View Full Version : Dubbya at it again?
DeepIron
10-25-07, 04:58 PM
Well, not like it would be any big surprise: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2520593020071025
waste gate
10-25-07, 05:02 PM
Some would say that the 'we can talk it out', 'peace in our time' crowd will push us toward war. Much like they did B4 WWI, WWII, etc.
DeepIron
10-25-07, 05:08 PM
I just haven't figured out how we'd finance another war? Heck, Dubbya wants another $200B for Iraq and now SoCal is in pretty sad shape...
Wait, a secret alliance with the Democrats and their "tax overhaul" ...
Stealth Hunter
10-25-07, 05:09 PM
Yeah that dumbass better not go to war with my country. With the way the US is doing in Iraq, I'd say we'd give them an ass-whooping.
waste gate
10-25-07, 05:12 PM
Yeah that dumbass better not go to war with my country. With the way the US is doing in Iraq, I'd say we'd give them an ass-whooping.
Really?
EDIT: Has anyone ever asked; if one wants peace, why they endorse violence?
DeepIron
10-25-07, 05:16 PM
<me/ ducks and covers>
Shocking news!
Democrats have nothing good to say about Republicans, news at 11...
Stealth Hunter
10-25-07, 08:01 PM
Yeah that dumbass better not go to war with my country. With the way the US is doing in Iraq, I'd say we'd give them an ass-whooping.
Really?
EDIT: Has anyone ever asked; if one wants peace, why they endorse violence?
PEACE
Just another word for stockpiling more weapons than everybody else.
baggygreen
10-25-07, 09:06 PM
From the article originally posted: "Instead of blocking George Bush's new march to war, Sen. Clinton and others are enabling him once again," said one candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
Poor John Edwards. He probably blames the US for every terror attack in the past 50 years. "if only we were nicer to the extremists..."
I think that Hillary 'enabled' him because she is aware that it might have to come down to military options. *maybe* she recognises that you cant trust everything dinnerjacket says!
*maybe* she's got a little bit or realist in her!
Sea Demon
10-25-07, 09:22 PM
Shocking news!
Democrats have nothing good to say about Republicans, news at 11...
Exactly. But fortunately their smears just don't have the same effect anymore. Even the individual in the news story below got confirmed despite alot of Democrat nastiness. They tried a fake smear with Rush Limbaugh, and he made them look like a gaggle of fools. Democrat smear games just don't have that much meaning anymore. The game for them seems to be coming to a halt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7020993,00.html
The WosMan
10-25-07, 09:59 PM
Well, not like it would be any big surprise: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2520593020071025
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Has anyone ever asked; if one wants peace, why they endorse violence?
War isn't fought for peace. War is fought for economic security. All wars boil down to economics. Doesn't matter whether there were WMDs or if Kuwait was illegally invaded or if Castro is a dictator. The number one reason behind any war or threat of war is the stabalization or protection or acquisition of some economic factor. Freedom is a pleasant ancillary if it can be found.
Sea Demon
10-25-07, 10:56 PM
Has anyone ever asked; if one wants peace, why they endorse violence?
War isn't fought for peace. War is fought for economic security. All wars boil down to economics. Doesn't matter whether there were WMDs or if Kuwait was illegally invaded or if Castro is a dictator. The number one reason behind any war or threat of war is the stabalization or protection or acquisition of some economic factor. Freedom is a pleasant ancillary if it can be found.
Uhh, I think you missed his point there. Seems as though the "peaceful" religion seems a little too anxious for killing. On a secondary note, I truly wonder if anybody, lefty or not, actually has read the Iraq War resolution. Seems not. :hmm:
Shocking news!
Democrats have nothing good to say about Republicans, news at 11...
It's pretty much just you guys that do have anything nice to say about Republicans. You guys are amongst the 35% of people in this country who feel the Republicans have an ounce of credibility or have any business running this nation. What can I tell ya.
Sea Demon
10-25-07, 11:44 PM
Shocking news!
Democrats have nothing good to say about Republicans, news at 11...
It's pretty much just you guys that do have anything nice to say about Republicans. You guys are amongst the 35% of people in this country who feel the Republicans have an ounce of credibility or have any business running this nation. What can I tell ya.
Last time I checked, this failed Democrat Congress is getting a dismal 11% approval rating. Even Bush's numbers look much better than that. And his numbers aren't anything to write home about. Looks like more people are fed up with the Dem's in Congress than anything else. :lol:
Uhh, I think you missed his point there. Seems as though the "peaceful" religion seems a little too anxious for killing.
