Fox, the conclusion is really stupid. What studies have been made that clearly show that Dems, with fewer children in their districts, perform badly. There are none.
Here is an article that FACTUALLY shows why the current leadership in congress should be expelled.
CONGRESS
No Work And All Play
When Congress adjourns for the November elections later this week, "it appears that just 2 of the 11 required spending bills will pass." The budget will not have been enacted, forcing Congress to pass a stopgap measure to keep the federal government open. The legislative branch has also stumbled in its efforts to pass much-debated bills on lobbying reform, immigration, offshore oil drilling, minimum wage, and the estate tax. "A popular package of business and education tax credits is teetering." Long-time congressional analysts Thomas Mann of Brookings and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote recently, "[E]ven those of us with strong stomachs are getting indigestion from the farcical end of the 109th Congress. ... With few accomplishments and an overloaded agenda, it is set to finish its tenure with the fewest number of days in session in our lifetimes, falling well below 100 days this year." Indeed, this Congress will recess having been in session fewer days than the "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948. A CBS News/New York Times poll finds 75 percent of voters can't name one thing Congress has accomplished. Only 25 percent said they approved of Congress's job performance. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) -- a member of the House leadership -- acknowledged, "We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish." At the start of this month -- dubbed "Security September" -- the congressional leadership promised to deliver accomplishments that would be focused on national security. Instead, as a new Center for American Progress analysis underscores, Congress will depart Washington, D.C. leaving many critical national security matters unresolved...
--AmericanProgressAction
Advocate wrote:Fox, the conclusion is really stupid. What studies have been made that clearly show that Dems, with fewer children in their districts, perform badly. There are none.
Here is an article that FACTUALLY shows why the current leadership in congress should be expelled.
CONGRESS
No Work And All Play
When Congress adjourns for the November elections later this week, "it appears that just 2 of the 11 required spending bills will pass." The budget will not have been enacted, forcing Congress to pass a stopgap measure to keep the federal government open. The legislative branch has also stumbled in its efforts to pass much-debated bills on lobbying reform, immigration, offshore oil drilling, minimum wage, and the estate tax. "A popular package of business and education tax credits is teetering." Long-time congressional analysts Thomas Mann of Brookings and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote recently, "[E]ven those of us with strong stomachs are getting indigestion from the farcical end of the 109th Congress. ... With few accomplishments and an overloaded agenda, it is set to finish its tenure with the fewest number of days in session in our lifetimes, falling well below 100 days this year." Indeed, this Congress will recess having been in session fewer days than the "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948. A CBS News/New York Times poll finds 75 percent of voters can't name one thing Congress has accomplished. Only 25 percent said they approved of Congress's job performance. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) -- a member of the House leadership -- acknowledged, "We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish." At the start of this month -- dubbed "Security September" -- the congressional leadership promised to deliver accomplishments that would be focused on national security. Instead, as a new Center for American Progress analysis underscores, Congress will depart Washington, D.C. leaving many critical national security matters unresolved...
--AmericanProgressAction
No it doesn't. All it does is say that unmarried people are more likely to vote Democrat than are married people, and more married people are likely to vote Republican than are unmarried people. It put no 'good' or 'bad' on the statistics at all. Read it again.
As for the article you posted, I don't disagree. Congress has behaved abysmally and does not deserve to be re-elected. That is true equally for Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
Unfortunately we still only have two poorly-performing parties to choose from and we're left with choosing the one that most closely reflects our personal values or what is important to us.
Why dump the Dems? They had no power at all. When they were in power, the country thrived.
Did it? I recall the GOP was in power for six of Clinton's eight years. The first two years when the Dems had it all were such a disaster that the GOP gained control of Congress for the first tme in 60 years.
But the Dems controlled the presidency, the courts, and the senate. Further, Clinton insisted on pay-as-you go, and raised taxes on the wealthy. He essentially ended welfare, kept us out of major wars, solved the gay-military problem, converted deficits to surpluses, improved our foreign affairs, installed a leash on N. Korea's nuke program, etc., etc.
Foxfyre wrote:Did it? I recall the GOP was in power for six of Clinton's eight years. The first two years when the Dems had it all were such a disaster that the GOP gained control of Congress for the first tme in 60 years. (witless emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
More evidence of Fox's ignorance of history. The Republicans in the Clinton administration gained control of the House in 1994--but not the Senate. It is, of course, hilariously idiotic to speak of them being in power. But at all events, 60 years before 1994 was 1934; the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in the first mid-term election. They held onto slim majorities throughout the Eisenhower years, but were already losing their grip by the time of the first mid-terms in the Kennedy administration. The Democrats only "re-took" the House and the Senate in the Johnson years. The balance of power in the House and the Senate then see-sawed throughout the Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations, and the Republicans began to slip again in Pappy Bush's administration.
