How many blame republicans?

[bigrebnc1775]

I have been a member of this board for less then a day and I have read a few misinformed replies about blaming the republicans for all that is wrong with this country. I am here to set the record straight.


Since 1945 the democrats have controlled the house all but 7 times

From 1949 to 1993 the Democrats have controlled the house.
= 44years

2006 until the present the Democrats have controlled the house.
=4 years

Democrats controlled the senate
1945,
1949,
1951
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
=32years

Also I will add that the democrats control both house and senate from
1955-1979
= 24 years

and from1987-1993
= 6 years
And in 2001 the democrats controlled the senate
= 2years


Years Democrats controlled White House and Congress[/B]
1945
1949
1951
1961
1963
1965
1967
1977
1979
1993
1995
1997
1999
2009
= 28 years


The Repoublicans controlled the Senate
1947
1953
1981
1983
1985
1995
1997
1999
2003
2005
= 20years

the Republicans had controlled the house
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
=12years

Years Republican controlled the White House and Congress
2003
2005
=4years
And here is a look at each year
Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Socialism, Republican-Style by Michael Tennant

Not opening link do you have something to add besides a link?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What exactly is the point of this?

place the blame where the blame belongs

That's like saying an entire bushel of apples is bad because one has a worm hole in it. Get yourself educated on something other than a bunch of meaningless numbers.

Meaningless numbers is that like saying words don't matter then changing your mind in mind comment?

 

[Cuyo]

If thats how you see it fine it's your dream I can't change it.
I asked a question and provided the facts can you say that the democrats have not controled the government for 50+years, and be honest about it?
EDIT:
All the things you mentioned happened under Republican watch.
If 9/11 happen due to Republicans cause then the banking failure happoened due to obama and the democrats. your logic it works for me.

The banking failure happened under Obama? Are you sure? Gee-whiz I don't watch that much TV but I'm pretty sure it happened under Boooooosh, during the Gen-Elec campaigns.

obama was a senator in a democratic controlled congress in 2007 the bank failures happen in 2008
Bush and the Republicans controlled the Government in 2001 9/11 happened in 2001 You blame Bush and the Republicans for 9/11 becausae they were in control. So the blame for the failed economy according to you should be blamed on ther democrats since they controlled the government when the failure happened.

I have a feeling you're not going to be someone I can have a conversation with. You dopey conservatives give the other 2% a bad name.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fabian, oh Fabian, is that really you?

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans, Democrats, and all the assholes who ever voted for either, myself included.

Agreed but it does seem that the democrats have had more time to screw things up then the Republicans have. Don't get me wrong the Republicans aren't prefect but lets not fool ourself the democrats have controlled the government more then the republicans have.

Two faces on the same counterfeit coin.

Who's gonna change it? Newbies who will take about six weeks to figure out they need to start campaigning already and will fall victim to the lure of lobbyists just like all the others?

 

[Cuyo]

Agreed but it does seem that the democrats have had more time to screw things up then the Republicans have. Don't get me wrong the Republicans aren't prefect but lets not fool ourself the democrats have controlled the government more then the republicans have.

Two faces on the same counterfeit coin.

Who's gonna change it? Newbies who will take about six weeks to figure out they need to start campaigning already and will fall victim to the lure of lobbyists just like all the others?

No no! These guys are different... We're gonna throw the bums out!

 

[MaggieMae]

The only time Congress ever did anything correct was when Reagan was President. Tax cuts jumped started a failed democratic economy. The community re-envestment act was the beginning of the failure of Freedy Mac and Fanny Mae, hand outs for those who could not repay their loans.. and barney franks and company said these two groups where sound and strong up until they fell down.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

 

[MaggieMae]

Agreed but it does seem that the democrats have had more time to screw things up then the Republicans have. Don't get me wrong the Republicans aren't prefect but lets not fool ourself the democrats have controlled the government more then the republicans have.

Two faces on the same counterfeit coin.

The point is Republicans are being blamed for what they did not do.

Like?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

9/11 might have chronologically preceded our invasion of Iraq, but it certainly was NEVER a reasonable justification FOR it. I fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan and, as I have said on here before, I even volunteered to go back on active duty prior to that invasion, but Bush dropped the ball at Tora Bora and his inexplicable and unjustified shifting of priorities from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan who HAD attacked us to Saddam in Iraq who had NOT attacked us was a TERRIBLE and HORRID foreign policy blunder of EPIC proportions.

And I don't see the CRA as the villian, per se, but rather the administration and application of it, which both parties share fairly equally. The CRA was, after all, founded to "help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.”

Most were supportive of going to Iraq hin side is 20/20 no one knew that the information that was given was flawed. but Saddam did violate the terms of the cease fire of 91.

Now as to the CRA being a villian or not would you agree that loaning money to people who could never repay the loan is a dangerous thing? If the government forced the banks to do this then it was because of the CRA.

most were not supportive. a majority of the democrats serving in the congress of the united states voted against the use of force resolution. and what the **** do violations of a cease fire by a secular baathist government in Iraq have to do with radical muslim extremists flying airplanes into buildings in America?

