# Quinnipiac Poll  May 1st, 2007



## maineman (May 8, 2007)

*"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops       57%
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary           39%
Unsure                                                      3%  * 

I think that the longer this debacle in Iraq goes on and the longer the right continues to try and overplay the fear card and lump all those Iraqis fighting us and one another into some "one-size-fits-all--all-ragheads-are-our-enemy" "_terrorist_" category and ignore the fact that _most_ of the folks killing US and killing Iraqis in Iraq are just sunni and shiite Iraqi citizens and NOT members of Al Qaeda or other groups bent on our destruction... the more the tide will continue to shift as Americans realize the repetitive idiocy of the administration's position.  I think it is time to let the Iraqis stand on their own.  Our own Vice President has stated that the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are nothing but a handful of deadenders in their final throes.  How in the world can an army of 150 thousand Iraqi soldiers who have been trained for three years by the United States not be able to handle a handful of deadenders in their final throes?  We have a war to fight against Islamic extremists.  We can't afford to waste any more men money or time in Iraq.  American people want us out...a majority of Iraqis believe that things will be better if we leave.... a majority of Iraqis support acts of violence against us!  We toppled their dictator.  We provided them with security while they wrote a constitution and held three free elections.  We trained their military.  They now want us out. They approve of attacks against us...  I believe it is time to go.      .


----------



## CSM (May 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> *"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> 
> Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops       57%
> Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary           39%
> ...



SURE! 

All based on a poll taken at a bastion of liberalism in backwoods Maine. Makes about as much sense as taking a poll of soldiers and asking them what we should or should not do...as I recall that was something you were dead set against.


----------



## Vintij (May 8, 2007)

I dont get it, conservatives basically ignore polls, and liberals are too obsessed with them? Well dont you think, that at least a tiny bit of this country should have some influence from its people? As in, look at the polls!!!

We dont have to create our foreign policy based on polls, but the least this administration could do, is LISTEN to its people once in a while. And its people dont want to be in IRAQ for another 12 years like viet-nam. 

Im not as far left as the bush bashers, but I would like for some people on the right to LISTEN to the people, rather than TELLING them what to believe and when to be scared.


----------



## maineman (May 8, 2007)

CSM said:


> SURE!
> 
> All based on a poll taken at a bastion of liberalism in backwoods Maine. Makes about as much sense as taking a poll of soldiers and asking them what we should or should not do...as I recall that was something you were dead set against.



well... a few quick points about the Quinnipiac poll.

1.  It is a nationally recognized poll.  Here is a link about it:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

from that link:

_Frequently cited by journalists, public officials and researchers, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll regularly surveys residents in Connecticut, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and nationwide about political races, state and national elections, and issues of public concern, such as schools, taxes, transportation, municipal services and the environment. 

Known for its exactness and thoroughness, the Quinnipiac poll was selected a "winner" by the New York Post for the most accurate prediction on the Schumer-D'Amato Senate race in 1998, and results are featured regularly in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and on national network news broadcasts. 
_

2.  Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Connecticut, far from the backwoods of Maine.


3.  Taking a poll of what AMERICAN citizens want to do with their military is completely sensible and totally different that asking member of the military what America ought to do with the military.

*I hoped that cleared that up for you.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2007)

Polls can and are "fixed". Even nationally recognized ones. There are a lot of ways to arrange to get the 'answer" you want. One way of course is to ask the questions in the right area, or by using the right system ( say a phone poll) in the area.

Another way is to word the questions to get the expected response. Polls are not worth the paper they are printed on. They don't "represent" what the people want.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Polls can and are "fixed". Even nationally recognized ones. There are a lot of ways to arrange to get the 'answer" you want. One way of course is to ask the questions in the right area, or by using the right system ( say a phone poll) in the area.
> 
> Another way is to word the questions to get the expected response. Polls are not worth the paper they are printed on. They don't "represent" what the people want.



Most polls do not report how a majoirty of the voters do not want to surrender in Iraq, and how if the veto cannot be defeated - they want the troops to get the funds they need

MM - where is the link to the poll itself so we can read ALL the questions?


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> well... a few quick points about the Quinnipiac poll.
> 
> 1.  It is a nationally recognized poll.  Here is a link about it:
> 
> ...



Libs do not care what the troops have to say in this instance. Most want to stay and finish the job


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> *"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> 
> Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops       57%
> Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary           39%
> ...



I think as long as the MSM and the left continue to bombard the people of this nation with their sense of hopelessness and failure, it's going to tend to cause people to make uneducated choices.

There IS a way to secure Iraq via military force and run these insurgents, on whatever side they choose, into the hills.  It worked just fine in Afghanistan where we were less concerned with politics and more concerned with accomplishing the mission.

I don't understand why a US failure would be considered a victory by ANY American, unless they put their partisan politics ahead of the Nation; which, I consider to be bullshit of the highest order.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I think as long as the MSM and the left continue to bombard the people of this nation with their sense of hopelessness and failure, it's going to tend to cause people to make uneducated choices.
> 
> There IS a way to secure Iraq via military force and run these insurgents, on whatever side they choose, into the hills.  It worked just fine in Afghanistan where we were less concerned with politics and more concerned with accomplishing the mission.
> 
> I don't understand why a US failure would be considered a victory by ANY American, unless they put their partisan politics ahead of the Nation; which, I consider to be bullshit of the highest order.





I hate to think OBL was right - Americans do not have the stomach for a fight anymore

I pray to God he is wrong.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I hate to think OBL was right - Americans do not have the stomach for a fight anymore
> 
> I pray to God he is wrong.



Wake up.  We left out balls for staying the fight through to the end somewhere on the other side of Korea.  Everything since has either been short and sweet, or turned into a complete political debacle.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Wake up.  We left out balls for staying the fight through to the end somewhere on the other side of Korea.  Everything since has either been short and sweet, or turned into a complete political debacle.



Bill Clinton planted the seed of Amercia being a "Paper Tiger" with BL

I am on your side on this one

Let the military do whatever is necessary to get the job done. They are the experts in this field - nobody else


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Bill Clinton planted the seed of Amercia being a "Paper Tiger" with BL
> 
> I am on your side on this one
> 
> Let the military do whatever is necessary to get the job done. They are the experts in this field - nobody else



Bill Clinton didn't do squat.  The writing was on the wall and the five paragraph order chiseled in stone on how to beat us when the extreme left publicy displayed the blueprint during Vietnam.

All anyone has to do is wait us out and the instant gratitude, victory without cost crowd will begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth and bring this nation to a political standstill.

It happened before, and it's happening again.  And when the dust settles, they will again reap what they have sown and be crapped upon by society in general.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Bill Clinton didn't do squat.  The writing was on the wall and the five paragraph order chiseled in stone on how to beat us when the extreme left publicy displayed the blueprint during Vietnam.
> 
> All anyone has to do is wait us out and the instant gratitude, victory without cost crowd will begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth and bring this nation to a political standstill.
> 
> It happened before, and it's happening again.  And when the dust settles, they will again reap what they have sown and be crapped upon by society in general.



When Bill Clinton ran away from the fight in Somalia it started the  9-11 plan

In fact, Murtha pushed for the retreat from Somalia

I will also admit. Reagan was wrong to leave after the Marine barracks attack

When you show weakness, the terrorists will keep coming


----------



## CSM (May 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> well... a few quick points about the Quinnipiac poll.
> 
> 1.  It is a nationally recognized poll.  Here is a link about it:
> 
> ...



Self-licking ice cream cone. Did you expect them to say "We have crap for a poll but you should believe it anyway!"


I know where Quinnipiac is...just seeing if your paying attention and busting our chops at the same time.

I guess members of the military are not US citizens....most American citizens do not have a CLUE about what should be done with the military....maybe we should ask them how hospitals should perform brain surgery...it would be nearly as valid.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

CSM said:


> Self-licking ice cream cone. Did you expect them to say "We have crap for a poll but you should believe it anyway!"
> 
> 
> I know where Quinnipiac is...just seeing if your paying attention and busting our chops at the same time.
> ...



Some Dems have expressed their true feeling about the US military

They have called them uneducated, terrorists, cold bloodied killers, compared them to Nazis's and operators of torture chambers

The liberal media busts a gut to put memebrs of the military when they have something bad to say about the war and Pres Bush - but ignore them when they have something positive to say


----------



## CSM (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Some Dems have expressed their true feeling about the US military
> 
> They have called them uneducated, terrorists, cold bloodied killers, compared them to Nazis's and operators of torture chambers
> 
> The liberal media busts a gut to put memebrs of the military when they have something bad to say about the war and Pres Bush - but ignore them when they have something positive to say



Strange you noticed that, eh! 

In fairness, most of us tend to pick POVs that support our position and view with slepticism those that don't.  We have had this discussion with MM before (I believe we ended up agreeing to disagree); I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that the average American citizen would have more insight into how our military should be used than the members of the military... but then it's MM...sometimes he thinks strangely...not necessarily wrong...just strange.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

CSM said:


> Strange you noticed that, eh!
> 
> In fairness, most of us tend to pick POVs that support our position and view with slepticism those that don't.  We have had this discussion with MM before (I believe we ended up agreeing to disagree); I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that the average American citizen would have more insight into how our military should be used than the members of the military... but then it's MM...sometimes he thinks strangely...not necessarily wrong...just strange.



My dad served in WWII and he often said 'let the miltary fight the wars - keep the politicans out of how to fight it'

I agreed with him them - I agree with him now


----------



## maineman (May 8, 2007)

CSM said:


> Self-licking ice cream cone. Did you expect them to say "We have crap for a poll but you should believe it anyway!"
> 
> 
> I know where Quinnipiac is...just seeing if your paying attention and busting our chops at the same time.
> ...




if you want to minimize the validity of the Quinnipiac poll, there is little I can say other than what I have already said.  It is acknowledged as an independent and valid poll.

and OF COURSE you NOW know where QUinnipiac is..... [cough-bullshit-cough]

I know where the school is.  My son is a journalism major there....you obviously did NOT and tried to cover your own misstatement with bullshit.

Do you HAVE any recent polling data on what the military thinks of Iraq or is all you have to offer anecdotal bullshit?  The poll shows that the majority of Americans want us the fuck out of Iraq and I think I explained very succinctly why they have come to that opinion.  So do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion or will your input consist of tripe like this?


----------



## maineman (May 8, 2007)

CSM said:


> Strange you noticed that, eh!
> 
> In fairness, most of us tend to pick POVs that support our position and view with slepticism those that don't.  We have had this discussion with MM before (I believe we ended up agreeing to disagree); I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that the average American citizen would have more insight into how our military should be used than the members of the military... but then it's MM...sometimes he thinks strangely...not necessarily wrong...just strange.



and whether or not the average american citizen may or may not have more insight into how our military should be used than the members of the military is totally irelevant.  Our country's military has ALWAYS been under the complete and total control of the civilians in goverment - that is why we have never had an military coups in all our years - and the civilians in goverment answer to ALL the american people, not just those in uniform.  Don't LIKE living in a country like that?  move to fucking Paraguay and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way south.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you want to minimize the validity of the Quinnipiac poll, there is little I can say other than what I have already said.  It is acknowledged as an independent and valid poll.
> 
> and OF COURSE you NOW know where QUinnipiac is..... [cough-bullshit-cough]
> 
> ...



Still waiting for a link to the poll and the all the questions asked


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> and whether or not the average american citizen may or may not have more insight into how our military should be used than the members of the military is totally irelevant.  Our country's military has ALWAYS been under the complete and total control of the civilians in goverment - that is why we have never had an military coups in all our years - and the civilians in goverment answer to ALL the american people, not just those in uniform.  Don't LIKE living in a country like that?  move to fucking Paraguay and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way south.



Ya know, you are awful touchy....


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Ya know, you are awful touchy....



You caught MM on a good day, usually he is not that nice


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Ya know, you are awful touchy....



if you denigrate a nationally recognized poll, demonstrate you have no idea of where it is taken and its national scope, and then compare it in validity and importance to a poll of military personnel alone, you should be prepared to have someone toss the bullshit flag.  I did.  If I did so with "unnecessary roughness", I apologize.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you want to minimize the validity of the Quinnipiac poll, there is little I can say other than what I have already said.  It is acknowledged as an independent and valid poll.
> 
> and OF COURSE you NOW know where QUinnipiac is..... [cough-bullshit-cough]
> 
> ...



Thanks for the civil conversation...


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you denigrate a nationally recognized poll, demonstrate you have no idea of where it is taken and its national scope, and then compare it in validity and importance to a poll of military personnel alone, you should be prepared to have someone toss the bullshit flag.  I did.  If I did so with "unnecessary roughness", I apologize.



It wasn't your protestations...it was your attitude and you know it. You can rightly treat some of the posters here like that, but I have tried very hard to keep the tone civil between you and I...hopefully we can continue in that vein. If my attempts at humor failed with you then I too apologize and wil not attempt such in the future.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you denigrate a nationally recognized poll, demonstrate you have no idea of where it is taken and its national scope, and then compare it in validity and importance to a poll of military personnel alone, you should be prepared to have someone toss the bullshit flag.  I did.  If I did so with "unnecessary roughness", I apologize.



Still waiting for a link to the poll questions - all of them


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Thanks for the civil conversation...



That is as civil as it gets with him


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

I don't pretend to know everything already.  I do know that the question fromthe QUinnipiac poll is a valid one.  ANd the results for that question are instructive.  I wrote a rather lengthy paragraph which stated my analysis of that answer and the reasons behind it.  If you want to just denigrate the poll, I understand...and I understand WHY that might seem an easier argument to counter than my paragraph which followed.  I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you... or even to be uncivil.  I just happen to be a guy who is vehemently opposed to this military action in Iraq and I have always been so.  It is a phyrric victory for me to see that the American people are finally waking up and beginning to share my opposition.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> That is as civil as it gets with him



To be fair, MM andf I have had some good discussions on this board. His hemeroids must be bothering him this morning.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> To be fair, MM andf I have had some good discussions on this board. His hemeroids must be bothering him this morning.



Perhaps he should get them checked out. It might be a brain tumor


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't pretend to know everything already.  I do know that the question fromthe QUinnipiac poll is a valid one.  ANd the results for that question are instructive.  I wrote a rather lengthy paragraph which stated my analysis of that answer and the reasons behind it.  If you want to just denigrate the poll, I understand...and I understand WHY that might seem an easier argument to counter than my paragraph which followed.  I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you... or even to be uncivil.  I just happen to be a guy who is vehemently opposed to this military action in Iraq and I have always been so.  It is a phyrric victory for me to see that the American people are finally waking up and beginning to share my opposition.



I understand your position. I have the position that ALL polls are suspect (even the ones that supposedly support my POV) and that is why I have NEVER posted poll results to support anything I take as a POV. I respect your stance...I have to wonder if it is reciprocal.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't pretend to know everything already.  I do know that the question fromthe QUinnipiac poll is a valid one.  ANd the results for that question are instructive.  I wrote a rather lengthy paragraph which stated my analysis of that answer and the reasons behind it.  If you want to just denigrate the poll, I understand...and I understand WHY that might seem an easier argument to counter than my paragraph which followed.  I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you... or even to be uncivil.  I just happen to be a guy who is vehemently opposed to this military action in Iraq and I have always been so.  It is a phyrric victory for me to see that the American people are finally waking up and beginning to share my opposition.



How about a link showing all the questions?

Your link showed polls about the candidates, but not the subject of this thread


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> *"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> 
> Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops       57%
> Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary           39%
> ...



In essence, I agree with you...it is time for us to get out, but not for the reasons you state. Once the support of the citizens is lost (which appears to be the case) then our military can never win .... The people of this country have lost the will to fight and haven't had it since VietNam. Our enemies are correct in their assessment that the US is a paper tiger. All they have to do is wait for the media and population to engage, produce some casualties, and *viola* we hand them what they want.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

When Defeatocrats took over it made the job of the terrorists much easier


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

Lets see... whom has more Knowledge of conditions in Iraq?  A civilian in Maine or a military member in Iraq? A Liberal politician that never served a day in his life or a serving General in the military?

