These Democrats have truly gone nuts. There is no crime in firing those U.S. Attorneys. Bill Clinton replaced all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he came into office and Hillary has already said she would replace all of them if she gets into office.

Democrats failed to stop the war in Iraq. They failed on immigration and have done nothing on healthcare reform, high gas prices, the overal, federal spending, etc. Stop investigating and start legislating. This truly is a do nothing Democrat controlled Congress.

This truly is a do nothing Democrat controlled Congress.

Posted by utastaff at 2007-07-31 08:04 PM | Reply

This is just more whacking material, as Dems try to inspire their lunatic base. (approval rating 14%)

As soon as they got elected last year they pissed on all their promises and started pandering for 2008.

Good luck with that.

Goodbye Gonzo!

Your admirer Darth Cheny is next!

Utastaff

"Democrats failed to stop the war in Iraq."

I would say the republicans failed to stop the war. The war continues because of republicans, not democrats


"They failed on immigration and have done nothing on healthcare reform, high gas prices, the overal, federal spending, etc. Stop investigating and start legislating. This truly is a do nothing Democrat controlled Congress."

After 12 years of republican control, you might want to give the dems a little longer than 6 months to get things going. What did the republicans do for the previous six years under Bush but cause the problems you want the dems to fix?

I would hardly call a one vote lead in the Senate as "control"

Buffalo Bob,
At the end of the day, the Democrat controlled Congress has a lower approval rating that President Bush. These Dems are wasting too much time investigating and pointing fingers instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting work done. They have been a gigantic failure so far.

republicans did nothing, democrats do nothing .. we need a party for the American people.

"At the end of the day, the Democrat controlled Congress has a lower approval rating that President Bush. These Dems are wasting too much time investigating and pointing fingers instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting work done. They have been a gigantic failure so far."

Republicans did nothing also. Lets not forget the investigations over Clinton getting a bj. That was more important than fixing issues.

Look both parties are full of crap!

At the end of the day, the Democrat controlled Congress has a lower approval rating that President Bush. These Dems are wasting too much time investigating and pointing fingers instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting work done. They have been a gigantic failure so far.

Posted by utastaff at 2007-07-31 08:54 PM |


How do you know they are pissed at the dems? Myself, I think they are pissed at the republicans---the republicans are the ones thwarting the voters wishes---not the dems. We are at war because of the republicans not the dems. The government can not negotiate for lower drug prices because of the republicans, not the dems. Congress has a low rating---the question is---which part. I guess we'll find out next election.

Do you really think there is something to be won in Iraq? Do you really think they will follow us home? Tell me what has been accomplished in Iraq that would be worth your life? The death of Saddam? Would you sacrifice your life for that? How about a new hospital in Iraq? Would that be worth your life?

They have been a gigantic failure so far.

the first 100 hours they accomplished more good for the country than 12 years of republican leadership.

-pissed at Dems.... not hardly

Dem Landslide '08

Despite growing disapproval of Congress, Democratic House candidates -- both incumbents and challengers -- are steadily gaining ground for a 2008 election likely to be a repeat of 2006, according to two surveys (here and here) by Democracy Corps.

The surveys dispute the hardening conventional wisdom that the failure of Democrats to force the start of withdrawal from Iraq has turned voters against both parties. The notion that the public sees Democrats and Republicans as "equal offenders...completely misreads the current moment," according to Democracy Corps.

Instead, the authors of an accompanying memo -- Stan Greenberg, James Carville and Ana Iparraguirre -- contend that "Democrats are maintaining stable and nearly landslide leads in both the race for President as measured by generic performance (51-41) and the named ballot for Congress (52-42 percent)." In a targeted survey of the 70 congressional districts most likely to be competitive in 2008 (half with Democratic incumbents, the other half with Republicans in office), Democracy Corps found that Democratic incumbents hold a solid 52-40 lead on average. In contrast, the Republicans are in trouble: when voters are asked whom they would choose between the named GOP incumbent and an unnamed (generic) Democrat, the Republicans are behind on average 44-49.


there is a thread on the back page

Goatman

Thaose are all problems caused by republicans in the first place.

