Who whines more, democrats or republicans?

Question

Or is it about the same? Is one side more guilty than the other of whining about whining?

Answer 1

Anecdotally, based on watching news on TV only, I would say clearly the democrats. Of course when clitoon was in office it was the repubs doing a lot of whining but then again clitoon committed a felony for perjury and maybe it was not really whining since the man was GUILTY.

Honestly I hate the political process today. Congress is full of corrupt career politicians who only represent themselves and the big money that bought them an election.

Have you watched the negative crap ads on TV, I mean it is really disgusting that you cannot just stand up there, state your position and get votes without having to lie and smear peoples reputations, even if they are bad people.

We need to get control of congress. We need to have citizens in congress who represent us.

Ben Franklin said of congress, "They are of the People, and return again to mix with the People, having no more durable preeminence than the different Grains of Sand in an Hourglass. Such an Assembly cannot easily become dangerous to Liberty. They are the Servants of the People, sent together to do the People's Business, and promote the public Welfare; their Powers must be sufficient, or their Duties cannot be performed. They have no profitable Appointments, but a mere Payment of daily Wages, such as are scarcely equivalent to their Expences; so that, having no Chance for great Places, and enormous Salaries or Pensions, as in some Countries, there is no triguing or bribing for Elections"

We need term limits but they will not do it, we have to force them.

vote out the multi-term congress, vote for a new person who is not yet corrupted by the big money and elitism in congress, and then do it again and again until congress knows we want a congress for the people.

Answer 2

Democrats practically invented whining

Answer 3

You should have heard the Rupubs trashing Clinton while he was in office. They still trash hin, the latest when Rice said she was given no comprehensive report on threats to US. She is a liar!

"* Terrorism as a priority for the Bush administration. Former counterterrorism Richard Clarke triggered a fierce, partisan debate earlier this year when he wrote in a book that the Bush administration pre-9/11 did not take the threat of al Qaeda seriously enough. The Bush administration challenged Clarke's account and attacked him vigorously. The 9/11 commission's report does suggest the terrorism was not an A-list topic for the Bush White House:

Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached [national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his [anti-al Qaeda] 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need ...a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was "a first order threat" or a more modest worry being overblown by "chicken little" alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy." Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how... to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."

The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf ).

The lack of response to Clarke does appear to indicate that for Rice, at least, the al Qaeda threat was not a high priority. The report details the many steps the Bush administration did take in its first eight months to establish a counterterrorism policy aimed at al Qaeda. By no means were Rice and others doing nothing. But counterterrorism was not on the fast track. An example from the report:

In May, President Bush announced that Vice President Cheney would himself lead an effort looking at preparations for managing a possible attack by weapons of mass destruction and at more general problems of national preparedness. The next few months were mainly spent organizing the effort and bringing an admiral from the Sixth Fleet back to Washington to manage it. The Vice President's task force was just getting under way when the 9/11 attack occurred"

Bush deserves to be trashed!~ He is the worst thing that has EVER happened to the US!

I haven't even started on the Republican pedophile from congress yet who was doing kiddie porn on the internet!!

Republicans and Priests!!

Answer 4

Neither. Bush himself is the King of Whining!

Answer 5

In the media it is the republicans. They own most of the media, and therefore have a monopoly on whining time.

Answer 6

You seem to be the expert on whining, so why don't you tell us, Mr. Whining wizard, or can you stop whining long enough to do that?

Answer 7

Democrats

Answer 8

im a democrat but it seems that we seem to whine more. p.s. I think scubadog3 takes way to many drugs dude you ever heard of rehab?

Answer 9

It's winners versus whiners. Who's in the White House?

Answer 10

I have been listening for 6 years to Democrats whining, crying, squealing, screaming, and acting like little spoiled rich brats.
They are fun to laugh at.