Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an 'end to the two-day workweek.' And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point. But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January. The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills. Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, 'I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.' His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington. 'Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?' asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/washington/27cong.html?ei=5065&en=439f1f8fa2e28929&ex=1194148800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Fact really is stranger than fiction. And the timing on this is horrible.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 11:46:08 AM

Do you have a job?

10/29/2007 11:48:40 AM

I mean i guess they are just following the example set by Bush since he currently takes more vacation days per year than any previous president.

10/29/2007 11:53:14 AM

^^ I telecommute--and I'm in graduate school--thanks for asking. And you?

BTW, could you address the topic or GTFO. Thanks again.

^ Yeah. . .BUSH DID IT!!!1 I'M A BIG HATE FACE!!!1 HUUUUURRRRRRR. . .*gasp*. . .rrrrrrrr.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 11:54:22 AM

i work 40+ hours a week in an office as an engineer.

my post was relevant by trying to justify why congress is trying to act as they are.

10/29/2007 11:56:51 AM

Why don't you just post the entire story instead of the part that lets you make another

Quote :

"what insignificant shit did the dems do today that hooksaw wants to vagina bleed about"

10/29/2007 12:00:35 PM

Quote :

" Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington."

Remember in kill bill, when bud told his boss that it didn't matter that he was late, because when he was there he didn't do anything anyway, and his boss says:

"You're saying that the reason... that you're not doing the job... that I'm... paying you to do... is, that you don't have a job to do? Is that what you're saying? What are you trying to convince me of, exactly? That you're as useless as an asshole right here? (points at elbow) Well guess what, Buddy. I think, you just fucking convinced me! "

10/29/2007 12:00:36 PM

^^^ How much of that alleged 40+ is spent right here, HUR the Engineer?

^^ Yeah, everything's insignificant to you, motherfucker--except what Republicans do. Glad to see that you think your lawmakers working even less for you is insignificant. GG.

^ I think you went around your elbow to get to the ass of that post.

10/29/2007 12:06:37 PM

Quote :

"^^ I telecommute--and I'm in graduate school--thanks for asking. And you? BTW, could you address the topic or GTFO. Thanks again."

Ok. I am shocked, SHOCKED, that Democratic and Republican politicians go back on their word and do not follow through on their promises.

You're not a naive innocent six-year-old. Neither is anyone else on this forum. All politicians are schmucks. So what do you actually think you're accomplishing by scoring a political point here and there when you're not changing anyone's mind about politics and what they personally believe? If you want people to treat you like a god for posting up articles about stuff we already know, go to RedState, TownHall, or a Rush Limbaugh forum. You have no intention of creating a meaningful discussion with this thread, you just wanted to go on a dick-waving contest with lefties in part of your effort to "prove" that Republicans are superior.

That comment is the same for lefties on here and DailyKos.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 12:18 PM. Reason : /]

10/29/2007 12:15:01 PM

Quote :

" ^^ Yeah, everything's insignificant to you, motherfucker--except what Republicans do. Glad to see that you think your lawmakers working even less for you is insignificant. GG."

Way to characterize my position incorrectly! Make a post about it now, thats the next step. Please include the rolleyes. While you're at it, please include these snippets from the article where you left them out the first time around:

Quote :

"On Wednesday, the House cast its one-thousandth roll-call vote of the year, the first time that it reached that mark since the Constitution was ratified. Democrats hailed the occasion, while Republicans sniped that only 106 of the votes were on bills ultimately signed into law, and that 45 of those bestowed names on post offices or other property."

Quote :

"Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said."

Lets be honest here hooky, the Dems will at least attempt more work in the same amount of time than the repubs ever did.

10/29/2007 12:15:03 PM

^^ Wrong. I'm not a Republican.

^ Wrong.

Quote :

"And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point."

PS:

Quote :

"attempt"

A Democratic mandate to "attempt." GG! (It's back--for foamies only!)

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 12:24:41 PM

Quote :

"^^ Wrong. I'm not a Republican."

So that leaves the Constitution Party.

