View Full Version : Democrats Widen Lead Over Republicans in Battle for Congress
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-02-2006, 07:16 PM
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Voters increasingly see Democrats as the party best able to handle the top problems confronting the U.S., as Republicans struggle to hold their congressional majorities in midterm elections little more than four months away.
Registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans in contests in their congressional districts by 49 percent to 35 percent, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. Fifty-four percent want to see Democrats control Congress, while 34 percent prefer that Republicans stay in power. In April, Democrats led Republicans 51 percent to 38 percent on the issue.
Democrats have opened up a 16-point lead on the question of which party is best equipped to tackle the nation's most urgent challenges. Democrats, who have long enjoyed a decided edge on issues such as health care and the economy, now find themselves preferred on the Iraq war, ethics and immigration -- issues where Republicans had been ahead, or where the public was more divided.
The turnaround suggests Republicans "are headed for very difficult fall elections,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The House of Representatives is in play, and the Democrats have a real chance'' to sweep back to power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=apOfHu5ZB9cI&refer=
Anticipate that there will be fraud.
If the Dems didn't learn anything from 2000 and 2004, and if they don't fully understand that the opposition has absolutely NO intention of conducting "clean" elections, then they're just plain stupid and deserve to have victory stolen from them.
Now imagine LABF spending his hours helping the Democrats regain power, instead of whining about Bush here on the OM.
On the other hand, if I was a Democrat, I'd have LABF taken far, far away and kept quiet. He's the best recruiting tool the GOP could possibly hope for.
Spider
07-02-2006, 09:27 PM
Now imagine LABF spending his hours helping the Democrats regain power, instead of whining about Bush here on the OM.
On the other hand, if I was a Democrat, I'd have LABF taken far, far away and kept quiet. He's the best recruiting tool the GOP could possibly hope for.
Just wondering ....... How many restraining orders do you have against you ?
Spider
07-02-2006, 09:52 PM
None.
Thats shocking ........
How many times have you spent a night (or more) in the pokey for getting drunk and getting into a fight?
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:00 PM
How many times have you spent a night (or more) in the pokey for getting drunk and getting into a fight?
Plenty , but since you wanted to kidnap LABF , I was just wondering how many times you have done or said somthing like that before ..... Kidnapping and locking someone up is pretty serious .......
Are you truly so idiotic, or do you just play at it here on the OM, Spider?
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:08 PM
Are you truly so idiotic, or do you just play at it here on the OM, Spider?
gee i dont remember wanting someone hauled off and kept quite for voicing thier opinion ........ take you for example , I think you are one of the most clueless people here , but I never wanted you hauled off to be silienced .......
You forgot the "If I were a Democrat" part.
Despite all the GOP's problems and scandals, with Dean et.al. in charge of the Democrats, the Dems will try their darndest to lose. Considering how Dean's rhetorical excesses (one of the reasons the GOP is so happy he's head of the DNC) are a tiny fraction of LABF's... Spider, LABF is a liability to your party and your ideology.
That's all.
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:16 PM
You forgot the "If I were a Democrat" part.
Despite all the GOP's problems and scandals, with Dean et.al. in charge of the Democrats, the Dems will try their darndest to lose. Considering how Dean's rhetorical excesses (one of the reasons the GOP is so happy he's head of the DNC) are a tiny fraction of LABF's... Spider, LABF is a liability to your party and your ideology.
That's all.
is he ? i doubt it , i think Rosie Odonnel is .....
Considering how Dean is basically LABF-lite, and how, even though the GOP is screwing up so badly, the Dems are far from assured a cakewalk this fall, if LABF left this little world here on the OM and actually presented his views unadulterated to the real world, well, a R.I.P. to the Democratic Party...
I'd be embarassed to have LABF associated with my political party - sorta like Fred Phelps...
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:26 PM
Considering how Dean is basically LABF-lite, and how, even though the GOP is screwing up so badly, the Dems are far from assured a cakewalk this fall, if LABF left this little world here on the OM and actually presented his views unadulterated to the real world, well, a R.I.P. to the Democratic Party...
I'd be embarassed to have LABF associated with my political party - sorta like Fred Phelps...
I cant tell if you are a Republican this week or a Libertarian , but to have Pat Robertson , Falwell, Dobson .Well you get the picture . as for Libertarians , there is a reason why they are not voted in ........ Or ted Nugent and the NRA ..... there is some real idiots for you ........
I'll take Ted Nugent over Ted Kennedy any day.
And I'll take the NRA over the ACLU, too.
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:31 PM
I'll take Ted Nugent over Ted Kennedy any day.
And I'll take the NRA over the ACLU, too.
Ted Nugent is a freaking Idiot , he is so far off the main path .... i bet even other NRA members avoid him like the pleague ...... Hilarious! the dude is whacked . of course you would take the terrorist helping NRA over the ACLU , you cant think past your own needs . to you Felons and Terrorist have the same rights as law abiding citizens when it comes to fire arms ..... So why wouldnt you take the NRA ?
You just go ahead and tell me how you're going to keep terrorists from getting guns.
Can you do that?
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:38 PM
You just go ahead and tell me how you're going to keep terrorists from getting guns.
Can you do that?
LOL ... you poor ole Racist , i told you along time ago , the brady bill isnt perfect , but it is alot better then doing nothing .... perhaps burning Crosses messes up your memory .must be the gas fumes
That's all you have? "better then doing nothing" [sic] and pathetic slurs?
How does the "Brady Bill" stop terrorists from getting guns? It must be doing something, because it's "better then doing nothing"...
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:50 PM
That's all you have? "better then doing nothing" [sic] and pathetic slurs?
How does the "Brady Bill" stop terrorists from getting guns? It must be doing something, because it's "better then doing nothing"...
Please dont burn a cross on my lawn ........ I didnt know you was a Klans man .....
Yep, you can't prove your "argument" (such as it is).
Spider
07-02-2006, 10:59 PM
Yep, you can't prove your "argument" (such as it is).
Arguing with a Klansman is like arguing with a brick wall ......