The CRA clearly stated that the loans to moderate and low income neighborhoods needed to be done consistent with safe and sound operations. The administrators of the CRA are far more at fault for the failure to abide by that instruction than the legislators who wrote it into law. From 1977, how many years have the administrators of that act been under the direction of a republican president and how many years have they been under the direction of a democratic president?

Sir I really hate to call foul on your comment but you are inncorrect when you say that most were not supportive
On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate debated and authorized President Bush's request to wage war on Iraq. Joe Biden voted with the 77-23 majority, which included 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats.
Sen. Joe Biden on Going to War Against Iraq - Joe Biden in His Own Words on War With Iraq
Looks like a majority to me

So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:


I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:


People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about


Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.

But, according to Wilkerson,


The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?

In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written,

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with “high confidence” was that


Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. 1

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:


Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President


to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:


There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:


Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:


We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:


Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.


Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. 2
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Timesrepeatedly insisted that


without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
Who Is Lying About Iraq? – Democrat Quotes | Sweetness & Light


As for the CRA when the government telling the banks they have a quota to fill with x numbers of low encome people and if theyu do not give those loans they will be fined. would you say thats a recipe for failure?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only time Congress ever did anything correct was when Reagan was President. Tax cuts jumped started a failed democratic economy. The community re-envestment act was the beginning of the failure of Freedy Mac and Fanny Mae, hand outs for those who could not repay their loans.. and barney franks and company said these two groups where sound and strong up until they fell down.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

Just a bump of liberal horseshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Two faces on the same counterfeit coin.

The point is Republicans are being blamed for what they did not do.

Like?

Read any thread here that deals with Republican Democratic issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The banking failure happened under Obama? Are you sure? Gee-whiz I don't watch that much TV but I'm pretty sure it happened under Boooooosh, during the Gen-Elec campaigns.

obama was a senator in a democratic controlled congress in 2007 the bank failures happen in 2008
Bush and the Republicans controlled the Government in 2001 9/11 happened in 2001 You blame Bush and the Republicans for 9/11 becausae they were in control. So the blame for the failed economy according to you should be blamed on ther democrats since they controlled the government when the failure happened.

I have a feeling you're not going to be someone I can have a conversation with. You dopey conservatives give the other 2% a bad name.

Is there something incorrect that I may have said? Or is it the truth that you hate to see?

 

[maineman]

Most were supportive of going to Iraq hin side is 20/20 no one knew that the information that was given was flawed. but Saddam did violate the terms of the cease fire of 91.

Now as to the CRA being a villian or not would you agree that loaning money to people who could never repay the loan is a dangerous thing? If the government forced the banks to do this then it was because of the CRA.

most were not supportive. a majority of the democrats serving in the congress of the united states voted against the use of force resolution. and what the **** do violations of a cease fire by a secular baathist government in Iraq have to do with radical muslim extremists flying airplanes into buildings in America?

The CRA clearly stated that the loans to moderate and low income neighborhoods needed to be done consistent with safe and sound operations. The administrators of the CRA are far more at fault for the failure to abide by that instruction than the legislators who wrote it into law. From 1977, how many years have the administrators of that act been under the direction of a republican president and how many years have they been under the direction of a democratic president?

Sir I really hate to call foul on your comment but you are inncorrect when you say that most were not supportive
On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate debated and authorized President Bush's request to wage war on Iraq. Joe Biden voted with the 77-23 majority, which included 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats.
Sen. Joe Biden on Going to War Against Iraq - Joe Biden in His Own Words on War With Iraq
Looks like a majority to me

So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:


I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:


People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about


Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.

But, according to Wilkerson,


The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?

In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written,

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with “high confidence” was that


Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. 1

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:


Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President


to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:


There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:


Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:


We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:


Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.


Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. 2
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Timesrepeatedly insisted that


without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
Who Is Lying About Iraq? – Democrat Quotes | Sweetness & Light


As for the CRA when the government telling the banks they have a quota to fill with x numbers of low encome people and if theyu do not give those loans they will be fined. would you say thats a recipe for failure?

call foul all you like but you are wrong to do so. Go get the roll calls from the house AND the senate. Count up the number of democrats who supported the use of force resolution and then count up the number of democrats who opposed it. the latter number is greater than the former, regardless of how much limbaugh koolaid you drink.

I would say what I said before, the CRA legislation required the agencies to use sound business principles. If they failed to do so, that cannot be laid at the feet of congress.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is amazing how much havoc the republicans were able to wreck in the short time they had control, eh?

Problem is they haven't been in a position to wreck havoc for over 4 years and said havoc didn't take place until 07. [check the dates on the banking and housing crisis]

So....who's to blame for our economy??? Congress. The President doesn't set banking regulations....Congress does. Who spends money from the Treasury....Congress. Who's to blame for all of the hell that broke loose in 08'?

Those who've been in charge since Jan 07'

Democraps in Congress.