As usual, you don't know what the Hell you're talking about, so you just make **** up.
Quote:
As usual, you don't know what the Hell you're talking about, so you just make **** up.
There has to be some sort of shorter way of saying that, to save us time in postings - like 'what a Foxism' or something.
Cycloptichorn
Good idea . . . let's just settle for Foxism . . . we'll all know what it means.
STOP
Breaking news about the latest polls.
Watch it
for yourself on YouTube
Guess who's who?
Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless bully, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants on the slightest point or with no point at all. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Big Dog's Me-Too toady will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other bullies to bring down his quarry.
Having said that, the Republicans did take control of the House and Senate in 1994 and subsequently lost enough seats in the Senate to ridlock with the Vice President in position to break a tie on several votes. 1994 was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans had controlled the house. By also controlling the Senate the GOP controlled Congress. I incorrectly said 60 years.
Foxfyre wrote:Did it? I recall the GOP was in power for six of Clinton's eight years. The first two years when the Dems had it all were such a disaster that the GOP gained control of Congress for the first tme in 60 years.
Quote:Having said that, the Republicans did take control of the House and Senate in 1994 and subsequently lost enough seats in the Senate to ridlock with the Vice President in position to break a tie on several votes. 1994 was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans had controlled the house. By also controlling the Senate the GOP controlled Congress. I incorrectly said 60 years.
Was there anything in your first statement that was accurate?
parados wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Did it? I recall the GOP was in power for six of Clinton's eight years. The first two years when the Dems had it all were such a disaster that the GOP gained control of Congress for the first tme in 60 years.
Quote:Having said that, the Republicans did take control of the House and Senate in 1994 and subsequently lost enough seats in the Senate to ridlock with the Vice President in position to break a tie on several votes. 1994 was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans had controlled the house. By also controlling the Senate the GOP controlled Congress. I incorrectly said 60 years.
Was there anything in your first statement that was accurate?
Pretty much accurate other than the 60 year thing that should have been 40. The Dems have not controlled Congress since 1994.
Nimh this was great. Thanks.
Oh, we're
both big dogs. Neither Setanta nor I rely on each other to give you a much-deserved logical smackdown.
You're displacing the blame for your behavior onto us, which is sad, but not entirely unpredictable.
Cycloptichorn
For the little dogs I simply remind everyone that when little dogs are asked to back up their personal attacks they respond:
Cyclops Post 1311579 in which he said
Quote:My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.
They only respond that way when it is the truth. Or when they have complete contempt for the person who asked it. You have to decide which is which based upon the situation; it isn't a black and white thing, you see, because in many cases, such as yours, both conditions apply.
You really have an over-inflated opinion of the relevance of your postings... woof woof!
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:They only respond that way when it is the truth. Or when they have complete contempt for the person who asked it. You have to decide which is which based upon the situation; it isn't a black and white thing, you see, because in many cases, such as yours, both conditions apply.
You really have an over-inflated opinion of the relevance of your postings... woof woof!
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops Post 1311579 in which he said
Quote:
Quote:My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.
Re-posting an irrelevant, yet accurate, post of mine only furthers my point. But, I implore you to continue doing so - it keeps you from making other, more pertinent factual errors, and actually improves the average quality of your posts.
Why, if you quoted me a hundred more times, as the entirety of your posts, you might be able to rise to the level of bare competence within just a few years. It's encouraging to see that you can still learn skills at your age.
woof woof!
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Re-posting an irrelevant, yet accurate, post of mine only furthers my point. But, I implore you to continue doing so - it keeps you from making other, more pertinent factual errors, and actually improves the average quality of your posts.
Why, if you quoted me a hundred more times, as the entirety of your posts, you might be able to rise to the level of bare competence within just a few years. It's encouraging to see that you can still learn skills at your age.
woof woof!
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops Post 1311579 in which he said
Quote:
Quote:My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.
It's also pretty funny that you simply cannot, cannot, let someone else have the last word in any discussion.
Nice to see that your average posting competency rating (apcr) has just slid another tick towards 'competent' thanks to your primary inclusion of my material in your posting.
Hell, I should be charging
royalties....
woof woof!
Cycloptichorn
