Congratulations Democratic Party.

We can look at this and become depressed, or we can watch and have fun at the democrats expense.

I intend doing the latter.  The fun is just beginning.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 We can look at this and become depressed, or we can watch and have fun at the democrats expense. I intend doing the latter. The fun is just beginning.

I for one am not going to express sour grapes, the will of the people have spoken, and as a good american I hope that there will finally be a coming together of the parties and some work can finally get done.

I'm glad the Democrats won, being a Democrat and all. But I hope everyone can look at this as the need for change and look forward to the future with hope and pray that the right decisions are made for our country. And if they don't live up to our expectations then we hang them out to dry! Being hopeful though, is a good thing.

foreverserenityNovember 8, 2006 13:04:12

I'm glad the Democrats won, being a Democrat and all. But I hope everyone can look at this as the need for change and look forward to the future with hope and pray that the right decisions are made for our country. And if they don't live up to our expectations then we hang them out to dry! Being hopeful though, is a good thing.

here! here! hoping for the best, but expecting more the same.

I'm glad the Democrats won, being a Democrat and all. But I hope everyone can look at this as the need for change and look forward to the future with hope and pray that the right decisions are made for our country. And if they don't live up to our expectations then we hang them out to dry! Being hopeful though, is a good thing.

Precisely. That's exactly how I feel, I'm hopeful that they will make the best/right decisions for the country, so that it will grow and strengthen, not fall.

Reply #5 I'm glad the Democrats won, being a Democrat and all. But I hope everyone can look at this as the need for change and look forward to the future with hope and pray that the right decisions are made for our country. And if they don't live up to our expectations then we hang them out to dry! Being hopeful though, is a good thing. Precisely. That's exactly how I feel, I'm hopeful that they will make the best/right decisions for the country, so that it will grow and strengthen, not fall.

hope springs eternal.

I for one am not going to express sour grapes, the will of the people have spoken, and as a good american I hope that there will finally be a coming together of the parties and some work can finally get done.

Well said,  and I ditto what you say.  And I ditto what serenity says,  me being a Democrat as well am hoping things will get better now,  and if they don't,  then after they're hung out to dry,  we'll tar and feather them!

Reply By: TrudygolightlyPosted: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 I for one am not going to express sour grapes, the will of the people have spoken, and as a good american I hope that there will finally be a coming together of the parties and some work can finally get done. Well said, and I ditto what you say. And I ditto what serenity says, me being a Democrat as well am hoping things will get better now, and if they don't, then after they're hung out to dry, we'll tar and feather them!

After all the bitterness of the last 6 years, I do not really see much hope for work getting done,

I do not really see much hope for work getting done,

neither does the Stock market, hence why they are up almost 200 points this week.

(Citizen)Dr. GuyNovember 8, 2006 19:29:30

neither does the Stock market, hence why they are up almost 200 points this week.

stock market loves division in the house, less oversight for them to deal with.

stock market loves division in the house, less oversight for them to deal with.

- less unilateral administration, who can do what it wants no questions asked.

- less spending (proven by The Economist)

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Friday, November 10, 2006 stock market loves division in the house, less oversight for them to deal with. - less unilateral administration, who can do what it wants no questions asked. - less spending (proven by The Economist)

exactly

So why do Republicans-supporter cried that "We need to have a united government"?

The only reason Republican done a really good job in the Congress under Clinton, was BECAUSE Clinton was president. The only reason Clinton done a good job, it'S because he was in check by the GOP.

The only reason Bush is completely criticized worldwide, feared and ridiculed, is because no one kept him in check for the past 6 years. Republicans gave him a BLANK CHECK. Is my argument flawed?

So why do Republicans-supporter cried that "We need to have a united government"?

"We" haven't. That's what the democrats have been saying all along.

The only reason Bush is completely criticized worldwide, feared and ridiculed, is because no one kept him in check for the past 6 years. Republicans gave him a BLANK CHECK. Is my argument flawed?

And yes your arguement is flawed. The Republicans only got the congressional "majority" in 2004. So there's no way "we" handed him a blank check for 6 years. I will admit to 2 yrs (2004-2006) of being unchecked by us. Which personaly I think was rather stupid! I mean just what has he done with those 2yrs? Not much. And fyi....he's being ridiculed by others "because" they're scared of him.

And yes your arguement is flawed. The Republicans only got the congressional "majority" in 2004. So there's no way "we" handed him a blank check for 6 years. I will admit to 2 yrs (2004-2006) of being unchecked by us. Which personaly I think was rather stupid!

what about 01-02?

That's 2 more years

And not forgetting that you still were dominating the Chamber, and the Dem's majority in Senate was kinda shaking, 'cause it was a Turncoat.

So, you HAD total majority on congress for 4 of the 6 last years, and an almost-majority for the other 2.

I mean just what has he done with those 2yrs? Not much.

these were 6 years, and he's done quite a lot

And fyi....he's being ridiculed by others "because" they're scared of him.

"U.K. is scare of Bush.. Canada is scared of Bush.. Mexico is scared of Bush.. France, Spain.. etc.."

So, you think it's normal that your closest allies are scared of your leader?

"U.K. is scare of Bush.. Canada is scared of Bush.. Mexico is scared of Bush.. France, Spain.. etc.." So, you think it's normal that your closest allies are scared of your leader?

No I just don't care what they think!

what about 01-02? That's 2 more years And not forgetting that you still were dominating the Chamber, and the Dem's majority in Senate was kinda shaking, 'cause it was a Turncoat. So, you HAD total majority on congress for 4 of the 6 last years, and an almost-majority for the other 2. I mean just what has he done with those 2yrs? Not much. these were 6 years, and he's done quite a lot

Care to try again? 2001-2003 was a dead even split, no majority.

107th Congress (2001-2003) Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats) Minority Party: Republican (50 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ________ Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ______ Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats) Minority Party: Republican (49 seats) Other Parties: 1 Total Seats: 100 _____ Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Other Parties: 2 Total Seats: 100 Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

NOWHERE in the do I see a "clear" republican majority. Unless it's because you do that weird math where 1+1=3?

No I just don't care what they think!

spoken like a true jackass self-serving American! I think the Nazi German said the same things about other country's opinions during the 30s...

When your country is erring, outsiders opinion is often a good sign of your radicalism...

NOWHERE in the do I see a "clear" republican majority. Unless it's because you do that weird math where 1+1=3?

Oh my god, I just LOVE the way you enbolden the phrases. Let's read it together, shall we?

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time.

That was the part you bolden, let's see what followed...?

Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans

Hey! Strange, you totally ignore that part of the text...? hmm.. Do I hear hypocrisy, or simple analphabetism?

Or selective reading?

double-post