I know whom I would believe.

Your poll is as useful as say... Polling Registered Republicans and asking them if Liberals are sane or crazy.

You will get an opinion, but is it worth the time and effort of the poll? Is it indicitive of any important opinion?


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

White Flag Harry Reid: We're Losing This War, and the Troops are Liars
"Senator Lost" Harry Reid, has unilaterally declared that the Iraq War is lost. Uh, Senator... how would you know and other top Democrats know, when you continue to skip briefings?

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8. 
Reid even labeled General David Petraeus a liar:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress. 
He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that? 

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts. 



Look at the facts, Harry? You refuse to address the facts.

Here are a few comments for "Senator Lost" from men on the ground.

From a letter to Op-for:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don't know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA's and IP's in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus' strategy is just getting started and we're seeing huge gains here. 
However, you don't see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn't bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it. 



I suppose Reid considers this soldier a liar as well.

For more go to:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/223936.php


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> How about a link showing all the questions?
> 
> Your link showed polls about the candidates, but not the subject of this thread



Gosh... I thought I made my position quite clear yesterday, but, to reiterate:  I have absolutely no intention of answering any of your questions going forward until you have addressed the backlog of questions that I have posed to you and that you have continued to run away from.  

It only seems fair.  I seem to be able to carry on intelligent discussions with a variety of conservatives on this board....but not you.  I have been quite clear on the fact that dialog requires more than insults at my party....but it requires responses to the things that I have written to you and the legitimate questions that your own posts have raised.  When you decide to answer questions, you can have an expectation that I will, once again, begin to answer yours.  Not until.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> Gosh... I thought I made my position quite clear yesterday, but, to reiterate:  I have absolutely no intention of answering any of your questions going forward until you have addressed the backlog of questions that I have posed to you and that you have continued to run away from.
> 
> It only seems fair.  I seem to be able to carry on intelligent discussions with a variety of conservatives on this board....but not you.  I have been quite clear on the fact that dialog requires more than insults at my party....but it requires responses to the things that I have written to you and the legitimate questions that your own posts have raised.  When you decide to answer questions, you can have an expectation that I will, once again, begin to answer yours.  Not until.



So you do not have a link showing all the questions and sample size breakdown


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see... whom has more Knowledge of conditions in Iraq?  A civilian in Maine or a military member in Iraq? A Liberal politician that never served a day in his life or a serving General in the military?
> 
> I know whom I would believe.
> 
> ...




if you are suggesting that we formulate our national position on how to use the military for the execution of our forign policy by polling the members of the military, I would beg to disagree.  I have no doubt that miliary members have a good idea of the conditions on the ground in Iraq.  I am also aware that 70% of the forces in Iraq believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that we found them, and that he had a connection to 9/11....so their are clearly limits to the prescience and indepth understanding of the rank and file active duty member.  

The quinnipiac poll is instructive.... I suggested what I thought it meant and what had driven the shift in public opinion.  If you would care to debate that with me, I look forward to the conversation!


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you are suggesting that we formulate our national position on how to use the military for the execution of our forign policy by polling the members of the military, I would beg to disagree.  I have no doubt that miliary members have a good idea of the conditions on the ground in Iraq.  I am also aware that 70% of the forces in Iraq believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that we found them, and that he had a connection to 9/11....so their are clearly limits to the prescience and indepth understanding of the rank and file active duty member.
> 
> The quinnipiac poll is instructive.... I suggested what I thought it meant and what had driven the shift in public opinion.  If you would care to debate that with me, I look forward to the conversation!



Still no link to all the questions and sample size breakdown


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you do not have a link showing all the questions and sample size breakdown



of course I have a link.  Do you have answers to my previously posed questions?


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course I have a link.  Do you have answers to my previously posed questions?



Why not share it? Or are you worried when we see all the questions and sample breakdown your thread will crash and burn?


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

please read this for comprehension:



maineman said:


> Gosh... I thought I made my position quite clear yesterday, but, to reiterate:  *I have absolutely no intention of answering any of your questions going forward until you have addressed the backlog of questions that I have posed to you and that you have continued to run away from.  *
> It only seems fair.  I seem to be able to carry on intelligent discussions with a variety of conservatives on this board....but not you.  I have been quite clear on the fact that dialog requires more than insults at my party....but it requires responses to the things that I have written to you and the legitimate questions that your own posts have raised. *When you decide to answer questions posed to you, you will find that I will, again, answer your questions posed to me.... it only seems fair*.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you are suggesting that we formulate our national position on how to use the military for the execution of our forign policy by polling the members of the military, I would beg to disagree.  I have no doubt that miliary members have a good idea of the conditions on the ground in Iraq.  I am also aware that 70% of the forces in Iraq believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that we found them, and that he had a connection to 9/11....so their are clearly limits to the prescience and indepth understanding of the rank and file active duty member.
> 
> The quinnipiac poll is instructive.... I suggested what I thought it meant and what had driven the shift in public opinion.  If you would care to debate that with me, I look forward to the conversation!



I would suggest that National security trumps any poll you care to bring forward. I would further stipulate that since the press refuses to be honest about the conditions in Iraq the rank and file civilian is clueless.


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I would suggest that National security trumps any poll you care to bring forward. I would further stipulate that since the press refuses to be honest about the conditions in Iraq the rank and file civilian is clueless.




I would agree that national security trumps polls.....absolutely.  I do NOT agree that military attitudes determine national security priorities.

And the people believe what they are fed.... they were fed fear and 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.... and they ate it up.

and I do not consider my self as clueless about the middle east as the average american civilian.  I did a tour of duty as a UN Military observer in lebanon and have read and studied the region pretty extensively before and after that tour.  I maintain close contact with many former UN officers and with civilians - muslim, christian, and jew - in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

Ahh yes Bush the evil mind controlling antichrist defense.


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

are you suggesting that Team Bush did not repeat "weapons of mass destruction" "gassed his own people" "mushroom clouds over American cities" "9/11" "al qaeda" _ad infinitum_ in the buildup to the Iraq war?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

Are you suggesting that the media were hoodwinked by Bush? That the democrats and liberals were all to stupid to see through his manipulations?

Lets get a few things straight.... 

Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.

Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.

Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.

Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.

EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.

Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?

Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

Are you suggesting that the media were hoodwinked by Bush? That the democrats and liberals were all to stupid to see through his manipulations?

*I can only speak for myself.  I saw right through them from day one*

Lets get a few things straight.... 

Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.

*he was a paper tiger...even COlin Powell, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that he did not have the ability to project power beyond his own borders and that sanctions were working and that he had not reconstituted his WMD program*

Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.
*inspectors were back in his country and were asked to leave by Dubya so he could hurry up and invade before they would tell him what we now all know: that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD's.  I don't know what Saddam was searching for, and I am not sure you do either, but I am fairly certain that he would not have given any WMD's (even if he had them) to an organization like AQ that was bent on his destruction as well as ours*

Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.
*like I said...Colin Powell was pretty clear about that in his press conference with the Egyptian foreign minister in february of 2001.  But maybe you know more than General Powell, eh gunny?*

Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.
*before the first gulf war.... with weapons we gave him*

EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.
*but the inspectors WERE there, and if Bush had just had the patience to wait a few more weeks, we would have known that we needn't invade in order to disarm*
Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?

*He had let the inspectors back in.... Blix said he was getting access to all suspected sites*

Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.

*you are saying that no one in the Bush administration said anything about not wanting the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an american city?*


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/le.00.html

RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs. 

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. *But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.*



oops


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

Provide some evidence we gave Saddam Hussein any chemical weapons. That is the oldest tiredest lie out there.

I suggest you read what Blix actually said. he stated that Iraq was NOT meeting its requirements, that he was still denied unfettered access, that he was still getting the run around. Of course being a good UN stooge he wanted more time, time that would have derailed any invasion till September forcing the US to either pay to keep those troops deployed or recalling them only to redeploy to the same song and dance later in the year. France tried that shell game also.

We all knew before the invasion he had no weapons? We being you and of course none of the worlds intelligence agencies that all in fact believed he had weapons. We being all the liberal democrats that voted to go to war knowing what you claim? We being all the Countries that joined us in that war, knowing there was no threat? You are aware that of European Countries almost everyone supported us in 2003? Only France, Germany and Belgium were against it, and France was paid off.

So which is it? Bush is an evil genius or a sniveling moron that cant even tie his own shoes? I cant keep up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 9, 2007)

Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US. That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.

But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"


----------



## maineman (May 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. *We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US.* That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.
> 
> But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"




I'd love to see that and furthermore, would love to see you show how that would have been AQ in any case, given the strategic goals of that organization.

and I missed your reply to the mushroom cloud post.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html

those are just two "off the top of my head"


----------



## red states rule (May 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide some evidence we gave Saddam Hussein any chemical weapons. That is the oldest tiredest lie out there.
> 
> I suggest you read what Blix actually said. he stated that Iraq was NOT meeting its requirements, that he was still denied unfettered access, that he was still getting the run around. Of course being a good UN stooge he wanted more time, time that would have derailed any invasion till September forcing the US to either pay to keep those troops deployed or recalling them only to redeploy to the same song and dance later in the year. France tried that shell game also.
> 
> ...



Dems were saying what a threat Saddam was with his WMD's BEFORE Pres Bush was President

Clinton said how Saddam had to be taken care of

Of course, Dems get a pass on what they said


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

CSM said:


> SURE!
> 
> All based on a poll taken at a bastion of liberalism in backwoods Maine. Makes about as much sense as taking a poll of soldiers and asking them what we should or should not do...as I recall that was something you were dead set against.



Maine has two republican senators, are you sure it's a bastion of liberalism? But... I can see why you don't like maineman's TO... it goes against your support of bush and the war.... so... 

How about the Iraqi parliment? Do they have a say? It IS their country afterall... Or is the Iraqi government subservient to the wishes of Washington?



> *Iraqi bill on troop pullout discussed*
> 
> By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Associated Press Writer
> © 2007 The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems were saying what a threat Saddam was with his WMD's BEFORE Pres Bush was President
> 
> Clinton said how Saddam had to be taken care of
> 
> Of course, Dems get a pass on what they said



Have you ever taken a position on something and then, after more research changed your mind about it? 

I have. And I'm sure that many many others have as well... cuz only the truly idiotic remains steadfast in their opinion when evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US. That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.
> 
> *But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"*




I know it's been said before and will no doubt be said again... but... Where are they? Bush said they had them... so? where are they?

Do you like being lied to time and time again? why?


----------



## CSM (May 10, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Maine has two republican senators, are you sure it's a bastion of liberalism? But... I can see why you don't like maineman's TO... it goes against your support of bush and the war.... so...
> 
> oh yeah you got it.
> 
> How about the Iraqi parliment? Do they have a say? Nope. It IS their country afterall... Or is the Iraqi government subservient to the wishes of Washington? Yep.



Don't know much about me do ya!


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

CSM said:


> Don't know much about me do ya!



nope... I just got here... and my USMB players' program is woefully incomplete...

but after conversing with you on the other thread, I now realize that you may not be as much of a bush supporter as I originally thought...


----------



## CSM (May 10, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> nope... I just got here... and my USMB players' program is woefully incomplete...
> 
> but after conversing with you on the other thread, I now realize that you may not be as much of a bush supporter as I originally thought...



Presidents come and go...some good, some bad. So far, the country has managed to survive them all. 

I detest politicians with the possible exception of the Founding Farthers and soem of them I am not so sure about!


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

CSM said:


> Presidents come and go...some good, some bad. So far, the country has managed to survive them all.
> 
> I detest politicians with the possible exception of the Founding Farthers and soem of them I am not so sure about!



I don't much like politicians either... from either party... I was a republican until 2003, now I'm an unafilliated independent, so I get to blast both sides (which drives the righties batty) tho since I'm anti-bush, I tend to swing from the left...

you hip to the TriLateralCommission?


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Have you ever taken a position on something and then, after more research changed your mind about it?
> 
> I have. And I'm sure that many many others have as well... cuz only the truly idiotic remains steadfast in their opinion when evidence proves otherwise.



Dems say Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and had to be removed - they were mistaken

Bush says Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and had to be removed - he lied

Bush haters logic makes a figure eight look like a straight line

If Bush lied so did the Dems


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> I know it's been said before and will no doubt be said again... but... Where are they? Bush said they had them... so? where are they?
> 
> Do you like being lied to time and time again? why?



The WMD's may have went to Syria

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> I know it's been said before and will no doubt be said again... but... Where are they? Bush said they had them... so? where are they?
> 
> Do you like being lied to time and time again? why?



Once again some evidence please, one will do. I am simply amazed, Bush is alternately the stupidest President we ever had or the Evil mind controlling Genius of all time.

Last I checked , for the umpteenth time, Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefs from all Intelligence organizations and well from anyone they want. The President has absolutely no control over who the Congress talks to.

Yet in order for Bush to have lied he would have had to have total control over who spoke to Congress, what information they provided AND now 5 years later still control them to prevent them from telling how they were instructed to lie to Congress.

Bush would have had to have total control over what every other intelligence agency in the world was reporting or a mind control ray that kept everyone in Congress and the world from hearing what they REALLY thought.

When Congress had its investigation into the spurious claims he would have had, once again, to use his awesome mind control powers to make everyone agree there was not one shred of evidence that Congress or the People were lied to.

I AM tired of being lied to, BY PEOPLE like you.

Also assuming Bush lied one must also assume Clinton lied for 8 years as President and ordered several attacks on Iraq based on his lying. Now while Clinton is a proven liar I just don't see your type making this claim.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

To the Bush haters the Kurds were not gassed - they died from the common cold


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To the Bush haters the Kurds were not gassed - they died from the common cold



Oh, they were gassed alright....they were gassed before Dubya's daddy invaded Iraq the first time.  

which sort of blunts that argument about the urgency of going in before Blix had a chance to tell us what we now all know:  that Saddam didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's so we didn't need to invade him, throw the region into turmoil, and flush a trilllion dollars and 3500 lives down the shitter.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> Oh, they were gassed alright....they were gassed before Dubya's daddy invaded Iraq the first time.
> 
> which sort of blunts that argument about the urgency of going in before Blix had a chance to tell us what we now all know:  that Saddam didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's so we didn't need to invade him, throw the region into turmoil, and flush a trilllion dollars and 3500 lives down the shitter.



See post # 63

Let the spin begin MM


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> See post # 63
> 
> Let the spin begin MM



maybe you didn't understand me the other day:

i have no intention of engaging you in any sort of substantive dialog...I have no intention of reading any of your cut and paste posts...I have no intention of opening up any of your links...UNTIL you settle up and answer the raft of questions that I have posted over the past few weeks.

If you don't care to do that, and we both know that you don't....  save us both the time and don't bother responding to me again.

thank you in advance.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> maybe you didn't understand me the other day:
> 
> i have no intention of engaging you in any sort of substantive dialog...I have no intention of reading any of your cut and paste posts...I have no intention of opening up any of your links...UNTIL you settle up and answer the raft of questions that I have posted over the past few weeks.
> 
> ...



so you are still ignoring facts - nothing new for you


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> Oh, they were gassed alright....they were gassed before Dubya's daddy invaded Iraq the first time.
> 
> which sort of blunts that argument about the urgency of going in before Blix had a chance to tell us what we now all know:  that Saddam didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's so we didn't need to invade him, throw the region into turmoil, and flush a trilllion dollars and 3500 lives down the shitter.



Still waiting patiently for some evidence that anyone knew BEFORE the invasion that Saddam had no stockpiles. Still waiting for the explaination of how Saddam was no threat when AFTER the invasion we have reams of captured documents that prove he was going to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons, with the scientists, stocks and facilities he still had, how he was going to return to active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, again with the scientists knowledge and equipment he still had, maybe you could explain why he was researching missiles in violation of the cease fire, ones specifically designed to deliver payloads he supposedly didn't have?

