There seems to be a lot of excitement among Democrats about this November's elections. They're confident they'll hold the House...they feel they have an excellent chance of capturing the White House too. And, there is even some speculation among them that they could possibly win 60 seats in the Senate.

All I can say is...be careful what you wish for. If Democrats have that much control, there will be no excused for not delivering on their promises...to end the war...to balance the budget...to raise taxes on the "rich"...

They won't be able to blame Republicans for "blocking" anything. The only party to blame will be the Democrat party.

It's going to be fun because we'll find out that they espouse certain stances...not because they actually think it's a good idea...but because you're stupid enough to believe it and give them your vote.

Sound familiar.

Yes...except that Republicans never had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. But, they did drop the ball on a number of things...and look at where it's taken them.

Yes...except that Republicans never had a 60 seat majority in the Senate.


But they had the President, also. They didn't need to worry about over-riding vetoes or anything. They had both houses and the Executive, and still tried to blame the Democrats for all their failures.

But they had the President, also. They didn't need to worry about over-riding vetoes or anything. They had both houses and the Executive, and still tried to blame the Democrats for all their failures.

Yes, and in the first session the GOP had a minority in the Senate they filibustered more bills than the Dems did during Bush's entire reign.

Yes, and in the first session the GOP had a minority in the Senate they filibustered more bills than the Dems did during Bush's entire reign.

That's what the minority party does. What other options are there when they're outnumbered?? It's the only way to stop legislation when the votes to beat it aren't there. Why is that a bad thing?? It's the right of the opposition party to use the tactic, it's legal, useful and often effective under certain circumstances.

Ol' Bobby Byrd has been quite the legendary filibusterer, along with plenty of other Democrats. Where's the criticism when it's the left doing it??

I'm afraid that Americans have become way to thin skinned and I just can't see it getting any better. Every little political battle is somehow seen as a bad thing, when it used to mean that someone had some passion about their position and that the system was working as it was designed to.

That's what the minority party does. What other options are there when they're outnumbered?? It's the only way to stop legislation when the votes to beat it aren't there. Why is that a bad thing?? It's the right of the opposition party to use the tactic, it's legal, useful and often effective under certain circumstances.

Ol' Bobby Byrd has been quite the legendary filibusterer, along with plenty of other Democrats. Where's the criticism when it's the left doing it??

I'm afraid that Americans have become way to thin skinned and I just can't see it getting any better. Every little political battle is somehow seen as a bad thing, when it used to mean that someone had some passion about their position and that the system was working as it was designed to.

The point is that the claim that the Dems are wielding some amazing level of power is absurd. And it was the right-wingers who were screaming about the Dems using the filibuster a handful of times who are now suddenly defending it? Almost ashame you guys didn't go with the nuclear option.

But they had the President, also. They didn't need to worry about over-riding vetoes or anything. They had both houses and the Executive, and still tried to blame the Democrats for all their failures.It isn't about overriding the veto...it's about having the votes to end debate.

Where's the criticism when it's the left doing it?? But when they do it, it's for a good reason!!

There seems to be a lot of excitement among Democrats about this November's elections. They're confident they'll hold the House...they feel they have an excellent chance of capturing the White House too. And, there is even some speculation among them that they could possibly win 60 seats in the Senate.

All I can say is...be careful what you wish for. If Democrats have that much control, there will be no excused for not delivering on their promises...to end the war...to balance the budget...to raise taxes on the "rich"...

They won't be able to blame Republicans for "blocking" anything. The only party to blame will be the Democrat party.

It's going to be fun because we'll find out that they espouse certain stances...not because they actually think it's a good idea...but because you're stupid enough to believe it and give them your vote.

Well after being ****ed by the Republicans it will be good to see a change. Obama is a bit too right wing for me but after having the Anti-christ as president it might be a welcome change.

Maybe after that we can get the Green party to mount a challange to the Democratic Party (after driving out the Republicans for good) and we can get some real change. :hmm:

Well after being ****ed by the Republicans it will be good to see a change.That's just the point!! I believe Democrats have no intention of delivering on their promises during this election...which is why a super big win in November could be bad for them. If all excuses for enacting it are removed, they won't have anyone else to blame.

Obama is a bit too right wing for me but after having the Anti-christ as president it might be a welcome change.Obama right-wing? Please. The guy is a solid leftist. Look at his voting record in the IL legislature...when he bothered to actually cast a vote.

As for the "anti-christ"...should I take that to mean that you think Christ or someont Christ-like would be someone you'd support for the presidency?