You're just befuddling yourself all over the place...
Remember: How does the "Brady Bill" stop terrorists from getting guns? It must be doing something, because it's "better then doing nothing"...
Spider
07-02-2006, 11:05 PM
You're just befuddling yourself all over the place...
.
to a Klansman yes i am .....
Most people have to pay to get the kinds of laughs I'm getting from you for free, Spider. Thanks!
Spider
07-02-2006, 11:16 PM
Most people have to pay to get the kinds of laughs I'm getting from you for free, Spider. Thanks!
what ever you say ..... I have very little use for a racist ........ even on a message board .....
What is it like to deliver cheap shots, baseless slurs, and gutless smears at someone? I'm just not familiar with gutter-level tactics like that. Can you clue me in, Spider?
Wait - never mind. You did all that and missed every single time. There's nothing you can show me - except I did learn that you lash out pretty nastily when you're whipped...
Midnight Blue
07-02-2006, 11:50 PM
I'll take Ted Nugent over Ted Kennedy any day.
For what?
"He had a relationship with a 17-year old Hawaiian girl when he was 30. He became her legal guardian in order to comply with laws regarding relationships with minors."
http://www.artistfacts.com/detail.php?id=44
And then there's this:
"Nugent acknowledged earlier in the case that he is the father and paid "minimal" support but has never met the boy."
http://www.azfamilylawblog.com/family-law-news-264-ted-nugent-to-pay-child-support-.html
So... let's get this straight... he becomes the legal guardian to an underage girl so that he can continue to live with her... but can't be bothered to get to know his son. Yeah, that's a Republican "family values" role model, all right. ::)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 12:10 AM
Just wondering ....... How many restraining orders do you have against you ?
:D
Ha ha ha! :laugh:
You know news like "Democrats Widen Lead Over Republicans in Battle for Congress" is always guaranteed to set The O'W*GS Factor foaming at the pie hole.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 12:12 AM
For what?
"He had a relationship with a 17-year old Hawaiian girl when he was 30. He became her legal guardian in order to comply with laws regarding relationships with minors."
http://www.artistfacts.com/detail.php?id=44
And then there's this:
"Nugent acknowledged earlier in the case that he is the father and paid "minimal" support but has never met the boy."
http://www.azfamilylawblog.com/family-law-news-264-ted-nugent-to-pay-child-support-.html
So... let's get this straight... he becomes the legal guardian to an underage girl so that he can continue to live with her... but can't be bothered to get to know his son. Yeah, that's a Republican "family values" role model, all right. ::)
Yep.
And the fact that W*GS endorses the Motor City Kiddie Diddler speaks volumes here.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 12:17 AM
Now imagine LABF spending his hours helping the Democrats regain power, instead of whining about Bush here on the OM.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/25/psychic.lawsuit/story.miss.cleo.jpg
On the other hand, if I was a Democrat, I'd have LABF taken far, far away and kept quiet. He's the best recruiting tool the GOP could possibly hope for.
If you were a Democrat, you'd be Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.
http://www.usedwigs.com/graphics/miss_cleo.jpg
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than Ted Nugent has killed with all his guns...
If you were a Democrat, you'd be Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.
It's amazing Lieberman was Gore's running mate, what with his lack of genuine Democratic cred, eh? What was Gore thinking?
Spider
07-03-2006, 09:04 AM
What is it like to deliver cheap shots, baseless slurs, and gutless smears at someone? I'm just not familiar with gutter-level tactics like that. Can you clue me in, Spider?
Wait - never mind. You did all that and missed every single time. There's nothing you can show me - except I did learn that you lash out pretty nastily when you're whipped...
LOL Baseless . you are the one that played the race card , Suggesting we hold Nagin to a different standard then Bush ......... I am not whipped no where close to it , Blue Flame already did it , but Nugent is a child molester , I was so tempted to crack that one on you ........
But the info came out already ...... How can you have a winning postiion when Backing a Child Molester ?
the only way you can is if you are a Klansman or a Mormon ......... you lost W*GS the minute you started typing .........
I never said Nagin and Bush should be treated differently. Show me where I did, Spider.
You're clinging to this goofy "W*GS is a racist" claim because you can't attack my views - you have to make stuff up.
And I still prefer Nugent to Kennedy - at least my Ted doesn't commit criminally negligent homicide.
Garcia Bronco
07-03-2006, 09:29 AM
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Voters increasingly see Democrats as the party best able to handle the top problems confronting the U.S., as Republicans struggle to hold their congressional majorities in midterm elections little more than four months away.
Registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans in contests in their congressional districts by 49 percent to 35 percent, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. Fifty-four percent want to see Democrats control Congress, while 34 percent prefer that Republicans stay in power. In April, Democrats led Republicans 51 percent to 38 percent on the issue.
Democrats have opened up a 16-point lead on the question of which party is best equipped to tackle the nation's most urgent challenges. Democrats, who have long enjoyed a decided edge on issues such as health care and the economy, now find themselves preferred on the Iraq war, ethics and immigration -- issues where Republicans had been ahead, or where the public was more divided.
The turnaround suggests Republicans "are headed for very difficult fall elections,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The House of Representatives is in play, and the Democrats have a real chance'' to sweep back to power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=apOfHu5ZB9cI&refer=
Anticipate that there will be fraud.
If the Dems didn't learn anything from 2000 and 2004, and if they don't fully understand that the opposition has absolutely NO intention of conducting "clean" elections, then they're just plain stupid and deserve to have victory stolen from them.
LMAO...the demo****s are no different from the repubo****s...the only thing worse than that is the cryingf and whining that one cheated the other when clearly the only people getting cheated consistently are the people that refuse to fall for the the ole left-right trick.
Spider
07-03-2006, 09:35 AM
I never said Nagin and Bush should be treated differently. Show me where I did, Spider.
You're clinging to this goofy "W*GS is a racist" claim because you can't attack my views - you have to make stuff up.
