Newt Gingrich lies about Democrats and torture

[Evangeline]

Another lie in the Republican agenda of trying to blame the Democrats for Bush/Cheney administration torture. Do Republicans really think anyone is going to believe that the Democrats in congress are responsible for torture?

I'm amazed at how many lies the Republicans will tell.

But when you think about it, any people that advocate horrific things like torture, will of course, lie and cheat and steal to cover up their crimes. It just goes with the criminal territory.

Gingrich told a big lie. He said the Democrats in congress didn't pass a law making waterboarding illegal. In the first place it's torture and torture is already illegal. In the second place the Dems DID pass a law, but of course Bush vetoed it.

During the May 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that Democrats have "had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." Host Chris Wallace did not point out that, in fact, Congress did pass a bill in 2008 that, had it become law, would have banned the use of waterboarding. President Bush subsequently vetoed the measure.

In December 2007, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which limited interrogation tactics to those approved by the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. That manual explicitly prohibits "[w]aterboarding." The Democratic-controlled Senate subsequently approved the legislation in February 2008. A February 14, 2008, Washington Post article reported, "The Senate voted yesterday to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA, matching a previous House vote and putting Congress on a collision course with the White House over a pivotal national security issue." On March 8, 2008, Bush vetoed the bill, and a House vote to override the veto on March 11, 2008, did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905100007?newsref=www.eschatonblog.com

[partofme]

Why does this guy still get so much attention anyway?

[Evangeline]

Why does this guy still get so much attention anyway?

The media is not really liberal. It's corporate. Ratings are king. It's becoming like a bad reality show. Same reason why Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin get attention.

[partofme]

The media is not really liberal. It's corporate. Ratings are king. It's becoming like a bad reality show. Same reason why Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin get attention.

So why does this guy get ratings then?

[Evangeline]

So why does this guy get ratings then?

Because he stirs things up and people like controversy?

[Evangeline]

I think that's why the right is getting so much coverage about Nancy Pelosi and her torture briefing. Even if it's not true that she knew and condoned it, people are interested in the scandal of it all.

The briefings were classified. If Nancy Pelosi objected to torture, she can't come out and show us her objections or responses, it's all still classified.

So Dick and Newt and Hannity and the rest have free reign to claim all the scenerios they want to make it look like she is to blame for torture. And they can claim all they want that the torture worked, because those things are classifed too. Although a report did just come out that says people were tortured for reasons other than to get information...

There are always people who stop at car accidents to watch, and the majority of the rest slow down to see the blood and guts. TV stations know that scandal gets ratings. IMHO the news media talked up the Iraq war because they knew they'd get good war ratings. The reason we have cable news today is because Desert Storm made CNN huge profits. FOX and MSNBC came along because they saw CNN had a profitable 24 hour news business. War and scandal = profit. The days of real news ended when news became a for profit entity. Sometimes capitalism ruins a good thing.

[Evangeline]

Wow, if you want to laugh (or cry at our sorry state of intelligence in America) read the responses to this same thread that I posted here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/78180-newt-gingrich-lies-about-democrats-torture.html

Wow, just wow.

[Michael]

Why does this guy still get so much attention anyway?
The cable-news stations run 7/24. They NEED material to fill.

[Michael]

I think that's why the right is getting so much coverage about Nancy Pelosi and her torture briefing. Even if it's not true that she knew and condoned it, people are interested in the scandal of it all.

The briefings were classified. If Nancy Pelosi objected to torture, she can't come out and show us her objections or responses, it's all still classified.

So Dick and Newt and Hannity and the rest have free reign to claim all the scenerios they want to make it look like she is to blame for torture. And they can claim all they want that the torture worked, because those things are classifed too. Although a report did just come out that says people were tortured for reasons other than to get information...

There are always people who stop at car accidents to watch, and the majority of the rest slow down to see the blood and guts. TV stations know that scandal gets ratings. IMHO the news media talked up the Iraq war because they knew they'd get good war ratings. The reason we have cable news today is because Desert Storm made CNN huge profits. FOX and MSNBC came along because they saw CNN had a profitable 24 hour news business. War and scandal = profit. The days of real news ended when news became a for profit entity. Sometimes capitalism ruins a good thing.
It is no surprise the 'rightwing' is jumping all over this story.