I am still waiting for you to actually read what Blix said. He was clear, Saddam Hussein was NOT meeting his obligations, he was preventing open access, he was working to prevent the teams from doing their jobs and was still preventing free movement and free inspection rights.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting patiently for some evidence that anyone knew BEFORE the invasion that Saddam had no stockpiles. Still waiting for the explaination of how Saddam was no threat when AFTER the invasion we have reams of captured documents that prove he was going to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons, with the scientists, stocks and facilities he still had, how he was going to return to active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, again with the scientists knowledge and equipment he still had, maybe you could explain why he was researching missiles in violation of the cease fire, ones specifically designed to deliver payloads he supposedly didn't have?



You are in for a long wait

MM has a severe phobia when it comes to facts


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting patiently for some evidence that anyone knew BEFORE the invasion that Saddam had no stockpiles. Still waiting for the explaination of how Saddam was no threat when AFTER the invasion we have reams of captured documents that prove he was going to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons, with the scientists, stocks and facilities he still had, how he was going to return to active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, again with the scientists knowledge and equipment he still had, maybe you could explain why he was researching missiles in violation of the cease fire, ones specifically designed to deliver payloads he supposedly didn't have?
> 
> I am still waiting for you to actually read what Blix said. He was clear, Saddam Hussein was NOT meeting his obligations, he was preventing open access, he was working to prevent the teams from doing their jobs and was still preventing free movement and free inspection rights.




like I said, if Bush had not kicked Blix out in his rush to invade, we would have found out BEFORE invading. 

I believe that, after 9/11, we needed to prioritize our battles in this world...and our battles against islamic extremism were infinitely more important than Saddam..... you obviously disagree.  so be it. 

I have read what Blix said....and I disagree that he was saying those things about Saddam in the weeks before Bush asked him to leave.


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> so you are still ignoring facts - nothing new for you



and you have chosen to ignore questions asked of you and to not to engage in a dialog.... nothing new for you... now leave me alone or answer my questions.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said, if Bush had not kicked Blix out in his rush to invade, we would have found out BEFORE invading.
> 
> I believe that, after 9/11, we needed to prioritize our battles in this world...and our battles against islamic extremism were infinitely more important than Saddam..... you obviously disagree.  so be it.
> 
> I have read what Blix said....and I disagree that he was saying those things about Saddam in the weeks before Bush asked him to leave.



You must NOT have read the link showing the WMD's may have went to Syria


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

He said them in his official report to the UN. There is no room for disagreement, well except when you "parse" his words and throw in a little Nuiance.


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

provide quotes AND dates


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

As you like to say " just as soon as you answer MY questions"

Still waiting for that evidence that Bush lied.


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> As you like to say " just as soon as you answer MY questions"
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence that Bush lied.



Hope you have alot of time on your hands  -  it will be a long wait


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> As you like to say " just as soon as you answer MY questions"
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence that Bush lied.




Bush said he there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.  He expressed and his team expressed on numerous occasions the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpile of WMD's.

Now...if that statement of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was  TRUE statement...if he really was absolutely certain...if there really WAS NO DOUBT, then he should have been able to produce those stockpiles.  In FACT, George Tenet explains quite eloquently, that all of the intelligence concerning Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers....this bit of information was from a very old satellite photo...this one was from a single source...this one had conflicting reports that discounted it... and on and on..... those caveats and qualifiers are - by their very nature - PROOF of doubt - PROOF of the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.  To state there is NO doubt when some level of doubt does exist...to claim absolute certainty when there was a degree of uncertainty...those statements are LIES.

_lie      [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. 
noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.  
2. *something intended or serving to convey a false impression*; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.  
3. *an inaccurate or false statement*.  _


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> Bush said he there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.  He expressed and his team expressed on numerous occasions the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpile of WMD's.
> 
> Now...if that statement of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was  TRUE statement...if he really was absolutely certain...if there really WAS NO DOUBT, then he should have been able to produce those stockpiles.  In FACT, George Tenet explains quite eloquently, that all of the intelligence concerning Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers....this bit of information was from a very old satellite photo...this one was from a single source...this one had conflicting reports that discounted it... and on and on..... those caveats and qualifiers are - by their very nature - PROOF of doubt - PROOF of the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.  To state there is NO doubt when some level of doubt does exist...to claim absolute certainty when there was a degree of uncertainty...those statements are LIES.
> 
> ...



Dems said Saddam had WMD's as well

Were they lying to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> Bush said he there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.  He expressed and his team expressed on numerous occasions the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpile of WMD's.
> 
> Now...if that statement of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was  TRUE statement...if he really was absolutely certain...if there really WAS NO DOUBT, then he should have been able to produce those stockpiles.  In FACT, George Tenet explains quite eloquently, that all of the intelligence concerning Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers....this bit of information was from a very old satellite photo...this one was from a single source...this one had conflicting reports that discounted it... and on and on..... those caveats and qualifiers are - by their very nature - PROOF of doubt - PROOF of the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.  To state there is NO doubt when some level of doubt does exist...to claim absolute certainty when there was a degree of uncertainty...those statements are LIES.
> 
> ...



Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.

As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.

If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.
> 
> As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.
> 
> If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.



are you suggesting that the bush administration did NOT use the terms *"there is no doubt" * when referring to the presence of stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq?

And if I define a word exactly as the definition is written in the FUCKING DICTIONARY we have no common ground??????

OK then.... I have no fucking idea what language YOU speak, but if the dictionary definition of words in English cannot be common ground for us, then let's just not bother trying to communicate using that language.  what other ones you got?  I am pretty good _en francais_ and I know enough arabic to get me in trouble.  whaddaya recommend?  pig latin?  carney?  you pick.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 11, 2007)

It is simple the intent of your claim that Bush lied is the first definition. And I agree we have no grounds for discussion if your trying to convey that because Bush said something that turned out to be false it was a lie. By that definition you lie all the time on this very board. In fact everyone lies all day long.

By the definitions you have highlighted no one can ever tell the truth.


----------



## maineman (May 11, 2007)

the definition I am using is the second one.

the point is... he was well aware that the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers before he made the statement that "there was no doubt".  Knowing one thing and saying another is most definitely serving to convery a false impression.  If my dick is five inches long and I know it is five inches long and I tell a lovely lady at the bar that my dick is eleven inches long.... when I know how long it really is..... that's serving to convey a false impression.  that is a lie.  Bush is briefed...he is told that this bit of intelligence is based on a single source..that bit of intelligence is based on a six year old photo... that one has conflicting sources...and on and on.... that MEANS there is doubt.... there is some level of uncertainty.... knowing that, when he says "there is no doubt"  that is a lie.  I know you don't want to hear that and will probably continue to adamantly deny that, but it really is a lie.


----------



## Rosotar (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.
> 
> As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.
> 
> If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.



In other words "right and wrong" is all relative to Ret. Gunny.

From his twisted perspective Dems are always wrong and Republicans are never wrong.

Ret. Gunny has zero credibility to argue these things!


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again some evidence please, one will do. I am simply amazed, Bush is alternately the stupidest President we ever had or the Evil mind controlling Genius of all time.
> 
> Last I checked , for the umpteenth time, Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefs from all Intelligence organizations and well from anyone they want. The President has absolutely no control over who the Congress talks to.
> 
> ...



evidence of what? that bush said Saddam had WMD? were you asleep under a rock somewhere during the run up to the war on Iraq? That was ALL he talked about. Saddam's WMD... and how he (bush) was going to rid the world of them... don't you remember that?

*so? where are they?*

*You know nothing about me...*   cuz I don't like Clinton either...  I'm an unafilliated independent that is staunchly anti-bush... so by being in opposition to all you bush lovers it means I swing from the left... but... I'm not a democrat nor am I a liberal... and I'm not a republican anymore either... 

I voted for Buchanan in '96... supported George the 1st in his Gulf War... supported George #2 in his war on Afghanistan, but after he said he didn't care where Osama been Forgotten was hiding I began to have my doubts about him... I left the party in '03...

there are a lot of recovering republicans these days, gySgt...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> Oh, they were gassed alright....they were gassed before Dubya's daddy invaded Iraq the first time.
> 
> which sort of blunts that argument about the urgency of going in before Blix had a chance to tell us what we now all know:  that Saddam didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's so we didn't need to invade him, throw the region into turmoil, and flush a trilllion dollars and 3500 lives down the shitter.



chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?



You sound like a typical angry liberal to me


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?



Neither do Dems

They have wasted three months on a surrender bill they knew would be vetoed

So much for "supporting" the troops


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 12, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> evidence of what? that bush said Saddam had WMD? were you asleep under a rock somewhere during the run up to the war on Iraq? That was ALL he talked about. Saddam's WMD... and how he (bush) was going to rid the world of them... don't you remember that?
> 
> *so? where are they?*
> 
> ...



So using your definition of lying, just about every country on Earth lied about his WMD's, including the UN, including all the democrats in Congress and the entire Intelligence community of the United States. Got ya... do you wear a tin foil hat and keep a sharp eye out for those black helicopters also?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So using your definition of lying, just about every country on Earth lied about his WMD's, including the UN, including all the democrats in Congress and the entire Intelligence community of the United States. Got ya... do you wear a tin foil hat and keep a sharp eye out for those black helicopters also?



You forgot to tell him to check his phone for taps - Pres Bush does that alot according to the kook left


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE &#177; 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve       44
Disapprove    54   
Unsure           2     

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor       57 
Oppose     41
Unsure      2



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


----------



## Truthmatters (May 14, 2007)

Now ask yourself why we could not get ohter countries to back us in the Iraq war?

Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?

It was known that Sadam didnt have shit, the Bush admin cherry picked evidence and feed it to the Congress and USED the feelings of trust created by 911.

We were Used my friends by people who had ulterior motives.

You can pretend its not true but it will do you and this country about as much good as pretending The whole world was wrong and you are right.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 14, 2007)

It was known that Sadam didnt have shit, the Bush admin cherry picked evidence and feed it to the Congress and USED the feelings of trust created by 911.


oooppsss should read didnt have anything


----------



## Truthmatters (May 14, 2007)

I think I need another cup of tea I grabbed the wrong sentance.

Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 14, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> Now ask yourself why we could not get ohter countries to back us in the Iraq war?
> 
> Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?
> 
> ...



I suggest YOU get your facts straight, every European country EXCEPT France Germany and Belgium DID support the Invasion. And again lets assume your right and Bush cherry picked HIS intel, how did he ensure that ONLY his cherry picked intel was what Congress and all our allies got?


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

the lie is the creation of the false impression of absolute certainty about that intelligence.  If Bush had said "We are pretty sure he's got WMD's"  or "I strongly believe he has WMD's" there would be no lie.

His imprecision with the language is his undoing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 14, 2007)

I repeat, how did he prevent Congress and all those other countries from receiving the "correct" intel?


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I repeat, how did he prevent Congress and all those other countries from receiving the "correct" intel?



I repeat, for the braindead jarhead:  I have never said that the intelligence was different.... I said that it was Bush's assertions as to the absolute certainty and absence of any doubt as to the presence of WMD's that constituted the lie.

NO ONE ELSE was saying that there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and that, dovetailed with the great sales job that got 65% of Americans in January of '03to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 gave Bush all the support he needed to invade a countrty where UN inspectors were ON SITE and would have determined within months what we all know now:  that the absolute certainty was a lie.... and that we have become bogged down in a war in a country that was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> the lie is the creation of the false impression of absolute certainty about that intelligence.  If Bush had said "We are pretty sure he's got WMD's"  or "I strongly believe he has WMD's" there would be no lie.
> 
> His imprecision with the language is his undoing.



Dems said the same thing about WMD's and Saddam


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I repeat, for the braindead jarhead:  I have never said that the intelligence was different.... I said that it was Bush's assertions as to the absolute certainty and absence of any doubt as to the presence of WMD's that constituted the lie.
> 
> NO ONE ELSE was saying that there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and that, dovetailed with the great sales job that got 65% of Americans in January of '03to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 gave Bush all the support he needed to invade a countrty where UN inspectors were ON SITE and would have determined within months what we all know now:  that the absolute certainty was a lie.... and that we have become bogged down in a war in a country that was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.



Alot of Dems did - but you ignore there own statements


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I repeat, for the braindead jarhead:  I have never said that the intelligence was different.... I said that it was Bush's assertions as to the absolute certainty and absence of any doubt as to the presence of WMD's that constituted the lie.
> 
> NO ONE ELSE was saying that there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and that, dovetailed with the great sales job that got 65% of Americans in January of '03to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 gave Bush all the support he needed to invade a countrty where UN inspectors were ON SITE and would have determined within months what we all know now:  that the absolute certainty was a lie.... and that we have become bogged down in a war in a country that was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.



So you are saying that all the world and the democrats were to STUPID to compare independent intel against the supposed cherry picked intel and say " damn this doesn't match"?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you are saying that all the world and the democrats were to STUPID to compare independent intel against the supposed cherry picked intel and say " damn this doesn't match"?



Sen Biden admitted the Dems had access to the same intel as Pres Bush


MR. RUSSERT:  You said the president misled. 

SEN. BIDEN:  Yeah, misled.  Now, here, let me be precise.  Aluminum tubes--remember that whole issue?  Casey said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence" of their nuclear policy.  Rice said they were "really only suited for nuclear weapons programs."  And Bush said there was "no doubt" about this. In fact, the Energy Department expert said, as you pointed out, the tube--they were not for nuclear.  The Intelligence Research Bureau agreed and said, "no compelling case that Iraq's currently pursuing an integrated, comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."  This is in 10/02.  Now, this is evidence they had at the time.  Yet they used words like "The weapons program is irrefutable." 

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, when you read the National Intelligence Estimate, at least the summary of it, it had a caveat in there from the State Department and the Department of Energy saying they did not believe the... 

SEN. BIDEN:  After the fact, Tim.  Look, look... 

MR. RUSSERT:  This was made available to senators before the vote.  Only six read it. 

SEN. BIDEN:  No, no, no, no, no, no.  That's true, that was before the vote. 

MR. RUSSERT:  But you saw... 

SEN. BIDEN:  That was before the vote. 

MR. RUSSERT:  You saw that information and you still voted for the war. 

SEN. BIDEN:  But remember--no, remember what I voted for was for the president to be able to go to war, if, if--I've got the resolution here--if, in fact, it was to enforce the existing breaches that existed in the U.N. resolution and if he could show there were weapons of mass destruction. 

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you believe the Democrats and you were diligent enough in reading that National Intelligence Estimate and all the caveats and calling the president to task as to whether or not he was being candid about the intelligence and his interpretation? 

SEN. BIDEN:  Yes.  And if I--I'll leave with you because there's no time here all the statements I made at the time laying out my doubts about their assertions.  But remember what the resolution said, Tim, it didn't say "go to war."  It said, "Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force." 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10154103/


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you are saying that all the world and the democrats were to STUPID to compare independent intel against the supposed cherry picked intel and say " damn this doesn't match"?



no....as a matter of FACT, a majority of congressional democrats DID smell a rat and voted against the use of force resolution,  I AM saying that the president lied to the American people when HE and his administration talking heads repeatedly assured us that he was absolutely certain of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....as a matter of FACT, a majority of congressional democrats DID smell a rat and voted against the use of force resolution,  I AM saying that the president lied to the American people when HE and his administration talking heads repeatedly assured us that he was absolutely certain of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.



even Biden admitted the Dems had access to the same intel as Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> even Biden admitted the Dems had access to the same intel as Pres Bush



that is not my point....my point is what the president SAID about that intelligence and what he did with that intelligence.


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

did you miss this, RSR?



maineman said:


> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
> 
> "As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"
> 
> ...


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is not my point....my point is what the president SAID about that intelligence and what he did with that intelligence.



and Pres Bush said the same things as Dems were saying since 1993


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and Pres Bush said the same things as Dems were saying since 1993



nope.  few if any democrats expressed absolute certainty to the American people about Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  Team Bush was united in pitching that certainty, that abolute lack of any doubt to the American people and Team Bush took us to war over the objections of the majority of democats in congress.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> nope.  few if any democrats expressed absolute certainty to the American people about Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  Team Bush was united in pitching that certainty, that abolute lack of any doubt to the American people and Team Bush took us to war over the objections of the majority of democats in congress.



