Thread: Democrat Excuses and Hypocrisy

Remember 2006 when the Dems proclaimed that one party rule should never be allowed to exist again?


"Democrat Excuses and Hypocrisy

By brenarlo on November 6, 2006 at 04:39 am


Here are a couple final points about the Democrats I’d like to make before the election…

1. Everyone on the Democratic side from Paul Krugman to the Bismarck Dems have been using this mantra to help the Democrats take back the House and the Senate: “Let’s end one-party rule. We need oversight. One-party control is not good for anyone.”
   Let’s imagine for a minute that the Democrats actually take back the House and the Senate (both of which I don’t think will happen), I trust that the Democrats will elect the Republican nominee for President in 2008. Why? Because apparently we can’t have one-party rule."

"Like a one-armed canoeist, lopsided rule has delivered neither efficiency nor effectiveness.


by Jonathan Rauch
When One Party Rules, Both Parties Fail



Two-party rule also helps to marginalize partisan extremists and curb ideological excess. The Democratic Congress moderated President Reagan's unsustainable tax cuts and defense buildup, safeguarding his legacy. In the Clinton era, divided government produced a miraculously frugal fiscal detente. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both succeeded not in spite of divided government but because of it."


I can post endless stories from the last elect. So why are the Democrats, who for sure will still hold both house of the congress, not pushing to make sure McCain and the Republicans retain the White House.

You know divided government is so good and one-party rule so bad.

another anti-democrat thread by the "independent" stinger. what a surprise.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Remember 2006 when the Dems proclaimed that one party rule should never be allowed to exist again?


"Democrat Excuses and Hypocrisy

By brenarlo on November 6, 2006 at 04:39 am


Here are a couple final points about the Democrats I’d like to make before the election…

1. Everyone on the Democratic side from Paul Krugman to the Bismarck Dems have been using this mantra to help the Democrats take back the House and the Senate: “Let’s end one-party rule. We need oversight. One-party control is not good for anyone.”
   Let’s imagine for a minute that the Democrats actually take back the House and the Senate (both of which I don’t think will happen), I trust that the Democrats will elect the Republican nominee for President in 2008. Why? Because apparently we can’t have one-party rule."

"Like a one-armed canoeist, lopsided rule has delivered neither efficiency nor effectiveness.


by Jonathan Rauch
When One Party Rules, Both Parties Fail



Two-party rule also helps to marginalize partisan extremists and curb ideological excess. The Democratic Congress moderated President Reagan's unsustainable tax cuts and defense buildup, safeguarding his legacy. In the Clinton era, divided government produced a miraculously frugal fiscal detente. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both succeeded not in spite of divided government but because of it."


I can post endless stories from the last elect. So why are the Democrats, who for sure will still hold both house of the congress, not pushing to make sure McCain and the Republicans retain the White House.

You know divided government is so good and one-party rule so bad.

So then you take back most of Bush's tenure, right?

Originally Posted by nickcuse

another anti-democrat thread by the "independent" stinger. what a surprise.

Another troll by Nick.

How many Republicans you voting for this time Nick. I have several Dems I'm voting for. Couple of Judges and county officials. If Don Segalman hadn't ended up being a crook I might be voting for him again, he was pretty good except for that. But this might be the first time in 12 years I vote for a Republican Presidential Candidate and I have voted every election. Never been a member of the Republican Party, except as a teenager. Never sent them a dime of money or any of their candidates.

So if you think you are winning an argument by fallaciously stating I am a Republican you are only making the fool of yourself. I am a conservative independent voter.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

So then you take back most of Bush's tenure, right?

Why should I, it was never MY assertion that one party rule was bad, it was the Dems who ran on the premise "elect us because one party rule is bad", so what happened to their principle?

Originally Posted by Stinger

Remember 2006 when the Dems proclaimed that one party rule should never be allowed to exist again?


