Latest Change of Course by Bush in Iraq

[Annie]

ajwps:

All of the people on these boards and all the others out there in cyberspace, have issues we feel very strongly about. Obviously, many of those will see a poll they stongly agree or disagree with-and they will answer. That's not something one would call an 'unbiased' reaction. Most people either don't care or do not feel strongly enough to 'get involved', heck most don't even take the time to watch the news, much less argue with people they don't agree with. Just like in the real 'voting' world, balance is hit by mixing those that believe 'one' must get elected, with those that feel the opposit, with those who are really unsure or 'teetering', and get themselves out and vote on election day.

Same with phone calling polls, where the respondent calls in, rather than is called. The poll will be skewed, the disinterested will not call, and considering the phrasing of the question, they will usually be skewed towards one answer.

Professional pollers ask the same question to all polled. They strive to keep bias out of the questions, (now I'm not saying they usually succeed, just that they try). They randomly call homes from a mix of area codes, zip codes, to ensure to the best possible level, that they are cutting across different criterial lines. Today though, with caller id, cell phones, etc., it is making the poll results-even Gallop, Pew, etc., less reliable.

 

[ajwps]

originally posted by Kathianne

"Professional pollers ask the same question to all polled. They strive to keep bias out of the questions, (now I'm not saying they usually succeed, just that they try). They randomly call homes from a mix of area codes, zip codes, to ensure to the best possible level, that they are cutting across different criterial lines. Today though, with caller id, cell phones, etc., it is making the poll results-even Gallop, Pew, etc., less reliable."

I tend to agree with your proposition that professional pollers ask the same question to all polled. The problem is with those who write those 'unbiased' questions from each question writer's own personal 'disinterested' point of view.

As you say, people in general are either knowledgeable, have credible information with which to make decisions or are simply not interested. Many with opinions simply do not wish to become part of any poll which tends to distort the poll results.

In a perfect world, polls would be static instead of shifting with perceptions on a daily basis. Those with rigid and fixed opinions cannot find the ability to be swayed by any reality.

There were those during the Clinton administration who backed him even when he broke his oath of office by lying to a Federal Grand Jury. The reason or excuses behind his lies in reality mattered none.

Public Opinion Polls... an attempt to organise the ignorance of the community, and to elevate it to the dignity of physical force.

ATTRIBUTION: Oscar Wilde

 

[Annie]

Ah in a perfect world, polls wouldn't stay static, people would change their minds as they gained more information, unfortunately as you said, too many just remain rigid.

Those that make the polls change are the great majority of the uninterested.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Kathianne

"Those that make the polls change are the great majority of the uninterested."

Are you saying that the uninterested are those that are undecided until the day of the election or are they the ones who don't care because they are aware that the majority of the information being given to them is invalid or unreliable or non- reality?

Young children...are often uninterested in conversation It is not that they don’t have ideas and feelings, or need to express them to others It is simply that as one eight-year-old boy once told me, “Talking is okay, but I don’t like to do it all the time the way grown-ups do; I guess you have to develop the habit.”

ATTRIBUTION: Robert Coles

 

[Annie]

Loved that Cole attribution!

IMHO I believe that it's the 'undecideds' who switch for today because Dean said something about a Confederate flag or back injury and Vietnam. It's also them that may be shook by casualties either to get behind the war or against it.

Those with an opinion don't easily sway, though hopefully they do if convincing evidence is produced.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Kathianne

"I believe that it's the 'undecideds' who switch for today because Dean said something about a Confederate flag or back injury and Vietnam. It's also them that may be shook by casualties either to get behind the war or against it. Those with an opinion don't easily sway, though hopefully they do if convincing evidence is produced."

To change one's mind because of an inconsistent candidate who says something that may offend or confirm one's own opinion, does not justify the assumption that everything a politician says or promises is fact.

When speaking of convincing evidence, I always remember what my granny told me. "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see with your own eyes."

I once saw a magician demonstrate to a seated group of people on a beach that he had moved an island some distance from its original place. I don't know how he did it but 'convincing evidence' must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
Do you really think that an eight month biased polling trend means something tangible for the next year? Anything can happen to change those intangible polls in the blinking of an eye.

"Biased polling"? I don't do the polling, AJWPS, and I don't cherry pick the polls either. These polls are from reputable news organizations or research institutes. I, as well as conservatives use that site so your labeling it as "liberaly" biased is a poor defense against the data it contains. As for it changing in a blink of an eye, perhaps, but the "eye" has not "blinked" in the last 8 months so I'll stand by the trends the polls demonstrates without further comment unless you can come up with a better rebuttal.

