Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Congress or the President?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: The Congress or the President?

    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
    But what does an impeachment do? I always thought immpeachment meant the person was removed from their office. But that wasn't the case with Clinton.

    So what exactly does an impeachment accomplish? A strongly worded scolding of said official? And if thats all it is, why do we have to spend thousands, probably millions of dollars for the investigations and trails that go along with it?

    What exactly would they call it if they were removing said person from office?
    If you want to draw a rough parallel with criminal courts, consider an impeachment to be comparable to an indictment. You still need to have a conviction after that.

    I believe it only takes 51 Senators to Impeach but 67 - 2/3 - to convict following an Impeachment. Andrew Johnson was impeached but stayed in office by one vote of the Senate.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Congress or the President?

      Ok, now that makes more sense to me. Thanks DK.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Congress or the President?

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        It was wrongly added then.
        I don't feel the threat of impeachment as a tool of Congress was wrongly added. You answered the question yourself.

        Displaced Knick wrote
        Now there may be instances where Congress could in theory initiate impeachment proceedings vs Bush.
        Any President who goes off on a bombing campaign of other countries and orders a massive build up of troops, without the support of Congress and against the will of the American people, faces the threat of impeachment, if he and Congress remain at loggerheads. No doubt about it in my mind. Congress would not have a hard time coming up with some allegation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify their impeachment. Whether they could get the votes to impeach would depend on how far off the cliff a president had gone.

        Displaced Knick wrote
        And yes, I know the Lewinsky scandal was a thin covering for Republicans witch-hunting Clinton but my point is that, to date, Bush hasn't done anything illegal (that we know of) that could be considered an impeachable offense - there's no cover the Dems could use for that kind of action.
        I agreed with that previously and still agree.

        But, if, for example, the President initiates a massive military buildup coupled with an expansion of bombing and deployment of troops outside Iraq without the consent of Congress, the equation will change.

        Getting down to the heart of the matter, I'd say expanding this war into Iran and Syria is not an option for President Bush without the consent of Congress. I don't think this is an option he is considering anyway.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Congress or the President?

          Originally posted by sixthman View Post
          I don't feel the threat of impeachment as a tool of Congress was wrongly added. You answered the question yourself.

          Displaced Knick wrote

          Any President who goes off on a bombing campaign of other countries and orders a massive build up of troops, without the support of Congress and against the will of the American people, faces the threat of impeachment, if he and Congress remain at loggerheads. No doubt about it in my mind. Congress would not have a hard time coming up with some allegation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify their impeachment. Whether they could get the votes to impeach would depend on how far off the cliff a president had gone.

          Displaced Knick wrote

          I agreed with that previously and still agree.

          But, if, for example, the President initiates a massive military buildup coupled with an expansion of bombing and deployment of troops outside Iraq without the consent of Congress, the equation will change.

          Getting down to the heart of the matter, I'd say expanding this war into Iran and Syria is not an option for President Bush without the consent of Congress. I don't think this is an option he is considering anyway.
          My apologies - I just went back and read your first post mentioning impeachment. I thought you were talking about if the President wanted to stay in Iraq while Congress didn't. I didn't realize you were basing this on Bush behaving completely differently from how he has in the first 6 years of his Presidency.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Congress or the President?

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
            My apologies - I just went back and read your first post mentioning impeachment. I thought you were talking about if the President wanted to stay in Iraq while Congress didn't. I didn't realize you were basing this on Bush behaving completely differently from how he has in the first 6 years of his Presidency.
            And my apologies for not writing clearly.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Congress or the President?

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              The decision is the presidents.

              My prediction: Bush will "bring the dems into the decision making" Make them a part of this - make them have some ownership in this situation. (although they did authorize Bush to go to war in the first place, but we don't want to remember that. Now that the dems have more decision making authority, do you notice the "cut and run" talk has ceased.


              There is a better chance that I become the next president of the US then the dems will cut off funding. That would be political suicide
              I don't agree, but even so, why can't the congress just reauthorize money only to be spent for exiting. Pass a law saying that no more funds can be spent on the occupation after a certain date.

              By the way, just who was doing all that "cut and run" talk? The dems haven't taken over, but if they don't do something to get us out of Iraq and quick, they are doomed in 08.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Congress or the President?

                Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                And my apologies for not writing clearly.
                You did - my fault for not going back to the point in the thread where the Impeachment discussion started.

                Mea culpa.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Congress or the President?

