What a farking moron.

tchamber: What a farking moron.

No, just a politician, the stereotypical type.

Congressman.

Bush must have paid for his hairpiece.

craven lapdog lackey

Hobodeluxe: craven lapdog lackey

It's really kind of pathetic.

Congressmoran.

Can someone tell me about all the really prestigious colleges and universities that are in Montana?

The nearly 200 people at a packed Lewis and Clark County Lincoln-Reagan Day dinner roared their approval.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we've found the 23%.

ClicheGuevara07: Ladies and Gentlemen, we've found the 23%.

Nuke them from orbit

I Said: ClicheGuevara07: Ladies and Gentlemen, we've found the 23%.

Nuke them from orbit

It's the only way to be sure

i wouldn't mind if someone thanked him from the rooftops

Me thinks this congress-critter missed April fools day by 5 days...

Let's be fair subby, we wouldn't have those massive deficits without Congress's help.

Lincoln-Reagan Day

Lincoln-Reagan Day? Lincoln-Reagan Day?! What the hell did Reagan ever to that would make him qualified to be mentioned in the same sentence as Lincoln?

IrateShadow: Lincoln-Reagan Day? Lincoln-Reagan Day?! What the hell did Reagan ever to that would make him qualified to be mentioned in the same sentence as Lincoln?

Brought an end to the Soviet Union and freed millions of people from the grip of tyranny.

randomjsa: IrateShadow: Lincoln-Reagan Day? Lincoln-Reagan Day?! What the hell did Reagan ever to that would make him qualified to be mentioned in the same sentence as Lincoln?

Brought an end to the Soviet Union and freed millions of people from the grip of tyranny.

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

Good example of the loser ethic thats so deeply ingrained in conservatives.

All they would have to do is keep their big yap shut and they would be in much better shape but they aren't smart enough to even manage that.

Is it January yet?

On a positive note, maybe this is the guy who'll give Bush the beej that we need to impeach him.

>> IrateShadow: Lincoln-Reagan Day? Lincoln-Reagan Day?! What the hell did Reagan ever to that would make him qualified to be mentioned in the same sentence as Lincoln?

Especially since in the time of Lincoln the repub party was the liberal party in the country.

It didn't become conservative until the the railroad robber barons bought the party during the 1880's

Ron Paul Revere: randomjsa: Brought an end to the Soviet Union and freed millions of people from the grip of tyranny.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh God I love it when you guys trot this out.

No, it had nothing to do with an unviable economic system, mismanaged by incompetent, miserable turds.

It was Reagan. All Reagan.


And it couldn't have had a thing to do with the oil market.

Ron Paul Revere: burndtdan: i wouldn't mind if someone thanked him from the rooftops

Ya know, if Obama actually wins, there's a slight chance the international community might feel brave enough to press war crimes charges against him.

with the new torture memo, they have all the evidence they need to start the process.

>> Oh God I love it when you guys trot this out.

The Soviets were on the verge of collapse.

All we had to do was stick with containment and wait a bit.

Instead raygun the retard spent on bombs like a drunken sailor and were still paying off the debt today.

Wolf_Blitzer: randomjsa: IrateShadow: Lincoln-Reagan Day? Lincoln-Reagan Day?! What the hell did Reagan ever to that would make him qualified to be mentioned in the same sentence as Lincoln?

Brought an end to the Soviet Union and freed millions of people from the grip of tyranny.

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

I don't think he was being sarcastic... which is weird because I thought people who could type weren't that stupid. Damn I guess I was wrong.

Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why Americans are so upset over Bush. After all, he is the person they chose to put in office-twice. Americans are merely getting what they naturally deserve.

Personally, I hope that they will continue to vote Republican.

You are treading on thin ice, I hope you know.

As much as I despise Bush, I have never held him responisble for his presidential actions.

/Looking at you, bonehead voters.

And there goes two hundred plus traitors to America. I remember being taught that traitors were shot for treason. But today, they have parties. No one protected the Constitution from enemies without and within... even when they come together and celebrate it.

/I'd be surprised if historians don't put this guy in the bottom 5 of presidents.
//shocked really.
///And the CIA had been predicting the FALL of the USSR before Reagan had even run for President.

>> I don't understand why Americans are so upset over Bush. After all, he is the person they chose to put in office-twice. Americans are merely getting what they naturally deserve.

I would suggest that you read Mark Crispin Miller and Greg Pallast on the stolen elections (they both have books)

Still i agree with you.

Bush really got about 48% of the vote and thats way to high a number for an intelligent population, which we obviously aren't.

Stealing an election only works when the candidates are within a few points of each other.

Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why Americans are so upset over Bush. After all, he is the person they chose to put in office-twice. Americans are merely getting what they naturally deserve.

Personally, I hope that they will continue to vote Republican.

Well if memory serves pretty close to half of us did NOT vote for him, twice. So those of us deserve to be upset.

Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why Americans are so upset over Bush. After all, he is the person they chose to put in office-twice. Americans are merely getting what they naturally deserve.

Personally, I hope that they will continue to vote Republican.
----------
I can only respond it was a rigged election. (And you know it was, don't you?) Diebold, tossed out votes, denied registrations, denied voters, redistricting and such.

Oh, I am voting republican. Hell yeah.
Ron Paul!

RandomJSA -- Um, Soviets did a pretty good job of it themselves. There was an unsual confluence of personalities at play, too, and the fact the Soviets were dumping all their petrol dollars into Afghanistan, letting OPEC flood the market with cheap oil thus wrecking the already farked Soviet economy had a lot to do with it. It just wasn't Reagan.

