Democrats make me sick....

[recxjake]

Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml


Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.

Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.

In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.

On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.

Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.

[the Talking Can]

hey patteeu, what's up?

[patteeu]

hey patteeu, what's up?

ROFL

At least you've come up with something marginally original. Maybe you can finally break free from your unimaginative rut.

[PunkinDrublic]

Did you go to the Bill O'reilly school of fake outrage?

[Nightwish]

Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml


Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.

Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.

In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.

On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.

Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.I would be very interested in seeing what the actual polling questions were. Considering Newsmax's penchant for hard spin and occasional fabrication, I suspect that the questions didn't actually have anything to do with leaving Saddam Hussein in power. As the Newsmax-reading RWNJs have a tendency to equate "against the war" with "pro-Saddam," I am inclined to think the poll was actually asking about people's confidence in our success in the war, so that a question that might have read something like, "Do you believe our occupation of Iraq has made the situation in Iraq worse," got spun into "Dems give Saddam a vote of confidence!" Except for World Nut Daily, Newsmax is probably the single most dishonest "news" journal I've ever come across.

[jAZ]

From what I can read, this article is about as disengenuine as anything I've ever seen NewsMax put out.

While they don't bother to put the exact question in the article, what they say about it leads me to believe that the original question was something like "should be have invaded Iraq"?

They are desperately spinning (and clearly Jake is there buying with all his dollars) that an answer of "NO" by a Dem means that Dems just love Saddam hussein and desperately want him back in power.

Of course anyone with any sense of reason would understand that while a lack of American invasion would result in Saddam being in power for at least some period of time, it doesn't mean that we loved him being in power. In my case, I fully supported our military/CIA supporting an internal attempt at overthrowing Saddam.

That's just 1 way in which it's completely obvious that a lack of support for invading Iraq in 2003 is NOT the same thing as supporting Saddam Hussein.

And I'm more than certain that Jake understands this, but he's so much of a Republican cheerleader that he forgets to take a minute to think through the issue at hand before doing his GOP Cheer.

[Nightwish]

In my case, I fully supported our military/CIA supporting an internal attempt at overthrowing Saddam.
That's pretty much where I stood. The hawks don't understand that there's more than one way to oust a tyrant. War isn't the only way, especially after years of stiff sanctions have all but destroyed his ability to fight back.

[Amnorix]

Well, whatever sliver of credibility NewsMax ever had is now completely gone. Unbelievable.

[recxjake]

so all you Dems are saying that these numbers are just a complete lie?

[Nightwish]

so all you Dems are saying that these numbers are just a complete lie?
I'm not a Dem, but I suspect that it's the characterization of the questions, not the numbers themselves, that are a lie. I know a lot of Dems, and a lot of anti-war people, and not a single one of them believes Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. The numbers may be quite true to whatever questions were actually asked. But I strongly suspect the article is not being truthful about what the questions really were.

[Amnorix]

so all you Dems are saying that these numbers are just a complete lie?


I'm saying that NewsMax's presentation of facts is misleading. I'm about 100% certain that the question isn't "Do you continue to support Saddam Hussein" or "Would you prefer to return Saddam Hussein to power?"


Nope, it's more likely "was our invading Iraq a bad idea or someesuch.

[recxjake]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf

heres where newsmax got there info....

[recxjake]

question 7 explains everything

[patteeu]

I'd say Newsmax reported the question pretty close for not actually quoting it. Far closer than recxjake's critics in this thread were with their speculation. I think a few someones owes recxjake an apology. ROFL

[Amnorix]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf

heres where newsmax got there info....


Beyond weird. It's especially odd that the results are flipped when it comes to "is Iraq better off" as opposed to "is the world better off". Republicans clearly understood the question, and nearly the same results were obtained for the two questions.

Democrats, however, totally screwed it up, with a significant percentage voting differently on the two questions.

Oh well, I've never held that an average voter is all that brilliant.

[Amnorix]

I'd say Newsmax reported the question pretty close for not actually quoting it. Far closer than recxjake's critics in this thread were with their speculation. I think a few someones owes recxjake an apology. ROFL

I never insulted Rex. He accurately posted what NewsMax said, so there's nothing to blame him for in the first place. It was NewsMax I insulted.

NewsMax got it right. They retain their shred of credibility. :p

[patteeu]

I never insulted Rex. He accurately posted what NewsMax said, so there's nothing to blame him for in the first place. It was NewsMax I insulted.

NewsMax got it right. They retain their shred of credibility. :p

Fair enough. I was just poking at you guys anyway. I agree that newsmax is a suspect source of news. "Hard spin" was a good description.

[recxjake]

I never insulted Rex. He accurately posted what NewsMax said, so there's nothing to blame him for in the first place. It was NewsMax I insulted.