In the universe is anything really wasted?

As far as we are concerned, yes.

In Iraq, our people maintain a degree of stability without the repressive Saddam returning to kill and torture the people of Iraq. The Islamic countries now find Iraq to be the place to go and fight the western powers instead of attacking America again.

We aren't being attacked by "Islamic countries" in Iraq, we are facing Iraqis and Mujahadeen. These guys were not going to attack america, AJWPS. They are so poor that if you can't get there on the back of a donkey, they can't get there. They are attacking americans because it pays well and there are americans in Baghdad waiting to be attacked.

I would say that GWB efforts are far from being wasted. Islam is subtly being changed by the fact that they see a strong leader of the west which to Islam is NOT a good sign.

Turkey has terrorists, Iran is building a Nuke and the UN is largely disinterested, the changes I see occuring are NOT a good sign for us. What exactly have we gained, other than a hostile welfare state with 24 million people?

You seem to think that world opinion will change American's minds of whom they feel will be the best leader of the free and democratic United States of America.

No, I beleive that most of our foriegn policy failures are attributal to a lack of support and cooperation from our historic allies. The reason they refuse to cooperate with us is they see our policy changing from peaceful encouragement of freedom through trade and negotiation to a policy of unilateralism and militarism. We are engaged in an open ended guerilla war in Iraq that they want no parts of. The weight of these failed policies will sink this president so yes, I think they will have an impact in '04 but not on individual voters.

There are many dialects in China of which Mandarin is only one. My point was obvious and had nothing to do with the Communist dictatorship of the masses but of your feelings of depression as demonstrated by the ratings and ravings of your fellow 'yellow dog Democrats' as they see their omnipresent power slipping away from them after 40+ years of running roughshod over the American people.

I little education seems in order, so pay attention.
Yellow Dog
Chinese use the phrase "Yellow Dog" to denote an imperialist. When China was a imperial posession of the British, the British would designate the best restaraunts in a large city for their use. Once designated, the establishment would have to hang out a sign that said "No Chinese and No dogs allowed". If a chinese tried to enter the restaraunt, the British would run them out, calling the chinese "yellow dogs".
I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq, I would not be considered a "yellow dog" in this argument, that tittle would be reserved for people who agree with your position.
I am not a registered Democrat but I will play one for the moment so you can have a target for your angst. As for the democrats running roughshod over the american people...the american people elected the Democrats to their positions, just like they elected the republicans. To claim that the Dems had unfettered power for 40 years is also a little silly, we have had republican presidents for the majority of the last 40 years (do the math) which makes further rebutting of your point unnessecary until you can explain that little anomaly in your argument.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Dijelo

"Biased polling"? I don't do the polling, AJWPS, and I don't cherry pick the polls either. These polls are from reputable news organizations or research institutes. I, as well as conservatives use that site so your labeling it as "liberaly" biased is a poor defense against the data it contains. As for it changing in a blink of an eye, perhaps, but the "eye" has not "blinked" in the last 8 months so I'll stand by the trends the polls demonstrates without further comment unless you can come up with a better rebuttal."

Nor do I poll anyone Dijelo, but the use of non-cherry picked polls from reputable news organizations and research institutes must have pollers who use expert 'disinterested parties' crafting their poll questions. The only way that any poll be unbiased would require a computer to formulate the poll questions. Then you would have to question the people who wrote the software as to their own biases inadvertently placed into the program.

There are also just as reputable polls which demonstrate that your poll sites are in direct conflict with the same objective or subjective results over the last eight months. It goes to the point as to which of the reputable poll sites you wish to use as the basis for your judgment. Remember a Nation's poll pulse is very subjective at any one time and may be affected by a days external event. But this is my opinion and worth nothing more or less than yours.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the universe is anything really wasted?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As far as we are concerned, yes."

As far as current cosmology goes, matter and energy are neither wasted nor lost in our universe since the time of the so-called Big Bang. A point when time, energy and later matter came into being from nothing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Iraq, our people maintain a degree of stability without the repressive Saddam returning to kill and torture the people of Iraq. The Islamic countries now find Iraq to be the place to go and fight the western powers instead of attacking America again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We aren't being attacked by "Islamic countries" in Iraq, we are facing Iraqis and Mujahadeen."

