Karl Rove to quit at end of August

[chomerics]

You'd have no worries, you know, once you told them you were gay and all. Only Jokes:laugh:

Ummm, I probably get more tail in a month than you have had in your entire life, but hey who's counting right? And the gay bit? Come on now, don't you have something better than that?

For someone who claims to love their country and the military so much, you sure seem to hate everything there is about both.

Whether you agree with certain policies or not is irrelevant. Be proud of the fact you live in the greatest country in the world and quit ****ing about it.

Where do I ***** about my country? What the hell is wrong with people? Complaining about a government is not complaining about a country?!?? Did you say you were ****ing about your country when Clinton was in office? Man oh man, between you, booma and kilmer today, there is some serious issues about reality and comprehension that need to be addressed.

You really oughta drink more. Or move out of boston, the Democratic stench in the air is rotting your mind.

I am damn proud I live in Boston, there is not a city in the world I would rather live in. I love everything about this place, the history, the town, the sports, the fact that there are over 400,000 college women here every year, yes, I love Boston, and I am damn proud to live here.

Holy ****, I can't imagine if you've been there you whole life. It would certainly explain a whole lot, as far as your views go. I can't really fault you if the only thing you've been fed your whole life is liberal BS. I just don't know if that might be the whole problem. :whoknows:

Bzzt wrong again McFly. . . but then again, you should be used to being wrong, I mean have you been right about ANYTHING the past decade or so? ANYTHING? At what point is your prediction license revoked? After the 50th wrong prediction in a row? how about the 100th? heck, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day, you are even behind that number.

[chomerics]

Chomerics,

Do you own a mirror?

If you understood what was stated, you would see how wrong your post is.

[Dictator]

If you understood what was stated, you would see how wrong your post is.

You are seriously delusional.

[Buddy Dude]

And the closure of several bases did not occur under republican leadership? Are you seriously this ignorant, or do you honestly not know about the BRAC closures under Bush?

No, actually it didn't. At least not in the numbers it did under Democratic leadership.

Are you aware that the BRAC was created in 1988 by a Democratic Congress, or are you that ignorant? Are you aware that since the BRAC has existed, 2005 was the only year in which bases were closed by a Republican Congress, or are you that ignorant? Are you also aware that out of the 350 installations closed/realigned/downsized by BRAC, 10 were done under Republican leadership, and 340 under Democrats, or are you that ignorant?

Are you seeing a trend here, or are you that ignorant?

It doesn't matter who the president at the time is, they have no say, Congress does. Democrats created the BRAC, and the Democrats have been responsible for the closure of 97% of all abses and military facilities that have ever been shut down, realigned, downsized, etc.

Your point on this doesn't matter when it's overwhelmingly lopsided evidence proving the Democrats are the military shrinkers. At least 97% of the time.

do you even know what a budget is and how it is run? Do you understand how the process works? Do you have a clue as to how a budget is passed? For someone that has been in the military, you are obviously quite uninformed on how the military actually gets paid, spends and allocates money.

You are truly uninformed to believe the bull**** that comes out of your mouth. When Congress approves a budget, they can still pull money from any other program to cover costs of programs that need the money more. This is what surpluses are used for :doh:

Also, do you honestly think this matters? Democrats have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 17 years, and they have set the budget. Obviously, since they seem to be anti-military, they will intentionally budget low for the military.

when did we leave Vietnam? Why did we leave Vietnam? And how do you get your "ass" handed to you when you have a kill ratio of over 100/1?

Go to D.C., look at the wall, look at the facts, look at the fact that it was the first U.S. war ever that we didn't win, then try to seriously say we didn't get our asses handed to us. And because of Agent Orange, people are still dying.

The sad thing is that you actually believe this garbage, and you haven't a clue to why.

No, the sad thing is, you think your opinion matters to anyone but you. You think your incoherent rambling, and extremist bull**** matters to anyone outside of Boston, and that every non-liberal has a brain malfunction. that's what's sad.

Everyone deserves their opinion, I understand that, but when it's so overly outlandish and one-sided it should tell you that there's something wrong with your opinion, and not with the opinions of the rest of the country.

how does having a predominantly ® voting military prove that Bush was ignorant, and ill prepared at in going to war? How does it disprove that Rummy isn't a moron? how does it disprove anything I say? Just because a block of people vote for one party means absolutely nothing in the ability of a party to conduct a war. you have Iraq as the poster child for this!!!!

WOW, you completely missed the point. I honestly think you should read it again if you managed to somehow twist it into this, because your response was completely off base. Like MSF off base, just in the other direction.

