I'm stocking up on my wine now, making sure I have enough wine glasses to support my habit should I break them, and am going to sit back with you and watch our country deteriorate.
You might want to uncork some of that wine right now, because if the country isn't "deteriorating" with the current administration, I'm not sure what you would call it.
In fact, Democrats haven't opposed Bush during his Presidency on ANY issue
That was sort of my point. On some of the larger issues of the day, Democrats have been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that a) he knew what he was doing, and b) he was not acting in bad faith. Both assumptions, obviously, have proven repeatedly to be untrue. Which is why in the waning years of this plague of a Presidency, Democrats most certainly HAVE opposed Bush on a great many issues. I could list them, but if you don't already know them, you're certainly capable of using The Google - and if you know what they are and choose to ignore them, then why waste my time listing them again, only to have you claim they don't really exist, or don't count.
But that doesn't mean they were in full agreement with Bush. I seriously doubt anyone would argue that we'd be bogged down in Iraq today if we'd had President Gore instead of the current excuse for a President. Democrats - on the war as on numerous other issues - gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. For most of Bush's Reign of Error, Democrats were in the minority, and would only have been able to mount symbolic opposition anyway....which the Republicans promised would be met with swift...uh....boating. I'd have preferred them to stand up to some of the stupider mistakes of the Bush administration, but there certainly is precedent for the idea - as John McCain reminded us in such a timely fashion last night - that "elections have consequences." You bet they do: Bush won both of the last two, and promised to "spend the political capital" he'd earned in each of his razor-thin victories. And spend he did: he doubled the national debt in eight years, stretched the military to the breaking point, and polarized the country more than it has been since the heyday of the Weathermen. Heckuva job, Bushie.
Time for the grownups to take the wheel back from the rambunctious, petulant children who've been running things for the past eight years.
"That was sort of my point. On some of the larger issues of the day, Democrats have been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that a) he knew what he was doing, and b) he was not acting in bad faith. Both assumptions, obviously, have proven repeatedly to be untrue."
Maybe it's time for a whole new government all around, get rid of everyone involved and let some average people in, they probably would make more sense and do more good than the current government, all around. ;)
Pages
"I'm so confused...are Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack the same person? LOL"
Perhaps....they represent average Americans.
I'm stocking up on my wine now, making sure I have enough wine glasses to support my habit should I break them, and am going to sit back with you and watch our country deteriorate.
You might want to uncork some of that wine right now, because if the country isn't "deteriorating" with the current administration, I'm not sure what you would call it.
That was sort of my point. On some of the larger issues of the day, Democrats have been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that a) he knew what he was doing, and b) he was not acting in bad faith. Both assumptions, obviously, have proven repeatedly to be untrue. Which is why in the waning years of this plague of a Presidency, Democrats most certainly HAVE opposed Bush on a great many issues. I could list them, but if you don't already know them, you're certainly capable of using The Google - and if you know what they are and choose to ignore them, then why waste my time listing them again, only to have you claim they don't really exist, or don't count.
But that doesn't mean they were in full agreement with Bush. I seriously doubt anyone would argue that we'd be bogged down in Iraq today if we'd had President Gore instead of the current excuse for a President. Democrats - on the war as on numerous other issues - gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. For most of Bush's Reign of Error, Democrats were in the minority, and would only have been able to mount symbolic opposition anyway....which the Republicans promised would be met with swift...uh....boating. I'd have preferred them to stand up to some of the stupider mistakes of the Bush administration, but there certainly is precedent for the idea - as John McCain reminded us in such a timely fashion last night - that "elections have consequences." You bet they do: Bush won both of the last two, and promised to "spend the political capital" he'd earned in each of his razor-thin victories. And spend he did: he doubled the national debt in eight years, stretched the military to the breaking point, and polarized the country more than it has been since the heyday of the Weathermen. Heckuva job, Bushie.
Time for the grownups to take the wheel back from the rambunctious, petulant children who've been running things for the past eight years.
Obama's associations are extremely important to me.
Prove Ayers murdered anyone.
"That was sort of my point. On some of the larger issues of the day, Democrats have been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that a) he knew what he was doing, and b) he was not acting in bad faith. Both assumptions, obviously, have proven repeatedly to be untrue."
WOW!
Pages