For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: 2007 ends with Democrats caving into a $555 billion spending bill that gave President Bush everything he wanted including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"House Republicans were almost in a state of euphoria as they left Washington, D.C., on Wednesday."
As Congress now adjourns for the year, has 2007 been an absolute disaster for Pelosi, Reid, and new Democrat majorities in both Chambers ushered in last November with so much optimism? In fact, given what appears to be failure after failure to deliver on 2006 campaign promises, do Congressional Democrats possibly represent lamer ducks than the President? How does the ineptitude of the first year of the 110th Congress impact next November's elections if at all?
Comments Policy
Do nothing Congress
December 20, 2007 - 10:49 ET by shawn228The Democratic led congress has been nothing but a big dissapointment. I was hoping for great things, but after blaming Republicans last yr for high gas prices, they are oddly quiet now that it is almost 100 dollars a barrel. The only thing they have done for the past year is to threaten to pull funds and give in later and have one investigation after another.
I was hoping for great
December 20, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Dan The Man 2I was hoping for great things, and I suppose you will be waiting for Santa Claus to bring you something nice for Christmas. Get real any politician is just that and will let you down because in the ened they are in it for themselves and not you.
That said the Dims did very well this year, for the Republicans. But, in the news you will only hear what they accomplished, not what they did promised and did not deliver.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Just imagine what the MSM
December 20, 2007 - 13:37 ET by TruthMongerJust imagine what the MSM would do with Reid and Pelosi if THEY WERE REPUBLICANS...
yowza...
I'm sure the "(D-" keys are locked down nice and tight in newsroom land these days:)
What I'd Like To Know...
December 20, 2007 - 11:07 ET by blackngoldfan...is exactly how much of that spending bill is going toward waging a successful campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much is going towards pork? Hopefully the majority goes to the former rather than the latter.
This Democrat majority is digging its own grave with its railing against war funding and demanding that the troops be withdrawn immediately. They are terrified of inheriting the war if they should win in 2008 because they know in their heart of hearts that the war will need to be fought, and they will have no choice but to continue to fight it. At that point, they will lose the entirety of their anti-war base upon whose (green)backs they rode into the sunset, and to their demise. That's why they want out now.
hillary
December 20, 2007 - 11:16 ET by shawn228Hillary has lost momentum but she till has a strong chance of getting the nomination. I believe the Democrats will take the Senate next yr because logistically the chances are very much against the GOP. The House I'm not so sure.
Hillary with the Presidency and contol of both chambers is very real reality . I hope she can be stopped.
shawn228. Dont look now,
December 20, 2007 - 11:49 ET by bassndudeshawn228. Dont look now, but they already have a majority in the house and the senate. The fact that they lied to you dosent seem to bother you one bit. Puzzeling to me. They promised, lower fuel prices, to cut out the pork spending, and a number of other things. All I have seen is an increase in all they said they were going to cut. If thats not a lie, what is it? And dont give me this crap about the republicans wouldent let them. The fact of the matter is, they did not address any of the items they promised to cut out. Dident even bring them up. I dont understand how you can support that.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassdude
December 20, 2007 - 11:54 ET by shawn228"The fact that they lied to you dosent seem to bother you one bit."
Ummm......did you read my post? It is the one on the very top. Where exactly did I state they don't bother me a bit or I support them?
Sorry shawn. After
December 20, 2007 - 12:01 ET by bassndudeSorry shawn. After re-reading your post, I see where you are some what disgrunteled. Dont know why it dident stick the first time. But, the dems still control both houses. No need to take the senate, they have it already. And you still wish for them to win more seats? Still puzzeling to me as to why. They havent even tried to do any of the things they promised they would. Had they tried and failed, I could understand, but they dident. And they will not. If they win more seats, our taxes go up, fuel prices go up, and your 401K will take a hit, as well as your folks SS checks. That is not supposition. Thats history.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassdude
December 20, 2007 - 12:05 ET by shawn228"And you still wish for them to win more seats?"
