Election Journal

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Neo-cons read one book and watch one station. Your first guess on both are correct. Since they leave the TV on that station, Fox will maintain the highest ratings, and gets into that "cume" ratings thing.

The rest of us hard core news watchers (who decided to maintain our intelligence) skip from station to station to get a rounded view of what's really happening. A commercial to me means an automatic switch to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc until I find one that isn't on a commercial. When I saw them labeling Foley as (D-FL), I was literally insulted that they have such low opinions of our intelligence.

But.... then again, it works for the usual Fox news viewers.

YOU are questioning the intelligence of Fox news watchers. Actually I question the intelligence of someone that cannot stand to watch BOTH SIDES of the issue being presented at the SAME TIME. Someone that ONLY wants to hear THEIR side of the issue is something less than intelligent OR NOT actually in search of the truth.

I do flip channels simply to see how slanted the other news channels are in their reporting. AND I even agree that somethings are better covered by some of the other channels. BUT, Fox by far presents the LEAST biased news reporting.

You liberals are so used to hearing slanted news most of your lives that it drives you crazy when both sides of the story are told. Or, admittedly, in some few cases presented with a conservative slant versus the normal and historical liberal slant.

What is the point in your story on your local politics?? It happens all the time---remember Hilary and NY???? She was such a long time resident----or was it maybe never a resident prior to running. Hummmm.

I was born in a particular state and much of my family still lives there, but I left there at a young age and do not claim to be from there. It would be like you leaving now to go back to TN and immediately running for office. Is she a good Mormon???? I suspect so.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Fox does not show both sides. They manipulate weaker minds into thinking they are. There are only a handful of you diehards that still believe they are "Fair and Balanced". And they teach you guys the technique of slip and avoid the same as they do.

The topic is: Fox is titling Foley as (D-FL). Are they or aren't they? If they are, is it being done because they are idiots, or is it being done because they are trying to deceive?

See? It's the same decision between the two that we always.... every time... come back to when dealing with your party. Are they idiots, or are they trying to deceive?

And once again... Both ways are bad things, and it's obvious which one is fact.

Tessa Hafen was working for Nevada as an aide to our senator during the time she wasn't in Nevada. She dealt with Nevada daily. I said that. That's makes her extremely qualified to run for congress for Nevada. She has more experience at a higher level than our current congressman on dealing with Nevada's problems.

But you see that. You just aren't going to admit it. So that leaves me with the same 2 in dealing with Bush supporters. Are they so unyielding they refuse to see it, or are they idiots? The answer there is also obvious.

[RSVX]

This thread has so many slants in it, that it may be straight...

/grabs popcorn

nothing like watching extremists battle it out... You know there will always be a show, because neither will ever give ground to the other.

[bwb3]

"Baby diapers are like politicians. They need to be changed often and for the same reason."....Robin Williams

[Electrophil]

Day 6.

Korea announces it has successfully tested a nuclear weapon.
The Iraqi VP had his 3rd sibling murdered today in Bush's daytime dope opera.
Iran calls for a nu-clar world as he jabbed at Bush. He said it in english.

Bush's 2001 "Axis of Evil" has been squarely shoved up his Foley, and the world is taking Bush about as seriously as they would take someone that has his record.

Meanwhile, a poll by Time reports the republicans have lost the mom vote... Yes, apparently there is a mom vote that leans right, but is now upset over Iraq, and is leaning left.

The Foley scandal is quiet today after the immense saturation of it on every Sunday talk show from here to Alpha Centauri.

Cut and paste of some article to keep a basic record of the polls:

New polls by Time and Newsweek magazines contain bad news for Republicans one month before the midterm election.

The Newsweek poll says President Bush's approval rating reached a new low of 33%, a three-point drop from August. According to Time's poll, Bush's overall approval rating stands at 36%, down two points from August.

The Newsweek poll shows 53% of registered voters want Democrats to win control of Congress, while 35% want the GOP to retain power.

The Time poll had similar results: 54% of registered voters said they were more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39% who favored the Republican.

"Let's face it, the Republicans are in a free fall four weeks before a midterm election," says Democratic strategist David Goodfriend. "I think what's going on here is that Americans are connecting the dots."

When asked which party is more trusted to win the war on terror, for the first time since 2001, Democrats come out on top, 44% to 37%, according to Newsweek.

