Unreported Poll: Congress Gets 3% Approval Rating For Handling Iraq War

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

If in the run-up to last year's elections a poll identified a three percent approval rating for the way Congress - which was controlled by Republicans at the time in case you forgot - was handling the war in Iraq, do you think you would have heard about it?

Maybe on every morning and evening news program for days, and on the front pages of every newspaper, correct?

Well, on Wednesday, Zogby International released the results of a stunning new poll that got virtually no attention.

Why?

Because it identified that virtually nobody in America thinks Congress - which is now currently controlled by Democrats in case you forgot - is doing a good job concerning Iraq (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse - only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war.

That's right. Eight times as many people think the president is doing a good job handling the war in Iraq than those who feel Congress is.

Any questions why you didn't hear about this poll unless you were listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday?

Now, the typical liberal explanation for this low Congressional approval would be that it's caused by disgruntlement over legislators not ending the war.

Not true:

42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support.

As such, if Congress' low rating concerning this issue was due to its failure to immediately withdraw troops, a much higher percentage of Americans would favor such a withdrawal.

And, as Don Surber pointed out Friday, the disgruntlement is quite bipartisan: "94% of Democrats polled absolutely detest, loathe and hate how the Democratic-led Congress is handling the war in Iraq."

Yet, maybe even funnier, James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute who also happens to be a senior analyst for Zogby International, wrote another Bush-bashing op-ed for HuffPo Friday:

[T]he realities of the war have persisted and taken a toll on public opinion. Our early polling has been validated. It has gone on too long, not gone well, and taken too many lives. The myths have been shattered, and the public has stopped believing.

Apparently, James didn't read his brother's company's poll two days prior, for nowhere in his piece did Zogby refer to Congress and its role in war.

On the other hand, maybe James is part of the three percent of Americans that believe Congress is doing a good job in Iraq.

Or, is he just part of the margin of error?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Noel

Once again thank-you for bringing the censored news to us.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

Poll??

Poll??? What poll???? Who did a poll??? Huh??

Margin of Error?

Isn't 3% within the margin of error? That would bring the true poll results to ----- ZERO.

Dontcha just love round numbers?

TnT et al

Tnt et al,

Rush addressed this yesterday. Even though Zogby's normal margin of error is 3 percent, in this poll, it was 1 -- likely for exactly the reason you've all pointed out. :-) ns

Drat!

Round number theory blown right out of the tub.

What's the margin of error?

What's the margin of error? +/- 3%? That could mean NO ONE approves of how the Libocrat Congress is handling the war. I won't call them the "do-nothing" congress anymore - they've managed to piss off everyone, and that really should count as something.

 

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

In deed KJ, 3% amounts to

In deed KJ, 3% amounts to the really kooky fringe of the tinfoil hat folks. 3% is more like the people who pushed the wrong button during the survey. 3% is the part you leave in the bottle because it is sediment. 3% is, yeah, the "margin of error" which is a great name for whomever these were.  ; )

Margin of error can't be zero

I hate to be a stick in the mud because I like your comment.

However, the margin of error isn't 3% across the entire range of polling percentage. It reaches a maximum at p = 50%. As the percentage moves toward the boundaries of 0% or 100%, the standard error gets smaller, approaching zero.

Therefore, almost by definition, approval of Nancy Pelosi (D) and Harry Reid (D) probably won't ever reach absolute zero.

This makes sense to me. I mean, terrorists and illegals must be pretty happy with the way the democrat-controlled congress is  handling the war on terror.

Of course it could never be

Of course it could never be zero - Harry and Nancy think they're doing a good job, delusional fools that they are. But I think we can all agree that congressional approval ratings under their (lack of) leadership have been reduced to statistically insignificant. ; )

 

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

The Stat Man knows

I knew a statistician would chime in just as soon as I posted. You're right, of course (drat -- see my DRAT post above).

The pendulum appears to be

The pendulum appears to be finally swinging on the whole "We have Lost " crowd. Harry and co. will now have alot of splainin' to do, if this swing continues and we have Victory in the sand pit.

And, Bush is now only 8 times as popular as the dims? I was thinking it was more like 100 times, he must be slipping.

Now, if we can get him to be as aggressively conservative with immigration, education, soc sec, "climate" and social spending, etc etc etc, we will have a bigger win in '08.

The dhimms in Congress

The dhimms in Congress blindly see this as "We aren't doing enough investigations ... We need to impeach Bush/Cheney ... Rove needs frog-marched!  Cut and Run! We gotta cut and run faster!"  Not as what it really is, an evaluation of the real folks in this country (NOT the wacky far left they aim to please) of the Congress and the democrat bullship.  Some said in the lead up to the 2006 election that it would do the republicans good to lose both the House and Senate.  I was one who resisted ... NEVER give up ground.  However, the live to fight another day just might be in order here.  If the friggin' repubs and the Administration don't smell the dhimmi blood in the waters then they're snorting something else! The dhimms are too dumb for kindergarten.

Democrat party narrative, flawed, broken

Psychologists tell us that the very ability to function depends on sustaining a coherent narrative of yourself and the world. When facts reveal incoherence in the narrative, a crisis is said to occur, and the individual must either reconcile their cognitions with the facts, which is good, or create imaginary new facts to sustain internal consistency, which is bad.

The democrat party narrative might well be internally consistent, as most utopias are, but it fails time and again against the sharp contours of reality. Consequently, the lib narrative is increasingly patched together by conspiracy theories and slogans, but this patch-up job can't work for long, can it? The whole thing's going to collapse, just like that 35W bridge did on Wednesday.

Sooner or later, the reality-based-truther community (there's an oxymoron for you) has to come out of that closet and admit its basic story line is unsustainable. Libs need to quit trying to patch up their world view with avoidant, deceptive, and fraudulent journalism.

Come on libs, the truth will set you free!

 

Well I'm back, and living

Well I'm back, and living in the liberal Mecca of Seattle.... too many Toyota Priuses here with Bush bashing bumper stickers on the back along with all the pompous prats walking around like they're better than everyone else.

I bet half of that 3% came from here.... I've overheard several conversations on how good the Michael Moonbat movie 'Sicko' is and how correct he is... these people are ignorant or stupid or both.

____________________________________________________

"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine

lbz -

Hey there!

Been waiting for a national health care story to post this but since you mentioned the great white whale:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

 

I will post the link again whenever the topic of nanny-state health care comes up.

is a progressive place right for you, buggy?

 

Well you might be happier in some redneck state talking about the real issues and threats to America ...flag burning and gay marriage. You know, the stuff the republican congress dwelled on.

Yay for those republican 'head in sand' values. We're all safer without reality.

And Noel, when the republican minority in congress votes against popularly supported bills, block veto overides, and holes up the will of the people in the senate in endless charades.....yes..they are part of congress and earn that 3% rating. The whole bunch looks bad.

Even out of power, they still #$%^. The cure? Comon thinkin folk. And don't say Hilary '08 or firing the rest of the RNC roach regade in congress. I say wait 'em out. At this rate they will all be fired or resign for various illegalities, scandals, hypocricies, corruptions or infidelities. Thank God for that democratic Stevens Louisana corruption thing or the term "political miscreant" would be an entirely republican phenomenon, these days.

Bug Zapper, I'll throw a bag of trash into the bay today in your honor. If anyone protests I'll call them a tree hugger fag and then hummer them down.

Good 'ole fun.

 

Oh, goody, another no-doubt

Oh, goody, another no-doubt educated-beyond-his/her/its-intelligence elitest troll who believes that communism is somehow "progressive."

How nice.

....redneck state talking about the real issues and threats to America
...flag burning and gay marriage. You know, the stuff the republican
congress dwelled on.

This comment alone proves that you are truly ignorant and not worth another moment of my time.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

uhm....communism?

 

so if you're against ignorance and incompetence, you're somehow a communist? when you get books in your town you might want to research some of those bumper sticker slogans, Dave.

In the meantime drink more koolaid and keep saying Dittos, Rush.

Love the name, Phoneutria

Love the name:  Phoneutria = phony rodent?

