Obama directly responsible for Oregon shooting

[bedowin62]

107th 2001–2003 100 50 50 — — 435 212 221 2 —
108th 2003–2005 100 48 51 1 — 435 205 229 1 —
109th 2005–2007 100 44 55 1 — 435 202 231 1 1
110th 2007–2009 100 49 49 2 — 435 233 198 — 4
111th 2009–2011 100 57 41 2 2 435 256 178 — 1
112th 2011–2013 100 51 47 2 — 435 193 242 — —
113th 2013–2015 100 54 45 1 — 435 201 234 — —
114th 2015–2017 100 44 54 2 — 435 188 246 — 1

again read it and weep

better yet man up and apologize

You suck at math, huh? Even your numbers, which are wrong, show...

2005-2007: 286 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents who caucused with Democrats.

you suck at reality. and being an adult

you're simply a crybaby loser who cant admit when he's wrong

 

[Faun]

Well this proves it ... bedwetter is not man enough.

but you didnt prove me wrong moron. that's why you're still crying what 3 or 4 days later??

You're delusional. Of course I proved you wrong. I posted the number of Republicans in the 109th Congress in the House (233) from house.gov and tne Senate (55) from senate.gov. Neither of which was more than Democrats had in 2007.

You've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

That's ok, imbecile ... everyone here can see it for themselves.

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

 

[bedowin62]

the Democrat majorities, especially under obama were bigger than Republican majorities under bush.. true or false leftard????

 

[Redfish]

I don't think anyone said arrest these people, but why wouldn't you make sure they can't get access to weapons.

i guess i would not want to see anyones right to firearms be pulled

without due process

If a guy had terrorist connections, had lots of weapons and ammo, and had on-line anti-US rants would that be sufficient to step in?

then he should be charged with a crime =due process

and while that "due process" proceeds through the court system for weeks and months, the guy murders 25 americans. Sometimes we have to use common sense.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Ben Franklin

of course Ben was right. But when we have a list of potential terrorists and do not even try to track and watch them then we are not doing what is essential to protecting the nation. I am not saying we should arrest all potential terrorists, but monitoring their movements and contacts is essential to stopping them before they kill.

 

[bedowin62]

but you didnt prove me wrong moron. that's why you're still crying what 3 or 4 days later??

You're delusional. Of course I proved you wrong. I posted the number of Republicans in the 109th Congress in the House (233) from house.gov and tne Senate (55) from senate.gov. Neither of which was more than Democrats had in 2007.

You've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

That's ok, imbecile ... everyone here can see it for themselves.

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

 

[Redfish]

Is RedFish STILL trying to polish his turd of a conspiracy OP?

no, you ate it.

and even as you digest it, you cannot refute it.

 

[Faun]

111th 2009–2011 100 57 41 2 2 435 256 178 — 1

here it is. now what year did bush have anything close to this??

Here rightard, lemme remind you what you said...

"by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD"​

So is that right? Of course not.

2005-2007: 233 House Republicans; 55 Senate Republicans; total: 288
2007-2009: 233 House Democrats; 49 Senate Democrats + 2 Independents who caucused with Democrats; total: 284

So tell me, moron, in what universe is 284 more than 288? Other than the rightard universe, that is.

 

[Faun]

You're delusional. Of course I proved you wrong. I posted the number of Republicans in the 109th Congress in the House (233) from house.gov and tne Senate (55) from senate.gov. Neither of which was more than Democrats had in 2007.

You've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

That's ok, imbecile ... everyone here can see it for themselves.

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

 

[bedowin62]

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

but you didnt prove me wrong moron. that's why you're still crying what 3 or 4 days later??

You're delusional. Of course I proved you wrong. I posted the number of Republicans in the 109th Congress in the House (233) from house.gov and tne Senate (55) from senate.gov. Neither of which was more than Democrats had in 2007.

You've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

That's ok, imbecile ... everyone here can see it for themselves.

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2007 senator kkk bird was charge of the senate

and nancy pelosi the the house

so stop with your bs

 

[bedowin62]

everybody here is laughing at you. when you were confronted with the ACTUAL FACTS; you CRIED that the bodies of congress vote indpeendently of each other

but then i pointed out that Dem majorities DWARFED what bush had in BOTH CHAMBERS

 

[Faun]

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?

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.

 

[bedowin62]

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?

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

 

[Faun]

everybody here is laughing at you. when you were confronted with the ACTUAL FACTS; you CRIED that the bodies of congress vote indpeendently of each other

but then i pointed out that Dem majorities DWARFED what bush had in BOTH CHAMBERS

Not in 2007, they didn't. And that was your claim ...

"from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD"

Oops... except that's not true.

 

[Faun]

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?

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

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.

 

[bedowin62]

everybody here is laughing at you. when you were confronted with the ACTUAL FACTS; you CRIED that the bodies of congress vote indpeendently of each other

but then i pointed out that Dem majorities DWARFED what bush had in BOTH CHAMBERS

Not in 2007, they didn't. And that was your claim ...

"from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD"

Oops... except that's not true.

YAWN
in the 111th Congress Democrat's majority was PLUS 88 in the House and PLUS 18 in the Senate


you're so pathetic

 

[bedowin62]

in 2009 dems were plus 2 on the senate and + 37 in the House leftard

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?

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

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.

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

 

[Faun]

You're delusional. Of course I proved you wrong. I posted the number of Republicans in the 109th Congress in the House (233) from house.gov and tne Senate (55) from senate.gov. Neither of which was more than Democrats had in 2007.

You've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

That's ok, imbecile ... everyone here can see it for themselves.

you're including only one chamber from each time period you mindless idiot. in both periods there were more Democrats overall in Congress than there were Republican

THAT is why you're a loser and a laughable crybaby that nobody takes seriously

You're too retarded. Each chamber votes independently.

But even worse for you, you're still wrong.

2005-2007: 288 Republicans
2007-2009: 282 Democrats + 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats.

doesnt matter; individually and in general the Democrat majorities were bigger. in the 111th Congress Dems were PLUS 18 IN THE SENATE AND PLUS EIGHTY-EIGHT IN THE HOUSE; and that is FAR bigger than any Republican majority bush had

you're just not man enough to admit when you're wrong

That was in 2009, ya flaming moron.

In 2007, there were fewer Democrats in Congress than there were Republicans in the 109th Congress.

And you've proven you're not man enough to admit you're an imbecile.

in 2007 senator kkk bird was charge of the senate

and nancy pelosi the the house

so stop with your bs

You think Byrd was the Senate majority leader in 2007?? Dayam, you rightards are truly ******* imbeciles.

 

[bedowin62]

LOL HOW PATHETIC


left-wing nutjobs never know when to salvage some dignity

 

[Faun]

So? Where did I say anything about 2009? You said Democrats had a larger magority starting in 2007 but you're too rightarded to know 2009 isn't 2007.

And you're not man enough to admit you're a rightard even though everyone here sees it.

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

288 Replicans is "1 more" than 284 Democrats/Independents?

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

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.

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

My argument is you're a rightard you can't admit it, as evidenced by your idiotic claim being proven wrong repeatedly.

Poor, bedwetter.