0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:45 pm
Mortkat wrote:
I do not know what Angus Reid Global Scan as presented by nimh is and I doubt it is valid.

Angus Reid Global Scan is a website that collects and lists opinion polls from around the world.

This one, as noted in my post, was a Gallup / CNN / USA Today poll.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:50 pm
well nimh if you posted if it's probably not valid no matter what it is.(that is the intent of the gatos post is it not?) actually the inverse seems truer.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
Americans: Iraq War a Mistake, Bush has No Victory Plan

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - More adults in the United States believe their federal administration was wrong in launching the coalition effort, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 52 per cent of respondents think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up four points in a week.


With almost nothing in the media except doom and gloom re Iraq, with the Democrats using their bully pulpits every day to condemn the effort, with almost none of the plentiful good news reported, it is no wonder that the American people were tricked into believing it was a lost cause.

Since President Bush has been making a steady string of responses to all this, however, these numbers have significantly swung back into more support for both the effort and more optimism in the prospects for success. If the President keeps it up, I think we will see that trend continue.

Ehm ... sorry, these numbers were the last ones out on that question from Gallup/CNN/USA Today. December 18 as compared to December 11.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:56 pm
Thank you Dys, most gracious ;-)
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:59 pm
Nimh is a statistician. The Poll he cites was done on 12/15 /2005. The poll I referenced, WHICH HE CAN EASILY FIND BY GOING TO RASMUSSEN, was done on Dec. 22. TODAY. Even a statistician knows that Dec. 22 comes SEVEN DAYS after December 15th.

My statistics from Rasmussen still stand.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:02 pm
Of course it does.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:47 pm
StSimon wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Welcome to A2K StSimon, but you might try staying on topic here. The discussion is on what is NOT torture, not what is. Only a few of the more fanatical have any problem defining torture.


Sorry Fox, I thought I was responding to your statements.


No problem. My response was much more sharp than I intended and I tried to go back and soften it up a bit but somebody else had already posted. I wasn't intending to rag on you at all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:51 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Of course some ignoramuses are saying that playing rap music is torture. Some say that if you don't give detainees better food than our military or most Americans get, it is torture. Some say if you don't change their linens daily or not providing the size pillow they want is torture.


Is somebody really saying that? Really? Or are you trivializing legitimate complaints by saying that people think that something as absurd as this is torture?

Quote:
But in the interest of common sense, none of these things is torture. To say they are trivializes what is real torture. John McCain can tell you what real torture is and rap music wouldn't make it. Dan Johnson can tell you what real torture is and rap music wouldn't make it.


But when you say this, it's as if you believe that somewhere somebody is claiming they were tortured when they were only made to listen to rap music. When in reality the rap music claim is made in conjunction with other claims that, when taken together, do constitute torture. It's a straw man. If I said, those who say that being made to eat snow balls is torture trivializes true torture. Is it true? Sure. Do such people exist? No.


Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Walter inferred as much when he posted the objections from the International Red Cross. Blatham has accused me more than once of being immoral and dangerous because I didn't accept his definition of torture and he was the one I addressed my original comment to today before everybody else jumped on the wagon. And even that was in response to him alleging that something else was being trivialized. I don't even remember what the something else was now.

When I say that being forced to listen to rap music is not torture, that is precisely what I mean. I don't mean anything else and I'm not referring to anything else. A lot of things 'endured' by detainees, say sleep deprivation, some will define as torture. I do not.

So sue me.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 12:26 am
dyslexia wrote:
"I was having a civil discussion"

Really?


No matter what you think of the positions of Foxfyre, she is reliably civil in her postings -- even in the face of spurious insults by those who disagree with her.

I, on the other hand, frequently stray from civility and so am perfectly prepared to tell you that your quip reveals that you are talking out of your crusty old ass, but then that's Good Ole Dys!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 12:47 am
Mortkat wrote:
I assume( and please correct me if I am not right) that Walter Hinteler is Caucasian. I am also Caucasian.

....

I dare say that Walter Hinteler never worked in the inner cities of several cities as I have and has never seen several full garbage cans taken away from schools filled with the "vegetables" that the STARVING CHILDREN do not eat.


I'm no Caucasian at all - since 1287 the family on father's site lives here in family, nearly all other ancestors from around here as well, besides some Hugenot French and some from more southern (German) parts.

I've worked, however, with Caucasian, who immigrated from Russia to Germany - as well as I worked during my complete life as social worker either with persons related to those, Morkat named ... and taught people at univerity ta act with theis clientele.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 01:45 am
I hope you are joshing--Walter Hinteler. You say you are not Caucasian.

Then that means you must be Mongoloid, Congoid, Australoid, or Capoid-
(Racial Classifications taken from The Living Races of Man by Carleton Coon- p.9)

Caucasian is a racial classification. I hope you know that, Walter Hinteler.

From what you have said--Your family is from Germany with some Hugenot French--That would make you definitely CAUCASIAN.