Welcome .  We've seen your brand of smug but shallow knee-jerk leftism many times here.  Hope you stick around awhile...or are you another of those drivebys?

 

When we`uns gits sum books??

Shoot! We ain'ts evin gots us no indoors plummin' yit! We'z still marryin' our first cuzzins!

Books?!?!?

drill,

Ahh wuzz jezz out diggin' me a new pit fer the new outhouse ahh is buildin.' Ahh found me one o' them thar newfangled fancy padded toilet seats, too. It fell off a truck ahh wuzz follerin' down the highway in my ol' pickup a while back. Ahh think it wuzz heddin' fer one o' them big, fancy ho-tels down thar in Atlanta.

Now ahh won't be gettin' them dadburn splinters ever time ahh has to go, know whut ahh mean?

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Kee-rypes, Dave R -

Yu`inz gots ya wun uv them tharr outhouses?  An' a seat?!  Yu`in's moved in 2 duh modrinn age, yeah, boy!

You do not get more

You do not get more ignorant or incompetent than the liberal "progressives" in our government. While the republicans run a close second, they have a lot further to go before they will even begin to approximate the intellectual depravity of congressional democrats.

After seeing Bill Clinton give nuke teccnology to Iran and the Norks, as well as missile technology to the Chicoms, his total non-response to the Chicago heat wave that killed hundreds of poor blacks, and after watching the (non)actions of Mr. Nagin and Ms. Blanco in the aftermath of Katrina when contrasted with those of Mr. Barbour in Mississippi, I cannot believe that anyone with even a room-temperature IQ could consider democrats to be competent.

As for Pelosi and Reid, if you consider those two boobs to be even remotely competent, then perhaps it is you who needs to make use of the very books you claim we do not have.

As for lefties referring to themselves as "progressives," there is nothing even remotely progressive about a form of government, Marxist/Leninism-the model upon which modern liberalism is built upon-that murdered over 100 million people in the last century.

Lefties can come up with all the positive sounding terms they want to describe themselves. They tried "liberalism" and then "progressivism." Hell, they can call it "howdydoodyism" for all I care, but, at the end of the day, it is really nothing more than communism.

Communism and true freedom are in no way compatible.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Dave R---

Your observations about "progressive" and Marxist/Leninism is so sharp it cuts. What we have here is a pack of %^$%s who think they have come up with something new and wonderful, when all they are doing is digging up an old failed system. I refuse to pay welfare to illegal immigrants.

misterbill,

LOL-Come to think of it, I'm getting a little tired of paying wellfare to lazy-assed Americans, too.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

phony rodent,

Oh, and I failed to mention Jihad Jimmuh's four year attempt at running the greatest economy in the world into the ground. Thank God he was only in for one term, as four more years of his economic ignorance and incompetence may very well have succeeded in doing just that.

He also brought us into the Jihad we now find ouselves in. Believe it or not, GWB wasn't even thought of for POTUS when the Islamic barbarians renewed their 1400 year-old war against civilized society. Jihad Jimmy had an excellent opportunity to put the "fear of Allah" into these backward, 7th Century illiterates, but decided to show weakness instead. This country will be paying dearly for that weakness for generations to come.

I also failed to mention Billy Joe Bob Bubba's bombing the hell out of the descendants of the Chetniks (and perhaps the very same Chetniks themselves) over in Bosnia while he was (LOL) CIC. Never heard of the Chetniks? Doesn't surprise me, as I'm sure your liberal "progressives" professors never heard of them, either. This country owes those people a huge debt of gratitude for the help they provided this country at a very crucial time in our history. Billy Joe Bob Bubba expressed this "gratitude" by bombing their descendants into oblivion.

You see, my library, the one you claim I do not have, contains over eighty volumes on the subject of WW II alone. That is not including the other books it contains on American as well as European history, WW I, Korea, Vietnam and the Southern War for Independence-what I'm sure your "progressive" professors told you was the "Civil War" (you know, the war where your "superior" non-southern ancestors fought my "ignorant" southern ancestors to "free the slaves"). Yeah, right.

The next time you decide to swerve in here and start pointing your little "ignorance" pea-shooter at people, before you pull that trigger, it might be a real good idea for you to carefully consider the fact that most people here can shoot back.

And, we have bigger guns, too.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

RELOADING!!! ... FIRE IN THE

RELOADING!!! ... FIRE IN THE HOLE! ...

phonyneutria---

An ancient Phoenician name. It means a rat's ass.

I don't give a phonyneutria what our new lib has to say!!!!!

now you're stereotyping yourself

I'm sure you can shoot back, Dave. It's easy when there's a gun in every room, including the out house. Lessens your need for viagra, too, I bet.

Of course no one responded to how the republican sponsored flag burning and gay marriage bills in an election year as a wedge issue. Cuz if you actually think about it, it will SCARE you. Is this national security, above implementing ANY of the bipartisan 9/11 report ? No wonder Bin Laden is merrily skipping around Pakistan in a dress. Are you saying you want to go back and have that congress ?? Put America above party for a minute or two.

My point was that the people that made congress icky before are still there being icky. Hence largely the bad ratings. And if you balloon spending $400 percent in 5 years, I'd call that Big Gov ....or communism. No oversight. No accounting. There's your communism.

It will take years to undue the damage of that congress. I just wish the Dems had the balls to play hardball like the rep's did.

If you dust off them WWII books, tell me who used the biggest "gun" in the history of the world and who were the leaders in that biggest conflict ever. Weren't no republican'ts. ( 'gun' meaning bomb for the slower crowd ).

The republicans talk tough, then fail. It's just bumper sticker stuff for simpletons so they can scare folk and stay in power. If you want someone to win and BE tough when it counts, you better stop drinking the koolaid.

I may look rat-like but I assure you it's just the lighting. Don't need no gun.

Okay, ratso, Nice rehash

Okay, ratso,

Nice rehash of the liberal talking points.

$400 percent?  That's a new one...where'd you cut and paste it from?   Sheesh!

Do you have an original idea or a clue?

No, didn't think so.

Troll on.

new one?

If you can correct me, do it. You can't. I speak up, and you follow. If you're just labelling people with no counter argument or data, then you're the troll. And no one can tell you're blonde if your head is in the sand, eh?

I've seen a thousand little

I've seen a thousand little trollers like you, ratso.  No need to refute your fever-swamp talking points. 

Not worth my time.

Too bad for you, I have the credibility on this site.  Keep trolling, tho.  It's amusing.

 

back it, blondey

Back up your statement about GOP spending, or you have no credibility. Did you get creds on here by just labelling / attacking people ??

I got my data from the Cato Institute, but it's public info on perhaps hundreds of .gov sites.

http://cato.org/pubs...

If anyone can help him/ her out, I'm sure he / she needs it. Again this is to the folk that claim the Dems are for big gov. It's already happened in the last 6 years, under republican congress. The majority of you know this, but apparently keep quiet about it to blonde. The dems want accountability and less corporate welfare. Don't you?

( and for the folk using conservapedia instead of wiki, phoneutria is the brazilian wandering spider. check it with one of the googles or the internets. lol. )

Hold on, I'm confused.

Hold on, I'm confused. You're citing CATO (a good sign, please keep it up, but it's from March, 2004, and things are now much-worse spending-wise!) but saying the Democrats want small government? I'm stipulating here that neither do many of the Republicans, but as to the Democrats, considering all their current positions, not to mention their sordid -- even Bush-like -- history during my lifetime, this is a novel & fascinating theory. Please, tell me more!
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Ratso

What statement of mine?

Back up your statement about GOP spending.

FYI, little trollster...when I put something in italics...that means I'm directly quoting you.  So don't you even try to throw your own idiot cut & paste back at me as a statement of mine. 

Not only are you a troll, you're reading impaired.

That's it, done with you.

Phone

Phone,

As the resident federal budget expert here, I'll take on your following contention:

My point was that the people that made congress icky before are still there being icky. Hence largely the bad ratings. And if you balloon spending $400 percent in 5 years, I'd call that Big Gov ....or communism. No oversight. No accounting. There's your communism.