They had twelve years to fix them instead of cause them.

nice cut and paste Bob. You prove that all they did was a bunch of political pandering, and accomplished nothing.

Implementing "SOME OF" the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

Raising the minimum wage, "BUT FAILED UNTIL LAST WEEK"

Rolling back subsidies to big oil companies, "AND GASOLINE PRICES SKYROCKETED, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THEY GET MONEY IS BY CHARGING CUSTOMERS"

Stopping any privatization of Social Security.

YEAH. LIKE THAT WAS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN

Committing to no new deficit spending.

HOW MANY EARMARKS WERE ATTACHED TO THE BILLS THAT CONTINUE TO FUND THE WAR?

Dems are using the war as fountain of pork, so they can raise money for re-election. That makes them a lot like, uhh, what's the word.......

Republicans!

You're a liar, Bob. And you are a fraud.

PS: 70% of minimum wage earners are part-time high school students. Why do Dems want to make it easier for 17-year-olds to buy pot?

"70% of minimum wage earners are part-time high school students. Why do Dems want to make it easier for 17-year-olds to buy pot?"

Because any 17-year-old aware of the share of public debt this fucking Republican war has set up for him needs all the anesthesia he can get.

Next question?

Vernon

"Implementing "SOME OF" the recommendations of the 9/11 commission."

Why didn't the republicans do at least as much when they had the chance? Can you say which recommendations they backed off of and why? I didn't think so.



"Raising the minimum wage, "BUT FAILED UNTIL LAST WEEK"

They got it through as soon as they could, but the republicans held it up as usual.





"Rolling back subsidies to big oil companies, "AND GASOLINE PRICES SKYROCKETED, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THEY GET MONEY IS BY CHARGING CUSTOMERS"

Gas prices were around 3.00 a gallon before the election. They are currently lower than that now. However wanting the government to subsidize and pay gas companies so you don't have to pay so much sounds like welfare or communism. Maybe we should have the government pay supermarkets so our food bills won't be won high, or utility companies so our utilities won't be so high. Pay your bills and quit sucking off the government tit you pissant whiner.



Stopping any privatization of Social Security.

"YEAH. LIKE THAT WAS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN"

Get enough republicans in there and it would---maybe you forgot W's campaign speeches, your short term memory seems shot.




Committing to no new deficit spending.

"HOW MANY EARMARKS WERE ATTACHED TO THE BILLS THAT CONTINUE TO FUND THE WAR?

Dems are using the war as fountain of pork, so they can raise money for re-election. That makes them a lot like, uhh, what's the word......."

Maybe you should try a little harder to understand the difference between pork and deficit spending. What pork are you talking about? Some compromise is always necessary with the republicans or nothing gets done. If the republicans had the same values, it would be done.



Once again you have been proven a liar, and now a punk liar.

Another day SOS

I'm all for the privitization of social security. I am a baby boomer, and do not expect my social security to be there when I retire, unless of course, I could be given control of my account.

As it is, I have other investments that will be waiting for me when I retire. It's too bad that so many Americans have to rely on SS alone. I, for one, will not be one of them.

"Thaose are all problems caused by republicans in the first place.

They had twelve years to fix them instead of cause them."

Not necessarily true, but it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Pelosi promised she would fix these things and have bills for them within the first 100 days. She didn't. She made campaign promises she didn't keep.

It's funny, you know. Libs like Buffalo Bob really distrust the government. Except when it comes to SS of course, then the government can do no wrong. Wake up! Privitizing SS will allow you to grow your account with a rate of return at least twice that of what the government is offering. Those of you who understand the time value of money knows what a difference that can make.

Now, as for the impeachment of Gonzales (this was the original thread, was it not), let them try to do it. This administration was interested in pursuing election fraud. Those who did not want to toe the line were fired. So what? Now, to try and stop the election fraud pursuits, the Democrats are staging these phony assault on the Attorney General. Democrats understand that groups such as ACORN are guilty of voter registration shenanigans, and since ACORN is a Democrat support organization, it therefore must not be allowed to be investigated.

the first 100 hours they accomplished more good for the country than 12 years of republican leadership.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-07-31 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e




aahhhhhhhhh hee hee ............ha ha ha ha ha.......giggle giggle......yuk yuk...ha ha ha(snort!!)........hee hee ha ha ha ha

thanks for a good laugh this fine morning........