I think focusing on any one religion is folly. Everywhere its all the same. Religions or ideologies or ideas or policies or however you identify the primary identity for the conflict or urge towards a conflict. Wars are pretty much the same. They've been fought for the same reasons for a very long time and cultural or ethnic or national distinctions make little difference in the long run of it. Personally we're invested in those we face today but otherwise its not much different. Therefore identifying these groups as somehow special is anachronistic.
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 09:46 AM
I think focusing on any one religion is folly. Everywhere its all the same. Religions or ideologies or ideas or policies or however you identify the primary identity for the conflict or urge towards a conflict. Wars are pretty much the same. They've been fought for the same reasons for a very long time and cultural or ethnic or national distinctions make little difference in the long run of it. Personally we're invested in those we face today but otherwise its not much different. Therefore identifying these groups as somehow special is anachronistic.
I don't know but Christians are not on a global "convert or kill them" crusade (pardon the term). Nor is Judiasm. But we do see Muslim clerics everywhwere calling for "jihad" nearly on every continent. We don't see Christian pastors calling for the deaths of cartoonists who draw an image of Christ, yet we see Muslim clerics calling for the death of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed. And the list goes on.......
Maybe you're not paying attention???:hmm:
Shocking news!
Democrats have nothing good to say about Republicans, news at 11...
It's pretty much just you guys that do have anything nice to say about Republicans. You guys are amongst the 35% of people in this country who feel the Republicans have an ounce of credibility or have any business running this nation. What can I tell ya.
Last time I checked, this failed Democrat Congress is getting a dismal 11% approval rating. Even Bush's numbers look much better than that. And his numbers aren't anything to write home about. Looks like more people are fed up with the Dem's in Congress than anything else. :lol:
Point of information, congressional approval ratings have not really changed much in the last three years. (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm) So using these figures as some kind of proof of the Democratic Party congress's utter collapse is nonsensical and is possibly more symbolic of public disgust in the entire political process for the time being.
waste gate
10-26-07, 10:35 AM
Point of information, congressional approval ratings have not really changed much in the last three years. (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm) So using these figures as some kind of proof of the Democratic Party congress's utter collapse is nonsensical and is possibly more symbolic of public disgust in the entire political process for the time being.
This graph is thru July 11, and the approval rating has gone down since then.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/Cong_Approval_Rating.jpg
Konovalov
10-26-07, 10:42 AM
That graph seems to indicate that Congressional approval has been almost on a constant decline since 2002 during a period in which both Republicans and now Democrats have had control of that house. To me this graph supports what Fatty said in that there is general public disgust and dissatisfaction with both sides.
waste gate
10-26-07, 10:45 AM
That graph seems to indicate that Congressional approval has been almost on a constant decline since 2002 during a period in which both Republicans and now Democrats have had control of that house. To me this graph supports what Fatty said in that there is general public disgust and dissatisfaction with both sides.
It has changed, and by quite a bit. The 'not much change' statement was eronious.
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 10:53 AM
This Democrat do-nothing Congress has lower numbers than the last Congress. And their numbers are much lower than the President's. That's directly what the numbers show. Spin it any way you want. But it changes nothing about how they are truly perceived. They have failed.
That graph seems to indicate that Congressional approval has been almost on a constant decline since 2002 during a period in which both Republicans and now Democrats have had control of that house. To me this graph supports what Fatty said in that there is general public disgust and dissatisfaction with both sides.
It has changed, and by quite a bit. The 'not much change' statement was eronious.
My data only went back as far as 2005. Your chart does not really provide anything different in way of comparing pre- and post-election congressional approval ratings, although it nicely illustrates the Republican congress' spiral from popularity post-9/11 to 20-30% levels pre-election, but that is not relevant to our interests here. If you look at the data points for your scatter plot you can see that they are probably more in average with the last year than the line would lend you to believe (+/- 5% or so, we can figure out the actual averages using the data in my last post if you want). I would argue that the sharp post-election incline is possibly from the popular momentum of the Dem's election platform (especially on Iraq). But once they found that their hands were, in practice, quite tied (e.g. with vetos; it's interesting to note that the post-election popularity spike peaks around May '07 and starts to fall, guess what happened then?) public opinions normalized to pre-election levels.
