :poke:


it was a midterm during the first term of a newly elected democratic president...the numbers are essentially the same.

it was a big deal in '94 and it would be a big deal in '10

:poke::poke::poke::poke::poke:

[Yurt]

there's more...do your own research :slap:

[moderate democrat]

there's more...do your own research :slap:

what a coward.

I guess we're done.

really pathetic. I thought you would offer more... silly me, I guess.

[Yurt]

there's more...do your own research :slap:


what a coward.

I guess we're done.

really pathetic. I thought you would offer more... silly me, I guess.

so you admit you're a coward....your words make you a coward under your own definition of a coward:


do your own research, [yurt]....

see, you say i am a coward for the very thing you do....so you are a coward by your very own definition... :poke:

[moderate democrat]

so you admit you're a coward....your words make you a coward under your own definition of a coward:



see, you say i am a coward for the very thing you do....so you are a coward by your very own definition... :poke:

you're not the brightest light in the SLO pantheon of legal minds, are ya?:poke:

Can you debate the ISSUES without resorting to these silly little procedural points?

What, pray tell, is any fucking different between the republican victory in '94 and the, as yet, fictional republican victory in '10? Be a man... Quit tapdancing like some mincing queer and either answer the question or admit that there really wouldn't be a hell of a lot of difference between the two....or STFU

[Yurt]

so when you say "do your own research"....

you are a fucking genius

but when someone throws in back in your face, they are a coward...

fucking wuss

[moderate democrat]

so when you say "do your own research"....

you are a fucking genius

but when someone throws in back in your face, they are a coward...

fucking wuss

so...you admit that you got NOTHING to respond to my question? you admit that you were blowing smoke when you implied that there was something monumental about '94 other than the number of seats that republicans took in the midterm election of a first term democratic president??????

why didn't you just SAY so and save all that bandwidth?:poke:

[Yurt]

fuck you

you tell me to do my own research....

i tell you to do your own research....

and you call me a coward

if all you got is hypocrisy and bullshit, why bother....

seriously....why do you bother? do you get jollies pissing people off? do you smile when you know you are a hypocritical lying son of a bitch and you continue to play word games.....as if you are innocent? you like that don't you....

you twisted ........................

[moderate democrat]

fuck you

you tell me to do my own research....

i tell you to do your own research....

and you call me a coward

if all you got is hypocrisy and bullshit, why bother....

seriously....why do you bother? do you get jollies pissing people off? do you smile when you know you are a hypocritical lying son of a bitch and you continue to play word games.....as if you are innocent? you like that don't you....

you twisted ........................
I DID research...I showed you how many seats the republicans won in '94, and how many they would need to win in '10 to replicate that.... I showed you how it was nearly identical.

what YOU got, oy vey! counselor???

[Yurt]

I DID research...I showed you how many seats the republicans won in '94, and how many they would need to win in '10 to replicate that.... I showed you how it was nearly identical.

what YOU got, oy vey! counselor???

fuck off virgil

[DannyR]

I DID research...I showed you how many seats the republicans won in '94, and how many they would need to win in '10 to replicate that.... I showed you how it was nearly identical.I'd certainly like to hear his answer.

the circumstances seem pretty close to me:

1st term Democratic president with fully Democratic congress. Republicans control one more seat in congress now than they did just prior to 1994. They control 2 less Senate seats.

President in both cases is pushing a massive spending bill that many people dislike.

But the turnover of control in 94 was major, but this time would be minor?

So please explain why that is exactly.

[Yurt]

I'd certainly like to hear his answer.

the circumstances seem pretty close to me:

1st term Democratic president with fully Democratic congress. Republicans control one more seat in congress now than they did just prior to 1994. They control 2 less Senate seats.

President in both cases is pushing a massive spending bill that many people dislike.

But the turnover of control in 94 was major, but this time would be minor?

So please explain why that is exactly.

do your own research....

yours truly,

moderate democrat

[Yurt]

I DID research...I showed you how many seats the republicans won in '94, and how many they would need to win in '10 to replicate that.... I showed you how it was nearly identical.

what YOU got, oy vey! counselor???

yeah......

and the owner wonders why feuds continue....

[DannyR]

do your own researchI'm asking you, because my own research doesn't show anything. So stop with the petty arguments and spill it. Why would a changein power in 2010 not be considered a major shift, but 1994 was?

[Yurt]

I'm asking you, because my own research doesn't show anything. So stop with the petty arguments and spill it. Why would a changein power in 2010 not be considered a major shift, but 1994 was?

dude....your new buddy goes around telling others to do their research.....

get it....

[DannyR]

dude....your new buddy goes around telling others to do their researchI don't give a damn what he says. I'm asking YOU the question, because you gave me the same comment about 2 pages back and never explained why.

[moderate democrat]

I'd certainly like to hear his answer.

the circumstances seem pretty close to me:

1st term Democratic president with fully Democratic congress. Republicans control one more seat in congress now than they did just prior to 1994. They control 2 less Senate seats.

President in both cases is pushing a massive spending bill that many people dislike.

But the turnover of control in 94 was major, but this time would be minor?

So please explain why that is exactly.

he's got nothin'

and he doesn't have the class to just admit it.

[Psychoblues]

Dig that!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[glockmail]

yeah......

and the owner wonders why feuds continue.... Mod dem is a liar, and the post that you responded to proves it again.

[Kathianne]

Moderate Democrat thread banned for baiting. We're serious, stop the feuding outside of cage.