Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#102
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:52:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The only reason you say that is because he says things you agree with, same for Rush and his listeners. No. I say that because one lies on a regular basis. The other doesn't lie, and he corrects his mistakes That is just your opinion. I have seen him take things out of context and present them in ways that make them untrue. You don't see it because you agree with him, again, the same as a Rush listener. No, I don't "agree with him" on everything. And, yes, there's a difference. As I said, an example? They are both polarizing figures who would rather be controversial and get ratings than to be objective reporters. They both take themselves far to seriously as do their fans. Yes, they're polarizing figures. But, Rush just lies and lies. His "fans" are called ditto heads. They do and think what he says. No so with Olbermann fans. They think he's entertaining, but no everything he says is considered as fact. If you want to see where our deep divide comes from, it is these hate merchants. It is BY FAR weighted from the right on the hate side. Faux spreads the lies on a daily basis. A third of the country thinks MSNBC lies and a third think Fox lies, the rest don't pay a lot of attention to either of them. Put me in the latter category. "News" has become less fact and more opinion over the last couple decades and that is particularly true of cable news. CNN may be the pick of the litter but it is still not the objective news outlet Ted Turner created. Some of these shows are just road runner cartoons. It's not a matter of thinking someone is lying vs. whether or not they are actually lying. Facts can be checked. |
#103
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. Not sure about Jim's contention. I didn't see it. |
#104
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it. "Something like 90% approval" That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the right number of troops. |
#105
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:38:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it. "Something like 90% approval" That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the right number of troops. He didn't have 15 UN resolutions and the precedent of a 10 year air war to back up an invasion of Afghanistan. BTW I doubt Bush ever had a 90% approval rating ?? Why would he need that for Afg.? We were attacked and that country was harboring the attackers. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woman proves gun effective | General | |||
OT Michael Moore proves he is the sicko | ASA | |||
Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy | ASA | |||
Ellen proves the Good Captain Correct! | ASA |