Really... That's news to me as the United States has now captured tens of hundreds of just about every Islamic country Mujahadeen in the world fighting with Saddam's Republican Guard against the remaining US backed coalition. These Islamic fighters come from as far as Asia, South America, Philippine Islands and as close as Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.

"These guys were not going to attack america, AJWPS. They are so poor that if you can't get there on the back of a donkey, they can't get there. They are attacking americans because it pays well and there are americans in Baghdad waiting to be attacked."

Can I take your word on this fact to the bank? Do you have any idea of the significant millions of US dollars these 'poor' Islamic freedom fighters have at their disposal to enter America with the intent of blowing you and your family to smithereens? Yes there are Americans in Baghdad and there is word that the killer of Americans gets $5,000 per US head. But the reality that the Americans are infidels (unbelievers of Mohammad) and a commandment of Qur'an bible to destroy those satanic unbelievers who defile the holy soil of Islam countries.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that GWB efforts are far from being wasted. Islam is subtly being changed by the fact that they see a strong leader of the west which to Islam is NOT a good sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turkey has terrorists, Iran is building a Nuke and the UN is largely disinterested, the changes I see occuring are NOT a good sign for us. What exactly have we gained, other than a hostile welfare state with 24 million people?"

The good aspect is that these entities have not used these terrorists and weapons against the continental US. The Islamics have invented not one of these weapons but simply buy them are aware of the fact that the US and Israel now have technology that would quickly destroy any real outside attacks against our common shores. Maybe you would already be dead if Bush had not used his power and intellect to deter their evil intents.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to think that world opinion will change American's minds of whom they feel will be the best leader of the free and democratic United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I beleive that most of our foriegn policy failures are attributal to a lack of support and cooperation from our historic allies. The reason they refuse to cooperate with us is they see our policy changing from peaceful encouragement of freedom through trade and negotiation to a policy of unilateralism and militarism."

So you feel that our foreign policy failures can be attributed to our refusal to cooperate with the financial partnership interests of our old allies with their partner Saddam or the threat made openly to our old allies stating that any cooperation in any way with the USA's security (including the UN) would result in their own countries becoming the target of bombs and killings. That's very nice indeed. Maybe you forgot about the world trade embargos and length negotiations over the last 10 + years that resulted in 0 outcomes with our allies illegally entering large multi-billion dollar contracts with Iraq and Saddam. Did you attend Saddam's last birthday party?

"We are engaged in an open ended guerilla war in Iraq that they want no parts of."

It is truly amazing how you somehow became aware of America's tactical and strategic plans regarding Iraq. Do you think that 'they' (France, Germany, Russia) want no part of a deal where they cannot cash in on their now voided billions of dollars oil contracts with the now deposed Saddam?

"The weight of these failed policies will sink this president so yes, I think they will have an impact in '04 but not on individual voters."

Tell me if I incorrectly understand your thought process correctly in your above statement. The weight of 'these' failed policies that now alienate our old allies (whom we saved in previous wars) will bear weight in the '04 elections but not on individual US voters. Sorry but your logic escapes me on this one.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many dialects in China of which Mandarin is only one. My point was obvious and had nothing to do with the Communist dictatorship of the masses but of your feelings of depression as demonstrated by the ratings and ravings of your fellow 'yellow dog Democrats' as they see their omnipresent power slipping away from them after 40+ years of running roughshod over the American people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I little education seems in order, so pay attention.
Yellow Dog Chinese use the phrase "Yellow Dog" to denote an imperialist. When China was a imperial posession of the British, the British would designate the best restaraunts in a large city for their use. Once designated, the establishment would have to hang out a sign that said "No Chinese and No dogs allowed". If a chinese tried to enter the restaraunt, the British would run them out, calling the chinese "yellow dogs".

Explain then: Your explanation seems very nice but Mao Tse Tung and China were not a British protectorate during the period of time this 'running yellow lackey dog' verbiage was used by the Communist regime. What did the British have to do with the old Maoist communist new-speak long after the Union Jack no longer flew over China? This also sounds a great deal like the old southern Democrat Dixiecrats who posted signs reading no dogs, Jews or blacks allowed.

"I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq, I would not be considered a "yellow dog" in this argument, that tittle would be reserved for people who agree with your position."