WOW, yep, you are "one of them". . . I know of your type, you are a person who puts your ideology before your country. You have the unmitigated gall to dress down people who actually served to protect a person who was doing coke and cheerleading while he was serving.

Damn, your arrogance and ignorance amuses me.

Let me clear a few things up since you seem to ***** and rant before reading a whole post.

1. I don't support Bush, so get off that point because you're way off.

2. If I put ideology before my country, then why do I support the military? Why did I serve for almost 6 years?

3. How did I dress down people that served? I served too, or was that another one of your famous rant before reading things again?

You, are a GREAT example of what is wrong with this country, and YOU are the type of person responsible for all of the animosity and decisiveness seen. Maybe if you would remove your head from Dubya's arse, and cleaned the crap out of your eyes, you could understand what I am telling you. . .but then again, it is not expected from the likes of people like you.

LMFAO. You don't know me, so your comments toward me are not only unfounded, but irrelevant. If YOU are an example of what's right with this country, we all need to hang ourselves now and do the world a favor. If you're the majority, it's no wonder the rest of the world hates us.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but if I do enough times, maybe you'll read it one of the 50 times I have to tell you. I DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH! Pull my head out of Dubya's ass? I will, as soon as you put Hillary's **** down.

We run across your kind every once in a while in the tailgate, people who show up, sprout the latest propaganda they've read on Drudge, or recycled off of their hate e-mail lists and disappear. You do serve as a good whipping boy for those of us who actually know what we are talking about though, because your ignorant writing is a flag to everyone here.

Seems to me that you don't know what the **** you're talking about. You spew **** out, and on the off chance that I don't know what the hell you're talking about, I look it up, and am not shocked to find you're wrong. I don't even know what the **** Drudge is, and I never discuss politics at all, except on this board, not even in person.

Brace yourself, I'm here for the duration. Only CNN loyalists like you even know what true propaganda is, because you believe every lie the media feeds you. Until you can formulate a response to something that makes sense, and read a post before you comment on it, then just drown yourself in your Boston harbor full of liberal ****, and come back when you need some air.

LMAO, your "real world" consists of reading lies about what is going on in Iraq, meanwhile, those of us who actually know what is happening

Your real world consists of the Boston Globe and CNN. That's not the real world. I don't have to read about war, because I've lived it, and I know what a huge load of **** the media reports are. they are one sided, so don't talk to me about reading lies, I don't trust anything ever written by the media. You, however seem to put all your faith into liberal journalism, and take is as fact, with no reason to believe it except that they tell you so.

We've been telling you that Iraq was not winnable with what you went in with, and it was not worth the cost. We've been telling you what the truth is, not what you want to believe. . . but that is ok, continue off living in your "real world". We need the likes of you to pop your head in here every now and then to make a glaring example of how not to behave. Now go off and read the latest Colter rant about evil liberals, listen to Rush tell you how liberals are evil and then close the night masturbating to Hannity singing the national anthem. Your reality is a fine bubble you live in . . . too bad it is as real as a Narnia.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Telling us what? Your buddies approved it fool. Democrats are the reason we didn't go in with ****, because they said the amount Bush requested was excessive. **** man, do you know any actual truths? Go look on the Congress website, so you can read factual account, factual results, and actual proof, instead of believing what you read. John Kerry was a huge supporter, and now wants to act like he was opposed all along. If the Democrats were against the war, then why did they approve it?

As for your comments on Colter, Rush, and Hannity, wrong on all counts. they are a perfect example of why I hate ultra conservatives as much as liberals. Only difference is, liberals are uglier. See Alan Colmes.

[Buddy Dude]

Ummm, I probably get more tail in a month than you have had in your entire life, but hey who's counting right? And the gay bit? Come on now, don't you have something better than that?

I'm married chump, I don't have to brag about possibly having the latest STD from all the ass I get.:doh: And I agree, you probably are getting a lot of tail :puke:

[zoony]

And the closure of several bases did not occur under republican leadership? Are you seriously this ignorant, or do you honestly not know about the BRAC closures under Bush?

I

do you even know what a budget is and how it is run? Do you understand how the process works? Do you have a clue as to how a budget is passed? For someone that has been in the military, you are obviously quite uninformed on how the military actually gets paid, spends and allocates money.

just

yea, WWII is nothing to be proud of huh. . .

wanted

Funny, but from 1968-1976 who was president? Oh yea, that Nixon fella along with Ford. . .when did we leave Vietnam? Why did we leave Vietnam? And how do you get your "ass" handed to you when you have a kill ratio of over 100/1?

to

The sad thing is that you actually believe this garbage, and you haven't a clue to why.

try

how does having a predominantly ® voting military prove that Bush was ignorant, and ill prepared at in going to war? How does it disprove that Rummy isn't a moron? how does it disprove anything I say? Just because a block of people vote for one party means absolutely nothing in the ability of a party to conduct a war. you have Iraq as the poster child for this!!!!

multi

WOW, yep, you are "one of them". . . I know of your type, you are a person who puts your ideology before your country. You have the unmitigated gall to dress down people who actually served to protect a person who was doing coke and cheerleading while he was serving.

quoting.