To bad the Dems own words prove you wrong


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To bad the Dems own words prove you wrong



they don't...


too bad you ignored the two new polling questions


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> they don't...
> 
> 
> too bad you ignored the two new polling questions



You ignore what members of your own party say (nothing new)

and I see the low approval numbers for the Dems (you overlook them)


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You ignore what members of your own party say (nothing new)
> 
> and I see the low approval numbers for the Dems (you overlook them)



I do not ignore anything.  I merely suggest that what democrats said and what Bush said were different in the level of certainty...and what democrats did: a majority voted against the war - is significantly different than what Bush and the republicans did: overwhelmingly vote for the war and then fail to use force as a LAST resort, but jumped to use it as a first resort.... and kicked the UN inspectors out in their haste to take us to war.  

and you didn't comment on this:

_CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve 44
Disapprove 54 
Unsure 2 

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor 57 
Oppose 41
Unsure 2

_

are you planning on discussing these questions and their results anytime soon?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

If Dems are doing the will of the people - why are they say low in the polls and why not cut off funding?


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If Dems are doing the will of the people - why are they say low in the polls and why not cut off funding?




you ask the same question over and over again.  what is your reply to those two poll questions.  how can you continue to suggest that America does NOT support the democrat's funding plan when all the polling data clearly shows that they do?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> you ask the same question over and over again.  what is your reply to those two poll questions.  how can you continue to suggest that America does NOT support the democrat's funding plan when all the polling data clearly shows that they do?



Americans support victory in Iraq - not surrender


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Americans support victory in Iraq - not surrender




absolutely.  the deomcrat's funding bill, which Americans DO support, clearly has nothing to do with surrendering anything, despite your continued misuse of the word to denigrate it.  America isn't buying that line of shit...they know what the bill does and it does not surrender anything to our enemies.  It forces Iraq to stand up and take ownership of their own problems.


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve 44
Disapprove 54 
Unsure 2 

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor 57 
Oppose 41
Unsure 2

*how come you won't discuss these questions?*


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> absolutely.  the deomcrat's funding bill, which Americans DO support, clearly has nothing to do with surrendering anything, despite your continued misuse of the word to denigrate it.  America isn't buying that line of shit...they know what the bill does and it does not surrender anything to our enemies.  It forces Iraq to stand up and take ownership of their own problems.



They are surrendering to the terrorists

Remmber, White Flag Harry told the troops the war is lost


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They are surrendering to the terrorists
> 
> Remmber, White Flag Harry told the troops the war is lost



you keep repeating the same tired old lie....got anything new?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> you keep repeating the same tired old lie....got anything new?



Not a tried old lie

White Flag Harry did tell the troops the war is lost


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not a tried old lie
> 
> White Flag Harry did tell the troops the war is lost




tired old lie: the "surrender bill" lie.  America doesn't buy it.  but you keep trying to sell it.  the american people support the democrat's funding plan with deadlines.  it is NOT a surrender bill.  America does not see it as a surrender bill.  they see it as the right thing to do.  deal with it.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> tired old lie: the "surrender bill" lie.  America doesn't buy it.  but you keep trying to sell it.  the american people support the democrat's funding plan with deadlines.  it is NOT a surrender bill.  America does not see it as a surrender bill.  they see it as the right thing to do.  deal with it.



Looking at the approval ratings 63% of the voters do not like the actions of the Surrender Congress


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Looking at the approval ratings 63% of the voters do not like the actions of the Surrender Congress



they may not like the sum total of all the actions (and inactions) of CONGRESS (congress- made up of nearly equal amounts of both parties) but they DO like the democrat's funding plan for the war.  THAT much they like a lot.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> they may not like the sum total of all the actions (and inactions) of CONGRESS (congress- made up of nearly equal amounts of both parties) but they DO like the democrat's funding plan for the war.  THAT much they like a lot.



Dems are in control - it is their approval rating


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are in control - it is their approval rating




no...it is an approval rating of congress.... which is nearly 50/50.  Show me a question that asks how the people feel about democratic leadership versus the president.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...it is an approval rating of congress.... which is nearly 50/50.  Show me a question that asks how the people feel about democratic leadership versus the president.



Realclearpolitics.com

ALL the polls are there and they take the average of all of them


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Realclearpolitics.com
> 
> ALL the polls are there and they take the average of all of them



those polls do not ask what people think of democratic leadership of congress, but what they think of congress overall.  

which was my point.  thanks for providing another link that makes it for me.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> those polls do not ask what people think of democratic leadership of congress, but what they think of congress overall.
> 
> which was my point.  thanks for providing another link that makes it for me.



It show what a low opinion of the Dem Congress the voters have


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It show what a low opinion of the Dem Congress the voters have



it shows what a low opinion they have of congress.... not democrats in congress.

polls also show that the public solidly supports the democratic funding bill with deadlines.  you seem to not want to acknowledge that one.

I wonder why????


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

I said:

*Show me a question that asks how the people feel about democratic leadership versus the president*

you replied with www.realpolitics.com

and it doesn't show any questions like that...which was MY point.  Thanks again.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> I said:
> 
> *Show me a question that asks how the people feel about democratic leadership versus the president*
> 
> ...





MM I am very sorry

When I post wrong info I admit it

The Dems have even a lower approval number then I have been posting


May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll 

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.

Congressional Job Approval

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress. 

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> it shows what a low opinion they have of congress.... not democrats in congress.
> 
> polls also show that the public solidly supports the democratic funding bill with deadlines.  you seem to not want to acknowledge that one.
> 
> I wonder why????



The dems ran on the "culture of corruption" issue. Earmarks was a big part of the subject. When they submitted the surrender bill Bush vetoed, it contained 22 billion in earmarks. 

They have lead a very pathetic congress, so far.


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

again.... what does the low approval rating of congress have to do with the fact that a majority of Americans support the democrat's troop funding bill with deadlines?  I disapproved of nearly everything that Bush has done in the white house, but I was an enthusiastic supporter of his invasion of Afghanistan, for example.

you keep running away from the fact that a majority of Americans approved of the funding bill as submitted to the president and disapproved of his veto of it.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> again.... what does the low approval rating of congress have to do with the fact that a majority of Americans support the democrat's troop funding bill with deadlines?  I disapproved of nearly everything that Bush has done in the white house, but I was an enthusiastic supporter of his invasion of Afghanistan, for example.
> 
> you keep running away from the fact that a majority of Americans approved of the funding bill as submitted to the president and disapproved of his veto of it.



The voters support a funding bill

They oppose a surrender bill

That is why Dems are sinking in the polls


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The voters support a funding bill
> 
> They oppose a surrender bill
> 
> That is why Dems are sinking in the polls



you just can't quite bring yourself to admit that the public approved of the DEMOCRAT'S FUNDING BILL WITH DEADLINES that they submitted to the president..... the majority of AMerica was FOR IT as written and was AGAINST the president's veto of it.

pathetic how you cannot accept the truth.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you just can't quite bring yourself to admit that the public approved of the DEMOCRAT'S FUNDING BILL WITH DEADLINES that they submitted to the president..... the majority of AMerica was FOR IT as written and was AGAINST the president's veto of it.
> 
> pathetic how you cannot accept the truth.



I hope your "majority" keeps growing

Dems will be in the single digits by next month


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

what do you say to the fact that a majority of americans supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines and did not support Bush's veto of it?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> what do you say to the fact that a majority of americans supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines and did not support Bush's veto of it?



As I said, the people support a funding bill -which Dems did not send to PRes Bush

They oppose a surrender bill - which is what Dems sent to Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As I said, the people support a funding bill -which Dems did not send to PRes Bush
> 
> They oppose a surrender bill - which is what Dems sent to Pres Bush



funny.  I posted solid polling figures which say exactly the opposite.  The majority of the American people supported the bill the democrats sent to Bush that included deadlines and they opposed Bush's veto of that bill.  you can deny that all you like, but the numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> funny.  I posted solid polling figures which say exactly the opposite.  The majority of the American people supported the bill the democrats sent to Bush that included deadlines and they opposed Bush's veto of that bill.  you can deny that all you like, but the numbers speak for themselves.



Gallup has the Dem Congres with LOWER numbers then Pres Bush

My how that must piss off liberals like you


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

I posted solid polling figures which  show that the majority of the American people supported the bill the democrats sent to Bush that included deadlines and they opposed Bush's veto of that bill. you can deny that all you like, but the numbers speak for themselves.

*quit running away.  address that point or shut the fuck up*


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I posted solid polling figures which  show that the majority of the American people supported the bill the democrats sent to Bush that included deadlines and they opposed Bush's veto of that bill. you can deny that all you like, but the numbers speak for themselves.
> 
> *quit running away.  address that point or shut the fuck up*



Then why are Dems numbers tanking?


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are Dems numbers tanking?



answer my question first and then I will answer yours.

you cannot continue to avoid answering questions posed to you and still keep tossing out questions that you expect others to answer.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> answer my question first and then I will answer yours.
> 
> you cannot continue to avoid answering questions posed to you and still keep tossing out questions that you expect others to answer.



keep ducking and trying to spin the numbers


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> keep ducking and trying to spin the numbers




wow.  that is truly amazing that you, of all people, would say that!  How am I spinning any numbers?  the poll question was clear and unambiguous.  Do you support the demcorat's funding bill that they sent to the president that contained troop withdrawal deadlines?  A majority of Americans said yes.  Do you support the president's veto of that bill?  a majority of Americans said no.

YOU are the one who is spinning....trying to make congressional approval ratings synonymous with democratic approval ratings when the poll questions do not even mention political parties.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> wow.  that is truly amazing that you, of all people, would say that!  How am I spinning any numbers?  the poll question was clear and unambiguous.  Do you support the demcorat's funding bill that they sent to the president that contained troop withdrawal deadlines?  A majority of Americans said yes.  Do you support the president's veto of that bill?  a majority of Americans said no.
> 
> YOU are the one who is spinning....trying to make congressional approval ratings synonymous with democratic approval ratings when the poll questions do not even mention political parties.



 The Gallup poll showsyour beloved Dems with a lower approval number then Pres Bush

The voters are seeing the Dems played them for suckers


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The Gallup poll showsyour beloved Dems with a lower approval number then Pres Bush
> 
> The voters are seeing the Dems played them for suckers



the gallup poll does not mention party...it only mentions congress....

the polling questions which you run away from are quite specific.  Address them, please


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> the gallup poll does not mention party...it only mentions congress....
> 
> the polling questions which you run away from are quite specific.  Address them, please



Who is running Congress?


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Who is running Congress?




one more time:  quit asking questions until you have answered a few.

to do otherwise is really impolite.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> one more time:  quit asking questions until you have answered a few.
> 
> to do otherwise is really impolite.



Ok I will stop hitting you with facts

It makes your head hurt


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Ok I will stop hitting you with facts
> 
> It makes your head hurt




hit me with facts all you like...I will address them, but not until after you have at least answered a few of my questions.  It is only fair if you continue to ask that you also answer once in a while.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> hit me with facts all you like...I will address them, but not until after you have at least answered a few of my questions.  It is only fair if you continue to ask that you also answer once in a while.



You mean you will ignore and attempt to spin them


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

I have an idea:  why don't you tell me what YOU mean, instead of inaccurately trying to tell me what I mean?  

Why not address the two very specific poll questions which directly contradict your assertions that america did not support the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines?

now really....quit spinning and ducking ....just tell me how you can say one thing when polling data clearly shows the exact opposite?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have an idea:  why don't you tell me what YOU mean, instead of inaccurately trying to tell me what I mean?
> 
> Why not address the two very specific poll questions which directly contradict your assertions that america did not support the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines?
> 
> now really....quit spinning and ducking ....just tell me how you can say one thing when polling data clearly shows the exact opposite?





You do hate polls that show the Dems are losing support


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

overall support?  that is not the issue here....

the poll question was specific as to the American people's feelings about the democratic war funding plan that contained troop withdrawal deadlines.  The polling data shows that a majority of the American people support that bill.  the polling data shows that a majority of the American people do NOT support Bush's veto of that bill.  Please address those specific poll questions and their results in light of your assertions that seem to be exactly opposite of that.  How do you explain the polling numbers for those two questions?


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3%


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> overall support?  that is not the issue here....
> 
> the poll question was specific as to the American people's feelings about the democratic war funding plan that contained troop withdrawal deadlines.  The polling data shows that a majority of the American people support that bill.  the polling data shows that a majority of the American people do NOT support Bush's veto of that bill.  Please address those specific poll questions and their results in light of your assertions that seem to be exactly opposite of that.  How do you explain the polling numbers for those two questions?



Again, the voters have no problem with a war funding bill

They oppose the surrender provision


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> overall support?  that is not the issue here....
> 
> the poll question was specific as to the American people's feelings about the democratic war funding plan that contained troop withdrawal deadlines.  The polling data shows that a majority of the American people support that bill.  the polling data shows that a majority of the American people do NOT support Bush's veto of that bill.  Please address those specific poll questions and their results in light of your assertions that seem to be exactly opposite of that.  How do you explain the polling numbers for those two questions?



Get over it MM - people do not want to surrender and lose in Iraq

Maybe the Dems will get it when their keep dropping


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Get over it MM - people do not want to surrender and lose in Iraq
> 
> Maybe the Dems will get it when their keep dropping



can you or can you not address these polling results?

*"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3% *


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> can you or can you not address these polling results?
> 
> *"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> 
> ...



The folks oppsoe surrender MM - libs can call iot whatever they want

Surrender is surrender

The US lose and the terrorists win


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The folks oppsoe surrender MM - libs can call iot whatever they want
> 
> Surrender is surrender
> 
> The US lose and the terrorists win




57% of the people clearly support setting a timetable for the removal of the troops.  Explain that.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> 57% of the people clearly support setting a timetable for the removal of the troops.  Explain that.



27% support the Dems and their surrender plan


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

57% support the bill.... it is not a surrender plan...it is a funding plan with withdrawal deadlines.  How do you explain that 57% answer?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> 57% support the bill.... it is not a surrender plan...it is a funding plan with withdrawal deadlines.  How do you explain that 57% answer?



Voters do not want to lose the war as Dems want to

Newt month if the Dems numbers are lower - and you will keep making excuses


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> 57% support the bill.... it is not a surrender plan...it is a funding plan with withdrawal deadlines.  How do you explain that 57% answer?



you failed to even address this question at all.  Explain the 57%

can you?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you failed to even address this question at all.  Explain the 57%
> 
> can you?



Dems are going down fast in the opinion of the voters

Surrender is not an option while the troops are fighting


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are going down fast in the opinion of the voters
> 
> Surrender is not an option while the troops are fighting



you still didn't address the question...explain the 57%


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you still didn't address the question...explain the 57%



57% want the funding bill without the surrender part


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> 57% want the funding bill without the surrender part




that is not what the poll question asked.  Where do you get such an interpretation?  Here it is again:

*"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3% *


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is not what the poll question asked.  Where do you get such an interpretation?  Here it is again:
> 
> *"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> 
> ...



On one poll Dems crow they have support for their surrender bill

The another shows a 29% approval rating

I see it as the voters rejecting the surrender bill and the Dems long trail of broken promises


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

one poll????

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"    .
Favor   34
Oppose 65
Unsure  1  


USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 4-6, 2007      .

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve   30
Disapprove   67
Unsure     3  

"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?"      .

Wait Until  Situation Gets Better   36
Stick to aTimetable 59
Unsure  5    


Quinnipiac University Poll. April 25-May 1, 2007

"Do you support or oppose Congress setting a time-table for withdrawing all United States troops from Iraq?

Support   51
Oppose   45
Unsure    4


Gallup Poll. April 23-26, 2007

If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"          
Setting aTimetable for Removing Troops   57
Keeping Troops As Long as Necessary   39
Unsure   3  


*"one poll"???? bullshit!!!!!*


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> one poll????
> 
> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007
> 
> ...



