What's new
By:

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

Scat said:
I was trying to see if the horse had a horn on its head...
Click to expand...

That is the first thing I tried to see as well. I think the scenario I laid out is probably what will happen. Not claiming I am a Romney guy I am just saying I think that is how it will go down.
 
Scat said:
Caption the following pic

911ba3ff850a7400030f6a706700018a.jpg
Click to expand...

"Trout is this big if he's an inch!", said the Presidential Hopeful at a press conference in Salt Lake City, where he hopes to wrangle the Mormon vote from hopefuls Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr. "I know that times are changing and Salt Lake City is one of the cities that is leading the charge for human rights and civil liberties" Santorum said to a crowd of nearly ten thousand cheering supporters. "I am honored and humbled that for a few short hours, I really got to know Trout T. Troutbum." The aspiring leader then spent the next twenty minutes explaining, in great detail, the shape, size, length, and girth of Mr. Troutbum, while also giving the crowd a mental erection by detailing the "extraordinarily unique" Somalia-shaped birthmark that adorns Mr. Troutbum's taint. Photo Courtesy of Ghetty Images - Copyright 2012.
Click to expand...

He's got my vote.
 
franklin said:
No, but I remember all of them squeeling WMD invade Iraq now! only to flip flop wholesale to beat him the second go. You tell me what the difference is? You really think one party does it and the other doesn't? The only reason I jump on this fire 'em all nonsense is because of this from both parties.
Click to expand...

I think the implications of "went up a bit" include both that partisanship escalated, and that it was engaged in by a Democratic Congress. I recall teh Democrats as being somewhatmore relictant than the Republicans for the invasion, but not outwardly opposed to it (which I attribute to political coawardice more than anything else).
 
One Brow said:
I think the implications of "went up a bit" include both that partisanship escalated, and that it was engaged in by a Democratic Congress. I recall teh Democrats as being somewhatmore relictant than the Republicans for the invasion, but not outwardly opposed to it (which I attribute to political coawardice more than anything else).
Click to expand...

You are again playing favorites. Both parties wanted to go in or they wouldn't have had the bipartisan support they had.
 
One Brow said:
I think the implications of "went up a bit" include both that partisanship escalated, and that it was engaged in by a Democratic Congress. I recall teh Democrats as being somewhatmore relictant than the Republicans for the invasion, but not outwardly opposed to it (which I attribute to political coawardice more than anything else).
Click to expand...

Democrats pushed for Iraq and were screaming WMD at the top of their lungs under Bill Clinton. It was his intel and the democrats increasingly aggresive threats that paved the path for Bush to go in. He started the fiasco in 1998 when he bombed several facilities for being suspected of WMD. Clinton was a fan of that, bombing aspirine factories and such, then flying the planes off while bragging in the media at home about killing inocent victims as a cost of war... It really is no wonder Bush and Patraeus had such a hard time winning over the love of the Arabs.

Rudy Giuliani was spot on when he said the shift in war suppport was all about picking up seats in 2002. The timeline went from pushing for war before submitting to a populist stance in several districts, then transitioning into a no unilateral stance, and finishing by completely whitewashing their involvement from the memories of average voters.
 
GVC said:
Because US involvement in the region began in 1998?

Wow.
Click to expand...

Looks like I gave you a serious headcase of cognitive dissonance.

Bill Clinton's bombings in Arab lands spurred deeply negative sentiment area wide. The Syrian bombings in particular were used as anti-American propoganda from Algeria to Afghanistan. Media clips of Clinton bragging up his peacemaking bombings and killing innocent civilians being a justified price were repeatedly broadcast across the Arab world.

You shouldn't get so offended by facts.
 
I think you've missed my point somehow. Do you really think Anti-American sentiment in the middle east (and American aggression toward Iraq) had its genesis in the late 90's? Really?

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread that I should never have entered in the first place.
 
Last edited:
GVC said:
I think you've missed my point somehow. Do you really think Anti-American sentiment in the middle east (and American aggression toward Iraq) had its genesis in the late 90's? Really?

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread that I should never have entered in the first place.
Click to expand...

OK dude. There's been conflict in the middle east for a gazillion years. Let's blame it on the ****ing dinosaurs.

Your point was to form an irrelevent conclusion by putting a ridiculous argument into my mouth that you know I never offered. Bravo, troll. Do you really lack the ability to segregate time periods or draw meaningful conclusions from sentiment measures?
 
There will be conflict in the middle east as long as there are people that live there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top