Very Misleading Post (0.00 / 0)

This is absurd. The left should be above this kind of number dance.

Read most simply, exactly 70% of those polled APPROVE continued funding to the war on Iraq.

47% approve funds that will 'protect the troops'
23% approve unconditional funds
----
70% approval

Unless you're going to post the EXACT wording of what it means to 'protect the troops and/or bring them home,' this poll is meaningless. Does protecting them include proactive strikes? How was this explained to those taking the poll?

As for the 'striking difference in flat-out opposition levels among registered/ unregisterd men': A perfect cherry pick. Yes, there is a 15% difference, but move the eyes a bit to the right and notice the difference in women is ZERO. Combine the genders and you find numbers that aren't so striking.

In short, tugging and teasing these numbers is a waste. If we need to convince ourselves that this war is wrong by way of polls, we're lost. What is it Democrats? Can you be against something without the polls backing you up? Do you really NEED this kind of justification? I know Hillary and Obama would never act w/out poll-support, but can we not mirror their weaknesses as their constituency? Aren't they supposed to look to US?

So damned sad when I see things like this.


"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - J. Cortazar

---

by: todbrilliant @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 16:05:04 PM UTC

Nonsense! Don't Be A Stupid Troll! (4.00 / 1)

This poll was deliberately designed to cut through the rhetorical fog that has been used to sustain this highly unpopular war, and you want to turn on the fog machine again.

You say:

47% approve funds that will 'protect the troops'
23% approve unconditional funds
----
70% approval

But you're deliberately cutting off the part that disproves your absurd claim:

Congress should approve the funding request, but specify that it can only be used to protect the troops and bring them home.

The exact wording of the question was virtually the same as that given in the story (with slight variance in word order).  Specifically--as you could have found by clicking on the links--the question script was as follows [with % of all responders, then registered voters]:

President Bush wants Congress to approve a $200 billion dollar request to continue funding the Iraq war and keep the troops in Iraq. Should Congress:

READ AND ROTATE

Vote against the $200 billion funding request .................24  22

Vote for the $200 billion funding request
without conditions ............................................................22  23

OR

Vote for the $200 billion funding request, but specify
that it can be used ONLY to protect US troops and
contractors and to bring them home, rather than to
continue the war ..............................................................46 47

Don't know........................................................................8 7

So next time you want to throw a hissy fit about how terrible the left is, you might just want to know what the hell you're talking about first.

I see this is just your second comment on this site.  You're not off to a very good start.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 16:37:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So damned sad when I see things like this (0.00 / 0)

Tod's Words....

In short, tugging and teasing these numbers is a waste. If we need to convince ourselves that this war is wrong by way of polls, we're lost. What is it Democrats? Can you be against something without the polls backing you up? Do you really NEED this kind of justification?  I know Hillary and Obama would never act w/out poll-support, but can we not mirror their weaknesses as their constituency? Aren't they supposed to look to US?

So damned sad when I see things like this.

Tod if the bolded statement above is really your opinion you are seriously disconnected with reality. Democrats have been fighting Iraq occupation since they took back the majority, and some even before then. Obama was against the invasion from the begining.

The problem progressives face is the right-wing echo chamber. Bush, Republicans, talk-radio, Fox News all echo each other, regardless of the facts. Hence progresives, Democrats, and everyone allied in an effort to end the occupation of Iraq and redeploy the troops need this type of hard surgical data to cut through the right-wing rhetoric.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:10:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Consider The Source (0.00 / 0)

This is a guy with an axe to grind, which is why he intentionally completely misread the poll.

On his own website, he has a post, "Why Al Gore Makes the Perfect Third Party Candidate."

(Because that way he'd elect a Republican in 2008, thus turning himself into Ralph Nader!)

File under, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:37:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well the number is really 69% (0.00 / 0)

47% & 22% - but that is splitting hairs to bring that up.

I hope all my Defunding friends at dkos & here get a chance to see this poll. As you state:

a clear majority supports either conditioning funding only to provide for safe redeployment...

This shows that the general public is more in touch with reality than many in the netroots are. I'm talking about those who everyday shout 'defund' without regard to where the money will come from to get the troops home. And then when asked where the money will come from they can only say there is plenty of money but can't tell you where. Then when you point out to them that DoD money is limited by law to how it can be used and can't be used for redeployment unless congress passes a bill to do so which is then signed into law by Bush - which isn't going to happen - the defunders opt out of responding and go on the next day to shout 'defund' once again, clearly avoiding the reality that the general pubic clearly sees. It is pretty sad that people think advocating for defunding with no regard to how the troops safely deploy is actually supporting the troops - it's not. Supporting the troops is not leaving them stranded as the defunders would do.