The hardcore partisan Republicans just know that by implicating Pelosi they have scored the equivilent of a political touchdown here. They know the Democratic party will not permit investigations to go forward now that Pelosi and other high ranking Democrats (like Rockefeller) are going to get implicated for the same blame.

I must say, the Republicans are 100% right here. The Democratic party is highly predictable - they will close ranks to protect Pelosi even if that means to let Bush & company get away with torture (which is what they've been trying to do all along).

This little Pelosi scandal is the nail in the coffin for accountability for the Bush regime torturers. No investigation, no charges, no blame, nada. It is the Washington way and Obama's Administration is nothing if not the epitome of 'insider Washington'.

[Americano]

The cable-news stations run 7/24. They NEED material to fill.

And since the GOP has a shallow to non-existent national talent pool recycling the worn-out banner carriers becomes the norm.

[Donkey]

It's a shame. I'd have no problem with Pelosi getting hers if she deserves it for something.

[Evangeline]

It is no surprise the 'rightwing' is jumping all over this story.

The hardcore partisan Republicans just know that by implicating Pelosi they have scored the equivilent of a political touchdown here. They know the Democratic party will not permit investigations to go forward now that Pelosi and other high ranking Democrats (like Rockefeller) are going to get implicated for the same blame.

I must say, the Republicans are 100% right here. The Democratic party is highly predictable - they will close ranks to protect Pelosi even if that means to let Bush & company get away with torture (which is what they've been trying to do all along).

This little Pelosi scandal is the nail in the coffin for accountability for the Bush regime torturers. No investigation, no charges, no blame, nada. It is the Washington way and Obama's Administration is nothing if not the epitome of 'insider Washington'.

Is it possible that Pelosi was made Speaker so she would go along with the torture?

[Evangeline]

Wow, if you want to laugh (or cry at our sorry state of intelligence in America) read the responses to this same thread that I posted here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/78180-newt-gingrich-lies-about-democrats-torture.html

Wow, just wow.

Did any of you guys check this thread out? They are driving me crazy.

[wphelan]

Did any of you guys check this thread out? They are driving me crazy.

I just watched the video. I didn't read the other board though. What exactly are you saying he lied about?

He says there is a lot congress can do if it wants to, but he's talking about congress in general when he says that. He is not referring to this particular congress. The first 34 seconds of the video are about general congressional powers, about which he is correct.

After 34 seconds, he starts talking about this particular congress. He says they haven't passed a law and they haven't changed the law. Well, technically it's true that they haven't passed a law because congress only passes bills. They haven't changed the law either because that would require the president sign their bill or they override a veto.

I don't see any "lies" here, only more misleading statements from another Washington windbag -- and a hypocritical, puffy one at that.

[Evangeline]

I just watched the video. I didn't read the other board though. What exactly are you saying he lied about?

He says there is a lot congress can do if it wants to, but he's talking about congress in general when he says that. He is not referring to this particular congress. The first 34 seconds of the video are about general congressional powers, about which he is correct.

After 34 seconds, he starts talking about this particular congress. He says they haven't passed a law and they haven't changed the law. Well, technically it's true that they haven't passed a law because congress only passes bills. They haven't changed the law either because that would require the president sign their bill or they override a veto.

I don't see any "lies" here, only more misleading statements from another Washington windbag -- and a hypocritical, puffy one at that.

I thought he was talking about the Democratic congress during the Bush admin. They did pass a bill in the House and Senate banning torture. McCain voted against it, remember? It went to Bush, who vetoed it. The Dems didn't have the 2/3s votes to override the veto.

Gingrich says the Dems didn't do anything about it. And the only reason they didn't make the bill into a law is because Bush vetoed it. So when he says Dems didn't pass a law, he's lying by ommission, because they certainly tried to! And it was the Republicans who refused to vote for it. Gingrich is trying to blame the Dems. And that's dishonest.

