Originally Posted By jonvn How surprising. Support is now at an all time low. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/ 16/iraq.poll/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By patrickegan If they posed a more definitive question say what would you prefer, the bombs going off over here or over there? My support is firmly behind the latter!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< If they posed a more definitive question say what would you prefer, the bombs going off over here or over there? My support is firmly behind the latter >>> I'm sure that most people would agree with you, given the hypothetical that you give. But an increasing number of people are realizing that it's not a matter of "Either we wage war in Iraq, or the United States is vulnerable to attack." In fact, I would wager that a majority of the people in the US now realize that Iraq and US national security have nothing to do with each other, other than possibly that our action in Iraq has actually decreased US national security.
Originally Posted By patrickegan We’ll just have to guess as to the content of the Opinion Research Corporation hypothetical. I’m not one that thinks we should wager US national security on opinion or a hunch! It can’t by degree get much worse then attacks upon civilians as witnessed on September 11th, with the exception of the use of larger WMD’s.
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 Kar2oonMan >>If they posed a more definitive question say what would you prefer, the bombs going off over here or over there?<< That's not a more definitive question. It's a more stilted one, though.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I would wager that a majority of the people in the US now realize that Iraq and US national security have nothing to do with each other, other than possibly that our action in Iraq has actually decreased US national security.> More people may be believing that, but they are not "realizing" that. To "realize" something, you have to be presented with evidence that the something is true, rather than just claimed.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, no, that has nothing to do with the definition of the word "realize." Here is the definition: <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/realize" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ realize</a> But, of course, that is only subjective, right?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But, of course, that is only subjective, right?> Yes. Here is another definition which better describes what I believe was the connotation that SuperDry intended. <a href="http://www.answers.com/realize" target="_blank">http://www.answers.com/realize</a> I do not believe that people "comprehend completely or correctly" that "Iraq and US national security have nothing to do with each other". However, I don't care at all if you want to believe that people have "caused to seem real" that idea.
Originally Posted By jonvn Your definition is about the same as the one I provided. You have added some completely non-standard verbiage of your own to it to try and twist it into something it is not. Your interpretation is just that -- your interpretation -- and it has nothing to do with what the word means, which is laid out quite specifically in the definitions provided.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That's your opinion. Which is, of course, subjective, and, I believe, wrong.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's fine. You've made another indefensible argument and are now going to go into semantic mode. In this case, out of whole cloth you've made up a new definition for a standard English word. Much like Beau was trying to do with "consensus." I guess with you guys, when the language doesn't fit, just give words new meanings that they didn't have before. That makes it easy for you to say whatever you want and backpeddle later. Let's see how soon you bring Clinton into this now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You've made another indefensible argument and are now going to go into semantic mode.> Actually, no. That's what you're doing.
Originally Posted By jonvn Can't forget parrot mode. "That's what you're doing." Bleat. Meanwhile, I'm not the one who added some extra wording to a definition. But hey, what's reality anyway? Bleat.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Usually when the lib’s jump the semantics train it indicates that the pap gears are slipping!
Originally Posted By jonvn I have no idea how to parse that. But, what is interesting is that the conversation did get derailed, because it shows that typical right wing ideas are not flying in this country anymore. Most people, by a two to one margin, are now saying they do not support the war. That's two thirds. Basically what it comes down to is that only the most fervid followers are still on the side of Bush & Co. on this. The large middle part of the population, the swing voters, are pretty much coming down against it. And of course this is what would happen. We had NO reason for going into Iraq. The ones we had were slipshod and was a blind sided effort to ignore anything that did not point the way to war. We get there, and gee, the place is now more violent than it was under the horrible dictator we ousted. The region is destabalized, we're hated for it, and what was sympathy for our cause in terrorism has turned to contempt. Most people in the country see this now. And they realize what a mistake this was. The only thing we can do now is to figure out how to get this over with. It's obvious that the people in charge right now have no clear idea as to what to do next, or how to go about it. So, what's the plan? Are we just going to continue sitting there while the barbarians shoot away at us? That's what it seems like.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Can’t find’em, grind’em! It’s hard to compete with wood chipper justice when you have organizations like the ACLU!