10/29/2007 12:29:27 PM

Yea, it's "attempt" because you define "work" as bills passed, when everyone in here with half a brain can see it's damn near impossible with the Republicans blocking everything they attempt.

You're flat out wrong on this one hooky, next insignificant shit, next thread, lets move right along.

10/29/2007 12:30:58 PM

^ PS: I shouldn't have to point this out, but I do not have a "vagina." And if I did, it wouldn't have time to "bleed."

10/29/2007 12:34:01 PM

10/29/2007 12:37:38 PM

You may not have a vagina but you sure do act like a slighted woman each time the Democrats even look in your general direction with a constipated look.

10/29/2007 12:41:47 PM

Quote :

"How much of that alleged 40+ is spent right here"

the nature of my job allows me time to post on TWW while fulfilling my duties to 100%

10/29/2007 12:42:21 PM

^ Can we run that by your boss? Just asking.

10/29/2007 12:58:05 PM

Look dude

All your snickering, and this goes to all right wing voters, isn't going to change the fact that the US government, as it stands now, is broken. Thats not funny, cute, or ironic. Its a tragedy, one whose solution isn't available in either party.

10/29/2007 1:08:08 PM

^

Quote :

"You say you got a real solution / Well, you know / We'd all love to see the plan"

Quote :

"But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao / You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

10/29/2007 1:29:30 PM

^ If i pay the toll can i cross the bridge???




[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : a]

10/29/2007 1:30:49 PM

on some days, hooksaw is as bad as Twista ever was.

10/29/2007 1:32:27 PM

kooksaw is far worse than twista

10/29/2007 1:38:54 PM

NoChance = Ass

^ Fuck you, too. You two and several more like you here are a bunch of chronic complainers who don't have a decent original thought among you.

1. How many fantastic threads have you enlightened us with? Huh? Let's see 'em, know-it-alls.

2. Have any of your posts been on topic for more than a moment? Do you have ADD? What's the deal?

3. If my posts are so "insignificant," why do you bother with them? Are you stupid? "I can't quit you, hooksaw threads!"

4. You don't know me or even what I stand for. You have a caricature of me in your minds that fits your narrow narrative of Christian Republicans--and I happen to be neither.

5. Did you ever consider that my threads might be an attempt to balance the overwhelmingly liberal TSB?

6. Did you ever consider that I'm not the one you actually loathe? That the one you loathe is looking at you in the mirror every morning?



[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 1:39:01 PM

That doesn't even make sense? Were you trying to say the Democrats get more done in the same amount of time as the Republicans?

10/29/2007 1:45:02 PM

^ Read it again, idiot.

10/29/2007 1:51:04 PM

another abortion of a thread brought to you by hooksaw

10/29/2007 1:52:12 PM

^ Can you motherfuckers troll and circle jerk any harder, for fuck's sake?

10/29/2007 1:54:19 PM

Quote :

" 5. Did you ever consider that my threads might be an attempt to balance the overwhelmingly liberal TSB? "

by making everyone quit posting on the forums?

you're not adding anything, you're just being annoying. maybe if you tried actually debating with people you could CONVINCE them you're right.

10/29/2007 1:54:37 PM

Quote :

"5. Did you ever consider that my threads might be an attempt to balance the overwhelmingly liberal TSB? "

If that's the case, then it would explain why they come off as so poorly thought out and idiotic, and why your arguments, since they are artificial, are so illogical and weak.

Quote :

"4. You don't know me or even what I stand for. You have a caricature of me in your minds that fits your narrow narrative of Christian Republicans--and I happen to be neither. "

This goes both ways you know. You don't know me, and I don't see you as some caricature of a Christian Republican. There are tons of Christian Republicans, on this very board even, that I respect.

Quote :

"2. Have any of your posts been on topic for more than a moment? Do you have ADD? What's the deal? "

Pot->Kettle, black

You're the chief one for replying with an off-topic remark.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2007 1:55:05 PM

Quote :

"5. Did you ever consider that my threads might be an attempt to balance the overwhelmingly liberal TSB?"

shit i'm not even liberal

10/29/2007 1:55:08 PM

Quote :

"who don't have a decent original thought among you. "

I wouldn't consider taking petty anti-Democrat stories and posting them here, devoid of any commentary, "decent original thought".