Again Bassdude, I really don't want to nitpick about the reading comprehension, but where did I say I am hoping for more seats?
The GOP has to defend 30 seats next yr, I said logistically it is hard for them to take back the senate. I also said Hillary with control of both chambers is a reality. Did you read where I said " I hope she can be stopped?" I don't dislike the GOP, I am just not a big fan of this administration.
It still seems that you are
December 20, 2007 - 12:56 ET by bassndudeIt still seems that you are not aware that the dems control the senate now. They dont need to win anymore seats to control either house. And it seems you are wistful for more dems in office. Thats just my perception, I know, and it may be wrong. If so, I apologize. I can understand your disillusionment with the current admin. I to have a few problems with them. Logistically, it depends on the the districts that are up for election. Triditionaly, if the republicans retake the senate, it will be in the election after presidential election. Thats if we can follow historic patterns. However, if a republican wins the office of President, then the republicans may very well take back the senate. There are coat tails.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassdude
December 20, 2007 - 17:00 ET by shawn228I am fully aware the Dems control both chambers of congress. However their hold on the Senate is razer thin. Their balance of power lies in somebody that is endorsing John Mccain for President.
Not only are the chances of increasing their hold on the senate strong but there is the remote possiblity that they they might have over 60 seats.
If this happens and Hillary is the President, she will enjoy all the benifits Bush had early in his Presidency. Currently the Dems contol both chambers, but they have a President that has Veto power. This will not be the case if Hillary has both chambers. They can pretty much pass whatever they please and vice versa for Hillary. Free medical for illegals, free citizenship etc. Bassdude I do fear a Hillary Presidency, do not get me wrong. I much prefer Obama or Edwards get the nomination.
I prefer...
December 20, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Clear thinkerI prefer Hillary, Obama and Edwards jump off a bridge!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
clear thinker
December 20, 2007 - 17:15 ET by shawn228I'm sure you do Clear Thinker, but get ready for the real possiblity of a Democratic majority and Presidency, because people like you are willing to stay home to prove a point if the nominee is not conservative enough
shawn...
December 20, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Clear thinkerI cannot disagree.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
So by this statement
December 20, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Dan The Man 2So by this statement "Ummm......did you read my post? It is the one on the very top. Where exactly did I state they don't bother me a bit or I support them" I can assume you are voting for the GOP, straight ticket?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan
December 20, 2007 - 12:10 ET by shawn228I have an open mind and I will consider all choices. I should not have said I will not vote for Romney, I should have said most likely I will not.
My mind is a locked door.
December 20, 2007 - 12:27 ET by Dan The Man 2My mind is a locked door. An open mind is like the open border, just about all forms of crap gets through and pollutes the landscape. I consider all issues but have definite answers for most of them.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I disagree on open mind
December 20, 2007 - 13:08 ET by well99There is nothing wrong with a open mind.I do agree with you on a open border.Every country has the right to control what and who come in.Also applies to ports and overextended visas.Back to open minds.There isnt anything wrong with looking at different perspectives or ideas.That doesnt mean you have to change your view.
We can look from the windows
December 20, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Dan The Man 2We can look from the windows and there is no need to open any doors unless the idea is sound. I have changed my views more than once, I voted Jimmah Carter in and in the Primaries in 80 voted for him again and in 84 for Jesse. I have come to the conclusion taht the Dims need to be on the outside of that locked door.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ouch Dan
December 20, 2007 - 22:16 ET by well99Jimmy Carter.Well I voted for Ford.As far as Dems this election I dont see anyone I would vote for.Hillary is so corrupt I could never vote for her.If there was a Zell Miller,Scoop Jackson or Dan Moynihan type Dem I probably would vote for one like that.The Republican candidates dont really inspire me.The way congress is selling us out on illegal immigration neither party is appealing to me.Still I'll take the worst Republican over the best the Dems have to offer for president.The Dems are all so far left.
well99
December 20, 2007 - 22:39 ET by shawn228Almost as off topic as Chicken color preference, but did I read somewhere that you were a gamer?