Coming to the defense of Gonzo, one of the most visible examples of the failures of the Bush kakistocracy: Priceless.

thanks for that post bowa.....someone had told me it was on that site.....

schumer was on radio the other day or at least a tape of a speach of his and it was little more than democrat rhetoric about little more than nothing.
as he talked about supreme court justices and the mistake they made with alito and roberts and that if there were anymore that he would block any attempt by this administration to confirm them..
wow...thats real leadership, now isnt it?
the dem strategy is simple...bring them in anyway they can and dig until there is some perjury regardless of whether it concerns the original charge or not.......

government by investigation is one reason, in my opinion, why the poll on congress is so low.....

thanks for a good laugh this fine morning........

I've been laughing quite a bit this morning, from Murdoch buying the WSJ to the continued fallout from the "A war we might just win" OPED in Sunday's Times which left Arianna Huffington stammering to Joe Scarbourough this morning that the two writers from the liberal Brookings institution were "neo-cons", and that anyone who says that there is progress being made in Iraq is lying.

Another swing.......and a miss.

actually doc....we are coming to the defense of every president who fired the usa's.......including that guy from arkansas.......but I hope they keep dragging up all this shit all the way to november of 2008.......maybe congress will have an even lower opinion rating. and maybe then with a republican president and a republican house and senate again...maybe THEN the republicans will get it right in being the majority.

bowa......you should read what libs have posted on another site that I visit....they are being compared to michael savage.....well almost.......
they are being called liars and libs are trying to tell me that they have been rightwingers all along.....

and lets not forget about the report in the times from john burns, I believe his name is.....and I also believe that I have read that burns has been in iraq for either several visits or years.
any more info on him and his report?


and didnt all of us on the right KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN..........when the left got this DAGGER IN THE HEART, we knew that the attack machine would be up and running.......

and maybe then with a republican president and a republican house and senate again...maybe THEN the republicans will get it right in being the majority.

Three cheers for Congresswoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs!

hey maybe schumer can bring perjury charges againstt ohanlin and pollack....that seems to be the way to go for dems.

government by investigation is one reason, in my opinion, why the poll on congress is so low.....


I heard this the other day:


Politicians who Can be succesful and get things done - legislate.

Politicians who can't --investigate.

There is nothing innately wrong with investigations per se -- but it is pretty clear that the democrats, who have held over 600 "oversight" hearings in six months, are shirking their legislative duties in favor of engaging in a vendetta against the Bush Administration.

Ironically, that the Democrats have not found anything of substance after turning over so many rocks says a lot for the overall honesty of the Bush Administration.

The democrats have been desperately looking for criminal activity and have so far come up empty -- now their argument seems to be that the mere fact that they have spent so much time looking for crimes proves that the Bush Administration must have done something wrong.

I call it, proving "Guilt by Investigation"

I have to apologize to bob.....NOW that is the laugh of the day.....


doc....let it go........

funny shit......

No, BLT, see those two administration shills were expression opinion presented as opinion. Gonzo appears to have been providing lies presented as fact. There's a difference. Something for you to ponder while sipping your morning peach nectar, cactus juice, kool-aid frappe.

so let me make sure I am reading you correctly.
you are saying that ohanlin and pollack are administration shills?
that IS what you are saying?


please......maybe you should find you something to get rid of your hangover this morning.......


liberals turning on liberals.........is this priceless or what?????????

What a congress! As long as they are doing this, they arn't screwing with me. Their credibility is going to sink even lower as long as they play politics with everything.

so let me make sure I am reading you correctly.
you are saying that ohanlin and pollack are administration shills?
that IS what you are saying?

You obviously haven't read any of the links posted on threads you've visited, where this pair have repeatedly come up and repeatedly been exposed as longtime advocates of Bush's War. C'mon, BLT, get eddicated.

liberals turning on liberals.........is this priceless or what?????????

I have to admit, it is definitely fun to watch.

