PerryLogan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 194
- Reaction score
- 23
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
WASHINGTON - The Republican committee that handles Senate campaigns picked up the pace in fundraising in February but still trails its rival Democratic committee by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
ADVERTISEMENT
The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $5.5 million in February, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $3.8 million.
Democrats still hold a big advantage on money in the bank with $27.4 million, while Republicans have $14.5 million.
PerryLogan said:If you took away their incredible cash advantage--would anyone even hear of the Republican Party?
Up to now, the battle between right & left has been a true David & Goliath story. The right needs that huge advantage to distract America from the fact that all of its policies fail so catastrophically.
But look at this story! When the Democrats raise more campaign money than the GOP, you know we're in Bizarro World:
GOP Trails Democrats in Senate Fundraising
I guess no one wants to donate to a candidate who's going to jail.
PerryLogan said:Ticked off? Moi? I'm enjoying the short-lived Replican Reich immensely, my friend.
It would be hilarious, if so many people weren't getting hurt.
Just sharing some news you were certain to miss. I've noticed neocons tend to miss most of the news.
Personal hygiene note: chewing on the stale gum of fraudlent victory is bad for your health. Haven't you chewed the juice out of that yet, or are you stuck in the past?
Arthur Fonzarelli said:1969 - 1974 --- Nixon (republican)
1974 - 1977 --- Ford (republican)
1977 - 1981 --- Carter (democrat)
1981 - 1989 --- Reagan (republican)
1989 - 1993 --- Bush, G.H.W. (republican)
1993 - 2001 --- Clinton (democrat)
2001 - present --- Bush, G.W. (republican)
ThePhoenix said:According to this list, (two Rep-one Dem-two Rep-one Dem) we should expect another Republican in the House next. I think you are holding on to false hopes PerryLogan :mrgreen:
Arthur Fonzarelli said:well...if we look at the pattern we might be in store for a one term dem...
before Nixon & Ford there was an eight year dem in the white house (combination of Kennedy & Johnson)...then Nixon & Ford combined for eight years...then we had four years of a dem (Carter)...then 12 years of a rep (Reagan & Bush)...then eight years of a dem (Clinton)...& now we're in the middle of eight years of a rep (Bush)..I figure next will be four years of a dem followed by 12 years of a rep.
ThePhoenix said:OK, lets look at this closely. We have had since 1960 terms that have been the same;
8 years Dem
8 years Rep
Now, according to the odds, since Dem's doubled their term since carter from 4 to 8 years with Clinton, chances are Rep would double their terms from 12 to 24 years.
4 years Dem
12 years Rep
8 years Dem
(24 years Rep)?
Aaaay :mrgreen:
But, lets give the Dem's the benefit of the doubt and ask this; Does anyone know for a fact what the Democrats plan is for America that will give them this power that they covet so much...And who from the Democratic party is capable of holding this power?
As of yet, I have heard no real plans worth the paper to write it on from any Democratic politician.
By the way, I am not Democrat nor am I Republican
PerryLogan said:This would be OK, if you weren't full of beans. Here's what a real President did against terrorism:
Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."
Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.
In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.
The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
aps said:This might be the appropriate time to remind people of what certain people said when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:
ThePhoenix said:Does anyone know for a fact what the Democrats plan is for America that will give them this power that they covet so much...And who from the Democratic party is capable of holding this power?
Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.{sarcasm mode off} Seriously though, doesn't that sound like a crybaby argument for having nothing to contribute. "Waaah! No Fair! We're taking our ball and going home! Waaah!" Geez, how do they ever expect to gain political ground with "intellectual" , "sophisticated", and "solid" arguments like the one above.ThePhoenix said:Where is the Democrats plan for America? is this your Idea of a plan, to attack conservatives who makes up half or better of our country? I guess they all believe if you attack them long enough that eventually they could win what they do not deserve.
Don't worry, they're not responsible for "bad voting decisions by the public.":baby1 :roll:Fact is Dem's, are weak and have no plan, so therefore, is not fit to lead America.
cnredd said:Do you believe the ones who said those quotes were wrong THEN just as the Liberal contingency is NOW?
Or do you believe the Liberal contingency was right THEN making theses same people right NOW?
Does fence it...
LaMidRighter said:Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.
LaMidRighter said:Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.
LaMidRighter said:Seriously though, doesn't that sound like a crybaby argument for having nothing to contribute. "Waaah! No Fair! We're taking our ball and going home! Waaah!" Geez, how do they ever expect to gain political ground with "intellectual" , "sophisticated", and "solid" arguments like the one above.
LaMidRighter said:Don't worry, they're not responsible for "bad voting decisions by the public.":baby1 :roll:
aps said:Would you please provide me evidence that a democrat or democrats said such a thing? Thank you.
Deegan said:Aps, I certainly can understand why you posted those quotes, they do show a great deal of hypocrisy, just another reason I felt I had to leave the party. I am ashamed everytime I read those quotes, I was in favor of our actions in Bosnia, and I can't believe some of things that were said then, and now the reversal we see today. Still, as someone else mentioned, this does show the hypocrisy of both sides of the aisle, we should always be together on matters of military action, and this is not a time for partisan politics, especially when so many lives are at stake!
I'm trying to remember which Democrat was recorded as saying that minority = no responsibility statement so that I can give a link to aps. Do you happen to remember who said it by any chance? I get so confused cause many of them sound alike. Great pic by the way.But they are to our young generation by brainwashing our children in the public schools.
If I can remember who said it I will find a link.aps said:Would you please provide me evidence that a democrat or democrats said such a thing? Thank you.
LaMidRighter said:I'm trying to remember which Democrat was recorded as saying that minority = no responsibility statement so that I can give a link to aps. Do you happen to remember who said it by any chance? I get so confused cause many of them sound alike. Great pic by the way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?