NewsMax got it right. They retain their shred of credibility. :p

ya i agree that newsmax does stretch stuff, but when it comes to numbers you can't make them up, and they did a good job w/ this article

[Amnorix]

Yeah, no argument with NewsMax on this. They didn't stretch the poll results out of whack to what the poll actually was.

I just can't figure WTF was going on with those answers.

[Nightwish]

Yeah, no argument with NewsMax on this. They didn't stretch the poll results out of whack to what the poll actually was.

I just can't figure WTF was going on with those answers.I think I can. Here are the two questions relevant to this thread (I'll leave off the Independents tally, since we're not really talking about them):

7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the US military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Democrats: 41% Better, 34% worse, 8% same, 18% don't know
Republicans: 10% Better, 78% worse, 6% same, 6% don't know

8. Do you think Iraq would be better off or worse off if the US military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Democrats: 29% better, 40% worse, 11% same, 20% don't know
Republicans: 10% better, 82% worse, 4% same, 4% don't know

What I think this represents is the difference in thinking with regard to whether or not Saddam was a threat to the world or to the US prior to our military posturing. Prior to our build-up, his only known ties to terrorism were to an Iran-based organization that he sponsored to carry out attacks against Iranians and Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. Only after we made it clear that we were going to go to war did he start paying suicide bombers' families in Palestine. So the Democrats believe that had we not intervened on such a large scale, Saddam's threat would have remained kept within his borders (reflected by the fact that a majority of Dems said the world would be better off, but Iraq would be worse off).

And I make no apologies about disparaging the article. As I suspected, it did misrepresent the numbers and the questions. Note that in the article it said that 41% gave Saddam a stamp of approval, while only 34% said Iraq would be better served with Saddam gone. In fact, those were not the numbers for the question of whether or not Iraq would be better served, those were the numbers for the question of whether the world was better off. On the question of whether Iraq was better off, more Dems said no than yes. So, Newsmax holds true to its unreliability in reporting the facts.

[Amnorix]

7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the US military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?


Actually, a simpler answer might be that the way the question is worded suggests a referendum on whether the US should have gone into Iraq.

[jAZ]

I can answer the question of "What were they thinking".

The poll basically reflects that Dems don't think Saddam was much of a threat of real threat to the world. He was in a box and he wasn't able to do much of anything to anyone else.

And history pretty much proves this fact to be true.

So if we hadn't invaded Iraq, things would be basically the same, but our role in the world would be a lot better off (we burned a lot of support in invading Iraq) and we would have had a much better chance and using the resources we spent on Iraq in actually finding and destroying terrorist cells through out the world.

It's not unreasonable to think that the world would be better off had we not invaded. At the same time, that's not to say that the Iraqi people would be better off... which is why you see a different outcome in question 8.

What's good for the world is not necessary the same thing that's good for the Iraqi people.

And none of this is to say that Dems cheer for Saddam.

[jAZ]

I'd also like to point out that 10% Republicans and 27% of independants hold the same view (that the world would be better off).

You add those up and you are pretty close to 50% of the country that feels the world would be better off if we hadn't invaded.

Not so shocking a statistic when taken in proper context.

[patteeu]

Prior to our build-up, his only known ties to terrorism were to an Iran-based organization that he sponsored to carry out attacks against Iranians and Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. Only after we made it clear that we were going to go to war did he start paying suicide bombers' families in Palestine.

Abu Nidal?

[recxjake]

I can answer the question of "What were they thinking".

The poll basically reflects that Dems don't think Saddam was much of a threat of real threat to the world. He was in a box and he wasn't able to do much of anything to anyone else.

And history pretty much proves this fact to be true.

So if we hadn't invaded Iraq, things would be basically the same, but our role in the world would be a lot better off (we burned a lot of support in invading Iraq) and we would have had a much better chance and using the resources we spent on Iraq in actually finding and destroying terrorist cells through out the world.

It's not unreasonable to think that the world would be better off had we not invaded. At the same time, that's not to say that the Iraqi people would be better off... which is why you see a different outcome in question 8.

What's good for the world is not necessary the same thing that's good for the Iraqi people.

And none of this is to say that Dems cheer for Saddam.


oh Jaz i love how you libs try to spin things...... its funny

[memyselfI]

I can answer the question of "What were they thinking".

The poll basically reflects that Dems don't think Saddam was much of a threat of real threat to the world. He was in a box and he wasn't able to do much of anything to anyone else.

And history pretty much proves this fact to be true.

So if we hadn't invaded Iraq, things would be basically the same, but our role in the world would be a lot better off (we burned a lot of support in invading Iraq) and we would have had a much better chance and using the resources we spent on Iraq in actually finding and destroying terrorist cells through out the world.

It's not unreasonable to think that the world would be better off had we not invaded. At the same time, that's not to say that the Iraqi people would be better off... which is why you see a different outcome in question 8.