"and maybe then with a republican president and a republican house and senate again...maybe THEN the republicans will get it right in being the majority"

BLT

Vote for most hilarious post EVER!!!

lets see how hard you are laughing in november of 08...........

and maybe then with a republican president and a republican house and senate again...maybe THEN the republicans will get it right in being the majority.

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-08-01 08:36 AM | Reply

They had six years of unopposed crony rule and screwed it up so bad they lost both the house and the senate.

Tell me again how Tom Delay was re-elected. Didn't you predict that as well as well as the Republitards gaining more seats in the house and senate last year?

with a republican president and a republican house and senate again..


aahhhhhhhhh hee hee ............ha ha ha ha ha.......giggle giggle......yuk yuk...ha ha ha(snort!!)........hee hee ha ha ha ha

Do any of you republicunts think that the democratic congress is responsible for the ongoing US occupation of Iraq?

Speak up ..

Funny you should ask, Repug

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders are intent on sidetracking bipartisan attempts to change course in Iraq at least until fall, officials said Tuesday, rather than allow nervous Republicans to vote for legislation that lacks a troop withdrawal deadline.

Several lawmakers and aides said the goal was to deny members of the GOP rank and file a chance to proclaim their independence from President Bush by voting for a limited measure - after months of backing his policy in an increasingly unpopular war.

So why did the senate republicans not vote to start withdrawing troops last month when they had the chance instead of blocking congresses ability to reign George Bush in? The repubs toed the party line to stop the democrats from having any success, its very obvious.

So rethugs vote to extend the war and not curb Bushand then cry about it afterwards because they didnt do the righthting in the first place.. too bad

So Repug, seeing as today is August 1, 2007, what about this latest Dem political stunt?

So Wisgod are you then suggesting that the Congressional democrats are the ones standing in the way of troop withdrawl and an end to the Iraq war?

Are you goning to quit bullshitting and come out and say what you believe without hyperbole?

No Repug, I'm suggesting that the Democrats are playing politics, as they have done since the start of the war in Iraq.

As of late (June, 2007) the Democrats agreed to fund the war with a progress report due in September, then proposing a troop withdrawal in July.
It's their total hate of George Bush that has put them into total disarray.

Heres what I think, I'll type slowly so you can follow along.

51 democrats voted to withdraw troops

47 repubs voted to keep the troops there

The majority of the american public wants the war in Iraq to end.

Repugs are mad now because they abused there position and prevented congress from doing the will of the american people.

Idiots like you then complain that dems are not offering enough other opportunities for repug senators to find compromises on the position in Iraq? Well tough sh!t, your R men are now exposed as cogs in the Bush machine and they will be hung out and exposed that way for the rest of the summer.

Any one who thinks this is good for Republican congressman is either not paying attention, a complete idiot or likely both.

HERE'S WHAT i THINK.
You are a party shill who will never find fault with the Democratic party. When you're party votes to fund a war, only to try to pass another to end it a month later shows how fickle they are and have alway's been.

So Wisgod are you then suggesting that the Congressional democrats are the ones standing in the way of troop withdrawl and an end to the Iraq war?

No Repug, I'm suggesting that democrats are playing politics..

You call a vote to withdrawl troops playing politics?

I call it representing the will of the American people.

I also call the Republican senators obstructionists.

The American people as a whole are not as stupid as Georges core supporters. they will recognize what congressmen have kept us bogged down in Iraq. GW has done more to destroy the Republican party than the dems oculd ever do.

please explain, How am I a party shill?

This should be entertaining...

Repug. why do you avoid explaining the Vote to fund the war, and the failed attempt to end it one month later? That's called being a "party shill".
You're welcome.

Hers what I think,

Your point is comical yet sad, you suggest that the Democrats, who were elected to end the war should only vote to end the war after they have run out of money for the war and should leave the troops high and dry?

You should understand that Democratic congressmen want whats best for our troops security. Bankrupting the troops is not the answer Einstein. You have no grasp of reality. Setting a sensable withdrawl plan for a failed policy is the right thing to do.

why do you avoid explaining the Vote to fund the war, and the failed attempt to end it one month later?