Nope, not someone new. . .but instead someone with absolutely no substance to their discussion, and nothing to offer in terms of dialog except for campaign slogans and party one liners. You, are a GREAT example of what is wrong with this country, and YOU are the type of person responsible for all of the animosity and decisiveness seen. Maybe if you would remove your head from Dubya's arse, and cleaned the crap out of your eyes, you could understand what I am telling you. . .but then again, it is not expected from the likes of people like you.

Pretty

We run across your kind every once in a while in the tailgate, people who show up, sprout the latest propaganda they've read on Drudge, or recycled off of their hate e-mail lists and disappear. You do serve as a good whipping boy for those of us who actually know what we are talking about though, because your ignorant writing is a flag to everyone here.

Fun!

LMAO, your "real world" consists of reading lies about what is going on in Iraq, meanwhile, those of us who actually know what is happening around us are not surprised when we see things like the '06 elections. We've been forecasting the breakup of the GOP, and the splintering of your party for the past 2 years, and now you look around saying happened to my party??? And if ANYTHING, I back up my stuff all the time with every known data point, and regression curve I can find to back it. . .again, the old ASS U ME adage bites you in the head.

See you

We've been telling you that Iraq was not winnable with what you went in with, and it was not worth the cost. We've been telling you what the truth is, not what you want to believe. . . but that is ok, continue off living in your "real world". We need the likes of you to pop your head in here every now and then to make a glaring example of how not to behave. Now go off and read the latest Colter rant about evil liberals, listen to Rush tell you how liberals are evil and then close the night masturbating to Hannity singing the national anthem. Your reality is a fine bubble you live in . . . too bad it is as real as a Narnia.

guys later!

[Buddy Dude]

Chomerics,

Do you own a mirror?

:applause: :notworthy :laugh: :notworthy :applause:

[Cdowwe]

Always entertaining when someone new enters Chom's realm. I have some catching up to do.

[chomerics]

Always entertaining when someone new enters Chom's realm. I have some catching up to do.

Yes you do, some people are just not worth arguing over, especially when they pull facts and figures out of their ass.

When you see something like this. . .

Democrats have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 17 years

You know you are arguing with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. . . I mean come on now, Bush has has a Republican congress from 00-06 right there, so that is what 6 years out of the past 6 1/2 years. Or that they were in control since 94, so they have had congress for 12 out of the last 12 1/2 years. :doh: And in "his version of reality" that correlates to "Democrats have controlled Congress for 12 out of the past 17 years". With math like that, it is no wonder we are ending up paying $500+ Billion for Iraq. . . I mean who needs an education when you have people who think for you right?

Man oh man, I thought I'd seen everything, but now, at the end of the night, I have to read how some "professed centrist" can defend Bush, and tell me that the democrats have had control of congress for the past 12/17 years :doh: If it weren't such a blatant and outrageous lie, I'd think he misspoke, but looking at his other math, I can see that he is completely nuckin futz.

The SECOND I see such garbage and outright lies like this, I know I'm debating with someone who doesn't have all the necessary facilities to debate any topic. . .but then I guess I'm just an elitist snob for choosing not to waste my time with such garbage.

[chomerics]

I

just

wanted

to

try

multi

quoting.

Pretty

Fun!

See you

guys later!

Nice

one

zoony

[chomerics]

the Democrats have been responsible for the closure of 97% of all abses and military facilities that have ever been shut down, realigned, downsized, etc.

Democrats have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 17 years, and they have set the budget.

I read those two outrageous quotes and I needed to read no more. If you are not going to come to the table with any honesty what-so-ever, and actually believe these outrageous facts pulled out of your butt would fly, you are more gone than I previously gave you credit for.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity. I little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing!

[Buddy Dude]

I read those two outrageous quotes and I needed to read no more. If you are not going to come to the table with any honesty what-so-ever, and actually believe these outrageous facts pulled out of your butt would fly, you are more gone than I previously gave you credit for.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity. I little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing!

What's wrong Chom? Afraid to come out of your hollow existance and read the fact? Go to the homepage for Congress, it ill tell you that everything I just stated is fact, not opinion.

When you turn of CNN and pull your head out of your ass, go read it sometime, you might be surprised to learn you are wrong.

