Opposition to the war could cost the Democratic Party.

[Frank]

@Mr. Moto

I would like one that is like the Democrats used to be, …

A Republican Party like it used to be wouldn’t be half bad either. Y’know, before the cancer of Reaganism infected the party.

[RickJay]

@Evil One

What is your point?

In addition to your switching of “liberals” and “Democrats” in the second page of the thread, you’ve also accused others who don’t see it your way of being politically biased.

Speaking as a guy on the outside of the U.S. political spectrum, I can tell you that at least insofar as this thread is concerned you’re obviously the most biased poster in the thread (again, going just within this thread; ElvisL1ves is one of the SDMB’s more biased partisans, overall.) Dude, when, in your rush to attack Democrats, you don’t even appear to remember that George W. Bush was the President when 9/11 happened, you need to ask yourself if you remembered to check your own bias at the door.

“Nothing” on his watch? You do remember the World Trade Center collapsed in 2001, not 1998, right?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@RickJay

“Nothing” on his watch? You do remember the World Trade Center collapsed in 2001, not 1998, right?

Not that it was of the scope of 9/11, but it was on Bush’s watch that we had a bunch of antrax being mailed around the country too. Like 9/11, we never caught the person responsible for that one either.

[ElvisL1ves]

But we’re looking for that guy almost as hard as we’re looking for Bin Laden.

RickJay, any time you find me being unfactual or even notably unfair, do point it out, will you? Mere potshots like that one you just took serve no purpose for anyone. :dubious:

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

And here’s how you end up looking like a dumb shit, frozen, with “The Pet Goat” in your hand and a shit-scared look on your face.

Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill yesterday to see how the government would respond if several cities were attacked simultaneously with bombs similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq. […]

President Bush went on a bike ride yesterday morning and did not take part in the test.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022400617.html

[Evil_One]

@Captain Carrot

The point is that 9/11 did, in fact, happen on Bush’s watch, contrary to what you said.

Check post 114.

[Evil_One]

@ElvisL1ves

But it was somehow Clinton’s fault anyway.

Check post 114.

[Evil_One]

@RickJay

In addition to your switching of “liberals” and “Democrats” in the second page of the thread, you’ve also accused others who don’t see it your way of being politically biased.

Speaking as a guy on the outside of the U.S. political spectrum, I can tell you that at least insofar as this thread is concerned you’re obviously the most biased poster in the thread (again, going just within this thread; ElvisL1ves is one of the SDMB’s more biased partisans, overall.) Dude, when, in your rush to attack Democrats, you don’t even appear to remember that George W. Bush was the President when 9/11 happened, you need to ask yourself if you remembered to check your own bias at the door.

“Nothing” on his watch? You do remember the World Trade Center collapsed in 2001, not 1998, right?

Check post 114.

[Evil_One]

@RickJay

In addition to your switching of “liberals” and “Democrats” in the second page of the thread,

I addressed this directly to you in post 116.

@RickJay

you’ve also accused others who don’t see it your way of being politically biased.

What I have been saying is that we perceive and justify facts based on the biases and opinions we all hold. Of course I have biases on certain issues. Bias is another world for ideology. The problem comes when someone doesn’t want to admit that they are viewing the world through the prism of their beliefs. I would put the people in this thread that are apoplectic at the idea that liberals are perceived by millions of people as soft on national security into that category.

[Captain_Carrot]

Dude, this is not finger-pointing. This is pointing out that what you said is incorrect. You said that nothing happened on Bush’s watch. Whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented by his efforts, it happened while he was President. That’s all we’re saying. (At least, that’s all I’m saying.)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Evil One

The problem comes when someone doesn’t want to admit that they are viewing the world through the prism of their beliefs. I would put the people in this thread that are apoplectic at the idea that liberals are perceived by millions of people as soft on national security into that category.

There has never been a denial by anyone that “millions of people” do hold that belief, nor is anyone “apoplectic” over acknowledging that that perception is widespread. But earlier you were asserting that it’s a simple, general, *fact * that liberals are soft on national security.

