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

New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    I know lots of posters don't like "partisan" news, but I would like to see what people think about this news story. In the latest Fox News poll, released today, the pollsters asked the following question concerning Bush's plan for a troop "surge" in and around Baghdad:

    Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
    Here are the results of the poll, broken down by party affiliation (including "Independents"):

    Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

    Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

    Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

    Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
    See http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...oxnewspoll.pdf

    Admittedly, I am very conservative politically. But will somebody tell me if I am so out of touch that I am wrong to be disturbed by this poll's findings? The "overall" tally reveals that more than one out of every three people in our society -- including people who self identify as Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- either explicitly hope the troops fail in this initiative, or are so indifferent about its aims that they claim they "don't know" whether they want them to succeed. Good grief, 1/3 of us have a goal other than wishing that we succeed on this front?

    I think that is a poor score for our society overall, and each party affiliation has percentages of people who wish for other than success. But in terms of percentages, it is worse for the Democrat Party than any other segment. That party only last November ascended to the dominant position in our political system (by running in no small measure on the claim that "we support our troops"). And what does the dominant party believe on this issue? According to this poll, fully 49% of Democrats, 1 out of 2 Democrats, either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.

    Will someone, regardless of party affiliation, kindly explain why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest? Will someone explain the humanitarian justification for leaving Iraqi civilians to the (often Iranian and Syrian) terrorists that operate in and around Baghdad?

  • #2
    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    The first part of your question is tough, as to why people say that don't want the plan to succeed. It's a strange question, a little akin to asking people if they want Roe vs. Wade to succeed or any other hot button issue. I suspect that many people thought, as I at first did, that they were asking whether they want Bush to succeed in making his plan policy.

    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
    Will someone, regardless of party affiliation, kindly explain why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest? Will someone explain the humanitarian justification for leaving Iraqi civilians to the (often Iranian and Syrian) terrorists that operate in and around Baghdad?
    This question is relatively easy. The justification for removing our military from Iraq, even if it means that there will be continued violence, is that they want us to leave. Overwhelmingly, the Iraqi people believe that we contribute to the violence rather than help, and that is enough. If the Iraqis don't want us there, we have absolutely no right whatsoever to be there. I say we withdraw our troops, perhaps to Kurdistan where they are wanted, and then work to find other ways to help the Iraqis recover from our invasion.

    There is plenty we can do to help beyond sending more troops. If we want Iraq to be a democracy, a good first step would be accepting the will of the people. If we took the money we were spending keeping our military in Iraq and instead used that money on true democracy promotion and humanitarian supplies, we would be doing a hell of a lot more good, both for the Iraqis and for ourselves.

    Edit: more info here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601721_pf.html

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

      I'm hoping it's the way they interpreted the question. But if they saw it as "Do you want WHATEVER plan used to succeed?" and those are still the results, then yes I'm bothered by those results.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

        I don't want more American soldiers (or Iraqi civilians) to die. I don't agree with the surge, without an accompanying change of tactics that is, but I wouldn't want to see it fail either, because that would make America look a hell of a lot worse in the eyes of the international community, not to mention all the direct consequences - bloody civil war, greater conflict emerging in the Middle East, etc. Oh, and a higher death count of course.

        I guess the big question is, how will we measure success? A "democratic" government that allies with us and by extension answers to us? I fear that the Iraqis will turn to some other form of governing - theocratic, for example - because democracy is linked in their minds with war and foreign occupation.

        I want the "surge" (It's really interesting that the higher-ups refuse to use the word escalation - it's an interesting rhetorical manuever if you think about it, because a "surge" connotes a temporary rise and then a return to normal as opposed to a continuous build-up. These guys are masters of word use!) to work, I don't think it necessarily will though. : /

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

          I'm not surprised by the poll results, in fact I figured they would be even a little more anti-Bush in this regard.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I'm not surprised by the poll results, in fact I figured they would be even a little more anti-Bush in this regard.
            Oh, don't get the wrong idea. Americans overwhelmingly don't support adding new troops. The last polls showed 70% disapproval, and that was after Bush's speech.
            http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/...s/iraq_ap_poll

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

              Not wanting it to suceed means they want it to fail, atleast to me anyways.

              When the plan is in place and going to be executed, failure means that the troops will suffer a defeat. Defeat to me means troops die, or at the very least can't carry out successful orders, to the point where the plan is scraped and a new plan is put in place.

              Not wanting it to succeeed, to me anyways, means they would like to see our troops suffer. I don't know how you can't be disturbed by that.

              Now I will await a reply telling me how not succeeding doesn't affect the environment in which our troops operate, and it's towards Bush and not them.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                The poll question is loaded in a deliberately confusing way. No one in their right mind wants any U.S. plan to fail. This is a poll that republicans can sight when they trumpet "liberals/Democrats" don't support the troops... don't want to win the war.... are anti american....embolding the enemy... blah blah ******ing blah.

