Is 'Purge' the word for the GOP? (Trees And Things)

logan: Re: cards on the table

Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:27:14 EST

Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose the war?

Short answer: No.

Odd response that, considering the figures are printed right there.

In response to the question: "Do you think the U.S. should k

pO157: Re: What america wants

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:15:30 EST

Ah okay. My bad.

thefadd: Re: What america wants

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:16:20 EST

Not at all. I believe there most likely will be an election next November.

pO157: Re: What america wants

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:31:30 EST

What I do have is a question. If the American people are so outrageously opposed to the Iraq war that they're going to demand party change at the top should their be an election next November,

I may be misreading, but do you believe there

thefadd: Re: What america wants

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:11:00 EST

As much as ever, I think it's a very bad time to paint this in distinctly democratic and republican brushes. Wetkarma's final point below has merit--Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. Obama, while distinctly different from Hillary on many issues, wasn

wetkarma: cards on the table

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 03:28:38 EST

Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose the war?

Short answer: No. Long Answer: Which war are we talking about? I don't say this to distract you but its worth remembering Guiliani-style that much o

logan: Re: What america wants

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:36:59 EST

Skeptical is good, but am I wrong? I tend to be skeptical of arguments that are all questions and no answers, so answer for me these questions three:

Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose

wetkarma: What america wants

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:56:25 EST

I'm skeptical of anyone who writes/says things like "America wants/America thinks" - its not that I believe its a bit of hubris to speak on behalf of the nation, but that inevitably such sweeping statements are used to hide conflicting evidence under the d

logan: Re: conspiracy vs. incompetence

Sat, 1 Dec 2007 03:45:46 EST

Um, 15 years ago? That would be 1992, the year the Christian Right failed to stop Bill Clinton's election to the Presidency and their worst nightmare began: 8 years of peace and prosperity when a Democrat was in charge and the worst thing that happened to

keta: Reasons Are Hard To Discern

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:13:42 EST

One theory I've read is that Lott and others are resigning now because the laws as to former pols becoming lobbyists changes next year, when you'll have to wait two years before lobbying compared to the current one year moratorium.

I think the base reas

thefadd: Re: conspiracy vs. incompetence

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:31:52 EST

There was a big to do from the christian right when they first seriously got into politics 15 years ago. Before that it was, politics can't really do anything for us. With all its failings, I wouldn't be surprised to see the wind simply coming out of the s

wetkarma: conspiracy vs. incompetence

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:13:42 EST

There are some among my libertarian colleagues who see the government as an overarching monolothic organization a la Orwell's Big Brother seeking to oppress people. My reality is that the government is like a 2 year old kid who if left unmonitored will sme