Yup Shawn
December 20, 2007 - 22:41 ET by well99PC games...dont do xbox or other heathen types.You a gamer?
well99
December 20, 2007 - 22:47 ET by shawn228I was just telling unsane last week, I grew up with the Atari 2600 and it all evolved from there. I have owned intelivision, Colecovision, Nintendo, Sega, PS1, PS2 and now a Wii. Have not invested in a PS3 yet.
It is sad to say but I do have as much time anymore. Not if I want to be a family man and post on NB too:-)
What PC games you like doing? Warcraft, Spacecraft, Sims?
Some Atari actually
December 20, 2007 - 22:59 ET by well99I have Neverwinter Night 2 and Mask of Betrayer.Both Atari games.Oh I started with 286 back in the day.I play Guild Wars online.No monthly fee like Warcraft or some of the others.I am really into RPGs like Baldurs gate series.That and Knights of the Republic/Sith Lords.
I can understand with a family finding time would be hard.In actually PS3 or Xbox would be easier.At least you could put it on your TV and and still interact with family.
Sorry to interject, but . . .
December 20, 2007 - 23:03 ET by Free StinkerAtari 800 . . . Star Raiders
. . . ah, lost youth :-(
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Free
December 20, 2007 - 23:11 ET by well99First 2 years I had a comp I wouldnt put a game on it.Then Warcraft one came into my life.I was hooked since then.Star Raiders?
Star Raiders Today's
December 20, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Free StinkerStar Raiders
Today's graphics blow away the old 8-bit Atari's, but that Atari game controller was the best!
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
True Free
December 21, 2007 - 00:29 ET by well99On this comp I have a PCI-E card in.Compared to the system before it is awesome.I running a older game and compared to old system it just 10 times better.Graphics today are amazing.I dont own one of those real gamer high end cards but I imagine they put mine to shame.
RPG's
December 20, 2007 - 23:03 ET by shawn228You should check out some of the action games that play like RPG's. All of the Resident Evil ones are great, God of War part 1 and two are also both great. I find it is easy to interact with the family with the Wii. My kid plays it more that I do. Well thats suppossed to happen right? :-)
Shawn
December 20, 2007 - 23:09 ET by well99To be honest I am into medieval settings.With the exception of Kotor1/Kotor 2.Oooh Lightsabers.Shawn it is time to exert that parental authority!Oh what is Wii?God of War is that Roman/Greek time period?
"Oh what is Wii?" Not
December 20, 2007 - 23:31 ET by shawn228"Oh what is Wii?"
Not sure if you are sarcastic or not, but i'm assuming not. The Nintendo Wii came out before last Christmas, and there is still a waiting list The biggest attraction is not the games themselves, but how they are played. You don't use a conventional joystick. You would swing the controller in tennis or use a bowling motion for bowling.
God of waris one of the best RPG/action games ever made. It is set in old Greek times. You have lots of battles with people like the minatar, Medusa and Zeus.
Even though it glorifies violence, I have to admit I enjoyed playing Grand Theft Auto.
Shawn
December 21, 2007 - 00:41 ET by well99I was serious.Never used any PS,Xbox, or Nintendo.Strickly PC.I really dont know much about them.To bad that Gods of War looks good but doesnt look like it is set up for a PC.That Wii is still hard to get after this much time.The graphics must be awesome.
Over 100 Freeware Windows XP Games
December 20, 2007 - 23:34 ET by PopularTechWhy pay for computer games when you can get ones for free? No BS get over 100 quality free games here: XP Games
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Popular
December 21, 2007 - 00:34 ET by well99Just a matter of choice I guess.It is my way to unwind.Besides I still have games from 99 I still putter with.I buy a couple of games a year so it doesnt hit me to hard.
