# US Troops Want To Stay



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

I wonder how those who are pushing for surrender would respond to these soldiers who do not see defeat on the battlefield

Will White Flag Harry go and meet with them and tell them to their faces the war is lost?



Why They Fight 
American troops don't want to abandon the Iraqi people. 
by Jeff Emanuel 
05/17/2007 12:00:00 AM 


THE DEBATE ABOUT the war in Iraq often focuses on America's national security, other countries' opinions of the United States, "what is best for the troops," and, of course, the Bush administration. Only on the rarest of occasions is lip service paid to those who will feel the effects of our decisions on the war most immediately, most acutely, and for the greatest length of time--the Iraqi people. At the end of the day, Americans can, in the short term, simply click off their television sets and forget about the situation in Iraq. For the men, women, and children living there--and the American soldiers fighting for their security--no such option exists. 

While in Baghdad, I spoke with many soldiers about the current situation and the effect of the American political debate on their lives and actions. Though their views, like those of American civilians, span the spectrum of possible opinions, most of the troops I met had one thing in common: an understanding that the Iraqis need our help--at least in the near term.

"'It would be a disaster if you leave now'," said Lt. Colonel James Crider, Squadron commander of the 1-4 Cavalry ("Quarter Cav"). "I've had several Iraqis tell me that. They want us here--not forever, but for now, until they can take care of themselves." 

"I had people coming up to me as we patrolled the neighborhoods saying, 'We heard you were leaving!'" another officer with Quarter Cav told me. "They don't understand our process; they don't know that 

this is just rhetoric, or that it will be vetoed. All they know is that the leaders of our Congress said that it's a lost cause, and that our government has voted to pick up and go home." 

Such statements by America's political leaders are "terrible," an Army public affairs officer told me. She continued, "I understand political posturing and all that but it really is terrible. If the war is lost and we need to go home, then why do we need to stay here five more months, when I could die or my friends could die before we go home? The war is either over or it isn't; this just doesn't make sense. . . .What we want is to keep helping the people here. The people at home who say these things, they don't understand that these are people who have to live here after we leave, whatever the situation is. These people and the things that happen here aren't real to them, and they can't understand unless they've been here and seen it."

Like many Americans at home, there are some soldiers who would like nothing more than to see the United States end its involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. There are many more, though, who, having established a presence on the ground, and having spent time among the people of Iraq, want to see this mission through to its successful conclusion, not only for America's sake, but for the sake of the people of Iraq whom they have gotten to know during their time in country. 
 had a remarkable conversation to this effect with a bespectacled infantry captain, who was on his second tour in Iraq and had been there since just before Gen. Petraeus's confirmation as the new head of MNF-I. We spoke at length about the war, and about the differences between his first tour and now. I asked what he thought about the mission in Iraq, and what he thought our prospects for success were. Gazing pensively at the ground, he took a moment to collect his thoughts, and said, "Well, politically, staying here probably isn't the best decision." Given the situation at home, he added, "winning here seems less possible all the time, even though we're now doing what it is we probably should have been doing all along." Moving on from that moment of near despair, he paused and glanced up, looking earnestly at me through his thick, military-issue glasses, and said, "There's not a single one of my soldiers who doesn't look at the neighborhood we're in, look at the children there, and not want to do whatever they can to give these kids as bright a future as possible. We want to finish this job, and we know we can do it."

Another obstacle to success, though, is the Iraqi people themselves. "What has to happen here," one noncommissioned officer told me, "is that the Iraqi people have to take a chance, risk their lives, and stand up against al Qaeda and everybody else. Once they decide that they 

want freedom and peace, and want to work with us, then it will all be over. . . . It's easy to live as a coward. If they want to be free, they will have to take the risk."

That risk has finally been taken by a good number of the people in Anbar Province, an area that has seen a turnaround in the past six months that has been nothing short of remarkable. It is happening in a somewhat different way in southwestern Baghdad, in the district of Abu Dischir, where, rather than throwing out the large number of Sadrists present in the area, the people have learned to coexist peacefully both with the sectarian militias and with the Coalition. 

Once the example set by these areas is followed by regular Iraqis in all of the other boroughs, quarters, and districts--once the Iraqi people, who are accustomed to being under the thumb of a tyrant, decide once and for all to stand up for themselves--then this war can finally be won, and al Qaeda, the Sadrist hardliners, and the other violent sectarians can be driven out. But only if the American and Iraqi governments maintain the will to do so.

Both sides will have to live with the consequences if the wrong choice is made. The belief amongst so many of the troops I spoke with is that these people deserve a chance at a better way of life, and that we should continue to do everything we can to help rebuild and secure this nation and to smash those who would destroy what the Iraqi people are building.

That after so much work and so much bloodshed we ought now to abandon the Iraqis to their fate is a notion held by almost no one I've encountered here in Iraq; rather, it appears that such ideas are much more common on the home front. What the troops, and the Iraqi people, appear both to want and to need is the support and the resources that will allow them to establish a free and secure state--and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully.


Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran who served in Iraq, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is an associate director of RedState.com and a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/657rmkpe.asp?pg=1


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

I understand completely the desires of the troops in Iraq to stay and win this battle they have been waging. If I were there, I am sure that I would feel exactly the same way.

As a career military man, however, I realized early on that my opinion as to my mission was really irrelevant to the process. The national command authority makes decisions as to where the troops go, what they do and how long they stay. The only variable in play for the troops is how well they do their mission. When the NMCC changes the mission, the uniformed services salute and say "aye aye sir" and march off and do the next mission. It is unprofessional for military personnel to gripe about being pulled off a job and sent to a new job. 

Now. You asked me to read and comment. I did. your turn. 

Will you explain to me how we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge as you have claimed when DoD casualty figures show an increase?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I understand completely the desires of the troops in Iraq to stay and win this battle they have been waging. If I were there, I am sure that I would feel exactly the same way.
> 
> As a career military man, however, I realized early on that my opinion as to my mission was really irrelevant to the process. The national command authority makes decisions as to where the troops go, what they do and how long they stay. The only variable in play for the troops is how well they do their mission. When the NMCC changes the mission, the uniformed services salute and say "aye aye sir" and march off and do the next mission. It is unprofessional for military personnel to gripe about being pulled off a job and sent to a new job.
> 
> ...



At one time the casualites were down 60%

I posted the link to prove it

Now, the terrorists have stepped up attacks knowing with each attack the Dems will push harder for surrender

The plan is working


As far as the troops wanting to stay - it is more then obeying orders. They do beliee they are making a difderence and they will win the fight

If only the left in this country would support them and back them - it would make a difference


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> At one time the casualites were down 60%
> 
> I posted the link to prove it
> 
> ...




no...you posted a press release that CLAIMED the casualties were down by 60%.... from the british forces press office.  I posted DoD figures that show that American casualties NEVER decreased one iota because of the surge...in fact, american casualties over the last eight months are 53% HIGHER than the previous eight months..... things are getting worse, and the Iraqi parliament is taking the summer off while our boys die patrolling their mean streets...and you want us to continue to do that forever?????


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

and please show me where I ever said it was just about obeying orders.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> and please show me where I ever said it was just about obeying orders.




You implied that is what troops have to do

Here is more from the troops in words and pictures

It is abit long but worth it

http://www.nmatv.com/flvplayer.swf?...ideo/39.flv&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you posted a press release that CLAIMED the casualties were down by 60%.... from the british forces press office.  I posted DoD figures that show that American casualties NEVER decreased one iota because of the surge...in fact, american casualties over the last eight months are 53% HIGHER than the previous eight months..... things are getting worse, and the Iraqi parliament is taking the summer off while our boys die patrolling their mean streets...and you want us to continue to do that forever?????



Facts never did mean much to you


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Facts never did mean much to you



you posted a british press release...that is not fact...fact is the DoD casualty figures which clearly show there was NO decrease in American casualties because of the surge.

the FACT that you run away from is that *American casualties over the last eight months are 53% HIGHER than the previous eight months.*

address that *FACT*... or run away.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> *You implied that is what troops have to do*
> 
> Here is more from the troops in words and pictures
> 
> ...



I implied that following orders is what the troops have to do?  damn right it is what they have to do!  I also pointed out that I understand completely the desires of the military to stay and win...and I even pointed out that I would undoubtedly share that opinion if I were there.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> you posted a british press release...that is not fact...fact is the DoD casualty figures which clearly show there was NO decrease in American casualties because of the surge.
> 
> the FACT that you run away from is that *American casualties over the last eight months are 53&#37; HIGHER than the previous eight months.*
> 
> address that *FACT*... or run away.



I still you are still stuck in the past and do not want to address how the troops feel about the surrender money libs

Given how fast you posted here you igniored the video link and photos of the troops and how they feel about things

So much for supporting the troops MM

at least you are consistent


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I still you are still stuck in the past and do not want to address how the troops feel about the surrender money libs
> 
> Given how fast you posted here you igniored the video link and photos of the troops and how they feel about things
> 
> ...



I did address how the troops felt.... and I am unable to view videos from this computer.  

at least you continue to insult veterans.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I did address how the troops felt.... and I am unable to view videos from this computer.
> 
> at least you continue to insult veterans.



you mean you do not WANT to view the video

You are the one who is hoping they fail so your party will gain more party

That is the real insult


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> you mean you do not WANT to view the video
> 
> You are the one who is hoping they fail so your party will gain more party
> 
> That is the real insult




don't tell me what I MEAN.  I MEAN that I am unable to view videos on this computer.

And for you to continue to say that I *hope* our troops fail continues to be a gross insult.  

take it back.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> don't tell me what I MEAN.  I MEAN that I am unable to view videos on this computer.
> 
> And for you to continue to say that I *hope* our troops fail continues to be a gross insult.
> 
> take it back.



I understand you have nointerest in what the troops have to say

They do not want to surrender like your party wants to

I said I was sorry you were hoping for failure


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I understand you have nointerest in what the troops have to say
> 
> They do not want to surrender like your party wants to
> 
> I said I was sorry you were hoping for failure



I have interest in what the troops have to say.  I merely suggest that what they have to say is not a critical factor in determining American foreign policy.

YOU never apologized to me.  I do not hope for failure.... I am predicting that the war in Iraq will not be won by Bush.  I HOPE I am wrong.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have interest in what the troops have to say.  I merely suggest that what they have to say is not a critical factor in determining American foreign policy.
> 
> YOU never apologized to me.  I do not hope for failure.... I am predicting that the war in Iraq will not be won by Bush.  I HOPE I am wrong.




Translation - the hell with what the troops have to say. The Democrats in DC know more about what is going on in Iraq then the troops do

I have said I was sorry about you hoping for fialure


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Translation - the hell with what the troops have to say. The Democrats in DC know more about what is going on in Iraq then the troops do
> 
> I have said I was sorry about you hoping for fialure




quit trying so hard to translate what I say and try and formulate your OWN thoughts for a change.  I care what the troops have to say.  It has no bearing on US foreign policy.... and yes, democrats and republicans in DC are the people who make foreign policy decisions and not the troops in the field.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit trying so hard to translate what I say and try and formulate your OWN thoughts for a change.  I care what the troops have to say.  It has no bearing on US foreign policy.... and yes, democrats and republicans in DC are the people who make foreign policy decisions and not the troops in the field.



True

The last things Dems want is for the troops to actually accomplish anything in Iraq

That would cripple their 08 election chances


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

and read my lips:  I do NOT hope for failure.

when you continue to say that, you are lying about me and insulting me and insulting every other veteran and retiree who agrees with me.

Like I have said over and over again...you only support those veterans who think the same way you do.

please apologize for insulting a veteran so deeply.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> True
> 
> The last things Dems want is for the troops to actually accomplish anything in Iraq
> 
> That would cripple their 08 election chances



do you honestly think that the opinions of ground troops in Iraq should be used when deciding American foreign policy?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> and read my lips:  I do NOT hope for failure.
> 
> when you continue to say that, you are lying about me and insulting me and insulting every other veteran and retiree who agrees with me.
> 
> ...



You have done your share of tossing out the insults

Your posts and attitude show a hope of failure

To you and your ilk - failure means more political power

That is all you really care about


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have done your share of tossing out the insults
> 
> Your posts and attitude show a hope of failure
> 
> ...



my posts do not show any hope for failure.  only my sad predictions of it.

You fail to comprehend the difference.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> my posts do not show any hope for failure.  only my sad predictions of it.
> 
> You fail to comprehend the difference.



Libs usually deny what their real intentions are


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs usually deny what their real intentions are



not me.  I am sad that our troops are dying. I hope for their success.  I don't believe, however, that the ill-conceived and poorly planned excusion into Iraq can possibly end in any sort of meaningful success.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> not me.  I am sad that our troops are dying. I hope for their success.  I don't believe, however, that the ill-conceived and poorly planned excusion into Iraq can possibly end in any sort of meaningful success.



You can go to hell for lying as you can for stealing


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You can go to hell for lying as you can for stealing



I would never lie about that.  I am saddened by each death.... and I am insulted that you would suggest otherwise....
but it is just one more peice of evidence of how you disrespect our troops and our veterans who disagree with you.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would never lie about that.  I am saddened by each death.... and I am insulted that you would suggest otherwise....
> but it is just one more peice of evidence of how you disrespect our troops and our veterans who disagree with you.



saddened there aren't more?

Like Dick Gephardt said when the market was down

"Every 100 point drop in the Dow is another House seat"


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> saddened there aren't more?
> 
> Like Dick Gephardt said when the market was down
> 
> "Every 100 point drop in the Dow is another House seat"




no... again, you insult veterans who disagree with you.  I am truly saddened by our casualties in Iraq.  I have had to serve as a pallbearer for one young Maine national guardsman.... and that was one too many for me.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... again, you insult veterans who disagree with you.  I am truly saddened by our casualties in Iraq.  I have had to serve as a pallbearer for one young Maine national guardsman.... and that was one too many for me.



and you were probably thinking "This sould be good for a few extra votes for the Dem in the state election"


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you were probably thinking "This sould be good for a few extra votes for the Dem in the state election"



no...I was remembering how he and his father had served with me as volunteer firemen together.... it was very sad.... I am sickened that you would make light of it.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...I was remembering how he and his father had served with me as volunteer firemen together.... it was very sad.... I am sickened that you would make light of it.



I am sickened by your defeatest attitude and continuing suppport for the surrender party


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am sickened by your defeatest attitude and continuing suppport for the surrender party




I don't care what you think of my attitude, your suggestion that I was contemplating political gain while serving as a pallbearer for a young friend killed in the line of dugy is beyond the pale and thoroughly repugnant.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't care what you think of my attitude, your suggestion that I was contemplating political gain while serving as a pallbearer for a young friend killed in the line of dugy is beyond the pale and thoroughly repugnant.



Sorry if I made secret public


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I wonder how those who are pushing for surrender would respond to these soldiers who do not see defeat on the battlefield
> 
> Will White Flag Harry go and meet with them and tell them to their faces the war is lost?
> 
> ...



While you're out looking for shit to cut-and-paste, why don't you cut-and-paste some unambiguous polling data that shows US troops actually want to stay in Iraq. You know, instead of the obviously partisan shit you post every single freakin' day.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> While you're out looking for shit to cut-and-paste, why don't you cut-and-paste some unambiguous polling data that shows US troops actually want to stay in Iraq. You know, instead of the obviously partisan shit you post every single freakin' day.



I never really expected the libs here to actually care about what the troops had to say

Libs do not care about them anyway - so why should they listen to them


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Sorry if I made secret public



what does that sentence even mean?

and why do you continue to slander my name and my service and denigrate what I do for veterans and the troops?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does that sentence even mean?
> 
> and why do you continue to slander my name and my service and denigrate what I do for veterans and the troops?




Before you can slander something - the person has to have something to slander


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Before you can slander something - the person has to have something to slander



saying that I hope for our troops death is slander....and it is slander because I say it is....and the only affirmative defense against the charge of slander is to prove that the utterance is the truth... and you cannot prove that I hope for something.... you can only prove that I predict something.....so slander it is.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

and you still didn't tell us what that goofy sentence meant!


