FreeDuck wrote:That may be true, but it certainly wasn't evident from the sparse program posted by MM. I'm just asking for a little more specification is all.
Admittedly the information posted by MM was not conclusive but it also isn't the only source pointing out that Pelosi hasn't been able to keep her pledge for a 5-day work week for the House either. It is understandable that the GOP considers her to be vindictive and unprofessional when she demands unnecessary votes just to get them into the chamber too. Even her own party members are grumbling about that though they are more reluctant to publicly say so.
Foxfyre wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That may be true, but it certainly wasn't evident from the sparse program posted by MM. I'm just asking for a little more specification is all.
Admittedly the information posted by MM was not conclusive but it also isn't the only source pointing out that Pelosi hasn't been able to keep her pledge for a 5-day work week for the House either. It is understandable that the GOP considers her to be vindictive and unprofessional when she demands unnecessary votes just to get them into the chamber too. Even her own party members are grumbling about that though they are more reluctant to publicly say so.
"vindictive" Yeah that's a real bitch, ain't it? Actually expecting people to show up for work. What's the constant whine ya hear from conservatives about people getting something for nothin'? Doesn't Baldy have a signature line about that?
The only vindictive ones here have been you Foxy, mm and if George has posted, him too.
Foxfyre wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That may be true, but it certainly wasn't evident from the sparse program posted by MM. I'm just asking for a little more specification is all.
Admittedly the information posted by MM was not conclusive but it also isn't the only source pointing out that Pelosi hasn't been able to keep her pledge for a 5-day work week for the House either. It is understandable that the GOP considers her to be vindictive and unprofessional when she demands unnecessary votes just to get them into the chamber too. Even her own party members are grumbling about that though they are more reluctant to publicly say so.
So what is the consensus? Is she not keeping her pledge, or are people complaining becuase she is keeping her pledge?
JTT, The Bush regime can do no wrong, starting with "support our troops."
It's a shame our trooops are not provided the proper equipment to fight this war, and after they come home with injuries, are treated like fodder.
How many ways does a neocon have to twist the truth to live with themselves?
cicerone imposter wrote:JTT, The Bush regime can do no wrong, starting with "support our troops."
It's a shame our trooops are not provided the proper equipment to fight this war, and after they come home with injuries, are treated like fodder.
How many ways does a neocon have to twist the truth to live with themselves?
Ya wanna see the truth twisted, CI, have a peek at this. The chickens have come home to roost for this guy.
Quote:
Major Swift Boat Donor To Kerry: "You're A Hero"
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Sam Fox, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. While it is not unusual for big political donors to be rewarded with ambassadorships -- and Fox is a huge donor to all things Republican -- what made everyone take note of this guy is that Fox gave a whopping $50,000 to help fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004.
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/
The inflation-adjusted data cicerone illustrated for the rise in per capita debt between 1953 and 2005 showed a steep rise. However if you work out the average annual rate of increase, it is just over 4% annually. This is very little more than the average rate of growth of our GDP. Even though GDP per capita grows a bit more slowly, the increase in per capita debt is not nearly so large as suggested by the somewhat deceptive graph. Scare tactics.
More of the aftermath for the supporters. They must be positively beaming with just how competent their "leader" has been.
Quote:
Reid Highlights GOP's Bogus National-Security Cred
...
"For 6 years, this White House and past Congresses have talked a good game about protecting America, but while they were distracted and consumed with staying the course in Iraq, they failed to heed the lessons of September 11, 2001 -- that we must do more to protect and secure our communities from the real terrorist threat here at home," said the Senate Majority Leader.
Reid then pointed out in very specific terms what was proposed by Democrats in the last Congress, only to be shot down by Republicans -- and almost always on straight, party-line votes, with the GOP providing no alternative measures[/u].
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/
How many times have we heard the dickheads around here putting forward these specious arguments that the Democrats weren't offering anything tangible to aid the fight against terrorism?
Their pathetic lies are finally being exposed. Have you no shame, Foxy, Tico, George, McG, MM, Brandon, ... ?
georgeob1 wrote:The inflation-adjusted data cicerone illustrated for the rise in per capita debt between 1953 and 2005 showed a steep rise. However if you work out the average annual rate of increase, it is just over 4% annually. This is very little more than the average rate of growth of our GDP. Even though GDP per capita grows a bit more slowly, the increase in per capita debt is not nearly so large as suggested by the somewhat deceptive graph. Scare tactics.
Well, it averages to 4% of GDP if you average the entire chart. It seems rather disingenuous to ignore the fact that the rate of debt increase
doubled after the 1980's from what it was before, if not more than doubled. I highly doubt this is coincidental, given the shift in economic thinking that Conservatives brought to the plate at said time.
