Fox decides Foley is a democrat

[Alonzo]

All's fair (and balanced) in election season. With Republicans scrambling to dodge flack from the Mark Foley (R-FL) "Pagegate" scandal, Fox News may have concocted a much simpler and direct PR strategy--if Foley's going to sink his party why not change him from an elephant to a donkey? How you ask? By subliminal messaging, of course. As first reported last night on The Brad Blog, during 2 segments of Tuesday's O'Reilly Factor, the disgraced Republican congressman was labeled in an on-screen graphic as a Democrat (D-FL).Â*Â*"There were three instances... each cutaway about 15 seconds or more."Â*Â*Take that reality!


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/10/fox_fixes_foley.html

Here's the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4591208761617153747&q=fox+foley+democrat&hl=en

[bobbylien]

Wow. I can't see someone missing it three times lol.

[Drocket]

The AP also sent out a newstory the labeled Foley as a Democrat. AP, however, issued a correction/retraction a short time later, something Fox News hasn't.

[sbannon]

FOX News motto: When in doubt... invent

[underdawg]

Wow, that is pretty bad. makes me want to do a poll.

FOX News printed this wrong because...

A. The copywriters and the proofreader were stoned

B. Rupert Murdock just couldn't bear to see Foley's name with an R in front of it and told them to put a D

C. All of FOX news is totally incompetent so they would never miss the mistake anyway

D. FOX News is just plain evil and would do or say anything to mislead the public to believe anything they say is the fair and balanced truth

E. Put a D for wishful thinking.

F. All of the above

[BoogyMan]

Couldn't have been a screw up or anything eh?

[wonder cow]

The AP also sent out a newstory the labeled Foley as a Democrat. AP, however, issued a correction/retraction a short time later, something Fox News hasn't.

Why would they? They did it on purpose.

Here is the strategy:

(1) Minimalize what he did
- - (a) The children were of age to consent (possibly)
-- (b) Under the influence of alcohol
--Â*Â*c. He was abused as a child
-- (d) Turns out he is gay
-- (e) All this same stuff happened back in the 80's with a democrat(and we will not mention that a Republican was also involved) and it was not that big a deal.

(2) Shift blame no matter how absurd
-- (a) Somehow this is Clinton's fault
-- (b) The democrats are taking advantage of this politically
--Â*Â*c. The dems knew about this earlier and was holding onto it until around the midterm elections.
-- (d) Insinuate that the whole thing is a conspiracy because it is such a coincidence that all this comes out a month from the elections

(3) Change him into a Democrat even though he is a hard core Gigrich Republican.
-- (a) Make intentional typos by changing an "R" to a "D"
-- (b) Lie about his record to say, ghee, you know, the guy was really more of a Democrat all along. Even though he was part of the so called Republican Revolution spearheaded by Newt and even though his name is on the Contract for America.

(4) Lie your ass off. Lie, lie, lie.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, the forces of assumption and complete and utter misdirection are strong with you tonight Cow. Got any proof of that nice little conspiracy card-house you just posted?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I been telling you folks he's not a Republican.
2. If he were a real Conservative he wouldn't be gay.
3. Listen to me, and learn, I know my stuff.
3. a) Seems Fox heard me too.
4. He's a liberal.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[sbannon]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I been telling you folks he's not a Republican.
2. If he were a real Conservative he wouldn't be gay.
3. Listen to me, and learn, I know my stuff.
3. a) Seems Fox heard me too.
4. He's a liberal.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


He's a lot of things... he's not a liberal.

[underdawg]

No way is Foley a liberal. If he were, he would have voted for liberal causes. He is a self hating, closeted homosexual who votes against homosexual rights to make his peers believe is is straight. I think there are a lot more closeted homosexuals in the Republican party than most people realize. They have wives , families, and attend church regularly. The most likely closeted homosexuals are usually the more outspoken critics agaist homosexuality. The reason they are so anti-gay is to keep suspicion away from themselves. The last thing in the world that they want is to be outed and publicly embarrassed. From what I have learned, the straight guys who are more sure of their heterosexuality, tend to not care one way or the other what gay guys do. I of all people know this. I spent half my life in the closet.