And I still prefer Nugent to Kennedy - at least my Ted doesn't commit criminally negligent homicide.
sure you did , I asked why Nagin should be different then Bush , you brought up Race , thats your bag buddy ...... Somthing you have to deal with , not me .......I made mention of the thread when I posted your new Avatar ..... Dont get mad at me cause I turned up the heat on a racist like yourself ...... As for Nugent ,Child Molesters tend to stick together , not calling you one , but supporting a molster is the same as saying it is ok to diddle in Kids ......
It's a shame you can't make your arguments without obvious lies, Spider.
The list of undesirable traits that you have just got a little longer. That's too bad.
Midnight Blue
07-03-2006, 11:39 AM
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than Ted Nugent has killed with all his guns...
Seems to me that Laura Bush has killed as many people with her car as Ted Kennedy has.... but both of those incidents were 30+ years ago. Nugent's son... that he never sees and pays "minimal" child support to... is still in middle school. He's currently a slimeball while Kennedy arguably might have been one in the distant past.
I wouldn't necessarily hold either one up as a role model I'd want my kids to emulate... but the "2006" Ted Kennedy would, imho, be a far better one than the "2006" Ted Nugent.
Nugent not paying child support is as bad or worse than Laura Bush's and Ted Kennedy's negligent roles in the deaths of innocent people...
I just want to make sure I have your ethics straight. Thanks.
Midnight Blue
07-03-2006, 11:52 AM
Nugent not paying child support is as bad or worse than Laura Bush's and Ted Kennedy's negligent roles in the deaths of innocent people...
I just want to make sure I have your ethics straight. Thanks.
Let's get your position straight as well... while they may have made horrendous mistakes in the distant past, both Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush are respectable, law-abiding citizens now, right? Nugent has always been... and is currently... a slimeball.
Because of Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush, two innocent people are dead.
Period.
Oh, and "Ted Kennedy" and "respectable" don't belong in the same sentence.
gunns
07-03-2006, 12:15 PM
Nugent not paying child support is as bad or worse than Laura Bush's and Ted Kennedy's negligent roles in the deaths of innocent people...
I just want to make sure I have your ethics straight. Thanks.
I'm just wondering what the lack of interest by Ted Nugent is doing to that kid. Hopefully the kid's realized how insignificant his father is to his future, not that he's let it get to him and he will be no more productive in the future than those people Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy killed were able to be. I'd say their pretty close to the same as far as impact. The difference is Nugent has a chance to redeem himself, but it doesn't look promising.
Too bad the relevant portion from the blog was left out:
Ted Nugent, '70s rocker and entrepreneur, reached a support agreement with the Dover woman he fathered a child with in 1995.
Nugent will pay $3,500 monthly in child support, and she will have sole custody of their son, now 10, under the agreement.
The child was born in April, 1995, after Gutowski and Nugent had a "brief relationship" related to Nugent's music, Gutowski's attorney has said. Gutowski sued Nugent for child support and legal custody in 2003.
Nugent acknowledged earlier in the case that he is the father and paid "minimal" support but has never met the boy.
Everything has been straightened out, and Nugent met his obligations.
When did Kennedy pay his dues for his criminal negligence?
Midnight Blue
07-03-2006, 12:33 PM
Because of Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush, two innocent people are dead.
Period.
Oh, and "Ted Kennedy" and "respectable" don't belong in the same sentence.
Neither Ted Kennedy nor Laura Bush were held responsible for their fatal accidents. And both should have been. But the passage of 30+ years has changed both of them from the irresponsible young people they used to be.
I'm curious... what is not "respectable" about Ted Kennedy today?
Neither Ted Kennedy nor Laura Bush were held responsible for their fatal accidents. And both should have been.
Pity the statute of limitations has run out on their crimes.
I'm curious... what is not "respectable" about Ted Kennedy today?
Since he continues to work very hard against our RKBA, he's a scumbag.
Has he ever held a real job?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 06:49 PM
Dueling Quotes
What is it like to deliver cheap shots, baseless slurs, and gutless smears at someone? I'm just not familiar with gutter-level tactics like that. Can you clue me in, Spider?
Consider yourself clued in:
I already know that you're a liar, a fraud, with no integrity - I didn't think it possible, but you're now even more of a scumbag than I had you pegged previously.
Truth be told, you're less than a smear of **** on toilet paper being flushed out to sea with a million other tons of sewage.
I'd ask you to repeat what you've written to my face, but you're too much the chicken**** to do that. You simply hide in your cyberspace fantasy land, where you think you're the big tough guy. In the real world, you're a submissive little turd.
You stepped over the line, ****-fer-brains. That's the kind of **** pathetic punks like you try to get away with from the safety of cyberspace.
I daresay if you speak and act toward others IRL like you here, you'll be lucky if all you lose is your teeth, ya punk.
The two requirements for LABF to be a biological father (I hesitate to use "parent"):
1) "Mom" is in a coma;
2) Abortion in cases of rape is outlawed.
Without those two necessities, LABF will pass from this world without any offspring, and for that, we can all be grateful.
The only way you're ever gonna have a kid is by raping a mentally-disabled woman whose guardians are ardent pro-lifers.
**** you, prick.
All you've shown with this bull**** of yours is that you're a reprehensible ****wad.
Any claims about how I or others are doing in regards to either are just the bull**** of an ignorant indecent scumbag - i.e., you, LABF.
You earned every bit of those missives, LABF.
It's too bad you're such a spineless coward that you don't supply the context, nor do you archive all your gutter-trawling bits-o-wit that you've spewed all over the OM over the years.
Spider
07-03-2006, 07:05 PM
You earned every bit of those missives, LABF.
It's too bad you're such a spineless coward that you don't supply the context, nor do you archive all your gutter-trawling bits-o-wit that you've spewed all over the OM over the years.
once again you get nailed , and once again you went off the deep end ....... Nothing that burning a few crosses wont cure ........
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 07:10 PM
once again you get nailed , and once again you went off the deep end ....... Nothing that burning a few crosses wont cure ........
:rofl:
You would think he'd have learned by now.
