Congressional D's vs. R's

[red states rule]

there numbers have been in the tank since before the last election. that ain't the "amnesty" bill. How do you explain the numbers for congressional republicans being in the toilet since before the last election?

After Dems lied their way into power the rating for Congress was about 40%

 

[maineman]

After Dems lied their way into power the rating for Congress was about 40%

republicans have been in the tank since before the election. how DO you explain that?

 

[red states rule]

republicans have been in the tank since before the election. how DO you explain that?

The Dems have been tanking since they started to break every promise they made, and allowed their arrogrance to take over

 

[Edward]

Perhaps is Dems did not break nearly all the promises they made to get elected, they would have higher numbers

So I take it that if the Republicans did not break nearly all the promises they made to get elected, they would also have higher numbers or at least similar numbers to their Democratic counterparts. Simply put, when the Republicans in Congress have lower numbers than the Democrats and you assert that the reason the Democrats don't have higher numbers is because they have not kept all the promises they made to get elected than the same must hold true of Republicans but let us look at the facts. Almost, every part of the 100 Hour Agenda which Democrats that Democrats campaigned on was passed which means that they have kept nearly all the promises they made to get elected but I doubt your retarded ass understands that.

 

[Edward]

14%

All I can say is

First, Republicans in Congress have lower numbers than do Democrats which means that those numbers in general will bring down the numbers of the Congress as a whole. Simply put, the lower numbers of Republicans in Congress has a direct affect on the 14% rating that Congress as a whole has. If the public had a lower view of Democrats in Congress than the 14% would be even lower than it is but it is at 14% instead of 10% or less as a result of the publics view of the Democrats in Congress.

Second, you have said nothing new and continue to say the same thing over and over without addressing the core issue which is the question that has been put to you which is "why are the Republican numbers in Congress lower than that of Democrats in Congress." When you compare the apple of Democrats in Congress to the apple of Republicans in Congress you arrive at higher numbers for Democrats. Why is this? You keep bringing up the 14% as if it is indicative of how the public views Democrats when it is more likely that the number is lower because of Republicans in Congress who have lower numbers than do Democrats in Congress. If you take 100 people and put them in a room, and say 49 of them are Republicans, and 51 of them are Democrats and then when outside of the room give lower ratings to the 49 who are Republicans then to the 51 who are Democrats and rate the 100 at 14% what reason do you derive for this? The obvious reason is that the low view of the 49 is what is causing the lower numbers especially when the 51 cannot do anything as a result of the behavior of the 49. Simply put, the Democratic numbers would be even higher if they didn't have to deal with the Republicans in Congress who are dragging the numbers of Congress down.

Third, you are right that the public isn't very pleased with Democrats right now but the reason is because they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans in Congress and the President. There is an obvious reason why Democrats have lower numbers. The American people see them as not being able to get something passed into law. I am not very pleased with them either and the reason is because they don't spit in the face of the fuckers like you in Congress who are violating my rights as did you when you voted for them and continue to support their dictatorial policies. Take the example of the motherfucker in the White House who has a whore for a wife who continues to deny those of us who do not agree with him or the fuckers who voted for him a right to even vote on who our U.S. Attorneys are. Take Dick Cheney as an example who refuses to even allow an Executive Agency with the statutory authority to review the documents in his office to do so because in his opinion he isn't an "executive office. But of course, I doubt the motherfucker who is married to the **** Lynne would allow a legislative agency to review the documents in his office since he isn't an legislative office.

Fourth, if you want to compare these numbers you must assume that the lower rating of Republicans has a negative affect on the overall numbers of Congress to a greater degree than their Democratic counterparts who the public give a higher rating to. Simply put, the American people are less upset about the Democrats in Congress than they are about the Republicans and their view of Congress as a whole must reflect that (i.e., the fact that the overall numbers of Congress is as high as they are is because of the higher opinion that the public has of Democrats in Congress and the reason that the numbers are as low as they are is because of the lower opinion that the public has of Republicans in Congress).