[wphelan]

I thought he was talking about the Democratic congress during the Bush admin. They did pass a bill in the House and Senate banning torture. McCain voted against it, remember? It went to Bush, who vetoed it. The Dems didn't have the 2/3s votes to override the veto.

You're right that he was talking about congress under Bush, you're right that they passed those bills, and you're right that Bush vetoed it.

Gingrich says the Dems didn't do anything about it. And the only reason they didn't make the bill into a law is because Bush vetoed it. So when he says Dems didn't pass a law, he's lying by ommission, because they certainly tried to! And it was the Republicans who refused to vote for it. Gingrich is trying to blame the Dems. And that's dishonest.

Gingrich never said the Democrats didn't try do anything about it. By saying that they never changed the law, he was effectively saying they didn't succeed in doing anything about it. He makes no mention of "trying."

Gingrich is a partisan hack, so I already have no respect for what he says. I seriously doubt the average American (outside the few remaining Republican diehards) does either, but I still don't see the "lie" here. He's spinning the story in a different direction. It's a classic Republican move, but instead of accusing him of lying, I'd focus on the issue at hand instead of what this unelected talking head says.

[Michael]

Gingrich is trying to blame the Dems. And that's dishonest.
:rofl:

Um... I'd invoke the "Tom DeLay rule" on Gingrich. If Gingrich's lips are moving, he's lying.

Partisan hackery and lies are a dime a dozen in Washington. The only thing that matters is getting the media to broadcast the lies and hackery as serious journalism. Now that takes some effort! ;)

[Evangeline]

I guess you can say he's lying by omission, he knows full well the Democrats tried to pass the law to ban torture and it was blocked by the Repubs and Bush.

He's speaking to the uninformed masses and the partisans on the right who go along with his word games. He doesn't fool the rest of us.

[Americano]

I guess you can say he's lying by omission, he knows full well the Democrats tried to pass the law to ban torture and it was blocked by the Repubs and Bush.

He's speaking to the uninformed masses and the partisans on the right who go along with his word games. He doesn't fool the rest of us.

This surprises you?

[henryporter]

Wow, if you want to laugh (or cry at our sorry state of intelligence in America) read the responses to this same thread that I posted here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/78180-newt-gingrich-lies-about-democrats-torture.html

Wow, just wow.

Yeah, I posted on that thread. The harping and polarization seem out of control. Is that because I frequent forums like PF and PH, or is it really this bad?

I took you up on your invitation. Hope you don't mind.

[Michael]

Yeah, I posted on that thread. The harping and polarization seem out of control. Is that because I frequent forums like PF and PH, or is it really this bad?
Only on very large forums over run with reactionary rightwingers. :D

I took you up on your invitation. Hope you don't mind.
Welcome to DWF. :)

[Evangeline]

This surprises you?

No, but it exhausts me!

[Evangeline]

Yeah, I posted on that thread. The harping and polarization seem out of control. Is that because I frequent forums like PF and PH, or is it really this bad?

I took you up on your invitation. Hope you don't mind.

Hi Henry! It's great to see you here! :)

[Americano]

No, but it exhausts me!

Newt's been a 'good ol' boy' party dog for a long time. With the current GOP search going on for presidential talent somewhat untainted by Bush or Palin, you can bet money Newt will put his toe in the water.

[Evangeline]

I think you're right. It will certainly be interesting.

[henryporter]

Only on very large forums over run with reactionary rightwingers. :D


Welcome to DWF. :)

Hi Henry! It's great to see you here! :)


Thanks Michael. PH isn't so large anymore. A big exodus by the liberals a short time ago there. PF is large though. Evangeline, that group at PF is brutal. But the entire right is that way it seems. There is no ownership for anything on their part. Are there any righties here?

As for Newt, pfffft.

Can we swear here? At PH anything goes at PF they even censor the word "damn", I mean, damn what's with that. I am a bit of a bad boy in that regard, very very shallow vocabulary.

[Evangeline]

Thanks Michael. PH isn't so large anymore. A big exodus by the liberals a short time ago there. PF is large though. Evangeline, that group at PF is brutal. But the entire right is that way it seems. There is no ownership for anything on their part. Are there any righties here?