Computer Games and Applications for Free
December 21, 2007 - 01:25 ET by PopularTechI buy games too but many people do not realize how many free quality games are out there. To me this is one of the biggest things people do not know. I know a lot of people are on a budget and think they have to spend a ton on software when you can get it all for free:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPGames.html
It is not just games but applications as well:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPFreeware.html
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Popular
December 21, 2007 - 01:29 ET by well99Always been a fan of Nonags.Cnet has some good freeware also.I just have to make sure I can use it with Vista.
70 billion to the war effort
December 20, 2007 - 17:09 ET by Right2thePoint70 billion to the war effort a bit over 23 billion to pork.
R2
December 20, 2007 - 17:14 ET by Airforce_5_ODidn't San Fran Nan say they would clean up the "ear marking" Thing?
Another Dem breaks a promise. SUPRISE!!!!!!
“Where there is one brave man, in the thickest of the fight, there is the post of honor.” Henry David Thoreau
Shawn, I'm not going to
December 20, 2007 - 11:30 ET by dscottShawn, I'm not going to gloat or say I told you so since that would be poor form. Let's suffice it to say, that you and others on the lib side should be far more cynical of the promises made by Dem candidates. I don't know if you are old enough to remember but Jimmy Carter had made so many promises, that he had to keep them in a book, an actual book! Jimmy was a one term pres if that tells you anything about the promises he kept.
A piece of unsolicited advice from your friends on the right, be careful of what you are "led" to believe, there is a difference between those who talk the talk and those walk the talk. That difference is called salesmenship. The greater the hype and euphoria around a promise, the less realistic the promise is. I feel for you guys, all that time and money lavished on the Dems and what did you get for it? Dissappointment in proportion to the unrealistic ability of those who claimed they could deliver what was promised. It is better to be promised nothing and get a happy unexpected windfall, than to be promised and not delivered with sour grapes.
In fact Shawn, this is one of the main gripes we have with the Dems as a political party, they think governance is about making promises to get in office instead of running the government effectively and efficiently resulting in efficacy while in office. You as a lib would be better off voting for the Socialist Party instead of the Dem party. The Dems promise you Socialism but don't deliver, the Socialists on the other hand will do exactly as they say if elected.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
dscott
December 20, 2007 - 11:43 ET by shawn228I did not so much vote for Democrats last November as I voted against the Republicans. Oil was very expensive, things were not getting done, there seemed to be a lot of arrogance in having both chambers and the Presidency.
I thought there would be change and apparently except for a different chief of staff to the vp, and the AG gone. Things are just as bleak as last year. I have stated many times before, I don't vote for a party, I vote for who is best at running the country. As for a voting for Republican nominee, I will not vote for Romney, Still considering Fred, but have no problem with Huckabee or Guiliani.
it's not like the Dems
December 20, 2007 - 13:38 ET by TruthMongerit's not like the Dems didn't try...
they're just completely inept is all...
You're giving Dems way too
December 20, 2007 - 13:49 ET by dscottYou're giving Dems way too much credit, they would have to actually believe in what they say in order to be inept at carrying it out. They just go through the motions to lamely claim they tried. I mean they have the majority in both houses, don't they?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
they tried to do asinine
December 20, 2007 - 16:51 ET by TruthMongerthey tried to do asinine things - they actually believe in their crap - we try to warn them...
it's called being "out of touch with the American people"
it's what the MSM tries to pin on us "radical conservatives..."
reality bites however - just give it time...
Shawn
December 20, 2007 - 11:39 ET by Airforce_5_OI think they finally came to their senses and realized the law of supply and demand. The US was not the only factor driving gas prices. With more nation’s demand oil and a limited supply coming out of OPEC the prices go up. The blame game back fired and they realized way too late.
I think we see the congress going back to repubs and I see a lot of incumbents who have allowed this out of control spending getting the boot too. (I hope!)