                  Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                  I don't agree, but even so, why can't the congress just reauthorize money only to be spent for exiting. Pass a law saying that no more funds can be spent on the occupation after a certain date.

                  By the way, just who was doing all that "cut and run" talk? The dems haven't taken over, but if they don't do something to get us out of Iraq and quick, they are doomed in 08.
                  Even if you could convince them to do that & even I don't think the majority of the Democrats would do this, a law would still have to pass over the Presidents desk.

                  He of course would veto said law & there is nowhere near any kind of supermajority to over ride the veto of this law.

                  Sorry, still in favor of the President at the moment. But still I am interested to see where you thought that congress could do this to start with.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Congress or the President?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Even if you could convince them to do that & even I don't think the majority of the Democrats would do this, a law would still have to pass over the Presidents desk.

                    He of course would veto said law & there is nowhere near any kind of supermajority to over ride the veto of this law.

                    Sorry, still in favor of the President at the moment. But still I am interested to see where you thought that congress could do this to start with.
                    Good point about the supermajority. That said, a supermajority of American's (71% at last count) think the war was a mistake. But I guess that congress is a different story. I still think making the president reject bringing the troops home is the right thing to do. It will also help doom McCain. He would be against it, of course, and that will be deeply unpopular.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Congress or the President?

                      Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                      Good point about the supermajority. That said, a supermajority of American's (71% at last count) think the war was a mistake. But I guess that congress is a different story. I still think making the president reject bringing the troops home is the right thing to do. It will also help doom McCain. He would be against it, of course, and that will be deeply unpopular.
                      The supermajoryity of people on this board don't think it was a mistake much less that % of Americans.

                      I'll buy that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq & I'll even buy that a majority feel that it has been mishandled, but in no way do I buy that 71% think it was a mistake.

                      Again it's that whole poll thing. I don't trust them & neither should you.

                      Have you ever been polled on a national issue? I haven't. I don't even know anybody who has been.

                      But we've been down that road before so we'll just let it drop.

                      Anyway back to the issue at hand.

                      So if I read you right on this you think that Congress should try & force the issue of bringing the troops home & thus make President Bush force the issue to stay & thus politicaly making him look bad? Not that I think he could look much worse than he does at the moment mind you, but I get your point.

                      Actually you're probably correct in this from a political standpoint. However it is a gamble because it could easily backfire as well because if Bush came out with some spine & actually took to the field to state his reasons why, which he should ahve been doing all along, there is a chance (very very small chance I admit) that he could turn it on the Democrats & force them into a corner as well.

                      But it might be a political move worth taking from your side of the aisle.

                      But none of this answers my question. What part of the law do you see as making this the authority of congress.

                      BTW, just in case your wondering I'm not trying to be an @ss about this. I just really want to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding somthing about the law.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Congress or the President?

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        The supermajoryity of people on this board don't think it was a mistake...
                        Clearly that's true. This is a very conservative board lodged in a very conservative state.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        I'll buy that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq & I'll even buy that a majority feel that it has been mishandled, but in no way do I buy that 71% think it was a mistake.

                        Again it's that whole poll thing. I don't trust them & neither should you.
                        Fair enough. But even if they don't think it was a mistake, they want us out. So let's get out already. Is this a democracy or isn't it?

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Have you ever been polled on a national issue? I haven't. I don't even know anybody who has been.
                        Yes, I have. It was fun because there are so few opportunities, even in a small way, to have our voices heard over the din of the powerful elite.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        So if I read you right on this you think that Congress should try & force the issue of bringing the troops home & thus make President Bush force the issue to stay & thus politicaly making him look bad? Not that I think he could look much worse than he does at the moment mind you, but I get your point.
                        A admit that there is little short of impeachment that will get Bush to agree to get us out of Iraq. He knows that the minute we leave, the last shred of his legacy is down the tubes. As long as we're there when he leaves office, he can always say, "If only we'd stayed a little longer..." instead of fessing up to the incredible mess he has made.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        However it is a gamble because it could easily backfire as well because if Bush came out with some spine & actually took to the field to state his reasons why, which he should ahve been doing all along, there is a chance (very very small chance I admit) that he could turn it on the Democrats & force them into a corner as well.
                        I can count half a dozen times he has gone on a speachifying offensive to try to convince America of staying and fighting. It hasn't worked. It doesn't matter how good his rhetoric is at this point, the reality of the situation has overwhelmed it.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        But it might be a political move worth taking from your side of the aisle.
                        It would also have the side benefit of being the right thing to do.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        But none of this answers my question. What part of the law do you see as making this the authority of congress.