Sure, since 2007. Nobody with half a brain buys that, genius.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

You can find his speeches on that in many places. Feel free to search for yourself. Although the house of cards came crashing down on Democrats' watch, it took many years building to the crescendo, my friend. These events didn't happen as a result of only one year of Democratic control. You continue to be easy to dumb down:

The Financial Crisis Timeline

 

[Cuyo]

obama was a senator in a democratic controlled congress in 2007 the bank failures happen in 2008
Bush and the Republicans controlled the Government in 2001 9/11 happened in 2001 You blame Bush and the Republicans for 9/11 becausae they were in control. So the blame for the failed economy according to you should be blamed on ther democrats since they controlled the government when the failure happened.

I have a feeling you're not going to be someone I can have a conversation with. You dopey conservatives give the other 2% a bad name.

Is there something incorrect that I may have said? Or is it the truth that you hate to see?

Yes, yes that's what it is. You're so utterly profound that my whole ideological views are blown, and I'm having trouble coping. You got it Potsie.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have been a member of this board for less then a day and I have read a few misinformed replies about blaming the republicans for all that is wrong with this country. I am here to set the record straight.


Since 1945 the democrats have controlled the house all but 7 times

From 1949 to 1993 the Democrats have controlled the house.
= 44years

2006 until the present the Democrats have controlled the house.
=4 years

Democrats controlled the senate
1945,
1949,
1951
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
=32years

Also I will add that the democrats control both house and senate from
1955-1979
= 24 years

and from1987-1993
= 6 years
And in 2001 the democrats controlled the senate
= 2years


Years Democrats controlled White House and Congress[/B]
1945
1949
1951
1961
1963
1965
1967
1977
1979
1993
1995
1997
1999
2009
= 28 years


The Repoublicans controlled the Senate
1947
1953
1981
1983
1985
1995
1997
1999
2003
2005
= 20years

the Republicans had controlled the house
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
=12years

Years Republican controlled the White House and Congress
2003
2005
=4years
And here is a look at each year
Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

*you're* going to set the record straight?

who are you?

baby bush took over... there was a surplus.

baby bush left, the deficit was doubled.

you were saying?

I guess you are a student of Saul Alinsky I have his greatest liberal works I have study them to fight against progressives. I am your worse nightmare.

Ya think? [Heh heh]

 

[MaggieMae]

I guess you are a student of Saul Alinsky I have his greatest liberal works I have study them to fight against progressives. I am your worse nightmare.

Haha, then go ahead and prove her point wrong!

The numbers were a bit scewed when clinton left office so there wasn't a surplus
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

That's odd, then why did Bush Jr. say in his first economic speech to Congress (February 2001) that he intended to take the "surplus" and give it back to the people? The budget surplus was $236 billion (however you, and Limbaugh, wish to spin it) and was done through a series of tax increases and spending cuts (just what Republicans SHOULD be advocating now, instead of just the latter).

 

[MaggieMae]

Stop complaining then and make a suggestion. I say we start over remove all from DC

Here's a suggestion: Quit pretending that remocrats are significantly different from depublicans.

Once you break through that barrier, the rest is duck soup.

Thats not a very good suggestion when you keep placeing the one who actually created this mess in controll you will keep having the same mess. I am here to shed a little light on the true crooks. Alls fair Republicans have their faults but to allow people to continue to blame all thats wrong with America on the republicans has got to stop. They didn't create all this mess and the ones that did create it are given a pass. No way will I allow that. So what is your suggestion again?

Since you won't "allow" it, then post some real facts to prove your point. Do you even understand that the big investment banks were playing by their own rules, ignoring any weak regulations left after the repeal of Glass-Steagal? When they went down because they suddenly were no longer liquid, the entire global economy was about to go right down with them, with the U.S. going first. Who was in charge of oversight? The SEC looked away, even when they understood what was happening. Greenspan and Cox have both admitted that under sworn testimony.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can play this game
Horseshit you blindly blame republicans because the democrats are failures and you hate thinking that you support failures., You are full of shit and full of the obama koolaid. The democrats have run this country into the ground and you help to do it with your vote.
Edit:
Now would you care to debate the years of democratic control versus the years of Republican control?

LOL I think anyone here will testify that I am clearly not in the Obama camp. You coming in here with stupidity and supposed "facts" does nothing to help those of us who have real issues with the direction our country is headed.

Stupidity is anyone who will argue that it doesn't matter that the democrats have controlled the government for 50+years and call the facts and the numbers stupid. I will bet that you will say there was a surplus of money when Clinton left office. I really don't know what your problem is and I don't care back the **** up jack. GOT IT?

Democrats have not "controlled" government for 50+ years. That's your mistake. Just because there was a power slant one way or the other does NOT tell the story. You need a helluva lot of education. ConHog is trying to get that through your head. Crap, even The Dude is.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Haha, then go ahead and prove her point wrong!

The numbers were a bit scewed when clinton left office so there wasn't a surplus
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

That's odd, then why did Bush Jr. say in his first economic speech to Congress (February 2001) that he intended to take the "surplus" and give it back to the people? The budget surplus was $236 billion (however you, and Limbaugh, wish to spin it) and was done through a series of tax increases and spending cuts (just what Republicans SHOULD be advocating now, instead of just the latter).

I see you don't like facts but when you try to push something as fact when it isn't you get all pissed. You can't changed it.