Most Libs approve of attacks on our troops

[GettnHuge 1]

It just keeps getting better, right?

 

Majority of Libs support attacks on US troops

 

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Libs say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want U.S. troops to leave now, a poll finds.

 

The Libs also have positive views of

Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

 

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

 

_Almost four in five Libs say the U.S. military force in

Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

 

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of extreme and moderate Libs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among extreme Libs.

 

_An overwhelmingly positive opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, approving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

_Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

 

_A majority of Libs, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Moderate Libs were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of extreme Libs also believed that would be the case.

 

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Lib Democrats, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

The State Department, meanwhile, has conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found two-thirds of Libs favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's poll.

[DanXIII 8]

[IAMWood 6]

It just keeps getting better, right?

 

Majority of Libs support attacks on US troops

 

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Libs say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want U.S. troops to leave now, a poll finds.

 

The Libs also have positive views of

Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

 

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

 

_Almost four in five Libs say the U.S. military force in

Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

 

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of extreme and moderate Libs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among extreme Libs.

 

_An overwhelmingly positive opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, approving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

_Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

 

_A majority of Libs, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Moderate Libs were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of extreme Libs also believed that would be the case.

 

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Lib Democrats, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

The State Department, meanwhile, has conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found two-thirds of Libs favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's poll.

 

Link?

[Isotopes 1]

Link?

 

There is no link. He took this poll from another thread and replaced Iraqis with Libs. Extremely funny

[surferskin 30]

damn durty libs

[GettnHuge 1]

There is no link. He took this poll from another thread and replaced Iraqis with Libs. Extremely funny

 

allegedly

[IAMWood 6]

There is no link. He took this poll from another thread and replaced Iraqis with Libs. Extremely funny

 

So iraqis are libs?

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

What's worse?

 

That libs approve of attacks on our troops, or that Bush sent them over there to get attacked

[davebg 0]

As much as I disapprove of this post and know that it is made up, it does pain me that I think some of this to be true.

 

I honestly do believe that there is a small fringe element on the lib side of the fence that honestly does support attacks on our troops and actively roots for them, just so they can make their arch nemesis Bush look bad.

[Cdub100 3,418]

STOP LYING!!!!

 

The V.P. said the insurgency was in it's last throws over a year ago. I'm sure Iraq will be opening up for tourist real soon. In fact I have so much faith in the government I plan on spending my honeymoon there.

 

Cradle of life here I come

[donhaas 18]

As much as I disapprove of this post and know that it is made up, it does pain me that I think some of this to be true.

 

I honestly do believe that there is a small fringe element on the lib side of the fence that honestly does support attacks on our troops and actively roots for them, just so they can make their arch nemesis Bush look bad.

 

It's possible. There are sickos everywhere.

Pretty sure that Bush is doing a great job looking bad on his own.

More and more, the "libs" who want the troops home are blue-collar wives, mothers, fathers, and children and Iraq War vets themselves that know that this is a bullsh!t quagmire that no neo-con chickenhawks are going near to fight in it.

There's no way that they're rooting for people to die.

[davebg 0]

It's possible. There are sickos everywhere.

Pretty sure that Bush is doing a great job looking bad on his own.

More and more, the "libs" who want the troops home are blue-collar wives, mothers, fathers, and children and Iraq War vets themselves that know that this is a bullsh!t quagmire that no neo-con chickenhawks are going near to fight in it.

There's no way that they're rooting for people to die.

Like I said, I believe there is a small fringe element (some of whom frequently post here) that does wish harm to our troops...not b/c they hate the troops, but b/c they hate Bush and they believe that such a thing would make him look worse.

 

And that's not just reserved to our troops. I think these same people would also like to see things like the economy go south or a large scale terrorist attack on US soil...for the same reason.

[Isotopes 1]

Like I said, I believe there is a small fringe element (some of whom frequently post here) that does wish harm to our troops...not b/c they hate the troops, but b/c they hate Bush and they believe that such a thing would make him look worse.

 

And that's not just reserved to our troops. I think these same people would also like to see things like the economy go south or a large scale terrorist attack on US soil...for the same reason.

 

It goes both ways. I believe that if a dem is elected in 08 there will be a fringe group of cons who will hope for a large scale terrorists attack. I think several of them post here.

[donhaas 18]

Like I said, I believe there is a small fringe element (some of whom frequently post here) that does wish harm to our troops...not b/c they hate the troops, but b/c they hate Bush and they believe that such a thing would make him look worse.

 

And that's not just reserved to our troops. I think these same people would also like to see things like the economy go south or a large scale terrorist attack on US soil...for the same reason.

