For once, they're right.

It's not going to do the Repubs any good, until the Nov 2010 elections at the earliest, though.

"Look what we did the past 8 years! It's terrible. We did bad things. Now, elect us!"

Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be working.

"It'll be just like us, except gay !!"

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAJKFJDAFSKLFJSDAKFLSDAJFDHYIGOQDHIWG

Will the Republican brand just farking die already? They're basically just a mockery of a mockery of themselves at this point.

opiumpoopy: For once, they're right.

Agreed, look at the first 6 years of the Bush presidency.

Actually the problem is more of Congress and the President not doing their jobs of checking the power of the other branch. Instead they collude with each other in ways that would make any private market Oligopoly look on in envy.

The Dems have been mostly failing at that part for the last two years as well.

Mandatory registration sites make baby Obama cry.

One party rule for a few more years will be good for this country. There is a good chance that both the Democratic and Republic parties will split, giving us 4 major parties.

/And the Fundies will be the Hamas of America. Good times. Good times.

Didnt they have one party rule only 4 years ago? Check yourself GOP

CaptMacMillian: Will the Republican brand just farking die already? They're basically just a mockery of a mockery of themselves at this point.

Because then the worthless democrats would not have anyone to blame

Damba: Mandatory registration sites make baby Obama cry.


Okay, I clicked for the 3rd time and it didn't give the registration screen. What's up with that?

/why did I click 3 times?
//insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different resut

Damba: Mandatory registration sites make baby Obama cry.

Indeed.

I did not register and read the article, but I am sure I am outraged by the Republicans, and will not rest until they have been punished by Super Nanny on a televised event.

Super Nanny, your input?

The Republicans have been a great example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. That's why it will be so important to elect Libertarian and Green candidates to congress.

Electing Republicans? Not so much.

Its been bad when either party has had full control.

Unfortunately, Republicans, you farked things up SO bad I want the Democrats to control every branch of government for a while so they have a chance (not saying they will, but they're our best hope at the moment) to undo some of the bullshiat you caused. Legalizing weed, further fortifying abortion rights, and increased civil rights for gays would just be icing on the cake at that point.

I'm not saying all this will happen, but it's more likely to happen with the Democrats than anyone else at this point.

This isn't about the democrats taking these seats, it's about the republicans losing them. They're being fired for doing a poor job. Imo, imbalance is a poor argument for being kept in office.

I've np with newly elected moderate republicans, but it's time for the Bachmann's and the and some of these established repubs to take a seat.

CaptMacMillian: Will the Republican brand just farking die already? They're basically just a mockery of a mockery of themselves at this point.

I find that rather ironic considering posts of yours against people like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee from long ago. People who, despite their faults, wanted to head in a more fiscally conservative direction.

You were biatching about RP, MH and other such people almost a year ago, yet now you are biatching about how the GOP is making a mockery of themselves since they picked the least fiscally conservative as their candidate.

You got what you wanted, no RP or MH as the nominee, so what are you complaining about now?

When you're headed toward an iceberg at top speed, you have to throw the engines into full reverse.

Well, to be fair, they didn't have 60 senate seats.

Protip: BugMeNot works like a charm for WaPo.

Start using FireFox, whiners.

Pzo211: "It'll be just like us, except gay !!"

Will they be serving Schmitt's?

Iji This isn't about the democrats taking these seats, it's about the republicans losing them. They're being fired for doing a poor job. Imo, imbalance is a poor argument for being kept in office.

If this was the case, no incumbents would be returning on either side.

paulieY2J: Its been bad when either party has had full control.



I understand that seeing a lot of democrats might give you a bad feeling in your tummy. but we had one party rule during both roosevelt administrations and the kennedy administration. we also had one party rule during carter and W. one party rule is not a bad thing. bad one party rule is bad.

Remember Clinton's first 2 years when he had a friendly congress and the economy got WORSE, resulting in Republican rake over in '94.

Yeah, I think history is gonna repeat itself with Obama and his friendly congress.

Come on republican majority in '10.

unbelievable.

Having the repubs in charge of congress and dems in the White House worked good during the Clinton administration.

Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

Oldiron_79: Remember Clinton's first 2 years when he had a friendly congress and the economy got WORSE, resulting in Republican rake over in '94.

Yeah, I think history is gonna repeat itself with Obama and his friendly congress.

Come on republican majority in '10.

Until/unless the Republican party fully and publicly repudiates the socialist fiscal policies of the Bush administration I will not support them or their candidates either at any level of government.

And I am not alone in this.

It's Rove's Permanent Majority!

.

flavor of the month: paulieY2J: Its been bad when either party has had full control.



I understand that seeing a lot of democrats might give you a bad feeling in your tummy. but we had one party rule during both roosevelt administrations and the kennedy administration. we also had one party rule during carter and W. one party rule is not a bad thing. bad one party rule is bad.

Yeah but during FDR and Kennedy we really had a 3 party system, because the Southern Democrats where basically a party unto themselves.

NautatrolRx: Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

You mean like raising taxes to give $700 billion to wall street bankers?

Jon Snow: Yes, massive gridlock preventing us from reforming health care and creating a new economy based upon clean energy is exactly what we need!

no they never focus on important things. they will probably just ban stuff like online poker.

oh snaps that's already banned thanks guys!!

HURRR!!1!

Irony isn't sufficient to contain this.

Don't vote the Dems in! Things will end up.... oh wait. Pay us no mind.

paulieY2J:
If this was the case, no incumbents would be returning on either side.