What's good for the world is not necessary the same thing that's good for the Iraqi people.

And none of this is to say that Dems cheer for Saddam.

But in a black or white lambs world, it means that Dems want America to lose so SH can be back in power...

:p

Nevermind, the polls taken since the beginning of the war world wide have pretty much pegged GWB a bigger threat to world peace than SH is or ever was...

I guess in RNWJthink that means the world wants SH to rule them. :hmmm:

[jAZ]

oh Jaz i love how you libs try to spin things...... its funny
As spin as opposed to what exactly? I'm telling you what I think and what I suspect other dems voting that way might be believing.

How's that spin exactly?

[recxjake]

this poll cleary shows that almost 40% of the dem's polled want Saddam in power, and that is digusting.........

[memyselfI]

this poll cleary shows that almost 40% of the dem's polled want Saddam in power, and that is digusting.........

No, it doesn't. It merely says the world was a safer place prior to the war. Many people, not just Dems, believe that.

[Nightwish]

oh Jaz i love how you libs try to spin things...... its funny
The only spin was in the article itself. That a majority of Dems believed that Saddam Hussein was not a world threat is common knowledge. The poll reflects that commonly held belief among Democrats. That's not spin. That the numbers somehow indicate a support for Saddam Hussein, now that's some serious spin that few people (even Republicans) outside Newsmax's readership are likely to buy.

[recxjake]

No, it doesn't. It merely says the world was a safer place prior to the war. Many people, not just Dems, believe that.

you libs are blind..... the world is way better w/ a democracy in Iraq.... and it looks to me like you are standing up for a ruthless dictator, i always new Dems were evil

[Nightwish]

this poll cleary shows that almost 40% of the dem's polled want Saddam in power, and that is digusting.........
No, rex, the poll doesn't show anything like that. The article says that. You need to separate the poll from the article. The poll says 41% of Democrats believe the world would be a better place if our military hadn't gone in and Saddam was still in power. It's a bad question to begin with, because it doesn't allow a person to answer "Going in with the military was a bad idea, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea," which is what the majority (probably 99%) of those opposing the war actually believe. The questions force people to choose between two biased packages, neither of which reflects what the options actually were. It's based on the fallacy that if we didn't invade full-scale, then there's no way Saddam could have been removed.

[Amnorix]

i always new Dems were evil

We are not! Now pardon me while I head to the restroom. The baby I ate earlier is giving me indigestion.

[memyselfI]

We are not! Now pardon me while I head to the restroom. The baby I ate earlier is giving me indigestion.

Aborted baby, I presume???

[recxjake]

Aborted baby, I presume???

probably somthing like this... http://www.youthalternatives.com/aborted_baby.jpg

[recxjake]

or this? http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/Smhead1.jpg

I don't think you should be joking about such a serious matter

[Nightwish]

or this? http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/Smhead1.jpg

I don't think you should be joking about such a serious matter
They aren't joking about abortion. They're joking about the crass and rediculous characterization of all Dems as ultra-liberals and evil people.

[recxjake]

We are not! Now pardon me while I head to the restroom. The baby I ate earlier is giving me indigestion.

your right thats not a joke

[memyselfI]

They aren't joking about abortion. They're joking about the crass and rediculous characterization of all Dems as ultra-liberals and evil people.

Not to mention joking about the fact that EVERYONE knows that aborted babies cause the worst indigestion...

[Nightwish]

your right thats not a joke
Yes, it was a joke. He wasn't making fun of babies. He was making fun of you. Did you miss it?

[Amnorix]

your right thats not a joke

Shut up you, or it is YOUR women I shall rape, your family I shall plunder, and your children I shall slaughter. SILENCE as to our secret, or you shall reap the whirlwind!

:fire: :fire: :fire:















we really need some kind of manically insane laughter smilie to pull this off right

[memyselfI]

Shut up you, or it is YOUR women I shall rape, your family I shall plunder, and your children I shall slaughter. SILENCE or you shall reap the whirlwind!

:fire: :fire: :fire:















we really need some kind of manically insane laughter smilie to pull this off right

I could swear I've seen this before... :hmmm:

[Amnorix]

Not to mention joking about the fact that EVERYONE knows that aborted babies cause the worst indigestion...


Good point. Hey, btw, you going to make the Puppies and Kittens Drowning Convention this year or what? I'm looking forward to the warm weather down there myself. Boston's getting a bit brisk...

[memyselfI]

Good point. Hey, btw, you going to make the Puppies and Kittens Drowning Convention this year or what? I'm looking forward to the warm weather down there myself. Boston's getting a bit brisk...