I am neither Chinese nor canine but do support our President in his decisive and strong approach to protect our shores no matter how much ally animosity is raised or the money our allies lose from his actions in our behalf. So you have my permission to call me anything you chose as long as it isn't too late for dinner.

"I am not a registered Democrat but I will play one for the moment so you can have a target for your angst. As for the democrats running roughshod over the american people...the american people elected the Democrats to their positions, just like they elected the republicans. To claim that the Dems had unfettered power for 40 years is also a little silly, we have had republican presidents for the majority of the last 40 years (do the math) which makes further rebutting of your point unnessecary until you can explain that little anomaly in your argument."

I never thought you were a registered anything including Democrat but your stated opinions indicate that you are more in the camp of the Socialist People's Party. If you think that before 1992, the purse-string Congress of the United States was Republican, then I would have to agree with you. As previously stated, the President of the United States can do little other than present a budget to Congress and which he can sign when passed. The Republican presidents never had a line-item veto power to eliminate pork barrel spending or wasteful spending of tax payer dollars used mainly for buying the votes for the Democrat Congress.

At lunch today, I spoke with a physician who did undergrad work at Berkley. His statement indicated that he came from a conservative family and was a died-in-the-wool conservative, he had to suffer the slings and arrows of a biased left leaning faculty. The fact that he had to parrot back his professors political ideations got him through with grades sufficient to get him into medical school. I empathized with him and related that I understood his dilemma.

My anomalous rebuttal probably does not satisfy you or your argument but in context it really does not need to.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
There are also just as reputable polls which demonstrate that your poll sites are in direct conflict with the same objective or subjective results over the last eight months.

Then go find one and post the link.

:United States has now captured tens of hundreds of just about every Islamic country Mujahadeen in the world fighting with Saddam's Republican Guard against the remaining US backed coalition. These Islamic fighters come from as far as Asia, South America, Philippine Islands and as close as Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.

And none of their native countries are at war with the US. That's exactly what I said if you go back and re-read the post.

Can I take your word on this fact to the bank? Do you have any idea of the significant millions of US dollars these 'poor' Islamic freedom fighters have at their disposal to enter America with the intent of blowing you and your family to smithereens?... But the reality that the Americans are infidels (unbelievers of Mohammad) and a commandment of Qur'an bible to destroy those satanic unbelievers who defile the holy soil of Islam countries.

Which is the Arabian peninsula, not Iraq or the US so why you found it neccessary to incorrectly quote the Koran to advance your argument is beyond me. As far as how much money they have at their disposal to send terrorists to america, I understand they are pretty flush if Saddam starts to funnel the missing Iraqi billions into their organizations. The mujahadeen are islamic mercenaries seeking the same fame and fortune that their predecessors won from the Soviets in the early 80s'. Some may be Ansar Islam, who waged a succesful war with the Kurds from 91 to 93 in the north of Iraq. Al-Qaeda specializes in high impact international targets and the overthrow of the Saudi regime. We are not fighting Al-Qaeda operatives in the streets of Mosul.

The good aspect is that these entities have not used these terrorists and weapons against the continental US. Maybe you would already be dead if Bush had not used his power and intellect to deter their evil intents.

Listen closely to the security experts, ajwps. Some terrorist cells could allready be here, waiting the oppurtunity to strike. More are trying to get in. If they are not dettered, they will eventually be succussfull. I fail to understand what about Iraq is dettering international terrorism, as far as being dead without GWBs "intellect"...please. Until I begin to beleive you are accurately discerning the present reality, I'm not inclined to give much weight to any alternate existances you might spin.

So you feel that our foreign policy failures can be attributed to our refusal to cooperate with the financial partnership interests of our old allies with their partner Saddam or the threat made openly to our old allies stating that any cooperation in any way with the USA's security (including the UN) would result in their own countries becoming the target of bombs and killings. That's very nice indeed... Did you attend Saddam's last birthday party?

Hahahahahah... yeah, sure, I jumped out of the cake. This is you, reinterpreting my words to suit your ends, you do it right here...

So you feel that our foreign policy failures can be attributed to our refusal to cooperate with the financial

I said what I said. If you to start putting words in my mouth by attributing opinions to me I didn't express, we can end this little debate right here. Just like last time, Nay ting-dao ma? If I don't say the things Rush thinks liberals say it is not my problem, you don't get to add dialogue to make your point. I wont tolerate it.

