Democrats win big on House. Senate... a toss-up

[Shamus]

Originally posted by john9001
only at election time.

Just like the current crew of repubs like to call themselves conservatives as they throw around money like drunken sailors (no disrespect meant to drunken sailors)

shamus

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Eagler

Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Stringer
Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?

Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?

Read the sig   ......

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Stringer
Actually,
Remind me in which prison are we holding OBL?

never said we were ..
the changes came after the attack .. but you knew that

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Eagler
never said we were ..
the changes came after the attack .. but you knew that

And you know OBL was responsible for the attack, right?

So, where in Iraq is OBL?

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, I'll just remind you that several members of Seal Teams Deka and Delta could have killed him between 97 and 99, on multiple occasions. Wonder who was watching the store then?

Actually that didn't answer the question, as usual.

And Bush Sr. had how many thousands of troops in Iraq in '91??  I mean if we're going to play the obviously ridiculous game....

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Stringer
Actually that didn't answer the question, as usual.

And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.

However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.

So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.

However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.

So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.

And as many here expect the new dem congress to fix the situation in Iraq, why didnt the repub congress in Clintons era catch OSB?

shamus

[wrag]

Originally posted by Eagler

IMHO many of the laws that were passed with the claim that they were needed due to this weren't.

I could give a run down on my reasoning but many of those reason were covered when the patriot act and such were in the works.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Shamus
Just like the current crew of repubs like to call themselves conservatives as they throw around money like drunken sailors (no disrespect meant to drunken sailors)

shamus

I actually take offense to that.  I'm a very thrifty drunken sailor.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
Look at what we spend our taxes on and then tell me that the republicans are the cause of it...

They ruled the house, senate and white house.....so it's the dems fault? I know you are gonna spin it lazs, but they had the magic wand in their hand and never used it. Instead they included pork barrel spending for votes. The Bush administration projected that there would be a $1.288 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2004 in the 2002 U.S. Budget. In the 2005 Mid-Session Review, however, this had changed to a projected deficit of $850 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion.  49% of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29% was due to "tax relief", and the remaining 22% was due to war, homeland, and other enacted legislation.

So you know that tax cut you got? It was borrowed!!

Wars get paid for with a healthy economy

Waaa? I can't believe you said that. Are you kidding? So this war is making us wealthy??? It's putting us in the hole!!  Wars cost money, you borrow for war, then spend that money building your war machine which boosts the economy, but it's borrowed, then the spoils pay it off. We are not at war for spoils, and there is no magic money to pay for it. It gets paid with tax dollars.

you simply can't tax your way into prosperity

And you sure as hell can't borrow your way into it either. The last I read we pay a billion dollars a day in interest alone on our debt. That's insane.

I am interested to see what the dems do, they embraced the center and it carried them to victory, to revert back to tax and spend would be political suicide. If they haven't learned their lesson yet, shame on them.

All I want is for the pork barrel spending to stop and to start paying off our debt. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

No one takes our debt seriously, it's disturbing.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And neither did you. It was obviously a rhetorical question, as anyone knows that he isn't in one. It was a pretty stupid question as well.

However, the full explanation is that under Clinton's watch for EIGHT
years, the terrorist in question operated with little or no fear of having to deal with the consquences of his actions. For the most part, planning and preparation for the events of 11 September 2001 took place between 1996 and 2000, and not in the eight months of 2001 immediately preceeding the actual attack. Also ,the same group committed various other terrorist acts in that same period and solidified their base AND their network. At any time after 97, he could have easily been killed before Bush even took office. However, he was not, and had plenty of time to go underground when the attacks became imminent.

So go ahead and blame Bush for not catching him AFTER the attacks, while giving Clinton a free pass on having let him go when he could have killed him YEARS BEFORE the attacks. Makes perfect sense. If you are an idiot.

It seems to make perfect sense to you:lol

[storch]

Originally posted by Sixpence
They ruled the house, senate and white house.....blah blah blah

no way you actually believe that.  they held majority in both houses but never did they rule both houses.  the democrats prevented the president from appointing judges to federal bench for his entire first term. or did you forget that?

[Mace2004]

I think one of the most interesting outcomes of the election is the difference in how the two parties respond to defeat.  I haven't heard a single cry of "stolen", "disenfrancisment", "new fascist regime", etc., etc.  No mad rush to the courts to overthrow an election that didn't come out in their favor.  No refusing to admit defeat once all the votes were in.  No mass petitions for recounts (except recounts that are mandatory due to state law).  No attempts to cherry pick Republican districts for recounts.  No last minute discoveries of ballots located in some warehouse.  It appears that the Republicans have taken it on the chin and are not whinning about it although I'm sure there will be a small few that will.  

I think the party is going to actually look at itself and figure out where it went wrong rather than blaming the outcome on a foolish electorate or an insidious and evil opposition party.  Maybe the Dems will learn from this as well and figure out that the American population doesn't like whinners very much even though we give them enough press.

Here is an amusing tongue-in-cheek series of questions I wish I could take credit for:

Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless . . . this is all part of Rove's plan.

A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney, always forgetting his password.

What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos [of the DailyKos] must feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys . . . except for the one he really wanted.

Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid? Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to Commissioner Gordon's office.

So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!