All that said the poll is not much different than what we have been reading in other polls over the last year regarding funding. What is also not different, and this is the important part, is that there continues to be no way that congress will pass a veto proof bill that provides money to pull the troops out. So while the figures are once again interesting hoping for congress to pass such a bill is an exercise in futility.

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:23:31 PM UTC

I'm A Defunder, And I Can Split Hairs Better Than You (0.00 / 0)

Defunding makes perfect sense, just as Abolitionism did before the Civil War--there wasn't a legal mechanism for that, either.

If you don't demand the impossible, it will always remain impossible.

Furthermore, the figures are 24+46=70% for all respondents.  You're citing the figures for registered voters.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:42:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Useless to confuse Mr. Talex... (0.00 / 0)

...........................................with the facts. He knows what he knows and that's an end to it!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:08:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To which facts do you refer to? (0.00 / 0)

As for the poll numbers Paul and I were both right - it just depends if one were referring to registered voters or all voters.

As for the defunding unless someone can explain how I am wrong it does no good just to say I am wrong. I present facts to support my case - defunders present nothing.

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:21:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK 70% (0.00 / 0)

I was looking at your blockquote figures and didn't bother to add up every combination of numbers in the poll numbers you provided and you didn't specifiably mention the combination of numbers you were referring to. Like I said - spitting hairs.

As for defunding, like the others I mentioned, you also didn't bother to say where the money would come from to safely redeploy the troops.

You really can't seriously equate Abolitionism with a modern day war being funded solely by supplementals where defunding that war by not approving more supplementals would leave the troops in limbo with no funding can you?

That is why the plurality of the public in this poll favor funding for safe withdrawal - i.e providing the money for them to get home. You defunders do not do that. That can't be supporting the troops because you can't support the troops coming home when you provide no 'means' for them to get home. Can you explain how not providing them a means to come home is going to get them home?

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:17:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At One Level It's Sheer Semantics (0.00 / 0)

First off, at the most basic, it's sheer semantics whether you cut off funding for the war, and provide separate funding for withdrawal, or wether you continue funding for the troops in Iraq, but specify it can only be used for safely withdrawing them.

Even so, however, with this President, there is every reason to suppose he would simply ignore that later, saying he's the "commander in chief" so he gets to decide how to spend the money in Iraq.  Thus, appropriating no money for Iraq makes more sense because it makes that "unitary executive" BS that much harder to pull off.

Finally, there is the simple fact that we have always had plenty of money in the pipeling that could be used for withdrawal. Not only have new funding requests come months in advance of running out of existing appropriations, they have routinely asked for enormous amounts stretching far into the future.  Thus, a combination of using existing funds for the purpose of withdrawal, and--if necessary--a much more limited appropriation specifically for withdrawal, can easily provide the needed funds.

In short, there really isn't a problem here.  You are simply creating the appearance of a problem, so that you can appear "reasonable," and paint others as "unreasonable" and "extreme."

I can't for the life me understand why you'd want to do this.

Not enough divisions in the Democratic Party for you?  Need to create a few more?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 19:16:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Semantics? (0.00 / 0)

The difference in the choices you listed is hardly only semantics. The choices you listed are not about the interpretation of words - the choices have very real and distinct differences. Cutting off funding by not bringing up a bill as most defunders now advocate for is not even the same as actually funding a withdrawal.

Come on if you are going to debate the issue at least be honest about the differences in the policies and not try to both blur the lines of distinction while at the same time insult my intelligence.

Finally, there is the simple fact that we have always had plenty of money in the pipeline that could be used for withdrawal. Not only have new funding requests come months in advance of running out of existing appropriations, they have routinely asked for enormous amounts stretching far into the future.

You simply have no evidence of that. In fact the last funding bill in March needed to be passed because even when the small amount of available monies was factored in by all accounts - including Webb's who as former SecOfNavy knows about these things - all money was going to run dry sometime in July. That means at best there was 4 months cushion. Not hardly enough to sustain the troops for the length of time it would take to redeploy them and to actually incur the costs of redeploying them.

Your vague "we have always had plenty of money" is exactly what I said all of you defunders fall back on. No facts, no specifics of how much we have or how much it would take, no mention of exactly where the money would come from.