Your post #80:

@Evil One

Some people cannot help denying that the democrats are perceived as weak on national defense. If they admitted it, it would shake the foundation of everything they have spent years justifying and believing in.

Your post #98:

I was referring to the perception that the Republicans are perceived as stronger on national security issues in a time where national security concerns are more important that usual to the domestic electorate.

And #83, responding to Kimstu:

Originally posted by Kimstu
In other words, the disagreement isn’t about whether such a perception/portrayal exists, as you mistakenly suggest, but whether it is accurate.

I do think it’s accurate.

Stop for a moment and consider that statement. Consider as well that polls show that view (assuming liberal=Democrat, which is your usage) is held only by a minority.

You might *admit * you’re backing off, but that apparently isn’t to be expected from you, unfortunately. Do consider the possibility that you have a prism of your own, as already suggested.

Now why should anyone waste any more time with these hateful rants of yours? :dubious:

[Evil_One]

@ElvisL1ves

Do consider the possibility that you have a prism of your own, as already suggested.

Of course I do.

@ElvisL1ves

Now why should anyone waste any more time with these hateful rants of yours? :dubious:

You find them hateful? I don’t intend them to be so. Please accept my apologies for not following the standards of board decorum in the way that posters treat each other.

[Squink]

@Captain Carrot

Dude, this is not finger-pointing. This is pointing out that what you said is incorrect. You said that nothing happened on Bush’s watch. Whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented by his efforts, it happened while he was President.

There’s another thing that’s happened on the Bush watch that probably needs to be included in the terrorist attacks column; 3154 US deaths in Iraq. Now perhaps all these soldiers weren’t killed by terrorists, but the conservatives insist that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Phrases like ‘we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here’. suggest that at least some of our soldiers were killed by terrorists. Those should count towards Bush’s total. Does anyone believe that we’d actually have lost another 3154 souls here on the mainland if we hadn’t invaded in 2003?

[RTFirefly]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t for one second want a Democratic party that is like the Republicans. I would like one that is like the Democrats used to be, before the cancer of McGovernism infected the party.

Why should anyone care what sort of Democratic Party a Republican would like?

It’s really simple: we Dems get to decide what sort of party the Democratic Party will be, and you Publicans get to decide what sort of party the Publican Party will be. We Dems don’t get a vote in what your party’s like; we just have to either work with it, if it’s a reasonable sort of party, or oppose it, if it isn’t. You get the same choices in reverse.

A more interesting question would be: to what extent is this ‘infection’ the case? Just what did the McGovern cancer consist of, and what residue of that cancer still persists in the Democratic Party?

I’ve started a thread for that discussion.

[Voyager]

@Evil One

You find them hateful? I don’t intend them to be so. Please accept my apologies for not following the standards of board decorum in the way that posters treat each other.

Do you want to respond to the poll numbers showing that Americans now think Democrats would do a better job on the War on Terror? Don’t give us this “millions think” stuff - millions think Bush should be impeached, but it is hardly a majority view.

What would your reaction be if bin Laden launches another attack from his safe haven in Pakistan, a safe haven being ignored by the Administration? Frank Rich today notes the similarity to the ignoring of the red alert signals in the summer of 2001. Can we lynch Bush (legally of course) or would it all be the Democrats’ fault?

[BrainGlutton]

According to a very recent poll, the people trust Congressional Dems to handle the Iraq War more than they trust the Bush Admin.

[RTFirefly]

@BrainGlutton

According to a very recent poll, the people trust Congressional Dems to handle the Iraq War more than they trust the Bush Admin.

Washington Post. 2/22-25. All adults. MoE 3%

Who do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM), (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

                                       
                            Bush    Dems
**a. The situation in Iraq      34      54
b. The U.S. campaign against
  terrorism                   39      52**
c. The economy                36      56
d. The federal budget         32      59
e. Health care                25      62

And here’s how they feel about what is essentially Murtha’s plan:

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?

    Support: 58 percent
    Oppose:  39 percent
    Unknown:  4 percent

Yeah, opposition to this war is gonna cost the Dems, big time.