As for Newt, pfffft.

Can we swear here? At PH anything goes at PF they even censor the word "damn", I mean, damn what's with that. I am a bit of a bad boy in that regard, very very shallow vocabulary.

There are some righties, just the intelligent kind though. Rare lately, I know! The Republican party has really shattered. It's crazy to watch! Supporting torture? Come on! Blaming Pelosi for not doing anything about it, while they support it? Wow! Blocking an Interior appointment and a FEMA appointment and holding the appts for ransom for funding and law changes? Unreal. I mean blocking appts is meant to prevent bad appts right? Not this year!

[Michael]

Thanks Michael. PH isn't so large anymore. A big exodus by the liberals a short time ago there. PF is large though. Evangeline, that group at PF is brutal. But the entire right is that way it seems. There is no ownership for anything on their part. Are there any righties here?

As for Newt, pfffft.

Can we swear here? At PH anything goes at PF they even censor the word "damn", I mean, damn what's with that. I am a bit of a bad boy in that regard, very very shallow vocabulary.
For some reason, there are no hardcore rightwingers here. Some intelligent and moderate conservatives yes. Lots of centerists and a few major lefties.

And yes, you are allowed to swear here. No censor module. We're not children. :)

[Evangeline]

Speaking of Gingrich, this asshole is coming on really strong after Nancy Pelosi. Bob Graham, the other Dem Representative who was briefed by the CIA in 2002 said:


"The briefing was done at a relatively low level of classification and did not get into these more sensitive areas of torture or the application of techniques to specific detainees," Graham said. "The briefing, according to the statement in my notebook, was on detainee interrogation, but it did not include waterboarding or any particular person to whom that had been applied."


And the CIA claimed to have briefed him 4 times, but when he checked his calendar, and disputed 3 of those dates, they agreed, they were mistaken. So they aren't exactly reliable in their record keeping.

And now Newt is seriously slamming Pelosi, and he has no credibility, he has no first hand knowledge of any of this.


"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.

He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior," Gingrich (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Newt_Gingrich) also said in the blistering interview.

"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses," he continued. "The fact is, she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth."



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/gingrich-pelosi.html

Gingrich is so seriously over the top. And he might actually be the Republican candidate. God help us if Gingrich became President.

[Michael]

The Republicans have an obsession for Pelosi the same why they were obsessed over Hillary Clinton.

Apparently strong-willed women in positions of power are anthema to them and must be destroyed.

[partofme]

The Republicans have an obsession for Pelosi the same why they were obsessed over Hillary Clinton.

Apparently strong-willed women in positions of power are anthema to them and must be destroyed.

I don't really have a super strong opinion on her one way or the other but yeah she is a huge target for their attacks.

[Michael]

I don't really have a super strong opinion on her one way or the other but yeah she is a huge target for their attacks.
Exactly. I don't have much of an opinon on Pelosi - she's just another congress-critter wearing the big hat. Someone has to be the Speaker of the House and that job goes to one of the most senior, competent and capable leaders in the congressional caucus of the majority party - and that's who Pelosi is.

But the Republicans act as if she's some kind of demon in a dress and have been on an non-stop attack on her personally since the day she was sworn in. Pelosi's modest management of the House doesn't warrant this level of extreme partisan attack. But that's what the media is filled with on a daily basis for years now. Just like the endless and mostly baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in years past.

[partofme]

Exactly. I don't have much of an opinon on Pelosi - she's just another congress-critter wearing the big hat. Someone has to be the Speaker of the House and that job goes to one of the most senior, competent and capable leaders in the congressional caucus of the majority party - and that's who Pelosi is.

But the Republicans act as if she's some kind of demon in a dress and have been on an non-stop attack on her personally since the day she was sworn in. Pelosi's modest management of the House doesn't warrant this level of extreme partisan attack. But that's what the media is filled with on a daily basis for years now. Just like the endless and mostly baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in years past.

