OK liberals and other Democrat fans....you get Congress back. Now what?

There you go proving my point. You are still acting and posting like a little child.
I don't believe TBF or I have advocated "giving-up". He correctly points out that whether it be Republicans or Democrats in charge, there is no difference.
As long as we allow ourselves to buy into the belief that we need a federal government in charge of every aspect of our lives, we are doomed to suffer from its poisonous effects.
The founding fathers never envisioned the blood-sucking monster that the federal government has become today. We were founded to be a Union of free and independent states, united in common cause and for mutual defense, but still seperate and independent.
The only solution would be to return to that concept. Severely limit the grasp of a federal government and return control to the states.
This was what the GOP ran on in 1994 and that concept was why they were voted in. Unfortunately, they have failed to deliver on their promises of 1994 and are paying the price in 2006.
The sad fact is, even if the Dems win back both houses, the same problems will exist and nothing will be done about them. Eventually, people will sour on the Dems and vote the GOP back in and the cycle will repeat over and over and over again.
We are witnessing what our first two Presidents (Washington & Adams) feared about the rise of a two-party political system.
Whether or not we can free ourselves of this remains to be seen. Judging by the comments I've read in here and what I am hearing from the Right and the Left, I have my doubts.
The way we are going, we are starting to resemble the Roman Empire in its dying days more than anything else.

 

Tom Delay = William Jefferson
Only Delay resigned, while Jefferson has refused to even give up his committe seat.
Which is one thing I do have to give the Republicans, they at least know when to quit trying to fool the public and quit once they've been caught.
Nixon resigned rather than put the country through an impeachment debacle. Clinton didn't.
Delay, Foley, Livingston, et al, all resigned while the same cannot be said about Jefferson, Ted Kennedy (I mean, at the very least he was guilty of manslaughter that night he ran off and let that poor woman to die under that bridge), and too many others to list here, they all stayed in office.
Nixon would have won the 1960 Presidential election if he had contested what has now been shown to be voting fraud by the Dems, but he chose not to because he didn't want to put the country through the turmoil that would have ensued. That didn't seem to bother Al Gore in 2000 did it? And look what we've had since. Turmoil, bickering and all out partisan war between the two parties.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not about to claim that the GOP is full of choir boys, but at least they have the decency to step down when they should. Can't say the same about the Dems.

 

The Dems booted Jefferson from his committee seat.

Please don't insult the intelligence of peat moss by suggesting that the Clinton impeachment and the Nixon would-be impeachment are in the same galaxy.

Give Nixon Illinois' electoral votes in 1960, and Kennedy is still president. And the "Nixon didn't contest the election because he didn't want to put the country through turmoil" meme was thoroughly debunked in 2000.

The 2000 recount cases were called Bush vs. Gore, at the state and federal levels. That means Bush brought the cases to court. Guess one party was allowed to protect their Florida interests in 2000, but the other party doing so was a crime against the republic.

And the "partisan war" was started by Al Gore? Great, another one who slept through the 1990s.

 

Boy, that's as close to pure Dittohead dumbassery as I've ever heard.
"They're all all bums but you guys are worse."

 

I believe I've stated that both sides are equally bad. The best thing that could happen to this country if for giant sinkholes to open up underneath both parties' convention sites in 2008.
The point I was responding to was someone trying to say the Dems were bad, but the GOP was worse by pointing out that the Dems have an equal number of less than desirable idiots in their party too.

BTW, Fenian, is name-calling the only way you know how to respond to debate?

 

Rossi,

1. That's what I said. Jefferson REFUSED to give up his seat and had to be forcibly removed. At least Foley, as bad as what he did is, had the decency to resign immediately.

2. Illinois wasn't the only state where highly questionable voting took place in 1960. As for your debunking claim in 2000. Try again. Just because you say someone debunked it carries no weight with me. Do your own research - somewhere other than your partisan hangouts - and you will learn what really happened in 1960.

3. Al Gore contested the election, not Bush. All Bush did was go to court to prevent Gore and the Dems from attempting to rewrite the rules after the election. Interesting note, after years of exhaustive recounting, Bush still carried Florida - even when you add in all of the swinging chads in the state. Gore should not have acted the way he did in the days following the 2000 election, all he did was add fuel to the fire and ensure there would be 8 more years of partisan BS.
Did Al Gore start this in the 1990s? Of course not.
But he could have gone a long way to healing the fracture between the two sides of America by doing what Nixon did in 1960 and done what was in the best interest of the country, instead of himself. A lesson Nixon sadly forgot just 12 years later.
Now we have 50 million people from each party convinced that the other side is a pack of Anti-American bastards that deserve nothing but death and no end of it in sight anytime soon.

 

And ladies and gentlemen, can we ease up on the assumptions that I am either a Democrat or a Republican please.
I find having either label applied to me highly offensive.

 

For God's sake, scribe, you're like the fifth Republican to pop on here claiming to be an independent. Give it up.

You're not fooling anybody, so just stop. There is not one single "independent" out there who ever thought Clinton should resign. Not one. The only people who thought that were walking into a voting booth and punching the button to vote straight Republican.

If you wanted to convince us all of your free-thinking ways while still bashing Clinton, you shoulda picked a better issue. Lots of them out there to chose from. But you picked the one topic on which every independent sided with the Dems. Nice work.

 

I am not registered with any political party in this country. I believe the political parties in this country are an even greater threat to this country than the worst Islamic terrorist ever will be.
And I know quite a few independents who thought Clinton should have resigned, especially after he was found guilty of lying under oath in a court of law.

 

Bullshit.

Every true independent out there saw that whole sad-ass saga for exactly what it was -- a political pissing contest. And it annoyed the hell out of them.

Independents, as a rule, don't enjoy partisan bullshit. And when something like the Clinton blowjob scandal goes down, they never buy into it. Every independent watched that charade and were dumbfounded by the idiotic quotes, the sad statements, the ridiculous accusations and the embarrassing actions of everyone involved.

And by the way, Clinton didn't lie. He said he didn't have sex with that woman and he didn't. You stick your finger in the pool, you don't call it swimming.

 

So if Clinton didn't lie, why was he found guilty by a Federal judge and disbarred?

 

No one will know for sure whether the '60 election was on the up-and-up. There were discrepancies, for sure, but multiple election boards, judges, and an Illinois special prosecutor said there was no evidence to warrant overturning the results.

And why were their opinions solicited? Because the Republicans did anything but sulk off into that good night, as you seem to claim. Senator Thruston Morton, the party chairman (encouraged, many believe, privately by Nixon himself), called for recounts in 11 states. The GOP got court orders for recounts in Illinois, Texas and New Jersey, among others. (In fact, many precincts in Illinois found that Nixon's original votes were overcounted.)

In fact, the net result of the recount efforts resulted in a net loss of three electoral votes for Nixon, after Hawaii's recount determined that Kennedy won the state. In fairness, the Democrats pushed for that particular recount, so I'm sure you'll say the fix was in there.

Oh, and I didn't get to get this off Daily Kos or Democratic Underground, either. A Google search and a history book did just fine.