Democrats take back House in 2012?

girthking1

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Posts
136
Media
7
Likes
2,210
Points
423
Location
calif
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Well we have all seen what happens when we elect someone with no experience to be Pres, in a Business sence, running a co, Foreign affairs, nothing . He knew nothing. He controled the House AND the Senate when he got in and did nothing. 63% of America said no to his health care until it was done right ( Obama still does not even understand it ) unemployment is at an all time high, NOBAMA ! lets get a business person in and get america rolling. Iam not a Hater we just need someone with Business exp, and alot smarter at this point.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Three years into his administration, continued cries of "it's Bush's fault" as the sole excuse, are wearing a bit thin.

It's time he took some responsibility.

There is that pesky little problem of you need Congress to approve what you want done otherwise guess what? It doesn't get done. And when an entire wing of Congress sole function is to see you fail yes well it isn't your responsibility.

The presidency isn't a monarchy and he/she can't rule by decree. You do understand how your government works don't you?

Well we have all seen what happens when we elect someone with no experience to be Pres, in a Business sence, running a co, :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Why don't we just dispense with government and Congress and replace them with a Board of Directors made up of the CEO's of the largest companies? Yeah that's the ticket. And all that will mater is the bottom line. Do away with those pesky elections and power to the people. CEO's and businesses and what they want is all that matters.

Profit vs. loss.
Fuck the infrastructure.
Fuck the populace.
Fuck the land.
Fuck the wildlife.
Fuck the environment.
Fuck the future since all that matters is the latest quarterly results.


America Isn’t a Corporation
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There is that pesky little problem of you need Congress to approve what you want done otherwise guess what? It doesn't get done. And when an entire wing of Congress sole function is to see you fail yes well it isn't your responsibility.

Vastly oversimplified, and completely irrelevant for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, but an interesting diversion from the topic, nonetheless. Diversion is always an interesting tactic, when used by one party in a debate.

Let's look at the implications of your statement. By the same logic, Bush's first 6 years, during which the opposing party held complete control in both houses, removes blame from Bush completely? Hey, it's your argument...

Ever heard the phrase "steering the ship of state?"

I hold Bush responsible for the stuff that happened during his administration, after a "honeymoon" transitional period. Clinton handed him a lousy economy that was already in a nosedive...Bush did not correct the problems, and the worsening continued. By the same token, Bush handed Obama an economy that was bottoming out...after a honeymoon/transitional period, it became Obama's problem. 3/4 of his presidency is not a transitional period...it is politically expedient blame.

I don't see any inconsistency in that position.

The presidency isn't a monarchy and he/she can't rule by decree. You do understand how your government works don't you?

I understand quite well, actually, both the theory and the practice. Heck, one of my degrees is in political science!

EDIT: I just went back and re-read your comments. Were you asking for my help in understanding how things work? Was there something that confused you...something you needed explained?
I'd be delighted to help you in any way I can.

I promise not to use any big words...I'll keep it understandable.
 
Last edited:

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
In 2010, 90% of you tards on here said the Dems were going to hold onto the house. They lost almost 60 seats, the largest number by any party in in 80 years.

There is NO way the dems will retake the house in 2012 and will likely lose the senate as well. Barack Obama and his complete ineptitude will almost ensure that the republican party goes 3 for 3 in november, no matter who the nominee is.

It seems like the public is getting sick of the blatantly liberal media bias surrounding his failed administration, from giving him a pass on the keystone pipeline, to inaccurately reporting the unemployment numbers.

There are record numbers of workers simply leaving the workforce which is giving the false impression that unemployment is dropping and the economy is improving. Its simply a lie.

The liberal media has also given Obama a pass on the NDAA. Had Bush signed this law, the left would be moving toward impeachment.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Vastly oversimplified.........Bush handed Obama an economy that was bottoming out...

Oversimplified? Nonetheless true. Bottoming out? :confused: You mean sinking right? Or do you have an updated definition for me?

Unemployment graph


Bush's first 6 years, during which the opposing party held complete control in both houses, removes blame from Bush completely?

Huuum not sure where you're getting that data from. It appears deeply flawed.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well we have all seen what happens when we elect someone with no experience to be Pres, in a Business sence, running a co, Foreign affairs, nothing . He knew nothing. He controled the House AND the Senate when he got in and did nothing. 63% of America said no to his health care until it was done right ( Obama still does not even understand it ) unemployment is at an all time high, NOBAMA ! lets get a business person in and get america rolling. Iam not a Hater we just need someone with Business exp, and alot smarter at this point.

Did nothing? Really? You really believe Obama has done nothing?

Interesting, to say the least.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

Vastly oversimplified, and completely irrelevant for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, but an interesting diversion from the topic, nonetheless. Diversion is always an interesting tactic, when used by one party in a debate.

Let's look at the implications of your statement. By the same logic, Bush's first 6 years, during which the opposing party held complete control in both houses, removes blame from Bush completely? Hey, it's your argument...

Ever heard the phrase "steering the ship of state?"

I hold Bush responsible for the stuff that happened during his administration, after a "honeymoon" transitional period. Clinton handed him a lousy economy that was already in a nosedive...Bush did not correct the problems, and the worsening continued. By the same token, Bush handed Obama an economy that was bottoming out...after a honeymoon/transitional period, it became Obama's problem. 3/4 of his presidency is not a transitional period...it is politically expedient blame.

I don't see any inconsistency in that position.


I understand quite well, actually, both the theory and the practice. Heck, one of my degrees is in political science!

EDIT: I just went back and re-read your comments. Were you asking for my help in understanding how things work? Was there something that confused you...something you needed explained?
I'd be delighted to help you in any way I can.