                As stated above....my guess is 2/3rds of the "no" responders most likely want Bushs' "plan" to fail making it into policy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                  Yes I realize the question was do you want the Bush plan to fail and I believe the majority of the people do especially the democrats. More than that everyone already says it will fail so I believe no matter how well the plan works the media will follow their template that the plan will fail so they will set out to show how it failed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                    The first part of your question is tough, as to why people say that don't want the plan to succeed. It's a strange question, a little akin to asking people if they want Roe vs. Wade to succeed or any other hot button issue. I suspect that many people thought, as I at first did, that they were asking whether they want Bush to succeed in making his plan policy.

                    This question is relatively easy.
                    Ah, spin control -- it didn't take long for those uncomfortable with the obvious, undeniable implications of this poll to pretend that the answers given weren't really the answers given. So, per 3Ball, we play "let's pretend" that the "first part" of the question is tough, and therefore people must have misunderstood it and meant to really answer some other question -- whether they wanted Bush to succeed -- than the question actually asked.

                    Course, that begs the question why so much higher a percentage of Democrats misunderstood the question that way than did Republicans or Independents. And if you actually read the poll, you would see that the question you pretend was misunderstood as being asked had actually been asked elsewhere, reducing the likelihood that there was any misunderstanding. (See question 14, rather than question 19 which was originally quoted above. Matter of fact, if you want to appreciate how consistent is the Dems' collective viewpoint on these matters, see questions 14-21, the differences of which make clear that Democrats didn't misunderstand this question at all, as they were asked a bunch of them.)

                    Originally posted by waxman View Post
                    The poll question is loaded in a deliberately confusing way. No one in their right mind wants any U.S. plan to fail. This is a poll that republicans can sight when they trumpet "liberals/Democrats" don't support the troops... don't want to win the war.... are anti american....embolding the enemy... blah blah ******ing blah.
                    "No one in their right mind wants" us to fail, waxman? Are you saying that the 34% of Democrats who explicitly answered that question are not in their right minds?

                    Yes, you are certainly correct that Republicans will cite this poll as (still further) evidence that liberals and Dems do not support the troops, don't want to win the war, are anti-American, all those things. Do you honestly believe such evidence is not relevant for emphasis in the public discourse?

                    Undeniably, there are many, many patriotic Democrats who support our troops, want to win the war, etc. -- the poll refers to 51%, a slim majority, of Democrats who in fact want to win the war, so let's be clear and recognize them and let not their views go unacknowledged. I personally know many. I personally used to be a Democrat, as if that matters. But, just as undeniably, from their very answers, a significant percentage of Democrats have directly answered the question otherwise, and stated that they do not wish for us to be successful in the new initiative. So let not their views go unacknowledged -- or spun by apologists like our friends here -- either. And like it or not, as the saying goes, "if the shoe fits ...."

                    Like 3Ball, waxman is apparently uncomfortable with what this poll question says about our dominant political party and so he also wants to pretend it was a "loaded question" that was "confusing" and "most likely" disproportionately misunderstood -- but only by Democrats. What a crock -- if you read the poll questions you will see that there is nothing confusing about any of them. But obviously he did not read the poll, as doing so would have revealed that Dems were asked many questions and their answers were consistently hostile to the war effort. I welcome these folks to actually click on the link and read the poll results -- pretending that question 19 was misunderstood for what was actually asked earlier at question 14 makes clear the spin will not work.

                    That is fine, it is clearly their right to have and express these views, but let's do be honest about it, and don't expect others not to notice the import of these opinions by America's dominant political party. Let's not spin it as other than it is: a genuine desire on the part of a significant percentage of self-described Democrats for Americans to lose the Iraq War.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                      FINALLY, Bush announces plans to leave Iraq! Hallelujah!http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30931

                      (oh yeah, this is a joke)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                        Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                        Ah, spin control -- it didn't take long for those uncomfortable with the obvious, undeniable implications of this poll to pretend that the answers given weren't really the answers given. So, per 3Ball, we play "let's pretend" that the "first part" of the question is tough, and therefore people must have misunderstood it and meant to really answer some other question -- whether they wanted Bush to succeed -- than the question actually asked.

                        Course, that begs the question why so much higher a percentage of Democrats misunderstood the question that way than did Republicans or Independents. And if you actually read the poll, you would see that the question you pretend was misunderstood as being asked had actually been asked elsewhere, reducing the likelihood that there was any misunderstanding. (See question 14, rather than question 19 which was originally quoted above. Matter of fact, if you want to appreciate how consistent is the Dems' collective viewpoint on these matters, see questions 14-21, the differences of which make clear that Democrats didn't misunderstand this question at all, as they were asked a bunch of them.)
                        No, my friend, it is you who are spinning. Besides, this isn't a quote from Hillary Clinton or something, it's a polling question. If you are so high on polls, then why not read the polls that state pretty unambiguously that Americans don't want any more troops sent to Iraq. We want to see Bush fail to send more troops to Iraq because we want less of them dying, and we want less blood on our hands. Show me a poll question where Democrats say "We want more troops to die" and then maybe you have a point. Until then you are just trying to twist verbiage.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                          Originally posted by 3Ball
                          There is plenty we can do to help beyond sending more troops. If we want Iraq to be a democracy, a good first step would be accepting the will of the people.