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you posted a press release that CLAIMED the casualties were down by 60%.... from the british forces press office.  I posted DoD figures that show that American casualties NEVER decreased one iota because of the surge...in fact, american casualties over the last eight months are 53% HIGHER than the previous eight months..... *things are getting worse, and the Iraqi parliament is taking the summer off while our boys die patrolling their mean streets...and you want us to continue to do that forever?????*




of course he does, mm, chickenhawks don't care how many troops are killed or maimed as long as they aren't one of them.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

Originally Posted by maineman  
no...you posted a press release that CLAIMED the casualties were down by 60%.... from the british forces press office. I posted DoD figures that show that American casualties NEVER decreased one iota because of the surge...in fact, american casualties over the last eight months are 53% HIGHER than the previous eight months..... things are getting worse, and the Iraqi parliament is taking the summer off while our boys die patrolling their mean streets...and you want us to continue to do that forever?????



red states rule said:


> Facts never did mean much to you



maineman posted facts from the DOD and rsr posted a press release from the british government and now he says that mm doesn't like facts????


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I still you are still stuck in the past and do not want to address how the troops feel about the surrender money libs
> 
> Given how fast you posted here you igniored the video link and photos of the troops and how they feel about things
> 
> ...



as are you... just sitting there typ(o)ing away while the troops *YOU SAY* you support are being killed and maimed in Iraq for a mission that constantly changes.

How many of them have to die before your blood lust is sated, rsr?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> you mean you do not WANT to view the video
> 
> You are the one who is hoping they fail so your party will gain more party
> 
> That is the real insult



how does a _party gain more party_?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> True
> 
> The last things Dems want is for the troops to actually accomplish anything in Iraq
> 
> That would cripple their 08 election chances



We've been there for four years, rsr... how long do you propose we give them to get whatever it is you think needs to be accomplished done?

Or is it just your insatiable blood lust that causes you to want our troops being killed and maimed forever in a country we invaded on misinformation?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> not me.  I am sad that our troops are dying. I hope for their success.  I don't believe, however, that the ill-conceived and poorly planned excusion into Iraq can possibly end in any sort of meaningful success.




Success? Just more death and injuries for both sides... and of course the friends of bush will get richer and richer and richer...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You can go to hell for lying as you can for stealing




You should think long and hard about *that* before hitting submit, rsr. Each time. 







It's gonna be hot for you... real hot...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...I was remembering how he and his father had served with me as volunteer firemen together.... it was very sad.... I am sickened that you would make light of it.



It just goes to show you and all the lurkers out there just how sick chickenhawks are.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does that sentence even mean?
> 
> and why do you continue to slander my name and my service and denigrate what I do for veterans and the troops?



because he can... of course, he wouldn't have the balls to do it to you to your face, but here? no problemo...


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> because he can... of course, he wouldn't have the balls to do it to you to your face, but here? no problemo...



sure I would - and you to if I had the chance


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> You should think long and hard about *that* before hitting submit, rsr. Each time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what did you have chili for lunch?


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> At one time the casualites were down 60%
> 
> I posted the link to prove it
> 
> ...




It really isn't any more complex than MM stated.  The military is a tool of the US government and has no self-will.  While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission.


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> It really isn't any more complex than MM stated.  The military is a tool of the US government and has no self-will.  While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission.




exactly!  and even if you don't agree with the politics behind the foreign policy that drives the mission, accomplishing the mission itself, with skill and honor and esprit de corps makes it remarkably rewarding in and of itself.


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> exactly!  and even if you don't agree with the politics behind the foreign policy that drives the mission, accomplishing the mission itself, with skill and honor and esprit de corps makes it remarkably rewarding in and of itself.



LOL ... not sure I'll go THAT far.  I've done some seriously pointless things.  However, we carried out each and every order/mission to the best of our abilities.  Sometimes self-satisfaction is all there is.


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> LOL ... not sure I'll go THAT far.  I've done some seriously pointless things.  However, we carried out each and every order/mission to the best of our abilities.  Sometimes self-satisfaction is all there is.




That's what I mean.... no matter what we were out on the pond doing, we tried to do it with professionalism and flair..... and doing so better, more precisely, than the destroyer next to you in the screen was satisfying.


----------



## Alucard (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I understand completely the desires of the troops in Iraq to stay and win this battle they have been waging. If I were there, I am sure that I would feel exactly the same way.
> 
> As a career military man, however, I realized early on that my opinion as to my mission was really irrelevant to the process.



If you could only keep your irrelivent non-supportive opinions to yourself now!!!!


----------



## Shattered (May 19, 2007)

Alucard said:


> If you could only keep your irrelivent non-supportive opinions to yourself now!!!!



If people you disagreed with all kept their opinions to themselves, this board would cease to exist...


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> It really isn't any more complex than MM stated.  The military is a tool of the US government and has no self-will.  While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission.



On would think before voting to surrender, the Dems would want to hear form the troops.

They even snubbed Gen Petraeus and his briefing prior to the surrender vote. Murtha called him a political hack.


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> On would think before voting to surrender, the Dems would want to hear form the troops.
> 
> They even snubbed Gen Petraeus and his briefing prior to the surrender vote. Murtha called him a political hack.




Gunny just got done telling you *"While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission"*

why would you think that it makes any sense to hear from the "troops" if their opinions are irrelevant.....and this isn't about generals and flag officers...they all knew they were moving off the battlefield and into politics the moment they accepted their first star...... this is about your foolish assertions about the opinions of "the troops".


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> Gunny just got done telling you *"While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission"*
> 
> why would you think that it makes any sense to hear from the "troops" if their opinions are irrelevant.....and this isn't about generals and flag officers...they all knew they were moving off the battlefield and into politics the moment they accepted their first star...... this is about your foolish assertions about the opinions of "the troops".



Does that include Gen Petraeus?


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> On would think before voting to surrender, the Dems would want to hear form the troops.
> 
> They even snubbed Gen Petraeus and his briefing prior to the surrender vote. Murtha called him a political hack.



The commanders don't hold a formation before each mission and ask for a show of hands on who wants to go.  The US military is NOT a democracy.  It's an authoritarian dictatorship.  

If Genera; Petraeus is asked for a professional assessment of the situation, that is what he is expected to give.  He will not be officially asked his personal opinion on the matter.  It is completely irrelevant to the situation.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq? 

Approve 35% 
Disapprove 42% 
No opinion 10% 
Decline to answer 12% 
11) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 

Approve 52% 
Disapprove 31% 
No opinion  6% 
Decline to answer  10% 

this is from 12/06


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> 10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
> 
> Approve 35%
> Disapprove 42%
> ...



Opinion polls would fall under the same heading of "Irrelevant."


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

funny you would say that about what our troops think.

I understand what you are saying though ,I know they dont run policy.

It is interesting to know how they feel though.


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> funny you would say that about what our troops think.
> 
> I understand what you are saying though ,I know they dont run policy.
> 
> It is interesting to know how they feel though.



It is only "funny" if you take it out of context.  In case you have missed it, I am BIG on freedom of speech, even when someone is flat-out, 100% wrong.  

However, in the military, one must differentiate between one's personal and professional opinions, and express the former ONLY in the appropriate forum.  It gets tougher as one moves up in rank because EVERY Marine subordiante to you is watching every move you make to define their standard of conduct.

So, I feel that the opinions of servicemembers are just as important as anyone else's.  I just don't agree with the premise of this thread which basically that strategic decisions should be made based on those personal opinions.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

Very true!

Which is why it so Very important for us to get our foriegn policy right.

We ask and they go No questions asked.

We Owe them to Make God Damned sure we are not sending into a pig in a poke.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

Warriors do fight better when they know what they are doing is honorable though.

I would Never send them into something not worth thier Great Honor.

Im afraid we have in this one.

It does not disminish Their Honor it disminishes those who sent them.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

god damn it there are 8 more dead today.


I am so sick of the dishonest use of the  blood of our heros.


----------



## Creek_George (May 20, 2007)

To say something like this is utter rubish...

They want to stay till what?...Everybody is holding hands there...Can that be accomplished?

I can see a soldier wanting to finish the job..the war..have a good closure to the end.

Is this the case in Iraq?..What closure is possible to accomplish there?

Last month you claimed the surge is working...

Everyday more of a reality comes to truth in this occupation,preventing all hell from breaking out over there...

We can stall..but the outcome is gona be..what it's gone be.

If a soldier wants to stay there..finish the job..It's what's in his heart..as a soldier talking..A military type feeling going through his veins....The soldiers,and the Vets here..and the family for those over there...Don't hold to what your post is claiming as a whole...That's a political type feeling...and the love of family.

Most of them write home every day...wanting to get the F outa there.

To feel defeat is something we're all gona have to live with..This is,was..and always is gona be a failure..and a pin prick in our ass.

It's not defeat..It's a no win situation...we can't change a dam thing..or stop the ball from rolling on what's gona happen over there...We can't stop it.

Yes..we got a responsibility..to Iraq..and it's neighbors to finish this....As far as accomplishment..and a success..a victory?

Give me a break....That's where we gota draw the line...President Bush's failure for Iraq being a becon of demacracy has falied...

That embassy we're building must be like that of Hitler's Bunker in the last days of WWII...

To say the soldiers & those serving prove the cause...to continue this blunder is something I can't grasp.


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> Warriors do fight better when they know what they are doing is honorable though.
> 
> I would Never send them into something not worth thier Great Honor.
> 
> ...



There was nothing dishonorable about removing Saddam Hussein from power.  He deserved it if anyone does.

Removing him from power is a strategically questionable call, not a manner of honor at all.


----------



## Creek_George (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> There was nothing dishonorable about removing Saddam Hussein from power.  He deserved it if anyone does.
> 
> Removing him from power is a strategically questionable call, not a manner of honor at all.



Strategically questionable?

There is,was..never gona be a natural wonder of the world questionable aspect to this bologna.

A dishonorable aspect to this...Is that what we are falling back on?..Is one asshole of a ruler worth all this..Need I get some charts out..and show the facts of the matter?

Saddam was better left in power...Even The Bush Team would tell you that now.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

He was the shit cork in the bottle.

Yes he was a Turd , yes he was nasty and smelled but he was a cork.

I didnt like him when  the neocons helpped him to power and I ditn like him when they took him out of power.

There were more Americans and Iraqis alive when he was a corkin though


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> Strategically questionable?
> 
> There is,was..never gona be a natural wonder of the world questionable aspect to this bologna.
> 
> ...



You can get out whatever charts , pics, data or whatever else you think you need to.  Bring your sliderule.  

Now, what part of "strategically questionable" do you NOT equate to "IMO, the ME would have been better off with Saddam left in power?"  

That however does NOT in any way negate the fact there was more than enough justification to remove him from power.  It merely means that of the two choices, leaving him in power would have been the wiser course of action.

Is one asshole ruler of the world worth WHAT exactly?  Removing Saddam didn't amount to crap, and was a relatively flawless military operation.


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> He was the shit cork in the bottle.
> 
> Yes he was a Turd , yes he was nasty and smelled but he was a cork.
> 
> ...



There were no such things as "neocons" when Saddam came into power, and he became Head of State in Iraq while Carter was President.


----------



## Creek_George (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You can get out whatever charts , pics, data or whatever else you think you need to.  Bring your sliderule.
> 
> Now, what part of "strategically questionable" do you NOT equate to "IMO, the ME would have been better off with Saddam left in power?"
> 
> ...



I want everybody to read this crap..Point of truth?

Flawless my ass Gunny...You turned on the news lately??

What the F are you saying?...Stop with the examples..and the crap text.

Can you say it in one dam sentence??

Say it like it is..Most the Vets from where I live..give a hell of a better example.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 20, 2007)

Same faces


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> I want everybody to read this crap..Point of truth?
> 
> Flawless my ass Gunny...You turned on the news lately??
> 
> ...



You mean can I thoroughly confuse a reader as quickly as you with your inane prattle?  Sorry, dude, you own me on THAT one.

Take THIS post for example.  I have NO idea what "it" is you think I should say since you have posted no complete question.

Then there's the part where you tell me to stop with the examples; yet, two sentences later say "most vets from where you live give a hell of a better example."

Example of WHAT?  My previous statement contains no examples.

And perhaps you can tell me what was flawed about the military invasion that removed Saddam from power?


----------



## Creek_George (May 20, 2007)

The Troops Don't Wana Stay...


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> The Troops Don't Wana Stay...



In other words, you cannot address the issue.


----------



## Creek_George (May 20, 2007)

Troops don't wana stay..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> saying that I hope for our troops death is slander....and it is slander because I say it is....and the only affirmative defense against the charge of slander is to prove that the utterance is the truth... and you cannot prove that I hope for something.... you can only prove that I predict something.....so slander it is.



Your constant, consistant posts on the matter belay what you claim. The reality is that fewer American troops have died in this war than any other and at a miniscule percentage to boot, the numbers killed are barely larger than the numbers killed in yearly training exersizes. ( each individual death is heart breaking for someone, but is no reason to stop fighting, if it is then we should disband our military and surrender to the first enemy that demands it)

The left doesn't want to win, not because we can not, but because a win will be credited to Bush. And Bush is the Anti Christ to the left. They would sooner cut off a leg than allow that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> We've been there for four years, rsr... how long do you propose we give them to get whatever it is you think needs to be accomplished done?
> 
> Or is it just your insatiable blood lust that causes you to want our troops being killed and maimed forever in a country we invaded on misinformation?



If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.

You tell us how leaving will make things better? Is anarchy in one of the largest reserves of oil in the world a good idea? Is allowing AQ control of a country with that kind of oil reserves and potential money a good idea? Is allowing Iran to control Iraq and all her oil a good idea?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> of course he does, mm, chickenhawks don't care how many troops are killed or maimed as long as they aren't one of them.



What is your criteria for Commander in Chief? Only a person that has served and fought in a conflict? How about Congress? Shall we require the same of all Congressman and Senators? Your claim to Chickenhawk is bullshit.

Next question? Have you SERVED and in combat? If not then why are you involved in a discussion you claim only those that have can know about?

I suggest you get hot on changing the Constitution so that only the Combat Veteran can run for office.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Success? Just more death and injuries for both sides... and of course the friends of bush will get richer and richer and richer...



Provide some evidence of this bullshit claim.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> It really isn't any more complex than MM stated.  The military is a tool of the US government and has no self-will.  While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission.



It is NOT irrelavant to this discussion, nor to the desire of the left to cut and run. The MSM is engaged in propaganda about the state of the war and its "winablity" , the military is the ones that would know if this is true or not. The Liberals would have you believe any general that disagrees with them is a lock step automan that is just parroting Bush. This is simply not true.

They are quick to trot out any general that happens to agree with them though. The rank and file have no input on strategic or political decisions, BUT that is not what is being discussed. Maineman and others would have us believe that reporters that do not even leave the safety of the green Zone know more about conditions in Iraq then the average soldier, Marine or service member that patrols or moves through the local neighborhoods. They discount " Press releases" from the military as biased and propaganda all the while touting the press reports from people that generally do not even know if what they are reporting is even true.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> The commanders don't hold a formation before each mission and ask for a show of hands on who wants to go.  The US military is NOT a democracy.  It's an authoritarian dictatorship.
> 
> If Genera; Petraeus is asked for a professional assessment of the situation, that is what he is expected to give.  He will not be officially asked his personal opinion on the matter.  It is completely irrelevant to the situation.



So now you think the Congress should make military decisions without even being briefed by the military? He was not there to give a "personal" opinion, he was there to give a MILITARY brief on the conditions as he sees them from his position as Commander ON the Ground in that WAR. The Democrats did not even ask for the brief and in fact refused it before the vote,


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So now you think the Congress should make military decisions without even being briefed by the military? He was not there to give a "personal" opinion, he was there to give a MILITARY brief on the conditions as he sees them from his position as Commander ON the Ground in that WAR. The Democrats did not even ask for the brief and in fact refused it before the vote,



Dems had more important things to do then attend the briefing.

They had to pass the surrender bill


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your constant, consistant posts on the matter belay what you claim. The reality is that fewer American troops have died in this war than any other and at a miniscule percentage to boot, the numbers killed are barely larger than the numbers killed in yearly training exersizes. ( each individual death is heart breaking for someone, but is no reason to stop fighting, if it is then we should disband our military and surrender to the first enemy that demands it)
> 
> The left doesn't want to win, not because we can not, but because a win will be credited to Bush. And Bush is the Anti Christ to the left. They would sooner cut off a leg than allow that.



what bullshit.  I claim that I am predicting bad things in Iraq.... that is COMPLETELY different than WANTING and HOPING for bad things in Iraq.  For you to  continue to misstate one for the other is slanderous.  period.  The reality is:  more Americans are dying in this war today then were dying a year ago... the death toll is increasing over time and this idiocy that our surge is reducing American casualties is just that:  idiocy.  And I have NEVER EVER suggested that we stop fighting against the Islamic extremists who attacked us.... I have, rather, continually urged that we START that fight by extracting ourselves from the middle of a civil sectarian conflict in Iraq that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with the fight we ought to be fighting..


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

The left is hoping for failure in Iraq. There actions prove it

But the goods news is getting out - slowly

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48703


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The left is hoping for failure in Iraq. There actions prove it
> 
> But the goods news is getting out - slowly
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48703


that is a lie... I do not hope for failure in Iraq and nothing I have ever said would show any such hope.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is a lie... I do not hope for failure in Iraq and nothing I have ever said would show any such hope.



Of course you do - and watch the video

Of course it goes against your doom and gloom picture you love to paint on what is going on in Iraq


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

no...of course I don't.  You cannot find one sentence that I have written where I express HOPE for American failure in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...of course I don't.  You cannot find one sentence that I have written where I express HOPE for American failure in Iraq.



Sure you do. the last thing a loyal Dem like you wants is for success in Iraq

You already lost the talking points how rotten the US economy is - so your only hope is to press for surrender in Iraq


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.
> 
> You tell us how leaving will make things better? Is anarchy in one of the largest reserves of oil in the world a good idea? Is allowing AQ control of a country with that kind of oil reserves and potential money a good idea? Is allowing Iran to control Iraq and all her oil a good idea?



Waiting for an answer Maineman. Did you miss this one in your rant on slander?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Waiting for an answer Maineman. Did you miss this one in your rant on slander?
> 
> 
> If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.
> ...



I understand military reality every bit as much as you do sarge.... I would venture to say that I got more time at special sea and anchor detail than you have underway... and I would venture to say that I have more time in uniform than you do...but that is beside the point..

I do not think that leaving right this second will make anything any better or any worse.  I certainly think that your suggestion that AQ, a small contingent of sunnis who are stirring up the pot in Iraq will take control of the country when we depart is laughable at best and certainly insulting to my intelligence - and indicative of your lack thereof.  Iran WILL eventually play a much greater role in Iraq than we would ever hope they would do.... and that is because the shiites will prevail in this sectarian struggle... just as they have a predominant control of the existing Iraqi government.  If we didn't want the persian shiites of Iran to get a toehold in Iraq, we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam in the first place.  Iranian influence in Iraq that far outweighs ours is a fact of life.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I understand military reality every bit as much as you do sarge.... I would venture to say that I got more time at special sea and anchor detail than you have underway... and I would venture to say that I have more time in uniform than you do...but that is beside the point..
> 
> I do not think that leaving right this second will make anything any better or any worse.  I certainly think that your suggestion that AQ, a small contingent of sunnis who are stirring up the pot in Iraq will take control of the country when we depart is laughable at best and certainly insulting to my intelligence - and indicative of your lack thereof.  Iran WILL eventually play a much greater role in Iraq than we would ever hope they would do.... and that is because the shiites will prevail in this sectarian struggle... just as they have a predominant control of the existing Iraqi government.  If we didn't want the persian shiites of Iran to get a toehold in Iraq, we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam in the first place.  Iranian influence in Iraq that far outweighs ours is a fact of life.



So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?

And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?
> 
> And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.



when did I say that?  I do not happen to believe that our consequences of leaving Iraq in 2008 will be significantly worse than our consequences of leaving Iraq in 2010 or 2012.  Iraq is a country that was created on a map in London... it contains groups of people with long standing and deep enmity for one another.  The only way it has held together since the end of WWI is with some form of authoritative goverment or dictatorship.  The Iraqi government has been formed... their military has been trained.... and whenever we leave, their military will dissolve into sunni and shiite armed militias.  They will not develop loyalty to Iraq that supercedes their loyalty to religious sect, IMHO

and that sort of divided loyalty ought not to be that unfamiliar to Americans.  Let me just offer up Robert E. Lee, U.S. Military Academy, Class of 1829 as a case in point.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?
> 
> And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.



MM's ONLY concern is how his party will benefit politically


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?
> 
> And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.



MM does suffer from a superiority complex - common among liberals

Here is something that should really piss him off this morning

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1193127.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

Time is the ONE thing the Liberals CAN NOT allow the troops in Iraq. They ( the libs) must cause our failure as soon as possible. They do not even want to wait till September, much less any longer for a "Bush" win. Liberals would rather the nation fail then Bush get credit for anything.

4 years later they are still harping about we should not have gone, that became pointless as soon as our troops invaded. The entire argument is not that we should help Iraq, but that because 4 years ago ONE of many reasons we invaded was possibly wrong we should now cut and run abandoning the Iraqi people to Chaos, murder and terror. The libs , people like Maineman , claim knowledge in military affairs and then make patently ridiculous claims that an Insurgency should be won in a matter of months. And then when success occurs they ignore it or marginalize it. Maineman has done just that with the success in Anbar province. 

When pointedly reminded that Anbar was a success and belays the "Civil War" claim, what was his response? That it didn't matter cause in his opinion the province wasn't half and half Sunni and Shiite.

He can not even provide historical data to support his claim that Civil War is enavitable. Just the usual whine , THE SKY IS FALLING.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

The Dems have put there poltical future in failure

They want the US economy to fail - it has not - yet they sneer how rotten things are

They want the US to lose in Iraq. They do not see it as a loss for the US but as a loss for Pres Bush. They do not care about the troops or the people in Iraq

All they care about is getting more political power

To libs the ends justify the means


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Time is the ONE thing the Liberals CAN NOT allow the troops in Iraq. They ( the libs) must cause our failure as soon as possible. They do not even want to wait till September, much less any longer for a "Bush" win. Liberals would rather the nation fail then Bush get credit for anything.
> 
> 4 years later they are still harping about we should not have gone, that became pointless as soon as our troops invaded. The entire argument is not that we should help Iraq, but that because 4 years ago ONE of many reasons we invaded was possibly wrong we should now cut and run abandoning the Iraqi people to Chaos, murder and terror. The libs , people like Maineman , claim knowledge in military affairs and then make patently ridiculous claims that an Insurgency should be won in a matter of months. And then when success occurs they ignore it or marginalize it. Maineman has done just that with the success in Anbar province.
> 
> ...





Of course this is not the first war libs were wrong about

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=33238


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> When pointedly reminded that Anbar was a success and belays the "Civil War" claim, what was his response? That it didn't matter cause in his opinion the province wasn't half and half Sunni and Shiite.
> 
> He can not even provide historical data to support his claim that Civil War is enavitable. Just the usual whine , THE SKY IS FALLING.



my POINT regarding Anbar province is that no one was suggesting that that overwhelmingly sunni enclave was ever the site of any civil war in Iraq.  It is the site of Iraqi sunni versus Al Qaeda sunni fighting, and that is always good from our perspective, but it does not address the issues that exist where sunnis and shiites live together and have disputed claims on turf and oil.

For you to point out the relative successes in the Anbar province as proof of no civil war is similar to me pointing out in April of 1863 that there was absolutely no fighting in New Hampshire, so this whole thing about an American civil war is way overblown.

And I am perfectly willing to give this surge some finite time to work....I am willing to let it run til the fall and see if Baghdad is once again a safe haven for children, if, in fact, that multicultural jeffersonian democracy is, in fact, blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

Yea, Democrats wanted Pres Lincoln to surrender to the South 

Dems have not changed much


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, Democrats wanted Pres Lincoln to surrender to the South
> 
> Dems have not changed much




RSR...that doesn't even make any sense.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR...that doesn't even make any sense.



Democrats (known as Copperheads_ wanted Lincoln to make peace with the South and stop the war

Much like Dems want to appease and surrender in Iraq

Alos, the liberal media was "reporting" how the US was losing the peace in Europe in 1946

As I said, libs have not changed much over the years


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Democrats (known as Copperheads_ wanted Lincoln to make peace with the South and stop the war
> 
> Much like Dems want to appease and surrender in Iraq
> 
> ...



I know of NO democrat who wants to surrender or appease our enemies in Iraq.  Just because you repeat that falsehood every day does not magically make it less false.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I know of NO democrat who wants to surrender or appease our enemies in Iraq.  Just because you repeat that falsehood every day does not magically make it less false.



You usually ignore what your beloved Dems say and do - then go into spin cycle when called on it


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You usually ignore what your beloved Dems say and do - then go into spin cycle when called on it




no really.... if you could find one quotation from one democrat that suggested we *surrender to our enemies *in Iraq or *appease our enemies *in Iraq, I would love to read it.

now who's spinning?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> no really.... if you could find one quotation from one democrat that suggested we *surrender to our enemies *in Iraq or *appease our enemies *in Iraq, I would love to read it.
> 
> now who's spinning?



If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender



let me ask you this:  if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> let me ask you this:  if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?



When Iraq is ready to stand alone and provide their own security - we leave - the mission is finished

Dems want to surrender now -- in time for the next election


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

answer this question:



maineman said:


> let me ask you this:  if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, *do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?*




yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> answer this question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Using your liberal logic we might as well get rid of the Police, since there will always be crime and criminals


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?



Probably not - but when they tell us they take care of things on their own - we leave

Dems do not want that to happen however


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

but if our enemies are still there, and we leave...didn't you say:

If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is *surrender*????


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> but if our enemies are still there, and we leave...didn't you say:
> 
> If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is *surrender*????



Then Iraq can do the job on their own

Again using your liberal logic - the money spent on Police is a waste -the Police will never get rid of all crime


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then Iraq can do the job on their own
> 
> Again using your liberal logic - the money spent on Police is a waste -the Police will never get rid of all crime



and you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> and you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?



I understand libs want to paint a doom and gloom picture in Iraq - you ignored the CNN video of the progress being made - as White Flag Harry bellowed 'the war is lost'


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I understand libs want to paint a doom and gloom picture in Iraq - you ignored the CNN video of the progress being made - as White Flag Harry bellowed 'the war is lost'



no...I am not painting a doom and gloom picture....I only ask that you answer this question:

Do you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?

yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...I am not painting a doom and gloom picture....I only ask that you answer this question:
> 
> Do you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?
> 
> yes or no?



You are a walking billboard for doom and gloom


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I only ask that you answer this question:
> 
> Do you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?
> 
> yes or no?




are you capable of actually answering a simple yes or no question?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you capable of actually answering a simple yes or no question?



I will answer. There is NO reason to assume that they won't work together, so until you provide some current facts showing they can't or won't your insistance they will devolve into Civil War is simply an attempt by you to justify abandoning millions of people to anarchy, terror and murder.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?



That question is meaningless. Hell the United States is not "completely" devoid of our enemies. More importantly it is NOT the benchmark we are or should be shooting for.

 Just as the war on Drugs and the War on Terror will never eradicate those things, the point is to make it so costly that these things are not considered safe to do. It is to protect our society.

RSR has a point, using the logic that we must totally eradicate our enemies before it is a success, why have police?  Why have doctors? Why have Government at all?

Your insistance that this is the goal is idiotic. that if we don't reach this goal we have failed, your point of course being we can never reach that goal so we should just stop trying.


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

Have you read a book entitled _The Arab Mind__ by Raphael Patai_

yes or no?


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That question is meaningless. Hell the United States is not "completely" devoid of our enemies. More importantly it is NOT the benchmark we are or should be shooting for.
> 
> Just as the war on Drugs and the War on Terror will never eradicate those things, the point is to make it so costly that these things are not considered safe to do. It is to protect our society.
> 
> ...



you have no idea what my point is... so quit putting words in MY mouth, OK "sarge"?  My point is.... we will never surrender to our enemies in Iraq even if we leave tomorrow.  We will turn over military encampments and installations to the legitimate government of Iraq.  Will there still be some bad guys there?  sure.  It does not mean that we surrendered to them, though, does it?


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Have you read a book entitled _The Arab Mind__ by Raphael Patai_
> 
> yes or no?



have you ever lived in an arab neighborhood with both sunnis and shiites in close proximity?  yes or no?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> you have no idea what my point is... so quit putting words in MY mouth, OK "sarge"?  My point is.... we will never surrender to our enemies in Iraq even if we leave tomorrow.  We will turn over military encampments and installations to the legitimate government of Iraq.  Will there still be some bad guys there?  sure.  It does not mean that we surrendered to them, though, does it?



Your being disengenous now. The iraq Government and Military/Police are not trained, equiped or prepared to do the job. You can not have it both ways, you can not cut and run and claim we accomplished our mission.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> have you ever lived in an arab neighborhood with both sunnis and shiites in close proximity?  yes or no?



Have you been to Iraq? have you trained with or served with Iraq troops or police? have you lived in an Iraq town or city with both Sunni and Shiite in it?

If you have served with Iraq troops/police, when was that? Are you contending they are incapable of being trained? 

Yes or no?

Will movement of civilian populations occur? Sure will, already has, BUT there have also been reports that Sunni and Shiite families have returned to areas they once didn't feel safe in.


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your being disengenous now. The iraq Government and Military/Police are not trained, equiped or prepared to do the job. You can not have it both ways, you can not cut and run and claim we accomplished our mission.



we have been "training" the Iraqi police and military a hell of a lot longer than we have been training the 19 and 20 year old new recruits who are riding around the mean streets of Baghdad doing the job the Iraqi military ought to be doing.


this reminds me of an old joke about a high school football team that was getting its ass kicked by a team from across town.  The coach kept sending in plays to "Give Leroy the ball"  and the play would be run and Leroy wouldn't get the ball and their team would be thrown for another bruising loss...the coach kept sending in plays "give Leroy the ball!"  and the plays kept going to other players...until finally, when one of his substitutions came back to the bench, the coach said, "I keep tellin' you kids to give Leroy the ball and you never give it to him.  what the hell is going on?"  and the young kid said, "coach....Leroy say he don't WANT the ball!"

How badly do you think that the Iraqi armed forces "wants the ball"?  How long are you willing to carry it for them using troops many of whom are every bit as green as they are?


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Have you been to Iraq? have you trained with or served with Iraq troops or police? have you lived in an Iraq town or city with both Sunni and Shiite in it?
> 
> If you have served with Iraq troops/police, when was that? Are you contending they are incapable of being trained?
> 
> ...




why do you answer questions with questions?  what are you hiding?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you answer questions with questions?  what are you hiding?



You have set up a strawman, claiming that only if you meet criteria you provide is your opinion valid. The premise you establish is false or misleading.

The one trying to HIDE something is not me.


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have set up a strawman, claiming that only if you meet criteria you provide is your opinion valid. The premise you establish is false or misleading.
> 
> The one trying to HIDE something is not me.



I have made no such claims.... I merely asked a question or two to ascertain the level of your understanding of the culture and ethnicities involved.  I have nothing to hide.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2007)

Yes yes, I see, if YOU ask a question or establish a criteria, it is just to enable discussion, if someone else does it they are trying to "hide" something.


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

no.... 

the asking of a question is not, in itself, an attempt to hide anything.  

the asking of a question as a dodge to avoid answering a question might be an attempt to hide something.... or it might just be the actions of a prick who wanted nothing more than to annoy.  the jury is still out.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes yes, I see, if YOU ask a question or establish a criteria, it is just to enable discussion, if someone else does it they are trying to "hide" something.



Yep


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yep




LMFAO ...this from a guy who NEVER answers ANY questions but feels perfectly justified in continuing to ask his own!


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> LMFAO ...this from a guy who NEVER answers ANY questions but feels perfectly justified in continuing to ask his own!



I know you are in a bad mood tonight 

Your Dems are about to surrender to Pres Bush on their surrender bill


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know you are in a bad mood tonight
> 
> Your Dems are about to surrender to Pres Bush on their surrender bill



bad mood?  What are you talking about?  I just got back from winning all the money in my company golf league.... the Red Sox are beating the Yankees and you just made me laugh my ass off.  I am in a GREAT mood!

The troops will get their funding.  America is pissed that the president vetoed the original bill... that will hurt republicans in the long run.... if we weren't losing more Americans every day in the war in Iraq, life would be marvelous all around.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> bad mood?  What are you talking about?  I just got back from winning all the money in my company golf league.... the Red Sox are beating the Yankees and you just made me laugh my ass off.  I am in a GREAT mood!
> 
> The troops will get their funding.  America is pissed that the president vetoed the original bill... that will hurt republicans in the long run.... if we weren't losing more Americans every day in the war in Iraq, life would be marvelous all around.



So is that why the Dems are giving up on their surrender demand?

The 27% approval rating must be first in their minds as they cave to Pres Bush

So much for "doing the will of the American people"


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So is that why the Dems are giving up on their surrender demand?
> 
> The 27% approval rating must be first in their minds as they cave to Pres Bush
> 
> So much for "doing the will of the American people"



no...they withdrew the deadlines because the don't have a veto proof majority.  Americans clearly supported their original funding bill that included the deadlines.... the republicans will suffer because of Bush's veto and because the carnage to American troops in accelerating.

And you really need to take note of those polls that do differentiate between the public's view of democratic congressional performance versus republican congressional performance..... as bad as you want to claim the democrats are doing, the republicans are doing even worse.... perhaps you could find something less ridiculous to crow about.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...they withdrew the deadlines because the don't have a veto proof majority.  Americans clearly supported their original funding bill that included the deadlines.... the republicans will suffer because of Bush's veto and because the carnage to American troops in accelerating.
> 
> And you really need to take note of those polls that do differentiate between the public's view of democratic congressional performance versus republican congressional performance..... as bad as you want to claim the democrats are doing, the republicans are doing even worse.... perhaps you could find something less ridiculous to crow about.



They caved MM

Your kook base is fit to be tied tonight

The Dems do not have the political guts to do what they claim is the right thing to do

If they are so certain the war is lost - they should cut off funding


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They caved MM
> 
> Your kook base is fit to be tied tonight
> 
> ...



like I said...they didn't have a veto proof majority.  WHy continue to throw a hissy fit.  they made their point. Americans agreed with democrats that there ought to be deadlines for troop withdrawal...the veto hurt your party.  If the far left doesn't like it, I could give a shit.... the MIDDLE of America liked the democrat's plan for Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said...they didn't have a veto proof majority.  WHy continue to throw a hissy fit.  they made their point. Americans agreed with democrats that there ought to be deadlines for troop withdrawal...the veto hurt your party.  If the far left doesn't like it, I could give a shit.... the MIDDLE of America liked the democrat's plan for Iraq.



Keep spinning and watch your party go down the drain MM

Their arrogrance took over and they fell on their ass

Good news for Amercia and the troops


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep spinning and watch your party go down the drain MM
> 
> Their arrogrance took over and they fell on their ass
> 
> Good news for Amercia and the troops



keep running away from the fact that the republicans in congress AND the president poll MUCH worse than the democrats in congress.

Keep running away from the FACT that 57% of Americans wanted to fund the troops with withdrawal deadlines and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep running away from the fact that the republicans in congress AND the president poll MUCH worse than the democrats in congress.
> 
> Keep running away from the FACT that 57% of Americans wanted to fund the troops with withdrawal deadlines and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.




Even the liberal LA Times are oissed at the Dems

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq12mar12,0,492047.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep running away from the fact that the republicans in congress AND the president poll MUCH worse than the democrats in congress.
> 
> Keep running away from the FACT that 57% of Americans wanted to fund the troops with withdrawal deadlines and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.



I could give a shit what the LA times thinks..the MIDDLE of America is behind the democrat's plan to end the war in Iraq...the MIDDLE of America is pissed at Bush for vetoing it.  The MIDDLE of America knows who is fucking up and who isn't.  you can't spin away from that.... all you can do is throw up more cut and paste op-ed pieces to try and cover up the fact that you really don't even KNOW how to string fifteen words together and formulate an argument on your own.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I could give a shit what the LA times thinks..the MIDDLE of America is behind the democrat's plan to end the war in Iraq...the MIDDLE of America is pissed at Bush for vetoing it.  The MIDDLE of America knows who is fucking up and who isn't.  you can't spin away from that.... all you can do is throw up more cut and paste op-ed pieces to try and cover up the fact that you really don't even KNOW how to string fifteen words together and formulate an argument on your own.



Now you do not care what the liberal media thinks?

My you are on a short fuse

You are willing for Amercia to surredner to terrorists - but you get really pissed off when the Dems surrender to Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Now you do not care what the liberal media thinks?
> 
> My you are on a short fuse
> 
> You are willing for Amercia to surredner to terrorists - but you get really pissed off when the Dems surrender to Pres Bush




I don't care what the liberal media thinks.  I care what the rank and file democrats think, and I care what the independent voters think, and I care what the middle of America thinks.

I have never suggested that America surrender to terrorists.... I have pointed out to you how a strong majority of the MIDDLE of America supported the democrat's funding plan with deadlines and how a strong majority of MIDDLE America is pissed at Bush for vetoing it.  I have never suggested that I was pissed at democrats for compromising with the president in the least.  I am all for it.  The political damage has already been done to your party....time to move on, fund the troops....keep the issue before the people.... I am not pissed off when dems act pragmatically at all...I challenge you to find any statement of mine which shows me pissed at congressional democrats for their moves regarding troop funding.


----------



## USMCDevilDog (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't care what the liberal media thinks.  I care what the rank and file democrats think, and I care what the independent voters think, and I care what the middle of America thinks.
> 
> I have never suggested that America surrender to terrorists.... I have pointed out to you how a strong majority of the MIDDLE of America supported the democrat's funding plan with deadlines and how a strong majority of MIDDLE America is pissed at Bush for vetoing it.  I have never suggested that I was pissed at democrats for compromising with the president in the least.  I am all for it.  The political damage has already been done to your party....time to move on, fund the troops....keep the issue before the people.... I am not pissed off when dems act pragmatically at all...I challenge you to find any statement of mine which shows me pissed at congressional democrats for their moves regarding troop funding.




Personally, just like the article said (and what fine article that is RSR, thanks for sharing), YOU and "middle" America, who are the ones bitching about this war, are not the ones fighting it. The men and women overseas are fighting this war, they know what they're doing, they realize that it's hard, but they want it to work and they believe they can make it work. As for YOU and "middle" America, ya'll get the nice horrible images on the MSM every night and when you get tired of the media's picture of the war, you just go n turn your T.V. off n do something else. 

Give it break, this is a WAR, that means people die, and civilians die, and approval ratings will most undoubtedly go DOWN, but, that doesn't mean there isn't a chance. And instead of putting our tail in between our legs and high tailing it outta there, how bout we take the risk, do what we gotta do and stand next to the Iraqi's, like we promised, and help them build a country worth living in. I, for one, will not see that country just become some scum hole for the rest of it's existence. We're there now, we've committed to the effort, let's get it done and stop bitching.

You wanna talk about deaths and trying to stop em, how bout you start focusing on drunk drivers and such, which cause 40,000 deaths annually in the U.S., whereas this 4 year war, has caused less then 4,000, which is not good either way, but not a bad number for 4 years. Chill out, and support our troops and what they say. We're doing the right thing.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't care what the liberal media thinks.  I care what the rank and file democrats think, and I care what the independent voters think, and I care what the middle of America thinks.
> 
> I have never suggested that America surrender to terrorists.... I have pointed out to you how a strong majority of the MIDDLE of America supported the democrat's funding plan with deadlines and how a strong majority of MIDDLE America is pissed at Bush for vetoing it.  I have never suggested that I was pissed at democrats for compromising with the president in the least.  I am all for it.  The political damage has already been done to your party....time to move on, fund the troops....keep the issue before the people.... I am not pissed off when dems act pragmatically at all...I challenge you to find any statement of mine which shows me pissed at congressional democrats for their moves regarding troop funding.




Here is what your rank and file Dems think MM


Now that the Vichy Democrats have staged another surrender to Bush, we must analyze the reasons behind their treasonous collaboration with the American dictator Bush. Can we say that the Beltway Democrats covet Iraq's OIL as much as the GOP?

Democrats drop withdrawal deadlines as administration mulls post-surge Iraq

By Bill Van Auken
23 May 2007

With just days left until Congress goes into its Memorial Day recess, the Democratic leadership has reportedly dropped any proposal for a timeline for partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as part of a new war-funding bill.

The Democrats abandonment of this principal prop in their antiwar charade comes as the Bush administration is reported to be in discussions on what shape US policy will take in the aftermath of the present military surge that has poured tens of thousands of more American combat troops into Baghdad and Anbar province.

Behind the media reports of a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, what in reality appears to be emerging in Washington is a bipartisan consensus on a strategy that would continue the US occupation of the oil-rich country for many years to come.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x283028


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

RSR....sometimes, I think you are purposely thick.  Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a "veto-proof" majority?

just answer that question....please.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR....sometimes, I think you are purposely thick.  Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a "veto-proof" majority?
> 
> just answer that question....please.



I understand what the word "surrender" means

Dems wanted the US to surrender to terrorists, but they ended up surrendering to Pres Bush

(and the liberal base is pissed)


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

well...we have proven over and over again that, despite your blustery protestations to the contrary, you do NOT know what the word "surrender" means....and I can only take by your refusal to address it, that you do not know what the term "veto-proof majority" means either.

Like trying to talk to a cow.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> well...we have proven over and over again that, despite your blustery protestations to the contrary, you do NOT know what the word "surrender" means....and I can only take by your refusal to address it, that you do not know what the term "veto-proof majority" means either.
> 
> Like trying to talk to a cow.





MM, don't talk to me - talk to your base

I could not be happier over the ineptness of the Dems

The base are the ones who are pissed off


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Here is sample from the "rank and file Democrats" MM

It is from the NY Times - hardly a right wing website

1.May 23rd,
2007
1:58 am Once again, the Dems have shown themselves to be nothing but Republicans Lite. If they want to win the presidential election they are going to have to do better than that. I for one, have no interest in Republicans Lite. I want to vote for a Democrat! 

 Posted by Lisa Roth
2.May 23rd,
2007
2:03 am I have always said Democrats are just like Republicans but for a few details. They claim to be different and do things to make it look that way. But, in the end, their policy is the same. Whether its because they have no backbone or they have interests that pressure them to do so it makes little difference. 

 Posted by michael howard
3.May 23rd,
2007
2:03 am Democrats are so afraid of appearing weak that they appear weak. The best we can hope for is that theyll just shut-up. Their hot air is likely a major cause of global warming. 

 Posted by Tim Mooring
4.May 23rd,
2007
2:05 am Senator McCain summed it up when he said you either win a war or lose a warno in between.
The media qnd the Democrats have misjudged the American people 

 Posted by Eugene J. Barker
5.May 23rd,
2007
2:06 am This is a disaster for the country, and a misreading of national politics by the Democrats in the Senate. If it is sustained by a vote in congress, it will provoke a fatalism and isolationism that will reverberate for years to come. Most Americans want out of this war. The longer the U.S. is in Iraq, the more bitter, alienated and polarized the electorate will become. 

 Posted by Roger
6.May 23rd,
2007
2:08 am Further evidence that there is, in fact, only one political party in the United States: the corporate-interest party. Sadly, it appears, that our leaders, and I use the term loosely, lack the moral fiber and/or intellectual courage to face down the special interests. This on the day Al Gores The Assault on Reason hits the stands. Jimmy Carters words were, as it turns out, neither inappropriate nor misplaced. 

 Posted by Andrew Grenier
7.May 23rd,
2007
2:09 am Off the top of my head, it is a terrible blow to the Democrats. I compels me to wonder what happened behind closed doors. This President does not need any more power, and some Democrats have just handed it to him.

Why could the democrats have just held their ground? 

 Posted by Mike Peterson
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/democrats-pull-troop-deadline-from-iraq-bill/#comment


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Great picture on the front page of the NY Times

Looks like White Flag harry is surrendering to Pres Bush dosen't it?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM, don't talk to me - talk to your base
> 
> I could not be happier over the ineptness of the Dems
> 
> The base are the ones who are pissed off



silly boy.

what you fail to understand is:  your party and president has so polarized America and has staked out their position so far to the right, that the power players in the democratic party can run right to the middle and stand there and hold that middle ground and not really worry about how much the far left whines.... the far left has nowhere to go.  the far left hates George Bush and his ilk so much that they will turn out to vote for ANY democrat just to make sure you guys go away.  They may whine and bitch and threaten to withhold contributions, but it is all just bluster on their part.  They know they need to back a winner...they know that winner needs to be a democrat...and they know that if they don't open up their wallets, that they will have zero access to the winners.  Let the left whine...they'll come home.  where else can they go?  lol


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> silly boy.
> 
> what you fail to understand is:  your party and president has so polarized America and has staked out their position so far to the right, that the power players in the democratic party can run right to the middle and stand there and hold that middle ground and not really worry about how much the far left whines.... the far left has nowhere to go.  the far left hates George Bush and his ilk so much that they will turn out to vote for ANY democrat just to make sure you guys go away.  They may whine and bitch and threaten to withhold contributions, but it is all just bluster on their part.  They know they need to back a winner...they know that winner needs to be a democrat...and they know that if they don't open up their wallets, that they will have zero access to the winners.  Let the left whine...they'll come home.  where else can they go?  lol



MM you muight want to jump on some the lib messageboards and clam your buddies down

Libs are the ones who have divided the country. Their hate and rage is now out of control


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR....sometimes, I think you are purposely thick.  Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a "veto-proof" majority?
> 
> just answer that question....please.



MM he voters have spoken. Perhaps the libs figured out voters did not vote for surrender? Maybe they figured out congress would have had the votes if the folks did indeed support their position. 

No they haven't

Libs on the wrong side of history once again


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM you muight want to jump on some the lib messageboards and clam your buddies down
> 
> Libs are the ones who have divided the country. Their hate and rage is now out of control



that is your spin.  I do not agree with it.  I do not see any hate or rage at my county committee meetings...just resolve and optimism.

and you certainly see no hate and rage from me.... just annoyance at your inability to do anything other than cut and paste or sprew talking points.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM he voters have spoken. Perhaps the libs figured out voters did not vote for surrender? Maybe they figured out congress would have had the votes if the folks did indeed support their position.
> 
> No they haven't
> 
> Libs on the wrong side of history once again



the voters did speak...and gave congress back to the democrats.  the people spoke out on the demcrat's funding bill and a strong majority of them supported it and were angry at the president's veto of it.  My guess is:  in '08, we'll have more deomcrats in congress to override those vetoes, and a democrat in the white house who won't issue them in the first place!


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is your spin.  I do not agree with it.  I do not see any hate or rage at my county committee meetings...just resolve and optimism.
> 
> and you certainly see no hate and rage from me.... just annoyance at your inability to do anything other than cut and paste or sprew talking points.



MM - I posted some of their remarks.  I provided the link - go see for yourself

As I said I am delighted with the way Dems fucked up

And I loved the front page photo of White Flag harry on the front page of the NY Times - it is a classic

As far as your meetings - I would love to see the resolve and optimism at the next meeting now that Dems surrendered to Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM - I posted some of their remarks.  I provided the link - go see for yourself
> 
> As I said I am delighted with the way Dems fucked up
> 
> ...



I understand you posted their remarks...I am telling you that the far left is marginalized and will end up supporting the democratic party with money and with votes for no other reason than to keep a republican out of the white house.  

And my committee members are quite pleased with the progress of the troop funding bill.  we know that the people support us and do not support the president...we know that everytime he vetoes a popular bill it hurts him and it hurts those republicans in congress who vote to sustain that veto..... we understand full well that we don't have a veto-proof majority. ... yet.

And the people have figured that out as well.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I understand you posted their remarks...I am telling you that the far left is marginalized and will end up supporting the democratic party with money and with votes for no other reason than to keep a republican out of the white house.
> 
> And my committee members are quite pleased with the progress of the troop funding bill.  we know that the people support us and do not support the president...we know that everytime he vetoes a popular bill it hurts him and it hurts those republicans in congress who vote to sustain that veto..... we understand full well that we don't have a veto-proof majority. ... yet.
> 
> And the people have figured that out as well.



Yea, if the country is lucky they will back Dennie the Menace Kucinish - a reall anti war nut

Can't wait to see the Dems approval rating - I wonder how far below 27% it will drop


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, if the country is lucky they will back Dennie the Menace Kucinish - a reall anti war nut
> 
> Can't wait to see the Dems approval rating - I wonder how far below 27% it will drop



let the far left back Kucinich in the primaries.... it makes no difference.  He will not win the nomination, obviously, and the far left will have nowhere else to turn but to the democratic candidate.


you really don't know how politics works, do you?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> let the far left back Kucinich in the primaries.... it makes no difference.  He will not win the nomination, obviously, and the far left will have nowhere else to turn but to the democratic candidate.
> 
> 
> you really don't know how politics works, do you?



I know how it works MM

Dems played their supporters for suckers - and now you are spinning for them

It probably be Rudy VS Hillary

Then you will owe me $500


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know how it works MM
> 
> Dems played their supporters for suckers - and now you are spinning for them
> 
> ...



no...you really don't know how it works.  trust me.  if you did, you would know what those gang of moderate republicans who went to Bush two weeks ago already know:  this war is killing your party's chances in '08.... they know that, unless something pretty fucking miraculous comes along and comes along quickly, they will lose seats in congress and lose the white house.  

the left may be pissed off that the democrat's compromised to get the troop funding past a president's veto...but they have nowhere else to turn.  the left KNOWS that if they want to advance any of their social programs...if they want to advance any of their environmental programs...if they want to eventually end the war in Iraq, the ONLY way to do that is to hold their noses and vote for the moderate democrat we will end up nominating....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

Ya the Dems are SO SMART, I mean look they chose that winner Kerry to run in 2004. And remind me again who runs the national machinery for the Dems.....

Kerry was a great choice, if you wanted Bush to win. The far left decided the issue then and will decide it again in 2008. Unless the Democrats wise up and boot the far left to the Curb.

I will give credit where it is due. Pelosi TRIED to keep them in line at first. She tried and failed.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya the Dems are SO SMART, I mean look they chose that winner Kerry to run in 2004. And remind me again who runs the national machinery for the Dems.....
> 
> Kerry was a great choice, if you wanted Bush to win. The far left decided the issue then and will decide it again in 2008. Unless the Democrats wise up and boot the far left to the Curb.
> 
> I will give credit where it is due. Pelosi TRIED to keep them in line at first. She tried and failed.




dems are not SO smart.... and if you want to go back in time, how fucking stupid were YOU guys to nominate Dole...or Goldwater?  We are not talking about Kerry.  He was not my first choice out of that field....Clark was.... amd the guy who runs the machinery for the dems is a very moderate former governor of Vermont who orchestrated the stunning midterm win for our party.

and we have done a very politically astute move with this funding bill.  We put out OUR bill that the people supported.... got the president to veto it...which pissed off a majority of americans, and got republicans to vote to sustain the veto which they now have to go back and explain to their constituents....whereas we can go back and say, "hey... we tried....if we have a veto proof majority, that sort of shit wouldn't happen"  Elect more democrats and we will stop this war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> dems are not SO smart.... and if you want to go back in time, how fucking stupid were YOU guys to nominate Dole...or Goldwater?  We are not talking about Kerry.  He was not my first choice out of that field....Clark was.... amd the guy who runs the machinery for the dems is a very moderate former governor of Vermont who orchestrated the stunning midterm win for our party.
> 
> and we have done a very politically astute move with this funding bill.  We put out OUR bill that the people supported.... got the president to veto it...which pissed off a majority of americans, and got republicans to vote to sustain the veto which they now have to go back and explain to their constituents....whereas we can go back and say, "hey... we tried....if we have a veto proof majority, that sort of shit wouldn't happen"  Elect more democrats and we will stop this war.



Talk about delusional, you know i could recommend meds for that condition.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

fuck you... you wanna just insult and not debate issues.... great.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

Well since I am not a Mensa candidate and don't make my "insults" inside my longwinded  bullshit posts, I guess I am just stuck being pointed about it.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well since I am not a Mensa candidate and don't make my "insults" inside my longwinded  bullshit posts, I guess I am just stuck being pointed about it.



then I'll be pointed too.  

fuck off 

eat shit

go spew your moronic crap somewhere else.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

Once again, you are not a moderator so your demands I quit making you look like the fool you sometimes are mean nothing.

Quit trying to set up your questions in such a way that any answer except what your looking for is wrong and I will quit pointing out you do that. Quit demanding others ONLY post what you want to hear and I also will quit pointing out you do that as well.

And I notice for being so "articulate" you resort to 4 letter words a lot. Perhaps an anger management class would help you?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again, you are not a moderator so your demands I quit making you look like the fool you sometimes are mean nothing.
> 
> Quit trying to set up your questions in such a way that any answer except what your looking for is wrong and I will quit pointing out you do that. Quit demanding others ONLY post what you want to hear and I also will quit pointing out you do that as well.
> 
> And I notice for being so "articulate" you resort to 4 letter words a lot. Perhaps an anger management class would help you?




ok dickbreath...what exactly was "delusional" about my previous post that earned that comment from you? Let's start there.

Was it the fact that Dean was a very moderate governor.... or was it the fact that he did, in fact, orchrestrate the candidate recruitment, fundraising, and campaign coordination that resulted in your party getting their asses kicked out of the majority in both chambers?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> ok dickbreath...what exactly was "delusional" about my previous post that earned that comment from you? Let's start there.
> 
> Was it the fact that Dean was a very moderate governor.... or was it the fact that he did, in fact, orchrestrate the candidate recruitment, fundraising, and campaign coordination that resulted in your party getting their asses kicked out of the majority in both chambers?



Yes we all know how "great" Dean is.... Why I remember his "great" speaches on the campaign trail as well. 

As for losing, you are aware of course that historically the party that controls the White House loses seats in off years? The ONLY recent exception being 2002?

Perhaps you could explain that one to us? And remind us of how GREAT Dean was. And last i checked the Dems won those seats with CONSERVATIVE democrats. Or well at least they made that claim to their voters. Lets see how ell those people do in 2008 if they start voting liberal policies in, shall we?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes we all know how "great" Dean is.... Why I remember his "great" speaches on the campaign trail as well.
> 
> As for losing, you are aware of course that historically the party that controls the White House loses seats in off years? The ONLY recent exception being 2002?
> 
> Perhaps you could explain that one to us? And remind us of how GREAT Dean was. And last i checked the Dems won those seats with CONSERVATIVE democrats. Or well at least they made that claim to their voters. Lets see how ell those people do in 2008 if they start voting liberal policies in, shall we?




I never claimed Dean was great...I claimed he was moderate and had done a great job in running the campaign.

I understand tha the party that holds the white house loses seats regularly.  Losing majorities is not such a regular occurence, though, is it?

And the fact that conservatives like Jim Webb are coming over to the democratic party is proof of just how marginalized and out of touch with America your party has become.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2007)

Thats why the Dems don't have even as much of a majority as the repubs had, got ya.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

the point is...the republicans HAD majorities in both chambers and LOST majorities in both chambers.... a rare event.  

But hey...if you wanna believe that your party still commands the loyalty and respect and support of the great center of the American political bell curve, knock yourself out.  I ain't buyin' it, though


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> then I'll be pointed too.
> 
> fuck off
> 
> ...



Some things never change.... What a class act...

Every time you touch the keyboard the republican party gains support!!!

Keep posting!


----------



## Annie (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> then I'll be pointed too.
> 
> fuck off
> 
> ...



I'll say, I'm shocked at this response from you. There is a reason I'm missing?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I'll say, I'm shocked at this response from you. There is a reason I'm missing?



I post a valid argument.  rather than refute it, _faux gunny _calls me "delusional."  

I suggest that he should refute my issues instead of merely insulting me.... at which point he claims that I DO insult him, but since he is "not a Mensa candidate and doesn't make his "insults" inside his longwinded bullshit posts, he guessed he was just stuck being pointed about it."

I pulled it down to a "pointed" level where he could understand it, and where he was obviously more comfortable conversing.  He wants to spew the same sort of party-line shit that RSR does.  My point to _faux gunny_:  I can take it as "high brow" as you want to take it....insult me, and let me show you how a sailor talks.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Some things never change.... What a class act...
> 
> Every time you touch the keyboard the republican party gains support!!!
> 
> Keep posting!



aren't you the same guy who called me a "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" half the fucking night only to meekly apologize after I handed you your ASS?

I thought so.


----------



## Annie (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I post a valid argument.  rather than refute it, _faux gunny _calls me "delusional."
> 
> I suggest that he should refute my issues instead of merely insulting me.... at which point he claims that I DO insult him, but since he is "not a Mensa candidate and doesn't make his "insults" inside his longwinded bullshit posts, he guessed he was just stuck being pointed about it."
> 
> I pulled it down to a "pointed" level where he could understand it, and where he was obviously more comfortable conversing.  He wants to spew the same sort of party-line shit that RSR does.  My point to _faux gunny_:  I can take it as "high brow" as you want to take it....insult me, and let me show you how a sailor talks.



Ya know, it seems there are few and far between that qualify for stepping in and helping with. Just me.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Ya know, it seems there are few and far between that qualify for stepping in and helping with. Just me.



you certainly are a unique, talented, and diplomatic lady...

few and far between indeed!


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Some things never change.... What a class act...
> 
> Every time you touch the keyboard the republican party gains support!!!
> 
> Keep posting!



He is a walking billboard for liberal tolerance and kindness


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I'll say, I'm shocked at this response from you. There is a reason I'm missing?



Why are you shocked?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I post a valid argument.  rather than refute it, _faux gunny _calls me "delusional."
> 
> I suggest that he should refute my issues instead of merely insulting me.... at which point he claims that I DO insult him, but since he is "not a Mensa candidate and doesn't make his "insults" inside his longwinded bullshit posts, he guessed he was just stuck being pointed about it."
> 
> I pulled it down to a "pointed" level where he could understand it, and where he was obviously more comfortable conversing.  He wants to spew the same sort of party-line shit that RSR does.  My point to _faux gunny_:  I can take it as "high brow" as you want to take it....insult me, and let me show you how a sailor talks.



You have called people much worse


You can dish it out - but you do have a problem taking it


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> He is a walking billboard for liberal tolerance and kindness



Alas, I have always been and will always be far too intolerant of fools like you, I must admit.   That is, perhaps, my greatest failing.


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> aren't you the same guy who called me a "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" half the fucking night only to meekly apologize after I handed you your ASS?
> 
> I thought so.



Stick to the content please...

 I believe you were reminding us what a lowlife disgrace to the uniform you are...


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have called people much worse
> 
> 
> You can dish it out - but you do have a problem taking it



what the fuck are you talking about?  I was explaining to a third party why I was dishing it out.  I have no problem taking anything.  I give a hell of a lot better than I get from mental midgets like YOU, that is for sure!


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Stick to the content please...
> 
> I believe you were reminding us what a lowlife disgrace to the uniform you are...



I believe I was commenting on your accusations concerning my service in uniform....you prissy little prick.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> what the fuck are you talking about?  I was explaining to a third party why I was dishing it out.  I have no problem taking anything.  I give a hell of a lot better than I get from mental midgets like YOU, that is for sure!



Try again, you are a wimp when it comes to taking it back from people you insult


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Try again, you are a wimp when it comes to taking it back from people you insult



what?  no cut and paste newsmax article to make your point?

I don't need to try to do anything on this board or in this life.  I certainly have NOTHING to prove to a little pissant like YOU.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> what?  no cut and paste newsmax article to make your point?
> 
> I don't need to try to do anything on this board or in this life.  I certainly have NOTHING to prove to a little pissant like YOU.



I never knew the Dems falling poll numbers and surrrender to pres Bush would piss off a lib so much

Have you called White Flag harry and screamed your displeasure into the phine?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I never knew the Dems falling poll numbers and surrrender to pres Bush would piss off a lib so much
> 
> Have you called White Flag harry and screamed your displeasure into the phine?



democrat's poll numbers are rising.  Like I said before, we made our point...we tried to pass the bill that reflected the will of the people...the president vetoed it and republicans in congress sustained that veto.  They will pay for that.  I am fine with that.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> democrat's poll numbers are rising.  Like I said before, we made our point...we tried to pass the bill that reflected the will of the people...the president vetoed it and republicans in congress sustained that veto.  They will pay for that.  I am fine with that.



46% when they took office in Jan

27% today

I am very fine with that trend


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I never knew the Dems falling poll numbers and surrrender to pres Bush would piss off a lib so much
> 
> Have you called White Flag harry and screamed your displeasure into the phine?



Is that the greatest... six months with house Majority and there numbers are already in the shitter... I think the Dem party may have totally self destructed... I went to the Democrats Club meeting in town the other night... Yikes!! they are more angy than ever... It was pretty comical...


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> 46% when they took office in Jan
> 
> 27% today
> 
> I am very fine with that trend


I don't think congress has had a 46&% approval rating in a decade! 


you quote rasmussen all the time.  did you miss the headline from them that showed democratic leadership approval on the rise?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't think congress has had a 46&% approval rating in a decade!
> 
> 
> you quote rasmussen all the time.  did you miss the headline from them that showed democratic leadership approval on the rise?



It is the Gallup poll thatshows pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress

Dems had a 46% rating when they took office in Jan


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> democrat's poll numbers are rising.  Like I said before, we made our point...we tried to pass the bill that reflected the will of the people...the president vetoed it and republicans in congress sustained that veto.  They will pay for that.  I am fine with that.



Will of the people???? The people do not want a timeline for withdraw...sorry try again.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Will of the people???? The people do not want a timeline for withdraw...sorry try again.



go to my thread entitled "Quinnipiac Poll 1 May"..... and then YOU try again.

prissy little prick


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Will of the people???? The people do not want a timeline for withdraw...sorry try again.



PLEASE..........  Do not mix the issue with facts


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> go to my thread entitled "Quinnipiac Poll 1 May"..... and then YOU try again.
> 
> prissy little prick



It seems the people were played for suckers by the Dems


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is the Gallup poll thatshows pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress
> 
> Dems had a 46% rating when they took office in Jan



I doubt your 46% number... and oddly enough, you have not provided a link for it...and the poll number for CONGRESS includes all those republicans therein.  I have shown you on numerous occasions what the polling numbers are when people are asked to differentiate between democrats and republicans in congress....and, like the cowardly girlieman that you are, you ALWAYS avoid addressing those numbers.  funny, that!


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It seems the people were played for suckers by the Dems



yeah... go with that for your GOP slogan in '08:  "you people were suckers!"


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> go to my thread entitled "Quinnipiac Poll 1 May"..... and then YOU try again.
> 
> prissy little prick



I read it already... And to be honest I was impressed at first... but then you fell into typical angry lib ranting and blew it.. 

That doesnt change the fact the the people do not want to disclose a specific date for withdraw... 

Cut and run Coward


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> PLEASE..........  Do not mix the issue with facts




what factual evidence do YOU have that would suggest that the results of the quinnipiac poll were invalid?

or are you sticking with that "the people are suckers" line?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Oh how the mighty have fallen.........


Americans are giving the Democratic-run Congress failing grades after five months of bickering and stalemate that has stalled or killed their chief legislative priorities. 

The Democrats' latest report card came last week in a Gallup Poll that showed their job-approval ratings had sunk to 29 percent, several points below even President Bush's low job-approval numbers, which Gallup said were "holding steady" at 33 percent since April. 

Democratic strategists and independent pollsters say their party will pay a political price in next year's elections if they cannot show the American people they can do the nation's business. But as Democrats near the midway point in this first session of Congress, the prospects that anything on their must-pass list of domestic legislation will be enacted appear bleak. 

An Associated Press survey reinforced Gallup's numbers, showing the Democrats' job-approval numbers had fallen five points in the past month alone. Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House, warned that his party will suffer in 2008, if they cannot "show they can govern." 
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2007/05/21/the_do-nothing_democrats


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

I say again:  beyond yet another cut and paste op-ed piece....





maineman said:


> what *factual evidence *do YOU have that would suggest that the results of the quinnipiac poll were invalid?
> 
> or are you sticking with that "the people are suckers" line?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again:  beyond yet another cut and paste op-ed piece....



Keep dismissing the facts MM

Only a blind lib like you would not be able to see the forest for the trees


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep dismissing the facts MM
> 
> Only a blind lib like you would not be able to see the forest for the trees



I post the results of the quinnipiac poll....your response:  the people were stupid...I ask for any factual evidence that the quinnipiac poll was invalid and you post an editorial.

you really are too fucking funny for words!


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I post the results of the quinnipiac poll....your response:  the people were stupid...I ask for any factual evidence that the quinnipiac poll was invalid and you post an editorial.
> 
> you really are too fucking funny for words!



So your poll is right and the rest are wrong

Typical MM arrogrance


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So your poll is right and the rest are wrong
> 
> Typical MM arrogrance



no... my poll is a poll.

your op-ed piece is an op-ed piece.

I guess if you don't know the difference, we really have nothing more to discuss.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... my poll is a poll.
> 
> your op-ed piece is an op-ed piece.
> 
> I guess if you don't know the difference, we really have nothing more to discuss.



MM, they are based on the GALLUP POLL which shows the Dem Congress is at 27%


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

so...if you have a nationally recognized poll that shows that the majority of Americans were AGAINST the democrat's funding bill and supported the president's veto of that bill, now would be the PERFECT time for you to post a link to such a poll.

I am going to bed, and can't WAIT until the morning when I can click on the link you post that will prove YOUR point and disprove mine.


and remember: it needs to be a poll and not an editorial


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...if you have a nationally recognized poll that shows that the majority of Americans were AGAINST the democrat's funding bill and supported the president's veto of that bill, now would be the PERFECT time for you to post a link to such a poll.
> 
> I am going to bed, and can't WAIT until the morning when I can click on the link you post that will prove YOUR point and disprove mine.
> 
> ...



Gallup shows the Dems tanking - learn to accept it


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...if you have a nationally recognized poll that shows that the majority of Americans were AGAINST the democrat's funding bill and supported the president's veto of that bill, now would be the PERFECT time for you to post a link to such a poll.
> 
> I am going to bed, and can't WAIT until the morning when I can click on the link you post that will prove YOUR point and disprove mine.
> 
> ...



Did he cut and run?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Did he cut and run?



His version of surrender


----------



## Alucard (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...if you have a nationally recognized poll that shows that the majority of Americans were AGAINST the democrat's funding bill and supported the president's veto of that bill, now would be the PERFECT time for you to post a link to such a poll.
> 
> I am going to bed, and can't WAIT until the morning when I can click on the link you post that will prove YOUR point and disprove mine.
> 
> ...



As far as your invalid poll goes...Do you really think the average American had any idea what was actually in the Democrats funding bill??? The answer is NO THEY DID'NT and that is why you poll is invalid...

 The bottom line is, no one, except people that actually want to lose, and see our troops die for thier political partys advancement want to give specific date for withdraw...


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

Alucard said:


> As far as your invalid poll goes...Do you really think the average American had any idea what was actually in the Democrats funding bill??? The answer is NO THEY DID'NT and that is why you poll is invalid...
> 
> The bottom line is, no one, except people that actually want to lose, and see our troops die for thier political partys advancement want to give specific date for withdraw...



They did not want surrender

Voters do not want higher taxes, excessive pork, more lavish spending on travel and perks, and continued partiasn arrogrance

Is it any wonder why the Dems numbers are tanking?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Did he cut and run?




I went to bed.  I guess that is the signal for you to start taunting me and calling me a fraud over and over and over again?  right, tough guy?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I went to bed.  I guess that is the signal for you to start taunting me and calling me a fraud over and over and over again?  right, tough guy?



Ah, MM is playing the self pity card now

Is it my fault your party is fucking up and going down the toilet?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Gallup shows the Dems tanking - learn to accept it




the gallup poll shows no such thing.  the quinnipiac poll and the harris poll are much more "on point" and you vehemently run and hide from both of those.  the rasmussen poll, which you have frequently touted in the past, is also "on point" but you run away from that one too.  YOu continue to put all of your "polling" eggs in one basket and you even are forced to purposedly misconstrue the question in order to give you anything at all.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> the gallup poll shows no such thing.  the quinnipiac poll and the harris poll are much more "on point" and you vehemently run and hide from both of those.  the rasmussen poll, which you have frequently touted in the past, is also "on point" but you run away from that one too.  YOu continue to put all of your "polling" eggs in one basket and you even are forced to purposedly misconstrue the question in order to give you anything at all.



2 news polls out today shows Pres Bush woth a higher approval then your Dem Congress

Read them and weap

or in your case read them and ignore them

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

you just keep hanging that congressional approval rating completely around the democrat's necks - even though congress is nearly evenly divided between democrats and republicans .... and yet you refuse to look at those polls that differentiate public opinion between the parties.  why IS that?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> you just keep hanging that congressional approval rating completely around the democrat's necks - even though congress is nearly evenly divided between democrats and republicans .... and yet you refuse to look at those polls that differentiate public opinion between the parties.  why IS that?



OK - you did not read them - just ignored them

This is MM's way of being open minded


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

of course I read them...I read that the question was what the respondent's view of CONGRESS was..... 

why don't YOU read these two polls and explain the difference:

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

I anxiously await your explanation for the disparity there.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course I read them...I read that the question was what the respondent's view of CONGRESS was.....
> 
> why don't YOU read these two polls and explain the difference:
> 
> ...



The polls clearly show Pres Bush has a HIGHER approval then your Dem Congress

You will not accept any facts that go against you


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course I read them...I read that the question was what the respondent's view of CONGRESS was.....
> 
> why don't YOU read these two polls and explain the difference:
> 
> ...



when will you address these two polls?

When will you address the facts that congress has had an abysmal rating for a long time..... but more abysmal under republican control than under the democrats.

here is Gallup's congressional approval ratings going back

10/05   29
11/05   29
12/05  29
1/06   27
2/06  25
3/06  27
4/06  23
5/06  21
6/06  27
7/06  29
8/06  27
9/06  29
10/06  23 (pre mid term election)
11/06 26 (post election republican lame duck)
12/06  21 (post election republican lame duck)
1/07  35 (initial reading for democrats)
2/07  37
3/07  28
4/07  33
5/07  29



it would appear that, basically, the BEST month the republicans had in recent memory when THEY were in power equals the WORST month the democrats had.

Now...look at the Harris poll for that similar time frame and compare democratis approval ratings with republicans - head to head.

       Democrat  versus Republican
8/05  31 vs  32
11/05  25 vs 27
3/06   24  vs  27
5/06   23  vs 20
6/06   26  vs  25
9/06   29  vs  24
11/06   36  vs  24
2/07   41  vs  26
4/07   35  vs  22

Say what you want... people being unhappy with congress is nothing new.... people being happier with democrats than they are with republicans is nothing too new either.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

Your polls are a month old

Sicne DSems have been fucking up so bad recently the CURRENT polls show them lower then Pres Bush in approval


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Your polls are a month old
> 
> Sicne DSems have been fucking up so bad recently the CURRENT polls show them lower then Pres Bush in approval



give me the link that compares congressional DEMOCRATS to the President.

and remember: that is not the same as congress to the president.

If you say that democrats have polled lower, prove it.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> give me the link that compares congressional DEMOCRATS to the President.
> 
> and remember: that is not the same as congress to the president.
> 
> If you say that democrats have polled lower, prove it.



I did numbnuts

It is not my fault you ignore the poll numbers


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

and no commment on the historical gallup data I gave you or the historical harris data I gave you.  Don't you care to comment on what your analysis of those numbers and the trends therein might mean?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I did numbnuts
> 
> It is not my fault you ignore the poll numbers



no...remember....the poll numbers you need to produce are ones where congressional DEMOCRATS are compared to the president.

I'll wait....numbnuts


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> and no commment on the historical gallup data I gave you or the historical harris data I gave you.  Don't you care to comment on what your analysis of those numbers and the trends therein might mean?



Still with the month old polls?

Move on to the current ones

Oh, they go against you - so we can't talk about them


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Still with the month old polls?
> 
> Move on to the current ones
> 
> Oh, they go against you - so we can't talk about them



why do you insist on trying to make a congressional approval poll number synonymous with a democratic approval number?  Voters know the difference.  When asked, they know how to differentiate - and they do.  Democrats come out way ahead.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you insist on trying to make a congressional approval poll number synonymous with a democratic approval number?  Voters know the difference.  When asked, they know how to differentiate - and they do.  Democrats come out way ahead.



Maybe because the Dems are running the House and Senate?

Damn, here I am mixing facts into the discussion again!!!!


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> When will you address the facts that congress has had an abysmal rating for a long time..... but more abysmal under republican control than under the democrats.
> 
> here is Gallup's congressional approval ratings going back
> 
> ...



I would love to hear your thoughtful analysis of what these head to head comparisons mean.... what that trend of congressional approval means.  It shows two years of data.  Is there no wisdom you can glean from all of that?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would love to hear your thoughtful analysis of what these head to head comparisons mean.... what that trend of congressional approval means.  It shows two years of data.  Is there no wisdom you can glean from all of that?



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18


Here are the CURRENT polls MM

The truth will set you free - or in your case - set you off


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Maybe because the Dems are running the House and Senate?
> 
> Damn, here I am mixing facts into the discussion again!!!!



the poll does not ask people what they think of congressional leadership, but of congress in general.  

On one point in particular, the sustaining of the Bush veto of the wildly popular democratic funding bill, congress got low approval ratings and that was due, entirely, to the actions of congressional republicans.  that can hardly go againts MY party.


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

again... when you have a poll that compares democrats to the president, please post it.

I'll wait.  numbnuts.


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would love to hear your thoughtful analysis of what these head to head comparisons mean.... what that trend of congressional approval means.  It shows two years of data.  Is there no wisdom you can glean from all of that?



I understand that you can post the current poll numbers.  I was interested in gaining your thoughtful insight and reading your analysis of the historical implications of the trends shown in the data above.  Can you provide that insight?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> again... when you have a poll that compares democrats to the president, please post it.
> 
> I'll wait.  numbnuts.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

There are two recent that show Dems lower the Pres Bush

You need to accept the facts MM

Try something new in life


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18
> 
> There are two recent that show Dems lower the Pres Bush
> 
> ...



no.... those polls do not show democrats lower than the president... that is a lie...and you know it.

you need to learn to spin a new tale...this one of equating congress and democrats is really old.  I showed you polling data that differentiates the people's views of congressional democrats versus congressional republicans and your guys get the shit end of the stick.  deal with it.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.... those polls do not show democrats lower than the president... that is a lie...and you know it.
> 
> you need to learn to spin a new tale...this one of equating congress and democrats is really old.  I showed you polling data that differentiates the people's views of congressional democrats versus congressional republicans and your guys get the shit end of the stick.  deal with it.



Dems are running Congress, yet when the numbers for Congress tank - it is not the Dems fault

Only MM would continue to spin and lie in the facts of the facts


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

still working the same old line, eh?  democrats have razor thin majorities in congress and a president of the opposite party.  they are not congress....they are half of congress.  and the shit that YOUR half has pulled _vis a vis _sustaining Bush's veto is what drags congressional ratings down more than anything else


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> still working the same old line, eh?  democrats have razor thin majorities in congress and a president of the opposite party.  they are not congress....they are half of congress.  and the shit that YOUR half has pulled _vis a vis _sustaining Bush's veto is what drags congressional ratings down more than anything else



Dems are running the place and yet they are to help responsible for the decreasing poll numbers?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are running the place and yet they are to help responsible for the decreasing poll numbers?




keep spinning.... "congress" does not equal "democrat".  when the people are asked to differentiate between the parties, they do, and you lose.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep spinning.... "congress" does not equal "democrat".  when the people are asked to differentiate between the parties, they do, and you lose.



Yea, Dems are only running both the House and Senate

How the hell can they be held repsonsible for the pubic opinion of Congress?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, Dems are only running both the House and Senate
> 
> How the hell can they be held repsonsible for the pubic opinion of Congress?



because they only make up half of congress.... how could they be held responsible for everything that republicans do?  that is like suggesting that if the mark foley scandal had not hit until last month and congressional approval ratings took a hit because of a republican congressman holding up votes on the house floor while he had cybersex with a page and splooged all over his laptop that somehow, that would have been the democrat's fault?  LOL


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> because they only make up half of congress.... how could they be held responsible for everything that republicans do?  that is like suggesting that if the mark foley scandal had not hit until last month and congressional approval ratings took a hit because of a republican congressman holding up votes on the house floor while he had cybersex with a page and splooged all over his laptop that somehow, that would have been the democrat's fault?  LOL




That spin cycle is set on high today


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

run away.  the fact is.... democrats have a majority in congress.  they are not responsible for all of what congress does. and clearly, much of what congress has done recently that has negatively impacted public opinion was done by republicans.  the people were pissed that the republicans stood in the way of the democrat's funding bill with departure deadlines.... real pissed


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> run away.  the fact is.... democrats have a majority in congress.  they are not responsible for all of what congress does. and clearly, much of what congress has done recently that has negatively impacted public opinion was done by republicans.  the people were pissed that the republicans stood in the way of the democrat's funding bill with departure deadlines.... real pissed



only a ass kissing Dem like you would not hold the Dems accountable for their failures

That is OK though - the polls shows the rest of the voters are


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> only a ass kissing Dem like you would not hold the Dems accountable for their failures
> 
> That is OK though - the polls shows the rest of the voters are



keep spinning.  the people are pissed at congressional republicans for not supporting the democrat's funding bill..... and they are hearing it from their districts...that is why the gang of moderate republicans with John Boehner in tow went to see the president and told him that the war was hurting the party and they were running out of patience.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep spinning.  the people are pissed at congressional republicans for not supporting the democrat's funding bill..... and they are hearing it from their districts...that is why the gang of moderate republicans with John Boehner in tow went to see the president and told him that the war was hurting the party and they were running out of patience.



They are at pissed at dems for their surrender bill and the Dems caved

Now the Dems base is REALLY pissed


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They are at pissed at dems for their surrender bill and the Dems caved
> 
> Now the Dems base is REALLY pissed




no...the polling data is quite clear.  the people are pissed that the funding bill did not pass.... and they blame the republicans and the president.  they know that the democrats gave their best effort and they know who got in their way.  

and as I said earlier...the democratic base can be pissed off all day....where are they gonna go?  are they gonna bolt and vote for republicans?????


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...the polling data is quite clear.  the people are pissed that the funding bill did not pass.... and they blame the republicans and the president.  they know that the democrats gave their best effort and they know who got in their way.
> 
> and as I said earlier...the democratic base can be pissed off all day....where are they gonna go?  are they gonna bolt and vote for republicans?????



The surrender bill and all the broken promises are catching up to the Dems

Your kook base could bolt to a third party anti war nut

No matter, Dems do not have a candidate who will win the Electoral College


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill and all the broken promises are catching up to the Dems
> 
> Your kook base could bolt to a third party anti war nut
> 
> No matter, Dems do not have a candidate who will win the Electoral College



call it what you like, but the bill you refer to as "the surrender bill" had the support of 57% of the American people.  you cannot spin away from that.

my kook base COULD do that, and YOUR kook base could balk at pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control NY moderate Rudy and bolt to a third party bible thumper...... what are the chances of either of those things happening?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

and why is it that you make such a big deal about congressional approval ratings when those same ratings when your party was in power were way lower?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> call it what you like, but the bill you refer to as "the surrender bill" had the support of 57&#37; of the American people.  you cannot spin away from that.
> 
> my kook base COULD do that, and YOUR kook base could balk at pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control NY moderate Rudy and bolt to a third party bible thumper...... what are the chances of either of those things happening?



I do hope the ems go with hillary

She will turn out MORE Republican votes then any other candidate could

The surrender bill was the last straw for the voters - why else would the Dems give up and cave?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> *The "surrender bill" was the last straw for the voters *- why else would the Dems give up and cave?



*why did 57% of the people APPROVE of that bill??????*


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> *why did 57% of the people APPROVE of that bill??????*



and why are Dems at 27% approval if they have the support of the people?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and why are Dems at 27% approval if they have the support of the people?




you always answer a question with a question.  what are you so afraid of?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> you always answer a question with a question.  what are you so afraid of?



I am pointing out facts

Something you STILL have a fear of


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am pointing out facts
> 
> Something you STILL have a fear of



no...you are running away from answering a question.  pure and simple.

you made a statement:

_The "surrender bill" was the last straw for the voters - why else would the Dems give up and cave? _

I asked a question about that statement:

*why did 57% of the people APPROVE of that bill??????*


and you continue to run away from that question.  Why IS that?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you are running away from answering a question.  pure and simple.
> 
> you made a statement:
> 
> ...



and IF 57% support surrender - why are the Dems numbers LOWER then pres Bush?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

why do you refuse to answer a simple question?  

you are really sounding silly now.

You made a statement...I countered it with a question that begs an answer.  

if the surrender bill, as you call it, is, in fact, the last straw that is bringing democratic poll ratings down, why did 57&#37; of the people want that bill to pass?

now either answer it, or run away...but for crissakes, quit your inane spinning!