You can say all the bull**** you want, nobody's buying it......except Predicto

It's fact, reported by Congress, seriously go read it, and come back with enlighten,ent that will show you that you are stupid.

I did not pull numbers or facts out of my ass, you did. Go to the site, and read the truth. Or does that bother you too much?

[BAFGA]

And well they should since he trounced them for years with a so called village idiot,a couple of house (unmentionables) and a Haliburton owned warmonger. :laugh:

The Dems built him into a legend with their own stupidity and incompetence.

And I doubt they learned from it. :2cents:

Whatever happened to The United States? It seems to be Red States vs. Blue States. I'm looking for someone out there that sees this, and wants to unite the country, not divide it. I see from the party of Hillary and the party of Rudy (and the party of Gore and the party of Newt) nothing but hatred and division. Who among us is willing enough and strong enough to unite this country again?

[Thiebear]

Of course he would, because that would be how to win the war in Iraq. . .

That would be incorrect... To do it right it would be months before they could go as Draftees would only be good for aiming and firing in a real war. Not what is going on right now. Drafting is not a good idea unless there is a REAL need. Not as a political stunt to prove a point.

We've gone over the reasons why there is no infrastructure for a draft after all the base closures and drop in Drill Sergeants etc... We would need to upgrade things now and then in about a year start the draft with an actual plan in place.

[Burgold]

Democrats have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 17 years, and they have set the budget.

This is the part that just doesn't ring true. The Repubs were in the majority for large parts of Clinton's Presidency and all of G. W. Bush's Presidency minus last year. So, saying Dems controlled Congress for 12 of the last seven years seems a little far fetched.

Republicans gained control of the House in 1994. Before then, they had not been the majority party in the House since Dwight D. Eisenhower's landslide in 1952.

With the Senate you'll notice Republicans've been a lot more in charge than not. If you have problems with the budget. Look to the Republicans. If you have problems with debt. Look to the Republicans. It has been almost all them.

Here's been the majority breakdown for the Senate--

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

[chomerics]

What's wrong Chom? Afraid to come out of your hollow existance and read the fact? Go to the homepage for Congress, it ill tell you that everything I just stated is fact, not opinion.

I did not pull numbers or facts out of my ass, you did. Go to the site, and read the truth. Or does that bother you too much?

Listen, you are arguing that the democrats have had control of congress for 12 of the past 17 years, you are WRONG, and it is such a downright egregious error, you are not worth debating.

Get your facts if you want to debate with me, otherwise you are not worth my time or effort.

Burgold went through the trouble to show you just how wrong you are, and it is such an outlandish and ludicrous error, it shows you know nothing about politics, have not followed politics, and lack the honesty to debate.

[chomerics]

That would be incorrect... To do it right it would be months before they could go as Draftees would only be good for aiming and firing in a real war. Not what is going on right now. Drafting is not a good idea unless there is a REAL need. Not as a political stunt to prove a point.

Oh, so now getting the 400K+ troops to win the war is "a political point" ??? WTF are you on. We have been in Iraq for 4 years now with no end in sight, we will be there for another decade if we keep things at the status quo. Either get the troops needed or leave. What you are advocating is a joke.

We've gone over the reasons why there is no infrastructure for a draft after all the base closures and drop in Drill Sergeants etc...

Absolute crap, you get the people you need in a draft, and you deal with it then. Are you telling me we had the technology to build up a country we destroyed, but we lack the technology to have a draft? Come on now, it would take a year at the most to get everything in place, and we would already have placed an additional 100K troops in Iraq from the first year.

We would need to upgrade things now and then in about a year start the draft with an actual plan in place.

Yes we would, and that is an issue? Are you saying we can't have a draft because of logistics, but we can rebuild a country half the globe away? Man, can you please pass some of what you are smoking?

[Buddy Dude]

Listen, you are arguing that the democrats have had control of congress for 12 of the past 17 years, you are WRONG, and it is such a downright egregious error, you are not worth debating.

Get your facts if you want to debate with me, otherwise you are not worth my time or effort.

Burgold went through the trouble to show you just how wrong you are, and it is such an outlandish and ludicrous error, it shows you know nothing about politics, have not followed politics, and lack the honesty to debate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Leader: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

That's 2 years

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)

Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

There's 2 more

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)

Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

And 2 more

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)

Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

And 2 more

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS); Trent Lott (R-MS)

Minority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)

Minority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)

Minority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

Minority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)

There's another 2

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Leader: William H. Frist (R-TN)

Minority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Leader: William H. Frist (R-TN)

Minority Leader: Harry M. Reid (D-NV)

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Leader: Harry M. Reid (D-NV)

Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

1 Year so far

So, where's your evidence? Or will you keep assuming that you know what you're talking about?