 

[Edward]

Republicans are not helping their cause by supporting the amnesty bill

When the bill dies (I hope) things will get back to normal where Dems push for higher tazes, surrender in Iraq, trying to silence politcal speech they do not like, and the usual looney left issues

At least the left isn't denying Senators the right to confirm U.S. Attorneys instead that would be the right who is doing that. This is an issue that will not go away. This continued fucking denial of our rights to a voice in our government will not be tolerated. I do not know Georgie or Laurie Bush nor do they represent me yet they think they have the right to deny my Senator a voice in our government because they and those who voted for them are tyrants, and dictators.

What I don't like is for a man who I have never met who goes by the name of Georgie Bush denying my Senator who I have met the right to confirm U.S. Attorneys from my State. What I don't like is for man who I haver never met and did not vote for and who was voted for by someone I did not vote for denying those who represent me the right to a voice in our government. That Bush thinks he can make decisions that a Senator and Representative of the people should be making means he is a tryant and those who agree with him are nothing more than dictators who disguise their acts of violence upon others in a vote.

 

[Edward]

there numbers have been in the tank since before the last election. that ain't the "amnesty" bill. How do you explain the numbers for congressional republicans being in the toilet since before the last election?

The only answer he will give is, "the left, the left, the damn Democrats, the damn Democrats, they are to blame for everything." He cannot explain the reason why people are upset with the Republican Party because if he did he would have to acknowledge that it has to do with the arrogance of denying others a voice in their own government and taking actions that the people and their representatives were denied a vote in. The people feels a sense of outrage at Republicans for denying the people the right to a say in their own government (i.e., if Congress had voted to go to war than no one would complain as our representatives would have the time to debate and to vote to take us to war instead a guy named Georgie and those he represent made that decision and now our loved ones are threatened because of their opinion and their decision which we did not have a say in) This is what the anger over the Iraq War is about. It isn't that we are in Iraq fighting but that no matter how we vote we don't get to decide since the only fuckers who do are those that the jackass Georgie represents because he is telling OUR REPRESENTATIVES to go to hell or in the words of Dicky Cheney to "fuck off." This is what the anger is over the firing of U.S. Attorneys and the appointment of U.S. Attorneys who still have not been confirmed is about. Why aren't they not being confirmed? Because Bush won't nominate them? Why won't he nominate them? Because he doesn't want our representatives to get to have an up or down vote on their confirmations instead he thinks he should be able to decide who enforces the laws in our states whiche he doesn't live in. Where the hell does this piece of shit from Crawford, Texas get off making decisions like this and denying our Senators to confirm our U.S. Attorneys? The Republican answer is, "we elected George Bush to be King and we don't give a damn about the opinions of others because we intend to deny them a say in their government at every opportunity we get." This is true of the voter fraud that Republicans take part in (i.e., vote caging) and it is a systematic attempt to deny us our rights including the right to vote and to be represented.

 

[Edward]

The Dems have been tanking since they started to break every promise they made, and allowed their arrogrance to take over

The reason the Democrats numbers are going down is because they have not taken the monster and tyrant Georgie Bush or the tryants who voted for him on hard enough. The other reason their numbers are going down is because we are fed up with being denied a voice in our government. We are sick and tired that Democrats aren't doing enough to punish the dictators who elected George Bush and who continue to violate our rights. This latest issue of our Senators not being able to confirm U.S. Attorneys because Bush refuses to nominate anyone for these positions instead preferring to bypass the constitutional authority of the Senate to confirm all civil officers of the Government by making interim appointments and then not nominating anyone. There is a long list of how George Bush and Republicans in Congress have violate our rights but the most important one is that they have denied our representatives a voice in our government through illegal, unconstitutional an immoral methods of tyranny.