Cycloptichorn
georgeob wrote: The inflation-adjusted data cicerone illustrated for the rise in per capita debt between 1953 and 2005 showed a steep rise. However if you work out the average annual rate of increase, it is just over 4% annually. This is very little more than the average rate of growth of our GDP. Even though GDP per capita grows a bit more slowly, the increase in per capita debt is not nearly so large as suggested by the somewhat deceptive graph. Scare tactics.
George, That may be true, but the big difference today is the simple fact that the middle class and the poor are getting poorer (At least for the past six years). Their potential to keep up income with the rate of consumer debt increase of 4% leaves debt climbing at some unknown exponential rate. Some consumers are paying upwards of 50 percent interest on their credit card debt. Most mortgages are above five percent, and income has not kept up with one of their biggest debt. To keep their homes, consumers must cut back elsewhere - while trying to keep up with the 2.5 to 3 percent inflation rate. It only means the middle class will get poorer if this trend continues. Not good.
FreeDuck wrote:Foxfyre wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That may be true, but it certainly wasn't evident from the sparse program posted by MM. I'm just asking for a little more specification is all.
Admittedly the information posted by MM was not conclusive but it also isn't the only source pointing out that Pelosi hasn't been able to keep her pledge for a 5-day work week for the House either. It is understandable that the GOP considers her to be vindictive and unprofessional when she demands unnecessary votes just to get them into the chamber too. Even her own party members are grumbling about that though they are more reluctant to publicly say so.
So what is the consensus? Is she not keeping her pledge, or are people complaining becuase she is keeping her pledge?
I'd be interested in an answer, too....
FreeDuck wrote:Foxfyre wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That may be true, but it certainly wasn't evident from the sparse program posted by MM. I'm just asking for a little more specification is all.
Admittedly the information posted by MM was not conclusive but it also isn't the only source pointing out that Pelosi hasn't been able to keep her pledge for a 5-day work week for the House either. It is understandable that the GOP considers her to be vindictive and unprofessional when she demands unnecessary votes just to get them into the chamber too. Even her own party members are grumbling about that though they are more reluctant to publicly say so.
So what is the consensus? Is she not keeping her pledge, or are people complaining becuase she is keeping her pledge?
No idea. I'm not a congressperson and haven't taken a poll or seen one on that particular issue. I read and watch the same news you do or can though, and it seems Pelosi has not been able to yet keep that promised five-day work week but is calling a lot of unnecessary votes as described. What does that mean? What would it mean if the GOP was still the majority?
I saw Tony Snow yesterday saying that intelligence is saying that our fighting in Iraq is protecting us from terrorism. This is such a blatant lie inasmuch every intelligence agency has said that our Iraq efforts are increasing the number of terrorists, who eventually return to their countries of origin with missions to kill Americans and our allies.
Not only that, but rather than being received as liberators, most Iraqis now believe in killing American soldiers.
Here is some interesting information on presidents over the past 50 years, including our current moron-in-chief.
There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D.
> Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements:
>
> 1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff.
>
> 2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological
> factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain System of
> intelligence ranking.
>
> The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to
> within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:
>
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,
> Harry S Truman [D] 132,
> Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
> Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
> Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,
> Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
> James Earle Carter [D] 175,
> Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
> George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 98,
> William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
> George Walker Bush [R] 91
>
> In order of IQ rating:
>
> 182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
> 175 . . James Earle Carter [D]
> 174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
> 155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]
> 147 . . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
> 132 . . Harry S Truman [D]
> 126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
> 122 . . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]
> 121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
> 105 . . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]
> 098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
> 091 . . George Walker Bush [R]
>
> The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
> 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George
> W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
>
> The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
> 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President
> Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ
> of 126.
>
> No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176).
> Note the institute measured him at 175.
>
> Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.W.
> Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of
> the
> English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary
> [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other
> presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA,
> and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an
> intellectual basis.
>
> The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive
> at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice
> stress
> confidence analysis.
>
> "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under
> their belt, and most had written several white papers during their
> education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein
> said.
>
> "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to
> arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his
> unscripted public speaking."
>
> The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania think tank includes
> high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in
> human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R.
> Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.
> Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist. For more on the Lovenstein
> Institute, go to <http>http://lovenstein.org//
> <http><http>
>
>
> Hmm- The smartest president didn't know enough to keep his pants zipped
> and the dumbest thinks he can run a war!!!!!
I suggest you check out stuff like that on Snopes or Factcheck or similar site Advocate before you post it so that your posts won't look quite so......I can't say the word without committing a TOS violation.
Sorry, I was fooled by this hoax. As they say, never mind.
Advocate wrote:Sorry, I was fooled by this hoax. As they say, never mind.
God love ya Advocate. We agree on very little, but I have to respect a man to owns up to stuff. Thanks.