Everytime he starts up with his "I'm SO above name-calling, personal attacks, and slurs" routine, he just leaves himself open to the same beatdown.
:D
(Notice how his defense always boils down to "well, when I engage in name-calling, personal attacks, and smears, I'm always justified, but when you do it.....")
:laugh:
What a hypocritical oaf.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1175226&postcount=47
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-03-2006, 07:31 PM
Homework for The O'W*GS Factor:
Grab the "search" engine, scour the Mane, and find one LABF quote that even comes close to devolving to the same level of childish rage, vitriol, profanity, vulgarity, and sheer nastiness explicit in the W*GS Tourette's attacks I just quoted.
That's what I thought.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=681987&postcount=16
for starters...
Midnight Blue
07-04-2006, 01:26 AM
Pity the statute of limitations has run out on their crimes.
More's the pity that money and influence did...and always will... "game" the judicial system.
Since he continues to work very hard against our RKBA, he's a scumbag.
Has he ever held a real job?
Is the second amendment somehow more untouchable than the rest of the Bill of Rights? If so, why? The administration you defend so staunchly is actively working to eliminate the fourth amendment... yet you don't refer to them as "scumbags"... Looks like a double standard to me.
Oh, btw... has Ted Nugent ever held a real job? I doubt it. And he certainly did everything possible to avoid military service during the Vietnam war.
More's the pity that money and influence did...and always will... "game" the judicial system.
Indeed. Democrats avail themselves of injustice as often as Republicans, too.
Is the second amendment somehow more untouchable than the rest of the Bill of Rights?
Kennedy (and others, like the ACLU) think the 2nd Amendment barely even exists. However, Kennedy has made attacking it a centerpiece of his years as a Senator, so he's amply earned all my disgust at those actions.
The administration you defend so staunchly is actively working to eliminate the fourth amendment... yet you don't refer to them as "scumbags"...
Read my stuff more closely. Bush is a scumbag - so is every other politician, by their very nature. And if you think the 4th was protected and cherished until Bush took office, you don't know your history very well.
Oh, btw... has Ted Nugent ever held a real job?
Ask LABF is being a musician is a real job. He certainly didn't depend on his family's influence and wealth to get him where he is - as opposed to the Kennedys (and the Bushes, for that matter).
Midnight Blue
07-04-2006, 10:56 AM
Indeed. Democrats avail themselves of injustice as often as Republicans, too.
Never said they didn't...
Kennedy (and others, like the ACLU) think the 2nd Amendment barely even exists. However, Kennedy has made attacking it a centerpiece of his years as a Senator, so he's amply earned all my disgust at those actions.
Would your opinion on gun rights remain the same if two of your family members had been shot and killed? I'm thinking your position might alter somewhat if your life had personally been affected by gun violence.
That said, I personally support the protection of all of our Constitutional rights... the right to keep and bear arms included. But I can understand why Ted Kennedy might disagree and feel no "disgust" toward him for it.
Read my stuff more closely. Bush is a scumbag - so is every other politician, by their very nature. And if you think the 4th was protected and cherished until Bush took office, you don't know your history very well.
OK... Bush is a scumbag like all politicians. Yet it does seem that his administration has a staunch defender (in you) in just about every move they make.
Ask LABF is being a musician is a real job. He certainly didn't depend on his family's influence and wealth to get him where he is - as opposed to the Kennedys (and the Bushes, for that matter).
There are a lot of musicians out there whose fondest dream is having the luxury of being able to give up their "day job".... for a lot of them, working a full work week and then trying to fit in practice in their spare time and performing on weekends is the reality. Nugent got lucky because he certainly doesn't have much musical talent. IMO.
Fwiw, it wasn't me who thought "having worked a real job" was an important point in this conversation... most career politicians would insist that they do hold down real jobs. And that those jobs are important.... and it is true that someone has to do them.
Would your opinion on gun rights remain the same if two of your family members had been shot and killed?
The RKBA isn't dependent on what happens to my family, nor are assassinations sufficient reason to eliminate it.
That said, I personally support the protection of all of our Constitutional rights... the right to keep and bear arms included.
I do too.
But I can understand why Ted Kennedy might disagree and feel no "disgust" toward him for it.
Ted Kennedy wants to eliminate our RKBA - but not his own. He has armed bodyguards, so he's a hypocrite - as is so common with politicians. They make rules we have to follow, but not themselves.
OK... Bush is a scumbag like all politicians. Yet it does seem that his administration has a staunch defender (in you) in just about every move they make.
What sort of evidence do you have? Note that attacking LABF and the other lefty oddballs doesn't mean I'm a "staunch defender" of Bush.
Fwiw, it wasn't me who thought "having worked a real job" was an important point in this conversation... most career politicians would insist that they do hold down real jobs.
Dreaming up ways to run other's lives is not a "real job".
And that those jobs are important.... and it is true that someone has to do them.
The problem is that the people who want to be (and are) politicians are those we want least to be politicians, because they invariably screw things up.
Midnight Blue
07-04-2006, 03:20 PM
The RKBA isn't dependent on what happens to my family, nor are assassinations sufficient reason to eliminate it.
If you were a member of Congress and had lost family members to gun violence, you might be taking the exact same actions Ted Kennedy has taken.
Ted Kennedy wants to eliminate our RKBA - but not his own. He has armed bodyguards, so he's a hypocrite - as is so common with politicians. They make rules we have to follow, but not themselves.
Again, if you had lost two family members to assassination and had also received threats against your own life and personal safety... and had the financial means to hire bodyguards, I'm thinking you would hire them. It would be foolhardy... perhaps even suicidal for a high-profile guy like Ted Kennedy to not have bodyguards...
What sort of evidence do you have? Note that attacking LABF and the other lefty oddballs doesn't mean I'm a "staunch defender" of Bush.
Consistenly attacking one side of a debate... time and time again... certainly creates the illusion of support for the other side. If you do not, in fact, staunchly defend the Bush administration, you're doing a better job of it than a good many who do support them.
Dreaming up ways to run other's lives is not a "real job".
