Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11759590/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11 759590/</a> Bush also has 37% approval ratings in the latest Associated Press poll. A whopping 77% of Americans, including 70% of republicans, believe civil war in Iraq is likely. Of course, as Bush has told us, he was called by God to be President, so his poll numbers could be at 5% and he wouldn't care.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sure, and almost 50% of Americans have a negative view of Islam. Is that any surprise after 2 years of the network news and the major US papers saying that everything is going wrong in Iraq? If 90% of the news presented to Americans is negative, is it any wonder that they are not optimistic?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I wonder how people came to the conclusion that civil war in Iraq is going to happen?? The same way 70% of Americans were against the Port deal as they jumped on the hysteria misinformation train? General Pace, who is the man in Iraq, says the civil war threat is greatly misrepresented. By who?? The media who wants Iraq to be a failure and is upset Saddam left power. Just goes to show people are sheep. I think I will listen to the people in the military who are in Iraq than the liberal media. They say no civil war is likely.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think I will listen to the people in the military who are in Iraq than the liberal media.<< Sure you will. Unless they are actually polled and you don't like the findings. LOL!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If the poll isn't bogus and misleading like the Zogby poll, as was proved by many people who looked at his method and the fact that an anti war lib paid for the " study ". Again, I will take a GENERAL who is in Iraq and what he says over a bunch of anti war, anti bush, pro saddam liberals who seem intent to give the terrorists a victory. How about you?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer General Pace is not in Iraq. He's about as far from Iraq as Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA 85% of those on LaughingPlace.com feel that I can transport myself to Disneyland using the powers of my own mind.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>If I was the UAE I would tell the USA to go screw iself..... and they just might do this now as is their right.<< Since the Holy Trinity is One, wouldn't their opinion of anything be 100%?
Originally Posted By cmpaley How did that happen? The Quote in Post 10 was supposed to be: >>I think 66% of the Holy Trinity is opposed to Bush now.<<
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I know a country that had a civil war...and got stronger as a result.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Yeah, I know, but as you know: "we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God without confusing the persons or dividing the divine substance. For the Father is one Person, the son is the another, and the Holy Spirit is another, but there is one Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, equal in glory and coequal in majesty. What the Father is, that is the Son and that is the Holy Spirit" (from the Creed of St. Athanasius -- the long one that's read on Trinity Sunday).
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << >>pro saddam liberals<< Everytime you say that, you discredit yourself even further. >> Nope K2man, if you were against removing Saddam you were for keeping him in power... or you were pro Saddam regarding him not being removed from power. You sure are not anti Saddam if you are against removing him when the time comes to do just that, now are you? What's so hard about that?? You discredit yourself by not being able to see this obvious fact. Oh, the radio tells me it's time for me to go spend some of my money from last night.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <,if you were against removing Saddam you were for keeping him in power... or you were pro Saddam regarding him not being removed from power.>> Typical false choice coming from the neo-cons. I think that we can all agree that Saddam was a bad, bad man and did terrible things to his people. Should he have been removed? Yes. Should it have been up to us to remove him using the reasons that we gave to the world back in 2002? No. O'Reilly likes to use this arguement to bully his "guests" around too. It's usally (add shouting and lots of mouth foaming), "Who are your for, Saddam or Bush!? Huh!? Huh!? SHUT UP!"
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Oh, the radio tells me it's time for me to go spend some of my money from last night.<< I can think of something you can buy...for me. I'll agree to meet you if you'll meet me tomorrow at the Apple Store at the Grove at Farmers Market tomorrow at 10 to buy me the iMac I want. :-D
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Should it have been up to us to remove him using the reasons that we gave to the world back in 2002? No.>> Well, Bush gave a bunch of reasons why Saddam should be removed and the dems in congress voted for his reasons. What reason did he not give that you wanted to hear so you could not be a pro Saddam type?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<What reason did he not give that you wanted to hear so you could not be a pro Saddam type?>> I'm not going to fall into the trap of having you label me one way or another. If you want to think that I have a shrine to Saddam on my wall and that I pray to it every night or whatever crazy idea is in your head, then I cant stop you. Just know that discerning people can see thru that BS. I do know this. We invaded a soverign country using false intelligence and without provocation. Now, in the wake of our actions, people are dying every day, terrorism is more (not less) prevalent now that before, sharia law is ready to emerge as a result of the "free elections", the country is on the brink of civil war and the population of that nation wants us to leave. It's gloomy, but that's the stage that we've set.
