At least get your facts straight. The 110th Congress which began in January 2007, was controlled by Democrats. They still control both houses. Democrats have had 100% control of both Congress and the Whitehouse for nearly 2 years and control of Congress for almost 4 years. Care to rethink your statement? Or shall I simply say EPIC FAIL?
LOL ^ wtf does this have to do with anything? like that’s a rebuttal compared to the 6 years that Repubs had and raided the treasury for every last dime? wtf’s your point?
You also know that I am no fan of Republicans either.
Kinda of hard to believe in that when the tea party encompasses all the worst details of republicans and then throws in even more extremism to boot. Sara Palin is one of the representatives of the tea partiers. If the tea partiers weren’t republicans and were all about common sense, then the tea party mob wouldn’t let that lady anywhere near your gatherings, but not only is she allowed but she’s encouraged and often paid to show up, same with glenn beck.
If the Tea partiers really were what they claim to be both palin and beck would be tila tequilad off the stage whenever they appear but you all cheer at their nonsense! tell me again how tea partiers aren’t the extreme versions of republicans…
They spend too much as well. You know as well as I do, congress controls the purse strings.
So is that the republican defense? “The DEMS MADE us spend all that money!”
Since it is apparently easier to listen to MSNBC than to bother looking for the truth,
[rolleyes]
I have provided a listing of who controlled what and when.
For what reason? To prove my statements even more?
I noticed you gave the Dems the majority in 2001when the senate was evenly split… even though Cheney was the tie breaker. so really it’s an R not a D
(Sorry the formatting got a little FUBAR.)
how bout this for the sake of ease:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
for those that don’t care to follow the link it’s a power tie at 24 a piece. over the last 30 years whether it be the house the senate or the presidency each party has control over one or more branch of government at least as many times as the other. and the most money has always been spent on the Repubs watch and never for the sake of the working man!
BTW look at what all the old ass fuckers call the nostalgia years when prosperity was in your pocket and happiness came with the rise of the new day… ALL Democrats
Repubs had total control in the last 30 years exactly twice. Dems had total control 3 times. By total control, I mean Pres and both House and Senate.
You’re not helping your cause! So the Repubs have had total control exactly 2 times in the last 30 years and yet the majority of the debt has been incurred on their watch. Again what’s your point?
Reagan and Bush I with their 3 terms spent more money than all of the other previous presidents combined. Bill Clinton comes in balances the budget and if his budget would’ve continued to have been followed then the national debt would’ve been 0 by the end of W’s first term. but enter W and he goes off and spends more money than all other presidents before him including his father and Reagan… very tough to do! but he did it and modern day republicans and tea party calls Dems the party of spend spend spend!? In what universe? Do you live in Bizarro world?
The Dems have been the party of fiscal responsibility for the 3 times in the last 30 that they’ve controlled all 3 branches.When was the last time a Repub balanced his budget? the answer to that riddle is NEVER!
the two times the Repubs had total control they frittered away the national treasury.
Dems had both houses 6 times. Repubs 5 times.
So? again DEMS don’t make Repubs spend money! Repubs basically blackmail money out of the congress… “You better give us money or you hate freedom and piss on the troops and we’re going to go to the left wing press and tell about your traitor ways.” Although they needn’t do that when they control all three branches such as the blank check that was given from 2001 to 2007.
[reply]
So how is liberalism a fast march to bankruptcy?
I took your silly generalization and made my own out it.
[/reply]
except that mine is not a silly generalization and has been proven time and time again that a country declines when the wealthy are allowed to take all the wealth and not give any back to the majority of the country. I know you’re trying really hard to be devil’s advocate but your gonna have to do better.
[reply]
“arms” are a flint lock musket… care to rethink your stance, there, on strict interpretation?
Actually, the Constitution is technology agnostic. The U.S. Supreme court has unequivocally ruled that the 2nd Amendment pertains to individuals.
[/reply]
Yeah? what’s that got to do with STRICT INTERPRETATION? apparently you missed that in my first post I bolded it for you!
As far as what our Founding Fathers had to say about being armed.
Don’t really care, seeing as I don’t want a gun… you want a gun? Help yourself. I will not own one especially now that I got a little one on the way. It’s a personal safety issue with me. You know, now that I think about it, the old west was a very safe place to be since everybody was armed. (That last sentence was sarcasm by the way)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "
guns do you no good if the perp walks up behind you, or silently breaks into your house at night and shoots you while you sleep. Hell, now they got two guns or more thanks to your death and your keeping of “arms”
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
woud’ve been nice if you (all of you part time history/constitutional scholars) were this quote filled when Bush was dismantling America/the Constitution
Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thank you Timothy McVeigh for popularizing this quote and thank you Glen Beck beck for repeating this taken out of context quote from an American terrorist. Other wise the uneducated wouldn’t have anything to march around and shout or put on t-shirts to seem important. thank you to these fools for popularizing this slogan again for the last two democratic presidents… Shout it to a republican though and your a treasonist son of a bitch!
There can be no doubt as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It is indeed an individual, not state right.
Don’t care… have a gun if you want. but you’re a fool if you think it keeps you safe. I was speaking to strict interpretation which under that title means an arm is a flintlock musket
You know your flood of quotes are really taken out of context because you are quoting men who would face their enemy and look them in the eye as they shot at them with their crooked barreled guns. people no longer have the pride to even fist fight like that, let alone shoot at each other other like that. you think their thoughts would still be the same on fire arms considering the evolution of fighting? I think not
others were criminals such as John Hancock.
Try again.
“Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle”
A few others were farmers, smiths and merchants. Not all were wealthy.
Name one who wasn’t! “Smiths and merchants” were the wealthy of the day!
Late,
grmpysmrf