Umm I did just explain that, can you not comprehend a few paragraphs. I explicity explained what you say I didn't. Are you ADD?

your idea that congress should bankrupt the troops before setting a withdrawl planis just blatently stupid,

but look who Im talking too, you have truly earned your title of DOGPISS

Not good enough Repug. They agreed to a September status report, and flip-flopped a month later. But do go on, you represent you're party so well.

but look who Im talking too, you have truly earned your title of DOGPISS

Posted by Repugnant

That's dogpiss thing alway's makes my day. Another frustrated Liberal resorts to name calling.

yes common sense will never do for your narrow and feeble mind

yes common sense will never do for your narrow and feeble mind

Posted by Repugnant

Wow, another Liberal zinger. LOL!

Yes I am frustrated with the direction of this country, and you do represent everything that is wrong with this country.

So your just here to frustrate others with your stupidity.

Thats fine, Its obvious, your one of the bottom feeders, every once in a while I can actually get a decent conversation from BL2 or a few other fundies, you, not so much..

try again when you can provide real substance to the conversation.

you can start by explaining why you think that the democrats should bankrupt the troops in iraq before proposing a withdrawl?

Can you back up your assertions?

Thats fine, Its obvious, your one of the bottom feeders, every once in a while I can actually get a decent conversation from BL2 or a few other fundies, you, not so much..

How long does it take you to start calling them names?

about a minute, you can handle it im sure..

so can you explain your assertion?

start by explaining why you think that the democrats should bankrupt the troops in iraq before proposing a withdrawl

I never said they should. You have a very short memory. When Congress approved the funding without a withdrwal date, benchmarks etc, Democrats on this site were irrate. My point is they made an aggreement to wait until September for an update. They attempted to break their promise 30 days later.

So you've asserted that the US congress should not have funded the troops because they also voted to withdraw the troops several months later.

That implies that you feel that democratic congressmen should not have funded our troops if they intended to pull out.

In other words you feel we should endanger the troops by not giving them the resources they need to get out safely.

How do you justify yourself Wisdod?

Stand up for yourself.

Are you now saying that there is no problem with the fact that the democrats voted to fund the troops and also tried to set a withdrawl timetable?

The only thing I've asserted, (and I wouldn't have to post this if you had 1 iota of comprehensive skill), is that they flip-flopped on another issue.

And it wasn't several months later. It was 30 days. Several months later implies 3.
Again, you're welcome.

See Repug, I know it's hard to understand being a Liberal, but when you make a commitment, you should stick to it. They agreed to September, so don't blame me.

start by explaining why you think that the democrats should bankrupt the troops in iraq before proposing a withdrawl

I never said they should. Wisgod

right here you imply that dems shouldn't have funded the troops if they were going to propose a withdrawal.

Democrats are playing politics, as they have done since the start of the war in Iraq.

As of late (June, 2007) the Democrats agreed to fund the war with a progress report due in September, then proposing a troop withdrawal in July.
It's their total hate of George Bush that has put them into total disarray.

these are your words wisdog right here, so deny them if you like! you asserted that the dems shouldnt have funded the troops and then proposed withdrawl.

Then are you suggesting that the dems shouldnt be following the will of the people who elected them to get out of Iraq? Should they be listening to the Bush admin and corporations instead?

Id like to read about how the democrats promised not to pursue troop reductions until George Bush gave them the thumbs up in September.

Can you provide a link that cooroborates your assertion?

OK Repug, I guess I also asserted that 2 + 2 = 5. But maybe, just maybe, I asserted they are playing politics.

why do you avoid explaining the Vote to fund the war, and the failed attempt to end it one month later? - Wisgod

start by explaining why you think that the democrats should bankrupt the troops in iraq before proposing a withdrawl

I never said they should. Wisgod

Classic. A complete mental breakdown by Wisgod.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.

Classic. A complete mental breakdown by Wisgod.


Posted by Repugnant

And a completely delusional assumption from Repugnamt.

I guess I also asserted that 2 + 2 = 5.


Yeah thats pretty accurate reflection of your logic Wisgod. Nice job


But maybe, just maybe, I asserted they are playing politics.