So, are you making this 400 percent increase in spending over the passed five years contention with a tongue in your cheek, or a spike in your forehead?

After all, as evidenced by the historical data of federal budgets supplied by OMB (go to PDF page 26 here), you'll find that the total unified spending in FY 2003 was $2.160 trillion. The proposed FY 2008 spending is $2.901 trillion.

I know that using liberal arithmetic, this is a 400 percent increase. However, folks that actually paid attention in fourth grade know this to be a 34 percent rise.

That said, could you please share with us how this liberal arithmetic folks like you feel comfortable employing at conservative websites actually works? None of your compatriots has ever had the decency to show us how numbers can mysteriously increase ten-fold when the agenda requires it.

Of course, we're never surprised by such. After all, you folks all believe that if a program which last year had a ten percent increase is this year given a seven percent bump, that represents a cut. ns

My apologies, Noel. I seem

My apologies, Noel. I seem to have "cloaked" us all. And for the record, I wish my investments could always go up by 34% like that, and I'll bet you do, too...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Sarc

J,

You know I'm not happy about that 34 percent increase in spending. If the budget had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, we'd be in balance now. Easily.

As for 34 percent in five years, my portfolio is up more than that since August 2002. Isn't yours? ns

balanced for inflation ??

this goes into the record books for you, Noel.

First, saying your portfolio has increased has no automatic ratio connection to spending - yours or the countries.

Second, you say " If the budget had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, we'd be in balance now. Easily. "

Where were you home schooled? Home? Are you saying we've had 60 percent inflation, each year, for the last 5 years?? That equals your 340 percent increase in spending by the republicans.

Hopefully you were napping when you typed that response. And, you should have invested in HaliBurton or BechTel ...I have nothing against good investements.

Ladies and gentlemen, More

Ladies and gentlemen,

More liberal math. Pretty extraordinary, really. However, what we have here is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate just how easy it is for Democrats to pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents.

I wrote to Sarc that if spending had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, the budget would be in balance. Here are the numbers:

In 2001, we spent $1.863 trillion. According to the BLS inflation calculator, that would be $2.192 trillion today. As the most recent estimate has us bringing in $2.540 trillion in unified tax receipts in FY 2007, this means that if we only increased spending at the rate of inflation since 2001, we would currently have a $348 billion surplus.

Simple stuff, folks, if you actually understand arithmetic. ns

Of course, Noel, I kind

Of course, Noel,

I kind of turned off my liberal math detector at Phone's first mention of a "$400 percent" budget increase over five years (and I posted that little error back to him just to be annoying, BTW).  An obvious cut/paste job on his part.  Erroneous, too.

As someone who regularly works with multiple comma money, I have to laugh at the lib math I see displayed here frequently.

I truly admire your patience, Noel.  I usually can't stand more than one post from these mathematically challenged KosKids.

 

Blonde

B,

Well, as you mentioned to me earlier, he's rather trollish and has one foot out the door. ns

And he's currently

And he's currently deep-throating his other foot...

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

340 percent versus 400 percent. man you're grabbing at straws.

My mistake, Noel. Under the republicans spending only went up three hundred and forty percent, not four hundred. I was looking at the Cato Intitute's info from 1999 to 2003 and it looked like 400 percent to me cuz it was so freaking huge the graph chart overwhelmed me.

Care to defend 340% increases, as the blog's resident federal budget expert? You can feel free to use such terms as no bid contracts, mega influence and expansion of lobbyists, corporate kickback tax welfare, and corruption. War spending doesn't cover the gap so don't use that card.

See...I correct myself. Now explain yourself. A fourth grader knows what 3 and a half times means. Do you?

Phone

Phone,

Here's what's going to happen for you to continue to be a registered member here:

1. You are going to stop putting extra paragraph breaks before and after your text to enlarge the screen of your comment. It's childish, and annoying.

2. You are going to explain how a $741 billion increase from $2.160 trillion is a 340 percent rise.

3. You are then going to apologize to me and Blonde for your mistake and your arrogance.

If you don't do this in your next post to me, I will freeze your account. Is that clear? ns

Yikes...That's a little

Yikes...That's a little harsh, isn't it Noel? Apologize or be banished? 

FWIW, his posts don't look any different on my computer screen than anyone else's. 

B

B,

I don't think it's harsh at all. He made a comment that spending has risen 400 percent in the past five years, and challenged someone to prove him wrong. I did, and now he's claiming that a 34 percent increase is actually a 340 percent increase as he arrogantly belittles the person who accurately refuted his numbers with a link to support it.

If the shoe was on the other foot, B, would you admit your error like a gentleman, or stick to your position utilizing childish invective to support your view?

As for the appearance of his posts, I've been yanking the breaks out. As such, they look fine now.

For some reason, many of our liberal members like playing this same game of using breaks to highlight their posts. Nightnoise liked doing that if you recall. ns

Hm. Well, I enjoy childish

Hm. Well, I enjoy childish invective as much as the next guy, but I tend to admit when I've been proven wrong and just move on.

I probably butted in where I didn't know exactly what was going on. 

Balboa

B,

That's ok. You're always welcomed. And, I don't mind someone questioning such a response from me. As you know, I'm pretty unflappable on these boards, and it takes a lot to provoke me.

However, you make an economic or budget-oriented statement, ask for challengers, and get totally debunked with an attached link to OMB, and you'd better not come back grabbing your crotch like a rap star. Go back and read through this thread, and tell me whether you think this guy needs to gracefully retreat, and apologize for appearing like a troll. ns

Noel

I've been reading, and though I'm not a big econ guy, think I understand what's going on. Phone seems to be converting 34% to 340% without reason, then twisted your point about spending according to inflation.

And there's definitely nothing worse than trying to debate with someone who won't acknowledge your questions or points. 

Balboa

B,

And this is why we love you, because you are a bastion of reason and impartiality in a sometimes-unfriendly environment. If I could get a hundred folks like you, Shawn, and Leon here, this message board would be the best example of civil, bipartisan debate on the Internet. ns

the reason why is they are

the reason why is they are intellectually honest and not tools.

Noel:

Noel:

Does the "civil, bipartisan debate" to which you refer include labeling Leon a 'sorry', 'stupid', 'pathetic', 'Al Quaeda supporting' 'loser' who is 'owed no respect'?

[See Tancredo 'Radical Republican' blog...Aug. 3 by Pam Meister] Seems a little excessive to me. What do you think?

Jer

You are going by the

You are going by the assumption that Leon, er, Hater ISN'T 'sorry', 'stupid', and 'pathetic'. 'Dumbass', 'douchebag', and 'borderline-retarded' would also have been acceptable answers as well.

 

Jer

Jer,

Actually, I think that speaks to the point I was making. The debate would be more civil and bipartisan with more civil leftwing posters present. Until that occurs, we'll get such talk because of how they're outnumbered.

However, even if the numbers were more balanced, we'd still get such incivility. This is politics today. Do we see our politicians behaving civilly? Not even close, right? As such, I think a large part of the incivility at political message boards is an aping of how our political leaders treat one another.

I've advocated for years that people at message boards who are disgusted by the caustic tone in Washington lead by example by being exceptionally civil in such forums. Sadly, this has fallen on deaf ears. ns

Noel, Jer is quoting me

Noel,

Jer is quoting me above (cherry picked & out of context, natch).  And I stand by every one of them. 

Well, yes, Blonde... I

Well, yes, Blonde...

I did 'cherry pick' from your (and Cool Arrow's) posted replies to Leon in the previously referenced thread.  Inasmuch as my intention was to provide examples of words which I felt were unnecessary and demeaning, providing a list of those particular words seemed entirely appropriate.  However, if there were any overlooked magnanimous statements praising Leon or his polemical prowess, then, by all means, please correct the record.  My recitation of selected quotes was not drawn from some arcane, unlinked verbal exchange.  It was a contemporaneous NewsBusters blog which could be instantly accessed for a verbatim, fully contexturalized review.