I've noticed the culture is different among democrats and republicans. Republicans tend to be on the offensive at all times and almost act like children on a playground calling democratic leaders names and taking personal jabs at them. Democrats can't stand republicans but that's mostly defensive since they always feel like they are under attack. I have a x-girlfriend that really knows nothing about politics but is a conservative simply because her family is and when she posts bullshit viral e-mails I like to debunk them which is fairly easy since usually factcheck and snopes have usually already done so and when I do people on her friends list that see that throw the word liberal at me like it's the worst insult one can be called. I usually retaliate but posting a accurate critique of the same democrats to show them how it's done right but they still get emotional about it and make it personal.

[Evangeline]

The Republicans have an obsession for Pelosi the same why they were obsessed over Hillary Clinton.

Apparently strong-willed women in positions of power are anthema to them and must be destroyed.

Yet they love Sarah Palin. And Margaret Thatcher. And Condaleesa Rice. So I don't think it's women per se, but Democratic women, they get very personal with them. We discuss the policies, they discuss their looks and call them nasty female slurs, mock their ankles and their faces. Photoshop them to make them very ugly. Although they do that to Obama too. Republicans just seem more childish. Especially when they are in the minority.

[Evangeline]

I've noticed the culture is different among democrats and republicans. Republicans tend to be on the offensive at all times and almost act like children on a playground calling democratic leaders names and taking personal jabs at them. Democrats can't stand republicans but that's mostly defensive since they always feel like they are under attack. I have a x-girlfriend that really knows nothing about politics but is a conservative simply because her family is and when she posts bullshit viral e-mails I like to debunk them which is fairly easy since usually factcheck and snopes have usually already done so and when I do people on her friends list that see that throw the word liberal at me like it's the worst insult one can be called. I usually retaliate but posting a accurate critique of the same democrats to show them how it's done right but they still get emotional about it and make it personal.

The same thing is going on in my family. My cousin keeps sending those right wing lying emails. I thought he'd stop after I've debunked so many of them in snopes....but he keeps sending them. He constantly calls me names, I constantly ask him to refrain and have an intelligent conversation with me.....and then another email comes telling me I'm a looney liberal.

Ugh.

[henryporter]

Yet they love Sarah Palin. And Margaret Thatcher. And Condaleesa Rice. So I don't think it's women per se, but Democratic women, they get very personal with them. We discuss the policies, they discuss their looks and call them nasty female slurs, mock their ankles and their faces. Photoshop them to make them very ugly. Although they do that to Obama too. Republicans just seem more childish. Especially when they are in the minority.

To offer some balance, I've seen the left get pretty nasty with Ann Coulter in regard to her appearance. You are right though, it has gotten very hard to have a conversation with a Republican.

[Evangeline]

To offer some balance, I've seen the left get pretty nasty with Ann Coulter in regard to her appearance. You are right though, it has gotten very hard to have a conversation with a Republican.

That's true! It's the Adam's apple....

LOL!

Yeah, I suppose we are all to blame. I do think they have us beat though, in this area.

[Michael]

Yet they love Sarah Palin. And Margaret Thatcher. And Condaleesa Rice. So I don't think it's women per se, but Democratic women, they get very personal with them. We discuss the policies, they discuss their looks and call them nasty female slurs, mock their ankles and their faces. Photoshop them to make them very ugly. Although they do that to Obama too. Republicans just seem more childish. Especially when they are in the minority.
Yes, a good point. Republicans do like some women...

To offer some balance, I've seen the left get pretty nasty with Ann Coulter in regard to her appearance. You are right though, it has gotten very hard to have a conversation with a Republican.
Another good point.

But it is to be noted that Coulter is a media talking head. All the others we're talking about here are elected representatives of the people. I think that's a relevant distinction.

In other words, I do think that making fun of the appearance of a media talking head is slightly different than relentless attacks on the appearance of an elected politician.

For media person, their appearance is their stock in trade. For politicians, it is not relevant to policy.

[Birdzeye]

I just watched the video. I didn't read the other board though. What exactly are you saying he lied about?

He says there is a lot congress can do if it wants to, but he's talking about congress in general when he says that. He is not referring to this particular congress. The first 34 seconds of the video are about general congressional powers, about which he is correct.