                          What else is meant by small-d democracy than "accepting the will of the people?" And if accepting the will of the people is tantamount to making Iraq a democracy, how can it be a "first step"?
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            What else is meant by small-d democracy than "accepting the will of the people?"
                            Exactly!

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            And if accepting the will of the people is tantamount to making Iraq a democracy, how can it be a "first step"?
                            Accepting the will of the people on one decision doesn't mean that Iraq is a free and peace loving democracy for all time. But it's a damn good first step. The American people don't want more troops and the Iraqi people don't want more troops. So are we a democracy or aren't we? Are we trying to make Iraq into a democracy or aren't we? We shall see, but right now it isn't looking good. For the Democrats OR the democrats.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                              I just came back to this today.... wow.

                              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                              Ah, spin control -- it didn't take long for those uncomfortable with the obvious, undeniable implications of this poll to pretend that the answers given weren't really the answers given. So, per 3Ball, we play "let's pretend" that the "first part" of the question is tough, and therefore people must have misunderstood it and meant to really answer some other question -- whether they wanted Bush to succeed -- than the question actually asked.
                              Oh **** you caught me. I didn't read any of the other poll questions .... You do realize you only solicited a response for the posted question? right? Therefore I answered only based on the one question. Do you work for Fox? If not you should.

                              Course, that begs the question why so much higher a percentage of Democrats misunderstood the question that way than did Republicans or Independents. And if you actually read the poll, you would see that the question you pretend was misunderstood as being asked had actually been asked elsewhere, reducing the likelihood that there was any misunderstanding. (See question 14, rather than question 19 which was originally quoted above. Matter of fact, if you want to appreciate how consistent is the Dems' collective viewpoint on these matters, see questions 14-21, the differences of which make clear that Democrats didn't misunderstand this question at all, as they were asked a bunch of them.)
                              Oh so this is a loaded thread.


                              "No one in their right mind wants" us to fail, waxman? Are you saying that the 34% of Democrats who explicitly answered that question are not in their right minds?
                              I'd say 50% of all "Democrats" are not in their right mind... .as oppossed to 75% of "Repulicans". 90% of either party that would actually answer a Fox poll as Retarded.

                              Yes, you are certainly correct that Republicans will cite this poll as (still further) evidence that liberals and Dems do not support the troops, don't want to win the war, are anti-American, all those things. Do you honestly believe such evidence is not relevant for emphasis in the public discourse?
                              It would be valuable if it weren't invariably spun. Being against a war based on manipulated "intelligence" and Lies and Wanting troops to come home is spun into we don't support the troops, are anti-american and want america to lose. How does that make sense?

                              Undeniably, there are many, many patriotic Democrats who support our troops, want to win the war, etc. -- the poll refers to 51%, a slim majority, of Democrats who in fact want to win the war, so let's be clear and recognize them and let not their views go unacknowledged. I personally know many. I personally used to be a Democrat, as if that matters. But, just as undeniably, from their very answers, a significant percentage of Democrats have directly answered the question otherwise, and stated that they do not wish for us to be successful in the new initiative. So let not their views go unacknowledged -- or spun by apologists like our friends here -- either. And like it or not, as the saying goes, "if the shoe fits ...."
                              No one IN THERE RIGHT MIND wants American Troops to die for a hegemonistic war based on a Global Agenda. The only thing this war has guaranteed is we will have a precense their.... FOREVER.... and guaranteed generations of Americans will have to deal with this mess for the unforseeable future. Think Israel and Palastine x 100.

                              Like 3Ball, waxman is apparently uncomfortable with what this poll question says about our dominant political party and so he also wants to pretend it was a "loaded question" that was "confusing" and "most likely" disproportionately misunderstood -- but only by Democrats. What a crock -- if you read the poll questions you will see that there is nothing confusing about any of them. But obviously he did not read the poll, as doing so would have revealed that Dems were asked many questions and their answers were consistently hostile to the war effort. I welcome these folks to actually click on the link and read the poll results -- pretending that question 19 was misunderstood for what was actually asked earlier at question 14 makes clear the spin will not work.

                              That is fine, it is clearly their right to have and express these views, but let's do be honest about it, and don't expect others not to notice the import of these opinions by America's dominant political party. Let's not spin it as other than it is: a genuine desire on the part of a significant percentage of self-described Democrats for Americans to lose the Iraq War.
                              No... we've already lost it. The Neo-cons never wanted to win it outright.... it may be out of there control NOW. But they along with the Saudi's and Israel want us to have a permanent major presence there.


                              You cannot presume to know anything about me or my politics. I'm not a Democrat.... and you are not conservative.... you are an unwitting Neo-con. William Kristol is your hero and you don't even know it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X