Blonde, I'm not here to be a whiner about the sometimes rough and tumble atmosphere associated with political blogging.  Frankly, I enjoy witnessing the adroit verbal skewering of someone's (liberal or conservative argument [I wish I were better at it], whether by force of logic, superior knowledge, or even the sarcastic put-down.  I don't really object (well maybe just a little bit) to the occasional free fire zone in which the NB troops are allowed to flip on full automatic and riddle cardboard liberal targets, e.g. the recent poll regarding "left wing profanity."

In the short time I have been registered here, I have read many of your [Blonde's] comments.  You have a sharp mind as well as a sharp tongue.  The former is always an asset, and the latter often is.  But, unless it's clearly warranted--i.e. responding to a patent provocation or the offensive behavior of another poster--personal attacks simply don't advance the debate.  I despise character assassination whether practiced by the left or right, and it's the reason for my strong condemnation of the outrageous comments directed at Noel recently at Whiskey Dog.  [And, for the record, I have been treated very courteously here--so far, at least--it may change after this post.]

In closing, you may "stand by" your remarks if you wish.  But I think you should reconsider.  You are more than capable of both holding your own and intellectually vanquishing your opponents without 'personaliing' the debate.

Jer  

Well, Jer. I shall

Well, Jer.

I shall certainly stand by my remarks.

And I would invite anyone to reread them, in context. And in doing so, one would find that they were perfectly warranted in that particular conversation.  My remarks had nothing to do with "character assasination" as you so erroneously state.  They had to do with Leon's (rather inept) debating tactics.

A question for you...why on earth would I praise Leon for his "prowress".   He offered up not one fact to defend my challenge.  Opinions, feelings and deflections.  No facts. 

Blonde... I guess we'll

Blonde...

I guess we'll both just remain standing, facing opposite directions.

But to address two or three points raised in your post:

1.  The statement about praising Leon etc. was obviously 'tongue in cheek'

2.   I didn't accuse you of character assassination and don't believe your rhetoric rose to that level.  But I do think you were getting close to it by using the personally insulting language which I quoted previously.   How does calling someone a 'loser' 'stupid' and a 'sorry' person describe his or her debating tactics, be they inept or otherwise?  

3.   While I likewise believe it would be a strategic, if not tactical, blunder to launch a full scale military invasion of Pakistan,  Leon's position was not completely devoid of rational, historical underpinnings.  After all, the Bush Doctrine dictates that any state which harbors terrorists will be considered hostile and thus subject to the full range of military options available to the U.S.  To dismiss Leon's argument so cavalierly was inappropriate. 

Finally, is this post going to format in the narrow one or two word column again?  It's driving me nuts.

Jer 

Noel: Before I get jumped

Noel:

Before I get jumped on for the enormously elongated comment box, it certainly was unintentional.  I am not sure what caused it...(hadn't happened with any of my previous posts.)  Sorry!

Jer

 

 

no...it's 340 percent, as Noel corrected.

 

if you have a 50 billon budget and the next year is't 190 billion, that's a 380 percent increase. this number is just an example.

I was wrong to yell out 400 percent...I heard it from liberal talk shows. But it's not that far an exaggeration from 340 percent. I'm wondering both why the liberal talk shows exaggerated it, and why the conservative ones never mentioned any bloat at all.

So who's more truthy?

 

Phone, the budget didn't

Phone, the budget didn't increase 3 fold, give it up.

but I must say, I thought liberals were all for bigger government anyway, are you saying you want the government to spend less? Because that would make you a fiscal conservative.

It could be that you got

It could be that you got confused with the rate and the acceleration of growth...it wouldn't surprise me that the acceleration is up there. But then again you would find a number of folks here who agree we need to control spending and lower taxes.

Pho-no

As Noel corrected:

2.1 trillion 2003

2.9 trillion 2008

2.1 x 3.4 = 7.14

7.14 does not = 2.9

how long are you going to continue to show yourself the fool?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

Come on Bruce. He's a

Come on Bruce.

He's a liberal.  You know...they just keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

It's really rather comical though, when they try to do it with factual things, like numbers....rather than feelings.

Makes the resulting, um, results, that much better, don't you think?

This one thrashes a bit more energetically than my pal Leon, actually.  Fun to watch, kind of like a wreck.

Blonde

i think this one won't last however, poor little guy, the way he squirms, just like a mouse in Lenny's hands

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

a 340 percent increase in spending = 3 and a half times more

spending 3 and a half times more money than 1999.

the spending increased by a multiple of 3.4

that's not .34 .........it's multiplying the spending by 3.4.

three times bigger. look it up, ask Noel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phobia

 

 

 

 

See above and seek counselling for your arithmaphobia

 

 

 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not sure of this ettiquette breach

 

1) not sure how this formatting works but I'm doing what everyone else is, as far as paragraphing...I think? Not trying to cause a problem.

2) take 2.160 trillion and multiply by .340 and then add it to the 2.160. you get your numbers. if it's off by a bit....better not mentioning. it only gets worse.

3) I gave Blonde many chance to correct "HER" arrogance and name calling on me, without checking the facts or replying with data. She refused. And insulted me. You want me to apologize for giving data to someone that bashed me. Hmm? How'd she get her creds? Blindly agreeing, I bet. Prove me wrong.

And your data? Uhm....I understand that you have a closed blog and only take like-minded folk, and like data. The screenshot of this web page you've presented me with is enough to make you look like an even bigger incredulous dreeb, when confronted with fact. I'd like to see that 340 percent increase posted loud so everyone can talk about it, and think up new ideas. But you want to hide it and banish me.

I think you guys are good and part of the process. I've been called all kinda names...yay. This is the debate. I apologize for breaking any rules and I'm looking for the truth as I hope your bloggers are.

I know how this goes. You look bad, you ban the blogger. Stuff's out there already, man. We're both Americans, and you've got a good thing going, if it's really open to our best interests.

I would even advertise on this site if you have some kind of localized delivery.

 

 

.340 does not equal to 34.0

.340 does not equal to 34.0 ( ie 34% does not equal to 340% ) 340% means take the original value and add it to itself 34 times ( ie multiply it by 34 )

 Nice Kerry apology btw

LOL...Classic, just classic.

LOL...Classic, just classic.

oops, now I'm off by a

oops, now I'm off by a digit...

.34 does not equal 3.4

see how easy it is to apologize

I'm betting your not going

I'm betting your not going to last long. Could be wrong, but your latest opinion will not endure yourself to Noel. (i.e. calling a moderator a "dreeb")

actually I am quite

actually I am quite surprised he has lasted this long.

what's a dreeb?

??????

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

Pho your math is wretched

To get percentages take the decimal and multiply by 100.

Thus .34 x 100 = 34%   or    .340 x 100 = 34.0%  or  .34000 x 100 = 34.000%  it's all 34% extra zeros after the decimal don't count

You made a huge deal out of the 340% figure which was actually showing your own ignorance!

Also when you hit that 'ENTER' key repeatedly it puts spaces at the end of your post like this example.  To say you don't know how that happens further shows your lack of mental acuity.

 

 

 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

 

 

Phone

Phone,

Are you serious? Are you claiming that .340 is 340 percent? This isn't baseball, bud.

Let me explain this slowly: 1.00 of anything is 100 percent. .340 is 34 percent. 340 percent would be 3.40.

As such, let me do this once again slowly, and then you can admit your remedial arithmetic skills while apologizing for questioning my obviously superior ones:

2901 - 2160 = 741

741/2160 = 0.34

This means that if a number rises from 2160 to 2901, it has risen by 34 percent NOT 340 percent. If it was 340 percent, it would had to have risen to 9504:

9504 - 2160 = 7344

7344/2160 = 3.40 OR 340%

You were saying about even bigger incredulous dreebs [sic]?

Show you have some character, pal, if indeed you do.

And, stop adding paragraph breaks before and after your text. That's the "enter" button that you love to hit three to four times before you start typing, and three to four times after you finish. You don't have to do this.

But, you know that, and are doing it to antagonize people. So, stop it if you don't want folks here to view you as a liberal antagonist. ns

The question now becomes:

The question now becomes: does arrogance beget ignorance, or does ignorance beget arrogance. Darn that ego. Let's see how phone reacts.

lets just say he is the

lets just say he is the chicken with egg on his face

wow

 

IF a number goes from 50 to 150 ....what percent increase is that?