Quote :

"How many fantastic threads have you enlightened us with? Huh? Let's see 'em, know-it-alls."

It's kinda like the Iraq war, sometimes doing nothing, is better than doing anything you would have chosen to do.

Quote :

"2. Have any of your posts been on topic for more than a moment? Do you have ADD? What's the deal? "

Sure, you didn't address it in any reasonable or coherent fashion, so the discussion was dead at that point.

Quote :

"If my posts are so "insignificant," why do you bother with them? Are you stupid? "I can't quit you, hooksaw threads!" "

It to keep reminding you that they are, in hopes that you'll actually get the message and stop with the bullshit.

Quote :

"4. You don't know me or even what I stand for. You have a caricature of me in your minds that fits your narrow narrative of Christian Republicans--and I happen to be neither."

You mean grumpy old bored guy that likes to stir up trouble in this section is a valid caricature?

Quote :

"Did you ever consider that my threads might be an attempt to balance the overwhelmingly liberal TSB? "

You're not doing a very good job of it. Furthermore, to what end? You're just watering this section down. Pyrrhic victory!

Quote :

"Did you ever consider that I'm not the one you actually loathe? That the one you loathe is looking at you in the mirror every morning? "

I don't actually loathe you. Sorry.

10/29/2007 1:56:37 PM

I'm starting to enjoy these threads. TreeTwista10 is pretty consistently himself, and its gotten rerpetitive and boring -- at least it has to me -- but I'm enjoying watching hooksaw's gradual descent into madness and the decreasing rationality of his responses.

It's like he enjoys pissing on an electric fence, gets angry when he gets zapped, but doesn't stop, and loses a little sanity each time he tries.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : -zap-]

10/29/2007 3:00:51 PM

^ I'm still solid as a rock. (Cue music.)

10/29/2007 3:42:04 PM

^^ you know I was thinking the exact same thing. I really only come to the SB to watch mini-internet soap operas.

Also you should come to Starkville MS this weekend. We pardoning your idol

http://www.pardonjohnnycash.com/

10/29/2007 7:24:45 PM

will you fucking idiots quit spending half the time digging at each other and just debate issues?

10/29/2007 10:36:18 PM

^.

10/29/2007 11:47:10 PM

^^ there's not really anything to debate here.

Flying Ryan made a good long post.

Kooksaw replied simply with "wrong."

Thread collapses.

10/29/2007 11:52:44 PM

^ Take points 1 through 3 and post again in the morning.

Quote :

"1. How many fantastic threads have you enlightened us with? Huh? Let's see 'em, know-it-alls. 2. Have any of your posts been on topic for more than a moment? Do you have ADD? What's the deal? 3. If my posts are so 'insignificant,' why do you bother with them? Are you stupid? 'I can't quit you, hooksaw threads!'"

10/30/2007 10:22:12 PM

Bush: "Congress is not getting its work done."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/10/17/VI2007101701175.html

10/31/2007 1:21:16 AM

Legitimate call-out on the Turkey thing. That was a stupid fucking idea by Nancy Pelosi.

Everything else though is fucking retarded. What is the point of this press conference? To point out the fact that Bush is vetoing the ideas of congresspersons that the American people voted for just last year? How are they supposed to get anything done if he vetos everything they send to him? I understand that the political system has checks and balances, but he's being a straight up bitch in that press conference. You can tell because he has that fucking smirk on his face when he thinks he being clever.

"I told China this and I told China that and dagnabbit, they just won't do what I say." His arrogance is astounding. He has the worst people skills I've ever seen. Maybe if he would "suggest" and "ask that they entertain the idea" instead of "demanding" that they change. Independent, autonomous nations respond much more positively when they're not "told" to do something.

10/31/2007 1:33:30 AM

^ God damn--that's some whiny shit there.

Quote :

"How are they supposed to get anything done if he vetos everything they send to him?"