It is truly amazing how you somehow became aware of America's tactical and strategic plans regarding Iraq. Do you think that 'they' (France, Germany, Russia) want no part of a deal where they cannot cash in on their now voided billions of dollars oil contracts with the now deposed Saddam?

France is the only looser of the three, Germany and Russia are going to get every dime from their loans (no contracts)., so for them it is a wash. The rest tickles me a little bit, no I don't know what the strategic "plan" is cause I don't think we have one. Just some fuzzy logic PNAC crap bought and paid for by Big Oil and fringe Isreali lobbies.

Tell me if I incorrectly understand your thought process correctly in your above statement. The weight of 'these' failed policies that now alienate our old allies (whom we saved in previous wars) will bear weight in the '04 elections but not on individual US voters. Sorry but your logic escapes me on this one.

The policy failures that result from the lack of support is what will likely sink this president. In answer as too why I tried to educate you as too what the language you are using means when you throw around phrases like yellow dog...in retrospect, I'll have to admit it was a lapse in judgement on my part.

I never thought you were a registered anything including Democrat but your stated opinions indicate that you are more in the camp of the Socialist People's Party.

Hahahahahahahha

The Republican presidents never had a line-item veto power to eliminate pork barrel spending or wasteful spending of tax payer dollars used mainly for buying the votes for the Democrat Congress.

I will reffer you to the The energy bill thread where the republicans are set to reward their constituants, the oil companies. The remainder of your argument, visa vis "the powerlessness of the president" doesn't require a rebuttal, it fails on its' own internal logic.

My anomalous rebuttal probably does not satisfy you or your argument but in context it really does not need to.

You are correct. From time to time I hear similar stories from both sides of the political spectrum but discount them as anectdotal and don't waste peoples time recounting them.

 

[Sevendogs]

It is a strange war (or peace?) is going on in Iraq. We are governing this country, we have no control over Iraqi people, we pay huge salaries to their police and teachers, vaccinate children, restore electrict power and fight for their freedom... Do they value all these? It seems they do not. Look at those dancers near smoldering US vehicles? Shiite Muslims will never accept a democratic government in Iraq and our troops cannot stay there forever. It is a money pit. Our gas prices remain high. At the same time we left job unfinished in Afghanistan. Iraq was not important for radical muslims. Bush made a blunder going there. Whatever he may change in the direction there, the end is one - more land more lives will be lost for nothing. We were fighting in Vietnam for a long time and now Vietnam tries to unscramble its economy and get rid of communist system peacefully. It is a stupid perception of some Americans that they can come and save other nations from opprewssive regimes. Of course, I forgot, there is oil there... This is what Bush has in his agenda.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Dijetlo

"Then go find one and post the link."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/...bserver.com/news/story/3025551p-2770984c.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin062502.asp

Bush leads Democrats in North Carolina polls
Associated Press

RALEIGH--George W. Bush still is positioned to extend the Republican presidential winning streak in North Carolina, even if John Edwards is the Democratic nominee, according to a new poll.

The survey by Research 2000 shows President Bush ahead of Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, as well as front-runner Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark if the election were held today.

The poll, commissioned by The News & Observer of Raleigh, showed Bush ahead of Edwards 52 percent to 42 percent in a head-to-head matchup.

Bush also leads the former Vermont governor Dean, 54 percent to 40 percent, and Clark 50 percent to 40 percent.

A Democrat hasn't won North Carolina's electoral votes since 1976.

"North Carolina remains George Bush's state to lose," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, based in Rockville, Md. "If Edwards were the nominee, it could be a competitive race, but I would still favor Bush based on what we see here."

Edwards disputed the contention, noting previous Research 2000 polls showed Bush with advantages as large as 19 percentage points.

"It's just all moving in my direction," he said Friday while campaigning in South Carolina. "It's a pretty dramatic change over a short period of time."

The telephone poll of 600 likely voters in North Carolina, conducted Monday through Thursday, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


"And none of their native countries are at war with the US. That's exactly what I said if you go back and re-read the post."

Your statement pasted: We aren't being attacked by "Islamic countries" in Iraq, we are facing Iraqis and Mujahadeen. These guys were not going to attack america, AJWPS....

So "these guys were not going to attack America?" No Islamic country takes responsibility for SENDING THEIR MUJAHADEEN to attack America on 9/11. Now the Arab countries that send in their terroist Mujhadeen fighters from just about every Muslim country have not PUBLICLY acknowledged officially a state of war exists with the USA? Northing like parsing your words. You really must be living in another galaxy.