So are you asserting that democrats who were elected to end the war should ignore there constituants and roll over for George Bush.

Try reality.

wheres my link? Put your point on the floor and just prove it!

So are you asserting that democrats who were elected to end the war should ignore there constituants and roll over for George Bush.

Posted by Repugnant

THEY DID! ROFLMAO!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Bowing to President Bush


that says nothing about dems agreeing to not do anything until about our troops until september.

PROVIDE A LINK

Your just proving you cant back up your word Wigsod

get up off the floor and try to have an adult conversation child.

What they did, was vote to bring the troops home and senate republicans obstructed the legistlation.

Still waiting for that link...

THEY DID! ROFLMAO!

Posted by wisgod at 2007-08-01 12:27 PM | Reply


No they didn't sorry You do not have the understanding that is Necessary. They did not have the votes necessary to override a Presidential Veto. Do You not get that?? They TRIED.

Larry

Yes Wisgod claims that the Dems shouldn't have funded the troops and then called for withdrawl. but then backs off his own statments made moments earlier and proceeds to contradict himself then makes assertions for which he cannot provide a simple link to back it up , then apparently proceeds to start mindlessly rolling about on the floor, laughing to or at himself while thinking that the whole world coddles Bush.

Thats the amusement I come here for.

That's good Tony. Should I turn around and fetch something from FOX News to post, and be taken seriously? And BTW, is it OK for Barrack to take us to war with Pakistan considering he is a Democrat?

Thats the amusement I come here for.

Posted by Repugnant

I think the amusement you get from the DR is making up stupid assumptions in you're tiny mind, and then believing them as fact.

come on dog piss , finish your first argument

Show me where democrats agreed not to push for withdrawl until september.

I know it's hard to understand being a Liberal, but when you make a commitment, you should stick to it. They agreed to September, so don't blame me.

Lets see it? or are you just a lying lil bitch who is getting spanked?

meanwhile dogpiss trolls his rightwing murdoch propoganda sites searching for something to back his bogus statements in vain..

BTW, is it OK for Barrack to take us to war with Pakistan considering he is a Democrat?

Who needs Fox News when we have someone who uses the same type of false reasoning?

Barack didn't promise war with Pakistan, he promised that "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Now, my personal myopia from the left sees this statement as one alluding to a quick surgical strike, not a drawn-out war or invasion, but thank you for already conflating Obama's own words into today's likely talking points from the right critiquing something he didn't say into what you righties want to hear.

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

Sorry Tony, but it doesn't sound like a "quick surgical strike". Don't get me wrong, I actually like Barrack. He is very refreshing.

Wisgod has been exposed as a total troll, AGAIN!

and until you have something of value and rational thought to say you will no longer be addressed by myself, and I encourage anyone else with common sense to do the same.

Wisgod consider yourself banned from the intelligent people.

W...

I quoted his EXACT WORDS and you post a paraphrase of what he said, and you say "Sorry" to me? Is this what goes as logic in the right-ward world these days?

Do you see one iota of difference between what I said and what you just quoted? Does your quote mention a prolonged military presence, or doesn't the phrase "actionable intelligence" mean the same thing to you that it does to me, which is a time-sensitive opportunity of unknown (likely short) duration and not an invasion or prolonged engagement?

You're breaking my heart repubtard.

Wow!!! Wisgod got spanked hard!!!! I'll bet his ass is still hurting!!

I'll bet his ass is still hurting!!

Posted by PDAGUY9

No, but my foot is.

My bad. He's not on there. Yet...

"As soon as they got elected last year they pissed on all their promises and started pandering for 2008."


The Dem's have only been in power for 6 months not 12 years. The Dem's only have a very slight majority in congress so its a credit to Nancy that they can get anything done at all. Sure the Republican led congress got lots of stuff done to help big oil and the pharmaceutical companies but what did they do for the American people. Look at our budget. Republicans are no longer the party of smaller government they can not balance a budget. They accuse Dem's of tax and spend when they are the party of spend and spend.


I will say this. The Democratic lead congress has gotten more done for the American people in 6 months then the Republicans did in 12 years. They are in trouble because they promised to end the war and now they cant.