( hint...it's 3 times )

( ( answer....300 percent ))

This is open to all. It's how we get the data on spending in congress.

It happened under big gov republicans, this decade. Call me a rat face, but check the numbers first. And ask Noel.

 

 

Pho-ney

if a number goes from 2.1 to 2.9 what is that?

Reality baby!  Those are the numbers for the budget

PS what is a dreeb?

Okay, Phone. You are an

Okay, Phone.

You are an a$$hat. And a very common, pathetic little troll.

(1)  I said to you at 4:29 p.m.

$400 percent?  That's a new one...where'd you cut and paste it from?   Sheesh!

(2)  You said to me at 5:41 p.m.

Back up your statement about GOP spending, or you have no credibility.

(3)  I responded to you at 6:12 p.m

What statement of mine?

To which, of course you didn't reply.  Because you couldn't reply.  I never said one word about GOP spending, now, did I?  My very first post questioned your inability to back up your idiot number....which of course, as we all know, and which I've pointed out several times, was nonsensical to begin with....what the hell is $400 percent

So yes, you may apologize to me here for being such an unmitigated jerk.  And a creep.  Only my friends here may call me Blondie, and you are certainly no friend of mine.

Keep it up, though....you'll be out the door soon enough with the trollish behaviour and general boorishness. As I said earlier, I've seen a thousand little trolls like you, Phone.   You whine a little better than most, but you don't even hold a candle in the deflection department.  You are nothing special.  

Phoney,

1) not sure how this formatting works but I'm doing what everyone else
is, as far as paragraphing...I think? Not trying to cause a problem

My eight year old nephew could format correctly in here.

2) take 2.160 trillion and multiply by .340 and then add it to the
2.160. you get your numbers. if it's off by a bit....better not
mentioning. it only gets worse.

Ditch your Chinese calculator and invest in one of these. I do computer aided design/drafting for a living in both the land surveying and engineering areas. I do more slope calcualtions (which must be represented in percentages) in a week than most people do in a lifetime. It hasn't let me down yet.

3) I gave Blonde many chance to correct "HER" arrogance... How'd she get her creds? Blindly agreeing,
I bet. Prove me wrong.

Blonde is arrogant? Hardly. She, however, has little or no patience with people such as you, who, apparently cannot deal with 5th grade mathematics. And believe me, Blonde does no blind agreeing, either, as she is a fairly analytical member here. More so than most.

Uhm....I understand that you have a closed blog and only take like-minded folk,

Really? They haven't banned you yet. In case you haven't noticed, we have a lot of liberal members here who aren't trolls, like Shawn, balboa and others. You, however, have pretty much earned the troll tag Blonde has applied to you, as your mathematical assertions could be debunked by my ten year old niece, and she doesn't even like math.

As for your insults that have been directed at just about every one you have encountered here, including me, well, what do you expect? A hug?

Furthermore, you have managed to provoke one of the most patient editors on this site into nearly pulling your plug, as you have insulted him more than once. Go over to one of Matthew's threads and try that sh*t and see how long you last.


I know how this goes. You look bad, you ban the blogger.

According to your bio, you have been here 14 weeks and counting. I can only assume you were lurking here even before that. Surely you have noted that one really has to to push it around here to get banned. I got booted off of a site run by "tolerant" liberals after just one comment.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

lots of words...but uhm

 

what I said was true about bloat; Noel corrected and and even then no one believes the 340 percent increase in spending under republicans.

do you believe Noel ? Noel talk to this dude. Give him the numbers.

Blonde had no time for any mathematics or facts. Only had time to insult and accuse. And she was wrong. Ask Noel for the numbers, again.

And now you're questioning me? Dave...how much did the spending increase from 2000-2006 ?? Or use 1999 to 2003. Take your time and answer without threatening or belittling anyone.

Bigger fish to fry when you're done the math. If you can teach me something, let me know. I bet I've voted republican more than you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Give us the "real" numbers

Give us the "real" numbers Phone

And I seriously doubt you have voted for Republicans than me.

From your posts here, you write like a Democrat, do math like a Democrat, and smell like a Democrat. 

CV

Noel gave him the real numbers 2.1 and 2.9 some hours ago, my posts to him must be invisible (or is he Burt from SOAP?)

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

CV,

....and smell like a Democrat.

LOL-And, exactly what sort of odor are we referring to here?

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Because, you little

Because, you little troll...you didn't present any facts to me!

You've been presented with the facts and the math five times here at least....but trollishly refuse to apologize for YOUR mathematical error.  (Not to mention apologizing for hitting the enter key numerous times and taking up the white space here, Phone).

I suggest you go back to public school and re-enroll in the sixth grade.  That's where they teach you how to do percentages.

No one here could possibly teach you a thing, you are far too obtuse.  But it'd be really nice if you'd ask your mom to teach you some manners, if and when she finally lets you out of the basement.

 

hey...

 

Any congressional increase in spending was complete news to you, today.

An informed citizen. God help us all. To the point where you called me names and dismissed me, without any research, and still trash me.

So today you learned something new, and I learned that you're a complete, unrelenting vapid waste of text...without any new input or information at any time. Can you watch my ferns grow on the back deck? It will keep your mind challenged, and I won't have to drive home from work if they get too dry and need watering. I'm not a meany but sure as hell you are.

Again, ask Noel for those numbers.  

 

 

Bugger off, troll.You

Bugger off, troll.

You posted the number first.  I asked you to prove it.  You didn't.

Too bad.  Deal with it.

Noel knows all about my numbers, dude.   Yours, however, are laughable.  Keep trying though.  You're getting funnier by the moment.

BTW, your pathetic little insults are wasted on me, troll Phone.  I could hardly care what a nothing like you has to say.

Nite, now.

P.S.  Have you figured out how NOT to use the "ENTER" key yet?

Apparently not.  Must be a prime IQ indicator in your case.

Blonde,

LOL-I think Phoney here is using a Chinese keyboard, too.

Unless there is, just perhaps, a better explanation as to why his keys are, a'hem, sticky. 

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Dave,Looks like your new

Dave,

Looks like your new friend Phone troll is trying to chat you up by changing the topic.

He seems to have decided math is no longer his strong suit.  Changing the topic and feigned polite conversation about your voting habits would have me a tad concerned if I were you, guy.

Apparently the ENTER key is still a problem for the Phone troll, though.  Perhaps you could carefully broach that topic...  :D

Blonde,

Then maybe Phoney here will, ahh, come clean as to why his "Enter" key doesn't spring back immediately after being depressed.

I mean, something is causing it to stick, wouldn't you say?

Help Fred defeat everybody.

I don't know Dave. I'm

I don't know Dave.

I'm still trying stop laughing after his ninety eighth iteration that 34% = 350%.   The kid's whole keyboard must be gummed up.  Sheesh. 

The Shrubster was right....the KosKonfab has caused them to send their third stringers here today.  This is utterly pathetic.

Phoney,

I bet I've voted republican more than you.

No shit, Sherlock, as I only vote for libertarians.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

libertarian?

 

then why are you for big gov and the encroachment of political parties on personal enterprize?

big spying, less personal liberties, gov between doctor and patient??

whoa....actually there probably aren't many libertarian websites around. the Cato Institute looks like limited gov but who knows who backs them.

Isn't it past your bedtime,

Isn't it past your bedtime, Phoney? Shouldn't mommy be tucking you in for sleepy-time (after milk and cookies, and wearing your jammies-with-feet)? You've read a lot of big words today, and I know your brain hurts from attempting to understand them, and I'm pretty darn sure you're mentally exhausted from today's little math quiz. Tomorrow's another day - maybe you'll understand it better after a good night's rest.

But I tend to doubt it.

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

Phoney,

I have offered no defense for the spending of the republican party over the last 6.5 years, as I am as appalled as anyone else, maybe even as appalled as sarc. In fact, I have been highly critical here at NB of GWB's refusal to break out the veto pen during his administration, as I have been critical of the PC manor in which the GWOT has been directed so far.