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you refuse to answer a simple question?
> 
> you are really sounding silly now.
> 
> ...



What I am saying is, if a majority support surrender - why are the Dems approval numbers at 27% if Pres Bush vetoed it - and his numbers are higher then the dems?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What I am saying is, if a majority support surrender - why are the Dems approval numbers at 27% if Pres Bush vetoed it - and his numbers are higher then the dems?



You are fucking amazing!!!  why can't you answer a simple question????

A majority of Americans supported the funding bill passed by the democrats.  explain that.

the "democrats" approval rating is NOT at 27%  that is the approval rating for congress as a whole.  And the people ARE angry at congress AS A WHOLE - one BIG reason is the fact that they did NOT override Bush's veto of the funding bill that *57% of them supported*.

*Why do you think 57% of Americans polled said they supported the democrat's troop funding bill that included deadlines?  * 


answer that question....and quit fucking running away from it....


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> You are fucking amazing!!!  why can't you answer a simple question????
> 
> A majority of Americans supported the funding bill passed by the democrats.  explain that.
> 
> ...



Another poll came out today shoing how the Dems think the war is lost, and how Dems really od have a defeatest attiutde

Yet another poll with bad news for the left

Things are looking very good for Nov 08

Dems are tanking and you still deny it


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

check it out MM - if you dare

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48753


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

answer the question RSR, if YOU dare.  Don't go daring me to do anything when you run away from every single question ever posed to you.

Answer the question and then I will address yours.



maineman said:


> You are fucking amazing!!!  why can't you answer a simple question????
> 
> A majority of Americans supported the funding bill passed by the democrats.  explain that.
> 
> ...


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> answer the question RSR, if YOU dare.  Don't go daring me to do anything when you run away from every single question ever posed to you.
> 
> Answer the question and then I will address yours.



I have many times

You inability to use reason, logic, and objectivity is your problem

Another day - another poll with bad nesw for the left


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have many times
> 
> You inability to use reason, logic, and objectivity is your problem
> 
> Another day - another poll with bad nesw for the left



are you suggesting that your "maybe they asked more democrats" is the answer to my question????



   


try again.

*Why do you think 57% of Americans polled said they supported the democrat's troop funding bill that included deadlines? 

*


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that your "maybe they asked more democrats" is the answer to my question????
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Probably not

Even if they did the answers were based on party status

Dems do want to lose the war - that is a fact

The poll shows it very clearly

the 57% did not support suirrender but winning. That is why the ems numbers continue to drop like a rock


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Even if they did the answers were based on party status




provide a link to the Quinnipiac Poll methodology that would support such an assertion.

I'll wait.

either that or call it what it is...a bullshit partisan opinion with no basis in fact.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> provide a link to the Quinnipiac Poll methodology that would support such an assertion.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> either that or call it what it is...a bullshit partisan opinion with no basis in fact.



I did not say they did

I am saying most Dems want to lose the war and they think the war is lost


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Probably not
> 
> *Even if they did the answers were based on party status*
> Dems do want to lose the war - that is a fact
> ...



what does the bolded sentence say?  back that up.  show me where the answers to the quinnipiac poll question were "based on party status".  Or admit you stuck your foot in your mouth again.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does the bolded sentence say?  back that up.  show me where the answers to the quinnipiac poll question were "based on party status".  Or admit you stuck your foot in your mouth again.



My first sentence asswipe was PROBABLY NOT


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Probably not
> 
> Even if they did the answers were based on party status
> 
> ...




and show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender.  In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

and what are you suggesting that the "probably not" was in answer to?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> and show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender.  In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.



The Dems surredner bill was that - a surredner bill

A majority of America wants to WIN in Iraq - that is why Dems are tanking in the polls


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> and show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender.  In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.



maybe you missed where this post was asking you to back up you stupid ass opinion with some facts.

try again.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> maybe you missed where this post was asking you to back up you stupid ass opinion with some facts.
> 
> try again.



I psot mothing but facts

Watching you meltdown and your lame attempts to change the topic proves how badly you are losing


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I psot mothing but facts
> 
> Watching you meltdown and your lame attempts to change the topic proves how badly you are losing



no...the post that supposedly "answered my request for any use of the word "surrender" in any poll was nothing more than your opinion.  try again.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...the post that supposedly "answered my request for any use of the word "surrender" in any poll was nothing more than your opinion.  try again.



When you tell the enemy when you are leaving, and the terrorists will know when they will have a free hand to carry out their terror plans - it is surrender


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When you tell the enemy when you are leaving, and the terrorists will know when they will have a free hand to carry out their terror plans - it is surrender



again...I am looking for some independent factual verification that the quinnipiac poll used the word "surrender" or any poll that you have quoted for that matter......

your opinion as to the meaning of the word surrender (which is not backed up by any dictionary anywhere) is NOT independent factual verification that the word surrender appeared in any poll.  It is just your opinion.

I already KNEW your opinion.  That is not what the question asked.

here it is again:

*and show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender. In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.*

give me something other than your opinion, or anyone else's opinion for that matter that would show me where the people were asked about "surrender"...give me that factual evidence or run away from THIS question too!


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...the post that supposedly "answered my request for any use of the word "surrender" in any poll was nothing more than your opinion.  try again.



Dems tries to push through a surredner bill

It blew up in their face

and the polls shows the voters are against it

No opinion - it is a fact


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> again...I am looking for some independent factual verification that the quinnipiac poll used the word "surrender" or any poll that you have quoted for that matter......
> 
> your opinion as to the meaning of the word surrender (which is not backed up by any dictionary anywhere) is NOT independent factual verification that the word surrender appeared in any poll.  It is just your opinion.
> 
> ...



Dems wanted to pull the troops before the mission was accomplished - it is surrender MM


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

answer the question if you dare.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> answer the question if you dare.



I have - many times

You keep spinning around in circles


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender. In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.


asked....

NEVER answered.

Just run away from.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> show me where in the quinnipiac poll the people were asked about surrender. In fact, show me in ANY of your polls where the word "surrender" is ever used.
> 
> 
> asked....
> ...



surrender is surrender MM


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> surrender is surrender MM





so you should be able to show me where that word appears in any of the polls in question?

I'll wait.


----------



## Gunny (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> On would think before voting to surrender, the Dems would want to hear form the troops.
> 
> They even snubbed Gen Petraeus and his briefing prior to the surrender vote. Murtha called him a political hack.



Why?  Troops hump weapons and destroy things.  They may be able to appreciate what is within their immediate AOR, but most do not posess an appreciation for the enitre theater of operations.

Their opinions are irrelevant to strategic planning.


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Why?  Troops hump weapons and destroy things.  They may be able to appreciate what is within their immediate AOR, but most do not posess an appreciation for the enitre theater of operations.
> 
> Their opinions are irrelevant to strategic planning.


bingo.


----------



## Gunny (May 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So now you think the Congress should make military decisions without even being briefed by the military? He was not there to give a "personal" opinion, he was there to give a MILITARY brief on the conditions as he sees them from his position as Commander ON the Ground in that WAR. The Democrats did not even ask for the brief and in fact refused it before the vote,



I believe I stated as much as far as the commander goes.  It is his job to make that assessment.  The Democrats aren't going to listen, obviously.  They have made up their collective mind to pull the plug by whatever means necessary.

I in no way agree with that.

My statement however, was in regard to basing strategy on troop opinions.  I don't consider the Commander a "troop."  I consider LCpl Schmuckatelli a "troop."


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I believe I stated as much as far as the commander goes.  It is his job to make that assessment.  The Democrats aren't going to listen, obviously.  They have made up their collective mind to pull the plug by whatever means necessary.
> 
> I in no way agree with that.
> 
> My statement however, was in regard to basing strategy on troop opinions.  I don't consider the Commander a "troop."  I consider LCpl Schmuckatelli a "troop."



I was disturbed that more democrats did not attend the Petraeus briefing, I must admit.


----------



## Gunny (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I was disturbed that more democrats did not attend the Petraeus briefing, I must admit.



IMO, we will never accomplish anything in this nation again until the politicians on BOTH sides stop marching in lockstep. 

While each side claims to stand for something, and each side promises something -- every election -- when do they EVER deliver?  And when so WE quit believing the promises?  

When was the last time ANY of those politicians did ONE thing that made an impact for the good on ALL Americans?

_***Let the endless loop of the theme from Jeopardy begin***_


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> IMO, we will never accomplish anything in this nation again until the politicians on BOTH sides stop marching in lockstep.
> 
> While each side claims to stand for something, and each side promises something -- every election -- when do they EVER deliver?  And when so WE quit believing the promises?
> 
> ...



I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans.  Certainly not the perceived good.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans.  Certainly not the perceived good.



If Dems give up on surrender (that did no that last night) what will they offer in its place?

How about something new?

Like actually supporting the troops and wanting them to win?


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans.  Certainly not the perceived good.



This is a good one

The kook left is blaming VP Cheney for the Dems caving on their surrender vote

Dems are in charge, they make the rules, they decide when the votes are taken, and yet it is Cheney's fault

You can't make this stuff up folks!   





> VOTE ALERT: Dick Cheney Dems Plan to Hide Votes On Iraq TODAY
> by David Sirota | May 24 2007
> 
> Today is the day House Democrats are expected to vote on Iraq - except, news out of Washington this morning says the leadership has come up with a nifty little trick to try to prevent the public from seeing who voted for giving Bush a blank check, and who voted against it. If you thought Democrats were behaving like cowards by caving into a President at a three-decade low in presidential polling and giving him the very blank check they explicitly promised not to give him during the 2006 election, you ain't seen nothing yet. We are watching the rise of the Dick Cheney Democrats - that is, the rise of Democrats who endorse governing in secret and hiding the public's business from the public itself.


more ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x957797


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

what does that cut and paste have to do IN ANY WAY with the quote of mine that preceded it?


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does that cut and paste have to do IN ANY WAY with the quote of mine that preceded it?



Showing you how the people who actually believed what the Dems said to get elected, are reacting to the surrender to Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Showing you how the people who actually believed what the Dems said to get elected, are reacting to the surrender to Pres Bush




here is my quote:

*I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans. Certainly not the perceived good.*

that is talking about the difficulties any politician has in finding common ground on domestic issues that could possibly make every happy.  so how does a vote on foreign policy have anything to do with that point?


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> here is my quote:
> 
> *I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans. Certainly not the perceived good.*
> 
> that is talking about the difficulties any politician has in finding common ground on domestic issues that could possibly make every happy.  so how does a vote on foreign policy have anything to do with that point?



Dems are in charge yet they can;t accomplish anything they promised

Whose fault is that?

Oh, it's Bush's fault - that is the standard liberal talking point response

Face it MM - Dems have stepped in it big time


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are in charge yet they can;t accomplish anything they promised
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> 
> ...



dems are not "in charge" unless you are suggesting that the president of the united states is in a position UNDER congress in the chain of command.....and again....what does that have to do with my point that I made to Gunny earlier?  your ability to apply logic to discussion is non-existent.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> dems are not "in charge" unless you are suggesting that the president of the united states is in a position UNDER congress in the chain of command.....and again....what does that have to do with my point that I made to Gunny earlier?  your ability to apply logic to discussion is non-existent.



Ah yes. Dems get elected and they still blame Bush for their failures


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Ah yes. Dems get elected and they still blame Bush for their failures




are you suggesting that congress is in charge of the white house? and of the military? and of the executive branch of government?  is the speaker of the house ABOVE the president in order of power precedence?  yes or no


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that congress is in charge of the white house? and of the military? and of the executive branch of government?  is the speaker of the house ABOVE the president in order of power precedence?  yes or no



don't worry about it

it is just another broken promise - it is getting hard to keep track of them


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> don't worry about it
> 
> it is just another broken promise - it is getting hard to keep track of them



worry about it?  don't worry....I won't


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> worry about it?  don't worry....I won't



Neither did many people of the Titantic after the ship hit the iceberg

It did take time for them to see they were in trouble


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Neither did many people of the Titantic after the ship hit the iceberg
> 
> It did take time for them to see they were in trouble




ok.... you have convinced me that you are a pundit _par excellence _and have your finger squarely on the pulse of the democratic party.  I look forward to seeing just how accurate your prognostications are.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> ok.... you have convinced me that you are a pundit _par excellence _and have your finger squarely on the pulse of the democratic party.  I look forward to seeing just how accurate your prognostications are.



I am saying what the liberal base is saying

They are not happy and the anger is growing


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying what the liberal base is saying
> 
> They are not happy and the anger is growing



you obviously know more about the behaviors of democratic voters than I do.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you obviously know more about the behaviors of democratic voters than I do.



I was reading what your base is posting on Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, and Progressivesonline


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I was reading what your base is posting on Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, and Progressivesonline



then, no doubt, you have all the answers.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> then, no doubt, you have all the answers.



Oh thats right. If it goes against your personal views - it must not be true


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh thats right. If it goes against your personal views - it must not be true



not at all.  I never visit any of those sites.  

your idea of truth seems to reside in conservative editorials....mine resides in my own brain...which has forgotten more than you will ever learn.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> not at all.  I never visit any of those sites.
> 
> your idea of truth seems to reside in conservative editorials....mine resides in my own brain...which has forgotten more than you will ever learn.



Then why not see first hand what the base is saying?

Your brain? No wonder you have no idea about what is really going on in the world


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why not see first hand what the base is saying?
> 
> Your brain? No wonder you have no idea about what is really going on in the world



I see what my party's BASE says every month at my democratic party county committee meeting.  Daily Kos does not represent the BASE of my party....but hey, I am just a lifelong democratic party activist, what is my knowledge of my party's BASE when compared to the great and mighty RSR, eh?


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I see what my party's BASE says every month at my democratic party county committee meeting.  Daily Kos does not represent the BASE of my party....but hey, I am just a lifelong democratic party activist, what is my knowledge of my party's BASE when compared to the great and mighty RSR, eh?



Gee, how many libs can fit in that phone booth?


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Gee, how many libs can fit in that phone booth?




wait...let me guess.... you can't debate so you substitute lame oneliners?

got it.


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> wait...let me guess.... you can't debate so you substitute lame oneliners?
> 
> got it.



I am attempting to debate

You have your wall up and nothing gets through

You want to think the base is happy and gay - go for it


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am attempting to debate
> 
> You have your wall up and nothing gets through
> 
> You want to think the base is happy and gay - go for it



When was the last time you attended a democratic party function?


----------



## red states rule (May 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> When was the last time you attended a democratic party function?



The mental hospital is to far away for me attend any Dem meetings


----------



## maineman (May 25, 2007)

and that is what you call debating what the democratic base thinks?

stupid jokes?

grow up.

come on back when you have.  you are an embarrassment.


----------



## red states rule (May 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and that is what you call debating what the democratic base thinks?
> 
> stupid jokes?
> 
> ...



I know you do not care about the people that helped put yopur party in power. You look down on everyone around you and think you are so much better then the masses

It is a typcial trait among your kind

If you want go to those baords and tell them how you do not care what they think - and how they will still vote for who you want them to in 08


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I really can't think of anything ANY politician could do - in the realm of domestic policy in any case - that COULD POSSIBLY make an impact for the good of ALL Americans.  Certainly not the perceived good.



We need to bring some common sense back into politics.  Used to be, partisan bickering took a hind seat to what was in the best interest of the nation as a whole, perceived or real.  

One thing comes immediately to mind, with several other issues following closely on its heels ....

Our elected officials could sit down and come to an agreement on our border and internal security that reflects the will of the people, not their current political stances.

While I am certain this isn't going to break YOUR heart, on this issue alone, Bush is driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican party and those who support it.  I will NOT support any politician, regardless which side of the aisle, that supports this piece of trash, cheap bandaid immigration bill.


----------



## maineman (May 26, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> We need to bring some common sense back into politics.  Used to be, partisan bickering took a hind seat to what was in the best interest of the nation as a whole, perceived or real.
> 
> One thing comes immediately to mind, with several other issues following closely on its heels ....
> 
> ...




I do not disagree with very much of that.... myself...I will certainly make my concerns and my anger known to any of my congressmen or senators who do vote for it, I refuse to be a one issue voter who would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And border security really is the only issue that is both a domestic policy issue AND a foreign policy issue.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not disagree with very much of that.... myself...I will certainly make my concerns and my anger known to any of my congressmen or senators who do vote for it, I refuse to be a one issue voter who would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> And border security really is the only issue that is both a domestic policy issue AND a foreign policy issue.



