Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

[designwise1]

Bill, this ends for me right here.

You do not listen very well, do you?

1) I wasn't referring to a quote by you.
2) I already told you I am not a betting man. Not even on a sure thing.

Finally, I see that you do not WANT to listen. We will have to discuss other things than politics. Maybe when I know enough about the subject, cigars would be a good topic.

Good day.

[CoventryCat86]

Bill, this ends for me right here.

You do not listen very well, do you?

1) I wasn't referring to a quote by you.
2) I already told you I am not a betting man. Not even on a sure thing.

Finally, I see that you do not WANT to listen. We will have to discuss other things than politics. Maybe when I know enough about the subject, cigars would be a good topic.

Good day.

No designwize, the real problem here is YOU don't communicate very well. Where did you say you were "not a betting man?" Again, maybe I'm not as observant as I should be I don't ever remember you saying that. So if you did say that, if you could do me a favor and quote the post I would very much appreciate it.

I also not a mind reader. In your post which I quoted you sure implied that I said "At least no one died." because it immediately followed a statement that you most certainlly directed at me.

On the other hand, it is clearly YOU who either doesn't want to "listen" or possibly you have problems comprehending simple English. Either way, the problem is on your end, not mine.

On page two of this thread, you made conflicting statements, I ask you for clarification and you don't respond.

You confuse me desginwise.....

I hope you're not getting all butt hurt now because that was not my intention. I've been trying to keep my back and forth with you on the light and humorous side but your tone in this post has taken a turn towards the whiny and defensive side.

[bigpoppapuff]

bill...wtf!!!...calm down....take it out on larry....





and i still say your boy,tom reynolds, will get beat....and i've got 10 cigars to back it up....lemme know.....now go take a swig og metamucil...and calm the fuck down...we're all lovers here...not haters!!!..;

[CoventryCat86]

bill...wtf!!!...calm down....take it out on larry....





and i still say your boy,tom reynolds, will get beat....and i've got 10 cigars to back it up....lemme know.....now go take a swig og metamucil...and calm the fuck down...we're all lovers here...not haters!!!..;

I already answered your question once Sid, and I'm pretty sure you already know that but just in case you missed it, here's a link to my reply:

LINK

Why is it that you can't answer a simple question in this thread? For the fourth time:

Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

Instead, you keep responding with bullshit, what's up with that?

[SmokinDVM]

Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

The DEMOCRATS!!

[CoventryCat86]

The DEMOCRATS!!

Now I can understand why some would think that (the Evans-Novak link you provided) but again, I still think that a whole lot has to break for the Democrats to take control including winning two or three of the seats here in Connecticut which as I said in my first post, I just don't see happening.

I can convince myself that the House Republicans here in Connecticut COULD, MAY, HOPEFULLY, POSSIBLY gain eight seats in the House but honestly, we'll be lucky if we only lose two.

[designwise1]

Don't shoot the messenger!

Not based on actual facts or anything... (yeah, I know -- just like a Democrat) ...my latest prediction has the Democrats at 51 in the Senate and the Republicans at 219 in the House.
Subject to change at any given moment.