It is both amazing an baffling how the righties are so vervently trying to 'get the libs' rather than look at the big picture for the majority of Americans who are getting the shaft from legislation passed during the previous 6 years including

-zero accountability in the executive branch with unqualified appointies such as Gonzales using our government for purely political purposes rathere than their intended unbiased charters.
-the 'no negotiating' Medicare prescription drug plan
-defunded student loans, new bankruptcy laws that make it almost impossible to ever dig out
-an FDA in the pharma industry's pocket and minimal inspection of food, health reports scrubbed for political reasons
-and the list goes on......

Meanwhile we're spending a trillion dollars in iraq with little infrastructure rebuilt, 70% without running water or dependable electricity. Boy, that sure could have done a lot here at home. a real Katrina level debacle due only to shortsightedness, lack of post invasion planning, and going to war in the first place against the wishes of both the Arab community and the world at large with insufficient force.

Come on righties. There's more at stake than empty rhetoric.

fervently

Let's just compromise that we can pee on Gonzalez and make him stink for a day. That way everyone is happy.

Slidin' into first with your pants about to burst. diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

Comin' around second and you only got a second diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea

Slidin' into third and you just let a turd, diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

Slidin' into home and your pants are full of foam, diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

LEONLAND

What's with the diarrhea fetish?

LEONLAND

What's with the diarrhea fetish?

Posted by AllAmerican at 2007-08-01 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I think He has a Scat Fetish don't know for sure. Even I am not THAT Freaky Deaky.

Larry

good idea

There is no crime in firing those U.S. Attorneys

No crime in firing DA's for either not prosecuting Dems in order to gain advantage in close election or for prosecuting Rethgs?

No crime for hiring that Cagey Bastard Tim Griffin bypassing the senate confirmations with a little known provision in Dumbya's Patriot Act?

Really?

Yes, punish the fair and reward the traitors.
It is the BushCo Way.

The BushCo Way, btw, is kinda like the Bushido code, only for dishonourable conduct.

"Clinton fired all his attorneys"?

Man, do you need some new talking points.

Be Well.

PS On Topic?

Impeach Fredo?
HELL, YEAH!
To the boathouse with the hapless schnook.
Going, going ...but not quite Gonzo.
Spud sez... Yesterday wouldn't be too soon.

Be Well.

PS: 70% of minimum wage earners are part-time high school students. Why do Dems want to make it easier for 17-year-olds to buy pot?

Posted by vernon at 2007-07-31 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag:


Using your figures, 30% are not students. They're everyday working people. Why do the republicans want to make it so hard for everyday working people to pay their rent and/or afford their meds?

These Democrats have truly gone nuts. There is no crime in firing those U.S. Attorneys. Bill Clinton replaced all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he came into office and Hillary has already said she would replace all of them if she gets into office.

Posted by utastaff at 2007-07-31 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:


What about the crime of lying to congress?

Hell, you boobs hunted down Clinton for lying about a blowjob and now you want to act like you play on the level. Fuck that. Suck it up, bitches.

OMG,

My poor over sized American gut and my super sized American butt! What are we to do?

The next thing ya know they will be taking away our stupid piece-of-shit American cars and trucks and guns and !@$#%.

The RNC/NRA: "protecting the American Way of death."

As for Gonezalus: deport him with the other illegals.

COMMONSENSE

Don't hold back!! LOL

Well put.

Go for it. Somebody has to have some balls.

Congressman Pursues Gonzales' Impeachment

Well, I guess in the larger scheme of things, it is better and safer for the country to have democrats in Congress investigating rather then legislating.

Hard to legislate when Repubs block everything, obstructionists they are. But when it was happening to them? Well, gosh...that's just wrong!

I know my good "moderate" buddy Bowa is going to call for the nuclear option on behalf of democrats soon!

I know my good "moderate" buddy Bowa is going to call for the nuclear option on behalf of democrats soon!

There is no "nuclear option" in the House of Representatives as there is no filibuster there.

Hard to legislate when Repubs block everything, obstructionists they are. But when it was happening to them? Well, gosh...that's just wrong!