1. Um. . .because that's how the system work?

2. Pelosi is possibly the worst speaker ever and Reid could be an even worse leader.

A complete Democratic failure

Quote :

"Nancy Pelosi is such a complete, utter, failure as Speaker of the House that even she admits it. When a politician admits failure, you know they realize they've screwed up big time."

Quote :

"The blame is not Pelosi's alone. That corrupt political hack from Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is just as big a failure when it comes to delivering on political promises. So are other members of the Democratic Party who have backed down, time and time again, to the demands of a despot named George W. Bush."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3541

A leftist wrote that--not a conservative.

3. And it's payback time for congressional Democrats, motherfuckers.

Quote :

"Democrats, who once infuriated Republicans by using the extraordinary power of the Senate minority to block action, are feeling the brunt of an institutional constraint that is little understood by the public. No case was clearer than Iraq, where Democrats spent most of their first months in power confronting Bush by attaching withdrawal conditions to war funding, only to back down in the end after a veto confrontation. 'The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did,' said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs scholar at Boston University. 'They're using the power of the Senate filibuster, and the power in the House when you have narrow majorities, to make a do-nothing Congress -- even when there's a lot of issues on the table, even when there's a lot of interest in accomplishing things.' The Democrats in their years in the minority made a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority -- rather than a 51-vote simple majority -- the threshold needed to pass any legislation in the Senate. Democrats routinely blocked all but the most noncontroversial bills. They created a Senate crisis in 2005 by filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, provoking Republican leaders to threaten to do away with the filibuster. That showdown was averted only by the intervention of a dozen moderates in both parties. Republicans complained at the time, but many of them are happy now. They are wielding the filibuster weapon freely in a Senate where Democrats hold 49 seats and where their majority comes from the support of two senators who are independents. And one of the Democrats, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has been sidelined for months by a stroke."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/30/MNGSCQOVNF1.DTL

Sit and spin.

10/31/2007 1:48:00 AM

I don't quite understand what your point is.

10/31/2007 1:54:56 AM

^ Well, that's too goddamned bad, isn't it?

10/31/2007 1:58:16 AM

By all means, please write the main idea you're arguing.

10/31/2007 2:01:02 AM

Pelosi's a stupid cunt. No debate there. She's as bad a leader as Bush is.

I know that's how the system works. But the system wasn't put in place so that the minority party could filibuster every single piece of legislation that tries to get passed. It's there so that they can block legislation that they're actually opposed to. It's obvious that the Republicans are using it at every opportunity just so they can say "damn, the democrats sure can't get anything done. hahaha." Funny how Bush had 1 veto in his first 6 years and 3-4 (i'm not sure... sue me) in the past 9 months. It's because they're fucking the country up just so they can politicize it.

The Democrats used the filibuster on legislation that had no reason to be there in the first place. Ideological differences that have no business being government regulated and tax cuts for the super rich. I find it sad that the Republicans were almost willing to piss on the Constitution in order to get their weak judicial nominee on the Supreme Court. I don't know about you, but to me that shows a complete disregard for all principles on which this country was founded. Then they had the gall to name that idea the "constitutional option." There is absolutely no excuse for that and if you debate that they were anything but wrong, you show the same lack of respect for America that they did.

10/31/2007 2:05:43 AM

^^ I already did--and I numbered them for easy reference. I don't work for you.

If this doesn't help, please refer to my previous post:

Quote :

"Well, that's too goddamned bad, isn't it?"

^ I'll wager that I love America more than you ever will, son. Now piss off, troll.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 2:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2007 2:06:41 AM

No, actually, I don't think you've clearly stated an idea along with your original post:

Quote :

" :article words: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/washington/27cong.html?ei=5065&en=439f1f8fa2e28929&ex=1194148800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print Fact really is stranger than fiction. And the timing on this is horrible. "

I'm curious as to what your main point is.

10/31/2007 2:09:46 AM

^ Well, in the post at issue the points were:

Quote :

"[1] Fact really is stranger than fiction. And [2]the timing on this is horrible."

How's that?

10/31/2007 2:12:49 AM

Which fact is stranger then which fiction?

Why is the timing on this horrible?

10/31/2007 2:13:49 AM