 

I agree. It may be just where I live, but I think it's even bigger than a small fringe element.

It's sad.

Like chickenhawks, these dispicable people have no personal ties to the war so it makes it easier to do [root for defeat].

[kpbuckeye 2]

It's possible. There are sickos everywhere.

Pretty sure that Bush is doing a great job looking bad on his own.

More and more, the "libs" who want the troops home are blue-collar wives, mothers, fathers, and children and Iraq War vets themselves that know that this is a bullsh!t quagmire that no neo-con chickenhawks are going near to fight in it.

There's no way that they're rooting for people to die.

 

its quite possible you are one of the douches.

[davebg 0]

It goes both ways. I believe that if a dem is elected in 08 there will be a fringe group of cons who will hope for a large scale terrorists attack. I think several of them post here.

Oh...I totally agree w/you.

 

Although, at least those fringe cons were rooting for war the whole time. You gotta' admit it's a little more when someone who says they're for peace and against war is secretly hoping for violence (kinda' like those animal rights who torched the pet store to "free" the animals form their inhumane treatment.)

[Brick Tamland 0]

its quite possible you are one of the douches.

 

Another intelligent post from Vanilla Ice.

[donhaas 18]

its quite possible you are one of the douches.

 

What up, King CHickensh!thawk?

'bout time you chimed in with some cowardly nonsense.

 

 

If a douche wants us to stop spending billions of dollars and thousands of young AMerican lives in the quagmire, that's what I am.

 

Much rather be a douche than a cowardly girly chickensh!thawk..

 

HTH

[Uh-huh 0]

I honestly do believe that there is a small fringe element on the lib side of the fence that honestly does support attacks on our troops and actively roots for them, just so they can make their arch nemesis Bush look bad.

I honestly think there is a small fringe element on the right-wing side that would believe anything about liberals, no matter how idiotic or outlandish it is. Case in point...

 

BTW, Gladstone was right on the money.

[kpbuckeye 2]

What up, King CHickensh!thawk?

'bout time you chimed in with some cowardly nonsense.

If a douche wants us to stop spending billions of dollars and thousands of young AMerican lives in the quagmire, that's what I am.

 

Much rather be a douche than a cowardly girly chickensh!thawk..

 

HTH

 

 

all is well over here puzzay boy.

 

its about sucking it it and getting it done. funny how there was what, close to 80% who were in favor of going in and finally ousting this mass murdering dirtbag who thumbed his nose at the UN, and the rest of the world. but now its been turned into a new excuse to cry about bush. hypocrite much?

 

keep warm in whiner land

[davebg 0]

I honestly think there is a small fringe element on the right-wing side that would believe anything about liberals, no matter how idiotic or outlandish it is. Case in point...

 

BTW, Gladstone was right on the money.

And apparently there is a large not-so-fringe element on the lib side that will let their idealogy disable the part of their brain that processes reading comprehension and analytical skills.

 

ETA: Donhass, Isotopes and I were having a nice, mature conversation about this until you came along w/your craptastic comments and typical Air America induced name calling.

 

ETA 2: Gladstone may be right, but considering how stoopid the majority of "people" are, I'll take conservatism over liberalism any day.

[Uh-huh 0]

And apparently there is a large not-so-fringe element on the lib side that will let their idealogy disable the part of their brain that processes reading comprehension and analytical skills.

 

ETA: Donhass, Isotopes and I were having a nice, mature conversation about this until you came along w/your craptastic comments and typical Air America induced name calling.

I see you are reverting back to your true nature.

 

Mature discussion... right.

 

BTW, you might want to take your own advice.

[davebg 0]

I see you are reverting back to your true nature.

 

Mature discussion... right.

 

BTW, you might want to take your own advice.

I give what I get.

 

Notice how my previous posts in this thread were actual discussions and not the typical name calling (at least until you showed up?)

[Uh-huh 0]

I give what I get.

 

Notice how my previous posts in this thread were actual discussions and not the typical name calling (at least until you showed up?)

I can see you don't even comprehend your posts.

 

First you express an opinion that is ludicrous. It is your opinion, granted, but to think US citizens are glad other US citizens are being killed just to prove a political point just shows what sort of mentality YOU have.

[kpbuckeye 2]

I see you are reverting back to your true nature.

 

Mature discussion... right.

 

BTW, you might want to take your own advice.

 

 

you should log back in as garrowl or one of your other lame arse alias' and agree with yourself.

That would show him your history of mature discussions.

[davebg 0]

First you express an opinion that is ludicrous. It is your opinion, granted, but to think US citizens are glad other US citizens are being killed just to prove a political point just shows what sort of mentality YOU have.