"Which is the Arabian peninsula, not Iraq or the US so why you found it neccessary to incorrectly quote the Koran to advance your argument is beyond me."

I don't think it is beyond an Arab to use Al-Taqiyya (dissimilation or lies of Islam) to protect the Qur'an and Allah. I have no idea of what you mean by the Arabian peninsual not being holy soil to the Islamics of the world. Mohammad in Qur'an cedes Israel to the Jewish people but you Muslims choose to ignore your own bible.[/b]

"As far as how much money they have at their disposal to send terrorists to america, I understand they are pretty flush if Saddam starts to funnel the missing Iraqi billions into their organizations."

The terrorist do not need Saddam's billions (he is too cheap) as they get all they need from the Arab oil Shieks, Ossama and every poor Arab in the world is required to pay money they need for food to destroy the Infidels. Sura 9:5

"The mujahadeen are islamic mercenaries seeking the same fame and fortune that their predecessors won from the Soviets in the early 80s'. Some may be Ansar Islam, who waged a succesful war with the Kurds from 91 to 93 in the north of Iraq. Al-Qaeda specializes in high impact international targets and the overthrow of the Saudi regime. We are not fighting Al-Qaeda operatives in the streets of Mosul. "

You got to be a fool or a Muslim. This statement is so full of lies that it would take more space than is allowed to even try to document all the falsehoods. Arab mercenaries paid by the world of Al-Islam. Every single mother ****** Muslim in the world supports the Qur'an and the destruction of all Infidels.

"Listen closely to the security experts, ajwps. Some terrorist cells could allready be here, waiting the oppurtunity to strike. More are trying to get in. If they are not dettered, they will eventually be succussfull. I fail to understand what about Iraq is dettering international terrorism, as far as being dead without GWBs "intellect"...please. Until I begin to beleive you are accurately discerning the present reality, I'm not inclined to give much weight to any alternate existances you might spin."

No you listen closely Mahmed, the security forces of America are aware of these Islamic killer cells. One day you Muslims think the cells are there then the next day you hear nothing. GONE.... And you are not spinning the Islamic spider web for the innocents of the world?[/b]

"Hahahahahah... yeah, sure, I jumped out of the cake. This is you, reinterpreting my words to suit your ends, you do it right here..."

Your written laugh is very Arabic by its nature. Your twisting and turning on your own words and lies.

Its a waste of time talking to a Muslim....

"I said what I said. If you to start putting words in my mouth by attributing opinions to me I didn't express, we can end this little debate right here."

I think you are correct. No use talking to a contortionist with the truth....

Allahu-Akbar Mahmed

Islam is about to meet the same end as all the other cancers that have attacked the people of the world. You and your Muslim friends fate has now been sealed. Thanks for conversation.....

http://muslimnazis.homestead.com/ArafatPlans.html

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Sevendogs

"It is a strange war (or peace?) is going on in Iraq. We are governing this country, we have no control over Iraqi people, we pay huge salaries to their police and teachers, vaccinate children, restore electrict power and fight for their freedom... Do they value all these? It seems they do not. Look at those dancers near smoldering US vehicles? Shiite Muslims will never accept a democratic government in Iraq and our troops cannot stay there forever. It is a money pit. Our gas prices remain high. At the same time we left job unfinished in Afghanistan. Iraq was not important for radical muslims. Bush made a blunder going there. Whatever he may change in the direction there, the end is one - more land more lives will be lost for nothing. We were fighting in Vietnam for a long time and now Vietnam tries to unscramble its economy and get rid of communist system peacefully. It is a stupid perception of some Americans that they can come and save other nations from opprewssive regimes. Of course, I forgot, there is oil there... This is what Bush has in his agenda."

So its all about oil and Bush wanting it in exchange for young American men and women's lives. A great deal of leftist slant propaganda that everything is falling apart in Iraq and that America attacked for nothing, didn't finish up in Afghanastan and Iraq is a money pit.

You are soon to learn that everything you said is irrelevant. The money pit is putting Americans to work, creating American made goods, military equipment, bombs, jet fighters, smart bombs and rockets and an early robust American economic recovery.

American troops still occupy Germany, Korea and many former countries we wared with years ago. Now every leftist and defeatest comes out of the woodwork to prop up the terrorist Muslim who wish to destroy our people and way of life.

Good luck.....