[CheesyMuslim]

No way is Foley a liberal. If he were, he would have voted for liberal causes. He is a self hating, closeted homosexual who votes against homosexual rights to make his peers believe is is straight. I think there are a lot more closeted homosexuals in the Republican party than most people realize. They have wives , families, and attend church regularly. The most likely closeted homosexuals are usually the more outspoken critics agaist homosexuality. The reason they are so anti-gay is to keep suspicion away from themselves. The last thing in the world that they want is to be outed and publicly embarrassed. From what I have learned, the straight guys who are more sure of their heterosexuality, tend to not care one way or the other what gay guys do. I of all people know this. I spent half my life in the closet.



Sorry bout that,

1. Woe, Woe, ... But thats to much information there dude.
2. Foley wasn't what he said he was.
3. He's a lib, plain and simple.
4. I am sure he was a Rino voter, blocking the Republicans efforts.
5. We need to uproot these weeds.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Labrocca]

Who cares what Fox news says? What Fox says about his party affiliation doesn't mean squat. As for the rest of your rant Underdawg..not sure what you are getting at in this context.

There could be a lot of closeted gays in the Republican party but who cares. I would think there are equal gays in the Republican and Democratic party. Maybe those that are Democrats are more open about it and that's about it.

[Alonzo]

Under normal circumstances there are probably equal gays in the republican party. But the largely anti-homosexual stance taken by republicans probably artificially inflates the amount of homosexuals in the democratic party, similar to how minority issues place a disporportionate amount of blacks in the democratic party as well.

[underdawg]

I agree, I believe there are probably almost as many closeted gays in the Democratic party as there are in the Republican party. I only refered to the Republican party because of the term RINO, I haven't seen the term DINO mentioned yet. My main point was that just because someone is gay does not automaticly make them liberal. And it just makes sense in hindsite that Foley would be pretty outspoken against gay rights and be verbally against child predators to distract others from thinking he was gay and a predator himself.

[Labrocca]

My main point was that just because someone is gay does not automaticly make them liberal.

That only strengthen the argument that Republicans are not against gays. There are openly gay Republicans as well. I personally don't feel that the party is anti-gay as much as pro-family. I feel there is a difference. Where are the statistics showing that gay families can be as traditional as the family with man/woman/children? Now before you speak out against me being anti-gay. We have 2 seperate family friends that are gay..one is a lesbian couple with 2 children (child is from one of the women and a man from a gay couple via insemination). While I find their family dynamic odd...I am not against them. I just would like to see how well gays are doing as families. That's imho the whole basis for the gay marriage rights is so they can become families...yet imho if the stats aren't there to show they can be productive families then what's the point?

Maybe I taking this too off-topic.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I equate being gay as being Liberal.
2. Always.
3. I do not see how a *Conservative* can be gay.
4. Call me old fashioned if you will.
5. But gays and Conservatives do not mix.
6. They are contrary to one another.
7. We all know that.
8. Its the *Republican Conservatives* who stand up against *Gay Marriage.*
9. This makes them plainly at odds.
10 Foley's a Liberal Gay Rino.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[sbannon]

Labrocca, I appreciate where you're coming from and it seems like a logical line of thinking. The only question I'd have though is that 1 out of 2 heterosexual marriages don't do well as families in America and end in divorce. Does that mean you'd support same-sex marriage rights if statistics showed that just half of same sex couples would likely "go the distance"?

[Alonzo]

My main point was that just because someone is gay does not automaticly make them liberal.