FYI if you were to give one of the supplementals 30 minutes of your time you would see that the money is not just thrown into one big pot for whatever one wants to use it for. The money is specifically budgeted for certain purposes down to the dollar. That being the case by law for that money to be used for other purposes such as withdrawal the congress would have to re-appropriate it with a majority voting for such. It is hardly likely that the Repubs would do that. Secondly even if congress did pass it they would have to do so with a veto proof majority because Bush would not sign such a bill to re-appropriate the money.

So yeah there is a problem and I'm not the one ignoring it or creating it. The laws of the USA are the ones creating it and the non-existence of the money you say is there is also creating it.

Sorry but you guys just want to base your case on vague generalizations and that won't fly because it is not responsible. If someone, anyone, could show me specifically how we could defund and still fund the troops redeployment back home and avoid the very real obstacles I mentioned then I would be all for defunding. But no one can. Not you, not Stoller, not Bowers and not Kos. In fact you probably read where Kos finally suggested that we fund the troops one month at a time if we were to defund - for their safety's sake. That was an acknowledgment that there is no money as you try to suggest.

I don't know any other way to put it but to say that you defunders either don't know the obstacles that exist, some of which I mentioned here in this post - or that you do know those obstacles exist but chose to ignore them so you can win some silly debate on a blog.

In either case our troops deserve more from those who say they are fighting for their return. If you are serious about bringing them home then either learn what the obstacles are, accept them, and find a solution that deals with them or quit hiding from those obstacles if you do know what they are. Hollow debate victories while ignoring the facts do nothing to bring them home. Nothing.

And ranting defunding when you don't have a plan to bring them home is not going to influence congress - it is only going to make them look at us as unrealistic which gives us no influence at all. the defunding may be great for page hits and revenue but it does nothing to bring the troops home.

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:09:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Speak For Versailles (0.00 / 0)

But you don't speak for the American people.

The "impossibility" exists solely in the conventions and assumptions of Versailles, which are unalterably opposed to the American people.  And repeating those conventions and assumptions endlessly does not make them either more true, or more convincing.  Apologists such as yourself make it easier for Verailles to continue operating in defiance of the overwhelming will of the people.

I hope you are proud of yourself.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 00:03:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You gotta be kidding! (0.00 / 0)

Do you really think the gobbly-gook  even starts to answer the issues I brought up in my post? I thought we were going to have a serious discussion on the issues - not a bunch of bobbing and weaving.

I got news for you too. You advocate for defunding with disregard for what happens to the military...

Your own citing of the poll today shows that you don't speak for the American people. I'm right in step with that poll not you. I'm for funding that would get the troops out and reject anything that will not. That is what the majority of those who want out of Iraq said today in that poll.

47% say they want conditional funding Paul. Only 22% say Congress should vote against the funding request entirely. You clearly don't speak for Americans. But I do by by double.

---

by: talex @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:14:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Polling question worthless (except for propaganda) (0.00 / 0)

(Not that there's anything wrong with propaganda, as long as you don't believe it.)

As I tried to explain, the problem with the poll question was that it referred to an impossible outcome: Congress passes a conditional funding bill and Bush signs it.

Hopefully, there's no one that's reading this that thinks that's conceivably possible.

So - to elicit a plausibly reliable response, the question should have been: Should Congress send Bush a conditional funding bill, and when he vetoes it, refuse to send him an unconditional bill.

That's what lefties want: no unconditional bill. And an unconditional bill seems to be what the July 19 letter is pledging signatories to vote against.

I can quite understand why Lee and the Progs would want to blur the issue - and that the poll question was tailored accordingly.

But - it does zilch to uncover the state of Sixpack's mind on crash defunding - the only alternative to capitulation to Bush.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:06:43 PM UTC

At this point in the process.... (0.00 / 0)

......................................I do not believe this is about what Bush does. It's about what the 'Democrat' Party is refusing to do. The much abused citizenry has been asking the government to get our troops out of Iraq for some little while now.

All the deception spin about 'all the troops', 'some of the troops', funding, defunding cannot conceal the fact that a large majority wants our participation in this bloody, illegal occupation to end. It is indeed up to the government, both Bush Fascistii and 'Democrat' enablers, to craft the method of withdrawal.

Said method is not very amenable to polling but discussions of same are moot since no part of the our nation's 'leadership' has any intention of paying any attention to what the people want.

Said 'leadership' will continue the occupation until they are removed which removal will begin in the 2008 elections and continue until is is gone.

Make whatever argument you like but those politicians who refuse to get behind withdrawal are the walking dead.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:17:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It gets really tiring (0.00 / 0)

to read what you wrote. Of course the Dems are paying attention as they have put forth several bills. If you don't know that then you are the one not paying attention.

