Putin kills 298 people while r-wingers admire him here and elect him President.

[dilloduck]

Without photoshop

One of these guys needs to be sure he is not photographed with his shirt off

This horse should be charged with killing 299 people, because it was from his back that the missiles were fired.

Naaaa Putin did it with his bare hands--Just ask a liberal propagandist

 

[kidrocks]

Without photoshop

One of these guys needs to be sure he is not photographed with his shirt off

This horse should be charged with killing 299 people, because it was from his back that the missiles were fired.

Naaaa Putin did it with his bare hands--Just ask a liberal propagandist

You mean superman didn't do it with his bare hands? Wow, many r-wing hearts will be crushed to hear that bit of news.

 

[EconChick]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

 

[kidrocks]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

What???

You in the right forum?

 

[paperview]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

 

[EconChick]

.

So tell me, why did President Bush agree to pull our troops out by 2012? Was there a particular point that prevented him from agreeing to keep a residual force behind?

It's very easy. It was meant to put as much diplomatic pressure on Maliki to attempt to "scare" him if he didn't "give" in the negotiations.

People don't seem to realize....just as we do in our every day lives with family, coworkers and friends, it was a negotiating ploy.

It was a THROW AWAY. Meaning, he wasn't going to be in power once the agreement took place so he could afford to use it to help the US bargaining position without having to follow up on it.

It's mind-boggling that people actually believe a president can lock a policy in stone for actions that will take place AFTER HE LEAVES POWER without it being subject to renegotiation. We see it every day with Congress and WH.

I know because I didn't work far from the Ambassador's Office, that the Bush people of course wanted to leave a residual force....a pretty substantial one....but they knew it wasn't going to be their call.

It was also meant to be used as a tool to help Maliki with his own public opinion about having US troops there.

 

[paperview]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

What???

You in the right forum?

I know, huh?

Her whole post is a ******* mess.

 

[dilloduck]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

What???

You in the right forum?

I know, huh?

Her whole post is a ******* mess.

She's responding to a post that was talking about poll numbers, bonehead. Read the whole thread.

 

[EconChick]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

 

[EconChick]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

What???

You in the right forum?

I know, huh?

Her whole post is a ******* mess.

Liberals are the most math-challenged beings on this planet. I'm not surprised you didn't grasp it. That's why you're the party of EMOTIONS, dude, instead of dispassionate logic and math. Which is also why liberal policies ultimately crash and burn. They eventually run out of everyone else's money.

Take a stats course and get a clue.

 

[kidrocks]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

You are in the wrong forum/thread it seems.

 

[EconChick]

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

You are in the wrong forum/thread it seems.

You're paperrosey friend tried to make some usual propagandaa point by citing an international survey. I explained why the poll is faulty.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

 

[mamooth]

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

The pollster was asking the same question at different times, whether someone had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the USA. If there are uncontrolled variables, they are the same at both times, hence they cancel out when a difference is taken.

So, one could claim the simple popularity numbers of the USA are not that meaningful, due to those uncontrolled variables.

However, one can not sensibly claim that the differences between two different time frames are meaningless, because those variables cancel out. Those who make such a stupid claim are either clueless about statistics and common sense, or they're flailing because the data contradicts their cult's fables about Obama being unpopular overseas.

 

[kidrocks]

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

You are in the wrong forum/thread it seems.

You're paperrosey friend tried to make some usual propagandaa point by citing an international survey. I explained why the poll is faulty.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Title/subject of thread is...

Putin kills 298 people while r-wingers admire him here and elect him President.

 

[paperview]

Come on, folks, someone quotes data from an article from a leftist, agenda-driven magazine where the methodology for collecting that data is beyond laughable ....and people don't bother to question it.

What do I mean by methodology?

It means the dumbshits broke the basic rules for statistics collection.

Kinda like this: Go to North Carolina and poll a whole bunch of North Carolinians on which presidential candidate would make the best president. The one from Oregon, the one from Vermont, or the one from North Carolina? No other qualities are given, just what state they're from. And the poll shows 80% think candidate NCGuy would be the best presidential candidate to give money to.

That is what's called breaking the most elementary rules of statistics analysis. It's called measurement bias.

As in my NC example, there are so many statistical fallacies in that article that I dunno where to begin. Causal fallacies, measurement fallacies, base rate fallacies, extrapolation fallacies, the Simpson paradox (same study can show something goes both up and down), correlation without causation......and the list goes on.