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 11:35 AM
My data only went back as far as 2005. Your chart does not really provide anything different in way of comparing pre- and post-election congressional approval ratings, although it nicely illustrates the Republican congress' spiral from popularity post-9/11 to 20-30% levels pre-election, but that is not relevant to our interests here. If you look at the data points for your scatter plot you can see that they are probably more in average with the last year than the line would lend you to believe (+/- 5% or so, we can figure out the actual averages using the data in my last post if you want). I would argue that the sharp post-election incline is possibly from the popular momentum of the Dem's election platform (especially on Iraq). But once they found that their hands were, in practice, quite tied (e.g. with vetos; it's interesting to note that the post-election popularity spike peaks around May '07 and starts to fall, guess what happened then?) public opinions normalized to pre-election levels.
That's alot of quibbling up there. :o Perhaps the people are sick of a do-nothing Congress that doesn't get anything done, other than petty investigations and making enemies out of allies with worthless "genocide" bills. :hmm:
their hands were, in practice, quite tied (e.g. with vetos;
Poor babies. :rotfl:
My data only went back as far as 2005. Your chart does not really provide anything different in way of comparing pre- and post-election congressional approval ratings, although it nicely illustrates the Republican congress' spiral from popularity post-9/11 to 20-30% levels pre-election, but that is not relevant to our interests here. If you look at the data points for your scatter plot you can see that they are probably more in average with the last year than the line would lend you to believe (+/- 5% or so, we can figure out the actual averages using the data in my last post if you want). I would argue that the sharp post-election incline is possibly from the popular momentum of the Dem's election platform (especially on Iraq). But once they found that their hands were, in practice, quite tied (e.g. with vetos; it's interesting to note that the post-election popularity spike peaks around May '07 and starts to fall, guess what happened then?) public opinions normalized to pre-election levels.
That's alot of quibbling up there. :o Perhaps the people are sick of a do-nothing Congress that doesn't get anything done, other than petty investigations and making enemies out of allies with worthless "genocide" bills. :hmm:
their hands were, in practice, quite tied (e.g. with vetos;
Poor babies. :rotfl:
I wager that by your total evasion of the points, mere reiteration of what you already have said (many, many times), and reversion to ad hominem arguments, that you have nothing else useful to contribute. Thanks for playing Sea Demon. What have we got for him to take home today Vanna?
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 04:20 PM
I wager that by your total evasion of the points, mere reiteration of what you already have said (many, many times), and reversion to ad hominem arguments, that you have nothing else useful to contribute. Thanks for playing Sea Demon. What have we got for him to take home today Vanna?
You made no points to evade. Other than quibbling about how the failed Democrat Congress's numbers seemingly mean nothing at all. In all actuality, they show a large discontent by the public. You can't explain away poll numbers like that. And what is this last post of yours????An Ad Hominem argument perhaps?? :hmm: Do you yourself have anything of value to add other than trying to convince everyone here that everybody loves our "beloved" Democrat Congress despite their lowest of approval numbers? Which I find extremely funny. :lol:
I wager that by your total evasion of the points, mere reiteration of what you already have said (many, many times), and reversion to ad hominem arguments, that you have nothing else useful to contribute. Thanks for playing Sea Demon. What have we got for him to take home today Vanna?
You made no points to evade. Other than quibbling about how the failed Democrat Congress's numbers seemingly mean nothing. In all actuality, they show a large discontent by the public. And what is this last post of yours????An Ad Hominem argument perhaps?? :hmm: Do you yourself have anything of value to add other than trying to convince everyone that everybody loves our "beloved" Democrat Congress despite their lowest of approval numbers? Which I find extremely funny at best. :lol:
Once again you totally sidestep the point. I never said everyone "loves" the Democratic congress, and I don't know why you quoted 'beloved' because I never used that word. I stand by my initial stance; the present congress is only as disliked as the last. Using contemporary approval ratings to somehow blame the current ills that plague the U.S. on the Democratic congress is misfounded to say the least. The data do not support it. You must find another way.
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 04:27 PM
Once again you totally sidestep the point. I never said everyone "loves" the Democratic congress, and I don't know why you quoted 'beloved' because I never used that word. I stand by my initial stance; the present congress is only as disliked as the last. Using contemporary approval ratings to somehow blame the current ills that plague the U.S. on the Democratic congress is misfounded to say the least. The data do not support it. You must find another way.
Actually, this Congress is hated more than the last Congress. And this Congress also is hated more than President Bush. That's what the numbers show. You're standing on a broken pedestal.
Once again you totally sidestep the point. I never said everyone "loves" the Democratic congress, and I don't know why you quoted 'beloved' because I never used that word. I stand by my initial stance; the present congress is only as disliked as the last. Using contemporary approval ratings to somehow blame the current ills that plague the U.S. on the Democratic congress is misfounded to say the least. The data do not support it. You must find another way.
