A Skinny Blonde's Take on The Election ... - Page 2

Resinman · #11 11-09-2006, 10:40 PM

something is up,,, i cant post a whole post

always missing a few paragraphs

i am otta here

resinman

medicineman · #12 11-09-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resinman

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">By 2008 the country will likely be in a deep recession squarely blamed on the Bush administration. This will set the stage for the Democrats to recapture the White House with a strong mandate for change and a supportive legislature. If the "free market" and "laissez-faire" rhetoric of Republicans are discredited, then the big government Democrats could be perceived as the solution. If so, look for a potential President Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to summon the ghost of FDR and conjure up another New Deal. Such fiscal activism, especially coming at a time when our nation can ill afford it, will cause the recession to be a whole lot deeper and last a whole lot longer than might otherwise have been the case.

I'm more inclined to believe it will be Barak Obama

Doobie006 · #13 11-10-2006, 01:52 AM

I hope you're right Med, I don't think I could stand Hilary Clinton as President.

ViRedd · #14 11-10-2006, 09:47 AM

From Coulter's piece:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Was this not accurate?

Vi

medicineman · #15 11-10-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViRedd

From Coulter's piece:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Was this not accurate?

Vi
..................................
I have no Idea, and I,m not about to bother fact checking a Cunt. The larger question here is: Is it relevant? Who cares what happened 50 frikin years ago compared to this election. The Democrats took both houses period. So quit bitchin and pay up sucker

................................

ViRedd · #16 11-10-2006, 05:38 PM

Who's bitching? All the article points out is that the election wasn't anything unusual. The facts show that the Democrats SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVEN MORE SEATS.

Vi

Wavels · #17 11-10-2006, 06:06 PM

Yes indeed Vi.....that is the point Coulter makes in her article.
Resin this is what you cite as an inaccuracy in your response to my post?
As Annie points out; from a historical perspective, this is indeed accurate.
Good to see ya Resin!

Most people simply dismiss Ann because she is caustic in her delivery, this does not, of itself, render her specific citation of facts bogus.
I'm not aware of her simply making stuff up as Dan Rather and his cronies did.
And Dan was supposed to be a NEWS man, Ann is just an opinion writer.

medicineman · #18 11-10-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavels

Yes indeed Vi.....that is the point Coulter makes in her article.
Resin this is what you cite as an inaccuracy in your response to my post?
As Annie points out; from a historical perspective, this is indeed accurate.
Good to see ya Resin!

Most people simply dismiss Ann because she is caustic in her delivery, this does not, of itself, render her specific citation of facts bogus.
I'm not aware of her simply making stuff up as Dan Rather and his cronies did.
And Dan was supposed to be a NEWS man, Ann is just an opinion writer.

Viva Ann Fuckin Cuntler, If she wasnt a half way attractive blonde, do you guys think anyone would listen to her Garbage,I doubt it! And as far as Dan Rather, It was not proved to be untrue, only too hard to prove true, Bush certainy was a son of privelrdge and got around the war by serving at his convenience in the National Guard, like all sons of privelrdge, with some notable exceptions, like John Kerry!

Resinman · #19 11-10-2006, 06:42 PM

hey wavels,,i agree with ann on this one

"Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs."

Rumsfeld and the Republicans sent our men and women into Iraq with insufficient equipment. And we've all heard the stories about soldiers in Iraq having to buy body armor . . . on eBay!

The Democrats think they have solutions to the problem, one of which is giving our soldiers the very best equipment.

they will actually increase spending,,look like heros in 20 months for the election

Buy this stock,,,i was buying into it on wednsday and thursday,,,it will go to 40 bucks soon 10 months

FRPT.OB: Summary for FORCE PROTECTION INC - Yahoo! Finance

Resinman

Wavels · #20 11-11-2006, 02:22 PM

Howdy Resinman, thanks for the heads up, I'm gonna look into it....certainly worth a look-see!

You’re definitely right about the Dems being forced to come up with something to make them look good for 08....