Are you suggesting that you support the Nuclear option now but didn't when the GOP is in power?

BTW: I didn't advocate the "nuclear option" when the GOP was in power because, unlike you appear to be, I am a moderate. I believe that the "separation of powers" was specifically conceived by the founders to make the branches of government antagonistic with each other and prevent one branch from usurping power from any other. And that structure translates to the political manuevering and gamesmanship we see going on now and forever.

Are the cronies of the Bush administration nefarious criminals? Hard to say from a distance. Self-dealing is a human trait and more characteristic of the Bush administration than any administration since FDR. But does that mean that nefarious activity is going on? Hard to say.

The "unitary executive concept" -- the brainchild of Dick Cheney -- means that the Executive Branch is not accountable to the Legislative Branch. Not an interpretation of the Constitution that is generally taught, but an arguable one if you wanted to interpret the intent of the Founding Fathers a bit creatively. And strong unitary executive branch could foster a lot of self-dealing as this administration has done.

So by doing the bidding of Dubya and Dick Cheney, AG Gonzo is merely fighting for the unitary executive concept. Is that impeachable?

Don't know, but worth looking into. Seems to me that the AG was supposed to enforce all the laws dispassionately and with vigor, not selectively or sophmorically.

Bowa -- good post, except that if it were not for Dick, Dubya would be clueless. He'd say, "Ah'm the commander-in-chief, and Ah command. Ah'm the decider and A decides." He could never articulat a fifth of the concepts you put into the previous post. How that dolt ever got a "C" average in history is a discrage to Yale's History Department!

So I stick by it being the brain-child of Dick Cheney, while agreeing the concept of "departmentalism" has deep roots. Without the manipulations of Cheney, the heel dragging of the Executive branch would have been washed through by now.

Bowa -- good post, except that if it were not for Dick, Dubya would be clueless. He'd say, "Ah'm the commander-in-chief, and Ah command. Ah'm the decider and A decides." He could never articulate a fifth of the concepts you put into the previous post. How that dolt ever got a "C" average in history is a disgrace to Yale's History Department!

So I stick by it being the brain-child of Dick Cheney, while agreeing the concept of "departmentalism" has deep roots. Without the manipulations of Cheney, the heel dragging of the Executive Branch would have been washed through by now. (Btw thanks for the thesis link.)

So I stick by it being the brain-child of Dick Cheney, while agreeing the concept of "departmentalism" has deep roots. Without the manipulations of Cheney, the heel dragging of the Executive branch would have been washed through by now.

As much of a mangler of the English language as he is, I think that one of the things history will show about the Bush administration is that Bush was in charge all along -- and Cheney was doing Bush's bidding, not the other way around.

I think that one of the things history will show about the Bush administration is that Bush was in charge all along -- and Cheney was doing Bush's bidding, not the other way around.

A little naive of you, Bowa, given, as a first example, the self-appointment of Cheney as Vice Presidential candidate.

Again, item # 1 in people's evidence of a Cheney selection of Dubya as the puppet president: the role of Cheney and other PNAC founders in drafting Dubya and organizing his campaign and Florida recount campaign. In 1997, only months after the 1996 elections that Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton, David Gergen, a one time Reagan press secretary was on the lecture and speaker's circuit and announcing that there would be a push to get Dubya to run for president, and that it was likely to succed because of the number of influential GOPs behind it. According to Gergen, the GOPs behind the draft Dubya plan included Dick Cheney and others now referred to as neocons.

T+C

The GOP committee that selected GW to front this boy band admin was headed by George Shultz. Condi and Dicky were members. Dicky had no problem finding a VP.

Specter wants Gonzales gone

Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this morning that Congress needs to "find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General [Alberto R.] Gonzales."


Mr. Specter made his statement at the beginning of a hearing with J. Scott Jennings, deputy White House political director.

"meaning"

Click on Shrubby's pic for more

I believe that the "separation of powers" was specifically conceived by the founders to make the branches of government antagonistic with each other and prevent one branch from usurping power from any other.

Unless Bush is a war time president, and then he can do whatever the fuck he wants, right bowa?

Oh Brother--same old shit different day for the Dems--

Murphy