                        BTW, just in case your wondering I'm not trying to be an @ss about this. I just really want to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding /QUOTE]somthing about the law.
                        You aren't being an @ss at all. There are two good arguments that I see. I think it's pretty clear that since the congress gets to decide whether we make war, they also get to decide when we don't make war. But even if you don't by that, Congress CLEARLY gets to decide what money gets spent by the executive branch, including the armed forces. If a law is passed saying that the military can't spend any more $$ on the occupation except for what's required to get out, then that's that.

                        By the way, I think we should spend as much as we can on humanitarian missions in Iraq and the area. Not only is it the way we can most help, it is the way that, ultimately, will keep us the safest. The Muslim region of the world that has by far the most US supporters is Indonesia. Why? Because of our efforts following the tsunami. And the military understands that. I just read that we have launched a roving hospital ship in the region that literally just goes around to the hundreds of islands in the region helping people. And it is on call for emergencies like the tsunami. That, in my mind, is both kind and smart.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Congress or the President?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Again it's that whole poll thing. I don't trust them & neither should you.

                          Have you ever been polled on a national issue? I haven't. I don't even know anybody who has been.
                          I have been polled several times over the years by what I believe were legitimate polling companies. I also have kept a television and ratings book for a major ratings company for broadcasters. But I have more years under the belt, so maybe your day will come.

                          Actually, I believe it is becoming much more difficult to be polled. Being smarter, there is no way I would allow myself to be polled over the phone at a great length about my opinions, especially regarding politics or finances.

                          My dad, by the way, as a retiree, in the 60's and 70's was a part-time in-home interviewer for the Gallop poll. As I remember it, their methodology then was to give him a list of specific households to contact. His task was to keep going down the list until he completed a specified number of interviews. He was trained and counseled to keep the comments neutral during the interview. Something he always followed...at least, until the interview was completed and opinions had been recorded. Dad loved talking government issues and he always said he was amazed how much people wanted to talk after the poll was completed.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Congress or the President?

                            I have been polled myself, and I am also in marketing. No poll can be truly unbiased.

                            You will get the answers you want based upon how you ask the questions. This is what I do for a living. Trust me.

                            I can listen to the poll questions without knowing who put the poll together and tell you how its going to be used.

                            And often, if they don't get the answerss they want, they will not use that poll data, and will redo it. You just redo it until you get the sample you want.

                            Its all in how its run and all in how its asked. You can also direct your questions to areas where you know the demographics are slanted a certain way to get the answers you want as well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Congress or the President?

                              Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                              I have been polled myself, and I am also in marketing. No poll can be truly unbiased.

                              You will get the answers you want based upon how you ask the questions. This is what I do for a living. Trust me.

                              I can listen to the poll questions without knowing who put the poll together and tell you how its going to be used.

                              And often, if they don't get the answers they want, they will not use that poll data, and will redo it. You just redo it until you get the sample you want.

                              Its all in how its run and all in how its asked. You can also direct your questions to areas where you know the demographics are slanted a certain way to get the answers you want as well.
                              Of course polls can be biased. That's why political campaign intentionally come up with misleading polling and "leak" it to the press as the inside scoop. Also, issues that are "close" are notoriously difficult to get an easy yes or no answer. But we aren't talking about anything like that here. We are talking about Rasmussen and Gallup and international polling firms like that that make their bread and butter by falling all over themselves being unbiased. And the polls have come up EVERY TIME that Iraqis OVERWHELMINGLY want us out, regardless of the consequences. It isn't close.

                              By the way, even voting isn't "unbiased". I was just reading an article talking about how people voting in an elementary school are more likely to vote for school bonds, and people voting in a church are less likely to vote for gay rights, etc.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Congress or the President?

                                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                                And the polls have come up EVERY TIME that Iraqis OVERWHELMINGLY want us out, regardless of the consequences. It isn't close.
                                That's oversimplified and somewhat untrue. Most do want us out however most also believe that our leaving will:

                                A) Reduce the level of violence and

                                B) Strengthen the current government

                                There's no "regardless of consequences" that I've ever seen.

                                Though the last poll I'm aware of was taken in September. Hard to say what the feeling is today.

                                In that poll 37% want the US out within 6 months and 34% want us to gradually withdraw within a year.

                                The overwhelming fear is of the US establishing a permanent military base. I believe that this was something that was on the "to do" list back in March of 2003 - it would have allowed us to bracket Iran with bases there and in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that's been taken off the table.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X