“The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.”
Thomas J. Jackson
Do nothing, Congress!
December 20, 2007 - 12:15 ET by DyneThe less they do, the less damage they can do. Unless the bills that are actually constitutional and make common sense should somehow see the light of day. A few of those are listed at downsizedc.org
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:20
Dyne
December 20, 2007 - 14:29 ET by ricklailI am with you on that. I don't believe that our Founders wanted a full time Congress with career politicians. The less laws they make the better for us. I am really glad they didn't do a lot. I am feed up with all these so called earmarks. I don't feel I should have to pay for bike paths in SF.
Could somebody point me as to where I can find who got what in earmarks? I want to see if any money is going to the city of New Bern (NC) for their 300th birthday party in 2010. Again I don't feel that someone in Asheville NC, even though we are in the same state, or Podunk, Iowa should have to pay for a birthday party.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.
I think Henry Waxman should
December 20, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Free ThinkerI think Henry Waxman should commission a special congressional investigation to find out why the democrats have been so inept at their congressional duties. Pelosi and Reid lied, the far left cried.
"House Republicans were
December 20, 2007 - 11:00 ET by ckc1227"House Republicans were almost in a state of euphoria as they left Washington, D.C., on Wednesday."
Not sure why. They should be ashamed of this bill, and the President should be ashamed of signing it.
Business as usual.
Thank God they've protected us from rabid baseball players
December 20, 2007 - 11:01 ET by kenro85Why, without their investigation into steroid use in baseball, where would the world be now? That was so much more important than the silly price of oil, or war in the middle east, or a totally open border, or anything else. How can you say they've had a lame duck session with that under their belt?
How?
December 20, 2007 - 11:01 ET by heldmywIt is too probably too soon to quantify the disaffection that the (particularly far left) democrat voter will have in the upcoming elections.
I would hazard a guess that, if there is a strong showing by the GOP, a large percentage of these disaffected lefties are simply going to stay home. Further, in the conservative and moderate camps, a large number are going to vote the 'straight Republican ticket' out of sheer disgust with the hyper-pandering and cowardice shown by the House and Senate leaders.
Still so PO'd over the
December 20, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Gary P JacksonStill so PO'd over the "energy bill" that any comments I make will probably just degrade into a profanity filled rant.
GPJ...C'mon..let's HEAR IT ... An ANWR rant is needed
December 20, 2007 - 12:21 ET by JayTeeOnce a week, America needs to be reminded how much Oil we have in the ground.
We need NEWS Video's from Shell Canada's 15,000 square miles of Oil Sands and the job they're doing in CANADA...the NUMBER 2 Nation on the list of Oil Reserves.
Supposedly, America has a 500 year supply of OIL, in the OIL Shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming......or so I heard from a Congressman. I haven't verified that yet, but that's what he said on CSPAN one day.
Was listening to the
December 20, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Gary P JacksonWas listening to the President's news conference. Can't figure out how much he's bought into this global warming BS, but the fact that he's bought in has disappointed me to no end.
Don't want to sound like the moonbats, but the fact Bush believes on ounce of this crap makes me wonder if he is stupid! (insert 15 minutes worth of expletives)
What really blows my mind is my two idiot Senators, John Cornyn, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson bit on this deal. I guess that erases the stereotype of the Texas oil man! My Congressman, John Carter did vote the right way though. (as he always does)
With all of the oil and coal this nation has, this bill is a travesty. (insert another 15 minutes) There is absolutely no common sense in this thing. It makes no sense to write a bill that pushes many technologies that don't (or just barely) exist.
Again, Congress, and the President have failed to even understand America's energy situation. It's NOT about pollution! The clean air act did a very good job of mandating cleaner technologies. That is evidenced by the fact we have more cars, industry, and people, than we did when it was enacted, and yet less pollution.