Yeah...b/c we've never had anyone post something like that here, right?

 

I mean, it's not like we've had posters say that Bush makes them cheer for terrorists or that they hope that if they are caught in the next terrorist attack that they hope tens of thousands will go with them, right?

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

its about sucking it it and getting it done. funny how there was what, close to 80% who were in favor of going in and finally ousting this mass murdering dirtbag who thumbed his nose at the UN, and the rest of the world. but now its been turned into a new excuse to cry about bush. hypocrite much?

Kinda sucks that this admin, Rummy in particular, completely botched those plans. Also sucks they didn't adequately prepare our troops with the equipment they needed in the first place

[Brad GLuckman 518]

STOP LYING!!!!

 

The V.P. said the insurgency was in it's last throws over a year ago. I'm sure Iraq will be opening up for tourist real soon. In fact I have so much faith in the government I plan on spending my honeymoon there.

 

Cradle of life here I come

 

 

 

It goes both ways. I believe that if a dem is elected in 08 there will be a fringe group of cons who will hope for a large scale terrorists attack. I think several of them post here.

 

Very true. There are people like this on both sides. Let's forget Repubs hated Clinton...not quite as much as Dems hate Bush, but they still hated him quite a bit.

 

What up, King CHickensh!thawk?

'bout time you chimed in with some cowardly nonsense.

If a douche wants us to stop spending billions of dollars and thousands of young AMerican lives in the quagmire, that's what I am.

 

Much rather be a douche than a cowardly girly chickensh!thawk..

 

HTH

 

Is Chickenhawk your new word or something? Did you just learn it's meaning? You use it in almost every post. Just asking, because seriously, you kind of go overboard with it. And adding Sh!t in between the Chicken and Hawk really isn't nearly as clever as you think it is...it's kind of gay to be honest. You know? You're a Packer fan right? So isn't it kind of pathetic when people call them the "fudge-packers"...it is right? When you hear that, don't you kind of think to yourself, "Wow, that was a pretty lame attempt at hilarity"...same thing applies here.

[FranksTanks 0]

Kinda sucks that this admin, Rummy in particular, completely botched those plans. Also sucks they didn't adequately prepare our troops with the equipment they needed in the first place

dude, cut them some slack this is all they have left in life.

they circle jerk like this at least 3 times a week.

 

 

 

Finally a kpbuckeye post with some relevance!

[Uh-huh 0]

Yeah...b/c we've never had anyone post something like that here, right?

 

I mean, it's not like we've had posters say that Bush makes them cheer for terrorists or that they hope that if they are caught in the next terrorist attack that they hope tens of thousands will go with them, right?

Sure, we should credit those posters as being representative of a small fringe liberal element, just as we should also pay close attention to posters who claim "every illegal immigrant should get shot in the head if they cross the US border" or "Abortionists should be killed" or "we should drop a nuke on the ragheads."

 

In reality, most of the crap floating around on this board is pure fishing. If you honestly think there is a group of liberals in America who are glad our troops are dying over in Iraq, then I feel sorry for you. The majority of liberals are on record as saying they want the troops OUT of Iraq, precisely because they feel they are in harm's way for all the wrong reasons.

[davebg 0]

Sure, we should credit those posters as being representative of a small fringe liberal element, just as we should also pay close attention to posters who claim "every illegal immigrant should get shot in the head if they cross the US border" or "Abortionists should be killed" or "we should drop a nuke on the ragheads."

 

In reality, most of the crap floating around on this board is pure fishing. If you honestly think there is a group of liberals in America who are glad our troops are dying over in Iraq, then I feel sorry for you. The majority of liberals are on record as saying they want the troops OUT of Iraq, precisely because they feel they are in harm's way for all the wrong reasons.

"the majority of liberals" does NOT = "a small fringe liberal element"

 

itsatipthatreadingcomprehension

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Sure, we should credit those posters as being representative of a small fringe liberal element, just as we should also pay close attention to posters who claim "every illegal immigrant should get shot in the head if they cross the US border" or "Abortionists should be killed" or "we should drop a nuke on the ragheads."

 

In reality, most of the crap floating around on this board is pure fishing. If you honestly think there is a group of liberals in America who are glad our troops are dying over in Iraq, then I feel sorry for you. The majority of liberals are on record as saying they want the troops OUT of Iraq, precisely because they feel they are in harm's way for all the wrong reasons.