That only strengthen the argument that Republicans are not against gays.Â*Â*There are openly gay Republicans as well.Â*Â*I personally don't feel that the party is anti-gay as much as pro-family.Â*Â*I feel there is a difference. Where are the statistics showing that gay families can be as traditional as the family with man/woman/children?Â*Â*Now before you speak out against me being anti-gay.Â*Â*We have 2 seperate family friends that are gay..one is a lesbian couple with 2 children (child is from one of the women and a man from a gay couple via insemination).Â*Â*While I find their family dynamic odd...I am not against them. I just would like to see how well gays are doing as families. That's imho the whole basis for the gay marriage rights is so they can become families...yet imho if the stats aren't there to show they can be productive families then what's the point?Â*Â*

Maybe I taking this too off-topic.


If republicans were not anti-gay, then there were be no support for anti-sodomy laws, there would be support for laws protecting certain rights of homosexuals, such as inheriting property and hospital visitation rights for hospitalized partners. In many cases they are dealt with as friends of the individual, nothing more.

Some republicans aren't anti-homosexual, but many are. I've yet to meet someone who claimed to be pro family but did not hold negative views of homosexuals. Many don't have a problem with homosexuals per se, but it's more "I like them despite their problem". If someone has absolutely no issue with homosexuality in non parenting situations, but claims to be pro family and wants to ban same sex parenting, and extending right to already existing families, then they're misguided. That's the most mild way I can phrase it. In light of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support that position, but relatively sizeable evidence for the opposing side, I can't think of any other way of putting it.

I wasn't going to go into this, but I remembered I already made posts relating to this so all I had to do was cut and paste:

No evidence suggests that there are any disadvantages to having homosexual parents:

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.


http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Here's the summary (and an excerpt of it) of findings on homosexual parents:

Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded....

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes....

The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biologic sex. None of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers.......

Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms...

Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother’s homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=homosexuality&searchid=QID_NOT_SET


The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, all the largest and most respected organizations in their field, have echoed the same results.

[underdawg]

I suppose the Republican party is not against gays as long as they know their place. If those uppity gays get married it will hurt our way of life. Sounds to me like the white people in the 60s when they just couldn't understand why blacks weren't happy because they couldn't drink out of white water fountains, or go to white schools, or ride in the front of the bus. Sure doesn't sound like the Republican party is for gays by trying to deny them the same rights that straight people take for granted. Even trying to make an ammendment to the constitution to deny us rights. Its just wrong pure and simple.

[Drocket]

I suppose the Republican party is not against gays as long as they know their place.
In the closet molesting children? :P

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I see this whole support for gay marriage coming from those libs who failed in their marriages.
2. They say to themselves, " Hey I failed in marriage, let gays try, see if they can make it work".
3. But libs always have a problem staying married, they are mostly mad or insane type of people, because they swallow down so much bile from the Democrats.
4. After awhile they go nutty, its part of the territory.
5. It is a subtle insanity, that is like taking small amounts of poison, till it builds up in your system, till it robs your brain and soul.
6. Errr,... good luck with that!

Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But I see this whole support for gay marriage coming from those libs who failed in their marriages.
2. They say to themselves, " Hey I failed in marriage, let gays try, see if they can make it work".


Nice utter lie there Chess. I have been happily married for going on 21 years now and I am FOR gay marriage. Hardly a failure.

So far the only thing you have proven Chess is that you like to spout off lies and propaganda. This has been proven.

[Drocket]

3. But libs always have a problem staying married, they are mostly mad or insane type of people, because they swallow down so much bile from the Democrats.

Its remarkable how misinformed you are. Democratic-leaning states have, on average, divorce rates vastly lower than Republican-leaning states:

States with the LOWEST divorce rates:
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New Jersey
Rhode Island
New York

States with the HIGHEST divorce rates:
Nevada (this one is pretty predictable :P )
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Wyoming

Link (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html)

[Alonzo]

Better liberal up chess. You must for the sake of families and children.

[CheesyMuslim]

Better liberal up chess. You must for the sake of families and children.