Our only energy position is the fact we are paying the wrong people for it! Many energy rich nations are run by governments that wish us harm! That is the only issue.
By taking this path, rather than developing our own natural resources, we are committing nothing less than national suicide.
Thank you Mr President!
It's coming faster than people......
December 20, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Clear thinkerseem to fathom..... Socialism!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
actually we got that in the
December 20, 2007 - 13:45 ET by TruthMongeractually we got that in the 1940's i believe...
You're right...
December 20, 2007 - 15:12 ET by BritcomSocialism is already here. I think at the moment we are "progressing" toward a Feminist form of Stalinism. And guess who "Ms. Stalin" is.
Not having heard the speach
December 20, 2007 - 13:36 ET by dscottNot having heard the speach but just from his past actions, I would surmise W is using whatever has the most agreement to incrementally move the country to higher efficency standards. If he truly believed in AGW, he would open the floodgates to nuclear power, but he isn't. At the same time W is a realist, in order to keep the country competitive in the face of rising oil prices, he has to do something where he can get people to collectively agree. Energy efficiency is one of the few things both libs and conservatives agree upon, each for their own reasons. He is willing to mumble the words climate change to get some agreement, notice at the same time he is artfully using China and India's refusal for CO2 emissions targets to keep the US out of the Kyoto/Bali scam.
While energy independence is an ideal for the US, that's just not going to happen anytime soon. So what do you do in the meantime? W bought into the Ethanol thing because it is a domestically produced product, never mind it's debatable efficacy. I believe he supports Ethanol or non petroleum (bio) based energy because it really represents seed money to some more efficient process in the future. What we see right now in ethanol production will not be anything like what will be 10 years from now. Just because ethanol is made with corn now, doesn't mean it will be in the future. Increasing the production of ethanol by 6 fold "may" produce a breakthrough mass production process that yields an actual net positive on a gasoline/diesel substitute. With everyone and his brother working on this, the solution will come soon enough.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
JT.... Supposedly,
December 20, 2007 - 13:15 ET by bigtimerJT....
Supposedly, America has a 500 year supply of OIL, in the OIL Shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming......or so I heard from a Congressman. I haven't verified that yet, but that's what he said on CSPAN one day.
You are correct...Montana is included too...
Thanks giant clock (BT)...I didn't believe it at first..
December 20, 2007 - 13:41 ET by JayTeeHow can a Congressman know/say this on the floor of the house, and NOT have the other 400+ Idiots NOT respond (as in ENERGY BILL) ? I think it was a black Congressman.
Can you Spell JOBS ? Can you spell Peoria (Catepillar) Boom town making earth moving Equipment ?
Sure you gotta dig up a LOT of un-occupied land out west (like Canada is diging up the Oil Sand) but you can put back the Dirt (less Oil) and plant Trees. Although I don't think many Trees grow in S.E. Wyoming or Western Colo. on the Utah Border.
DON"T RE-ELECT ANYONE !!
Actually the newest process
December 20, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Right2thePointActually the newest process is drill a central well, pump steam down the hole.
Have 5 wells in a circle around the steam pipe and slow pump the liquified stuff out without having to strip mine for the stuff.
Chavez Heathcare
December 20, 2007 - 11:09 ET by RackieWho would of thought it would be so simple to improve the health of an entire nation.
Ron Paul Keeps Supremacist Donation
December 20, 2007 - 11:12 ET by TinianDr. Ron Paul Keeps White Supremacist Donation
From Captain's Quarters:
It's one thing to get a donation from a neo-Nazi; after all, Paul
didn't solicit it. It's another thing entirely to keep the money after
its source becomes clear. Keeping the money makes it look like the
campaign approves of the source, and that is a very, very bad message
to send when one is bragging about the success of recent money-bomb
events.
Why isn't the MSM reporting on this? Because they see another Ro___ P______ from Texas to play spoiler.
Meet the real friends of Dr. Ron Paul.
It's being reported all-over the MSM and 'net!