This is from the Senate homepage, I even gave you a link so you wouldn't have to do any work.

So technically, I was wrong about it being 12 years, it's been 11. :rolleyes:The end of the year will make 12.

Read Burgold's post again before you quote his "facts" as truth. notice the gaps of years missing in his posts. Then click the link he provided that proves me right.

[PeterMP]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Leader: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

That's 2 years

...

So technically, I was wrong about it being 12 years, it's been 11. :rolleyes:The end of the year will make 12.

Read Burgold's post again before you quote his "facts" as truth. notice the gaps of years missing in his posts. Then click the link he provided that proves me right.

The problem is that 1987-1989 is over 17 years ago from 2008. I look at your numbers and count 7 over the last 17 years so not even half.

[Predicto]

The problem is that 1987-1989 is over 17 years ago from 2008. I look at your numbers and count 7 over the last 17 years so not even half.

I don't think that is the only problem. Some of those years the Republicans controlled one house of Congress.

[Buddy Dude]

The problem is that 1987-1989 is over 17 years ago from 2008. I look at your numbers and count 7 over the last 17 years so not even half.

I couldn't understand why I ****ed that up, but it was because the list started in 1987, it's 2007 now, and I had 7s in my head. I admit, I ****ed up on that part, at least I can admit a mistake. Something Chom can never do.

However,

Democrats controlled Congress in 1990,1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,2001,2002,2003,2007

That's 10 years, not 7. I'm still closer

And if you add 1987,1988 and 1989 to the list, it makes 13 out of the past 20 years that Democraps controlled Congress.

It still doesn't change the fact that 340 out of the 350 military installations closed/realigned/downsized happened under Democratic leadership.

[PeterMP]

I couldn't understand why I ****ed that up, but it was because the list started in 1987, it's 2007 now, and I had 7s in my head. I admit, I ****ed up on that part, at least I can admit a mistake. Something Chom can never do.

However,

Democrats controlled Congress in 1990,1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,2001,2002,2003,2007

That's 10 years, not 7. I'm still closer

And if you add 1987,1988 and 1989 to the list, it makes 13 out of the past 20 years that Democraps controlled Congress.

It still doesn't change the fact that 340 out of the 350 military installations closed/realigned/downsized happened under Democratic leadership.

Well first of all if you include 1990 and 2007, you are looking at 18 years. Secondly, this is where I'm not sure of how this should be read:

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

You counted this as two years for the D's. Are those two years 1993 and 1994 or 1994 and 1995, but it seems that you can't count 1995 and 2001 for the D's. One or the other, but not both.

[Burgold]

Read Burgold's post again before you quote his "facts" as truth. notice the gaps of years missing in his posts. Then click the link he provided that proves me right.

Whoops. Sorry for the skip at the beginning. That'll teach me to try to work and post at the same time :laugh:

You're still not right though...

[Predicto]

Well first of all if you include 1990 and 2007, you are looking at 18 years. Secondly, this is where I'm not sure of how this should be read:

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

You counted this as two years for the D's. Are those two years 1993 and 1994 or 1994 and 1995, but it seems that you can't count 1995 and 2001 for the D's. One or the other, but not both.

If the Democrats control the House and the Republicans control the Senate, then the Democrats control Congress and are responsible for everything Buddy doesn't like.

However, if the Republicans control the House and the Democrats control the Senate, then the Democrats control Congress and are responsible for everything Buddy doesn't like.

It's easy.

[chomerics]

I couldn't understand why I ****ed that up, but it was because the list started in 1987, it's 2007 now, and I had 7s in my head. I admit, I ****ed up on that part, at least I can admit a mistake. Something Chom can never do.

I find it mildly amusing that you assume you know everything about me, yet you are so far off the mark it isn't even funny. . .heck, even the most ardent haters of me on this board know I will admit a mistake if I make one, it just isn't often that I do, so it is seldom seen.

You, OTOH, came out with ludicrous numbers, then tried to play it off as if you knew what you were talking about, while offering nothing to the discussion. When it is pointed out to you by others that you are wrong, you still fall back on the original point.

And if you add 1987,1988 and 1989 to the list, it makes 13 out of the past 20 years that Democraps controlled Congress.

You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. First, you said you are "as centrist as centrist could be" then you call one party the "democraps" :doh: You lied about your facts, and you continue to lie about everything else. Please come to the plate with some honesty and actual numbers which are true next time, because frankly I would rather debate people who are honest and can accept things for what they are, than dishonest people who can't discern truth from fiction.