What you guys Don't Want To Get is that the Dems have put forth bills but the current structure of the majority, the minority and the Presidency do not allow for those bills to be passed.

There are no other viable alternatives - and NO - defunding without a plan to fund the lengthy withdrawal is not an option.

The poll makes clear that the public is for withdrawal - but only - if we can fund the withdrawal.

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:30:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Are Reading Your Own Views Into The Poll (0.00 / 0)

This poll presents a certain set of alternatives.  It doesn't present all the alternatives, or even a wide range of alternatives.  It's purpose seems clear--to draw a distinction that Bush is trying to blur between supporting the troops and supporting his policy.  It shows quite clearly that less than 25% support his policy.  This is quite significant.

But the people polled were not asked the question, "if you can't have the troops withdraw, should we give Bush all the money he wants anyway, so that troops keep getting killed?"

You are simply assuming that all of those who voted for funding a withdrawal would say, "sure, why not?"

There is simply no basis for this assumption.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 19:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know what the poll said (0.00 / 0)

And I don't see how you, from my post, reach the conclusions you do. All I said was what the poll said - that people are for funding a withdrawal. I didn't assume anything else. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

The poll is saying nothing that hasn't been said before in other polls. But it's purpose is clear in this case because of who commissioned it. It is not only trying to draw a distinction between Bush and the public that we already know exists - it is, more importantly, also trying to make a case for funding a withdrawal. That is the main point of the poll: to make a case to fund a withdrawal.

Which makes a point that even the Out Of Iraq Caucus which is made up of the most Liberal members of the House know what you don't know - that to end the war requires funding the withdrawal. In other words there is no money to do that floating around as you suggested earlier to me. If there was then her poll would have asked: "do you want to use the money that is available now to bring the troops home?" The poll didn't ask that because there isn't any money. So much for defunding.

---

by: talex @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, That's NOT What You Said (0.00 / 0)

talex #2:

All I said was what the poll said - that people are for funding a withdrawal. I didn't assume anything else. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

talex #1:

The poll makes clear that the public is for withdrawal - but only - if we can fund the withdrawal. [Emphasis added]

This really is idiotic.  Clearly even people who want an immediate withdrawal want it paid for.  That's the only way you can have a withdrawal.  They can't hitch-hike back to the US.  Your "but only" is a empty rhetorical move, which you first proclaim as of utmost importance--because you claim it means the people don't want an immediate withdrawal--and then seek to downplay it afterwards.

The poll is saying nothing that hasn't been said before in other polls.

No, that's not true.  It's extending what has been found before in other polls, and has been systematically ignored by all of Versailles.

The point of the poll is to once again challenge the brain-dead equation of support Bush's folly with supporting the troops, and to do so in terms of how the debate is being pushed at this time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 00:30:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OMG (0.00 / 0)

This really is idiotic.  Clearly even people who want an immediate withdrawal want it paid for.  That's the only way you can have a withdrawal.  They can't hitch-hike back to the US.

I tell you what is idiotic. It is a defunder like you claiming there is money to bring the troops home except you don't know where it will come from.

Your rhetorical games are a big zero. I've participated in organized debate my entire life since 9th grade. I don't fall for the games you are playing. Avoiding the issues by playing word games is such  an unsophisticated debate tactic.

Again in the poll:

47% say they want conditional funding Paul. Only 22% say Congress should vote against the funding request entirely.

Contrary to what you claimed earlier that people were not given a choice between conditional funding or not - they obviously were.

Strike three baby - you're out!

---

by: talex @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:25:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LIke I said..... (0.00 / 0)

useless to 'discuss' this with you. The statement that:

I tell you what is idiotic. It is a defunder like you claiming there is money to bring the troops home except you don't know where it will come from.

Is utter bullshit. Can't say any plainer than that. The MIC consumes, including the best estimates of 'black' programs close to 50% of the budget. The argument that there is no money to fund withdrawal or that the Congress can't quite figure out where to get it is fallacious. Those who make are using it as a smoke screen in an attempt to hide their real agenda.

The looting of the U.S. Treasury to feed the MIC and it's pilot fish; lobbyists who make sure that legislators on both sides of the aisle....

Stay bought.

As for your 'debating' skills form my perspective they are non-existent. Sorry, but that's the way I see it despite your criticisms that Paul and I are playing 'word games'.

Look in the mirror for that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 18:39:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have no idea (0.00 / 0)

what you are talking about. The MIC? The 'budget? 50% for 'black' programs?

