Is “bloodbath” one word or two? Bloggers and newscasters better find out, because they’re going to be using the word a lot in the next five weeks.
Here’s all the proof you need: Incumbent North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy is not only distancing himself from President Obama, he’s touting his support for “George Bush’s prescription drug plan.”
Let us repeat that just in case you’ve find it hard to comprehend:
Incumbent North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy is touting his support for “George Bush’s prescription drug plan” and saying that his Republican opponent would vote to overturn it.
We just checked. “Bloodbath” is one word.
H/T: Gateway Pundit
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (14)
"Bloodbath" I don't know. I am still getting a sick feeling that Republicans will let this opportunity slip away. Good Lord, I hope that I am wrong. Things will get really, really bad if the election goes in their favor or even stalemates.
Just another endangered politician trying to save his own lying hide.
Random thought - if it's the political season, why can't you hunt them suckers?
"You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows." (Bob Dylan)
Here's a short list of other words to describe what's coming in November, don't want to overuse bloodbath: massacre, slaughter, carnage, purge, decimation, extermination, liquidation, butchery, Roman holiday, cleansing, annihilation, substantial losses, mass termination, destruction, mow down, blow away, wipe out, thrash, rout, crush, and hammer. I'm sure there's many, many more. Oh, hurry up November, I can't wait to vote!
They have NO SHAME....They make me want to puke on them...
All the ads that Earl Pomeroy has shown on TV, NOT ONE mentions all the times he voted with the Pelosi crowd. Apparently he doesn't think those 'accomplishments' will get him re-elected, so he has to run all negative ads against his opponent Berg. It is time for term limits and if we can't enact a law for those may Nov 2nd have Pomeroy's term come to an end!
If you had voted with Pelosi, would you admit it?
Off Topic: Earl still needs to swing from a lampost since the one thing he sided with Bush on was the worst thing W did. For more info, see previous post on national debt.
In all seriousness, if this is what passes as a liberal democrat in North Dakota then that is probably why they are the only state not swimming in red ink. ND is a good canidate to host YT's whitey family hide away when the Obama really hits the fan.
As a former 13-year resident of the Flickertail State (or Roughrider State or Peace Garden State, take your pick), I can tell you that ND is surprisingly socialist. They are in the black because of oil, coal and natural gas revenues. The state government sits on nearly $1,500,000,000.00 in surplus yet they refuse to do what could easily be done by its already beleaguered taxpayers: kill personal income tax and sales tax (and while we're at it, offer property tax relief!) There is enough money in the treasury to offer about $2300.00 to every man, woman and child in ND in tax relief. ND's GOP-dominated government is about as red as any communist, as I see it, because they will not fuel (and "size") government by energy revenue receipts when it is possible. They still utilize insane taxes instead of abandoning them in such times as these. The legislature and Governor Hoeven say they want that money for "rainy days" ahead but how about they downsize state government instead of creating the need for precipitous "weather"? State government is the largest employer in ND. How can that not be considered socialist? I could go on and on but I won't.
There is an odd thing that I do not understand about state (and federal) legislatures. They seem to pass laws based on their egos, instead of the good of their subjects. TEXAS seems to be headed in a better direction, they only (so I'm told) allow their government to meet for 140 days over two years. Now would term limits accomplish the same ends? Or would T/L's just make the egotists work faster? How do we fix this? Would going back to earlier times, where you had to own land to vote make voters use more common sense? Just tossing this out for thought.
To your last question: it makes perfect sense to return to an ownership-base electorate.
Yes! To use an already too tired cliche: because voters then have "skin in the game". Whereas now, renters can vote higher property taxes, because they do not directly pay them. The problem I see is that the US is plagued with the "liberal renters" disease... (oops I stuck this in the wrong area, but I want to comment on both remarks:)
If we could figure out where to draw the lines for "literacy" the test would be perfect. BUT we also are plagued by "liberal academic's" disease. So trying to get these through a government against so many liberals, would be impossible. (Could you see Bwarney Fwank, or Crooked Charlie Wrangle voting for either of these clauses? We would have to hide them in a 2000 page health care reform, and get Skanky Pelosi to tell everyone that we have to pass it to see what's in it!)
Or at least a literacy-based electorate.
At least that "George Bush fella" was a REAL American...
These people have completely lost their minds. Damn, I miss Reagan, and Bush, hell I even miss Bill Clinton over B. Hussein and his thug boys.