How dare your faction take us into a war, and then send our sons and our daughters to die and to fight and then to fucking ignore us and to deny our representatives the right to even vote on the matter. How dare you do this to us? Who the fuck are you? You are nothing more than an arrogant and evil asshole. You violated our rights by denying us and our representatives a right to fucking be represented in the decision to go to war, and now you are denying us the right to have a say as to when it ends. Call the Democrats arrogant all you want because it is quite apparent that it is you who is arrogant and who think you have the right to make decisions that affect us and our loved ones while not even allowing us an equal say. The reason Congress was given the authority to declare war was because people wanted the right to make this decision. They didn't want one man to make it, and this was debated many times. When one person gets to make such a decision and then to decide how long the war will last he is acting in the role of a King and this is offensive to any person who loves liberty.

 

[red states rule]

The reason the Democrats numbers are going down is because they have not taken the monster and tyrant Georgie Bush or the tryants who voted for him on hard enough. The other reason their numbers are going down is because we are fed up with being denied a voice in our government. We are sick and tired that Democrats aren't doing enough to punish the dictators who elected George Bush and who continue to violate our rights. This latest issue of our Senators not being able to confirm U.S. Attorneys because Bush refuses to nominate anyone for these positions instead preferring to bypass the constitutional authority of the Senate to confirm all civil officers of the Government by making interim appointments and then not nominating anyone. There is a long list of how George Bush and Republicans in Congress have violate our rights but the most important one is that they have denied our representatives a voice in our government through illegal, unconstitutional an immoral methods of tyranny.

How dare your faction take us into a war, and then send our sons and our daughters to die and to fight and then to fucking ignore us and to deny our representatives the right to even vote on the matter. How dare you do this to us? Who the fuck are you? You are nothing more than an arrogant and evil asshole. You violated our rights by denying us and our representatives a right to fucking be represented in the decision to go to war, and now you are denying us the right to have a say as to when it ends. Call the Democrats arrogant all you want because it is quite apparent that it is you who is arrogant and who think you have the right to make decisions that affect us and our loved ones while not even allowing us an equal say. The reason Congress was given the authority to declare war was because people wanted the right to make this decision. They didn't want one man to make it, and this was debated many times. When one person gets to make such a decision and then to decide how long the war will last he is acting in the role of a King and this is offensive to any person who loves liberty.

Edward at his "best"

 

[Edward]

Edward at his "best"

Blah, blah, blah and blah. Did I make you cry baby? Are you going to whine that I won't sit back as you and the dictators like you enter the voting booth and elect other dictators to violate our rights and to deny us and our representatives a vote in matters of our government? Do you want me to get you a kleenex so you can wipe the ass of your your faction's leaders? Does it upset you when we don't stand by and allow you to deny us our rights?

 

[red states rule]

Blah, blah, blah and blah. Did I make you cry baby? Are you going to whine that I won't sit back as you and the dictators like you enter the voting booth and elect other dictators to violate our rights and to deny us and our representatives a vote in matters of our government? Do you want me to get you a kleenex so you can wipe the ass of your your faction's leaders? Does it upset you when we don't stand by and allow you to deny us our rights?

We are dictators yet we have elections?

 

[red states rule]

Another reason Dems are tanking in the polls

snip

Jack Murtha, venture capitalist
Funny how attempts at congressional ethics reform keep running into roadblocks like Rep. Jack Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat and chair of the House defense appropriations subcommittee is best known in this context as the man who once called the ethics package "total crap." He represents an economically depressed corner of southwest Pennsylvania whose largest city, Johnstown, has lost 5 percent of its population since 1990. Not even considering the man's unique personal qualities, one senses where this earmark story is headed.

With Murtha Inc. calling the shots on defense appropriations, some are chortling that he fancies himself a kind of taxpayer-backed venture capitalist operating in service to his job-hungry district. To judge by the fruits, though, the unindicted "Abscam" coconspirator could not be considered a very successful "venture capitalist." We'd stick with a more traditional label like pork-barreller.

The self-styled "most ethical and honest Congress in history" must get a grip on Mr. Murtha and friends if it is to make any headway whatsoever on ethics reforms. At this rate, Mr. Murtha just about torpedoes whatever chance House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to deliver on her campaign promises.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070626/EDITORIAL/106260008/1013

 

[maineman]

The Dems have been tanking since they started to break every promise they made, and allowed their arrogrance to take over

keep runnin'

 

[red states rule]

keep runnin'

The liberal arrogrance train is not running - its rolling down the track

 

[Edward]

We are dictators yet we have elections?