December 20, 2007 - 13:07 ET by sarcasmoUnless Cavuto somehow doesn't count. Even though it's a months-old story, and from what I've heard Don Black has contributed to various other politicians who (needless to say...) weren't held to quite this standard. More here. WND poll on the issue (I'm with "keep it, less possible mischief from his nutty group that way" and it's yet-another sarcasmo minority view) here.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
sarc needs to be patient...
December 20, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Clear thinkerThis link takes a few seconds to load, so be patient and you will see.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:brEqzL5bvu8J:www.davidduke.com/+David+Duke+EURO&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Congrats.
December 20, 2007 - 13:27 ET by sarcasmoYou've proved David Duke sucks at raising money compared to the real freedom fighters Duke's just as jealous-of as you & Dennis Kucinich apparently are!! Good thing those fiscally-irresponsible libertarians aren't in-power, eh?? (Cavuto-interview link with video.)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Thanks for the link. This
December 20, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberThanks for the link. This line stood out the best:
"One freedom Paul has comes from the unlikelihood he'll receive his party's nomination. If he were a real threat to be the Republican nominee, he would've given back the money immediately since no top tier candidate would want to take a chance on losing the big prize because of the kind of controversy surrounding this kind of controversy."
Genius.
I keep sayin' it...
December 20, 2007 - 13:21 ET by sarcasmoIf people are so-sure, they need to put money on it, quick. Hell, I already lost my chance at 200 & then 100 to one...Don't lose yours!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Your post makes no sense.If
December 20, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberYour post makes no sense.
If you already blew your chance of wasting even more money betting on your Lord and Saviour as next president, how can I NOT lose my chance to? Are the odds going to suddenly get worse? Your posts are becoming more and more mentally unstable as 2008 approaches. The first primary hasn't even happened, and your brain is already fried. You need a take a break. Why not try Hooters? Will you take your pom-poms with you when you go by yourself to oogle the staff at Hooters, or leave them in your '88 Chevette in the parking lot?
Your post makes no sense.
December 20, 2007 - 13:52 ET by sarcasmoAnd I'll just leave it at that.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
You keep spouting off about
December 20, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou keep spouting off about how the odds for Ron Paul keep getting better and better (with a obligatory barrage of crap gambling websites to prove it), but now tell us you hope we do not miss the chance to get the great odds that you somehow were too late in the game to get? That tells me that either the odds are crapping out again, or that you are have been sipping too much Paul-aid again.
Like it or not
December 20, 2007 - 15:03 ET by sarcasmoThose odds are getting better. And like it or not, the "crap gambling websites" AKA "the free market" tends to predict things (like accurately-predicting $6 million or so for the TeaParty) far better than other, more-biased polling methods. If you're sure of an outcome as you seem to be, you can make money. That's not "spouting-off," that's telling you to go put your money where your pie-hole is if you're that sure of all this, because I know that cocksure prognosticators like you, Stepahnoupolos and Behar, all-won't. That fact makes your replies amusing. :) Hell, I'm HAPPY that Jack put twenty bucks worth of Euros on Fred, though. Go for it, man!! :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Let me see if I have it
December 20, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Roger the ShrubberLet me see if I have it straight.
Earlier today you lamented "I already lost my chance at 200 & then 100 to one...Don't lose yours!!", which tells me that the odds were better a while back when you laid your money down.
Now you say "those odds are getting better" today.
Makes perfect sense.
P.S.: your last post is a rambling mess. Wipe the spittle off your chin and take a break. You are losing it.
I never bet
December 20, 2007 - 15:26 ET by sarcasmoThose were the odds back when he started, they're better (meaning for Ron Paul winning, not for punters) today. Duh. And you're once-again one to talk about meltdowns, just because you're easily-refuted as-usual doesn't mean I'm 'rambling.' The rambling today is being done by the Blimp!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Thank you for proving my
December 20, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberThank you for proving my point.
