After 4 Years of a Democrat Congress are you ready for a change?

In my opinion:

  • The last 4 years under a democrat congress have not been good overall and we need a change

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • The last 4 years under a democrat congress have been good overall and we don't need a change

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Both the republicans prior to 07 and the dems since have failed us

    Votes: 21 56.8%
  • Both Bush's pre 07 republican congress and the democrat congress since have been great.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37
I just want the end of 1-Party rule...

We are feeling the effects of that failed experiment....


Gridlock, Baby! Gridlock!

The gridlock is a result of the obstruction from a republican party that used to be against said obstruction when they had the power and NOT one party rule. IF it were one party rule then most of the slow down by the republicans this past year since brown won would not have occured.
Actually more obstruction comes rfrom the left then the right. It wasn't republican congressman making last minute deals on healthcare. Get your facts straight.

Both sides play the game all the time. Whichever side has the minority gridlocks things for the other side, except for the short time the dems had a supermajority after the dems won in the 08 elections. Other than that one party has always obstructed the other.
 
It seems from the polls that right now most of the country have had enough of the last nearly 4 years of a democrat congress.

How do you feel about it?

How are you going to use your vote to do something about it.



Me personally I've had enough of the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties.

I'm going to use my vote to try and put new people in during the primaries instead of incumbents then when it comes time to vote I'm going to look for the canidate with either the best actual record on fiscal issues or if they have no record yet then the one whom states and promises the best position in the area of the debt and taxes.

blah blah blah and then they will bitch if they elect a Republican congress.:cuckoo:

Maybe one day everyone will figure out to put in a 3rd party and take the monopoly of power away from the 2 party system. :eusa_pray::eusa_pray::eusa_pray:

I generally vote for the underdog, so I will be voting for republicans again..........LOL!! Never happen........
 
I just want the end of 1-Party rule...

We are feeling the effects of that failed experiment....


Gridlock, Baby! Gridlock!

The gridlock is a result of the obstruction from a republican party that used to be against said obstruction when they had the power and NOT one party rule. IF it were one party rule then most of the slow down by the republicans this past year since brown won would not have occured.

Your democratics control both houses, dumbmshit...

They could pass everything if they wanted to... They don't need the R's, you idiot..

It's not "obstructing" when they can't "obstruct"...

Some of you liberals are actually getting dumber each day... Scientific proof exists here at USMB...
 
It seems from the polls that right now most of the country have had enough of the last nearly 4 years of a democrat congress.

How do you feel about it?

How are you going to use your vote to do something about it.

Me personally I've had enough of the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties.

I'm going to use my vote to try and put new people in during the primaries instead of incumbents then when it comes time to vote I'm going to look for the canidate with either the best actual record on fiscal issues or if they have no record yet then the one whom states and promises the best position in the area of the debt and taxes.

I don't trust either party. Let's scrap'em all and get some new people in there who don't like the status quo, who actually will abolish the recent D.C. style of politics, who can come to compromise so that there can be real progress, and people who will unite Americans and stop dividing us and provoking us to hate eachother.

Let's all vote Independent this year and every year until there is no GOP or Democrats in Congress.
 
It seems from the polls that right now most of the country have had enough of the last nearly 4 years of a democrat congress.

How do you feel about it?

How are you going to use your vote to do something about it.

Me personally I've had enough of the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties.

I'm going to use my vote to try and put new people in during the primaries instead of incumbents then when it comes time to vote I'm going to look for the canidate with either the best actual record on fiscal issues or if they have no record yet then the one whom states and promises the best position in the area of the debt and taxes.

I don't trust either party. Let's scrap'em all and get some new people in there who don't like the status quo, who actually will abolish the recent D.C. style of politics, who can come to compromise so that there can be real progress, and people who will unite Americans and stop dividing us and provoking us to hate eachother.

Let's all vote Independent this year and every year until there is no GOP or Democrats in Congress.

I like that idea better than the one in my last paragraph of my OP that you quoted.
 
After the 06 elections the dems held the majority. Prior to that bush had a republican controlled congress.

After 08 the dems had a supermajority impervious to any attempted republican philibuster.

Actually that is NOT true. The Dems did not gain the super majority until spector switched sides on April 28, 2009 and then lost it when scott brown won in mass on February 4, 2010.

Smith, again, please read what I wrote before innacurately chastising what I wrote.

I will highlight and bold a key word you missed.

I missed NOTHING.
When you lack specificty and leave it open for interpretation for dishonest rightwing hacks, they will buy into it and apply the spin that has been presented by the right on many occastions that the dems had the supermajority after the 08 election and still do.
That is why I gave the specifics that you left out.
By saying "after 08" you leave out the huge gap that occured where they did NOT have the supermajority which only serves to further the propaganda of the right that they did.

I presented the whole truth where as you presented something that was true not completely accurate. Was it intentional?? I don't know for sure but it did seem that you were playing into the propaganda.
I am merely trying to keep you honest. If you have a problem with that, next time don't be so vague about it.
 
It seems from the polls that right now most of the country have had enough of the last nearly 4 years of a democrat congress.

How do you feel about it?

I am not sure what they have had enough of(?). Helping other Americans? I plead guilty.


How are you going to use your vote to do something about it.

Using my vote to leave Dems in control is doing something about it. Republicans gave us 8 years of obstruction under Clinton, and 8 more years of obstruction under Bush, and now two years of obstruction under Obama (8+8+2=18 yrs). Meantime US citizen tax dollars have been used for everything except US citizens, for a grand total of about 20Trillion. And every obstruction by republicans under Obama has been to further stop any tax dollars reaching US citizens. So I see no reason to expect any change from Republicans at this late date.



Me personally I've had enough of the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties.