I'm quite certain many of them would argue that they're working hard to try to realize their own concept of what our country should be.
The problem is that the people who want to be (and are) politicians are those we want least to be politicians, because they invariably screw things up.
No matter who was in office... whether in congress or the presidency... they would take some actions that some citizens would view as "screw-ups"... you can't please all the people all the time. But some politicians don't even try to please anyone but the lobbyists and the PTB...
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-05-2006, 03:17 AM
Consistenly attacking one side of a debate... time and time again... certainly creates the illusion of support for the other side. If you do not, in fact, staunchly defend the Bush administration, you're doing a better job of it than a good many who do support them.
Exactly.
If W*GS had a nickel for every instance in which someone here on the OM has pointed this fact out to him, he could probably afford to build that David Koresh shrine or something.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-05-2006, 03:21 AM
OK... Bush is a scumbag like all politicians. Yet it does seem that his administration has a staunch defender (in you) in just about every move they make.
Yep.
Can you think of one debate between the Bush defenders and the Bush critics on the forum in which W*GS, if he participated, didn't side with the Bush defenders?
I don't think I can - and I'm really trying.
errand
07-05-2006, 06:50 AM
Plenty , but since you wanted to kidnap LABF , I was just wondering how many times you have done or said somthing like that before ..... Kidnapping and locking someone up is pretty serious .......
No more serious than being charged with attempted murder is it, Spider?
Yeah, every poll you libs post say the same thing about how America hates the Republicans...and yet come election day...you clowns lose!
This is why you guys cannot get your agenda forwarded at the ballot box....and have to use the courts to force it on us all. And it's also why nobody that has ever ran openly as a liberal has ever won the presidency.
Maybe you guys should I dunno....ask more than a few Democrats and granola eating libs to get a more accurate pulse of how America really feels. Your weighted polls don't tell the true story.
errand
07-05-2006, 06:55 AM
to you Felons and Terrorist have the same rights as law abiding citizens when it comes to fire arms .....
Odd that you would post this, when afterall it's the Dems who have basically argued for felons being allowed to vote (see Florida '00) and setting up the al-Quaida Bill of Rights by undermining our ability to fight the war on terror at every turn.
Spider
07-05-2006, 06:58 AM
No more serious than being charged with attempted murder is it, Spider?
Depends
Yeah, every poll you libs post say the same thing about how America hates the Republicans...and yet come election day...you clowns lose!
Yeah you Child molesting ássholes do win alot ......... Lovin up on Kids and Bin Ladin .......
This is why you guys cannot get your agenda forwarded at the ballot box....and have to use the courts to force it on us all. And it's also why nobody that has ever ran openly as a liberal has ever won the presidency.
So Molesting Kids is the way to go huh ........ you inbred back woods Child molesters seem to vote that way .....
Maybe you guys should I dunno....ask more than a few Democrats and granola eating libs to get a more accurate pulse of how America really feels. Your weighted polls don't tell the true story.
or start Molesting kids and Forgiving Bin Ladin , Cheering the Big fairy in the Sky and Drinking snake venom ....... All that seems to work for you Cóck Sucker
errand
07-05-2006, 07:01 AM
For what?
"He had a relationship with a 17-year old Hawaiian girl when he was 30. He became her legal guardian in order to comply with laws regarding relationships with minors."
http://www.artistfacts.com/detail.php?id=44
And then there's this:
"Nugent acknowledged earlier in the case that he is the father and paid "minimal" support but has never met the boy."
http://www.azfamilylawblog.com/family-law-news-264-ted-nugent-to-pay-child-support-.html
So... let's get this straight... he becomes the legal guardian to an underage girl so that he can continue to live with her... but can't be bothered to get to know his son. Yeah, that's a Republican "family values" role model, all right. ::)
...vs. driving drunk and drowning a young woman? Yeah, Nugent isn't the best role model...but are you seriously equating Ted Nugent dating a 17 year old and not seeing his son with Ted Kennedy, who might have murdered a young woman?
errand
07-05-2006, 07:03 AM
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than Ted Nugent has killed with all his guns...
I was thinking the same thing...not to mention just being related to the Kennedy Klan leads to murder...or rape, or drunkeness.
errand
07-05-2006, 07:05 AM
I am not whipped no where close to it , Blue Flame already did it , but Nugent is a child molester
...vs your openly supporting a murderer like Ted Kennedy? BTW...did your child molesting friend make bail?
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:07 AM
Odd that you would post this, when afterall it's the Dems who have basically argued for felons being allowed to vote (see Florida '00) and setting up the al-Quaida Bill of Rights by undermining our ability to fight the war on terror at every turn.
WTF does this have to do with Guns ? You Freaking retard,here Enjoy some Child Molesting with your Fellow Republicans http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=26393&highlight=Ideas+family+values
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=43202&highlight=Republican+Child+Molesters
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=40307&highlight=Republican+Child+Molesters
So sit down and shut the Fúck up you Child Molesting freak ... get all High and Mighty with your fellow republicans and Enjoy your Hollier then thou attitude .Dig it NAMBLA dude ?
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:08 AM
...vs your openly supporting a murderer like Ted Kennedy? BTW...did your child molesting friend make bail?
Nope , that Republican Piece of Shít is going away for good ......butthen there are few Republicans that dont deserve the same treatment ...........
errand
07-05-2006, 07:12 AM
Seems to me that Laura Bush has killed as many people with her car as Ted Kennedy has.... but both of those incidents were 30+ years ago.
.
The difference is that one wasn't reported the next day, and was truly an accident...the other was some fat ass drunk murdering a woman who might have cost him the vice presidency.....and wasn't reported until the next day when the cops came and asked him what happened to her.
Any normal person would see the difference....
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:14 AM
The difference is that one wasn't reported the next day, and was truly an accident...the other was some fat ass drunk murdering a woman who might have cost him the vice presidency.....and wasn't reported until the next day when the cops came and asked him what happened to her.
Any normal person would see the difference....