I wouldn't trust it if a conservative media outlet like Fox took the poll either.

Without getting way into the analysis of this, it's likely that regardless of whether it was Atlantic or Fox asking the questions, most foreigners don't even know enough about Obama to judge him. Any more than most Americans know enough about the Australian Prime Minister to judge him.

Besides, anyone who does much traveling knows that people would say one thing publicly about Bush for example - what a cowboy he was - while privately telling you that they sure hope he kicks Dictator XX's ass on their behalf because everyone knows what a pariah Dictator XX is.

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to not know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdeedo. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

 

[EconChick]

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

The pollster was asking the same question at different times, whether someone had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the USA. If there are uncontrolled variables, they are the same at both times, hence they cancel out when a difference is taken.

So, one could claim the simple popularity numbers of the USA are not that meaningful, due to those uncontrolled variables.

However, one can not sensibly claim that the differences between two different time frames are meaningless, because those variables cancel out. Those who make such a stupid claim are either clueless about statistics and common sense, or they're flailing because the data contradicts their cult's fables about Obama being unpopular overseas.

Those variables cancel out? You gotta be kidding me. You cited one!!! Obviously you failed to understand the list of fallacies I listed.

 

[paperview]

You're paperrosey friend tried to make some usual propagandaa point by citing an international survey. I explained why the poll is faulty.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Hey chicky, I didn't cite the thread. I responded to it after someone else had posted it.

Pay attention. For someone who seems to think she's so on the ball, you're not really very observant, are you?

 

[BlindBoo]

So tell me, why did President Bush agree to pull our troops out by 2012? Was there a particular point that prevented him from agreeing to keep a residual force behind?

It's very easy. It was meant to put as much diplomatic pressure on Maliki to attempt to "scare" him if he didn't "give" in the negotiations.

People don't seem to realize....just as we do in our every day lives with family, coworkers and friends, it was a negotiating ploy.

It was a THROW AWAY. Meaning, he wasn't going to be in power once the agreement took place so he could afford to use it to help the US bargaining position without having to follow up on it.

It's mind-boggling that people actually believe a president can lock a policy in stone for actions that will take place AFTER HE LEAVES POWER without it being subject to renegotiation. We see it every day with Congress and WH.

I know because I didn't work far from the Ambassador's Office, that the Bush people of course wanted to leave a residual force....a pretty substantial one....but they knew it wasn't going to be their call.

It was also meant to be used as a tool to help Maliki with his own public opinion about having US troops there.

But first Bush, then Obama, failed to convince Maliki. The major stumbling block for these leaders was the standard US demand that its forces be immune from local prosecution. Maliki wouldn't budge on the issue, and probably couldn't have gotten parliament to go along anyway.

Obama isn't the problem in Iraq. It's Maliki ? and Iraqi politics - CSMonitor.com

 

[EconChick]

Wait a minute -- are you painting the Pew Research Center -- a respected and decades old researching and polling institute and this here,

• Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project

as some little rinky-dink two-bit fallacy-ridden piece o crap ? Seriously?

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdefucking do. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

 

[dilloduck]

It's very easy. It was meant to put as much diplomatic pressure on Maliki to attempt to "scare" him if he didn't "give" in the negotiations.

People don't seem to realize....just as we do in our every day lives with family, coworkers and friends, it was a negotiating ploy.

It was a THROW AWAY. Meaning, he wasn't going to be in power once the agreement took place so he could afford to use it to help the US bargaining position without having to follow up on it.

It's mind-boggling that people actually believe a president can lock a policy in stone for actions that will take place AFTER HE LEAVES POWER without it being subject to renegotiation. We see it every day with Congress and WH.

I know because I didn't work far from the Ambassador's Office, that the Bush people of course wanted to leave a residual force....a pretty substantial one....but they knew it wasn't going to be their call.

It was also meant to be used as a tool to help Maliki with his own public opinion about having US troops there.

But first Bush, then Obama, failed to convince Maliki. The major stumbling block for these leaders was the standard US demand that its forces be immune from local prosecution. Maliki wouldn't budge on the issue, and probably couldn't have gotten parliament to go along anyway.

Obama isn't the problem in Iraq. It's Maliki ? and Iraqi politics - CSMonitor.com

Time to pull the neocon coup d'état team back from the Ukraine and get to work in Iraq.