 

I don't think anyone actually thinks that dems want troops to die. However, I think they enjoy when Bush fails. For the same reason the media just couldn't wait for that 2,000 troop to die so they could print it in BIG BOLD LETTERS on the front page. Troops dying = Bush's fault = Bush's failure. Democrats want Bush to fail so much, that I honestly think deep down, alot of these guys don't want Bush to succeed in Iraq. Not specifically that they want troops to die, but they sure as hell don't want Bush to be successful.

 

Same reason Repubs harped on the Lewinsky "scandal" so much. Do you really think any of these people really gave a fock the Clinton was focking an intern? Of course not, it's none of their business. But they finally had something on him that was big. Then he lied, and they had more...they didn't impeach Clinton because he did something wrong, they impeached Clinton because they could...because they did not want him to be successful.

[D_House 0]

"the majority of liberals" does NOT = "a small fringe liberal element"

 

itsatipthatreadingcomprehension

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "small fringe liberal element?" You are basically manufacturing a stance, applying it to liberals, and using it as a reason to criticize them. So despite your statements to the contrary, you are basically doing the same thing as GettnHuge.

 

Let me clarify: basically my problem with your assertion is the same as Uh-huh's: that wishing harm upon our troops is the opposite of what the "liberal" anti-war stance is about.

 

Same reason Repubs harped on the Lewinsky "scandal" so much. Do you really think any of these people really gave a fock the Clinton was focking an intern? Of course not, it's none of their business. But they finally had something on him that was big. Then he lied, and they had more...they didn't impeach Clinton because he did something wrong, they impeached Clinton because they could...because they did not want him to be successful.

this is the problem... you are equating a war with a BJ! The objection to the war is because it is costing American lives! Maybe Republicans, despite all the bluster, didn't really care about whether or not Clinton was an adulterer, but I guarantee that the vast majority of folks that are against the war are damn upset that Americans are dying in a needless war of choice.

 

Let me ask you this: why did Bush enjoy such strong support for the incursion into Afghanistan from liberals if all they want is to see him fail?

[TeNt 0]

its funny because its true

[davebg 0]

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "small fringe liberal element?" You are basically manufacturing a stance, applying it to liberals, and using it as a reason to criticize them. So despite your statements to the contrary, you are basically doing the same thing as GettnHuge.

 

Let me clarify: basically my problem with your assertion is the same as Uh-huh's: that wishing harm upon our troops is the opposite of what the "liberal" anti-war stance is about.

I agree that wishing harm upon our troops is the opposite of what the lib anti-war stance is about. In fact, I pointed that out earlier in this thread when discussing how there would be an equally repugnant fringe element on the right wishing for a terrorist attack if the Dems were in power.

 

Do I have a link to a public figure saying these things to the news media? No. Although, I can point to what almost seems like glee from some people when reporting bad news as it relates to the administration.

 

However, I can find examples of this type of mindset in conversations and on message boards...including this one.

 

See post #27 & 29 for examples.

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...;hl=ground+zero

 

And yes, I know he's a clown who is likely fishing, but he says these kind of things enough that I believe there is some truth in saying that he really believes such things. Again, as I pointed out, I am referring to a fringe element, of which this assdart is a prime example.

 

ETA: I have seen people who I believed to be intelligent, rational folks literally start foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog when talking about Bush, which I believe helps to explain (not really sure if that's the word I'm looking for?) the irrational nature of wishing for violence while trying to advance an anti-war agenda.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

this is the problem... you are equating a war with a BJ! The objection to the war is because it is costing American lives! Maybe Republicans, despite all the bluster, didn't really care about whether or not Clinton was an adulterer, but I guarantee that the vast majority of folks that are against the war are damn upset that Americans are dying in a needless war of choice.

 

Let me ask you this: why did Bush enjoy such strong support for the incursion into Afghanistan from liberals if all they want is to see him fail?

 

I'm not equating a war with a BJ...I am, however, saying that each side doesn't want the other side to succeed all the time. The Dems don't want the repubs to succeed, because that means the Dems were wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong.

 

As far as your question, Bush had strong support from the Libs on Iraq initially as well. Even favorites like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton supported the effort, with the same info that Bush was going off of. But now that it looks like Iraq may end up being a failure, what do these people do? They switch sides. They attack the same man they agreed with just a few years ago. Tell America he's a liar, and a chickenhawk, and a daddy's boy...I could go on forever with all the ridiculous insults thrown his way on a daily basis both here and in the political world.

 

How many of you hardcore anti - war people were anti- war when it all started? Not one of you will live up to the fact you supported the war, but statistics tell us otherwise. But now people watch propoganda like farenheit 9/11, and watch liberal news, and listen to the tide start to turn against Bush and everyone jumps on board with the Anti-Bush bandwagon. Many of these same people who are so passionate about hating Bush and calling the war a mistake, also supported the war 3 years ago. But now John Stewart tells us Bush is a dumba$$, and of course he's on TV...he must be right.

