Don’t you find the timing odd that Pete proclaims on here he is leaving and then about 10 days later Focused on 2010 starts posting with the same themes and same style as Pete?

Also, Pete started ending all of his posts with something like “2010 is looking better every day.”

And Focused hasn’t denied it yet.

Focused on 2010 = Pete?

danbrome dodges every question asked of him. He’s not a serious person but rather a partisan, liberal Kool Aid drinker as judged by his profanity laced attacks against people who disagree with good ol’brone.

Pete? You mean Pete F.????

And what language would that be that you just used?

Never mind, obviously it is you second language.

Either that or you have spent the past 8 years in grade school trying to get it right.

You’re welcome.

Liberal danbrome: Queer eye for the dotted “i”.

would you kindly translate post #108 into English?

Thank You.

What’s absurd is the notion that Democrats are going to gain seats in the Senate after the dismal economic performance of Congress and the Obama administration so far.

Everybody here can read your statement and make their own decision.

Be fair, I quoted you very carefully, even though you think I’m a moron.

You need to learn how to read. Focused is not taking back his statement. Mark my words, the Democrat’s 60 U.S. Senators is a high water mark. The last time it happened was during Jimmy Carter and it didn’t last long. Coincidence? I’m not sure as Obama is pursuing the same economic and foreign policies that nearly ruined our country during the Carter years.

So can I assume you are taking back your statement?

Finally, you see how ridiculous it is.

Whew!

If you can’t quote me accurately don’t quote me at all.

He agrees that the Ritchie-rigged recount was bogus!

Ritchie-rigged recount Ritchie-rigged recount
Ritchie-rigged recount Ritchie-rigged recount
Ritchie-rigged recount Ritchie-rigged recount
Ritchie-rigged recount Ritchie-rigged recount

Saying that the Democrats will lose 7 senate races is far different than saying they will lose 7 seats. Bozo has stated that he meant they will lose 7 seats.

THAT is absurd, no matter how stupid you are convinced I am. The math doesn’t work Bozo.

How can you call someone a leach when you are the one who said you were leaving the site, only to come back. You keep sticking around. If that’s not a leach, I don’t know what is.

I was surprised it took so long for a leach on society to come back with a stupid response.

It’s clear that dambrone doesn’t have the sense God gave a goose.

A loss of seven seats is a loss of seven seats. The Democrats will not lose seven and make up seven for a zero net gain.

Let’s say I’m at the state fair and lose a twenty dollar bill. I’ve lost $20. An hour later I find a five dollar bill. I’ve found $5, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t also loose $20.

DJZ said “We may get to 75 Senators.”

2010 responded: “You may dream about “75 Senators” but you are more likely to lose 7 or more Senators and a much larger percentage in the House.”

You yourself agreed with Chris that 60 Democratic senators is a “high water mark.”

Why is it you pin down 2010, but ignore DJZ – whose prediction is more “absurd”?

With all due respect, for Democrats to “LOSE” 7 or more, by definition they would have to lose a NET seven seats.

Otherwise, they would not be considered to have lost 7.

For example, if the Dems win 5 races, and lose 5 races, they will have lost zero.

There is nothing to clarify.

I agree 100%.

For the record, I’m saying that the Democrat party’s current margin of 60 Senators is going to be a high water mark. Whether the Democrats lose two or three or seven will depend on how long unemployment stays above double digits. In terms of unemployment, this is already the worst recession since after WWII.

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-the-scariest-jobs-chart-ever-2009-7

For the record, are you saying that the Democrats will experience a NET LOSS of 7 senators in 2010?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

Yeah, I was off my a mile.

Funny thing is, I did pick the winner now, didn’t I? The winner was my candidate, Senator-Elect Al Franken!

I’m going to get one for the whole family.

“As for the person who said that democrats will lose 7 seats, I’m not exactly sure what sort of news your reading; what other democrats are at risk of losing besides Dodd and Reid?”

I suspect that you might be new around here, and aren’t aware of something..

Focused on 2010 is the one who said Democrats were “likely to lose 7 or more Senators”.

I suspect he has Rush Limbaugh reruns on his headset while he watches Sean Hannity’s nightly farce.

Focused? Is that about right?

Glad you’re admitting that Barry Obama is another Jimmy Carter. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You may be willing to go through the Carter years again, but I’m not. I think you need one of these:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/wbc.html

Why did blue-to-yellow dog Democrats like Collin Peterson and Tim Walz support it? Because they were threatened by Pelosi and Waxman. (In Walz’s case – think back to Pelosi’s recent visit to raise funds for him: Quid pro quo!)

We can all expect that the 44 democrats who voted no will now be given be considered “Traitor Joes” within the Democratic Party.

Darren, we’ve already got a bunch of moonbats who come here and repeat George Soros’s talking points. Read the following and take it as a lesson as to why you should think before you speak.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/the-8-cap-and-tax-republicans/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32491

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/the-8-cap-and-tax-republicans%E2%80%A6and-the-44-democrats-who-voted-no/

http://conservativethoughts.us/2009/06/27/list-of-cap-trade-turncoats/

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/speaking_tax_to_power_house_de.php

Dodd, on the other hand, has a legitimate opponent, former congressman Rob Simmons, who is a very moderate and popular republican known well throughout the state. Dodd cannot buy his way out of that race, and faces an uphill battle for re-election.

As for the person who said that democrats will lose 7 seats, I’m not exactly sure what sort of news your reading; what other democrats are at risk of losing besides Dodd and Reid? Democrats have a good chance of winning four seats where the republican is retiring (NH, MO, OH, FL); in addition GOP senator David Vitter of Lousiana is running for re-election despite being caught in a prostitute scandal, and senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky has worse approval ratings than Dodd and Reid and has attracted the democrat LT. Gov and Attorney General to challenge him.

My main point is that the democrats, unlike the republicans, embrace the moderate wing of their party. Reading the conservative blogs, you wouldn’t have any idea that 44 (yes 44) democrats voted against Pelosi on cap and trade, only that 8 traitor republicans voted for it. Democrats will find conservative candidates that can win in states that John Mccain won; if the republicans try to to the same in liberal states, the challengers will be branded as RINOs and will not get the votes of many conservatives. Until the republicans decide that winning is more important than ideological purity, they will always remain in the minority.

Jimmy Carter served 30 years ago. The Depression was 70 years ago. But I’m glad to see DJZ admit that Carter was the the worst president ever – next to Obama.

Again, you thinking that they represent some kind of relevance is yet another example of the Republicans not getting it.

How small do you have to shrink your party before you start to realize you’re out of touch?

Jimmy Carter is so long ago that its like arguing the Depression for most voters. Millions were not even born and millions more weren’t old enough to vote for him- including the current President.

You’re mired in the past because the present is confusing and the future scares you.

Step One: Admit your policies are rejected over your personalities.

Funny that Hispanics didn’t turn against the Democrat Party when you smeared Al Gonzalez and blocked the nomination of Miguel Estrada. And blacks didn’t turn against the Democrat Party when you smeared Justice Thomas and blocked the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.

Jimmy Carter tried like hell to turn the economy around and free the hostages. Voters realized that his policies were to BLAME for the economy and the hostages and they voted him out. Funny how history repeats itself because Barack Obama is pursuing the exact same Carteresque policies that led to the failed economy of the 1970s and American decline around the globe.

You still just don’t get it.

How in the hell are you going to win in Nevada or New Jersey while raising up the hate meter on Hispanics? You’ve played yourselves out with any state with a sizable Hispanic voting population. You’d been smart to go along with getting Sotomayor confirmed by the end of this month. Dragging this out just allows your leaders to insult hispanics and their organizations longer and closer to the election season.

You’re still loosing with educated people and young people. Look at the population centers in Virginia- again.

You’ve done nothing to push a message of your own. You’re now peddling Hope, hope that enough Americans are turned off by the Democrats action. Well, great. Except politicians are rewarded for trying instead of crying. Republicans have done nothing but cried since they lost the elections.

Besides, won’t you be too busy trying to defeat the eight republicans who voted for the Climate Bill? I think 3 were from New Jersey.

You still just don’t get it.

I know all you care about are polls and what far-left websites spoon feed to you. But I’d be pretty damned concerned if my party was about to lose the Governorship of New Jersey and possibly Virginia in the 2009 elections.

Remember that Republicans beat Tom Daschle because he was a liberal, bitter partisan in an otherwise red state and we’ll do the same to Harry Reid who is even more liberal and bitter than Daschle. With all of the military in Nevada, I don’t think Reid’s pronouncement that the Iraq war was lost before the surge even began was particularly popular.

For the record, are you saying that the Democrats will experience a NET LOSS of 7 senators in 2010?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

My “Franken by 503″ was a lot closer than your “likely to lose 7 or more” will ever be.

I realize that confidence can be sexy, but a little common sense is in order here.

I stand by me statement, Democrats are likely to lose 7 or more.

That’ ABSURD.