Sorry bout that,

1. But Zo, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Gays anywhere in society are harmful.
3. Its a fact, and most people in the know, know this.
4. Foley is a Rino, search his record.
5. It can be proven easily, but no one brings up this fact here.
6. I know it already.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

So liberals and their low divorce rates are bad for society?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if you never get married but shack up, then you can't get divorced.
2. Its simple, no wedding, no divorce.
3. That's what gays do to people, they lose all respect for marriage, and just shack it up.
4. This is what happens to a society that embraces home sexual marriages.
5. Its a fact, read em and weep.

Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

[Alonzo]

Let's look at it another way. Using Drockets statistics, I added in the unmarried birth rates in the best and worst states for divorce rates:

Unmarried births in states with the lowest divorce rates
Massachusetts- 26.5%
Connecticut- 29.3%
New Jersey-28.9%

Unmarried births in states with the HIGHEST divorce rates:
Nevada- 36.4%
Arkansas- 35.7%
Oklahoma- 34.3%

Some other notable red states:

Mississippi- 46%
Georgia- 37%
Texas- 30.5%
Louisiana- 45.6%

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/mstatus.html

Protect families. Vote liberal.

[wonder cow]

Wow, the forces of assumption and complete and utter misdirection are strong with you tonight Cow. Got any proof of that nice little conspiracy card-house you just posted?

I just call them like I see them. This is what is going on, if you watch the coverage. Actually, each thing on my list has come to pass with the exception of claiming that Foley was not a "real" republican. That will follow if this story continues to make lots of noise.

And I'm not saying Reps called a meeting and put all this down on paper. This just kicks in automatically.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, the forces of assumption and complete and utter misdirection are strong with you tonight Cow. Got any proof of that nice little conspiracy card-house you just posted?

I just call them like I see them. This is what is going on, if you watch the coverage. Actually, each thing on my list has come to pass with the exception of claiming that Foley was not a "real" republican. That will follow if this story continues to make lots of noise.

And I'm not saying Reps called a meeting and put all this down on paper. This just kicks in automatically.

My comment still stands. I hope the wind doesn't blow too hard on that card house of assumption you keep building.

There is more media out there to listen to than Chris Matthews. Change the channel, it will do you some good.

[CheesyMuslim]

Let's look at it another way. Using Drockets statistics, I added in the unmarried birth rates in the best and worst states for divorce rates:

[quote]Unmarried births in states with the lowest divorce rates
Massachusetts- 26.5%
Connecticut- 29.3%
New Jersey-28.9%

Unmarried births in states with the HIGHEST divorce rates:
Nevada- 36.4%
Arkansas- 35.7%
Oklahoma- 34.3%

Some other notable red states:

Mississippi- 46%
Georgia- 37%
Texas- 30.5%
Louisiana- 45.6%


Sorry bout that,

1. But these stats just prove their immoral posture up north.
2. Couples are doing the shag a delic thing.
3. And not bothering to marry, and taking *The Pill*, or using abortions as a contraceptive.
4. These stats are telling in so many ways.
5. Sometimes a man does marry a women after she gives birth to a healthy baby.
6. But up north they just leave, after the abortions.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

So I guess Chess opposes societies that have fewer divorces, unmarried birth , accidental/unwanted children.

Sounds anti-family to me.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I oppose what denegrates normal marriages.
2. And the most denigrating thing to marriage is *gay marriages.*
3. This does two things.
3. a) You know how I love the *Does two things*.
4. First gay marriages causes normal people to be shagadelics.
5. And secondly, It lessons the resolve of regular folks to remain married, because gays are doing the same, making reprobates equal to normal married people.
6. Its sad that the genius left can not see this.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

If it lessens the resolve, then why does the only state that allows gay marriage have the lowest divorce rate?

It's funny, liberals do better with protecting families yet conservatives are the ones whining about it.

[Elrathin]

But when a X is marked over Cheneys face for .5 sec by CNN, the conservatives go Nuts. Wow, how the hypocrisy flows here.

[BoogyMan]

It's funny, liberals do better with protecting families yet conservatives are the ones whining about it.


Liberals do WHAT????? Bwahahahhahahahaha.

[Elrathin]

Liberals do WHAT????? Bwahahahhahahahaha.


