Therefore 40% of the republicans do not support Bush's handling of the war. That is a lot of republicans on the other side of the issue. Bi-partisan we call it.
OK, so I'll cite another poll from ultraconservative Fox News. It still isn't pretty, mon ami. President Bush's Approval Rating 3/2/06 They give him a 39% approval rating. Not as low as the 36% he scored last November. So, what does the "Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996" website you cited think about the FOX news poll?
red, why do you care what other people think? what does it matter relative to whether a policy is right or wrong what people think about it? why are you always quoting polls? i dont understand what relevance polls have to anyone not in the business of worrying about getting somebody elected.
It's just an arguing point. The guy said that democrats want the Iraq war to be lost simply to get a democrat elected and that was why they opposed the war. I pointed out that there were also a lot of republicans opposed to the war and that there was broad disagreement with the Bush war policy. I backed up my position with some numbers, HomerTiger did not. I'm surprised that you don't understand the value of statistics.
i understand the value of statistics, and i have done the required reading on collective intelligence. it is one on my favorite topics and i have really really killed every relevant book on the value of the wisdom of crowds. i once got so into it i read books on neural networks and bought an ant farm to watch them make decisions as a collective. but in these discussion, the relevant data and statistics, is infomation relative to how policy decisions work, not the perception of what people like or want. the average person has a very poor understanding of what is happening and why. a scientist in a lab is usuing the data from his experiments, not the stats on who likes what he is doing. in my opinion, the best politician is the one who is most independent and makes decisions based on reality, not the swaying public opinions. the average jackass has no idea what is good for him. i see no value in opinion polls, and i think people and politicians who do, they are part of the problem. i dont see the point of arguing with anyone over what polls say or who thinks what.
ahh, so when you realize your current mistakes, it wont be the first time a bush knew better than you.
this reminds me of the difference between me (us) and red. my opinions are based on a consistent and principled view of things that i already understand well. red's opinions are based more or less on the status quo, whatever is perceived to not be extreme, and not always backed by actual undertstanding, but rather by whatever google has available for cutting and pasting or paraphrasing. so i think red tends to research and google instead of actually reasoning why a particular stance is worthwhile himself. thats why his opinions are all so wishy-washy, they are a patchwork of whatever google shows as the most common "moderate" views of an issue. review: me and many of the rest of you (including the religious nuts and even rex the wild liberal) = right or wrong, based on principle. red = google and public perception based, not really principled. apologies to red, but thats the way i sees it.
I agree fully. I believe Red has a dislike for Bush and the policy and instead of just saying so and why, he is reduced to finding and repeating the standard liberal mantras of Iraq is Vietnam and basically calling Bush stupid. One of the last things I will say on Iraq is, I believe this war is a trend and is sending a signal to other countries like Iran of how we will react in the future to threats. I see Red say time and time again that Iran has a large democracy-ready base in that country. He's right, they do and so did Iraq in 1990 and 91. But after the 1st Bush failed to finish the job, those democracy-ready people were rounded-up and slaughtered. The Iraq war is sending a signal to freedom-minded people around the world of how much support they will get from us for them to help themselves. No one in Iran is going to rise up and overthrow their government without help from us. Bottomline. If we don't show the courage to stay and finish the job in Iraq it will never happen in Iran or any other country. This policy of helping to spread democracy around the world, with military-might if need be, is not a 2 year, 5 year or 25 year policy. The middle east will need help from us for the next 50 years or more to fully develop. And yes, that means us getting ourselves into very divisive situations where we as a country have to stand as one for liberty. If we do not, then let's sit back and watch our cities eventually burn. To me, that is the choice and arguing with Red and looking at Bush's poll numbers won't change that for me. To me, this whole thing does not hinge on Bush, Hillary, Newt....it hinges on the willingness of the American people to fight for liberty throughout the world. If we don't, then eventually we will be defeated. I believe that to my core and always will after 9/11. There is no longterm peace without war.
Well, you missed the point, of course. When the argument is about what the public feels about an issue, polls are relevant. It matters not a damn if the public is right or wrong or whether they agree with your viewpoint. How else would you document public opinion without using polls? Magic? Wild-ass guess? Your omniscient, god-like inherent righteousness? Oh, get off of it. Every time you get spanked in a debate you fall back on attempting to discredit your opponent instead of addressing his remarks. You imagine that you know what I think when you can't even explain what you think. Everybody can read my opinions here and knows that I back them up with my reasonings and also some evidence. You are just rehashing your tired old shot-down theories because you have nothing further to add to the discussion. Get back on topic or just leave it, will ya'.
I said exactly so and exactly why . . .many times and in many threads. It's all there for everyone to see. I've backed up every challenge you've made with my reasons and my evidence. Make another one and I'll answer it, like I always do. I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree. It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if everybody agreed. But it would be a much better debate if some of you would offer some explantions and evidence of your own instead of just attacking people who make the effort to try to prove their point. But the truth hurts, doesn't it? When people resort to criticising me personally, instead of challenging my opinion, then I know I've won the argument.