[FYI-I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, and seriously considered voting for Mr. Badnarik in '04. However, I voted for Mr. Bush, while holding my nose, as a vote against the Poodle. If the election were held today, and knowing what I know now, I would still vote the same way.]

I have, however, challenged your assertion that the dems would somehow be better or even more competent.

Niether Nancy Pelussolini nor Give 'em up Harry can get any of their kooky legislation passed, even if they were to each show up with a pair of suitcases crammed full of thousand dollar bills.

All they have managed to do so far is repeatedly send surrender legislation to the President, knowing full damn well it is going to get vetoed, hence their hideous approval numbers.

As far as supporting big government, I don't. If it were up to me, the 16th Amendment would be repealed two days ago, every employ of the IRS would have been fired yesterday, and the Fair Tax would be the law of the land.

We are fast approaching the point that the percentage of government outlays for enitlement programs will be 70% of the federal budget.

The only hope this country has for even near term survival will be to remove the hideous federal tax burden on this country in order to make this economy explode and become so strong that it will be the envy of the world for decades to come.

If we maintian the status-quo, then this country will manage to do in fifty years (we may have twenty left) what it took the Roman Empire a thousand years to do, and that is to dissappear from the face of the Earth.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Dave

there are many here who agree with you on the fiscal issues with this administartion.  However as Blonde informed me Pho is a denied access page

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

botg,

LOL-Damn, that always seems to happen when I am having one of my better rants. :-)

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Dave

seems you have a new friend, who won't answer to straight forward numbers.  Also tends to build straw-men, i never knew you were for big govt and open borders?  Guess ya learn something new every day

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Dave

You got booted?  Say it ain't so, we hardly knew ya.  Well no doubt a 'tolerant' website can't be having any 'intolerant' comments on it can they?  Forgot to goose-step did ya?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

botg,

Yeah, I got blown off DU faster than you can say boo!

I don't recall exactly what my comment was, but I do remember it was fairly benign in nature when compared to the vulgarity-laced tripe normally found there.

LOL-The really cool part was that Neal Boortz got banned at around the same time, as his show was where I found out about the DU site. Guess I was in good company.

Gotta love those "tolerant" libs.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

hmmm..

 

Still wanna see your math.

Why are republican officials suddenly going to protect the borders and have fiscal restraint? Didn't do it the last 6 years. Oh...it's an election year. Do you really think they care? It's nice you think they care. And they can count on you cuz you don't think.

Explain the repuplican bloat from 2000-2006 ....use a big calculator. If not just admit you're a mindless tool. Ask Noel for help.

There's a lot of crap in gov I am clueless about, too...and you guys will bring me to task, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phono-troll

here

here

here where Noel helps

Actually you really could not have missed it so i can only conclude you are not only ignorant and stupid but also a LIAR when you claim you are still waiting to see the math.

There are times when i would wish Noel would be more like Matt, but then again they are both much appreciated for themselves.  So no Noel don't change a thing.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

See it's new attempt at

See it's new attempt at deflection, b.

Why are republican officials suddenly going to protect the borders and have fiscal restraint? Didn't do it the last 6 years.

Blonde translation:  I just got my clock cleaned, better try something else, fast. 

Pretty pathetic.  Worse than Leon, actually.

Blonde

Quite true and we should not be insulting Leon with this comparison

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Okay, Kemosabi.  

Okay, Kemosabi.

 

b-kemosabi?

ungahwa would be the proper term for my avatar

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Sorry Tarzan. P.S. 

Sorry Tarzan.

P.S.  Where did you leave boy?

BOY

got a job as door-man for Robinson Caruso at his four story tree house makes great tips some days 20 cocanuts and 10 bananas.  Of course Cheeta deals at the blackjack table on the third floor

 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

Okay. Just checking.  I

Okay.

Just checking.  I know you tend to forget about Boy sometimes.  Good news about Cheeta, tho.

Sheesh....Noel has me paranoid about the spaces now.  I always hit the return when I'm done with a paragraph, whether I'm done with what I'm saying or not.

Blonde

B,

Doing just fine with your return key. Take a look at Phoney's posts, as well as those mocking him, and you'll see what I mean. ns

:)

 

 

Noel mocking?

I was merely 'reflecting' his behavior back to him so he may gain insight into his behavior 

missed what, Botg ?

No one will admit it, so here goes again.

The republicans increased spending 340 percent between 2000 and 2005.

That's three and a half times what it was before. So ...if you despute this, ask Noel to verify it. I thought it was 400 percent. Shame on me. Now you're not ignorant, Botg.

Point being that republicans are for big gov. AKA communism, welfare, cronyism, etc. If you're on the board of Exxon, please disregard this memo, as Bush is paying you off.

If your are debating that info, put it up, troll. Blonde is in denial and isn't even questioning the data anymore.  A sad time for non-thinkers.

 

 

Galactically

Galactically stupid!

Somebody call the paramedics....I think I just broke something when I knocked everything over laughing so hard at this pathetic troll.

 

Phono-troll

those red words in my previous post are call "links" say it with me "links" okay good now if you place your cursor over the "link" and left click; it will by magic bring you to another post where your absurdity has been debunked hours ago it really is basic math 2.1 in 2003 and 2.9 in 2008 (these were the numbers from Noels post that you keep telling us to check)

if it were 340% the 2008 number would have to be 7.14 trillion

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

I don't think he's getting

I don't think he's getting it. He talks about different dates though, 2000-2005 budgets. Wonder where he gets his info from.... a link would be nice.

Noel,

I'll go with the spike in the forehead. :-)

Help Fred defeat everybody.

I wonder if you could

I wonder if you could remove the rhetoric from your post as I haven't a clue what your point is. Unless, of course, your point is to regress debate to the level of a three-year-old.

for example:

"My point was that the people that made congress icky before are still there being icky." -- Huh?

"No wonder Bin Laden is merrily skipping around Pakistan in a dress." --What?

"If you want someone to win and BE tough when it counts, you better stop drinking the koolaid." --WTF?

"I just wish the Dems had the balls to play hardball like the rep's did." --Yeh, that'll improve things....

if you can't figure out what I'm saying....

Those comments are part of arguments. Read them. Align them. Taken alone they will appear obtuse but I have faith that you can read an entire paragraph or sentence and figure out the context. If not, read the prior sentences to what you've quoted above. Overall context is often a great clue or way to learn what individual sentences or statements mean.

But, I do think you know what I meant and that scares you about your own shakey reasoning system; regarding the republicans.

Have a great day!

"Arguments"?

You call those arguments? You are making assertions without a factual basis, without rhyme or reason, and without a shred of coherency, proof, or any other support for those assertions. All that your assertions amount to is nothing more than Category Error, and are a complete waste of time. Perhaps when you reach middle school, we can have an actual debate. Until then, go back to mommy and ask her to show you how to shut down the computer again.

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

Thank you for watching my

Thank you for watching my back while I was away. Wonder how long this troll will be around?

My pleasure. ; ) It's been

My pleasure. ; ) It's been more like sparring with a practice dummy (or a straw man...) than a real bout, though. Kinda like with all libocrats.

It'll probably be around as long as it thinks that an accusation proves guilt, or a point (which it has yet to make or PROVE).

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

Looks like it has tried to

Looks like it has tried to piss Noel off, and will probably see the business end of a booting off the site.

Nice logic Ace. Why not try

Nice logic Ace. Why not try coming up with a coherent argument, preferrably with linked evidence of your claim. Are you capable of that? Oh, and nice 3-hour pause to come up with that wonderful essay on your points, whatever they are.

You're absolutely right

You're absolutely right about corruption in Congress - just take a look at William Jefferson, Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid. Oh, wait... they're all Democrats! What was I thinking? Ohhhhh, that's right - we can't investigate or prosecute them because they're regressives... er, um, progressives... er, um, liberals... er, um, priviledged and beyond reproach. [/sarcasm]

Phoneutria, you are just more nearly-living, mouth-breathing, brain-dead proof that facts to libocrats are as cryptonite to Superman.