Your "I already lost my chance at 200 & then 100 to one...Don't lose yours!!" statement from earlier tells us that either you have been full of shit and never put money down on your Lord and Master until recently, are really douched up on some type of medication, or unable the handle the stress of worshipping Ron Paul.
Have a nice day, Pumpkin.
I know I'm gonna regret
December 20, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Gary P JacksonI know I'm gonna regret chiming in, but frankly, I have a better chance at winning the White House than Ron Paul! Paul actually makes Kucinich look normal.
Anyone who wants to stick his head in the sand when it comes to national security is automatically disqualified from serving. This "pull the troops out right now, and just leave everything there" attitude is insane! It's also the strategy of someone who is making a hasty retreat! And that's before we even discuss how stupid it would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I could go on to the rest of Paul's proposed policies, but he doesn't pass the security test, so the rest is irrelevant.
Ron Paul gets to keep lefover $$$'s after the Campaign
December 20, 2007 - 15:59 ET by JayTeeI think current laws state that any candidate, after losing an election, can keep any leftover campaign contribution $$$'s....keep 'em for the next election, or keep them after declaring retirement.
Ron P. is gonna keep all that money, at his age retirement is just around the corner.
Not to mention it was
December 20, 2007 - 16:08 ET by dscottNot to mention it was precisely the strategy (Clinton's do nothing but talk strategy after Somalia) that got us into this mess in the first place which W had to clean up. Remember W was in office less than 10 months, he didn't even have chance to meddle in world affairs or invade anyone to justify 911 on any level of logic. OBL and company figured all Westerners are the same, like the Europeans, that we would curl up in a ball and cry mommy!! Please don't hurt me anymore while cowering in a corner. That's what Clinton's hightailing from Somalia taught OBL during the black hawk down incident, OBL said so. We didn't invite 911 because we were oppressing Muslims the world over, we invited 911 by Clinton's cowardly behavior, and his failure to do anything during the genocide in Rwanda. The jibberish coming out of Obama, Paul, Kucinich, etc. is all the same dangerous failure to comprehend the world at large as both the Clintons did those 8 years while we were repeatedly attacked. Rolling up in a ball makes you a target, an object to be kicked, it doesn't keep you safe.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Want more proof that Ron
December 20, 2007 - 17:23 ET by Gary P JacksonWant more proof that Ron Paul is insane? While campaigning in New Hampshire today, Paul said he would lift sanctions on IRAN! That's right lift sanctions and withdraw the Navy from it's stations. Paul said if the U.S relieved pressure on Iran, "people would breath a sigh of relief, interest rates would probably not go up, and oil prices would drop"!!!
http://www.wcax.com/...
Un-friggin' believable!
This guy has to be the most naive human being ever to seek the Republican nomination!
Gary P... It doesn't
December 20, 2007 - 17:35 ET by bigtimerGary P...
It doesn't surprise me one bit...he is really in the money now and knows how to get it from those who agree with these kind of statements.
Just more confirmation that
December 20, 2007 - 17:41 ET by dscottJust more confirmation that Ron Paul ceased being a viable candidate the moment he opened his mouth at the first debate sponsored by Fox News saying we invited 911. Unfortunately, this gadfly will be with us to the convention, he doesn't have the decency and common sense to bow out like Tancredo did. No, his ego is way too big and matches the depth of his naïveté. It's hard to conceive someone is really that obtuse and proud of it, Ron Paul certainly does stretch the imagination in a direction no one should go.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Remember. In that stupid
December 21, 2007 - 09:56 ET by danboRemember. In that stupid youtube "debate". They fished out a question for Paul. Will you run as an independent?
They want him to run as an independent. Just as Ross Perot's run as an independent gave the White House to Bubba Clinton, who had less than a majority of the votes. I believe the Clintoons want Paul to run as an independent, to split the republican vote again.
They're fanning the coals again.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT