Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   This article from the Daily Fail says Mitt Romney has taken the lead in national polling, according to the "respected Rasmussen Reports"   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Daily Mail, Rasmussen Reports, lead in, Apopka, swing states, political satire, running mate  
•       •       •

2326 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-07 06:45:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".


Yes. That's why a GIS for "Colin Powell Yellowcake" turned it up.
 
2012-10-07 06:47:07 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


Welcome to my favorites list. You may recognize some of the others there . . .
 
2012-10-07 06:47:34 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".

Yes. That's why a GIS for "Colin Powell Yellowcake" turned it up.


What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?

And what happens when you do a regular search and watch the video?
 
2012-10-07 06:47:52 PM  

spongeboob: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


They didn't "change the message" that "we didn't go in for WMD". It was the left who after the fact decided that that was the only reason. Read Bush's speech on the reasons for the war before we went in. Hell, read Colin Powell's to the UN. WMD was, yes, one of the major reasons, but it was by far not the only one. Stop living a lie. If you don't read them your a lazy lib.

The Obamanites here are almost, ALMOST, as sure President Obama will win this election as they thought Kerry would win in 2004. The butthurt the day after that election was epic.

I think Obama will win, but Romney has a much better chance than Kerry ever did and the farklibs are acting as if it's going to be some epic blowout. I believe it's going to be much closer than the Kerry-Bush election.
 
2012-10-07 06:49:32 PM  

Whiskey Pete: No.


Rassmussen's models clearly didn't work for a non-presidential elections. Certain assumptions they make in voter identification and enthusiasm didn't hold. IIRC, they admitted this.

Electoral trends change based upon the office. People are way more partisan when it comes to presidential elections, only slightly less so for statewide offices and all over the place for local.

Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?
 
2012-10-07 06:49:42 PM  

Ricardo Klement: What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?


Same speech, wrong 'prop'. My bad.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:06 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.

I guess maybe next time a Vice President will think twice before trying to scare the American public into an illegal war using the term "mushroom cloud" in a televised speech.


Oh, to be sure, he was also talking about nukes and the potential, but the bulk of the absolute certainty revolved around chemical and biological weapons.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:55 PM  

spongeboob: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


Got several links for those several smoking guns?
 
2012-10-07 06:52:10 PM  

Mrbogey: What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


They they can differentiate between lying bloviation and actually winning a debate?
 
2012-10-07 06:53:07 PM  

Rich Cream: [m5.paperblog.com image 576x538]

/was looking for something else, got this instead


Communism and Corporatism, wheeee!

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-07 06:53:16 PM  

randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.


And this time last week, all polls were skewed and unreliable. But NOW, they're important.

Just like the BLS was fine for unemployment reports up until last month, but now that they say 7.8%, we need to take the data down to the atomic level.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:29 PM  

Mrbogey: Rassmussen's models clearly didn't work for a non-presidential elections. Certain assumptions they make in voter identification and enthusiasm didn't hold. IIRC, they admitted this.


This means that their confirmation bias wasn't working as they had hoped.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:50 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?

Same speech, wrong 'prop'. My bad.


He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.
 
2012-10-07 06:55:36 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Wait, "your" guy is Obama? I have you farkied as "right-wing" in orange (albeit as "comic" and not "troll" or "shill" like the others, because you have a good sense of humor and a good, logical head on your shoulders); I might have to reevaluate my judgement of you and upgrade your color.

Yeah, all these conspiracy theories are just human nature, but they are really starting to get out of hand. I'll admit I am fully on the bandwagon with the Romney tax returns/amnesty one. But only because it fits my narrative and gives me hope, and it is at least possible. Plausible? Maybe. Probable? I'm not betting any money on it.


if I lived in a swing state, I'd be voting for BO. However, since there is no danger of NY going for Romney, I will happily throw my vote away to a third party. Since I have no illusions that a third party may win, I want to see BO beat Mittens... actually, I'd like to view an alternate reality where Mittens won just to see the true believer meltdown but then I'd want to return to the reality where BO wins - the one with a future
 
2012-10-07 06:56:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.


You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?
 
2012-10-07 06:56:47 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

And this time last week, all polls were skewed and unreliable. But NOW, they're important.

Just like the BLS was fine for unemployment reports up until last month, but now that they say 7.8%, we need to take the data down to the atomic level.


If Rasmussen was literally abandoned by many Conservatives when it started showing Obama ahead. I really hope Obama wins by as large of a margin as possible because I don't think many conservatives will accept any result with Obama less that a 50 vote electoral lead.
 
2012-10-07 06:58:02 PM  

Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


As someone who hasn't watched the debate yet and thus doesn't have an independent opinion of it, I can say that this is not the message I got about from Fark or elsewhere, which is pretty much the same. The message I got is that Romney had a lot of energy, looked a lot better than Obama and was clearly ready and prepared to answer questions. Romney also lied his ass off, didn't follow the debate format very well and the big take-away from this for a lot of people is that Romney wants to kill Big Bird (also, Jim Lehrer did a horrible job moderating). Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?
 
2012-10-07 06:58:25 PM  

Whiskey Pete: spongeboob: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.

"welcomed as liberators something, something"


something something war would only take six months etc.
 
2012-10-07 06:59:58 PM  

Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


Hypo for you:

You need $200,000 for life-saving, emergency surgery and you only have $100,000. No cash, no surgery.

On election night, Rasmussen has Romney up by 1% in his final poll.

Nate Silver has Obama up by 1%, but, based on state by state responses, says there is a 75% chance of an Obama win.

You can bet your $100,000 on either Romney or Obama winning and win the extra $100,000 for your surgery. If you're wrong, you die.

Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?
 
2012-10-07 07:01:07 PM  

Whiskey Pete: You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?


Even Bill O'Reilly just recently said that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. When even Fox News pundits are back away one should really stop beating off that dead horse.
 
2012-10-07 07:01:12 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?


I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.
 
2012-10-07 07:04:55 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


Well then as was pointed out earlier, manipulating data is one helluva lot more feasible than planting WMDs. I just don't think that Bush gets a pass just because he didn't plant them.
 
2012-10-07 07:06:41 PM  

Ricardo Klement: didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there, up there with Lois Lane not knowing that Clark Kent was Superman because of a pair of glasses. Everyone around him was actively forging information to justify an invasion, and even punishing people who didn't fall in with the party line. Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?
 
2012-10-07 07:10:16 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

Well then as was pointed out earlier, manipulating data is one helluva lot more feasible than planting WMDs. I just don't think that Bush gets a pass just because he didn't plant them.


I don't think he deserves a pass. It's like killing someone: if you planned it, it's murder. If you didn't mean to, it's manslaughter. Bush didn't intend to get into a quagmire that would soil his reputation for all of history. That doesn't mean his reputation shouldn't be one of getting us into a quagmire.
 
2012-10-07 07:10:34 PM  

RyogaM: Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?

Hypo for you:

You need $200,000 for life-saving, emergency surgery and you only have $100,000. No cash, no surgery.

On election night, Rasmussen has Romney up by 1% in his final poll.

Nate Silver has Obama up by 1%, but, based on state by state responses, says there is a 75% chance of an Obama win.

You can bet your $100,000 on either Romney or Obama winning and win the extra $100,000 for your surgery. If you're wrong, you die.

Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 07:10:35 PM  
What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link
 
2012-10-07 07:11:26 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?

As someone who hasn't watched the debate yet and thus doesn't have an independent opinion of it, I can say that this is not the message I got about from Fark or elsewhere, which is pretty much the same. The message I got is that Romney had a lot of energy, looked a lot better than Obama and was clearly ready and prepared to answer questions. Romney also lied his ass off, didn't follow the debate format very well and the big take-away from this for a lot of people is that Romney wants to kill Big Bird (also, Jim Lehrer did a horrible job moderating). Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?


You are correct. That was the consensus amongst most of the Obama supporters the night of the debate and in the follow-up threads. The only place where the response was different is in Mrbogey's alternative reality.
 
2012-10-07 07:12:22 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?

I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


So you are saying the BLS numbers aren't a lie, they're just wrong? Otherwise, your analogy is crap.
 
2012-10-07 07:14:03 PM  

Altitude5280: What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link


Well that seems like an unbiased source looking at the other articles there.
 
2012-10-07 07:15:10 PM  

RyogaM: Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?


Hypotheticals nested within a reality where a similar situation could exist are tricky to answer. I'd need specific data including state-by-state breakdowns along with enthusiasm and party identification trends.

In close races, the excited side with a good ground game wins.
 
2012-10-07 07:16:01 PM  

Gwyrddu: Ricardo Klement: didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there, up there with Lois Lane not knowing that Clark Kent was Superman because of a pair of glasses. Everyone around him was actively forging information to justify an invasion, and even punishing people who didn't fall in with the party line. Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?


Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.

Yes, the administration pressured intelligence agencies for evidence backing its case. Yes, it deprecated exculpatory evidence. But it did so because it just knew Saddam was guilty, and wasn't interested in following up leads it viewed would not actually turn out to exonerate him. The administration was caught in Mark Twain's famous warning that nothing gets us into trouble quite like believing something that just ain't true.
 
2012-10-07 07:16:45 PM  

Mrbogey: Hypotheticals nested within a reality where a similar situation could exist are tricky to answer. I'd need specific data including state-by-state breakdowns along with enthusiasm and party identification trends.

In close races, the excited side with a good ground game wins



So you don't believe Rasmussen either, huh?
 
2012-10-07 07:16:46 PM  

Delay: Whiskey Pete: Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?

[www.electoral-vote.com image 850x240]


So looking at the single Rasmussen poll is enough for you? Because that is what that last dot is. It isn't a poll average or anything.
 
2012-10-07 07:17:01 PM  

Gwyrddu: Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?


I think you're looking at it too widely. Everyone admits that... but the winner of the debate is the one who gains in the polls. Quite a many farkers dismissed Romney gaining anything.
 
2012-10-07 07:18:47 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?

I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

So you are saying the BLS numbers aren't a lie, they're just wrong? Otherwise, your analogy is crap.


No, the analogy was meant to demonstrate one thing and one thing only: that if the president is going to manipulate something, he's not going to do it half-assed. And in that way, the analogy accomplishes what it set out to do.
 
2012-10-07 07:21:15 PM  

Gwyrddu: If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there.... Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?


Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.
 
2012-10-07 07:25:17 PM  

neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.


Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?
 
2012-10-07 07:27:08 PM  

Altitude5280: What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link


Extremely wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-07 07:28:06 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.


I do think Bush and his administration were terribly mistaken about the results of invading Iraq. They honestly did believe that the Iraq would thrive as a smashing success under American liberators and that it would be a successful testbed of their radical conservative ideas, which is one reason they disbanded the Ba'athist government and military which lead to half the problems in that country. But not understanding the consequences of their actions doesn't mean Bush was honest on his reasoning for invading Iraq in the first place.

For one, if Bush really thought the reason we need to invade Iraq was to stop WMD's, why did he call up Chirac to talk about Gog and Magog?
 
2012-10-07 07:29:35 PM  

Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?


Richard Clarke
 
2012-10-07 07:32:54 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Richard Clarke


The Bandstand guy???
 
2012-10-07 07:34:36 PM  
Ha
 
2012-10-07 07:35:17 PM  

Gwyrddu: Ricardo Klement: Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.

I do think Bush and his administration were terribly mistaken about the results of invading Iraq. They honestly did believe that the Iraq would thrive as a smashing success under American liberators and that it would be a successful testbed of their radical conservative ideas, which is one reason they disbanded the Ba'athist government and military which lead to half the problems in that country. But not understanding the consequences of their actions doesn't mean Bush was honest on his reasoning for invading Iraq in the first place.

For one, if Bush really thought the reason we need to invade Iraq was to stop WMD's, why did he call up Chirac to talk about Gog and Magog?


Even if true, it reinforces my point: Bush took it on faith that Saddam was guilty. Everything else was just administrative paperwork.
 
2012-10-07 07:38:41 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke


The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
 
2012-10-07 07:42:31 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke

The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz


WOW.

This is from their charter:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "
 
2012-10-07 07:53:23 PM  

Whiskey Pete: WOW.

This is from their charter:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "


You'll find all kinds of interesting reading. The Iraq/Middle East Section is enlightening. Here's a sample (written by William Kristol, there's also some op-eds written by John Bolton):

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.
...
Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized, other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.
If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed.
 
2012-10-07 07:55:21 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke

The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz


Yes, thank you for posting that. I should have posted more than a name. Richard A. Clarke was the former National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism who publicized the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 Iraq War plans in his book, Against All Enemies. He was in the room when Cheney et al were trying to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, before 9/11.
 
2012-10-07 08:05:34 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Yes, thank you for posting that. I should have posted more than a name. Richard A. Clarke was the former National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism who publicized the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 Iraq War plans in his book, Against All Enemies. He was in the room when Cheney et al were trying to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, before 9/11.


You're welcome. The PNAC is central to understanding why Bush went to war against Iraq, and needs to be better known. The major players (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton) were there years before Bush was elected.
 
2012-10-07 08:09:47 PM  

i.imgur.com

 
2012-10-07 08:29:57 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.

Got several links for those several smoking guns?


Challenge accepted

Link

Free Republic Link

Remember this lab that was for making bio weapons Link

Link

Link
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report