Yeah, I'm excited. I hear that the pre-convention entertainment is this years Chiefs vs. Patriots game. :p*



















* Now THAT is how you do evil... :evil: :fire:

[Amnorix]

* Now THAT is how you do evil... :evil: :fire:


No worries, I'll throw in the DVDs from all those Super Bowls we've won recently. You, meanwhile, can watch reruns of all your playoff humiliations over the last 30 years.



http://www.patriotsplanet.net/images/PatriotsPlanet/Wallpaper/Signatures/Banners.jpg




:p

[recxjake]

nice spin libs

[Amnorix]

nice spin libs


errrr.....



How is it sometimes you seem like you've got a few neurons firing, and sometimes you're a complete twit? This time, I'm serious btw...

[Nightwish]

errrr.....



How is it sometimes you seem like you've got a few neurons firing, and sometimes you're a complete twit? This time, I'm serious btw...
I think maybe he swallowed a few too many Mickey's last night.

[recxjake]

errrr.....



How is it sometimes you seem like you've got a few neurons firing, and sometimes you're a complete twit? This time, I'm serious btw...

hmm im outraged at the current moment

[jAZ]

hmm im outraged at the current moment
You've created a fantasy that outrages you. Just like Bill O'Reilly every other night. It's your own fault that you are outraged.

As a great philosopher once said:

<embed src="http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/loxwood/38/settle.wav" width="200" height="25" href="http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/loxwood/38/settle.wav">

[memyselfI]

No worries, I'll throw in the DVDs from all those Super Bowls we've won recently. You, meanwhile, can watch reruns of all your playoff humiliations over the last 30 years.



http://www.patriotsplanet.net/images/PatriotsPlanet/Wallpaper/Signatures/Banners.jpg




:p

No worries, I try not to live in the past... ;)

[penchief]

Independent minds are sickened by the robotic legions that call themselves republicans.

[patteeu]

Independent minds are sickened by the robotic legions that call themselves republicans.

I'm a moderate independent and I think Republicans are swell.

[penchief]

I'm a moderate independent and I think Republicans are swell.

I'm a moderate democrat and I think that moderate republicans are swell.

[jAZ]

I'm a moderate independent and I think Republicans are swell.
Yeah, that says quite a bit about your status as both "moderate" and "independent".

[Nightwish]

I'm a moderate democrat and I think that moderate republicans are swell.
Some are, some are scoundrels. Same goes for the far left, the near left, the dead center, the near right and the far right. What I object to (and yes, I know you don't do this, at least I've not seen you do it) is when people try to characterize the entirety of one section of the political spectrum as all being the same. That's just idiocy.

[patteeu]

Yeah, that says quite a bit about your status as both "moderate" and "independent".

I got tired of Taco calling me a fake libertarian and Republicans considering me a liberal (when issues like gay marriage and drug legalization come up at least) and when I thought about it I realized that I am to hardcore Libertarians what Arlen Specter is to the Republicans. And I am to Conservatives what a pro-life democrat is to democrats. I'm part libertarian and part conservative. Voila! I'm a moderate between the two good parties, the Libertarians and the Republicans! :)

[jAZ]

I got tired of Taco calling me a fake libertarian and Republicans considering me a liberal (when issues like gay marriage and drug legalization come up at least) and when I thought about it I realized that I am to hardcore Libertarians what Arlen Specter is to the Republicans. And I am to Conservatives what a pro-life democrat is to democrats. I'm part libertarian and part conservative. Voila! I'm a moderate between the two good parties, the Libertarians and the Republicans! :)
Being part libertarian and part conservative doesn't make you moderate. It's makes you conservative leaning, if only slightly.

It's kinda like a triangle with liberals, conservatives and libertarians being the 3 points. Just because you fall half-way between two of the 3 points doesn't make you moderate. That title would require that you fall into the middle between all 3 points on the triangle.

You certainly aren't hardcore conservative, but you aren't an unqualified moderate either. I'd call you a conservative-leaning independent (who loves the GOP). I'd call Taco a libertarian. I'd call myself a liberal moderate (there are aspects of all 3 ideologies that I support). I'm definately in the space between the edges of that triangle.

I'm pro-capitalism... but favor many regulations.
I'm anti-death penalty... but pro-gun rights.
I'm pro-choice, but pro-limitations on abortion (last trimester).
I'm pro-free speech, but favor of clear seperation of church-and-state.
I'm pro-legalization of drugs, sex, etc... but I'm pro-tobacco regulations.
I'm pro-reducing taxes... but I'm in pro-progressive taxation.
I'm pro-many social programs... but I'm pro-making people work for it.
I'm pro-border security... but I favor a substantial work-visa program.
I'm a walking contradiction, but it's all about balanced views on issues.

I'm not someone who thinks everything should be left up to free markets, even though I'm pro-business. I want balance with the needs of all people... since democracy is for people (all people), not companies.

I'm willing to make certain financial sacrafices to keep our nation

[Nightwish]

Why doesn't somebody create a list of several political issues and make a new thread about it, so we can all post our particular stance on them (pro, con, neither). For the most part, we're only seeing each others' viewpoints on Iraq, corruption in Congress, and so on, so a lot of people are misunderstanding others as being hardcore liberals or conservatives. Something like this would give everyone a better perspective on our total politics, and might make some folks a little less apt to resort to antagonism simply because they feel their opponent is totally opposite them. I know that I tend to feel less compelled to get in someone's face about an issue I disagree with them on, if I feel that we have a number of issues in common otherwise. If nobody else wants to do that, I might start one later. Right now, though, my roomie and I are getting ready to watch a DVD, but I'll check back in a couple hours to see if anyone has done that.

[penchief]

I'm a moderate independent and I think Republicans are swell.

By the way, what is a moderate independent?

Is that the opposite of a radical independent?

[Amnorix]

I'd call myself a liberal moderate (there are aspects of all 3 ideologies that I support). I'm definately in the space between the edges of that triangle.

I'm pro-capitalism... but favor many regulations.
I'm anti-death penalty... but pro-gun rights.
I'm pro-choice, but pro-limitations on abortion (last trimester).
I'm pro-free speech, but favor of clear seperation of church-and-state.
I'm pro-legalization of drugs, sex, etc... but I'm pro-tobacco regulations.
I'm pro-reducing taxes... but I'm in pro-progressive taxation.
I'm pro-many social programs... but I'm pro-making people work for it.
I'm pro-border security... but I favor a substantial work-visa program.
I'm a walking contradiction, but it's all about balanced views on issues.

I'm not someone who thinks everything should be left up to free markets, even though I'm pro-business. I want balance with the needs of all people... since democracy is for people (all people), not companies.

I'm willing to make certain financial sacrafices to keep our nation

Other than being pro gun rights (and you'd have to describe more specifically where you're at on that, you're a pretty solid liberal. I don't see a whole lot of "walking contradiction" in there. I mean, you're not a Communist, but I don't think that makes you a moderate or anything. :)

[DaFace]

Is it sad that I can glance at a thread title from the CP main page and instantly know that it's rexcxjake that started it?

[patteeu]

Being part libertarian and part conservative doesn't make you moderate. It's makes you conservative leaning, if only slightly.

It's kinda like a triangle with liberals, conservatives and libertarians being the 3 points. Just because you fall half-way between two of the 3 points doesn't make you moderate. That title would require that you fall into the middle between all 3 points on the triangle.

LOL, excuse me if I don't bow to your definitions of political alignment. You certainly have the right to set up whatever scheme you want for your own framework, but what you've said here isn't at all a common understanding of the terms. And I agree that my use of "moderate" is nonstandard as well. In fact, I think "moderate" is an absurd label because it could mean so many different things. For example, people describe both John McCain and Lincoln Chafe as moderate Republicans even though they are actually quite different. Their primary similarity is that neither of them follows party leadership reliably.

You certainly aren't hardcore conservative, but you aren't an unqualified moderate either. I'd call you a conservative-leaning independent (who loves the GOP).

That's funny because I think of myself as a pretty hardcore conservative. Before I realized I was a moderate, I used to think of myself as a radical conservative who was too conservative for the conservatives of the Republican party. The Republicans would have several guys running for President and I'd like one or two of them (e.g. Jack Kemp or Steve Forbes) but invariably they'd settle on one of the more mainstream candidates who everyone would call conservatives (e.g. George H W Bush or Bob Dole) and I'd be disappointed so I'd end up supporting a third party candidate who stood for ideas that more closely resembled mine, the Libertarians. Eventually I started understanding that in many ways I was more akin to the Libertarians than I ever was to the majority of the Republicans.

I'd call Taco a libertarian. I'd call myself a liberal moderate (there are aspects of all 3 ideologies that I support). I'm definately in the space between the edges of that triangle.

I'm pro-capitalism... but favor many regulations.
I'm anti-death penalty... but pro-gun rights.
I'm pro-choice, but pro-limitations on abortion (last trimester).
I'm pro-free speech, but favor of clear seperation of church-and-state.
I'm pro-legalization of drugs, sex, etc... but I'm pro-tobacco regulations.
I'm pro-reducing taxes... but I'm in pro-progressive taxation.
I'm pro-many social programs... but I'm pro-making people work for it.
I'm pro-border security... but I favor a substantial work-visa program.
I'm a walking contradiction, but it's all about balanced views on issues.

I'm not someone who thinks everything should be left up to free markets, even though I'm pro-business. I want balance with the needs of all people... since democracy is for people (all people), not companies.

I'm willing to make certain financial sacrafices to keep our nation

I think it's fair that you consider yourself a liberal moderate. That's probably where I'd place you too. Of course, to me a liberal moderate or any standard-definition moderate is pretty liberal. But I recognize that you aren't on the extreme socialist fringe.

[patteeu]

Why doesn't somebody create a list of several political issues and make a new thread about it, so we can all post our particular stance on them (pro, con, neither). For the most part, we're only seeing each others' viewpoints on Iraq, corruption in Congress, and so on, so a lot of people are misunderstanding others as being hardcore liberals or conservatives. Something like this would give everyone a better perspective on our total politics, and might make some folks a little less apt to resort to antagonism simply because they feel their opponent is totally opposite them. I know that I tend to feel less compelled to get in someone's face about an issue I disagree with them on, if I feel that we have a number of issues in common otherwise. If nobody else wants to do that, I might start one later. Right now, though, my roomie and I are getting ready to watch a DVD, but I'll check back in a couple hours to see if anyone has done that.

Gay porn? :p j/k NTTAWWT

I'm going to leave it to you to start because I'm about to get off the comp for the night, but I just wanted to encourage you to do it since it would probably be pretty interesting. Many of us have done this before on a limited basis (or at least over time we've grown to know each other's views) so we have some idea of where other board members stand on a lot of issues, but it would be interesting to see what would come of a new thread. And of course, we've all done the political quizes several times, but that might not be as interesting as a laundry list of issues.

One thing you might be surprised to know is that Vlad and I have compared ourselves on a long list of issues before and we have quite similar views overall. I bet you wouldn't have guess that from your exposure to us during your short time here. Besides our differences on the war and the Bush administration in general, the only issue I can really remember where we were polar opposites was smoking bans. He's for them and I'm against them. I'm sure there are similar suprises in store for lots of other posters if we go through this exercise you've proposed.

[patteeu]

Other than being pro gun rights (and you'd have to describe more specifically where you're at on that, you're a pretty solid liberal. I don't see a whole lot of "walking contradiction" in there. I mean, you're not a Communist, but I don't think that makes you a moderate or anything. :)

The items that I'd say make him more moderate than the solid or extreme liberal are that he is for reducing taxes, for making people work for their welfare, for immigration controls, and for limits on abortion. Of course, the devil is in the details and these "positions" could either be much more moderate or much more liberal than they seem on their face, I suppose.

[Boyceofsummer]

you libs are blind..... the world is way better w/ a democracy in Iraq.... and it looks to me like you are standing up for a ruthless dictator, i always new Dems were evil

Rush Limbah and you Republicans are PRO WAR!

YOU LOVE WAR!

Why is it that you pricks always talk tough and never do any of the REAL fighting?

It is the only way that you can cling to power.

Get your ****in war mongering ass over to Iraq immediately.

PUT UP OR SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


p.s. Have a Merry Christmas this year while Americans die in Iraq.


Iraqi bomb kills 10 U.S. Marines
By Yasser Faisal Fri Dec 2, 6:34 PM ET



FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - Ten U.S. Marines were killed by an Iraqi bomb in one of the bloodiest incidents of the war for Americans, a day after President George W. Bush laid out a strategy he said would defeat the insurgency.

And in a videotape message shown on Friday, Iraqi insurgents holding four Westerners hostages threatened to kill them if Iraqi detainees are not released by December 8.

Thursday's attack on the Marines, two weeks before Iraqis vote for a new parliament, struck a foot patrol near Falluja. Eleven Marines were wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED), the military said on Friday.

"The patrol was attacked with an IED fashioned from several large artillery shells," the Marines said.

Seven of the wounded had returned to active duty.

U.S. commanders have expressed concern in recent months at the increasing use of more powerful and sophisticated roadside bombs. The high death toll on Thursday indicated an extremely powerful blast.

Typically, U.S. troops keep themselves well spaced out when on foot patrols to avoid the risk of mass casualties.

Local officials in Falluja said they were aware of a bomb attack on U.S. troops overnight near Amiriya, 30 km (20 miles) south of Falluja. U.S. officials declined further comment, however, and it was unclear if this was the same incident.

In August, 14 Marines were killed when a land mine destroyed their armoured vehicle near Haditha in western Iraq. Other heavy tolls have been inflicted on Americans when helicopters have been brought down and when a suicide bomber devastated a U.S. army mess hall last December in Mosul, killing 21 people.

Falluja was the site of the biggest battle since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003 -- dozens of troops and hundreds of Iraqis were killed in the city, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad in November last year.

RELATIVELY QUIET

Since then Falluja has been relatively quiet but the wider province of Anbar, comprising much of Iraq's western desert, has remained a stronghold of Sunni Arab groups opposed to the occupation and the Shi'ite-led government it helped install.

Some guerrilla forces are loyal to the Islamist goals of al Qaeda and the movement's appointed leader in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but many are more secular in outlook and owe loyalties principally to tribal or nationalist leaders or to Saddam's Sunni-dominated Baath party, now outlawed.