"Democrat Excuses and Hypocrisy

By brenarlo on November 6, 2006 at 04:39 am


Here are a couple final points about the Democrats I’d like to make before the election…

1. Everyone on the Democratic side from Paul Krugman to the Bismarck Dems have been using this mantra to help the Democrats take back the House and the Senate: “Let’s end one-party rule. We need oversight. One-party control is not good for anyone.”
   Let’s imagine for a minute that the Democrats actually take back the House and the Senate (both of which I don’t think will happen), I trust that the Democrats will elect the Republican nominee for President in 2008. Why? Because apparently we can’t have one-party rule."

"Like a one-armed canoeist, lopsided rule has delivered neither efficiency nor effectiveness.


by Jonathan Rauch
When One Party Rules, Both Parties Fail



Two-party rule also helps to marginalize partisan extremists and curb ideological excess. The Democratic Congress moderated President Reagan's unsustainable tax cuts and defense buildup, safeguarding his legacy. In the Clinton era, divided government produced a miraculously frugal fiscal detente. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both succeeded not in spite of divided government but because of it."


I can post endless stories from the last elect. So why are the Democrats, who for sure will still hold both house of the congress, not pushing to make sure McCain and the Republicans retain the White House.

You know divided government is so good and one-party rule so bad.

The thing I hate more than anything is a hypocrite, you seem to fall into that bracket. Did you say the same thing when the R's had the congress, senate, and executive, no. Why, because your a partisan hack. I hate what is coming around the corner, but truth be known, it matters little who is elected. Shit is going to hit the fan, and you will be waving your flag and blame a single party for the sins of BOTH parties!

Originally Posted by Stinger

Why should I, it was never MY assertion that one party rule was bad, it was the Dems who ran on the premise "elect us because one party rule is bad", so what happened to their principle?

i think they were saying, BUSH's one party rule was bad, not always in all cases forever.

Originally Posted by michaelr

The thing I hate more than anything is a hypocrite, you seem to fall into that bracket. Did you say the same thing when the R's had the congress, senate, and executive, no. Why, because your a partisan hack. I hate what is coming around the corner, but truth be known, it matters little who is elected. Shit is going to hit the fan, and you will be waving your flag and blame a single party for the sins of BOTH parties!

thank you!!!!

Originally Posted by Stinger

Another troll by Nick.

How many Republicans you voting for this time Nick. I have several Dems I'm voting for. Couple of Judges and county officials. If Don Segalman hadn't ended up being a crook I might be voting for him again, he was pretty good except for that. But this might be the first time in 12 years I vote for a Republican Presidential Candidate and I have voted every election. Never been a member of the Republican Party, except as a teenager. Never sent them a dime of money or any of their candidates.

So if you think you are winning an argument by fallaciously stating I am a Republican you are only making the fool of yourself. I am a conservative independent voter.

a statement of fact is trolling? how so?

you claim to be an independent, yet have NEVER started a thread railing against republicans, and rarely speak ill of them in any way. just like FFA, only he claims to be an libertarian.

Ha! The last desperate plea for mercy, from a party that has FALLEN FROM GRACE with the American People.

"Oh please, people, don't vote out our Congressmen and Senators TOO".... :laughing:

Nah, fool. Neo-Clowns are going DOWN, no matter where they are. We are going to CLEAN HOUSE of this pestulant Neo-RAT infestation.

If you're a Neo-Twit right now, you better RUN FOR COVER, pal.

Or change your identity.

Or have an "epiphany".

I don't think Obama's new Attorney General is going to come after you, I think the People THEMSELVES will come after you. Obama won't have to worry about it. The People will do the job FOR him.

Once the FULL magnitude of the Neo-Con's destructive activities sees the light of day (which will only be about SIXTY DAYS FROM NOW), then you're gonna see ALL HELL BREAK LOOSE on the political landscape, assuming there isn't some much BIGGER crisis to take our attention off it (like a depression or something).