Even the Rapture Righties are jumping ship now

Don't forget the record budget deficits and record national debt.

 

Of course you did, tony. Because no one is dumb enough to post such ignorant shit without expecting to be called on it.

Let's see, pocketbook and security. HUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGEEEEEE national deficit and 16 spy agencies who all say the bungled Iraq war has made us less safe. Yes, let's do hope they vote with their pocketbook and with security in mind.

You're actually asking where Pelosi and Dean are? And doing it in some school-kid-on-the-playground, finger-pointing way? And doing so while the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE are all so loathed by the American public that their party's candidates won't even speak their names?

Nice work. Dipshit.

 

You mean the ones that currently are much less than projected?

And I guess you forgot a little thing called 9/11 that caused a bit of an economic problem, too?

 

This is an excellent point. And the main reason why I won't be doing any crowing before election day, no matter what the polls say.

I've got five beers in me right now -- great idea, as I have to cover a college football game with a 12:30 kick tomorrow, er, today -- so someone could check the numbers and prove me wrong: If I remember correctly, more Americans cast votes for a Democratic Congressman in 2002, and '04, than a GOP one.

Think of it this way: The roughly 8 million people of greater Los Angeles, who by in large vote Democratic, get two Senators they have to share with the rest of California. The 8 million residents of Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, who tend to vote Republican, have eight senators all to themselves.

I may be off on the population figures, but do you see the point? As long as the rural states vote Republican, the Democrats are always going to be in an uphill battle for control of Congress.

And Lyman: Oh, please. The Bushies have badly missed on their budget projections heretofore; why on Earth should we believe them now? And for the Nth time: Those deficit figures do not include war expeditures; therefore, they are a complete joke.

 

So damned if they do, damned if they don't, Joe? The way you've structured the argument, they can't win. I guess that's your point.

I also gather you don't think the way we elect senators in this country is fair?

 

Montanans do not always tend Republican, dammit. Out of 7 statewide elections in 2004, 5 went to Dems.

And Conrad Burns is going down on Election Day!

 

My point is don't insult the intelligence of a radish by crowing about deifict numbers when you've been way off in the past and you're not including one of the biggest expeditures the government currently has. But you're on here crowing about the projected deficit numbers, so I guess we should line you up in the vegetable aisle, huh?

And just because I point out an inequitity of the Senate doesn't mean I think the system should be changed. For an overwhelming majority of this nation's history -- particularly when the primary office tool in the chamber is not a rubber stamp -- it's worked just fine.

 

Personally, given the unbelievable carnival of crazoids that has run amuck in the House since 1994, I think the Senate was an awfully good idea.

 

Back to the original article, did anyone else get a laugh out of Bill Clinton being called an evangelical?

That's one loose definition.

 

Yes, because we know that evangelicals do not commit sins of the flesh.
Reverend Swaggart, your ride to the airport's here....

 

If Bill Clinton's an evangelical, I'm Jessica Alba.

 

If George W. Bush is a good Christian man, I'm Ryan Sonner.