All the polls show the Dems numbers tanking

Keep pushing for surrender and keep breaking all the promisies MM 

Dems numbers will keep going down


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

The Bush haters and the liberal media enjoyed the low approval numbers for Pres Bush 

Now the Dems have a LOWER number then Pres Bush

In Jan, with all the glowing coverage from the liberl media, their approval was 44%

Today it is 29%

Tell me again how the Dems have the support of the Amercian people


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> All the polls show the Dems numbers tanking
> 
> Keep pushing for surrender and keep breaking all the promisies MM
> 
> Dems numbers will keep going down



all these polls show that the public approves of the democrat's funding bill that includes withdrawal deadlines.  Why do you avoid addressing that point?


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The Bush haters and the liberal media enjoyed the low approval numbers for Pres Bush
> 
> Now the Dems have a LOWER number then Pres Bush
> 
> ...



tell me again how the polls I listed do not clearly show that the american people suppport the democrat's on funding the war with deadlines for withdrawal.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> all these polls show that the public approves of the democrat's funding bill that includes withdrawal deadlines.  Why do you avoid addressing that point?



It seems your own party can't agree when to surrender

They voted against cutting off funding yesterday

Soros is one pissed off Sugar Daddy this morning


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It seems your own party can't agree when to surrender
> 
> They voted against cutting off funding yesterday
> 
> Soros is one pissed off Sugar Daddy this morning



why can't you address the poll questions I listed?  Why do you continually run away from all news that is bad for your party?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> why can't you address the poll questions I listed?  Why do you continually run away from all news that is bad for your party?



What bad news?

Dems have fallen on their as and can't get up

The poll numbers for Dems is LOWER then Pres Bush's numbers


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What bad news?
> 
> Dems have fallen on their as and can't get up
> 
> *The poll numbers for Dems is LOWER then Pres Bush's numbers*



oh really?  I think the numbers below show that is bullshit.  And I think the number from the previous poll questions clearly show that Americans favor the democrat's funding bill WITH WITHDRAWAL deadlines

_*PRESIDENT BUSH * Overall Job Rating in recent national polls 


Approve   *33%*
Disapprove   62%
Unsure   5%

 The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How would you rate the job *Democrats in Congress *are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"



Excellent/Pretty Good  *35%*
Only Fair/Poor   58%

"How would you rate the job *Republicans in Congress *are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Excellent/Pretty Good  *22%*
Only Fair/Poor   74%_ 


spin that.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.



No spin - just the facts


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> May 15, 2007
> Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
> Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
> 
> ...



no...it is spin.  I showed you polling data which differentiates the parties oncongress...I showed you polling data which shows that republicans have a 13% lower rating than congressional democrats.... and you ignore it.... 

just like you ignore anything that doesn't fit for you.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...it is spin.  I showed you polling data which differentiates the parties oncongress...I showed you polling data which shows that republicans have a 13% lower rating than congressional democrats.... and you ignore it....
> 
> just like you ignore anything that doesn't fit for you.



Gallup has your Dems sinking

and the Dems are not delivering on their promises


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

What is your response to the Harris poll which puts democrats 13% above republicans?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> What is your response to the Harris poll which puts democrats 13% above republicans?



If you call that number a success - go for it

Dems were so cocky in January, now they are sulking over their inability to ram their surredner aganda through


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If you call that number a success - go for it
> 
> Dems were so cocky in January, now they are sulking over their inability to ram their surredner aganda through



what do you have to say about the 13% point lower score for congressional republicans and what do you have to say about the fact that democrats in congress not only score higher than republicans in congress, but democrats alone in congress score better than the president?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> what do you have to say about the 13% point lower score for congressional republicans and what do you have to say about the fact that democrats in congress not only score higher than republicans in congress, but democrats alone in congress score better than the president?



The DEM Congress is LOWER then Pres Bush

San Fran Nan and White Flag harry is leading your party over the cliff

I will step aside and let them go forward


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The DEM Congress is LOWER then Pres Bush
> 
> San Fran Nan and White Flag harry is leading your party over the cliff
> 
> I will step aside and let them go forward



quit running away from my questions..... you are embarrassing yourself and all conservatives on here:

what do you have to say about the 13% point lower score for congressional republicans and what do you have to say about the fact that democrats in congress not only score higher than republicans in congress, but democrats alone in congress score better than the president?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit running away from my questions..... you are embarrassing yourself and all conservatives on here:
> 
> what do you have to say about the 13% point lower score for congressional republicans and what do you have to say about the fact that democrats in congress not only score higher than republicans in congress, but democrats alone in congress score better than the president?



I am not

Dems are running things on Capital Hill - and they are the ones who cannot accomplish anything

Voters are seeing them for the losers they are


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am not
> 
> Dems are running things on Capital Hill - and they are the ones who cannot accomplish anything
> 
> Voters are seeing them for the losers they are



you are running away from the Harris poll numbers..... 

when will you ever get around to discussing those numbers and all the other specific poll questions from multiple polls which show the public supporting the democra't funding bill that contained withdrawal deadlines?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are running away from the Harris poll numbers.....
> 
> when will you ever get around to discussing those numbers and all the other specific poll questions from multiple polls which show the public supporting the democra't funding bill that contained withdrawal deadlines?



Not running at all

I am taking great delight in watching the Dems fall apart

The only bad thing is watching Dems fuck over the troops for their own political reasons


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not running at all
> 
> I am taking great delight in watching the Dems fall apart
> 
> The only bad thing is watching Dems fuck over the troops for their own political reasons




*no...you are running away*.

I asked you to discuss the disparity in the Harris poll between approval ratings for congressional democrats versus republicans.... *you run away.*

I asked you to discuss the specific polling questions which show a majority of americans supporting the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines.... *you run away*.

*Stop running*.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> *no...you are running away*.
> 
> I asked you to discuss the disparity in the Harris poll between approval ratings for congressional democrats versus republicans.... *you run away.*
> 
> ...



Who is running?

The Dems numbers have been going downhill - and you want to avoid admitting it


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> *no...you are running away*.
> 
> I asked you to discuss the disparity in the Harris poll between approval ratings for congressional democrats versus republicans.... *you run away.*
> 
> ...




if you are not running away from these questions, then answer them.  If you don't answer them, that is clear and concise evidence of the fact that you are running away from them.  Address them or run away.  take your pick.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you are not running away from these questions, then answer them.  If you don't answer them, that is clear and concise evidence of the fact that you are running away from them.  Address them or run away.  take your pick.



Who is running?

Perhaps the poll you grab onto had a bigger sample of Dems

The fact is, the numbers for Dems have gone down since they took power

Get over it MM


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Who is running?
> 
> Perhaps the poll you grab onto had a bigger sample of Dems
> 
> ...


you are running.  you cannot address issues brought to you...you run away from them.

If you weren't running, you would be able to stop and address the 13% disparity.  You can't....because you are running away from it.

If you weren't running, you would be able to stop and address the clear polling data which shows that the majority of Americans support the democrat's plan to fund the war with withdrawal deadlines.... YOu can't becuase you are running away from it.

Let me know when you grow a set of balls and want to discuss those points.

chasing you around the board as you run away from anything that you don't want to deal with is boring.

you run away.

fly fly


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are running.  you cannot address issues brought to you...you run away from them.
> 
> If you weren't running, you would be able to stop and address the 13% disparity.  You can't....because you are running away from it.
> 
> ...



Congress is in trouble and may sink lower before the two years are up..  it's not a good sign starting out their two years with such low ratings..


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

run away little boy...run away from the tough questions.

you are pathetic and a waste of my time.

but keep running.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> run away little boy...run away from the tough questions.
> 
> you are pathetic and a waste of my time.
> 
> but keep running.



The pathetic one is San Fran Nan

Since she cannot get her liberal BS passed she now changes the rules

And this is how Pelosi thinks that you "reach across the aisle" in non partisan negations.



PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM 
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET 

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority. 

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

no...you are pathetic.  a coward who is chased around the board running away from questions.  that is what you do.  you run away.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you are pathetic.  a coward who is chased around the board running away from questions.  that is what you do.  you run away.



I am right here - driving you nuts with facts


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am right here - driving you nuts with facts



you are "here", as in "online"  "logged in"... but you are always running.  you do not have the courage or the intellect to stand and discuss issues.  You like to bring up the democrat's poll numbers but will not stand and debate the clear data I bring from polls.

you run away from answering every question.... because you are a coward.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are "here", as in "online"  "logged in"... but you are always running.  you do not have the courage or the intellect to stand and discuss issues.  You like to bring up the democrat's poll numbers but will not stand and debate the clear data I bring from polls.
> 
> you run away from answering every question.... because you are a coward.



and you are a angry liberal who sees his party falling apart and can't accept it


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you are a angry liberal who sees his party falling apart and can't accept it




I am not angry at all.  I see my party struggling to find a way to do the people's business and move their agenda forward.... I am seeing my party trying to end a terrible mistake in Iraq and I see the people solidly behind their efforts to do so.... I see a public that is growing uneasy at the inaction in washington about the war,  But I certainly do not see my party falling apart.... and I wonder what you think the 13% disparity says about how poorly the american public thinks of YOUR party.

I ask you questions.  simple questions.  you are either too frightened to answer or you are too ignorant to answer....I have no idea which, I only know that you run away from everything.  

let me know when you grow a set of balls.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not angry at all.  I see my party struggling to find a way to do the people's business and move their agenda forward.... I am seeing my party trying to end a terrible mistake in Iraq and I see the people solidly behind their efforts to do so.... I see a public that is growing uneasy at the inaction in washington about the war,  But I certainly do not see my party falling apart.... and I wonder what you think the 13% disparity says about how poorly the american public thinks of YOUR party.
> 
> I ask you questions.  simple questions.  you are either too frightened to answer or you are too ignorant to answer....I have no idea which, I only know that you run away from everything.
> 
> let me know when you grow a set of balls.



It's going to get worse..the leadership in the congress has absolutely no idea what the people of this country expect of them..except what they get from the moveon.. Sheehan, Soros camps...and that IS NOT the majority of the voters of this country...

and your anger will grow


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

like I said...if you want to discuss issues, and ask questions and answer questions, you let me know.

When you have quit running from anything that you don't like..... just stop and answer my questions and we'll be all set.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said...if you want to discuss issues, and ask questions and answer questions, you let me know.
> 
> When you have quit running from anything that you don't like..... just stop and answer my questions and we'll be all set.



I have answered them

One of your many problems is you want people to debate your way and answer your questions the way you want them to answer

Facts have never mattered much to you


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

your "answer" to the 13% disparity in the Harris poll is that they MAY have a higher democratic sample.  That is not a valid answer.  To suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll does not know how to normalize data...to suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll is a partisan poll....

to suggest that as your "answer" for the 13% disparity is cowardly and pathetic and continued evidence of your running away from everything.

when you grow a set of balls.... you be sure and let me know, OK?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> your "answer" to the 13% disparity in the Harris poll is that they MAY have a higher democratic sample.  That is not a valid answer.  To suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll does not know how to normalize data...to suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll is a partisan poll....
> 
> to suggest that as your "answer" for the 13% disparity is cowardly and pathetic and continued evidence of your running away from everything.
> 
> when you grow a set of balls.... you be sure and let me know, OK?



Logic is not one of your stronger points MM

Are you wanting borrow a pair son - try sucking it up and getting your own


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM 
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET 

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority. 

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

That's how ALOT of little children handle it when they don't get their way - they throw a temper tantrum.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> your "answer" to the 13% disparity in the Harris poll is that they MAY have a higher democratic sample.  That is not a valid answer.  To suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll does not know how to normalize data...to suggest that is to suggest that the Harris poll is a partisan poll....
> 
> to suggest that as your "answer" for the 13% disparity is cowardly and pathetic and continued evidence of your running away from everything.
> 
> when you grow a set of balls.... you be sure and let me know, OK?



I should have know not to clog your pea brain with logic and reason


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

If you claim that your suggestion that explanation as to the 13% disparity between congressional democrats and republicans is that the Harris poll is biased .... if that claim is an example of your "logic and reason", we really don't speak the same language, I guess.

from my vantage....you don't have an answer to that question..... so you run away from it.

every day...every question..... run away....run away.


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

so...if you think Harris is biased, let's look at some others, shall we?

*ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.* 

_"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Democrats in Congress *are doing their job?"

Approve  *54% *
Disapprove  44% 
Unsure  2%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Republicans in Congress *are doing their job?"

Approve  *39% *
Disapprove   59%
Unsure  2%_ 

*USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.* 

_"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Democrats in Congress *are handling their job?"

Approve  *41%*
Disapprove  50% 
Unsure  9%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Republicans in Congress *are handling their job?"

Approve   *33%*
Disapprove  59% 
Unsure  8%
_ 

*All I am saying is:  if I were a REPUBLICAN and my party had those sorts of approval numbers when compared to DEMOCRATS, I don't think I would be crowing too much about poll numbers*


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

who wants to bet that RSR won't spin and dance and avoid answering that question?  

Or perhaps he'll just claim that those polls called more democrats than republicans..... 

Clearly, America is not thrilled with the performance of Congress - they rarely are.... but equally clearly, America is much less disappointed with Democrats than they are with Republicans.

Clearly, a majority of American's supported the democrat's troop funding bill that included withdrawal deadlines - and did NOT support Bush's veto of that bill... even though RSR tries desperately to avoid answering that as well.


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

RSR.... let's see how you can avoid addressing the substance of these latest poll numbers.

are you gonna suggest that the sample size MAY have had more democrats and that's why it should be ignored?


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR.... let's see how you can avoid addressing the substance of these latest poll numbers.
> 
> are you gonna suggest that the sample size MAY have had more democrats and that's why it should be ignored?



I have addressed the Gallop that shows the Dem Congress has lower numbers then Pres Bush

I know it depresses the hell out of you - but that what happens when a political party pushes for surrender


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have addressed the Gallop that shows the Dem Congress has lower numbers then Pres Bush
> 
> I know it depresses the hell out of you - but that what happens when a political party pushes for surrender



and I have addressed the Gallup poll results as well.  YOu have not addressed the quinnipiac poll which was the subject of this thread.  If you have no intention of addressing the very subject of a thread, why spam it with a bunch of bullshit?  Address the polling data that I have presented in this thread or run away from it.... if you want to start a thread about the fucking gallop poll... feel free.  This thread is not about that poll.  talk about this poll and this thread or run away...it really is that simple.

fly fly


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I have addressed the Gallup poll results as well.  YOu have not addressed the quinnipiac poll which was the subject of this thread.  If you have no intention of addressing the very subject of a thread, why spam it with a bunch of bullshit?  Address the polling data that I have presented in this thread or run away from it.... if you want to start a thread about the fucking gallop poll... feel free.  This thread is not about that poll.  talk about this poll and this thread or run away...it really is that simple.
> 
> fly fly



as I said, it may have had a bigger Dem sample

It would not be the first time it happened


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> as I said, it may have had a bigger Dem sample
> 
> It would not be the first time it happened



lol


you know that Gallup poll you keep touting?

It is fucking *WORTHLESS* why?  because it may have had a bigger republican sample.  It would not be the first time.  *THE GALLUP POLL IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS PRINTED ON!  QUIT MENTIONING IT!!!!*


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

DO ALL THESE HAVE BIGGER DEMOCRATIC SAMPLES TOO?  DO RESPECTED POLLING ORGANIZATIONS NOT KNOW HOW TO NORMALIZE POLLING RESULTS?



maineman said:


> so...if you think Harris is biased, let's look at some others, shall we?
> 
> *ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.*
> 
> ...


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> lol
> 
> 
> you know that Gallup poll you keep touting?
> ...



Poll after poll has shown the Dems going down - are all of them wrong?

To you perhaps


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Poll after poll has shown the Dems going down - are all of them wrong?
> 
> To you perhaps



you talk about "poll after poll".... take a moment to address the polls and the polling questions and results that I have posted here.  And until you do that, do not post any more sentences in this thread that end in a question mark.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> you talk about "poll after poll".... take a moment to address the polls and the polling questions and results that I have posted here.  And until you do that, do not post any more sentences in this thread that end in a question mark.