After 34 seconds, he starts talking about this particular congress. He says they haven't passed a law and they haven't changed the law. Well, technically it's true that they haven't passed a law because congress only passes bills. They haven't changed the law either because that would require the president sign their bill or they override a veto.

I don't see any "lies" here, only more misleading statements from another Washington windbag -- and a hypocritical, puffy one at that.

My take on Gingrich's comments is that he was trying to imply that Congress made no effort to enact legislation to ban waterboarding, when, in fact, they did pass a bill - which Bush vetoed.

I can't say I'm surprised. Gingrich hasn't exactly been known for honesty.

[Michael]

Gringrich is just playing the same dishonest media game that politicians (Republicans mostly, but not exclusively) have been allowed to get away with for a long time.

Gringrich speaks the 'truth' here - Congress has not successfully passed a law to ban torture (they tried, but failed to achieve it). If you parse Gringrich's precise words, he has not lied.

That being said, Gringrich is failing to speak the truth by failing to represent the actual Congressional record accurately or honestly here. That's not surprising, because politicians are always going to twist words to push their agenda.

What is necessary to make this game work is a complicit media that is willing to just report Gringrich's words without adding any actual context (such as adding the fact that Gringrich is ignoring the actual Congressional record and playing semantic word games here in an attempt to misrepresent the actual Congressional record which does show that Congress tried to ban torture by passing a bill that G.W. Bush ultimately vetod - which is something Gringrich politically would like the public to forget).

As long as the media goes along, I can't blame Gringrich for playing this game - it does work well with a compliant media that won't actually report reality.

Gotta wonder what the Washington media establishment thinks their job is. Just sticking a microphone in politicians face, accurately record the message and then broadcast it? Heck, PR firms do a better job of that than the media ever will. Indeed, the politicians can record their own words and broadcast themselves better than the media can 'report' the message. If that's all the media does, that's redundant and useless function. Journalism and news reporting requires context and comment. Without that, it might as well be a press release (written or video format) from Gringrich's office emailed direct to the media for re-broadcast. That's the game they are actually playing here - except Gringrich doesn't have to pay for the advertising service/expenses.

[Birdzeye]

Thanks Michael. PH isn't so large anymore. A big exodus by the liberals a short time ago there. PF is large though. Evangeline, that group at PF is brutal. But the entire right is that way it seems. There is no ownership for anything on their part. Are there any righties here?

As for Newt, pfffft.

Can we swear here? At PH anything goes at PF they even censor the word "damn", I mean, damn what's with that. I am a bit of a bad boy in that regard, very very shallow vocabulary.

I'm not much on profanity myself, but I do consider "damn" pretty tame.

One time on PF there was some rightie who, IIRC, was trying to portray the "politics of personal destruction" as a uniquely liberal/Democrat instrument. I wanted to refute that claim by mentioning the late Lee Atwater, GOP king of politics of personal destruction. Wouldn't you know, his name has the word "twat" in it, and that was censored out? :rofl:

[Birdzeye]

The Republicans have an obsession for Pelosi the same why they were obsessed over Hillary Clinton.

Apparently strong-willed women in positions of power are anthema to them and must be destroyed.

What's really galling is how they demonize women like Pelosi and Clinton, but when someone makes even one unkind remark about one of THEIR heroines, like Palin or beauty queen Prejean (the one who said she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman), they get all huffy and accuse you of sexism. Not like they've made a priority of fighting the remaining vestiges of sexism.

:mad:

[Birdzeye]

To offer some balance, I've seen the left get pretty nasty with Ann Coulter in regard to her appearance. You are right though, it has gotten very hard to have a conversation with a Republican.

I agree, attacking someone's looks is a cheap shot. As much as I despise Coulter, I don't call her "Ann the Man" or make comments about some Adam's apple. I'll just stick with attacking her lunatic remarks.

[Birdzeye]

Yeah, I posted on that thread. The harping and polarization seem out of control. Is that because I frequent forums like PF and PH, or is it really this bad?

I took you up on your invitation. Hope you don't mind.

OK, I know about PF, but PH?

[Michael]

OK, I know about PF, but PH?
Political Hotwire.

Probably the only major political forum out there I've never been a member of.