Conservatives work for the rich, noone more.

More housing forclosures in the history of the U.S.
More people dipping into their savings to make ends meet.
And more people working two jobs to help ends meet.

But hey, the rich got their tax cuts, so who cares?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I just explained why.
2. You are talking in circles bud.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

2. You are talking in circles bud.



Yes, you are talking in circles.

[Alonzo]

It's funny, liberals do better with protecting families yet conservatives are the ones whining about it.


Liberals do WHAT????? Bwahahahhahahahaha.


Low divorce rates, higher rates of married parents, and planned pregnancies are found at better levels in liberal areas. Liberals also favor policies such as maternity, paternity leave, and affordable, day care, which has less support among conservatives overall. Plus, more controversially, liberals also want more done to keep immigrant families together and to protect homosexual families with children.

At the end of the day, who produces more stable families overall? Conservatives are more traditional and may favor laws that appear pro family when taken at face value, but in the end, who gets better results? If the conservatives do a better job, then why isn't it showing up in the evidence?

Utah excels in many of the areas conservatives want to, but in most areas that's the only conservative representative near the top. And that state differs significantly from the rest.

[BoogyMan]

It's funny, liberals do better with protecting families yet conservatives are the ones whining about it.


Liberals do WHAT????? Bwahahahhahahahaha.


Low divorce rates, higher rates of married parents, and planned pregnancies are found at better levels in liberal areas. Liberals also favor policies such as maternity, paternity leave, and affordable, day care, which has less support among conservatives overall. Plus, more controversially, liberals also want more done to keep immigrant families together and to protect homosexual families with children.

At the end of the day, who produces more stable families overall? Conservatives are more traditional and may favor laws that appear pro family when taken at face value, but in the end, who gets better results? If the conservatives do a better job, then why isn't it showing up in the evidence?

Utah excels in many of the areas conservatives want to, but in most areas that's the only conservative representative near the top. And that state differs significantly from the rest.


I know you want to paint this as a liberal vs conservative population issue but it would be and is dishonest to take those two categorizations and try to wedge the entirety of the system of variables that should go into any evaluation of causality into them.

[Alonzo]

Boogy, I was debating with chess. I don't take him seriously and I don't debate him as if I did. I don't really find anything wrong with that I said, but how I have been phrasing it isn't really consistent with my opinion either, as it's rather simplistic.

But I do believe, and as far as I'm concerned the evidence supports that, that liberals areas do a better job of protecting families. Largely because liberals are more willing to deal with human nature as it is, instead of trying to instilling private morals. The issue of same sex marriage is a perfect example, and so is the issue of sex education.

[BoogyMan]

I must diagree most heartily. Liberals do a good job of tearing down traditional family in favor of their desire to redefine family to include the moral depravity that they refuse to repudiate.

[Elrathin]

Liberals do a good job of tearing down traditional family in favor of their desire to redefine family to include the moral depravity that they refuse to repudiate.


You mean like those that were WHINING about Clinton having an affair when most were also having an affair as well?

Yeah right. Conservatives are morally on the high ground like terrorists are.

[BoogyMan]

Liberals do a good job of tearing down traditional family in favor of their desire to redefine family to include the moral depravity that they refuse to repudiate.


You mean like those that were WHINING about Clinton having an affair when most were also having an affair as well?

Yeah right.Â*Â*Conservatives are morally on the high ground like terrorists are.


Which "those that were whining" are you ranting about Elrathin? I was digusted by it, I havent had an affair. I don't know of any that have that I am affiliated with. Which ones Elrathin?

I can see that you have chosen the high road in this discussion.

[Elrathin]

I can see that you have chosen the high road in this discussion.


Nope I haven'r chosen the high road. ONly commenting on the ones like gingrich that was having an affair or had one at the time of them condemning Clinton.

The fact is I claim no high road at all on this discussion, only point at the hypocrisy of those that DO try to claim the high moral ground for their party.