I promise not to use any big words...I'll keep it understandable.

If you are going to try to school people here, at least get your facts straight.
 

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
535
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Ultimately it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what political party is in power. The powers that be...big business, big labor, big religion and big government hold all the cards. The main thing about Democrats is that I wouldn't expect them to curtail our civil rights, but I'm afraid of the Tea Party and right-wing evangelicals who might very well do that. The right-wing in every country tries to prevent progressive ideas from even being discussed.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
71
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Ultimately it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what political party is in power. The powers that be...big business, big labor, big religion and big government hold all the cards. The main thing about Democrats is that I wouldn't expect them to curtail our civil rights, but I'm afraid of the Tea Party and right-wing evangelicals who might very well do that. The right-wing in every country tries to prevent progressive ideas from even being discussed.
Agreed. The bi-partisan silence when Obama mentioned raising taxes, creating an arm of the DoJ to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, and continued foot dragging with ending corp welfare - same SOTU topics each year - speaks volumes about where allegiances lie for the majority of Reps (including Democrats).

I imagine Sen. Chuck Schumer left the SOTU and immediately speed-dialed Goldman Sachs, but at least he's pro-social safety nets, pro-choice, and respects diplomacy, right?
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yes, Democrats aren't perfect, but they are by far the lesser of two evils...these days

I'm all for cutting spending and not raising taxes on middle-class and lower income workers. However, spending cuts cannot happen to the people who need it most: elderly, students from low income families, and the truly disabled. Who are we as a country if we decide to cut funding for the people who really need help in order to keep the rich getting richer? I'm all for capitalism, but we have to maintain a sense of humanity about it.
 
Last edited:

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
71
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Yes, Democrats aren't perfect, but they are by far the lesser of two evils...these days

I'm all for cutting spending and not raising taxes on middle-class and lower income workers. However, spending cuts cannot happen to the people who need it most: elderly, students from low income families, and the truly disabled. Who are we as a country if we decide to cut funding for the people who really need help in order to keep the rich getting richer? I'm all for capitalism, but we have to maintain a sense of humanity about it.
They're far from it, and some Dem Reps are more part of the problem than the solution. With people I really respect, like Bernie Sanders, in office, I do not think "lesser of two evils" is good enough and will continue to take them to task for exhibiting bad judgment.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, until there comes a day when someone who is neither Democrat nor Republican can actually win an election in the US, I'm gonna vote Democrat because it is better than the alternative.
 

lurker37160

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
526
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
248
Location
Murfreesboro (Tennessee, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Vastly oversimplified, and completely irrelevant for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, but an interesting diversion from the topic, nonetheless. Diversion is always an interesting tactic, when used by one party in a debate.

Let's look at the implications of your statement. By the same logic, Bush's first 6 years, during which the opposing party held complete control in both houses, removes blame from Bush completely? Hey, it's your argument...

Ever heard the phrase "steering the ship of state?"

I hold Bush responsible for the stuff that happened during his administration, after a "honeymoon" transitional period. Clinton handed him a lousy economy that was already in a nosedive...Bush did not correct the problems, and the worsening continued. By the same token, Bush handed Obama an economy that was bottoming out...after a honeymoon/transitional period, it became Obama's problem. 3/4 of his presidency is not a transitional period...it is politically expedient blame.

I don't see any inconsistency in that position.


I understand quite well, actually, both the theory and the practice. Heck, one of my degrees is in political science!

EDIT: I just went back and re-read your comments. Were you asking for my help in understanding how things work? Was there something that confused you...something you needed explained? I'd be delighted to help you in any way I can.

I promise not to use any big words...I'll keep it understandable.


You GO girl.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
^ no matter of course he was wrong. you go girl anyway.:cool:
 

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
life is better now then it was back in The great depression.
my dad grow up in the great depression my dad only spent money only when he had to.

this is nothing like the The great depression.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
Yes they might indeed 'take it back' but odds are they still won't know how to use that power.

They used it pretty well the last time as we would not have had healthcare reform without them. There's still some ways to go on that front however if the republicans had been in power they would still be kicking the problem down the field with bogus crap about what we need is competition.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
They used it pretty well the last time as we would not have had healthcare reform without them. There's still some ways to go on that front however if the republicans had been in power they would still be kicking the problem down the field with bogus crap about what we need is competition.

A health care reform plan put together in back rooms and shoved through in a matter of hours and even the top persons of the houses admitted that they hadn't yet read it all. If that is your idea of doing well, then it is no wonder the country is in such a sorry state of disrepair. Maybe you are the sort that signs papers without reading them, puts the X in a box on forms to agree to terms and regulations without reading what you are signing away. That is not a good way to go. Healthcare was needed, but not at a cost which will be felt for decades to come because the people who voted for it did it as part of political expediency and big money future.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,758
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A health care reform plan put together in back rooms and shoved through in a matter of hours and even the top persons of the houses admitted that they hadn't yet read it all. If that is your idea of doing well, then it is no wonder the country is in such a sorry state of disrepair. Maybe you are the sort that signs papers without reading them, puts the X in a box on forms to agree to terms and regulations without reading what you are signing away. That is not a good way to go. Healthcare was needed, but not at a cost which will be felt for decades to come because the people who voted for it did it as part of political expediency and big money future.
Silly me.....I thought they voted for the Affordable Care Act in order to decrease the amount of uninsured people in the USA.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Silly me.....I thought they voted for the Affordable Care Act in order to decrease the amount of uninsured people in the USA.

It's not affordable, it's mandatory. Many still cannot afford it and nobody seems to care about that part. You can't get blood from a turnip and you can't get money for insurance when you've been financially wiped out.