LOL ...... Face it you are Bullshítting , Making Excuses . spinning ....... Probably dont have any kids around you , so you are bored ........
errand
07-05-2006, 07:17 AM
Too bad the relevant portion from the blog was left out:
Ted Nugent, '70s rocker and entrepreneur, reached a support agreement with the Dover woman he fathered a child with in 1995.
Nugent will pay $3,500 monthly in child support, and she will have sole custody of their son, now 10, under the agreement.
The child was born in April, 1995, after Gutowski and Nugent had a "brief relationship" related to Nugent's music, Gutowski's attorney has said. Gutowski sued Nugent for child support and legal custody in 2003.
Nugent acknowledged earlier in the case that he is the father and paid "minimal" support but has never met the boy.
Everything has been straightened out, and Nugent met his obligations.
When did Kennedy pay his dues for his criminal negligence?
You knew as soon as a lib posted a story only the half that supports their argument is posted.
Who can't support a child on $3,500? Not to mention the woman has sole custody of the child. So to say Ted refuses to see his kid might not be true at all...he may want to see the child, but perhaps the mother refuses to let him. Would that not be possible?
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:22 AM
You knew as soon as a lib posted a story only the half that supports their argument is posted.
Who can't support a child on $3,500? Not to mention the woman has sole custody of the child. So to say Ted refuses to see his kid might not be true at all...he may want to see the child, but perhaps the mother refuses to let him. Would that not be possible?
Iknow you wouldnt mind letting a Molester see your Kids , but for the rest of us .......Hell no . no way a a Child Molester deserves visitation rights ..... damn you are sick
errand
07-05-2006, 07:23 AM
Neither Ted Kennedy nor Laura Bush were held responsible for their fatal accidents. And both should have been. But the passage of 30+ years has changed both of them from the irresponsible young people they used to be.
I'm curious... what is not "respectable" about Ted Kennedy today?
The Laura Bush accident was clearly just that...and accident.The authorities were notified as quickly as possible...and guess what, she was there when they arrived.
Ted abandoned a car in a body of water, left his passenger to drown, went back the party he had left instead of going to the closest house, and the authorities weren't notified by him at all. They came to his residence to inquire about her being reported missing.
errand
07-05-2006, 07:31 AM
Dig it NAMBLA dude ?
You aren't talking about the same NAMBLA that helped funded John Kerry's presidential campaign are you?
errand
07-05-2006, 07:32 AM
Nope , that Republican Piece of Shít is going away for good ......butthen there are few Republicans that dont deserve the same treatment ...........
..just curious, afterall he knew you well enough to ask you for bail money. I'd even speculate that that was why you sold your old rig. to raise money for your pedophile buddy's defense.
Perhaps birds of a feather do indeed flock together.
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:34 AM
You aren't talking about the same NAMBLA that helped funded John Kerry's presidential campaign are you?
Just the NAMBLA you support in the Republican party ......... I guess the Republcan Motto should be old enough to Bleed , old enough to breed orold enough to pee old enough for me ( in little Boys cases) ........
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:35 AM
..just curious, afterall he knew you well enough to ask you for bail money. I'd even speculate that that was why you sold your old rig. to raise money for your pedophile buddy's defense.
Perhaps birds of a feather do indeed flock together.
LOL I guess so , I saw you defending Nugent , And the Republican party ..........vote republican nothing wrong with having sex with Children .
errand
07-05-2006, 07:35 AM
LOL ...... Face it you are Bullshítting , Making Excuses . spinning ....... Probably dont have any kids around you , so you are bored ........
Really....what am I bull****ting about Spider? What excuse did I make? And what did I spin?
errand
07-05-2006, 07:36 AM
LOL I guess so , I saw you defending Nugent , And the Republican party ..........
Yeah, but then again Ted Nugent doesn't lknow me well enough to ask for bail money...and I haven't sold a vehicle to raise it for him either.
errand
07-05-2006, 07:37 AM
Just the NAMBLA you support in the Republican party ......... I guess the Republcan Motto should be old enough to Bleed , old enough to breed orold enough to pee old enough for me ( in little Boys cases) ........
I'm sorry....I'm not up to par on NAMBLA enough to know that there were two of them. Good thing you know all there is to know about them, though...thanks.
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:38 AM
Yeah, but then again Ted Nugent doesn't lknow me well enough to ask for bail money...and I haven't sold a vehicle to raise it for him either.
here Errand Followship with your buddies http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=26393&highlight=Ideas+family+values
Maybe you can cruise the park later and pick up some kids and share your peace time Worrior stories , then slip off upstairs for an hour or2 hey .......
that link should be like Porno to someone like you
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:39 AM
I'm sorry....I'm not up to par on NAMBLA enough to know that there were two of them. Good thing you know all there is to know about them, though...thanks.
LOL the Republican party is full of them ...... Yeah I am sure you know nothing about it Hilarious!
Someone from NC claiming they dont do kids or inbreeding .....i have heard it all now
Spider
07-05-2006, 07:45 AM
http://kids.rrc.state.tx.us/scrapbook/images/texarkana1sm.jpg
AKA meat market for Errand and hi Republican Bros ......
If you were a member of Congress and had lost family members to gun violence, you might be taking the exact same actions Ted Kennedy has taken.
I wouldn't, because I wouldn't be a Congresscum.
Again, if you had lost two family members to assassination and had also received threats against your own life and personal safety... and had the financial means to hire bodyguards, I'm thinking you would hire them. It would be foolhardy... perhaps even suicidal for a high-profile guy like Ted Kennedy to not have bodyguards...
There's lots of people who face the same threat of violence against their persons as Ted Kennedy, however, he's the one who wants to keep them from protecting themselves while he protects himself. That's pure hypocrisy on Kennedy's part.
Consistenly attacking one side of a debate... time and time again... certainly creates the illusion of support for the other side.
If you believe that there are only two positions possible on any given political issue, you might have a point. Is it possible to attack liberals (particularly of the petulant and frothing-at-the-mouth type, aka LABF) and not support conservatives?
I'm quite certain many of them would argue that they're working hard to try to realize their own concept of what our country should be.