Perhaps most surprising, for the first time in the Newsweek poll, voters say Democrats lead Republicans as the party of morals. When asked which party do you trust on moral values, 42% said Democrats and 36% said Republicans. The scandal over Congressman Mark Foley is not helping in that department. According to Time, almost 80% of respondents were aware of the scandal, and only 16% approve of the Republicans' handling of it.

"What it has done for Republicans is it made it difficult for them to get any traction or to get oxygen for their message," says Rep. Tom Davis, (R) Virginia. "You've got to remember that unemployment is the lowest in the US, in the world, at this point."

According to Time, 65% of voters says the Foley scandal won't make much difference in how they vote next month. But Republicans are concerned about what impact it will have on their usually loyal base.

"It may be the straw that breaks the back of Republican voters who maybe now will say, I don't want to think about voting... I'm too embarrassed," says political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

Some GOP lawmakers are questioning the timing of the Foley scandal, wondering if Democrats knew about it and leaked it close to the election.

While the Foley investigation is getting a lot of attention, polls show the most important issue is Iraq. According to Time, nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the administration's handling of the war. Both polls find a majority of Americans think the administration misled the public in building its case for the war.


There was also a listing somewhere that showed which seats had changed since last week. There was another 4 or 5 that were new to the list. All of them Republican congressional seats leaning closer to democrat. None of them were Senate seats. I lost the link before I posted.

[Electrophil]

Found the new addendum list:

Cook Report: 10/06/06 Report on Change in House Race Ratings:

CA-04 Doolittle Likely Republican to Lean Republican
CA-11 Pombo Likely Republican to Lean Republican
CO-04 Musgrave Likely Republican to Lean Republican
FL-13 Open Lean Republican to Toss Up
KY-02 Lewis Solid Republican to Lean Republican
MN-06 Open Lean Republican to Toss Up
NV-02 Open Likely Republican to Lean Republican
NY-26 Reynolds Solid Republican to Toss Up
NC-08 Hayes Solid Republican to Likely Republican
PA-04 Hart Solid Republican to Likely Republican
PA-07 Weldon Lean Republican to Toss Up
PA-10 Sherwood Lean Republican to Toss Up
WA-08 Reichert Lean Republican to Toss Up
WI-08 Open Lean Republican to Toss Up

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Bush's 2001 "Axis of Evil" has been squarely shoved up his Foley, and the world is taking Bush about as seriously as they would take someone that has his record.

wow, are you really that simple? of course Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are going to see how much they can get away with, and they will continue the taunting until we show up on their doorstep with tanks and aircraft.

you may remember this behavior from folks like Saddam Hussein, Mo Khaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, and General Santa Anna.

tell me, what is the Liberal plan for these rogue nations? i'd really love to know. talks? sanctions? a big ol' hug?

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Landshark

wow, are you really that simple? of course Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are going to see how much they can get away with, and they will continue the taunting until we show up on their doorstep with tanks and aircraft.

you may remember this behavior from folks like Saddam Hussein, Mo Khaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, and General Santa Anna.

tell me, what is the Liberal plan for these rogue nations? i'd really love to know. talks? sanctions? a big ol' hug?

There is no "liberal" plan ya beer drinking nuclar worker. That's like saying "What's the neo-con's plan, shake a bible at them?"

For the N. Koreans, the democrats... Clinton, was keeping the reactor they eventually got the weapons grade fuel from off-line. Clinton made a deal with N. Korea in 1994 with fuel oil, leaning from China, and a flat out threat that we would bomb the plant, all as bargaining chips to turn off the plant. They agreed, and shut it down under UN management. It was working great, the cost was low, and no chance for refinement of the fuel for nu-clar weapons. N. Korea was fat dumb and happy because of the fuel oil. They felt they got the better end of the deal, for they get something for nothing. The fuel oil was costing the U.S. 122 million dollars a year. Divide that into the 70 billion that was just requested for Iraq/Afghan through this October, and that would pay for about 573 years. I can deal with that kind of extortion.

But.... here comes your buddy the "decider" in 2001, and cancels the fuel oil deal with dem nasty evil axilers. That dope even gets on TV and calls them the axis of evil, which immediately ticked them all off in one deft swoop. Bush canceled the fuel oil calling it extortion.... which it was... but it was working.

5 months later, they fired up the reactor, and 4 years later they declare a successful nu-clar test.

What the dems will do after the republicans have screwed up everything so badly, is anyones guess.

So it's not a question of "what will the Dems do", it's a question of "Why did the republicans screw that up too?"