The Soviet themselves knew they were f'd and rather being the puppetmaster of history, we really only had educated guesses as to what was going on internally. We were totally surprised for example when the Soviet Union fell, for example.

>> Personally, I hope that they will continue to vote Republican.

In a way i do too.

Look how good the 6 years of conservative rule have inadvertently been for the liberals (2006 big victory and long term double digit lead in congressional poll for 2008).

Americans really only respond to crisis and republicans are great at producing crisis

It should have NEVER been so close as to allow bush to steal any states. Who are these people that our Democratic leaders keep turning to as advisers? They get such horrible horrible advice, you almost think that perhaps they are on Rove's payroll.

What's worse, I think Hillary is listening to the same bunch of morons.

Rehberg suggested that Republicans perhaps deserved to lose control of Congress in the 2006 election, saying they had forgotten about their philosophy of smaller government and fiscal responsibility

I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance that must go into saying this on the one hand, while spouting off about what a great person George Bush is on the other.

And as much as I'd love to see the GOP return to being the party of limited government, that's not why they lost in 2006. They lost in 2006 because of Iraq.

I voted for Harry Brown (libertarian) in 2000, and for Kerry in 2004. I don't feel bad about voting for Brown since Pennsylvania went Blue that year without my help.

/I've pretty much renounced the Libertarian party since 2000.

>> It should have NEVER been so close as to allow bush to steal any states.

Yep.

But you have to realize that our whore corporate media does a good job of covering up for the boy king and cons in general.

Look at the WMDs lie.

Gregory F. Stuart: Daddakamabb: Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why Americans are so upset over Bush. After all, he is the person they chose to put in office-twice. Americans are merely getting what they naturally deserve.

Personally, I hope that they will continue to vote Republican.

You are treading on thin ice, I hope you know.

How's that? Has anything I said been wrong? Did Americans not vote in Bush twice? Are not Americans getting what they chose?

You are aware the votes weren't unanimous?

Mighty Taternuts: Well if memory serves pretty close to half of us did NOT vote for him, twice. So those of us deserve to be upset.

More than half. Half the people didn't vote at all. Of the people that voted, about half voted for Bush so only about a quarter of the electorate voted for Bush, the rest either voted against or didn't vote at all.

/thanks voter apathy

equilibrium: Mighty Taternuts: Well if memory serves pretty close to half of us did NOT vote for him, twice. So those of us deserve to be upset.

More than half. Half the people didn't vote at all. Of the people that voted, about half voted for Bush so only about a quarter of the electorate voted for Bush, the rest either voted against or didn't vote at all.

/thanks voter apathy

Didn't Australia make it a crime to not vote in the election?

Gregory F. Stuart: I have every confidence that Americans are indeed actually that stupid to have voted for Bush a second time in 2004.
------
I can agree there was at least 40% that are truly that stupid and did vote for him. The other 12% got screwed... well... the rest of us (60%) got screwed.

We need a paper trail and triple counting by three individual sets of human counters to verify every election. Plus make the people throwing out ballots (as was done in several states) go to jail for their crime.

We also need to have a lottery of citizens to be given special authoritative powers to watch from the start to finish (in groups of 5 or more), as well as to arrest and prosecute anyone caught tossing votes.

We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws that have existed.

Gregory F. Stuart: Churchill2004: And as much as I'd love to see the GOP return to being the party of limited government, that's not why they lost in 2006. They lost in 2006 because of Iraq.

You do realize, of course, that they were never actually the party of limited government and states' rights. They only claimed to be while Bill Clinton was running the show. Obviously, when the other party is in charge, they're basically saying, "Yes, we're for a limited government and states' rights-as long as we're not the ones in charge."

In other words, they were trying to fool voters into thinking that they actually stood for limited government, instead of just pretending to stand for it until they got back in power themselves. Looks like they fooled you.

They were the party of Limited Government during the 60s when 'states rights' meant 'we can allow the south to segregate'.

>> They lost in 2006 because of Iraq.

Wrong.

Exit polls showed that Bush's lousy economy far outpolled the war in Iraq

*********************************

Economic View

Maybe You Did Vote Your Pocketbook

By DANIEL ALTMAN
Published: November 12, 2006

To paraphrase a Clinton-era mantra, it really might have been the economy, stupid.

More than 80 percent of voters in an exit poll, conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International, said the economy was a very important or extremely important issue.

That percentage was the highest for any issue, including Iraq and terrorism.

so why exactly do people care what a rep. from Helena MT thinks of the president?

eqtworld: I think they will find a big pile of our gratitude on the same day and in the same place as Saddam's WMDs

Strangely enough, I think there's a good chance that history will ultimately be a lot kinder to Bush about Iraq than we are right now (it's probably going to stabilize one way or another). His domestic policies, on the other hand, should earn him eternal scorn.

Last article i posted was from the NY Times

twilson2: >> They lost in 2006 because of Iraq.

Wrong.

Exit polls showed that Bush's lousy economy far outpolled the war in Iraq

*********************************

Economic View

Maybe You Did Vote Your Pocketbook

By DANIEL ALTMAN
Published: November 12, 2006

To paraphrase a Clinton-era mantra, it really might have been the economy, stupid.

More than 80 percent of voters in an exit poll, conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International, said the economy was a very important or extremely important issue.

That percentage was the highest for any issue, including Iraq and terrorism.

this just shows how stupid people are, besides the deficits, the economy in 05-06 was outstanding and was very similar to the peak of clinton's economy