Not to get political, but...

[Redskin]

I Agree that a Dem is not the answer, but bush is a spazmo with his faces. I probably am one of the few young people who say they do not hate bush and that bush is in fact not doing as bad as others would have it appear.

Anyways this turned very political very fast for just being a post of a funny picture and I would rather discuss me redskins especially after such a great win.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Redskin

I Agree that a Dem is not the answer, but bush is a spazmo with his faces....

Well, if you take enough pictures, you'll end up with a few that can make anyone look like a "spazmo". Examples of this phenomenon appear every week in Nat'l Enquirer

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by Redskin

I Agree that a Dem is not the answer, but bush is a spazmo with his faces. I probably am one of the few young people who say they do not hate bush and that bush is in fact not doing as bad as others would have it appear.

Anyways this turned very political very fast for just being a post of a funny picture and I would rather discuss me redskins especially after such a great win.

I'm sure that's why Dems now have control of the House and the Senate. What rhymes with Lame Duck President? Dubya.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

I'm sure that's why Dems now have control of the House and the Senate. What rhymes with Lame Duck President? Dubya.

You've obviously ignored or never studied history...the mid-term in a President's second term ALWAYS goes to the other party.

The fact that the Dems only have a 1-seat lead in the Senate (and he's in the hospital possibly dying now) is enough proof that the nation doesn't really trust them so much. If they were really the answer, they would've really swung a huge majority.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Buster

You've obviously ignored or never studied history...the mid-term in a President's second term ALWAYS goes to the other party.

The fact that the Dems only have a 1-seat lead in the Senate (and he's in the hospital possibly dying now) is enough proof that the nation doesn't really trust them so much. If they were really the answer, they would've really swung a huge majority.

OK, now we're into a completely different topic. Since you bring it up, however, lets make sure you understand what actually happened in this election cycle.

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every 2 years. Thus, this year, it was not the entire country voting on all 100 seats. There were only 33 seats (each third is a "class", and this was Class 1). Of those seats, 15 were R, and 18 were Dem+Independent (Independents have traditionally aligned with Dems). Thus, the Dems already had a majority of the seats in Class 1, with 54.5%. After the election, the Rs had 9 seats, and the Dems+Independents had 22 seats, or 66.6% of the Class. Picking up 6 out of 15 seats (or, 40% of the seats the Dems could have possibly acquired), is not inconsequential, although what it actually means is a completely separate debate.

My point is that you shouldn't draw broad inferences about what the "country" wants, when only 1/3 of the country voted. Plus, we're mostly all idiots since we keep electing politicians to office.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by Buster

You've obviously ignored or never studied history...the mid-term in a President's second term ALWAYS goes to the other party.

The fact that the Dems only have a 1-seat lead in the Senate (and he's in the hospital possibly dying now) is enough proof that the nation doesn't really trust them so much. If they were really the answer, they would've really swung a huge majority.

Golly. You are right. I need to get more educated like you. I've never even thought of studying...what was that?...history. Keep living in your fantasy world. Winning BOTH the senate and the house does not ALWAYS go to the other party. check your facts. Either way, we only have a short while left of the biggest bozo in American history with the exception of maybe..TAFT.