The Democrats.... or Clinton.. had a "working" plan that was costing us $122 million a year. Iraq was under UN inspections, Iran was still worried about Saddam attacking him again, and highly dependent on the US and our control of Iraq's sanctions. You think Iran is worrying about Iraq now? They own the place now! As soon as we leave, they WILL set up a coup. You idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots!!!

We "were" over here enjoying a huge peace dividend with a surging market, 3% unemployment, and an actual fiscal surplus. Remember dem "good ole days?" Clinton's only worry was Al Qaeda, but Bush wouldn't listen to him or Tenet. And we see how he handled that one too. He "allowed" us to be attacked through completely ignoring the threat.

The problem with you republicans is you are still... wow... still asleep and in denial. It's incredible that there are still a few of you diehards left. When reality is right there smacking you in the face, and you still believe... wow.

The bumper stickers have started. I seen one yesterday that said "So what's gone right?"

Well I just can't think of a damn thing. We've even suffered the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world. What's went right?

[Electrophil]

Which reminds me of something Clinton said when he tore up Fox.

Quote:

"I had less than 3 months to do something about the Cole before my term was up. I had a plan to invade Afghanistan, but couldn't get basing rights. Those rights were finally obtained after 9/11. Instead of asking me why I couldn't do something in 3 months about the Cole, why don't you go ask them why they couldn't do anything about the Cole in the 9 months prior to 9/11?"

That's a good question. A damn good question.

It's over guys... In a few months, we will never let you play with our toys again. You tear them up too much.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Day 6.

Korea announces it has successfully tested a nuclear weapon.
The Iraqi VP had his 3rd sibling murdered today in Bush's daytime dope opera.
Iran calls for a nu-clar world as he jabbed at Bush. He said it in english.

Bush's 2001 "Axis of Evil" has been squarely shoved up his Foley, and the world is taking Bush about as seriously as they would take someone that has his record.

Meanwhile, a poll by Time reports the republicans have lost the mom vote... Yes, apparently there is a mom vote that leans right, but is now upset over Iraq, and is leaning left.

The Foley scandal is quiet today after the immense saturation of it on every Sunday talk show from here to Alpha Centauri.

Cut and paste of some article to keep a basic record of the polls:

New polls by Time and Newsweek magazines contain bad news for Republicans one month before the midterm election.

The Newsweek poll says President Bush's approval rating reached a new low of 33%, a three-point drop from August. According to Time's poll, Bush's overall approval rating stands at 36%, down two points from August.

The Newsweek poll shows 53% of registered voters want Democrats to win control of Congress, while 35% want the GOP to retain power.

The Time poll had similar results: 54% of registered voters said they were more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39% who favored the Republican.

"Let's face it, the Republicans are in a free fall four weeks before a midterm election," says Democratic strategist David Goodfriend. "I think what's going on here is that Americans are connecting the dots."

When asked which party is more trusted to win the war on terror, for the first time since 2001, Democrats come out on top, 44% to 37%, according to Newsweek.

Perhaps most surprising, for the first time in the Newsweek poll, voters say Democrats lead Republicans as the party of morals. When asked which party do you trust on moral values, 42% said Democrats and 36% said Republicans. The scandal over Congressman Mark Foley is not helping in that department. According to Time, almost 80% of respondents were aware of the scandal, and only 16% approve of the Republicans' handling of it.

"What it has done for Republicans is it made it difficult for them to get any traction or to get oxygen for their message," says Rep. Tom Davis, (R) Virginia. "You've got to remember that unemployment is the lowest in the US, in the world, at this point."

According to Time, 65% of voters says the Foley scandal won't make much difference in how they vote next month. But Republicans are concerned about what impact it will have on their usually loyal base.

"It may be the straw that breaks the back of Republican voters who maybe now will say, I don't want to think about voting... I'm too embarrassed," says political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

Some GOP lawmakers are questioning the timing of the Foley scandal, wondering if Democrats knew about it and leaked it close to the election.

While the Foley investigation is getting a lot of attention, polls show the most important issue is Iraq. According to Time, nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the administration's handling of the war. Both polls find a majority of Americans think the administration misled the public in building its case for the war.


There was also a listing somewhere that showed which seats had changed since last week. There was another 4 or 5 that were new to the list. All of them Republican congressional seats leaning closer to democrat. None of them were Senate seats. I lost the link before I posted.

There is no "liberal" plan ya beer drinking nuclar worker. That's like saying "What's the neo-con's plan, shake a bible at them?"