Oh, back to debating your way or no way


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh, back to debating your way or no way



this is a thread I started specifically about the quinnipiac poll.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion of that poll?  If not....just run away.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> this is a thread I started specifically about the quinnipiac poll.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion of that poll?  If not....just run away.



Pointin out your poll is somewhat lacking the current numbers

Dems have a lower approval rating then Pres Bush


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Pointin out your poll is somewhat lacking the current numbers
> 
> Dems have a lower approval rating then Pres Bush




keep running away.

the quinnipiac poll specifically discusses issues....do you care to discuss them and the results of that poll, or will you just attribute any poll that doesn't go your way to a larger democratic sample size.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep running away.
> 
> the quinnipiac poll specifically discusses issues....do you care to discuss them and the results of that poll, or will you just attribute any poll that doesn't go your way to a larger democratic sample size.



Ah yes, the ignore button is blocking the facts from getting thru


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

why is it that you continue to ignore the polling questions I post that don't support your position?  Why can't you even discuss them? 

why are you so afraid of confronting conflicting opinions?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> why is it that you continue to ignore the polling questions I post that don't support your position?  Why can't you even discuss them?
> 
> why are you so afraid of confronting conflicting opinions?



Things are not looking good for the Dems

In the polls, their inabiltiy to get things done, and now their desperate plan to change the rukes of Congress


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Things are not looking good for the Dems
> 
> In the polls, their inabiltiy to get things done, and now their desperate plan to change the rukes of Congress



answer the questions. 

Why are you avoiding the quinnipiac poll? 

why are you avoiding the Harris poll?

why are you avoiding the ABC News/Washington Post Poll? 

why are you avoiding the USA Today/Gallup Poll?

I have posted specific questions from each of these polls and your best rejoinder has been "the polls MAY have had a larger democratic sample"????

Do you understand that you are claiming that these polls are all partisan and biased as your only defense against their substance?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> answer the questions.
> 
> Why are you avoiding the quinnipiac poll?
> 
> ...




I am not

The Dems on actions show they believe they have to something to turn their sinking public opinion - as well as appese Sugar Daddy Soros


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am not
> 
> The Dems on actions show they believe they have to something to turn their sinking public opinion - as well as appese Sugar Daddy Soros



if you are not avoiding the polling questions I posted, prove it by actually addressing what they say.

address the quinnipiac poll question I posted.
address the Harris poll questions I posted
address the ABC News/Washington Post Poll questions I posted
address the USA Today/Gallup Poll questions I posted.

if not, then you ARE avoiding them.

run away.  fly fly little boy.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you are not avoiding the polling questions I posted, prove it by actually addressing what they say.
> 
> address the quinnipiac poll question I posted.
> address the Harris poll questions I posted
> ...




I saw the polls MM - they are the ones who want to talk about

The Gallup is the one you want to ignore

Dems are in deep shit right now and they know it - perhaps you should admit it


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I saw the polls MM - they are the ones who want to talk about
> 
> The Gallup is the one you want to ignore
> 
> Dems are in deep shit right now and they know it - perhaps you should admit it




You are the one who avoids the polls.  Talk about what those poll questions I posted indicate about America's support for the democrat's funding bill with deadlines....talk about it...don't run away from it.

and I most certainly do not run away from the Gallup poll:

_USA Today/*Gallup Poll*. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. 

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Democrats in Congress *are handling their job?"

Approve *41%*
Disapprove 50% 
Unsure 9%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the *Republicans in Congress *are handling their job?"

Approve *33%*
Disapprove 59% 
Unsure 8%_

*sure looks to me like americans are a lot less disappointed with MY party than they are with YOURS.

and democrats in congress have a 41% approval rating on the Gallup Poll.  Bush has a 33% approval rating on the Gallup poll.  Address THAT.*


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

Try again

Dems have a 36.7% approval

and a 55% DISAPPROVAL


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


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Try again
> 
> Dems have a 36.7% approval
> 
> ...



*no...YOU try again...Congress has a 36.7 approval rating, but when asked to differentiate between democrats and republicans, the people give democrats a 41% rating and the republicans only a 33% rating...which is the same as Bush.. both congressional republicans and the president have worse ratings than congressional democrats....in YOUR Gallup poll...which you claimed that I was avoiding.  Now that I have addressed the Gallup poll.... you need to address the others listed.  YOUR turn.

or will you keep running away?    *


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> *no...YOU try again...Congress has a 36.7 approval rating, but when asked to differentiate between democrats and republicans, the people give democrats a 41&#37; rating and the republicans only a 33% rating...which is the same as Bush.. both congressional republicans and the president have worse ratings than congressional democrats....in YOUR Gallup poll...which you claimed that I was avoiding.  Now that I have addressed the Gallup poll.... you need to address the others listed.  YOUR turn.
> 
> or will you keep running away?    *



Did you bother to look at the link?

ALL the polls are averaged

BTW, your polls are older then the Gallup


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Did you bother to look at the link?
> 
> ALL the polls are averaged
> 
> BTW, your polls are older then the Gallup



I did look at the link...the poll question was about Congress..... 

I posted polling numbers that differentiate...and you ignore them.

run away...run away....


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

now when are you going to quit ignoring the poll questions that I have posted here about Americans support for the democratic funding bill that contained withdrawal deadlines?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> now when are you going to quit ignoring the poll questions that I have posted here about Americans support for the democratic funding bill that contained withdrawal deadlines?



If that is the case - why are the Dems numbers in the politcal toilet?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If that is the case - why are the Dems numbers in the politcal toilet?



why do you keep avoiding the poll questions that I posted?  I showed you where democrats in congress have a higher poll rating than both republicans in congress and the president and I showed you where a significant majority of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill.... and you continue to run away from those FACTS.... like a fucking girlieman.  Quit being a pussy RSR.  address the poll question that is the subject of this thread...or run away from it...but don't sit here in this thread about this polling question and continue to avoid it.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you keep avoiding the poll questions that I posted?  I showed you where democrats in congress have a higher poll rating than both republicans in congress and the president and I showed you where a significant majority of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill.... and you continue to run away from those FACTS.... like a fucking girlieman.  Quit being a pussy RSR.  address the poll question that is the subject of this thread...or run away from it...but don't sit here in this thread about this polling question and continue to avoid it.



If you consider 40% a grweat poll number then go for it

The average for the DEM RUN CONGRESS is a lowly 36.7%

You are the pussy son - you will never admit your party has fucked up badly


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If you consider 40% a grweat poll number then go for it
> 
> The average for the DEM RUN CONGRESS is a lowly 36.7%
> 
> You are the pussy son - you will never admit your party has fucked up badly


I consider 41% better than 33%.  Don't you?

now address the subject of this thread...quit changing the subject....this thread is about the quinnipiac poll question that reads:

*Quinnipiac Poll May 1st, 2007 

"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3% *


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I consider 41% better than 33%.  Don't you?
> 
> now address the subject of this thread...quit changing the subject....this thread is about the quinnipiac poll question that reads:
> 
> ...



That is only about 7 points lower then when the Dems took over in Jan

Keep up the good work

They might be in single digits by Christmas


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

will you address this thread, please??



maineman said:


> quit changing the subject....this thread is about the quinnipiac poll question that reads:
> 
> *Quinnipiac Poll May 1st, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> will you address this thread, please??



People support a funding bill - not a surredner bill


That is why the Dems numbrs are sinking

and why Pelosi is now changing the rules of the House


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

could you type for me the option from that poll question that garnered 57% of the responses?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> could you type for me the option from that poll question that garnered 57% of the responses?



Keep thinking people are for surrender MM

It will be a cakewalk for Republicans in 08


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> could you type for me the option from that poll question that garnered 57% of the responses?




why can't you do this?  why can't you acknowledge this answer?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep thinking people are for surrender MM
> 
> It will be a cakewalk for Republicans in 08



57% of the people want a deadline to get our troops out of Iraq. period.  deal with it.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

WASHINGTON (AP) - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues. 

An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her. 

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January. 

``It's mostly Iraq'' plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. ``These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an R or a D next to your name.'' 

Democrats agree the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say. 

``People are unhappy, there hasn't been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats' campaign effort. 

The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html









Tell us again how the voters support the Dems Congress again MM


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

quit spamming my thread.  This thread is about a specific question from the Quinnipiac Poll 
_May 1st, 2007 

"If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

*Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%*
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3% _

address it or leave this thread alone for those who do wish to discuss it.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit spamming my thread.  This thread is about a specific question from the Quinnipiac Poll
> _May 1st, 2007
> 
> "If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?"
> ...



Translation - Stop posting CURRENT polls that blast mine out of the water


BTW - this was the first time I posted that article. I did not spam


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

do you have a polling question asked later than May 1st which deals with the public's opinion of the democrat's funding bill?  do you have a polling question later than the harris poll or the gallup poll that I posted that shows the differentiation of the public's opinion of democrats and republicans in congress?

can you ever address the subject of THIS thread?  And if you can't.... just run away...quit throwing up stuff that does not have to do with the question posed in the quinnipiac poll and the response to it which showed clearly, that AMericans are for a withdrawal deadline for our troops.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you have a polling question asked later than May 1st which deals with the public's opinion of the democrat's funding bill?  do you have a polling question later than the harris poll or the gallup poll that I posted that shows the differentiation of the public's opinion of democrats and republicans in congress?
> 
> can you ever address the subject of THIS thread?  And if you can't.... just run away...quit throwing up stuff that does not have to do with the question posed in the quinnipiac poll and the response to it which showed clearly, that AMericans are for a withdrawal deadline for our troops.



Translation - do not confuse the points I am making with facts


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

no...translation.  Quit running away and quit changing the subject of this thread.  I started this thread to get discussion about a specific question from the quinnipiac poll.  If you don't want to talk about that - and I can certainly understand why a cowardly little weasel like you would not want to address that question - then go somewhere else but quit changing the subject here.  

Do you have any thoughts about the quinnipiac question?  or not?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...translation.  Quit running away and quit changing the subject of this thread.  I started this thread to get discussion about a specific question from the quinnipiac poll.  If you don't want to talk about that - and I can certainly understand why a cowardly little weasel like you would not want to address that question - then go somewhere else but quit changing the subject here.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts about the quinnipiac question?  or not?



Yea, it is a little old, and the current ones show the Dems heading south


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, it is a little old, and the current ones show the Dems heading south



That's all you can say?  it is two weeks old?  What do you have to say about the substance of the question?

and you do not have any polls that differentiate the performance of the democrats versus the republicans later than the gallup and harris polls that I already posted?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> That's all you can say?  it is two weeks old?  What do you have to say about the substance of the question?
> 
> and you do not have any polls that differentiate the performance of the democrats versus the republicans later than the gallup and harris polls that I already posted?



and the Gallop is less then a week old

No matter, with each poll Dems are going down faster then a Bill Clinton intern


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and the Gallop is less then a week old
> 
> No matter, with each poll Dems are going down faster then a Bill Clinton intern



do you have the gallup poll that differentiates the performance of the democrats from the republicans?  

why do you refuse to address the subject of this thread? why do you continue to change the subject and run away?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you have the gallup poll that differentiates the performance of the democrats from the republicans?
> 
> why do you refuse to address the subject of this thread? why do you continue to change the subject and run away?



Keep spinning MM maybe one day even you will believe what you say


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

the very latest gallup poll differentiation between democratic and republican performance in congress is the one that I listed.  Can you explain the much lower rating for republicans than democrats?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep spinning MM maybe one day even you will believe what you say



why can't you address the subject of the thread?

what are you so afraid of?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> why can't you address the subject of the thread?
> 
> what are you so afraid of?



I have dumbass

I have shown Dems are lower in the polls then you claim

Truth has always had ab adverse effect on you

Nothing new


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have dumbass
> 
> I have shown Dems are lower in the polls then you claim
> 
> ...




no...you have not.  you have not shown any polling results for democrats in congress later than the ones I posted.  YOu have never explained why 57% of Americans want a deadline for withdrawal of the troops.


you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you have not.  you have not shown any polling results for democrats in congress later than the ones I posted.  YOu have never explained why 57% of Americans want a deadline for withdrawal of the troops.
> 
> 
> you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.



If people are supporting surrendner - why are the Dems approval numbers in the tank?

if the voters want to end the war why did Dems cave on the vote to cut off funding?

Your party can't do anything MM


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If people are supporting surrendner - why are the Dems approval numbers in the tank?
> 
> if the voters want to end the war why did Dems cave on the vote to cut off funding?
> 
> Your party can't do anything MM




you keep running around the question.  DEMOCRATS numbers are not tanking, congress's rankings are, and even if they WERE, it is clear that, at least on the issue of funding the troops, the American people are behind.  Why would 57% of Americans support that bill?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> you keep running around the question.  DEMOCRATS numbers are not tanking, congress's rankings are, and even if they WERE, it is clear that, at least on the issue of funding the troops, the American people are behind.  Why would 57% of Americans support that bill?



People said the Titantic was not sinking also


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> People said the Titantic was not sinking also




you fail to answer the question.  Why would a majority of AMericans back the democrat's plan for funding with withdrawal deadlines if that bill were a surrender bill as you say it is, given that you also claim that AMericans do not support surrender>


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> you fail to answer the question.  Why would a majority of AMericans back the democrat's plan for funding with withdrawal deadlines if that bill were a surrender bill as you say it is, given that you also claim that AMericans do not support surrender>



Well, if you are truly smart, 29% approval rating is not building support.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Well, if you are truly smart, 29% approval rating is not building support.



29% is for congress in general. Americans might overwhelmingly dislike CONGRESS, but 57% of Americans support the democrat's funding plan that contains withdrawal deadlines.  How do you explain that?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> 29% is for congress in general. Americans might overwhelmingly dislike CONGRESS, but 57% of Americans support the democrat's funding plan that contains withdrawal deadlines.  How do you explain that?



Back to trying to say America wants to surredner while ignoring the low approval for the surrender party?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Back to trying to say America wants to surredner while ignoring the low approval for the surrender party?



back to proving that Americans support the democrat's funding plan.  How do you explain the 57% support?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> back to proving that Americans support the democrat's funding plan.  How do you explain the 57% support?



So if 57% support a surrender plan - why do Dems score only a 29% approval rating?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So if 57% support a surrender plan - why do Dems score only a 29% approval rating?



1.  It is not a surrender plan

2.  democrats do not have a 29% approval rating, congress as a whole does

3.  irregardless of what any overall rating is, 57% of Americans think that the democrat's plan for funding the war with deadlines for troop withdrawal is the RIGHT thing to do.  Even if Americans are upset with congress, they LIKE the democrat's stand on funding the troops and setting deadlines for departure.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1.  It is not a surrender plan
> 
> 2.  democrats do not have a 29% approval rating, congress as a whole does
> 
> 3.  irregardless of what any overall rating is, 57% of Americans think that the democrat's plan for funding the war with deadlines for troop withdrawal is the RIGHT thing to do.  Even if Americans are upset with congress, they LIKE the democrat's stand on funding the troops and setting deadlines for departure.



it is a surredner plan, the Democrat Congress has a 29% approval rating, and Dems arrogrance are killing them once again


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> it is a surredner plan, the Democrat Congress has a 29% approval rating, and Dems arrogrance are killing them once again




your spinning and running and hiding won't make any of that true...and it won't make that 57% number go away.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> your spinning and running and hiding won't make any of that true...and it won't make that 57% number go away.



and you can't make the 29% number go away either


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

the 29% number is for congress as a whole.... and democrats score higher than republicans.

the 57% number is for one specific bill....and no matter what else Americans may think of democrats or of congress, they LIKE the democrat's funding bill.....


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> the 29&#37; number is for congress as a whole.... and democrats score higher than republicans.
> 
> the 57% number is for one specific bill....and no matter what else Americans may think of democrats or of congress, they LIKE the democrat's funding bill.....