What they should be doing is obeying their oath of office, and representing their constituents (i.e., their masters) instead of forcing all of us into their personal visions of what this nation is or should be.
No matter who was in office... whether in congress or the presidency... they would take some actions that some citizens would view as "screw-ups"... you can't please all the people all the time.
I'd just be happy if politicians quit using the Constitution as toilet paper, which I believe is the first unwritten rule for new ones.
Atlas
07-05-2006, 11:25 AM
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Voters increasingly see Democrats as the party best able to handle the top problems confronting the U.S., as Republicans struggle to hold their congressional majorities in midterm elections little more than four months away.
Registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans in contests in their congressional districts by 49 percent to 35 percent, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. Fifty-four percent want to see Democrats control Congress, while 34 percent prefer that Republicans stay in power. In April, Democrats led Republicans 51 percent to 38 percent on the issue.
Democrats have opened up a 16-point lead on the question of which party is best equipped to tackle the nation's most urgent challenges. Democrats, who have long enjoyed a decided edge on issues such as health care and the economy, now find themselves preferred on the Iraq war, ethics and immigration -- issues where Republicans had been ahead, or where the public was more divided.
The turnaround suggests Republicans "are headed for very difficult fall elections,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The House of Representatives is in play, and the Democrats have a real chance'' to sweep back to power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=apOfHu5ZB9cI&refer=
Anticipate that there will be fraud.
If the Dems didn't learn anything from 2000 and 2004, and if they don't fully understand that the opposition has absolutely NO intention of conducting "clean" elections, then they're just plain stupid and deserve to have victory stolen from them.
Lets hope this holds up so republican cheating in a a few select counties won't matter.
Midnight Blue
07-05-2006, 03:11 PM
Odd that you would post this, when afterall it's the Dems who have basically argued for felons being allowed to vote (see Florida '00) and setting up the al-Quaida Bill of Rights by undermining our ability to fight the war on terror at every turn.
Please try to keep up Errand... the people in Florida that Dems argued should have been allowed to vote were not felons at all; they simply had the misfortune of having a name similar to the name of a felon convicted in another state. The "felon list" was flawed, the Florida SOS (Katherine Harris) was fully aware that it would disenfranchise legitimate voters. Yet she used it anyway.
As to the WOT, don't you think actually capturing the guy who masterminded 9/11 and continues to send taped threats might have been the #1 priority? I do.
Midnight Blue
07-05-2006, 03:23 PM
...vs. driving drunk and drowning a young woman? Yeah, Nugent isn't the best role model...but are you seriously equating Ted Nugent dating a 17 year old and not seeing his son with Ted Kennedy, who might have murdered a young woman?
If you're talking about Ted Kennedy of the 1960's, yeah, you'd have a point that he would be a very poor role model. But if you're talking about Ted Nugent of the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and 2000-2006, you're still talking about an abysmal role model. And he wasn't "dating" the 17-year-old... he was shacked up with her and used a legal loophole to avoid any possible consequences for having sex with a minor.
Midnight Blue
07-05-2006, 03:27 PM
The difference is that one wasn't reported the next day, and was truly an accident...the other was some fat ass drunk murdering a woman who might have cost him the vice presidency.....and wasn't reported until the next day when the cops came and asked him what happened to her.
Any normal person would see the difference....
Is that anything like the Secret Service preventing the cops from interviewing a possibly-alcohol-affected shooter until the next day... allowing the VP sufficient time to sober up and concoct a cover story (lie)?
Midnight Blue
07-05-2006, 03:32 PM
You knew as soon as a lib posted a story only the half that supports their argument is posted.
Who can't support a child on $3,500? Not to mention the woman has sole custody of the child. So to say Ted refuses to see his kid might not be true at all...he may want to see the child, but perhaps the mother refuses to let him. Would that not be possible?
All the info W*GS "added" was included in the linked article. Does a man who "wants to see his child" have to be sued before he'll pay adequate child support? Does he sign away all of his rights to the child, allowing the mother "sole" custody?
I don't think so.
Midnight Blue
07-05-2006, 03:47 PM
I wouldn't, because I wouldn't be a Congresscum.
In all honesty, I wouldn't be a Congressman either... because I believe by the time politicians get to the national level, they've already been forced to sell their souls. They're owned and I couldn't do that.
There's lots of people who face the same threat of violence against their persons as Ted Kennedy, however, he's the one who wants to keep them from protecting themselves while he protects himself. That's pure hypocrisy on Kennedy's part.
I've never seen any reports that say Ted Kennedy doesn't want people to be allowed to hire bodyguards...(protecting themselves as he protects himself)
If you believe that there are only two positions possible on any given political issue, you might have a point. Is it possible to attack liberals (particularly of the petulant and frothing-at-the-mouth type, aka LABF) and not support conservatives?
Occam's razor, W*GS... the simplest explanation (that you are, in fact, a Republican despite repeated vehement denials) is often the truth. At any rate, if you've said anything on this forum to dispel the notion that you're a huge Bush fan, I must have missed it. :P
What they should be doing is obeying their oath of office, and representing their constituents (i.e., their masters) instead of forcing all of us into their personal visions of what this nation is or should be.
Very true... they should be looking to the will/best interest of their constituents and not the $$ from special-interest groups and lobbyists. But money talks.
I'd just be happy if politicians quit using the Constitution as toilet paper, which I believe is the first unwritten rule for new ones.
Yeah, any disrespect for the Constitution should be grounds for immediate removal from office. For any politician. But you'll never get that legislation to pass either...
I've never seen any reports that say Ted Kennedy doesn't want people to be allowed to hire bodyguards...(protecting themselves as he protects himself)
That's disingenuous, and you know it.
Occam's razor, W*GS... the simplest explanation (that you are, in fact, a Republican despite repeated vehement denials) is often the truth.
Why would a Republican have the positions I have? Care to provide me a list of Republican positions on some issues and I'll explain my view. Soon enough you'll see that I'm not a Republican - heck, I've never voted for one nor given the GOP any kind of support.
