57% Now Believe Dems Have Zero Plan (Ipsos-AP)

[White_Male_Canada]

Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do. The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/...ection_ap_poll

Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.

Nothings changed.

Republicans lost seats because of Immigration (male voters) and scandals (female voters), not because of public confidence in democrats.

[chefmike]

Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.

Nothings changed.

Republicans lost seats because of Immigration (male voters) and scandals (female voters), not because of public confidence in democrats.

LMFAO!!!

Are you the only person on the planet this clueless? Or are there others?

Even a right-wing stooge such as yourself must know that your defeat was for the most part a referendum on shrubya and the mess that he created in Iraq, Gomer.

The truth? You can't handle the truth!

[White_Male_Canada]

Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.

Nothings changed.

Republicans lost seats because of Immigration (male voters) and scandals (female voters), not because of public confidence in democrats.

LMFAO!!!

Are you the only person on the planet this clueless? Or are there others?

Even a right-wing stooge such as yourself must know that your defeat was for the most part a referendum on shrubya and the mess that he created in Iraq, Gomer.

The truth? You can't handle the truth!

That may or may not be accurate. The Dems ran moderate to conservative candidates in many places where any progressive caucus candidate would have been trounced.

Combine that with historical mid-term numbers and it isn`t that big a victory.

This midterm was certainly not as large a victory for the dems as it is a rebuke for the RINO`s:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office

Bill Clinton,Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.

[chefmike]

Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.

Not to worry, pilgram...we will continue to respond and remind you that you most definitely are a friggin' idiot. An idiot with all the intellectual prowess of a soft cheese....although AllanahStarrNYC seems to prefer the term moron when referring to you *smirk* ...

[guyone]

Ofcourse the Demagogues have a plan. How could you possible they wouldn't? It is to destroy the very fabric of this nation using our own laws against us. What else do Demagogues profess other than an utter hate & contempt for anything American?

[LG]

Tfan wrote:

Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.

Well, like they say in my parts, it takes one to know one.

Tfan also wrote:

Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.

Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.

GW Bush, who does belong to the US elite, has been a failure as a businessman, a failure as a sports team owner and a failure as a president. The jury is still out on whether he will prove to be a failure as a family man.

Secondly, whoever said that the US has to "make war"? What the fuck? The US is supposed to make peace between nations, not attack on a whim and sacrifice 3000 innocent soliders and God knows how many civilians.

The general public does not want to make war. It wants to make peace and bring an end to war. And if you haven't realised that this is the reason the Republicans lost seats then I am wasting my time even typing this.

And, by the way, why aren't you out there fighting?

[guyone]

Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.

Really? You mean like Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry...etc.

[White_Male_Canada]

Tfan wrote:
Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.

Well, like they say in my parts, it takes one to know one.

The mid-term numbers I used , are they completely false ?

Tfan also wrote:
Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.

Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.

A-hem! The liberal Center for Responsive Politics pegs Pelosi's net worth as being somewhere between $14,746,108 and $55,085,000.

"The Pelosi`s estimated their total assets to be worth $25 million to $102 million last year, with liabilities of $6 million to $31 million. Assets are reported in broad ranges on the disclosure forms, making it difficult to determine a lawmaker's exact net worth. (she owns property in Napa Valley and employs NON-Unioned workers).

Members of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, which includes some of the wealthiest lawmakers in Congress, have built significant personal fortunes by capitalizing on the region's pricey real estate market and investing heavily in the stock market." http:/ww.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/26/BAG7B7CDMQ1.DTL

About 20 out of 50 in Congress ranked the richest are dems.The top of the list is jean pierre kereee at 675 million(RollCall).

Yes,in both parties they do come from all stations in life but the hypocracy is that Pelosi uses non-union labour and not surprisingly,

[i] "Secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Conversely,Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure. "[/i]
( Arthur C. Brooks,Syracuse University. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books)release date,Nov.24.

And, by the way, why aren't you out there fighting?

What branch of the service did Bill and or Hillary Clinton serve in before entering politics? Didn`t Clinton attack Yugoslavia,bombarding it with more than 15,000 sorties?

You believe in abortion? Why aren`t you out there killing babies ?