Originally Posted By woody STPH posted a Rasmussen Reports survey, which is of limited value to the David Ignatius article. David Ignatius spoke with Iraqis about the situation on the ground. The survey only presents what Americans think, but may not know everything that is going on.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder We all could post competing articles with both viewpoints. So what?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Can you post an article from someone who has been in Iraq extensively that says we can't win there?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Good point on this subject. The people who have been to Iraq will tell you things are not even close to as bad as the media portrays. The American public has no idea what is going on in Iraq, and their opinion is based in large part due to biased liberal reporting from CNN and the rest of the Democrat arm of the media. No wonder the troops are so frustrated by the lies the media pushes on this country.
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 bboisvert <<Like I say, you could be the mouthpiece for Al Quaida with that view.>> They seem to be doing fine without STPH. Bush and his policies seem to be the best recuitment poster for al Qaida that they've ever had. Who needs propaganda?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Bush has killed 2/3rd of Al Quaida leadership and has them living in caves and on the run. He has seized millions of their dollars and is on offense againt them. But if you want to say Bush is creating more terrorists by fighting back instead of cowering begging Muhammed the bomber not to hurt us, then fine. It's why you guys lose.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Bush has killed 2/3rd of Al Quaida leadership>> How do we know that? What number are you using?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Here is what is really quite tragic: As bad as Bush and his Administration's poll number are concerning the public's view of their handling of the Iraq war...the public trusts Democrats even LESS when it comes to foreign policy. (According to a WSJ/NBC poll discussed on Meet the Press this weekend). I am partied out...and I don't mean St. Patrick's Day.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I'm with you wahoo to make the rhyme. I just want the 100 bill a year in the U.S.A.'s pocket. E.G. I just had a $1900 computer desk dropped off here and it was "made in China" of course. Let the Chinese invade Iraq and Pakistan and wherever and be the world's policeperson instead of us. At this rate China will be economically ahead of us by 2008 instead of 2015 as the experts prognosticate. Put some of the money to protect our borders as my wife and I think. Please stop this throwing away our children's money and future.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob2: In reference to Post 252, you're off the wall. You try to redefine the argument to fit your hypothesis. "You missed the point that math is math. It is not conservative nor liberal. It is not concerned with how you "understand" our economy or how I understand it. It is numbers. It is neutral. And to argue that demographic shifts mean NOTHING at all flies in the face of both logic and all economic experts, both liberal and conservative. They all acknowlege that demographics are hugely important - they differ only in to what to do about it. But none of them argue that demographic shifts count for nothing at all. You would be alone in that." My goodness. I said the demographic shift contributes nothing to low unemployment, but it does have a substantial effect on the economic condition in an adverse way. Are you forgetting the argument?> No, you're forgetting it. And it's you who are trying to shift the argument from the demographic shift's effect on the unemployment rate (which is ALL I've ever been talking about) to the demographic shift's effect on the economy in general, which I've never been talking about. They are two separate questions, you're getting them confused, and I simply haven't been arguing about the latter. <<Not at all. Here we see how you don't apply logic. Why couldn't the 50th AND the discounts have both counted towards DCA's attendance increase? Both could have contributed; the question then becomes how much. But you seem to see things in an all-or-nothing, black or white world. But that's not the real world.>> <You're forgetting the argument. Whether the discounts are the cause or the 50th is the cause is the argument. Otherwise, we would not have an argument or we would dismiss the argument. What the heck are you expecting? Maybe there should be no arguments. Let's say everyone is right. We are all in one happy family. Yeah, very logical.> Boy, is this telling. You're all about having an argument. You'd rather have an argument - especially one with a yes/no, black/white answer - than attempt to delve a little deeper and get something closer to the truth. You also completely (again) missed my point of the DCA analogy. Which is that both factors would have an effect on attendance, and anyone looking for just one or the other as "the" answer would have an incomplete understanding. And boy, did you prove me right. I love irony. <<This further shows your lack of understanding. In this case, the demographic shift would STILL not count for nothing, it would only be countered (or enhanced) by other factors. But that still doesn't mean it had no effect.>> <In your paragraphs, you said virtually nothing about the direct link between the demographic shift and low umemployment. Are you forgetting the argument? You keep ignoring or changing the argument. That's why we are getting nowhere!!!> The math was pointed out to you long ago. And that was always my only argument. <BTW: I want to argue the demographic shift contributes nothing to low unemployment based on mrichmondj's original argument.> Then you'd be wrong. The demographic shift MUST contribute something. The question is how much. <mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees." Dabob2: Don't even TRY to change the argument!!!> I never have. It's you who is off in a million other directions. <However, I think mrichmondj conceded (see Post 229) so this discussion is finished.> I'm not mrichmondj, and I said long ago that while he had a point about the demographic shift, he probably overstated its importance. But you are equally wrong in trying to claim it means nothing. Wait... BOTH of you wrong? How can that be??? Has your head exploded? <Good bye Dabob2.> Hello, woody.
