So, you prefer to talk to Dugger because, every now and again he notes that all is not perfect with the WH. I guess that means If I agreed with you more, you’d enjoy arguing with me more. Did I get that right?

You are a dumbass! In the first place, there is a major point where I disagree with President Bush, and some minor ones. It isn’t my fault you don’t know what they are, because I’m not hiding them, when it’s appropriate to raise those points. You’re just generalizing, like most of the liberals who talk out of their butts on these threads.

You say all kinds of silly crap about all kinds of things, including me, and then call me names when I make a comment about it. You make unwarranted assumptions, but demand I find “proof” of everyhting I say. You make crass generalizations about me, then wonder I get nasty and sarcastic in retaliation.

You may not be too much, but you’re damn sure more than enough.

If you didn’t like what I said, you could have kept it to yourself. You didn’t have to be a jerk, and pretend I don’t ever comment or debate — that’s just stupid.

Sometimes, what you say about another person turns to be more instructive about you than you planned — dumbass!

lmao.

Yes, Frank, I know you were trying to be funny. You succeeded (sp?), though likely not in the way you intended.

The reason I attacked you, Frank, is because I have never once seen you say or do anything which smacks of not just spouting the party line. Dugger, while we usually disagree, every now and again he notes that all is not perfect with the WH. This means that we can form small balancing center from which we can discuss things…even when I think he’s being an idiot, I’m still going to discuss his ideas because I think his mind is open..if only a tiny crack.

You, on the other hand, have never once come across as anything but a mindless, thoughtless drone. A mouth piece for a hive mind. A shill, if you will.

Which is why I don’t generally bother with you.

No, frank, I would say that a 28 point difference is four times as much as a 7 point difference, but thanks for asking.

What are you? Are you some kind of hyper-advanced AI posting bot? Do you ever actually answer an argument, or will you always, in every case, pull the political discussion of “I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! BING! FWIP!”

What a dumbass.

March 18th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
and in 2004 they gained seats as well, what was Bush polling then? >>

About 13 – 14 points higher than now.

So no, polls don’t matter as a snap shot for this pres.

And that’s why they were all so quick to back up the administration on the port fiasco, and in such unison too! They certainly didn’t want to miss out on W’s stamp of approval for this election did they? Thanks for clearing that one up.

Oliver is right about the right’s tender sensibilities. If Newswek hadn’t used the word “divided” they would have been branded part of that ubiquitous liberal media that is brain washing our minds. We sacrifice objectivity to appease the conservative extremists.

How many seats did the republicans pick up during the last election during Bush’s previous low polling point?

Is bush running for the presidency again? If not, what DOES polling matter if the republicans continue to pick up seats even as Bush’s poll numbers nadir?