None of those has anything to do with the supplementals that fund Iraq. And if you read my other posts you would know that you can't use other DoD money for any other purpose other that what it was appropriated for. There are some exceptions that as I noted in my other posts but they would never happen for obvious reasons also noted.

As for You and Paul playing word games - Ha - I said Paul was playing word games not you. I don't think you are smart enough to play word games.

---

by: talex @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 00:03:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Comment Is WORSE Than Worthless (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for sharing your rightwing talking points with us.

It gets quite tiresome to hear folks on blogs repeat the most brain-dead Versailles arguments as if doing so somehow makes them superior to all the rest of us.

First off, the issue-blurring here is all from the Bushies, and has been going on from the very beginning--"Support the troops" = give Bush whatever he wants.  This question very clearly separates the two, and shows that people chose the former, not the later.

But, true to form, you just have to bash, bash, bash, bash, bash, because basically that's all you know how to do.

As I tried to explain, the problem with the poll question was that it referred to an impossible outcome: Congress passes a conditional funding bill and Bush signs it.

The point, of course, is that it's only an impossible outcome because folks like you accept it as an impossible outcome (and therefore discourage everyone from even fighting for it) instead of fighting to change it.  And that's what Lee is doing--fighting to change it.  That's why she's a progressive and you're a regressive--or, better yet, a corrosive.

I also find it very offensive (up sharply from merely annoying) that you refer to the American people as "Sixpack."  Though, I suppose the inherent contempt serves to remind us all of where you're really coming from.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 20:06:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mmm... (0.00 / 0)

I'll step over the name-calling (good for the roses as it no doubt is) and try to locate the arguments on the substance.

Anyone who thinks that

the issue-blurring here is all from the Bushies

can't have been paying attention to the umpteen measures from both parties allowed onto the House and Senate floors by the Dem majority leadership,

Separating the nonbinding from the binding, the various withdrawal dates from one another - and, most particularly, the bill guaranteed to be vetoed from the bill likely to be signed - is enough to blur the vision of the most assiduous spectator.

You kindly quote me, and follow with a non-sequitur:

The point, of course, is that it's only an impossible outcome because folks like you accept it as an impossible outcome.

I - not to mention that large majority of Americans identified in the poll as wanting US withdrawal - would be delighted to see the evidence you have for there being any realistic chance whatsoever that Bush would sign a bill funding the war only to the extent of withdrawal and redeployment (as per the July 19 letter).

I'm sure you would hardly be wasting our time with analysis unsupported by cogent and probative evidence, and I would happy, nay eager, to adjust mine to take into account any such evidence that you adduce.

As it is, this seems to be something of a Tinkerbell theory: the conditional bill would pass and Bush would sign it if only everyone clapped hard enough. 

And the idea that anything I said here could influence anyone to do anything is, I suspect, just as counterfactual. Modesty aside.

As for Sixpack, he's shorthand, and ergonomically efficient for touch-typing. Alternatives with the same advantages I will gladly consider.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:05:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Paul (0.00 / 0)

I didn't 'leave out' the bit about bringing them home...it's not possible to leave out empty wording as it never existed in the first place.

You seem to imply that the funding is approved to be used to bring troops home. That, of course, implies that without these approved war monies, we'll simply ABANDON U.S. SOLIDERS in Iraq. Foolishness. Next time you attempt to rebut a "second time poster" (why so disdainful of people who are new to this particular tiny sliver of the debate?), it would serve the conversation if you packed more logic, less rhetoric.

The wording and intention of this poll are both inane.

Oh, and remember, you can't truly be against the war in Iraq/Iran AND vote for Hillary. I know it's been said many times before, but 'hold your nose' voting is for those who have given up on democracy.


"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - J. Cortazar

---

by: todbrilliant @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 20:50:51 PM UTC

I'm Not Disdainful Of You Being New (0.00 / 0)

I'm amazed at how quickly you make an ass of yourself.

That takes some real talent.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 00:32:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul, I'm Guessing (0.00 / 0)

merely guessing that you're probably not real popular around here. . .not with how quickly you launch into attack mode.

Bet you're more interested in being right than teasing out common ground and shared truths.

Way to rebut my actual point, Mr. Rosenberg. Good to see how easy it will be to make you flounder in the future.

"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - J. Cortazar

---

by: todbrilliant @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:53:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

70/30 (0.00 / 0)

If seventy oppose funding without strings, that means there might be 30% out there against it.  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership seems to be among that 30%.

Still, we must support them no matter what.

---

by: Dumbo @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 22:23:35 PM UTC