If you were joshing, it wasn't a good joke. If you were not, your ignorance about such a basic thing leads me to believe that you can't possibly have as many facts stored up as you would lead me to believe.

Which is it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 01:50 am
Mortkat wrote:
Caucasian is a racial classification. I hope you know that, Walter Hinteler.


In your world, maybe.ยด

Here, in Europe, a Causasian is a person from the Causain republic or from the Caucasian regions.

In Germany, we 'classified' races only during the 33 years of the Nazi regime.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 02:01 am
Well then, Walter Hinteler, perhaps you can teach me something.

My question to you is twofold.

l. Are people in the world classfied as to racial group?

2. How many races are there in the world?

3. What are they called?


( and George OB1 talks about "mutual respect"!!!!! What a joke!!!!)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 03:05 am
I don't talk about 'races' with you.
But since you've got the Britannica, you may read it up there:



Quote:
race: the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century denied the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that "races" are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 06:18 am
HOW TO DEFEND THE NATION, part one

Quote:

The Department of Homeland Security was only a month old, and already it had an image problem.

It was April 2003, and Susan Neely, a close aide to DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, decided the gargantuan new conglomeration of 22 federal agencies had to stand for something more than multicolored threat levels. It needed an identity -- not the "flavor of the day in terms of brand chic," as Neely put it, but something meant to last.

So she called in the branders.

Neely hired Landor Associates, the same company that invented the FedEx name and the BP sunflower, and together they began to rebrand a behemoth Landor described in a confidential briefing as a "disparate organization with a lack of focus." They developed a new DHS typeface (Joanna, with modifications) and color scheme (cool gray, red and hints of "punched-up" blue). They debated new uniforms for its armies of agents and focus-group-tested a new seal designed to convey "strength" and "gravitas." The department even got its own lapel pin, which was given to all 180,000 of its employees -- with Ridge's signature -- to celebrate its "brand launch" that June.

"It's got to have its own story," Neely explained.

Nearly three years after it was created in the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense, DHS does have a story, but so far it is one of haphazard design, bureaucratic warfare and unfulfilled promises. The department's first significant test -- its response to Hurricane Katrina in August -- exposed a troubled organization where preparedness was more slogan than mission
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327_pf.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 06:21 am
And if you don't think the "War on Terror" has been worked out as a marketing strategy in precisely the same manner, well then you are just really stupid.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 06:24 am
DEFENDING THE COUNTRY, part two

"The White House did not support us. That occurred repeatedly. It was [as] if the White House created us and then set out to marginalize us."
former top advisor to Tom Ridge
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 06:27 am
DEFENDING THE COUNTRY, part three

Noting up front that American military body armor doesn't work all that well.

Quote:
David H. Brooks, the chief executive of a company that supplies body armor to the American military in Iraq, invited 150 of his daughter's friends to the Rainbow Room atop Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, where they were serenaded by 50 Cent, Don Henley, Stevie Nicks and other luminaries during a birthday party reported to have cost $10 million.


This guy is one of how many getting obscenely wealthy from war?
link
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 07:46 am
Walter is speaking from the European perspective, Mort. Caucasian as we use it refers to the 'white' race, but the term with that definition is not commonly used outside the United States. Most of my German friends assert that they are full blood German, for instance, which they see as distinctive from the French or British or Irish or Italiian, each of which have their own ethnicity.

Wikipedia sums it up more or less accurately:

Quote:
The term Caucasian race is used almost exclusively in the United States to refer to people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, North Africa, West Asia, South Asia and parts of Central Asia. It was once considered a useful taxonomical categorization of human racial groups based on a presumed common geographic and/or linguistic origin.

In the United States, it is currently used primarily as a distinction loosely based on skin color alone for a group commonly refered to as Whites, as defined by the American government and census bureau. In the British Isles, "Caucasian" follows the North American definition, but in continental Europe, "Caucasian" currently refers almost exclusively to people who are from the Caucasus.

The term itself derives from measurements in craniology from the 19th century, and its name stems from the region of the Caucasus mountains, itself imagined to be the location from which Noah's son Japheth, traditional Biblical ancestor of the Europeans, established his tribe prior to its supposed migration into Europe.

Caucasoid is a term used in physical anthropology to refer to people falling within a certain range of anthropometric measurements.

In New Zealand the term Caucasian is used most frequently in police offender descriptions. Pākehā, European New Zealander, or simply New Zealander (although in theory this should include all New Zealanders) is more common in general language


However, it does not follow that a criticism of the historical or current activities of the German government, military, etc. is racist any more than criticism of the hsitorical or current activities of the United States is racist. Nobody likes to have their country slammed and we all tend to be a bit defensive when it is. But all things in perspective I think. Those who throw stones at one country shouldn't be too upset when some get thrown back.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 07:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:

So sue me.


Perhaps, if we continue with our policies of torture, someone will sue all of us. As well they should.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 09:00:34