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
The telephone poll of 600 likely voters in North Carolina, conducted Monday through Thursday, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

North Carolina poll, national trend. Do you see your mistake. One link came up with an article from this date
June 25, 2002 12:15 p.m.
Not So Fast
Whatever happened to the Bush Doctrine?
Which also doesn't apply to the discussion we were having about the poll numbers I posted and you dispute. They were national polls, not polls of a single state .

Now the Arab countries that send in their terroist Mujhadeen fighters from just about every Muslim country have not PUBLICLY acknowledged officially a state of war exists with the USA? Northing like parsing your words. You really must be living in another galaxy.

A Mujahadeen is an islamic mercenary. They used to fight for us in Afghanistan against the Soviets, now the fatwahs and the money favors attacking americans.

I don't think it is beyond an Arab to use Al-Taqiyya (dissimilation or lies of Islam) to protect the Qur'an and Allah. I have no idea of what you mean by the Arabian peninsual not being holy soil to the Islamics of the world. Mohammad in Qur'an cedes Israel to the Jewish people but you Muslims choose to ignore your own bible.

Hahahahahahaha
You haven't even come close once,I'm going to start keeping score.
:baby:
You got to be a fool or a Muslim.
Hahahahahahah
:baby: :baby:

No you listen closely Mahmed,

:baby: :baby: :baby:

Its a waste of time talking to a Muslim....

:baby: :baby: :baby: :baby:
Yeah, I think you would be well served by withdrawing, your position is untenable. You have repeatedly resorted to name calling in an attempt to dispute my arguments. Personal attacks are a certain sign of a loosing argument.

 

[ajwps]

Presidential Polls 2003

Democrats state who is most likely 2004 winner.

http://www.suffolk.edu/suprc/pres/oct03/charts/nextpresident.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poll001.htm

1. Question: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve Disapprove No opinion
National Adults (Nov 2-4) 87 9 4
National Adults (Oct 19-21) 88 9 3
==============================
Bush gets good news on Medicare, economy
'For the sake of our seniors ... we're acting'
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 Posted: 9:40 AM EST (1440 GMT)

President Bush speaks to senior citizens Tuesday at Los Olivos Senior Center in Phoenix, Arizona, regarding the passage of the Medicare bill earlier in the day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/26/elec04.medicare.bush.ap/index.html

CNN Political News
November 26, 2003
George W. Bush

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is on a roll: The economy is roaring, consumers are optimistic, a prescription drug benefit for 40 million Americans awaits his signature, and his campaign war chest is growing ever fatter.

==================================
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9488

The Democrats' Dilemma


Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator.


If wishes were horses, the Democrats could ride their justified disgust with George W. Bush into the White House.

But it will take more than name-calling to defeat an incumbent Republican president with a likely three-to-one money advantage. And there are warning signs of a possible Democratic disaster next year for all who pay attention to them.

Consider the following recent trends, polls and legislative developments and ask yourself, which party has the political upper hand going into the presidential season?

The 9/11 tragedy brought a sea-change to American politics, a shift to the right that will be with us for years to come. This is reflected in a Pew survey based on 80,000 interviews over three years and released November 5. It concluded that "the GOP, which lagged well behind the Democrats in party affiliation for most of the past century, achieved significant nationwide gains after Sept. 11 and has drawn even with the Democrats."

===========================
For a perspective of the Arab peace with Israel. Turn on your speakers.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/fence.html

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
Presidential Polls 2003 Democrats state who is most likely 2004 winner.
http://www.suffolk.edu/suprc/pres/oct03/charts/nextpresident.htm

and apparently it is some guy name undecided, check your poll results.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poll001.htm

Check the dates The usa today poll is from
>>11/05/2001 - Updated 05:23 PM ET
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results <<
but at least it is a national poll.

 

[ajwps]

Interesting how you seem to have ignored the most current sites.

http://www.suffolk.edu/suprc/pres/o...xtpresident.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...h.ap/index.html


and the November 2003 Tom Post article on the Democrats dilemma.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9488

The most current and accurate poll is the one following election day. All previous polls taken during the current term of office are a picture of a point in time. Some finding for the president re-election and some against.

And that is my opinion poll....

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Originally posted by ajwps
Presidential Polls 2003 Democrats state who is most likely 2004 winner.

http://www.suffolk.edu/suprc/pres/o...xtpresident.htm

and apparently it is some guy name undecided, check your poll results.