Actually, this Congress is hated more than the last Congress. And this Congress also is hated more than President Bush. That's what the numbers show. You're standing on a broken pedestal.
I'm calling you out, then. From the pollingreport.com data I posted, I took the last ten opinion polls conducted in 2006. These spanned from October 31 to December 14. Note that while the congressional election was held in November, the House did not actually switch to the 110th congress until January 2007. The mean average of these polls is 28.4. The last ten polls listed until today span a much smaller period (September 14 to October 24 - probably, many more people are interested in the same thing we are debating) but the mean for them is 24.8. So we have a 3.6 point difference. Since approval changes about as fast as the weather, I think it is only fair that we compare averages on similar time spans (remember, we counted back a month and a half for the 2006 Republican congress). Counting back about 45 days (or 18 polls) the mean I got was 24.38, 4.02 point difference.
Neither congress ranks especially well, but there was no substantial dip in the ratings of the 110th congress that would be indicative of the kind of failure and universal disgust that you are getting at. There is the steep rise and fall around May, but I have explained my hypothesis for that. All that this data suggests is that a Republican congress at the end of its tenure was 4% more likable based on 45-day mean average than the Democratic congress is today. That is a very narrow ledge to be standing on and not one that I believe you can make a substantial case from.
Sea Demon
10-26-07, 11:14 PM
I'm calling you out, then. From the pollingreport.com data I posted, I took the last ten opinion polls conducted in 2006. These spanned from October 31 to December 14. Note that while the congressional election was held in November, the House did not actually switch to the 110th congress until January 2007. The mean average of these polls is 28.4. The last ten polls listed until today span a much smaller period (September 14 to October 24 - probably, many more people are interested in the same thing we are debating) but the mean for them is 24.8. So we have a 3.6 point difference. Since approval changes about as fast as the weather, I think it is only fair that we compare averages on similar time spans (remember, we counted back a month and a half for the 2006 Republican congress). Counting back about 45 days (or 18 polls) the mean I got was 24.38, 4.02 point difference.
Neither congress ranks especially well, but there was no substantial dip in the ratings of the 110th congress that would be indicative of the kind of failure and universal disgust that you are getting at. There is the steep rise and fall around May, but I have explained my hypothesis for that. All that this data suggests is that a Republican congress at the end of its tenure was 4% more likable based on 45-day mean average than the Democratic congress is today. That is a very narrow ledge to be standing on and not one that I believe you can make a substantial case from.
Yeah. But it still shows Bush and the previous Congress with higher numbers. You can say that it's not a dramatic difference. And you can measure different time periods in all different ways. OK. I'll give you that. But it also shows that the Democrats didn't really win the election as much as the Republicans lost it on their own accord for not doing what they were elected to do. It also shows that since the Democrats got control of Congress, people have a lower opinion of it. But still, it's rather funny that all those months ago, these polls were used to show discontent of Republican leadership, and now all of a sudden, they have no meaning....or mixed meanings. With all kinds of excuses for what it says. To some people, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is upset about Democrat leadership in Congress....no....not at all...which BTW is rated lower now by the pollingreport itself. :)
antikristuseke
10-27-07, 09:05 AM
I don't know but Christians are not on a global "convert or kill them" crusade (pardon the term). Nor is Judiasm. But we do see Muslim clerics everywhwere calling for "jihad" nearly on every continent. We don't see Christian pastors calling for the deaths of cartoonists who draw an image of Christ, yet we see Muslim clerics calling for the death of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed. And the list goes on.......
Maybe you're not paying attention???:hmm:
Actualy if you were paying attention christian fundamentalists are on such a crusade and are calling for the death of those who disagree and feel they are justified to do so because it is written in their book, time to open your eyes and look deeper than news headlines on popular channels and/or newspapers. The fact that you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt happening, it just doesnt make the headlines. You cant just demonize one religion and call it "evil" and expect to have even a shred of credibility left after bringing christianity in to compare it to.
I don't know but Christians are not on a global "convert or kill them" crusade (pardon the term). Nor is Judiasm. But we do see Muslim clerics everywhwere calling for "jihad" nearly on every continent. We don't see Christian pastors calling for the deaths of cartoonists who draw an image of Christ, yet we see Muslim clerics calling for the death of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed. And the list goes on.......
Maybe you're not paying attention???:hmm:
Actualy if you were paying attention christian fundamentalists are on such a crusade and are calling for the death of those who disagree and feel they are justified to do so because it is written in their book, time to open your eyes and look deeper than news headlines on popular channels and/or newspapers. The fact that you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt happening, it just doesnt make the headlines. You cant just demonize one religion and call it "evil" and expect to have even a shred of credibility left after bringing christianity in to compare it to.