I'm sure that there will be some Dem losses, but there's a tidal change that will net the Dems more seats. Obviously constituents are more angry with established republican leadership, not to mention demographic shifts.

An imbalance will allow the Dems to buck up. A bunch of republican congressional c^&* blockers aren't going to help. If the Dems fail, no excuses, and they take the blame. But if they succeed...

Weaver95: NautatrolRx: Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

You mean like raising taxes to give $700 billion to wall street bankers?

Taxes haven't been raised. That was done on the Reagan-Bush borrow and spend model.

They need to work on that apology some.

Crosshair: I find that rather ironic considering posts of yours against people like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee from long ago. People who, despite their faults, wanted to head in a more fiscally conservative direction.

You were biatching about RP, MH and other such people almost a year ago, yet now you are biatching about how the GOP is making a mockery of themselves since they picked the least fiscally conservative as their candidate.

You got what you wanted, no RP or MH as the nominee, so what are you complaining about now?.

I'll try and take this one...

Mike Huckabee is a fundamentalist religious nutjob. He is not fit to lead the country. AT ALL.

Ron Paul is a complete loon. His fiscal ideas would wreck us quickly. He is not ift to lead the country. AT ALL.


So quit biatching that all your candidates suck. Really. Your party sucks so bad you point to the radical idiots as a valid alternative. Just be done with it.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: It's Rove's Permanent Majority!

Part of me wonders if this isn't Epic Jujitsu by the Dems; play dumb for nearly a decade, serving as nothing more than scarecrow opposition and allowing the Republicans to become drunk on power, exposing themselves as the party of thinly-disguised Dominionists. Then, spring the trap, and kick off a generation of Democratic rule.

We were nearing the end of the cycle anyway, and, given the general ass-hattery on display in Washington, I'm very highly inclined to believe it's just the cycle playing out, but a very small voice wonders...

Hehe, they tried this a few weeks ago. The GOP actually went on the airwaves to say they need a republican president because they predict the GOP will loose massive seats in both the House and the Senate.

WTF kinda logic is that? Had the GOP not given Bush a blank check and looked the other way on all his abuse of power antics they wouldn't be scared of loosing seats and their jobs.

flavor of the month I understand that seeing a lot of democrats might give you a bad feeling in your tummy. but we had one party rule during both roosevelt administrations and the kennedy administration. we also had one party rule during carter and W. one party rule is not a bad thing. bad one party rule is bad.

You might wanna look how how the economy did under those one party rules..

Weaver95: NautatrolRx: Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

You mean like raising taxes to give $700 billion to wall street bankers?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the right course of action. Both sides of the aisle voted for that, Obama included. The Dems, begrudgingly, had to admit that it was the best solution.

You see them as fatcats because they've worked hard to become successful. You were more than happy with the generosity of their loans, but when it comes time to pay them back, libs don't want to. It's called stealing.

Oh, and since the top earners are the ones who pay all the taxes already, it's the GOP members who will be paying for it anyway. Paying, yet again, for the libs who jumped into houses while in their coffee shop jobs.

We're the ones getting screwed. Why are you complaining?

Maybe the Republicans should look into sucking less then?

Republican Party: We know we suck but that shouldn't stop you from voting for us.

Jon Snow: Yes, massive gridlock preventing us from reforming health care and creating a new economy based upon clean energy is exactly what we need!

I remember the in vogue thing for 2006 was asking for gridlock. Now people have seen that staying locked into a BAD position isn't so hot, so CHANGE is a pretty damn savvy message right now.

Not a fan of gridlock. This country has to adapt to the world stage now due to free trade, and staying stuck (or losing more and more of our economy) isn't the answer.

NautatrolRx: Weaver95: NautatrolRx: Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

You mean like raising taxes to give $700 billion to wall street bankers?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the right course of action. Both sides of the aisle voted for that, Obama included. The Dems, begrudgingly, had to admit that it was the best solution.

You see them as fatcats because they've worked hard to become successful. You were more than happy with the generosity of their loans, but when it comes time to pay them back, libs don't want to. It's called stealing.

Oh, and since the top earners are the ones who pay all the taxes already, it's the GOP members who will be paying for it anyway. Paying, yet again, for the libs who jumped into houses while in their coffee shop jobs.

We're the ones getting screwed. Why are you complaining?

Weaver95 is a Republican.

Just thought you'd like to know that.

Remember in Terminator II where in the end the new Terminator falls in to the big pot of molten metal and goes all crazy and then melts away into a big greasy looking spot? This what this election reminds me of.

NautatrolRx: Weaver95: NautatrolRx: Is the ironic tag self-referential?

Republicans understand that, even as asinine as the current Dems are, we can't have a single party system because it destroys democracy.

It's the Dems who want to have a one-party system so they can profit off of the labor of successful individuals.

You mean like raising taxes to give $700 billion to wall street bankers?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the right course of action. Both sides of the aisle voted for that, Obama included. The Dems, begrudgingly, had to admit that it was the best solution.

You see them as fatcats because they've worked hard to become successful. You were more than happy with the generosity of their loans, but when it comes time to pay them back, libs don't want to. It's called stealing.

Oh, and since the top earners are the ones who pay all the taxes already, it's the GOP members who will be paying for it anyway. Paying, yet again, for the libs who jumped into houses while in their coffee shop jobs.

We're the ones getting screwed. Why are you complaining?

The blue states (me) pay for the red states. You are welcome.

NautatrolRx: You see them as fatcats because they've worked hard to become successful. You were more than happy with the generosity of their loans, but when it comes time to pay them back, libs don't want to. It's called stealing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down chief. Did you just call Weav a "lib"?