bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,025
- 280
My argument is you're a rightard you can't admit it, as evidenced by your idiotic claim being proven wrong repeatedly.It's... you suck at math.... is what it is. That's why you make an idiot of yourself claiming there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?no leftard i said Democrats had larger majorities, MUCH LARGER than Republican majorities. you're citing ONE YEAR where there was ONE MORE republican while i cited ALL THE OTHER YEARS WHEN DEMOCRAT MAJORITIES DWARFED what Bush had
you are a clown
You really do suck at math.
And that "one year" I referenced was all I needed to prove you wrong since you claimed Democrats had a bigger majority in 2007 than Republicans had prior to that under Bush.
AND THIS IS WHERE YOU REVEAL WHAT A LOSER YOU ARE. is it four votes idiot??
now what was the Democrat majority in other years? particularly in the 111th congress dullard?
my point what democrat majorities were larger; and they were. you are making a fool of yourself
you're embarrasing yourself
really just stop. how sad.
your argument is you're more correct based on one year with a whole four votes??
really?/
were Democrat majorities bigger than Republican majorities/
what a loser
Poor, bedwetter.
normal people are laughing at you