I see it as a little deeper than that.  To me, anyone supporting this useless bill isn't intelligent enough to be holding public office.


----------



## maineman (May 26, 2007)

we certainly have agreed to disagree in the past!


----------



## maineman (May 26, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I see it as a little deeper than that.  To me, anyone supporting this useless bill isn't intelligent enough to be holding public office.



and does that apply to people in the executive branch who support this bill?


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and does that apply to people in the executive branch who support this bill?



I SWEAR I will NEVER vote for George W. Bush again. 

Seriously, I neither hold the President's views on this topic, nor does he have my support on this topic in any way, and I DO consider this a betrayal of conservatism on his part.


----------



## maineman (May 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know you do not care about the people that helped put yopur party in power. You look down on everyone around you and think you are so much better then the masses
> 
> It is a typcial trait among your kind
> 
> If you want go to those baords and tell them how you do not care what they think - and how they will still vote for who you want them to in 08




what you know or don't know about me does not change that fact that you cannot debate your way out of a paper bag, and that in lieu of debate,you substitute stupid one liner gags that wouldn't get a single laugh at amateur open mike nite at the local comedy club...or one liner talking points from Rush or Hannity...or lengthy newsbuster op-ed pieces.  The fact is:  you are incapable of expressing yourself beyond those forms listed above.

I care very deeply for all Americans.  I am glad when people decide to cast their ballots for democratic candidates, but I do not feel as if I need to cater to the far left of my party at the expense of capturing the middle of the bell curve, because I know that the far left will not abandon the democrats and vote for republicans.  I am not igoring them...I am merely saying that my party will not necessarily embrace every issue that the far left holds dear....and why should I go to the far left message boards and rub their noses in that? 

And please don't act like YOUR side does not do the same and WORSE.  From 2000 to 2006, the republican party had the congress AND the white house.  Oddly enough, abortion was not outlawed in that time.  Oddly enough, the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment never made it out of congress in that time... seems to me that YOUR party has done a marvelous job of ignoring the issues of the groups that put THEM in power. 

And if democrats do not embrace the complete _"get out of Iraq by noon tomorrow"_ agenda or the _"impeach Bush and send him to prison"_ agenda of the far left, that does not mean that we are ignoring the groups that put US back in power.  Labor unions put us back in power.  The Bar Association put us back in power.  Teachers put us back in power.  Marginalized minorities decimated by trickle-on republican economic policies put us back in power...AND a broad based disappointment about the Iraq war and a growing feeling across the political spectrum - from the far left to at least one standard deviation to the right of the middle, anyway - that the republican party did not deserve to lead the global war on terror.... they all came together to put us back in power.  

We are NOT beholden to the loony left for our majorities in both houses of congress...we are beholden to a broad spectrum of the American electorate.  They had been terribly unhappy with congress's performance in the area of foreign policy for many months BEFORE the midterm election.  And here are two things that are clear: *the American people have a higher opinion of CONGRESS today than they did when YOUR party was last in power.  And they have a higher opinion of congressional DEMOCRATS TODAY than they do of congressional republicans.*


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

MM, a 58% disappoval rating is nothing to smile about

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM, a 58% disappoval rating is nothing to smile about



how do you respond to these two facts:


*The American people have a higher opinion of CONGRESS today than they did when YOUR party was last in power. And they have a higher opinion of congressional DEMOCRATS TODAY than they do of congressional republicans.*


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> how do you respond to these two facts:
> 
> 
> *The American people have a higher opinion of CONGRESS today than they did when YOUR party was last in power. And they have a higher opinion of congressional DEMOCRATS TODAY than they do of congressional republicans.*



Keep thinking that MM if it makes you happy


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep thinking that MM if it makes you happy



so poll numbers only proove YOUR points and not mine?

I see.

So this is another example of what you call "debate"?


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> so poll numbers only proove YOUR points and not mine?
> 
> I see.
> 
> So this is another example of what you call "debate"?



You have a knack for ignoring anything that goes against you

Get over your old polls and look at the current ones


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have a knack for ignoring anything that goes against you
> 
> Get over your old polls and look at the current ones



the most current poll listed on the compilation site pollingreport.com shows Bush trailing congress by 6%.

Get over your old polls and look at most the current ones


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> the most current poll listed on the compilation site pollingreport.com shows Bush trailing congress by 6%.
> 
> Get over your old polls and look at most the current ones



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

All the polls, averaged together, has Bush a little higher then Congress


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
> 
> All the polls, averaged together, has Bush a little higher then Congress



some of those polls are quite old.  Didn't you just say to look at the current polls?  the most current poll shows Bush trailing congress by 6%.

Forget those old polls of yours!  That is what you told ME to do, and I said fine...here is the most recent....and now, you want to look at old polls.  spin spin spin...flip flop flip flop


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> some of those polls are quite old.  Didn't you just say to look at the current polls?  the most current poll shows Bush trailing congress by 6%.
> 
> Forget those old polls of yours!  That is what you told ME to do, and I said fine...here is the most recent....and now, you want to look at old polls.  spin spin spin...flip flop flip flop



You want to ignore the trend MM - not that I blame you

The trend is showing Dems going south


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You want to ignore the trend MM - not that I blame you
> 
> The trend is showing Dems going south



which is it?  do we only consider polls that are recent, or do we look at less recent polls in order to gain a sense of trend?...and how far back would you like to go to gain that trend perspective?


----------



## red states rule (May 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> which is it?  do we only consider polls that are recent, or do we look at less recent polls in order to gain a sense of trend?...and how far back would you like to go to gain that trend perspective?



Real clear politics takes all the polls and posts the average

The trend is not good for you - which is why you don't want to look at it


----------



## maineman (May 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Real clear politics takes all the polls and posts the average
> 
> The trend is not good for you - which is why you don't want to look at it




that is one site.  pollingreport.com is another site that lists all the polls and the dates they were taken.  and I ask again:  do you want to look at trends for congressional approval and if so, why not go back and look at the long term trends and what they mean for the way America views each party's turn at congressional leadership.  It seems that you talk out of both sides of your mouth...you want to ignore the quinnipiac poll because it is too old, yet are willing to average in polls much older than that one in order to avoid admitting that the most current poll shows Bush losing to congress.  you can't make up your mind because you are between a rock and a hard place..... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I understand your need to obfuscate and spin...it is really self-evident.


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is one site.  pollingreport.com is another site that lists all the polls and the dates they were taken.  and I ask again:  do you want to look at trends for congressional approval and if so, why not go back and look at the long term trends and what they mean for the way America views each party's turn at congressional leadership.  It seems that you talk out of both sides of your mouth...you want to ignore the quinnipiac poll because it is too old, yet are willing to average in polls much older than that one in order to avoid admitting that the most current poll shows Bush losing to congress.  you can't make up your mind because you are between a rock and a hard place..... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I understand your need to obfuscate and spin...it is really self-evident.



No matter how you spin it MM -the Dem Congress is on a steady trip south in the polls


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No matter how you spin it MM -the Dem Congress is on a steady trip south in the polls



that is certainly YOUR spin on things....you've made that clear.

why do you run away from all the FACTS that don't suit your preconceived notion?


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is certainly YOUR spin on things....you've made that clear.
> 
> why do you run away from all the FACTS that don't suit your preconceived notion?



MM, you are a mind numb lib who constantly ignores facts that goes against you

The polls have shown a steady drop for the Dems and yet you reach out and cling to anything that offers a faint glimmer of hope


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM, you are a mind numb lib who constantly ignores facts that goes against you
> 
> The polls have shown a steady drop for the Dems and yet you reach out and cling to anything that offers a faint glimmer of hope



actually, that is not true...and it IS true that congress has a higher approval rating with democrats in control than it did when republicans were in control.  And it is also true that congressional democrats poll higher than congressional republicans...why do you run away from those facts?


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> actually, that is not true...and it IS true that congress has a higher approval rating with democrats in control than it did when republicans were in control.  And it is also true that congressional democrats poll higher than congressional republicans...why do you run away from those facts?



Since they took over the numbers have gone down - that is a fact

Dems always step in it, and their arrogrance takes over - that is their nature


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

and as low as they are today, they are not anywhere near as low as they were when YOUR party was in charge....and, clearly, when asked to differentiate between the performance of congressional democrats and congressional republicans, the democrats have a significantly higher approval rating.  why do you run away from those facts?


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> and as low as they are today, they are not anywhere near as low as they were when YOUR party was in charge....and, clearly, when asked to differentiate between the performance of congressional democrats and congressional republicans, the democrats have a significantly higher approval rating.  why do you run away from those facts?



The way Dems are fucking up -give them time MM


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

again..why do you run away from facts all the time?


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> again..why do you run away from facts all the time?



Who is running away?

Your party is in a steady decine and you can't admit it


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Who is running away?
> 
> Your party is in a steady decine and you can't admit it



If my "party" is in steady decline, why, pray tell, is the headline of the Rasmussen Poll article on congressional approval ratings:

*Congress Ratings Improve: 26% Say Good or Excellent*

_Friday, May 18, 2007
Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe that Congress is doing a good or an excellent job. Thats a six point improvement over the past month and reflects that most positive rating for the legislative body in 2007. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 30% give Congress a fair rating while 43% say poor. A separate survey found that Democrats have an 11-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. 

_

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ress_ratings_improve_26_say_good_or_excellent


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

Dems are still lower the Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18
> 
> Dems are still lower the Pres Bush




couldn't really say much about the Rasmussen article, could ya?   

try running away from THIS next:

*Bush Ratings Tumble When Immigration Dominates the News*

_Monday, May 21, 2007
Advertisment
Each time immigration reform dominates the news. President Bushs Job Approval ratings tumble to new lows. Last week, a much-heralded agreement on comprehensive immigration reform was announced. By Saturday, the Presidents Job Approval had fallen to 34. Just as important, the number who Strongly Approve of the Presidents performance dipped to 13%. *Both figures are the lowest ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports*_

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...gs_tumble_when_immigration_dominates_the_news


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> couldn't really say much about the Rasmussen article, could ya?
> 
> try running away from THIS next:
> 
> ...



Guess what MM?

BOTH parties are taking a hit on this insane bill


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Who is running away?
> 
> Your party is in a steady decine and you can't admit it





maineman said:


> If my "party" is in steady decline, why, pray tell, is the headline of the Rasmussen Poll article on congressional approval ratings:
> 
> *Congress Ratings Improve: 26&#37; Say Good or Excellent*
> 
> ...




you never did comment on the fact that my post blew a hole in your post's assertion.  Why is that?  Who is it, really , that has a had time admitting stuff?  LOL


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> you never did comment on the fact that my post blew a hole in your post's assertion.  Why is that?  Who is it, really , that has a had time admitting stuff?  LOL



The only hole around here is the one in your head that allows the truth to slip out the other side


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

when painted into a corner, RSR responds with sophomoric humor.  who could have imagined?


----------



## red states rule (May 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> when painted into a corner, RSR responds with sophomoric humor.  who could have imagined?



Pointing out the truth is sophomoric humor?

To MM, is must be


----------



## maineman (May 30, 2007)

Let's try again:

explain the contradiction between these two posts:  



red states rule said:


> Who is running away?
> 
> *Your party is in a steady decine *and you can't admit it



versus:



maineman said:


> If my "party" is in steady decline, why, pray tell, is the headline of the Rasmussen Poll article on congressional approval ratings:
> 
> *Congress Ratings Improve: 26&#37; Say Good or Excellent*
> 
> ...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Guess what MM?
> 
> BOTH parties are taking a hit on this insane bill



then it must be time for a third party...


----------



## CSM (May 30, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> then it must be time for a third party...



Uh oh...that borders on a rational thought!


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 30, 2007)

CSM said:


> Uh oh...that borders on a rational thought!



we independents are known for our rational thought... have you ever thought about leaving the republican party?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> we independents are known for our rational thought... have you ever thought about leaving the republican party?



When will you have one?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> Let's try again:
> 
> explain the contradiction between these two posts:
> 
> ...



Pres Bush still has a higher average over the Dems

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/


----------



## CSM (May 31, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> we independents are known for our rational thought... have you ever thought about leaving the republican party?



Hmmm....don't recall ever claiming to be in the Republican party....

You make a good point though, on this board at least, one is presumed to belong to one of two parties with an occassional independent thrown in. I am actually an anarchist.


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

RSR:  will you ever address and explain the contradiction revealed in post #368 or will you just continue to ignore it?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR:  will you ever address and explain the contradiction revealed in post #368 or will you just continue to ignore it?



I guess all the "accomplishements" of the Dems must be working

You keep looking at one poll that goes your way - I will watch the trend


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

so you can't explain how YOU say we are sinking fast and Rasmussen, who you often quote, says we are improving?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you can't explain how YOU say we are sinking fast and Rasmussen, who you often quote, says we are improving?



I am saying the trend is going down for your side


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying the trend is going down for your side


and Rasmussen disagrees with you.  Are you suggesting that Rasmussen is wrong and you are right?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> and Rasmussen disagrees with you.  Are you suggesting that Rasmussen is wrong and you are right?



One poll does not a trend make - or break

Dems are in total meltdown MM - I am sitting abck and enjoying the show


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rusted_more_than_republicans_on_10_key_issues


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rusted_more_than_republicans_on_10_key_issues



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

Pres Bush is still ahead of the Dems Congress

Not by much - but his approval number is higher


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18
> 
> Pres Bush is still ahead of the Dems Congress
> 
> Not by much - but his approval number is higher




by 2 tenths of a percentage point with an inherent margin of error.  i.e. virtual tie.

and what say you about those ten points that democrats are trusted more on that republicans?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> by 2 tenths of a percentage point with an inherent margin of error.  i.e. virtual tie.
> 
> and what say you about those ten points that democrats are trusted more on that republicans?



You keep going with that poll MM

Watch the numbers as the voters see what Dems have in store for them


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

you didn't answer the question about the ten points brought out in the rasmussen poll.  when will discuss those points?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> you didn't answer the question about the ten points brought out in the rasmussen poll.  when will discuss those points?



As I said - one poll does not a trend make

I hope the Dems continue to talk about their agenda of surrender, higher taxes, government run health care

and watch those numbers sink even further


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As I said - one poll does not a trend make
> 
> I hope the Dems continue to talk about their agenda of surrender, higher taxes, government run health care
> 
> and watch those numbers sink even further



we are not talking about trends.  I am asking you to discuss what you think the meanings of those ratings on those ten key points have to say?


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> we are not talking about trends.  I am asking you to discuss what you think the meanings of those ratings on those ten key points have to say?



You ONLY want to talk about one poll - and one stat - that goes your way; and you want to believe that is a trend

It is not

Meanwhile you have your Presidential candidates going way to the left - enjoy the trip south in the poll MM


----------



## maineman (May 31, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You ONLY want to talk about one poll - and one stat - that goes your way; and you want to believe that is a trend
> 
> It is not
> 
> Meanwhile you have your Presidential candidates going way to the left - enjoy the trip south in the poll MM




and so....on yet another thread....maineman grows weary and exasperated from punching the tarbaby.... the tarbaby will never engage in conversation no matter how much you punch him.... you only get sticky with tar.... maineman shakes his head... sadly... and walks away.

minutes later....alone on a stage in an empty auditorium, the tarbaby raises his stick arms and loudly declares "victory" for no one to hear.

and so it goes.....


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> and so....on yet another thread....maineman grows weary and exasperated from punching the tarbaby.... the tarbaby will never engage in conversation no matter how much you punch him.... you only get sticky with tar.... maineman shakes his head... sadly... and walks away.
> 
> minutes later....alone on a stage in an empty auditorium, the tarbaby raises his stick arms and loudly declares "victory" for no one to hear.
> 
> and so it goes.....



No, once again MM can't counter the facts about his beloved Dem party


----------



## red states rule (May 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> and so....on yet another thread....maineman grows weary and exasperated from punching the tarbaby.... the tarbaby will never engage in conversation no matter how much you punch him.... you only get sticky with tar.... maineman shakes his head... sadly... and walks away.
> 
> minutes later....alone on a stage in an empty auditorium, the tarbaby raises his stick arms and loudly declares "victory" for no one to hear.
> 
> and so it goes.....



San Fran Nan must have seen the latest poll numbers MM


----------