The voters want a funding bill - they don't want a surrender bill

Maybe when the Dems numbers hit 9% they will understand


----------



## Truthmatters (May 18, 2007)

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/dec06iraq.pdf


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

so now you have to fall back on a Dec 06 article?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The voters want a funding bill - they don't want a surrender bill
> 
> Maybe when the Dems numbers hit 9% they will understand



the democrat's bill never was a surrender bill...that is why 57% of Americans supported ti.

how WILL you run away from that number?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> the democrat's bill never was a surrender bill...that is why 57% of Americans supported ti.
> 
> how WILL you run away from that number?



By making the troops leave is surrender


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> By making the troops leave is surrender



no... it is not... and how DO you explain the 57% of Americans who support the democrat's appraoch?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... it is not... and how DO you explain the 57% of Americans who support the democrat's appraoch?



Once again numbnuts, if the Dems are doing the will of the people - why are the Dems numbers below Pres Bush's?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Once again numbnuts, if the Dems are doing the will of the people - why are the Dems numbers below Pres Bush's?




the dems are doing the will of the people on the troop funding bill.  that is why 57% of americans support it.  and democrats in congress are polling higher than the president and higher than republicans in congress....

it says so right on the webpage of your hgihly touted gallup poll.  go read it and weep.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> the dems are doing the will of the people on the troop funding bill.  that is why 57% of americans support it.  and democrats in congress are polling higher than the president and higher than republicans in congress....
> 
> it says so right on the webpage of your hgihly touted gallup poll.  go read it and weep.



My, it is news that 29% approval is doing the will of the people


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> My, it is news that 29% approval is doing the will of the people




why not acknowledge the "news" that regardless of what Americans think of congress, 57% of them support the democrat's funding plan with deadlines for withdrawal?


it is a tough pill to swallow for you, I know....but open wide, unless you'd like it in the form of a suppository!


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> why not acknowledge the "news" that regardless of what Americans think of congress, 57% of them support the democrat's funding plan with deadlines for withdrawal?
> 
> 
> it is a tough pill to swallow for you, I know....but open wide, unless you'd like it in the form of a suppository!



what is hard to swallow is your lame attempt at spinning the downward trend of your party's poll numbers


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> what is hard to swallow is your lame attempt at spinning the downward trend of your party's poll numbers




why can't you acknowledge that 57% of Americans like the democrat's ideas for funding the war but withdrawing the troops?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> why can't you acknowledge that 57% of Americans like the democrat's ideas for funding the war but withdrawing the troops?



Keep pushing the surrender bill

Come Nov 08 you will be spinning how the voters were stupid and did not understand what the Dems were really trying to accomplish

Then you will be back hoping for failure for the Republican led Congress


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep pushing the surrender bill
> 
> Come Nov 08 you will be spinning how the voters were stupid and did not understand what the Dems were really trying to accomplish
> 
> Then you will be back hoping for failure for the Republican led Congress



I will keep shoving into your face the fact that the bill you mistakenly refer to as the surrender bill -which actually surrenders nothing to no one - that bill is supported by 57% of the AMerican people.

That is what the very first post in this thread clearly shows.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I will keep shoving into your face the fact that the bill you mistakenly refer to as the surrender bill -which actually surrenders nothing to no one - that bill is supported by 57% of the AMerican people.
> 
> That is what the very first post in this thread clearly shows.



The surrender bill is going nowhere

Your party is going down the tubes

Two good things for America


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill is going nowhere
> 
> Your party is going down the tubes
> 
> Two good things for America




the bill was supported by 57% of the American people.  This war has lost the support of the people.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> the bill was supported by 57% of the American people.  This war has lost the support of the people.



Yet they have a 27% approval rating


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yet they have a 27&#37; approval rating




again...who cares?  you are changing the subject.  If I hate the New York Yankees, that does not mean I am incapable of seeing what a great shortstop Derek Jeter is.  I don't care what approval rating for congress you want to keep trotting out....the point is:  AMERICA IS BEHIND THE DEMOCRAT'S FUNDING BILL...and you keep ignoring that fact.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> again...who cares?  you are changing the subject.  If I hate the New York Yankees, that does not mean I am incapable f seeing what a great shortstop Derek Jeter is.  I don't care what approval rating for congress you want to keep trotting out....the point is:  AMERICA IS BEHIND THE DEMOCRAT'S FUNDING BILL...and you keep ignoring that fact.



We all know you do not care about facts MM - you make that very clear on a daily basis


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> We all know you do not care about facts MM - you make that very clear on a daily basis




man...you just cannot bring yourself to admit that 57% of Americans agree with the democrats about funding the troops and requiring withdrawal deadlines.

YOu really have a hard time swallowing that pill, don't you?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> man...you just cannot bring yourself to admit that 57% of Americans agree with the democrats about funding the troops and requiring withdrawal deadlines.
> 
> YOu really have a hard time swallowing that pill, don't you?



Then why are the dems overall numbers in the tank

Dems are so desperate to appease their base (and actually accomplish something) they are changing 200 year old rules of the House

If thigns are so good for the party - why the desperate tactics?


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are the dems overall numbers in the tank
> 
> Dems are so desperate to appease their base (and actually accomplish something) they are changing 200 year old rules of the House
> 
> If thigns are so good for the party - why the desperate tactics?



where the democrat's overall numbers are has absolutely nothing to do with ther fact that 57% of Americans agreed with their bill that you mistakenly refer to as "the surrender bill".  Obviously America doesn't think it is a surrender bill.. they support it.  That is the subject of this thread, which you have continued to spam with all sorts of worthless shit and NEVER bother to address the subject of the thread itself.

57% of Americans agree with congressional democrats that we should fund the troops but set deadlines for their departure.  Either discuss that point - which IS, afterall, the point of this thread - or run away from it and ignore it, but please quit trying to spin your way out of talking about the quinnipiac poll question that it quoted in post #1 of this thread.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> where the democrat's overall numbers are has absolutely nothing to do with ther fact that 57% of Americans agreed with their bill that you mistakenly refer to as "the surrender bill".  Obviously America doesn't think it is a surrender bill.. they support it.  That is the subject of this thread, which you have continued to spam with all sorts of worthless shit and NEVER bother to address the subject of the thread itself.
> 
> 57% of Americans agree with congressional democrats that we should fund the troops but set deadlines for their departure.  Either discuss that point - which IS, afterall, the point of this thread - or run away from it and ignore it, but please quit trying to spin your way out of talking about the quinnipiac poll question that it quoted in post #1 of this thread.



Only you would try to spin the overall low numbers the Dems have has nothing to do with their surrender bill failing

Your party is falling apart and stumbling around looking for some way to get their liberal agenda passed

Meanwhile their kook base is running out of patience - and ready to shut off the cash


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Only you would try to spin the overall low numbers the Dems have has nothing to do with their surrender bill failing
> 
> Your party is falling apart and stumbling around looking for some way to get their liberal agenda passed
> 
> Meanwhile their kook base is running out of patience - and ready to shut off the cash



the "surrender bill" as you inaccurately call it, "failed" for two reasons, and neither of them has anything to do with any public opinion poll as to congressional performance.  The democratic funding bill failed because 1) the president vetoed it, and 2) democrats do not have a veto proof majority in either chamber.

That has NOTHING to do with the fact - that is the subject of this thread and that you continue to avoid like the fucking plague - that 57% of AMericans WANTED that bill to pass and they WANTED the president to sign it...  can you have the balls to address that FACT  - THE VERY SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD WHICH YOU HAVE AVOIDED NOW FOR DAYS????????


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> the "surrender bill" as you inaccurately call it, "failed" for two reasons, and neither of them has anything to do with any public opinion poll as to congressional performance.  The democratic funding bill failed because 1) the president vetoed it, and 2) democrats do not have a veto proof majority in either chamber.
> 
> That has NOTHING to do with the fact - that is the subject of this thread and that you continue to avoid like the fucking plague - that 57% of AMericans WANTED that bill to pass and they WANTED the president to sign it...  can you have the balls to address that FACT  - THE VERY SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD WHICH YOU HAVE AVOIDED NOW FOR DAYS????????



and Dems are going lower in the polls because Americans want to win - not surrender


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and Dems are going lower in the polls because Americans want to win - not surrender




read the opening post in this thread and tell me how that fits with what you just typed.

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> read the opening post in this thread and tell me how that fits with what you just typed.
> 
> I'll wait.



Are you trying to convince yourself or the rest of us all is well in Liberalville?


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

the truth hurts you...I understand... I would spin and run away from numbers like these if I still supported this war:

_CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve   44
*Disapprove   54*
Unsure  2    

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

*Favor 57*
Oppose  41
Unsure  2    _


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> the truth hurts you...I understand... I would spin and run away from numbers like these if I still supported this war:
> 
> _CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3
> 
> ...



and you keep running from the logical reply

if the Dems are doing the will of the people - why are they at 28% overall approval


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you keep running from the logical reply
> 
> if the Dems are doing the will of the people - why are they at 28% overall approval



Democrats are not at 28% approval, congress is.  And the point is not what people think of the entirety of the work of congress...the point of those two poll questions shown above, is that the people supported the democrat's funding plan for Iraq.  They may not support anything else that either party is doing in congress, but they DO support funding with withdrawal deadlines.  Address THAT point THAT is the point of this thread..... if you would like to start another thread about the approval ratings of congress...feel free.  I started a thread about one question in a quinnipiac poll which shows that AMERICA SUPPORTED WHAT YOU INACCURATELY REFER TO AS THE SURRENDER BILL.  THEY SUPPORT IT!!! How do you answer that?


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

the surrender bill is not helping Dems

For all of the talk and media coverage of President Bushs low approval ratings in opinion polls, it now emerges that the US public has just as low an opinion of the Democrat Congress: Poll: Congress, Bush share low approval.

Is this what they call a mandate?

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

Its mostly Iraq plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOPs campaign committee. These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesnt matter if you have an R or a D next to your name.

Democrats and their far left base will spin this as evidence that they need to work even harder to force a retreat from Iraq.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25439&only&rss



and the amnesty bill for illegals will pull their numbers down even further. It seems those damn Republicnas will try and block the bill

First Republicans oppose surrender now amnesty - no wonder Dems want to change the rules on how bills are passed

BTW - before fly into a tizzy - I do oppose Pres Bush on this insane amnesty bill. It needs to be shredded and never mentioned again


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

can you address the subject of the thread?  yes or no?

If not...just keeping running away, but please don't spam my thread with all this crap that does not have to deal with the question of this thread.


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> can you address the subject of the thread?  yes or no?
> 
> If not...just keeping running away, but please don't spam my thread with all this crap that does not have to deal with the question of this thread.



OK I will stop posting facts MM


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> OK I will stop posting facts MM



how about START answering the question?


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> how about START answering the question?



the amnesty bill, like the surrender bill, will not help the Dems

I am looking forward to the next set of polls


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> the amnesty bill, like the surrender bill, will not help the Dems
> 
> I am looking forward to the next set of polls



what is it about the quinnipiac poll that has you so frightened you are pissing in your pants?  My goodness...this thread has stretched on to 21 pages in length and you have YET to address the subject of it.  How did we get to the amnesty bill?  I will tell you:  because YOU keep changing the subject of this thread because YOU do not have the balls to address what the real subject of this thread has always been - this one simple question:

*Quinnipiac Poll May 1st, 2007 *

_"If you had to choose, which would you favor: *the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq,* or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?" 

*Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops 57%*
Keeping Troops as Long as Necessary 39%
Unsure 3% _

Now...red states _drool_...will you EVER find the courage to discuss that one simple question and the *57% of Americans who are in favor of the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, *

show some courage...show some grace...show whatever modicum of intellect you might have...quit spinning...quit changing the subject to talk about congressional approval ratings or the amnesty bill.... answer this question.

I'll wait.


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.


"If you were a member of Congress, which one of the following proposals on Iraq would you vote for? Setting a specific deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Setting benchmarks for Iraq to meet to receive continued help from the U.S., but without a deadline for withdrawal. Giving the troop surge time to work before setting any benchmarks or deadlines." 

Specific Deadline 39
Benchmarks  32
Give Surge Time to Work  24
Unsure  6


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

it would seem to me that support for Bush's never ending bloodbath in Iraq is melting away. RSR....care to comment on ANY of the polls I have posted here, or will you continue to bring up congress's approval rating as if that trumps all these other polls and makes their results meaningless?

Latest headline from Rasmussen:

_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. 

*The last rating for the outgoing Republican Congress found that just 11% gave the GOP-controlled chamber a good or excellent rating*. The first survey after the Democrats took control found 16% giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids team good or excellent marks (see history). _


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

It would also seem the Dems are not doing very well 

So much for your party doing the will of the people




Question: Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track? 
Right direction, 25 percent (27 percent in April) 
Wrong track, 71 percent (70 percent in April) 
Not sure, 4 percent (3 percent in April)

Question: Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 
Approve, 35 percent (35 percent in April) 
Disapprove, 61 percent (62 percent in April) 
Mixed feelings, 3 percent (3 percent in April) 
Not sure, 1 percent (X)

Question: When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue? 
Approve, 33 percent (33 percent in April) 
Disapprove, 64 percent (64 percent in April) 
Mixed feelings, 2 percent (3 percent in April) 
Not sure, X percent (X)

Question: Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job? 
Approve, 35 percent (40 percent in April) 
Disapprove, 60 percent (57 percent in April) 
Mixed feelings, 4 percent (2 percent in April) 
Not sure, 1 percent (1 percent in April)

Question: Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House of Representatives? 
Approve, 45 percent (46 percent in April) 
Disapprove, 42 percent (44 percent in April) 
Mixed feelings, 5 percent (4 percent in April) 
Not sure, 8 percent (6 percent in April)

The AP-Ipsos telephone survey of 1,000 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/13305223/detail.html


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

did you happen to miss this?  It is from Rasmussen, one of your favorite sources:

_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. 

The last rating for the outgoing Republican Congress found that just 11% gave the GOP-controlled chamber a good or excellent rating. The first survey after the Democrats took control found 16% giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids team good or excellent marks (see history).  
05-20-2007 12:03 PM 
_ 

the majority of those questions you spammed onto this thread talk about what a shitty job Bush is doing...I am surprised you would chose those....but you probably didn't bother to read them, did you?  Kinda like that articel you posted supposedly proving that Iran was funding AQ in Iraq and the article mentioned neither Al Qaeda OR Iran!   

and I notice that you STILL refuse to address the question which is the reason for this thread....that 57% of Americans support the democrat's funding plan with withdrawal deadlines for the Iraq mess.

You really are one cowardly motherfucker, aren't you?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> did you happen to miss this?  It is from Rasmussen, one of your favorite sources:
> 
> _Twenty-six percent (26&#37 of American voters believe that Congress is doing a good or an excellent job. *That&#8217;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 &#8220;fair&#8221; rating while 43% say poor. A separate survey found that Democrats have an 11-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
> 
> ...





I see the truth about the failure of your Dem Congress is starting to get to you


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see the truth about the failure of your Dem Congress is starting to get to you



Rasmussen says just the opposite.  WHy won't you address what is in that poll and why won't you address the question that is the subject of this thread?  Is it because they both paint your precious president and his failed policy in a bad light?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

When you look at ALL the polls - the Dems have low numbers

36.7% approval

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


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When you look at ALL the polls - the Dems have low numbers
> 
> 36.7% approval
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18



still trying to make "congress" synonymous with "democrats"?


still running away like a girlieman from the subject of this thread?

here is an idea:  if you don't want to address the quinnipiac poll taken on May 1st, quit posting in a thread about it.  Your continual avoidance of the subject of this very thread is laughable.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

Dems are running Congress - sorry if the voters are starting to see the Dems played them for suckers


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are running Congress - sorry if the voters are starting to see the Dems played them for suckers



like Rasmussen said, the approval rating for the democratic leadership is rising.  ANd you continue to avoid the quinnipiac poll which is the subject of this thread.  If you want to talk about the congressional approval ratings, start your own thread about it.  If you want to talk about the quinnipiac poll, use this thread.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> like Rasmussen said, the approval rating for the democratic leadership is rising.  ANd you continue to avoid the quinnipiac poll which is the subject of this thread.  If you want to talk about the congressional approval ratings, start your own thread about it.  If you want to talk about the quinnipiac poll, use this thread.