Winning elections does not mean that you aren't a dictator, because the British form of government that our forefathers rebelled against also elected members to Parliment and those members were dictators just like the British people were. In our system of government, because of the Constitution, those whose represenation is voted away must simply accept the outcome of an election and say, "well, since John and Jane who live down the street from me chose Mary to be the representative for our neighborhood I will simply accept the decision of John, Jane, and Mary and me and Billy who I voted for will just fuck off and allow Mary to represent the interests of John, Jane and Mary while me and Billy can be good little bitches and stay home and allow John, Jane and Mary to make the decisions of our government because John, Jane and Mary voted away our right to a say in our government."

This is the fundamental concept of representation, and one which we lack in this country. It is the idea that one person cannot represent the interests of the people of their district when the district is so large that the people of the district cannot hold a person directly accountable. That is, they must travel miles to talk to a person they have never met about something they feel is important to them and their family when their friends, family and neighbors would best represent their interests. It is upon this premise that you build layer upon layer of representation and you succeed at accomplishing true representation. It is in our system of government where elections aren't really about a person voting for someone to represent them as it is about them voting to deny the person voting for the other person representation.

But let us put that issue aside for a minute and look at the root problem that is happening now which is that our current Senators and Representatives do not even have a say in many of the matters that affect us, and worst the President has denied them the rights they enjoy under the Constitution. Simply put, even though we elect representatives those who Bush represents deny our representatives the right to confirm U.S. Attorneys and this also makes those who voted for Bush and who support him dictators. Not only did they vote away the right of people to have representation but their representative is now denying the representative of the people who he does not represent the right to a voice in matter that affect them.

 

[red states rule]

Yet libs like you who say Pres Bush is taking away freedoms, rant how conservative talk radio needs to be silenced, and SUV's need to be banned

 

[maineman]

the hits just keep on coming....this from RSR's favorite network:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 26-27, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing?"
6/26-27/07
Approve 36
Disapprove 49
Unsure 15


Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?"
6/26-27/07
Approve 30
Disapprove 56
Unsure 14

more than half of America disapproves of the job the GOP is doing in congress. wow.

 

[Superlative]

Yet libs like you who say Pres Bush is taking away freedoms, rant how conservative talk radio needs to be silenced, and SUV's need to be banned

man you are boring.

Dont you get tired of having nothing new to say?


Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?"
6/26-27/07
Approve 30
Disapprove 56
Unsure 14

Looks like the cons are tanking in the polls, too bad, you did your best to rally the world to the dark side.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Yet libs like you who say Pres Bush is taking away freedoms, rant how conservative talk radio needs to be silenced, and SUV's need to be banned

wait a minute, what is wrong with this point?.

I am on the fence about whether bush is taking rights away or not, but if the fairness doctrine comes back, it will take away americans rights, and banning suvs, technically, while i agree with it, does ban the right or choice.

so respond to it.

 

[maineman]

wait a minute, what is wrong with this point?.

I am on the fence about whether bush is taking rights away or not, but if the fairness doctrine comes back, it will take away americans rights, and banning suvs, technically, while i agree with it, does ban the right or choice.

so respond to it.

what is wrong with it is that is nothing but a rehashed conservative talking point. First...very few liberals "rant" about anything. I share the concern of many that the Patriot Act flies in the face of the wishes of the founding fathers. I have NEVER heard a liberal "rant" about silencing talk radio.... only providing some balance...and even then, I am not personally all that concerned. Conservatives may own talk radio, but, if so, TV belongs to the liberals. I have never heard anyone rant about "banning" SUV's.... the whole little RSR parroted conservative aphorism adds nothing to the debate..... but is nothing more than a schoolyard taunt... very immature, very pointless.

THAT is what is wrong with it.