I'm going to use my vote to try and put new people in during the primaries instead of incumbents then when it comes time to vote I'm going to look for the canidate with either the best actual record on fiscal issues or if they have no record yet then the one whom states and promises the best position in the area of the debt and taxes.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't intentionally trying to be vague and considering the scott brown thing I understand your comment.

I really wish you were more polite about it though, we probably could have not made the last 2 (ok 3 with this one..specifics LOL) posts if you just came out and said what your intentions were in a more respectful way the first time.
 
Your democratics control both houses, dumbmshit...

They could pass everything if they wanted to... They don't need the R's, you idiot..

It's not "obstructing" when they can't "obstruct"...

Some of you liberals are actually getting dumber each day... Scientific proof exists here at USMB...

Speaking of dumb shits, when did the Dems last have 2/3rds of the seats in Congress to, as you state, "They could pass everything if they wanted to.." ? If Bush vetoed an item, it would take 2/3rds to override it, so just having a majority doesn't mean crap. :)

Come on dumb shit, give us an answer, ok? I would hate to think all retards are as dumb as you at USMB...............
 
Last edited:
I just want the end of 1-Party rule...

We are feeling the effects of that failed experiment....


Gridlock, Baby! Gridlock!

The gridlock is a result of the obstruction from a republican party that used to be against said obstruction when they had the power and NOT one party rule. IF it were one party rule then most of the slow down by the republicans this past year since brown won would not have occured.
Actually more obstruction comes rfrom the left then the right. It wasn't republican congressman making last minute deals on healthcare. Get your facts straight.

So you are actually trying to use ONE vote to try and claim that a larger pattern of obstruction comes from the left than the right?? Are you serious?? And you actually tell me to get my facts straight?? LOL now that is hilarious. LOL
 
Your democratics control both houses, dumbmshit...

They could pass everything if they wanted to... They don't need the R's, you idiot..

It's not "obstructing" when they can't "obstruct"...

Some of you liberals are actually getting dumber each day... Scientific proof exists here at USMB...

Why was Scott Brown's election legislatively significant again?
 
I provided my position which negates this concern.

How does putting in one or two new Rs (depending on how many actually get in for your state that you vote on)change things when the party leadership will remain the same??

Your position does nothing to negate that concern because the overall layout of the party will remain the same.

Or how about a D instead of an R? Or an R instead of a D? Or even better some 3rd party canidates instead of a D or and R?

To get to your specific question about how does putting a few non-incumbents in the same party seat held by an incumbent change anything......if we get enough brand new blood in both parties that the new guys become the majority within their respective parties then they can truly break the cycle.

Nice fantasy but I live in the real world here. Are there even enough seats available to have the new blood become the majority?? I don't see how electing a FEW non-imcumbents into the few seats available will do anything to change the leadership in either party, so what will REALLY change. The same republicans that ran us into the ground last time will still have the power IF republicans regain control this time.
 
The gridlock is a result of the obstruction from a republican party that used to be against said obstruction when they had the power and NOT one party rule. IF it were one party rule then most of the slow down by the republicans this past year since brown won would not have occured.
Actually more obstruction comes rfrom the left then the right. It wasn't republican congressman making last minute deals on healthcare. Get your facts straight.

Both sides play the game all the time. Whichever side has the minority gridlocks things for the other side, except for the short time the dems had a supermajority after the dems won in the 08 elections. Other than that one party has always obstructed the other.


That is the vagueness and propaganda that I was referring to. the dems did not have the super majority after they won the election in 08. To say that implies that they had the supermajority immediately following the election which they did not. They did not gain the super majority until spector switched parties on April 28, 2009 and losnt it when brown won in mass on February 4, 2010.
Dr. house's rant proves that specificty needs to be provided so people like him learn the truth and can finally stop spreading the propaganda.
 
I just want the end of 1-Party rule...

We are feeling the effects of that failed experiment....


Gridlock, Baby! Gridlock!

The gridlock is a result of the obstruction from a republican party that used to be against said obstruction when they had the power and NOT one party rule. IF it were one party rule then most of the slow down by the republicans this past year since brown won would not have occured.

Your democratics control both houses, dumbmshit...

They could pass everything if they wanted to... They don't need the R's, you idiot..

It's not "obstructing" when they can't "obstruct"...

Some of you liberals are actually getting dumber each day... Scientific proof exists here at USMB...

Are you actually trying to argue that the republican's don't ahve the option of filibustering?? When did they remove that?? Oh you mean they haven't removed and therefore republicans can still obstruct and filibuster anything that comes to the floor as long as they hold their party as their usual "party of one" and vote as a block.

Thanks for showing that you have no concept of how the senate works. LOL
 
I provided my position which negates this concern.

How does putting in one or two new Rs (depending on how many actually get in for your state that you vote on)change things when the party leadership will remain the same??

Your position does nothing to negate that concern because the overall layout of the party will remain the same.

Or how about a D instead of an R? Or an R instead of a D? Or even better some 3rd party canidates instead of a D or and R?

To get to your specific question about how does putting a few non-incumbents in the same party seat held by an incumbent change anything......if we get enough brand new blood in both parties that the new guys become the majority within their respective parties then they can truly break the cycle.

It doesn't ever work that way. It's a gradual process whereby the newbies get seasoned by the oldies and become just like them. That's why things never change...:eusa_whistle:
 
I wasn't intentionally trying to be vague and considering the scott brown thing I understand your comment.

I really wish you were more polite about it though, we probably could have not made the last 2 (ok 3 with this one..specifics LOL) posts if you just came out and said what your intentions were in a more respectful way the first time.

I did not mean to be rude initially, I merely pointed out that what you were saying wasn't true. I did get a little harsh later on but that was only after you said that I missed something that I did not.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top