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

Kaiser Bill?

Damn, that's funny.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

...facts to libocrats are

...facts to libocrats are as cryptonite to Superman.

I prefer the metaphor of showing Dracula The Cross. :-)

Heh-heh-heh!!! Both are

Heh-heh-heh!!!

Both are intercheangable.

yea if they're bums, throw them out

KJ,

I'm for justice, aren't you? Try them, convict them, kick them out. The only difference is they won't be pardoned by king george, cuz they are on the other side.

I'd rather have an elected woman as pres than an incompetent king. I mentioned the dem Jeffereson as corrupt before you did. Duh. If you're pointing out corrupt dems....the ratio is about 9:1 republican. If you want less corruption you have to face the fact that it's almost singularly a republican recent phenomenon. Right? If it's not 9:1, let's compare in an objective way. I'm thinking it's more like 19:1.

Also 'fascism' more aptly describes the republicans and their alignment with big corps, lobbyists, power control and election funding. So when you mention Hitlary or Kaiser Bill, you're just being a dolt. Look it UP.

Call me any name you want - your insipid above statement tells everything about you.

So...what ratio did you come up with, KJ ??

9:1 ratio? Really? Please

9:1 ratio? Really? Please provide names and party affiliations to support your statement. And, please, limit your responses to just the U.S. Congress (no local politicians - that would make it unfair to the Dems).

As to fascism, perhaps you read a leaflet on it once upon a time; it's obvious you don't know anything about fascism since you can't see the obvious parallels to the "progressive left":

  • Ban private ownership of firearms
  • Limit speech and the press
  • Eugenics (you'll probably need a dictionary for that one, so try "abortion - it's the same thing)
  • Eliminate private property (see JFK's Exec. Order #10999)
  • Use of forced labor (see JFK's Exec. Order #11000)
  • Demonize the opposition (see Billy Clinton's entire administration)
  • Place "The Party" above the law (umm... Wm. Jefferson, anyone? Bill Clinton? Harry Reid? Diane Feinstein?)
  • Use the military to further and/or protect profits for buddies of the administration (see Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ)
  • Use Government agencies to terrorize the populace and/or political opponents (see Billy Clinton's use of the IRS and Echelon)
  • Use one's own political power to persecute the opposition (see the current congress' penchant for investigations in lieu of showing a penchant for leadership and good governance).
  • Fix elections (see Florida Supreme Court, 2000 and last week's vote fixing in the HoR)
  • Persecute a particular group and make them responsible for "all the world's ills" (how do you feel about Christians?)

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension course, since that whole 'mouthing the words' thing isn't really working out for ya. Someday you might even notice that words have actual, specific, definitions and meanings.

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

uhm...patriot act?

 

I think the administration's patriot act covers all those things nicely. Wiretapping, indefinate suspension of habius corpus, seizure of property for anyone suspected of not supporting the war strategy, breaking constitutional law when convenient.

Don't see Dem's creating allegience with big drug companies, energy suppliers and tax break / election funding the way the republicans have been doing. Do you? When gov gets very close to industry and controls it, that's fascim, deer. Next step is Oligarchy and some say we are already there.

Go down that entire list and you'll see how the administration leans that way...but you call the opposition fascists. LOL.

Quelling individual rights in favor of the state...uhm... ?

Demonize the opposition?? Give me a break. The repubs will OUT the opposition even it it hurts the country in time of war. Check court records.

By fixing elections do you mean sending out mail to minorities telling them not to vote? Republicans are in jail now for trying to fix votes and blocking phone systems in New Hampshire. Or how about Gonzales not wanting to admit to the details of Rove's voting mailings?? How about having republicans supply the diebold machines that can be rigged and hacked, after the votes are in? Man you need more koolaid.

The similarities between GW and fascism are 100 times closer than any democratic scheme, yet you continue to say "Hitlary" and "Kaiser Bill". It's Orwellian doublespeak. Look it up. You already did. You know you're a liar.

 

Uh, you obviously missed the

Uh, you obviously missed the more recent news on that NH phone jamming case. Earlier this year a Federal Judge in Boston reversed the conviction of Bush's alleged henchman James Tobin.

But do keep beating this dead horse-most political analysts here in New Hampshire say this 5 year old story has zilch effect on the upcoming 2008 elections.

PS, if you have credible evidence-key word credible-that those evil voting machines...which the Democrats demanded after they couldn't steal the 2000 election by their ancient punch card tomfoolery...were programmed and designed to hand elections to Repubs, please share it. And please, no cites from Bobby Kennedy Junior.

yea I missed that memo

 

I wired a 58 phone bank for the '06 elections here for a republican bud....and I saw the demon dialer. It' a box that's a PC with a bunch of modems and it interfaces with the phone system. They didn't use it on my watch from what I saw. But then again, the dialer calls people at 3am and keeps calling every 10 minutes, claiming to be a democrat wanting support. This wasn't the first time they've used this.

I shook gov. Pataki's hand that day before the election at that site. He lost the election a few days later.

There is no evidence that the demon dialers were used in my state last election but they have been reported in many other states with registered complaints, over several elections. I was told to make my interface PC accessable. So it's real, as far as voter manipulation and coerscion.

The voting machines themselves...aren't secure. The controlling party can USB jack into them and change the data. Hell the crack is on the internet.

If you've got anything like that on Dems, lemme know. I saw the pathetic #$# first hand about the republicans. It's slime. I plugged the wires in.

It's what happens when a desparate minority wants to get power and they think they are above the law.

 

 

 

 

If you've got such first hand knowledge, let me know.

 

oh you mean like Chicago

oh you mean like Chicago where the dead voted? Why is it that its the Democrats who fear voter IDs?

can you provide a link to this so called hack we can find on the internet? Can you also provide evidence that a hack took place? Can you provide names of people who were found guilty of this crime?

 

Everything I listed is

Everything I listed is verifiable, established fact; why not reply with facts instead of rhetoric? Ohhhh yeah, you can't - you don't have any facts to back up your assertions. "100 times closer"? You've already show in this thread that you don't understand either numbers or the English language, so why do you continue to embarrass yourself? Still waiting for that list proving your 9:1 ratio, you ignorant shill.

And, speaking of your ignorance, if you were capable of minimal research and reading comprehension, you'd have noticed by now that I'm NOT a Republican.

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

I don't think this is an

I don't think this is an unjust war, but apparently you do. Here is how the democrats in Congress and in the media made this war what it is today. They have undermined the President, exposed top secrets to the enemy, have given the enemy rights they never had, made Bush into the demon yet ignore the evil of the terrorists, and claimed it a failure and Vietnam, and have politicalized the war, ie they have made it Bush's war instead of America's war with terrorists.

Do you have kids? I use to run a treatment home for teenagers. When a kid is pushing the limits, the last thing a parent should do is give in and claim guilt to themselves. You are so busy placing Blame on Bush that you ignore our true enemies, you know the ones who have been attacking us since Carter? We could of been done with this war if we remained as united as we were on 9-12. Because the terrorists would see that you don't mess with Americans. They picked the fight, and you are calling Bush the bully. Going back to Iraq. Saddam was pushing his limits. We gave threats, he ignored them. All the intelligence said he had weapons, he wouldn't let us verify that he didn't. When a madman is pointing a gun ( even if its his finger in his pocket and he is pretending its a gun ) you shoot him. Because if all you do is give him more threats, you open yourself to attacks from every one who sees you as weak. There was a father I met several years ago who counted to three 10 times because his daughter was doing something he didn't want. He would count to three, then start over with his counting. Did she change her behavior? No. Did all the kids around him see him as a weak man that can be walked all over? Yes. Liberal foreign policy is like that father's discipline...all talk no walk, only they take it a step further and blame the spouse ( Republicans ) for their kids behavior. Your enemy isn't with me, it isn't with Republicans, its with the terrorists.

this got posted in the wrong

this got posted in the wrong spot, I'm pretty sure I was responding to your "
dems voted us into iraq" post

Love the name. It's

Love the name. It's hilarious. Almost as funny as "Del Dolemonte".