If you look hard enough you can find examples to justify any opinion, but which religion is currently doing such things on a large scale? That is the valid question.
antikristuseke
10-27-07, 10:49 AM
I don't know but Christians are not on a global "convert or kill them" crusade (pardon the term). Nor is Judiasm. But we do see Muslim clerics everywhwere calling for "jihad" nearly on every continent. We don't see Christian pastors calling for the deaths of cartoonists who draw an image of Christ, yet we see Muslim clerics calling for the death of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed. And the list goes on.......
Maybe you're not paying attention???:hmm:
Actualy if you were paying attention christian fundamentalists are on such a crusade and are calling for the death of those who disagree and feel they are justified to do so because it is written in their book, time to open your eyes and look deeper than news headlines on popular channels and/or newspapers. The fact that you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt happening, it just doesnt make the headlines. You cant just demonize one religion and call it "evil" and expect to have even a shred of credibility left after bringing christianity in to compare it to.
If you look hard enough you can find examples to justify any opinion, but which religion is currently doing such things on a large scale? That is the valid question.
A religion as such isnt doing anything, the problem comes in when people interpret a religion to further their own ends and when those people rise to power on any scale. The fact that there are more ismalic extremists doesnt make christian extremists any less wrong, or extremists of any religion for that mater. Which makes any comparison between christianity and islam extremely hypocritical, to say the least.
A religion as such isnt doing anything, the problem comes in when people interpret a religion to further their own ends and when those people rise to power on any scale. The fact that there are more ismalic extremists doesnt make christian extremists any less wrong, or extremists of any religion for that mater. Which makes any comparison between christianity and islam extremely hypocritical, to say the least.
Well lets not forget about the worst of them all, the Athiest extremists!
Seriously what is important is what is happening now. It took rejection by the Christian mainstream to eliminate the power of their extremists. The same thing needs to happen in Islam before their extremists get ahold of a nuke and touch off WW3.
antikristuseke
10-27-07, 11:02 AM
I agree with you there, extremists should not be in power.
What are these atheist extremists you speak of?
What are these atheist extremists you speak of?
Well for one:
http://www.theconnection.org/content/2003/03/04/0305stalin173.jpg
and another:
http://www.historical-images.com/che_guevara.jpg
Yeah. But it still shows Bush and the previous Congress with higher numbers. You can say that it's not a dramatic difference. And you can measure different time periods in all different ways. OK. I'll give you that. But it also shows that the Democrats didn't really win the election as much as the Republicans lost it on their own accord for not doing what they were elected to do.
The averages for the first few months of the 110th congress show a significant increase in approval, but yes, the numbers are back down, and as I said the averages are a couple of points lower than for the Republicans at the time of their defeat.
It also shows that since the Democrats got control of Congress, people have a lower opinion of it. But still, it's rather funny that all those months ago, these polls were used to show discontent of Republican leadership, and now all of a sudden, they have no meaning....or mixed meanings. With all kinds of excuses for what it says. To some people, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is upset about Democrat leadership in Congress....no....not at all...which BTW is rated lower now by the pollingreport itself. :)
Which brings us back around to my original point, which I believe we are agreeing on now :up: The 110th congress is as unpopular as the 109th at the time of its fall (or 4.02% less popular), and the negative trend visible in approval atings over the last five or so years has not changed. I think it means that people are just altogether fed up with the government, regardless of whether it be Republican or Democratic.
Sea Demon
10-28-07, 12:01 AM
I think it means that people are just altogether fed up with the government, regardless of whether it be Republican or Democratic.
Well, there is something there we can agree on. :yep:
antikristuseke
10-28-07, 08:43 AM
What are these atheist extremists you speak of?
Well for one:
http://www.theconnection.org/content/2003/03/04/0305stalin173.jpg
and another:
http://www.historical-images.com/che_guevara.jpg
Are you sugesting that those two commited their atrocities because they didnt belive in any diety? :rotfl:
Tchocky
10-28-07, 12:18 PM
What are these atheist extremists you speak of?
Well for one:
http://www.theconnection.org/content/2003/03/04/0305stalin173.jpg
and another:
http://www.historical-images.com/che_guevara.jpg
You're kidding
Sea Demon
10-28-07, 10:31 PM
Contempt for Congress rising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7297497?nclick_check=1
Despite any other factor, it looks like major constituencies of the majority feel let down and are seriously unhappy with the direction of this Congress. Republican views of Congress mostly remain the same which is not surprising.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.