[Brick Tamland 0]

Is Chickenhawk your new word or something? Did you just learn it's meaning? You use it in almost every post. Just asking, because seriously, you kind of go overboard with it. And adding Sh!t in between the Chicken and Hawk really isn't nearly as clever as you think it is...it's kind of gay to be honest. You know? You're a Packer fan right? So isn't it kind of pathetic when people call them the "fudge-packers"...it is right? When you hear that, don't you kind of think to yourself, "Wow, that was a pretty lame attempt at hilarity"...same thing applies here.

 

No word combination better describes the ideologues that have hijacked U.S. foreign policy better than

Chickenhawk. A policy of pre-emption and imperialism using the blood of lower and middle class Americans formulated by those who refused to serve when they had the chance.

 

"But 9/11 changed everything"..... Horse shiot! We were going into Iraq had that horrible day happened or not. There's mounds of evidence pointing towards this. Evidence that hasn't been formulated by political hacks, but people close to this administration. To think otherwise is flies in the face of reason.

 

This isn't your Republican Party. This is a group of privileged ideologues that have wrapped themselves in the flag, god and clever marketing. They have taken advantage of the patriotism of all Americans by labeling dissent as "helping the terrorists."

 

The most used comeback in this forum for some on the right is "Scoreboard." This isn't a f-ing fantasy football game!!! If so, I'm looking at the scoreboard, and it reads 2600. 2600 of America's finest men and women. Killed for the ideology of a hand full of chickenhawks sitting in a Washington think tank.

 

I'm no "leftist pinko commie" as you would like to believe, just an ordinary American.

[davebg 0]

The most used comeback in this forum for some on the right is "Scoreboard."

I have to say that I have never seen anyone use that here.

[kpbuckeye 2]

Kinda sucks that this admin, Rummy in particular, completely botched those plans. Also sucks they didn't adequately prepare our troops with the equipment they needed in the first place

 

i agree, as i have stated many times i am no bush fan.

I support the fact that he had the balls to do it bc someone had to end sadam and the un wan't going to do it, too much money being made at the expense of the people. they made a clusterfock of it, but we have to stay the course. I saw article today that AQ has lost 4k people. works for me. hopefully we can stabilize the place soon. I want my friends to come home. There is no excuse for the troops not to have all the equipment they need, but i am also not going to blame everything that gets focked up on bush. I never whinned and blammed clinton for things that happened under his watch, not going to start now.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

No word combination better describes the ideologues that have hijacked U.S. foreign policy better than

Chickenhawk. A policy of pre-emption and imperialism using the blood of lower and middle class Americans formulated by those who refused to serve when they had the chance.

 

"But 9/11 changed everything"..... Horse shiot! We were going into Iraq had that horrible day happened or not. There's mounds of evidence pointing towards this. Evidence that hasn't been formulated by political hacks, but people close to this administration. To think otherwise is flies in the face of reason.

 

This isn't your Republican Party. This is a group of privileged ideologues that have wrapped themselves in the flag, god and clever marketing. They have taken advantage of the patriotism of all Americans by labeling dissent as "helping the terrorists."

 

The most used comeback in this forum for some on the right is "Scoreboard." This isn't a f-ing fantasy football game!!! If so, I'm looking at the scoreboard, and it reads 2600. 2600 of America's finest men and women. Killed for the ideology of a hand full of chickenhawks sitting in a Washington think tank.

 

I'm no "leftist pinko commie" as you would like to believe, just an ordinary American.

 

And I'm not a hard core conservative, by any means. Read some of my posts in the past. I in no way, believe this administration is blameless.

 

For the last 14 years this country has had a president who did not fight in a war when it was their time. Clinton and Bush both got out of it, they both used whatever means necessary to not fight in the war. These two men have grown up to be president since then. They are(or were) the leader of an entire nation. Whether either of them felt the need to go to war at any time, for the benefit of the nation they now lead, should have absolutely nothing to do with their Vietnam experience. If Bush thought to himself that Hussein posed a serious threat, but he didn't want to do anything about it because he didn't serve in Nam, and was afraid of being called a chickenhawk...then we should start complaining. Because then, he would have compromised the nations security for reasons that involve only him, personally.

 

It's his job to keep this country safe. You can twist his words any way you would like. But the fact remains this problem will not go away. You can either confront it, try to root out the problem, or ignore it and just hope it goes away. If you have paid any attention to anything these militant groups have said for the past 20-30 yeras...this problem isn't just going to disappear.