For the N. Koreans, the democrats... Clinton, was keeping the reactor they eventually got the weapons grade fuel from off-line. Clinton made a deal with N. Korea in 1994 with fuel oil, leaning from China, and a flat out threat that we would bomb the plant, all as bargaining chips to turn off the plant. They agreed, and shut it down under UN management. It was working great, the cost was low, and no chance for refinement of the fuel for nu-clar weapons. N. Korea was fat dumb and happy because of the fuel oil. They felt they got the better end of the deal, for they get something for nothing. The fuel oil was costing the U.S. 122 million dollars a year. Divide that into the 70 billion that was just requested for Iraq/Afghan through this October, and that would pay for about 573 years. I can deal with that kind of extortion.

But.... here comes your buddy the "decider" in 2001, and cancels the fuel oil deal with dem nasty evil axilers. That dope even gets on TV and calls them the axis of evil, which immediately ticked them all off in one deft swoop. Bush canceled the fuel oil calling it extortion.... which it was... but it was working.

5 months later, they fired up the reactor, and 4 years later they declare a successful nu-clar test.

What the dems will do after the republicans have screwed up everything so badly, is anyones guess.

So it's not a question of "what will the Dems do", it's a question of "Why did the republicans screw that up too?"

The Democrats.... or Clinton.. had a "working" plan that was costing us $122 million a year. Iraq was under UN inspections, Iran was still worried about Saddam attacking him again, and highly dependent on the US and our control of Iraq's sanctions. You think Iran is worrying about Iraq now? They own the place now! As soon as we leave, they WILL set up a coup. You idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots, you idiots!!!

We "were" over here enjoying a huge peace dividend with a surging market, 3% unemployment, and an actual fiscal surplus. Remember dem "good ole days?" Clinton's only worry was Al Qaeda, but Bush wouldn't listen to him or Tenet. And we see how he handled that one too. He "allowed" us to be attacked through completely ignoring the threat.

The problem with you republicans is you are still... wow... still asleep and in denial. It's incredible that there are still a few of you diehards left. When reality is right there smacking you in the face, and you still believe... wow.

The bumper stickers have started. I seen one yesterday that said "So what's gone right?"

Well I just can't think of a damn thing. We've even suffered the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world. What's went right?

Which reminds me of something Clinton said when he tore up Fox.

Quote:

"I had less than 3 months to do something about the Cole before my term was up. I had a plan to invade Afghanistan, but couldn't get basing rights. Those rights were finally obtained after 9/11. Instead of asking me why I couldn't do something in 3 months about the Cole, why don't you go ask them why they couldn't do anything about the Cole in the 9 months prior to 9/11?"

That's a good question. A damn good question.

It's over guys... In a few months, we will nev

if one thing is certain in this world, its that Latte-Lappin' Libs like to type and paste!

type type type! paste paste paste! type, monkey type! ROFLMAOBBQoneBINGO1!!1!1

[RSVX]

So what you are saying is, that you would rather send money to a country for nothing in return, rather than spend money on our troops...

neato!

I guess by that right it would also be OK for the Democrats to say, "Hey guys... we wont go murder all of the Republicans if you pay us".

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by RSVX

So what you are saying is, that you would rather send money to a country for nothing in return, rather than spend money on our troops...

neato!

I guess by that right it would also be OK for the Democrats to say, "Hey guys... we wont go murder all of the Republicans if you pay us".

they were taking our lunch money.

wait for it.....
<type type type paste paste paste>

[Electrophil]

I oughta go find something about 12 pages long and paste it in here.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by RSVX

So what you are saying is, that you would rather send money to a country for nothing in return, rather than spend money on our troops...

neato!

I guess by that right it would also be OK for the Democrats to say, "Hey guys... we wont go murder all of the Republicans if you pay us".

I'd rather give them a big ol fat raise than send the money to Iraq where they run around dodging ied's. Bring em' home, and give em' a beer. Say great job, and let em' go home and play with the dog for a while. Maybe fix that roof or something. His wife is getting pretty ticked off with all these friggen deployments.

(Oops... that was very un-democrat.. I mean "his or her spouse has concerns over the level of deployments.... I'm still trying to get use to this democrat way of speaking.)

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Which reminds me of something Clinton said when he tore up Fox.

I saw that session very differently. Clinton overreacted to a simple question, was extremely defensive, lost his cool and quite frankly looked rather stupid. It was obvious that he was seeing things very different from everyone else and likely even lying---his usual bad habit.

Lee