Arabic television station Al Jazeera showed a tape of what it said were two Canadian hostages receiving food from their captors. An American and a Briton were shown speaking in what the channel said was a call for detainees to be released.

It was not possible to hear what the men were saying.

"They gave those concerned with the hostages until the 8th of this month before killing them if their demands are not met," the Arabic broadcaster said.

The four, seized in Baghdad, are members of the peace and humanitarian organization Christian Peacemaker Teams, one of the few remaining aid groups operating in Iraq.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin called the threat "... a callous act of terror against innocent people."

A State Department official strongly condemned the actions of those holding the humanitarian workers.

"We call for their immediate and unconditional release and for the release of all hostages in Iraq," said the official, who asked not to be named.

Separately, the mother and sister of a German woman, Susanne Osthoff, taken hostage in Iraq called on her kidnappers to show mercy and release her in an appeal shown on Al Jazeera.

More than 100 foreigners have been seized by insurgents in Iraq in the past two years. Some kidnappers demanded foreign forces quit Iraq, others sought ransoms and some both.

In Ramadi, Anbar's regional capital to the west of Falluja, about 500 U.S. and Iraqi troops launched an operation they said was designed to disrupt guerrilla activity before the election.

Insurgents staged a show of force in the city on Thursday, firing mortar rounds near a U.S. base and official buildings. Letting themselves be filmed by news cameramen, masked men wielding rifles and grenade launchers distributed leaflets saying al Qaeda was in charge of the town.

Within hours, however, the gunmen had gone from the streets and there was no sign of them on Friday.

Bush and his Republican Party are under pressure at home over the rising American death toll -- which the Pentagon put at 2,125 on Friday -- and the president has embarked on a new series of speeches aimed at shoring up support for a project which he says will bring peace and democracy to Iraq through an election on December 15.

Faced with widespread resentment among Iraqis at the U.S. presence and mounting calls in the United States to bring the soldiers home, Bush said on Wednesday he would set no timetable for the withdrawal of the 160,000 or so U.S. troops.

"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory," he said, adding that some reduction in troop levels might be possible as Iraqi security forces assumed a bigger role.

[patteeu]

And you have a Merry Christmas too, Boyce, while you stab our troops in the back a little bit with each message board entry you make.

[Cochise]

Maybe Boyce doesn't know we have a volunteer military...

[Nightwish]

I just shot off an email to Carl Limbacher, the Newsmax editor who handled this story, informing him of the error (or lie, if it was deliberate) in the reporting of the numbers to the wrong question. Here is a copy of the email I sent him:I wanted to alert you to a bit of erroneous information posted in one of your recent articles. Here is the url to the article in question, entitled "Dems Back Hussein in New Poll": http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml.

In the article, you stated that only 34% of Democrats feel "Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone." Based upon the poll to which the article refers, that statistic in incorrect. There were two questions in a row concerning how the world/Iraq would be if we had not invaded and Saddam were still in power. 41% of Dems said "the world" would be better off, while 34% said it would not. By contrast, 29% of Democrats said "Iraq" would be better off, while 40% said it would not (11% answered "same," and 20% had no opinion). So the percentage you attributed to the Iraq question actually belongs under the "world" question. A majority of Dems answered that Iraq would be worse off, but the world would be better off, if Saddam were left in power or if we had not invaded (one fault of the poll is that it forced those polled to accept a package deal which relies upon the fallacy that if we hadn't invaded, Saddam could not have been removed any other way, rather than allowing them to choose that they believe the invasion was a mistake, but that removing Hussein was not a mistake, which in fact is what most of the anti-war crowd believe).

I'm not a subscriber of Newsmax (too right-wing for me, I'm a left-leaning moderate), but your articles are routinely posted by some members of various BB communities, so I've read several. To your critics, the above article will read as an outright lie, and to your proponents it will read as an error, but to be certain, to all who have read both the article and the poll, the error will be evident.It'll be interesting to see if they respond to me, or amend their article.

[Ugly Duck]

I don't know anyone that gives Sodom a "thumbs up "... do you? This much we do know - ZaCoward didn't pledge allegiance to Bin Hidin until we invaded Iraq. We gave Al Qeda a giant boost by providing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with a valuable training ground. And "victory" in Iraq entails handing the country over to the Islamic Revolution with ties to the a-holes that held our embassy personnel hostage. Tehran's Islamic Revolution coudn't take over Iraq in the biggest engagement since WWII, but now we're handing it to them on a silver platter. Admitting those mistakes does not mean anybody likes Sodom, it points the finger at neocon incompetence and ineptitude.