At any rate, if you've said anything on this forum to dispel the notion that you're a huge Bush fan, I must have missed it.
You must have.
Very true... they should be looking to the will/best interest of their constituents and not the $$ from special-interest groups and lobbyists.
In that case, the Democrats are in a heap o' trouble, since they're more dependent on SIG money than the GOP.
Yeah, any disrespect for the Constitution should be grounds for immediate removal from office. For any politician. But you'll never get that legislation to pass either...
Pity, eh?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Please try to keep up Errand... the people in Florida that Dems argued should have been allowed to vote were not felons at all; they simply had the misfortune of having a name similar to the name of a felon convicted in another state. The "felon list" was flawed, the Florida SOS (Katherine Harris) was fully aware that it would disenfranchise legitimate voters. Yet she used it anyway.
And, to further update errant, Harris and the shady company she hired to conduct the voter purge (ChoicePoint) were sued, lost, and admitted their wrongdoing.
Apparently, news travels slowly to errant's neck of the woods.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-05-2006, 04:04 PM
If you believe that there are only two positions possible on any given political issue, you might have a point. Is it possible to attack liberals (particularly of the petulant and frothing-at-the-mouth type, aka LABF) and not support conservatives?
:laugh:
If you're trying to suggest that you "don't support conservatives," then either you're in a massive state of denial or you're just reaching for laughs.
You have vigorously defended every move the current administration and its cronies have made for the past six years.
Blueflame
07-05-2006, 04:59 PM
That's disingenuous, and you know it.
I've never said I agree with every proposed piece of legislation Ted Kennedy wanted passed. It's my opinion that the gun laws currently in existence are more than adequate if they were consistently enforced. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
However... and this is a big however... I do not pass judgement on Ted Kennedy (given his family history) for forming and maintaining a different opinion than mine. Nor does he "disgust" me by doing so.
Why would a Republican have the positions I have? Care to provide me a list of Republican positions on some issues and I'll explain my view. Soon enough you'll see that I'm not a Republican - heck, I've never voted for one nor given the GOP any kind of support.
Why would a Republican defend FoxNews? 'Cause it's their propaganda channel. Why would a Republican support limiting reproductive choice? 'Cause it's one of their "wedge" issues. Why would a Republican defend Ted Nugent? Uh... 'cause Ted Nugent's a Republican and they never criticize each other no matter how outrageous the statements one makes. Case in point... just about anything Ann Coulter says. Which reminds me... why would a Republican defend Ann Coulter? 'Cause she's a Republican shill, that's why.
You must have.
Right. On this thread, you said Bush is a scumbag.
In that case, the Democrats are in a heap o' trouble, since they're more dependent on SIG money than the GOP.
The GOP is more dependent on Abramoff money than the Dems are, though. :P
Pity, eh?
Yep.
You have vigorously defended every move the current administration and its cronies have made for the past six years.
A complete and total lie.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-06-2006, 12:22 AM
Soon enough you'll see that I'm not a Republican - heck, I've never voted for one nor given the GOP any kind of support.
ROFL!
Then why have you spent the last six years defending almost every move the GOP and the current administration have made?
Then why have you spent the last six years defending almost every move the GOP and the current administration have made?
Prove it. Supply the URLs of my posts.
Or, give me a list of Bush's policies and/or actions, and I'll tell you if I support them.
It's my opinion that the gun laws currently in existence are more than adequate if they were consistently enforced. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The bigger problem with gun-control laws is that there are too many of them.
However... and this is a big however... I do not pass judgement on Ted Kennedy (given his family history) for forming and maintaining a different opinion than mine. Nor does he "disgust" me by doing so.
The RKBA is clearly in the Constitution, whether or not Ted Kennedy likes it, or he hates guns because two of his brothers were killed with them.
Suppose someone had suffered a family tragedy at the hands of a member of an ethnic group. Would it disgust you if the person was then very much against members of that ethnic group, a racist if you will?
Midnight Blue
07-06-2006, 02:40 PM
The bigger problem with gun-control laws is that there are too many of them.
The RKBA is clearly in the Constitution, whether or not Ted Kennedy likes it, or he hates guns because two of his brothers were killed with them.
Suppose someone had suffered a family tragedy at the hands of a member of an ethnic group. Would it disgust you if the person was then very much against members of that ethnic group, a racist if you will?
The analogy is flawed, imo, W*GS... you're comparing a bias against a thing with a prejudice against people. It's OK to form and maintain a dislike for an inanimate object. But holding innocent members of any given demographic group responsible for the actions of other members of that same demographic would be absurd... and bigoted. And yes, bigotry does disgust me.
But holding innocent members of any given demographic group responsible for the actions of other members of that same demographic would be absurd... and bigoted. And yes, bigotry does disgust me.
Suppose the demographic group is "gun owners". Kennedy is bigoted against gun owners, certainly.
Midnight Blue
07-06-2006, 03:48 PM
Suppose the demographic group is "gun owners". Kennedy is bigoted against gun owners, certainly.
C'mon, now... it's not the people that he views as the problem; it's the weapons and/or easy access to weapons that trouble him... and we both know it. To say he's biased against all gun owners is clearly a reach... there are guns in my home and I don't think he's "out to get" me.
Bronco_Beerslug
07-06-2006, 04:04 PM
C'mon, now... it's not the people that he views as the problem; it's the weapons and/or easy access to weapons that trouble him... and we both know it. To say he's biased against all gun owners is clearly a reach... there are guns in my home and I don't think he's "out to get" me.
Apparently, you haven't been listening to Terrible Ted and his minions.
Midnight Blue
07-06-2006, 04:10 PM
Apparently, you haven't been listening to Terrible Ted and his minions.
That would be a good band name for Nugent... "Terrible Ted and his Minions".... :P
Accurate, too... ;D
C'mon, now... it's not the people that he views as the problem; it's the weapons and/or easy access to weapons that trouble him... and we both know it. To say he's biased against all gun owners is clearly a reach... there are guns in my home and I don't think he's "out to get" me.
Think again.