If you think your party or any party has the title of "moral" than you have no idea of how congress is run IMO.

Congress, the Senate, hell even the presidency has no high moral ground over ANYTHING. To think anything else, is dreaming.

The truth of the matter is that people right now are working for this administration and not the other way around like it should be. Whatever happened to public servents?

[BoogyMan]

I can see that you have chosen the high road in this discussion.


Nope I haven'r chosen the high road.Â*Â*ONly commenting on the ones like gingrich that was having an affair or had one at the time of them condemning Clinton.

The fact is I claim no high road at all on this discussion, only point at the hypocrisy of those that DO try to claim the high moral ground for their party.

If you think your party or any party has the title of "moral" than you have no idea of how congress is run IMO.

Congress, the Senate, hell even the presidency has no high moral ground over ANYTHING.Â*Â*To think anything else, is dreaming.

The truth of the matter is that people right now are working for this administration and not the other way around like it should be.Â*Â*Whatever happened to public servents?


I hate to point this out to you Elrathin, but if the Democrats get back into power, it wont be any different. You actually think Nancy Pelosi would give you or your needs a second thought? If so, you might need to open what are most likely very tightly shut eyes.

[Elrathin]

I hate to point this out to you Elrathin, but if the Democrats get back into power, it wont be any different. You actually think Nancy Pelosi would give you or your needs a second thought? If so, you might need to open what are most likely very tightly shut eyes.


The thing is "Staying the Course" isn't working either. I'd rather take the chance of change than sticking to the BS that has been given to us.

I agree in the fact that it may not change, but with Republicans in charge, I KNOW IT WON'T CHANGE. I choose the devil I don't know for the devil I know.

When there is ever a chance to actually vote for "None of the Above" and if "None of the Above" wins there is a new election, I will be right there voting that way. But until then I vote for change.

[BoogyMan]

Elrathin, you have bought the DNCs talking points hook, line, and sinker.Â*Â*If the war in Iraq is the bee in your bonnet, do you actually believe that the liberals in congress who voted for it are going to make the moronic move of running out of there and leaving the country in a destabilized mess with AQ running wild?

If you are on the "toss em all out" squad you and I can stand shoulder to shoulder and work for change, but I wouldn't whiz on most of the congress critters right now if they were on fire.

[Elrathin]

If you are on the "toss em all out" squad you and I can stand shoulder to shoulder and work for change, but I wouldn't whiz on most of the congress critters right now if they were on fire.


That has been my stance from the start. But, by that stance, that would mean democrats would gain control of congress mathmatically and statistically. Can you handle that?

It is simple math. Republicans control the house and senate. I am working to get rid of everyone in congress and the senate. By logical choice that means that the control would either gain to independent or democrat if that were to happen.

[BoogyMan]

That has been my stance from the start.Â*Â*But, by that stance, that would mean democrats would gain control of congress mathmatically and statistically.Â*Â*Can you handle that?

It is simple math.Â*Â*Republicans control the house and senate.Â*Â*I am working to get rid of everyone in congress and the senate.Â*Â*By logical choice that means that the control would either gain to independent or democrat if that were to happen.


I don't see that as the only outcome.

[Elrathin]

I don't see that as the only outcome.


Ok if you subscribe to the "Toss them all out" attitude and you toss all the republicans out and democrats out that are in there now, what other outcome can you come to besides a democrat or independent control of the house and senate considering that republicans have the control now?

[BoogyMan]

Since we are discussing a fictional outcome to a completely unfeasible desire I would like to see constitutional candidates take the seats.

[Elrathin]

Since we are discussing a fictional outcome to a completely unfeasible desire I would like to see constitutional candidates take the seats.


It's only fictional or unfeasible as long as the majority of Americans believe in the "we can't make a difference" crowd and they don't vote. It also requires people to actually be involved in politics and not with the "My parents are a <insert party here> and so am I" crowd.

But you may be right, there may be no hope for America as long as they remain ignorant and stupid of politics beyond the "one topic" wonders.