Also interesting in that poll... 1/4 of Democrats in the poll believed that GWB would still win re-election. Not a good sign for a nation split pretty much 50-50 between R's and D's.

 

[ajwps]

Nov. 25, 2003, 9:23PM

Say what you will, Bush is president until 2008
By JAMES McWILLIAMS

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2250304

Call the man dim, call him corrupt, but call him president until 2008. George W. Bush certainly has vulnerabilities, but he's been smart enough to model himself on a man who pioneered the fine art of political image-making: Andrew Jackson. Democrats, as a result, are doomed.

In 1819, as the dust settled from his bloodthirsty and blatantly unconstitutional attack on the Seminole Indians, Jackson, then one of the nation's most revered generals, found himself on the congressional hot seat. Didn't he know, John Quincy Adams lectured with great pomposity, that his usurpation of military authority would have been better explained on the high ground of national and international law -- laws codified for the ages by the like of Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattell?

Jackson, a man of dubious literacy, paused for a moment and then remarked for the ages, "Damn Grotius! Damn Pufendorf! Damn Vattell!"

It was a strategic retort, designed to show that he was not the kind of man who would let the law get in the way of a war. He was a man who acted first and thought later. Here was a man for America.

Sure enough, Adams notwithstanding, the United States couldn't have identified more with Jackson's instinctual, as opposed to reasoned, justification for slaughtering the Seminoles -- and it helped ensure his election.

We haven't matured much. There's something eerily Jacksonian about our current commander in chief, a man who also favors instinct over principle.

Bush embroiled the country in a war based on a series of false assumptions. His genius has been to recognize that, politically, it doesn't matter. Saddam Hussein has been ousted and if anyone is still nagging us about those pesky weapons of mass destruction, it's just sour grapes.

Of course, thoughtful (if elaborate) justifications against the war have been articulated. But we don't necessarily want our leaders to be thoughtful. Bush has had the finest education a man can buy or inherit, but the only time he mentions it is when he brags that he was a C student at Yale. He's more likely to be photographed holding an ax than a book.

He plays up his Texas heritage (we're all kinda slow in Texas) at the expense of his Connecticut connections (people there, of course, are smarter). Hacking away at mesquite grub on his Crawford ranchette, he convincingly puts forth the image of a rugged individualist, a doer, a true frontiersman, a man who's never quoted a law in his life but has made laws to suit his base urges, a plowman rather than a professor.

Who knows why we lap it up, but lap it up we do. Those of us so bold as to call ourselves intellectuals read the journals, write the books, construct the carefully detailed and, yes, objective arguments against the war in Iraq. We know, deep in our principled hearts, that we are right in a rational and moral sense. But so what?

The nation has no patience for long-winded justifications. In fact, it is suspicious of them. Until someone figures out that the house of cards the administration has built must be crumbled by a yeoman with a sledgehammer and not a smarty-pants with a book, King George's manifest destiny will be to reign as the favored son of King Andrew.

McWilliams is an assistant professor of history at Texas State University, San Marcos.

 

[dijetlo]

ajwps
McWilliams is an assistant professor of history at Texas State University

Your author is an assistant professor of history. His article, while entertaining, assumes the US electorate will just let this slide

Bush embroiled the country in a war based on a series of false assumptions. His genius has been to recognize that, politically, it doesn't matter. Saddam Hussein has been ousted and if anyone is still nagging us about those pesky weapons of mass destruction, it's just sour grapes.

Jackson didn't live in the electronic age where political parties can pay to keep this in the minds of the voters. He also was president of a third world country that was largely ignored/unacknowledged by the great powers of the time. His analogies seem pretty flawed just on that basis, it is a little like comparing Iraq to WWII.
Hey, before I forget, Happy thanksgiving ajwps

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Also interesting in that poll... 1/4 of Democrats in the poll believed that GWB would still win re-election. Not a good sign for a nation split pretty much 50-50 between R's and D's.

Very salient, jeff. The dems lack a message, an over-arching agenda that would help them capture the independants who decide presidential elections, but on the other hand, so do the Republicans. Either party is little more than a tool of the moneyed interests that fund it and I think america might be becoming aware of that, so how that will effect the election is anyones guess. Right now the best the Dems can do is the WAB party (We aint Bush). I doubt it will carry them to the Whitehouse, but it might be enough to shift the congress/senate.
Happy Thanksgiving, Dude.