Other polls have the Dems much lower

Yet the average for ALL the polls have the Dems at 37% 

No wonder you are in a tizzy this morning


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Other polls have the Dems much lower
> 
> Yet the average for ALL the polls have the Dems at 37%
> 
> No wonder you are in a tizzy this morning



again...there is a difference between what America thinks of congress and what America thinks of democrats in congress and what America thinks of republicans in congress.  I posted the Harris poll numbers which show that Americans give a significantly higher approval rating for congressional democrats than they do for congressional republicans AND for Bush.

now..when are you ever going to discuss the quinnipiac poll question that I started this thread about in the first place?  you have been running away from it from the very first page.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> again...there is a difference between what America thinks of congress and what America thinks of democrats in congress and what America thinks of republicans in congress.  I posted the Harris poll numbers which show that Americans give a significantly higher approval rating for congressional democrats than they do for congressional republicans AND for Bush.
> 
> now..when are you ever going to discuss the quinnipiac poll question that I started this thread about in the first place?  you have been running away from it from the very first page.



Dems are tanking - and their push for surrender is not helping


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

quit spamming this thread.  Address the subject of this thread or go somewhere else.  If you want to start a thread about congressional approval ratings, I will spank you all over the board on YOUR thread.... this one was started by ME to talk about the quinnipiac poll.... so address that and quit changing the subject.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit spamming this thread.  Address the subject of this thread or go somewhere else.  If you want to start a thread about congressional approval ratings, I will spank you all over the board on YOUR thread.... this one was started by ME to talk about the quinnipiac poll.... so address that and quit changing the subject.



Translation  - stop posting facts that go against me!!


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

no translation:  quit spamming my thread with bullshit. and quit avoiding the subject of that thread.

Will you address the quinnipiac poll question or not?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no translation:  quit spamming my thread with bullshit. and quit avoiding the subject of that thread.
> 
> Will you address the quinnipiac poll question or not?



Translation - do not post any more recent polls that show Dems are tanking. It is a lie!!


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

I posted the rasmussen poll which shows that democrats in congress have increased their appoval ratings in recent weeks....I have posted a quinnipiac poll question that you have avoided like the plague..... why is that?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I posted the rasmussen poll which shows that democrats in congress have increased their appoval ratings in recent weeks....I have posted a quinnipiac poll question that you have avoided like the plague..... why is that?



I posted polls that show the opposite

Get over it


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I posted polls that show the opposite
> 
> Get over it




no...you did not post any polls which show any questions differentiating democrats and republicans in congress.  I have shown you polls that differentiate the two and they show that support for democratic leadership is on the rise....and you continue to avoid the quinnipiac poll question that is the subject of this thread. I won't get over that.  I will continue to point out what a coward you are to keep coming onto this thread and avoiding the subject of it.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you did not post any polls which show any questions differentiating democrats and republicans in congress.  I have shown you polls that differentiate the two and they show that support for democratic leadership is on the rise....and you continue to avoid the quinnipiac poll question that is the subject of this thread. I won't get over that.  I will continue to point out what a coward you are to keep coming onto this thread and avoiding the subject of it.



So to you, 37% is something to cheer about?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So to you, 37% is something to cheer about?




no...57% is something to cheer about.  That is the subject of this thread:  that 57% of Americans support the democrat's funding bill.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...57% is something to cheer about.  That is the subject of this thread:  that 57% of Americans support the democrat's funding bill.



they support a funding bill not a surredner bill


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> they support a funding bill not a surredner bill



57% of Americans support a funding bill that contains troop withdrawal deadlines.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> 57% of Americans support a funding bill that contains troop withdrawal deadlines.



Keep thing the voters support surrender with a 37% approval rating


----------



## Truthmatters (May 21, 2007)

the newest poll says that 25% of Americans think we are headed in the right direction.


wow things must be great.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> the newest poll says that 25% of Americans think we are headed in the right direction.
> 
> 
> wow things must be great.



MM will not like you pointing that fact out to him


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> the newest poll says that 25% of Americans think we are headed in the right direction.
> 
> 
> wow things must be great.



exactly!  If America is headed in the wrong direction, who is driving the bus?  who is leading us?  RSR wants to make this about congressional approval ratings...he refuses to discuss the public's view of the war, and he refuses to discuss the terrible approval ratings our country's LEADER has.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> exactly!  If America is headed in the wrong direction, who is driving the bus?  who is leading us?  RSR wants to make this about congressional approval ratings...he refuses to discuss the public's view of the war, and he refuses to discuss the terrible approval ratings our country's LEADER has.



So with 75% saying the US is going in the wrong direction and Dems are running Congress - it is not looking very good for the Dems


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

MM - in some polls Pres Bush has a higher numberl then the Dem Congress


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM - in some polls Pres Bush has a higher numberl then the Dem Congress



that is a lie.  In NO polls does Bush have a higher rating than the democrats leading congress.

75&#37; of the people think the COUNTRY is going in the wrong direction....that is terrible news.... and especially terrible news for the many leading america in that wrong direction.  Democrats have control of congress, but just barely.... they cannot pass anything over a presidential veto and they cannot even get past a republican filibuster of the senate.... America knows that.  America knows who is driving the bus, especially in this war... and they know the driver is the commander in chief.  It must suck to be so wedded to such a failed president!


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

"In NO polls does Bush have a higher rating than the *democrats* leading congress."


can you read?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> "In NO polls does Bush have a higher rating than the *democrats* leading congress."
> 
> 
> can you read?



Having trouble reading the facts?

Nothing new for you MM


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Having trouble reading the facts?
> 
> Nothing new for you MM



are you having trouble admitting the difference between the public's opinion of congress and the public's opinion of the democrats in congress.

Do I need to point you again to the Harris poll which differentiates them?


and when will you ever quit running from the quinnipiac poll question which this thread is about?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you having trouble admitting the difference between the public's opinion of congress and the public's opinion of the democrats in congress.
> 
> Do I need to point you again to the Harris poll which differentiates them?
> 
> ...



Dems are running Congress, pushing for surrender and higher taxes - and you can't understand why their numbers are low?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are running Congress, pushing for surrender and higher taxes - and you can't understand why their numbers are low?



do I need to point you to the harris polls again?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> do I need to point you to the harris polls again?  yes or no?



The average of all polls have Dems at 37% - get over it


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The average of all polls have Dems at 37% - get over it



do I have to point you to the harris polls which show democrats in congress with a much higher rating than republicans?  it is the absolutely piss poor opinion of republicans that is dragging the congressional rating so low.  congressional democrats on their own poll much higher than congressional republicans... and much higher than Bush....


and Bush is still the CinC and is still driving the bus...and a vast majority of AMericans think that HE is driving us in the wrong direction.  You need to take a deep breath and smell the coffee, pal... Americans think you, your party and your president SUCK.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you having trouble admitting the difference between the public's opinion of congress and the public's opinion of the democrats in congress.
> 
> Do I need to point you again to the Harris poll which differentiates them?
> 
> ...



What a joke. Polls are moronic to begin with, but your attempt to pretend that Americans like dems but don't like Republicans is silly. The Democrats have announced over and over they CONTROL Congress, that they have a MANDATE from the people, yet here you are reminding us that this control and mandate don't really exsist, all in a failed attempt to pretend that your cherished polls don't say what they say.

Also, I wonder when there will be a poll about the fact the Dems have gone against all their promises of inclusion and the MOST ethical Congress yet? The Dems can't not do what they want and so will change the rules to ensure almost 50 percent of our elected officials have NO voice. As I recall for the last 6 years they were howling that the Republicans did that to them... funny? If the rules are such in the House that the controlling party can silence the minority why do we need MORE changes to prevent the minority from having a voice or vote?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

do I need to point YOU to the Harris polls which show a distinct separation between the opinions people have of democrats versus republicans?

If so, I will gladly provide the link


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

and while you are at it sarge....why don't YOU try doing what your buddy RSR seems incapable of doing:  addressing the subject of this fucking thread.

Now that would be a novel concept!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

Polls are not worth the paper or time invested in them, thats MY opinion. They can and are routinely "rigged" by every side. But I find it absolutely knee slapping hilarious you want to claim Congressional approval polls don't reflect on the supposed Majority party in Congress.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

maybe you didn't hear me.  

Do I need to point you to the Harris Poll which shows that the public has a much higher opinion of congressional democrats than they do of congressional republicans?  

Do I need to point you to the historical trend which shows that the public's view of congress in general has been shitty for years?  


Do I need to point you to the historical data which shows that, no matter how badly the congress is polling today, it is significantly greater than it was when YOU bozos were last in power?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

and maybe you also didn't hear me when I offered the rather novel suggestion that when you post in a thread, you at least TRY to discuss the top if of the thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

The topic is POLLS, your claiming your poll matters and only what you think of any poll matters, I am on topic. I am pointing out your claim is ludicrous on its face.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The topic is POLLS, your claiming your poll matters and only what you think of any poll matters, I am on topic. I am pointing out your claim is ludicrous on its face.




NO.  the topic is a specific quinnipiac poll question taken on may 1st.  Go back to the first page....read the poll question...read the responses...and then give me your thoughts on them.

And you are saying that my CLAIM that democrats in congress poll higher than republicans is ludicrous?  or are you saying that my CLAIM that polling numbers for congress have been shitty for years and MORE shitty when YOUR side was last in power than they are now - is ludicrous?  WHich claim is ludicrous?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

Polls are worthless. But trying to cherry pick ( what Bush is accused of that with the response being that means he lied) which one you want is what is Ludicrous. And then trying to IGNORE any other poll is thigh slapping tear streaming hilarious.

More importantly Bush is NOT against Timetables. So the question asked is moot.In fact there are time tables already in place with specific goals and consequences or actions required when  they are or are not met.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

no...there is a difference between timetables and benchmarks.  bush is against the former and begrudgingly accepting of the latter.

and your continued to refusal to accep the FACT that people like democrats in congress more than they do republicans. and the FACT that congressional approval ratings for congress NOW are higher than when YOU bozos ran it IS what is really funny.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...there is a difference between timetables and benchmarks.  bush is against the former and begrudgingly accepting of the latter.
> 
> and your continued to refusal to accep the FACT that people like democrats in congress more than they do republicans. and the FACT that congressional approval ratings for congress NOW are higher than when YOU bozos ran it IS what is really funny.



Yup, there is that "superior" intellect at work. Elitist bull shit from one of our "betters".

As for Timetables, they already exist, unless it is your claim that the entire Marine, Army, Navy and Airforce Staff in Iraq, Central Command and at the Pentagon are all incompetent boobs.

What doesn't exist and shouldn't exist is timetables that are published for our enemies to check and use against us. Making such "timetables" is nothing more than aiding and abetting our enemies with the firm knowledge that all they have to do is meet those timetables so thoughtfully provided by the US. Much like the continued open whining about dead US servicemen simply informs our enemies that all they need do is kill enough Americans at the right times and they get what they want.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Polls are worthless. _But trying to cherry pick ( what Bush is accused of that with the response being that means he lied) which one you want is what is Ludicrous._ And then trying to IGNORE any other poll is thigh slapping tear streaming hilarious.



two additional points.

1.  I am not even sure I can decipher what the hell you are trying to say in the _italicized_ sentence above.

2.  I have never tried to IGNORE any other poll.  I merely point out that when RSR claims that the _dems_ have such and such an approval rating, that the statement is incorrect.  _Congress_ has a poor approval rating, but when asked to differentiate, the American people are clear about which party they think is really fucking up the worst.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, there is that "superior" intellect at work. Elitist bull shit from one of our "betters".
> 
> As for Timetables, they already exist, unless it is your claim that the entire Marine, Army, Navy and Airforce Staff in Iraq, Central Command and at the Pentagon are all incompetent boobs.
> 
> What doesn't exist and shouldn't exist is timetables that are published for our enemies to check and use against us. Making such "timetables" is nothing more than aiding and abetting our enemies with the firm knowledge that all they have to do is meet those timetables so thoughtfully provided by the US. Much like the continued open whining about dead US servicemen simply informs our enemies that all they need do is kill enough Americans at the right times and they get what they want.



it doesn't take a superior intellect to know the difference between timetables and benchmarks, nor does it take a brainiac to know that Bush vetoed the former and has signalled he won't veto the latter.


and again.... do you think that if you think we didn't publish a timetable and tell them in advance when we were leaving, that they couldn't figure it out the instant we left?  and again.... why do you think that the country will not dissolve into sectarian violence the minute we leave - whenever the hell that is?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

Why do you think it will? What evidence do you use to support this theory? Saddam Hussein held it together for years and before him it didn't disolve into a civil war either. More importantly An Bar disproves the whole "civil war" claim to begin with.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why do you think it will? What evidence do you use to support this theory? Saddam Hussein held it together for years and before him it didn't disolve into a civil war either. More importantly An Bar disproves the whole "civil war" claim to begin with.



that's rich!!!   

Saddam held it together for years and it didn't dissolve..... 

and that is your rationale for why a multi-cultural jeffersonian democracy will succeed now that he is gone?

And what is the shi'ite population of An Bar, by the way?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

Totally irrelavant.  And I never said anything about a Democracy at all. Iraq will most likely return at least partly to a religious not a sectarian State, but maybe with a bit of democracy.

It is totally irrelavant  if Democracy survives in Iraq or not. And is not even why we should stay.

( damn it how do you spell irrelavant? LOL) We need a spell checker for ignorant knuckledragging Neanderthals like me.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

the point is:  it WILL dissolve into sectarian violence.  whenever we leave, it will happen.  sunnis and shiites are more loyal to their sect than to this eurpopean created geographic construct called Iraq.

oh...and it is "irrelevant"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 21, 2007)

Thanks, the problem is without that spell checker I will continue to misspell it because I can't remember that spelling ( I just don't spell that word that often.)

Not that a spell checker means I would always use it....


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> do I have to point you to the harris polls which show democrats in congress with a much higher rating than republicans?  it is the absolutely piss poor opinion of republicans that is dragging the congressional rating so low.  congressional democrats on their own poll much higher than congressional republicans... and much higher than Bush....
> 
> 
> and Bush is still the CinC and is still driving the bus...and a vast majority of AMericans think that HE is driving us in the wrong direction.  You need to take a deep breath and smell the coffee, pal... Americans think you, your party and your president SUCK.



yet the voters wanted change and the Dems are doing nothing (unless you count raising taxes and wanting to surrender in Iraq)


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What a joke. Polls are moronic to begin with, but your attempt to pretend that Americans like dems but don't like Republicans is silly. The Democrats have announced over and over they CONTROL Congress, that they have a MANDATE from the people, yet here you are reminding us that this control and mandate don't really exsist, all in a failed attempt to pretend that your cherished polls don't say what they say.
> 
> Also, I wonder when there will be a poll about the fact the Dems have gone against all their promises of inclusion and the MOST ethical Congress yet? The Dems can't not do what they want and so will change the rules to ensure almost 50 percent of our elected officials have NO voice. As I recall for the last 6 years they were howling that the Republicans did that to them... funny? If the rules are such in the House that the controlling party can silence the minority why do we need MORE changes to prevent the minority from having a voice or vote?



That is bipartisanship to Dems - they get to do whatever they want and the Republicans sit in their seats and never say a word


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> and while you are at it sarge....why don't YOU try doing what your buddy RSR seems incapable of doing:  addressing the subject of this fucking thread.
> 
> Now that would be a novel concept!



But you NEVER post another poll that shows the Dems apporval numbers are tanking!


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> and maybe you also didn't hear me when I offered the rather novel suggestion that when you post in a thread, you at least TRY to discuss the top if of the thread.



Translation - Please stop mentioning polls that go against mine


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> that's rich!!!
> 
> Saddam held it together for years and it didn't dissolve.....
> 
> ...



Saddam was a terrorist - much like Castro

Of course, libs have a habit of coddling terrorists


----------