You state:

"And Noel, when the republican minority in congress votes against popularly supported bills, block veto overides, and holes up the will of the people in the senate in endless charades.....yes..they are part of congress and earn that 3% rating. The whole bunch looks bad. "

The Zogby 3% poll was confined to job approval on one subject only-Congress' "handling" of Iraq. It's not the Repubs' fault that you idiots can't get your lose the war bills passed...

yea...it's that minority vote thing

 

"It's not the Repubs' fault that you idiots can't get your lose the war bills passed... "

duh the republicans blocked it cuz they can't stop being losers, even out of power.

The republicans are part of congress and blocked the dems' bills. the dems didn't vote against it. same for stem cells and the other popular initiatives held up by congressional republicans in their "party before country good" policy.

for the record, the republicans lost this war.

our great troops won the battle...they did their part. you can only blame the administration and the people in power the last 6 years for the incompetence, mismanagement, arrogance, corruption, denial, cronyism, misallocation of strategic resources...jeesh.

you are supporting the folk that lost the Iraq war. what side are you on?

So yea.. on Iraq, congress gets low grades...but take the blame.

 

You would be believeable if

You would be believeable if you showed some accountability on how the Democrats in Congress and in the media made this war longer than it should be. But since you place all blame on the Republicans, you are a tool who can't be taken seriously.

the Dems were wrong on Iraq

 

dems voted us into iraq, yes. they were out of power and there was no accountability on anything for 5 years...so....I can only blame them so far as their hands were way away from both the wheel, petal and stick shift.

almost all the dems voted for this Iraq war. on hand-picked intelligence. they were wrong. any attempts to correct the situation or append or change the strategy have been met by " stay the course " talk from the Administration and their lackies in congress. Generals have been fired if they don't support the Bush line of how great things are in Iraq, and replaced with more subordinate Generals...who in tern eventually don't agree and are fired.

What do you think the democrats can do to solve the war at this point, aside from waiting it out and having it all dump down on the dems in '08 ?

Also how did the media make the war longer ?

Thanks.

 

 

Actually, Hillary Clinton

Actually, Hillary Clinton said she also based her vote on the war on private briefings she got from her husband's intelligence people. I suppose that data was "cherry-picked" as well?

Phone

I thought you had business to attend with Noel, yet here you are?  Ignoring a host is rude in my country.  PS you still have your annoying gaps, are you trying to be annoying?  We enjoy debate here, rational debate, but these 3rd grade tactics are as annoying as Nancy donning the dew rag. 

 

Duh, you seem to forget that

Duh, you seem to forget that even Harry Reid also voted against his own lose the war bill.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

I've overheard several

I've overheard several conversations on how good the Michael Moonbat movie 'Sicko' is and how correct he is...

These are undoubtedly the same crowd who think Oliver Stone's "JFK" was a documentary.

I have no faith in the

I have no faith in the Republican Party to take all of this information and use it against the dems in the '08 elections. If they were smart, they would. The problem is that they have repeatedly let their party down.

Zogby the Mouth of a Thousand Manipulations

The blog on Huffington which I found most hillarious was not the Zogby poll which focused on advocating culture wars to have Dems win, but the one on low poll numbers of Congress.

I forget which blogger it was, but their reason for democrat's low poll numbers was BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HELD CONGRESS FOR 12 YEARS AND NUMBERS STARTED TO FALL THEN AND now democrats are just being burdened by that historic fall which will continue.

That is how out of touch these lemmings running for the sea of nonsense minds work. It can't be that America hates Reid and Pelosi money grubbing, American slamming and political games.......nope it is the Republicans fault the majority can not get anything done.

Zogby is the same with his poll questions in not figuring out that it is not people want the DNC, but that Americans are looking for an alternative to what they are being told is a failure in Iraq. Americans want a win there and not a pull out.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

LMAO!

BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HELD CONGRESS FOR 12 YEARS AND NUMBERS STARTED TO FALL THEN AND now democrats are just being burdened by that historic fall which will continue.

 

The "Trickle Down Effect", huh?

 

OH! Wait! Wait! By that reasoning that is why Bush's numbers are falling ... Disapproval for the male slut Bill Clinton is finally trickling down ...

Can't use a logical argument

"Disapproval for the male slut Bill Clinton". Can't win an argument by using logic with libs. They'll just change the subject and pretend the conversation never happened.

Ah! Yes ...

Would that be "duh!" or "d`oh!" ?

You really can't make this

You really can't make this stuff up!!

Chancellor Pelosi and Sinator Hairy Reed

Chancellor Pelosi and Sinator Hairy Reed ... Chancellor Palpatine and his Sith apprentice Darth Maul ... if they were both in their 90's.

 

Taxocratic Islamocrat Liberal-mocracy

Democrats INCESSANTLY get the who, what, when, where, how, and ESPECIALLY the why wrong.

Americans dislike Congress because of TAXOCRAT taxocratic taxocracy, because of ISLAMOCRAT islamocratic islamo-mocracy, and because of LIBERALCRAT liberalcratic liberal-mocracy.

I'm reminded of a line from

I'm reminded of a line from a current film (300) that perfectly sums up the DemoCongress' attitute towards the American people. It's delivered just before the first clash of arms in the film, where Leonidas instructs his men: Give them nothing... but take from them... EVERYTHING!

Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?

This is the worst congress

This is the worst congress in history.

on what do you base that, AntiThink?

 

on what parameter(s) are you comparing to other congressional eras, AntiThink?

Phony war on terror

With Friends like this who needs enemies?. Republicans probably do not like  Arlen Specter very much. Now Newt Gingrich says the phony war on terror is being lost

Newt Gingrich comments

 

a mis-quote shawn, though I

a mis-quote shawn, though I wished he chose better words because he should know by now how he would be mis-quoted. He meant phony as in we aren't fighting with everything we got.

Shawn

Shawn,

I saw this earlier at Drudge. However, he linked to the AJC article which gave a little more:

"We've been engaged in a phony war," said Gingrich. "The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military."

His remarks seemed to reflect, in part, the findings of a National Intelligence Estimate made public last month.

In the estimate, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that six years of U.S. efforts to degrade the al-Qaida terrorist group had left the organization constrained but still potent, having "protected or regenerated" the capability to attack the United States in ways that have left the country "in a heightened threat environment."

"We have to take this seriously," said Gingrich.

"We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl Harbor, we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany," he said, referring to World War II.

"We beat all three in less than four years. We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and we're losing."

I'd be very interested in seeing the entire text of his speech and the discussion. Could he mean phony from the standpoint that the American people aren't completely behind it, and that we haven't been aggressive enough in managing it? Despite how it's being framed by AJC and at the ABC blog, is it possible that phony doesn't mean mocked up? Maybe he means phony from the standpoint that we're not doing enough.

Make sense? ns

 

  Yes it does Noel:)

 

Yes it does Noel:)

With all the frontline

With all the frontline Kostards huddled together debating on how fire could have melted steel, and how King Chimpy McHitler controls the weather, they apparently have their third-stringers hitting the conservative blogs this weekend.

Noel

A 3% rating?  (not $400% or 340%)

delicious

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

 

Yes, the rote answer by the

Yes, the rote answer by the leftard cretines [cretinettes?] like Taylor Marsh & smoke/bi-yotch/swamp has it that Congress is highly unpopular because it has not gotten US troops out of Iraq---they will not consider any other possible reason, such as the repulsive loathesome stupidity of Dingy Harry Reid or Pelosi's equally dumb, but less unattractive cluelessness across the board, starting with Jane Harman's demotion from Intelligence Chief due to hissy-fit issues.

Sylvester Reyes may be the single stupidest moron ever to serve as a Committee Chairman in the entire history of the House of Representatives, more than 200 years of competition.  Ask him again about Sunnis and Shi'ites to see if he's finally got it straight.

Harvard-educated Harman made Catholic school-girl C-student & duncette Pelosi look even less  intelligent than her meager endowments already warrant---so for the good of the Republic, Jane was sacked and bracero Reyes was put in her place---so to speak.