[Nightwish]

I don't know anyone that gives Sodom a "thumbs up "... do you? This much we do know - ZaCoward didn't pledge allegiance to Bin Hidin until we invaded Iraq.
Do you have any links for that? If true, it would certainly take some of the wind out of the sails of those who think there were ties between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.

[patteeu]

I don't know anyone that gives Sodom a "thumbs up "... do you? This much we do know - ZaCoward didn't pledge allegiance to Bin Hidin until we invaded Iraq. We gave Al Qeda a giant boost by providing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with a valuable training ground. And "victory" in Iraq entails handing the country over to the Islamic Revolution with ties to the a-holes that held our embassy personnel hostage. Tehran's Islamic Revolution coudn't take over Iraq in the biggest engagement since WWII, but now we're handing it to them on a silver platter. Admitting those mistakes does not mean anybody likes Sodom, it points the finger at neocon incompetence and ineptitude.

I assume by ZaCoward that you mean abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi). FYI, Zarqawi was an ally of Osama Bin Laden before the US invaded Iraq. It was in an act of desperation that he pledged allegiance to a man that he had previously considered an equal.

[Braincase]

Yeah, that says quite a bit about your status as both "moderate" and "independent".

C'mon, jaz, not all Republicans drink form that trough. I'm the guy that watches the horses line up, then wait to see if any of 'em kick over dead. I'm not that thirsty yet... I still believe there's a big water tank marked "truth" that's nice and cool... and no, Denise hasn't found it yet either.

[Ugly Duck]

FYI, Zarqawi was an ally of Osama Bin Laden before the US invaded Iraq. By "ally" I guess we mean they were both wacked-out sicko fundamentalists. I think that our neocon cabal told some lies about Al Qeda operating in Iraq before the war, but I haven't heard it from a credible source. Haven't heard of ZaCoward working with Bin Hidin or co-operating on anything until the invasion of Iraq. If they were already partners beforehand, his pledge of allegiance last year wouldn't have very newsworthy, I reckon. The gist of it is not only that Al Qeda wasn't operational in Iraq until we made the evironment amenable to it, but that we're also breeding a whole new generation of terrorists flocking in to fight the "crusaders." Bin Hidin is probably happy as a clam that we gave him a strong foothold in Iraq, and ZaCoward's 2004 pledge of allegiance was another feather in his cap. Together, they use the occupation to feed the growing jihad against the American invaders. Bush is their poster-boy for recruiting efforts, and the insurgency will continue to grow until we leave.

[patteeu]

By "ally" I guess we mean they were both wacked-out sicko fundamentalists. I think that our neocon cabal told some lies about Al Qeda operating in Iraq before the war, but I haven't heard it from a credible source. Haven't heard of ZaCoward working with Bin Hidin or co-operating on anything until the invasion of Iraq. If they were already partners beforehand, his pledge of allegiance last year wouldn't have very newsworthy, I reckon. The gist of it is not only that Al Qeda wasn't operational in Iraq until we made the evironment amenable to it, but that we're also breeding a whole new generation of terrorists flocking in to fight the "crusaders." Bin Hidin is probably happy as a clam that we gave him a strong foothold in Iraq, and ZaCoward's 2004 pledge of allegiance was another feather in his cap. Together, they use the occupation to feed the growing jihad against the American invaders. Bush is their poster-boy for recruiting efforts, and the insurgency will continue to grow until we leave.

1) Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan during the US attacks on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and given sanctuary and medical treatment in Iraq.

2) On July 7, 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee published its "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." It contained the following passage regarding the debriefing of top Al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah. Here is the complete passage regarding Zubaydah's testimony:

The CIA provided four reports detailing the debriefings of Abu Zubaydah, a captured senior coordinator for al-Qaida responsible for training and recruiting. Abu Zubaydah said that he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. He also said, however, that any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al-Qaida members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis. For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence. [Redacted sentence(s)] During the debriefings, Abu Zubaydah offered his opinion that it would be extremely unlikely for bin Ladin to have agreed to ally with Iraq, due to his desire to keep the organization on track with its mission and maintain its operational independence. In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, Abu Zubaydah's information is reflected as:

[Redacted] Abu Zubaydah opined that it would have been "extremely unlikely" for bin Laden to have agreed to "ally" with Iraq, but he acknowledged it was possible there were al-Qaida-Iraq communications or emissaries to which he was not privy.

3) As I said before, the pledge of allegiance represented a change of course for a man who had considered himself an equal of Bin Laden who had been travelling a parallel path of jihad with slightly different goals. Zarqawi's primary near-term goal was the overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy while Bin Laden's was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. He wasn't, strictly speaking, a Bin Laden soldier, he was an associate. But Al Qaeda has never been a large, world-wide rigidly hierarchical organization. Even before the US attacks in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was a network of terror organizations. Zarqawi's organization was a part of that network just as the the Abu Sayyaf of the Phillipines was a part of it.