Berkeley Pisses Me Off

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Just for kicks, a Zogby poll dated September 10, 2007:

Nearly half (43%) believe Congress should give the President and the surge more time to work, but 35% want Congress to require the President to begin a phased withdrawal of troops �?? and 17% want an immediate and full withdrawal.

It took me all of 45 seconds to find a more recent Zogby poll that provided different information.

So, when someone intentionally produces bad misinformation, what do we call that?

Lixy either indulges in propaganda, or is incurably stupid. Actually, I will vote both. But his bad faith should be abundantly clear.

62

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In another thread, day old news of an Islamist terror mastermind was cited by Lixy as “old news”, as in “who cares?” [/quote]

Old news, as in everybody who reads newspapers had heard about it already.

63

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Everyone wants the war to end.

You don’t know that. People are speaking of stepping it up, going into Iran, staying a 100 years, etc.

That is not the same thing as being against the war.

Educate yourself, slim.

Once again, you are duck hunting in a submarine. Please. Just take a break. Maybe 2-3 weeks. Find some new schtick. Your current MO is old and well defeated. My 13 year-old daughter is now laughing at you.

64

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just for kicks, a Zogby poll dated September 10, 2007:

Nearly half (43%) believe Congress should give the President and the surge more time to work, but 35% want Congress to require the President to begin a phased withdrawal of troops �?? and 17% want an immediate and full withdrawal.

It took me all of 45 seconds to find a more recent Zogby poll that provided different information.

So, when someone intentionally produces bad misinformation, what do we call that?

Lixy either indulges in propaganda, or is incurably stupid. Actually, I will vote both. But his bad faith should be abundantly clear.[/quote]

Read again, smartass. I didn’t talk about cheerleading Americans like you sitting on their asses. My point was about the “men and women protecting them” (i.e: the ones killing and dying).

If you can find a single poll that contradicts the one I posted, feel free to let us know.

65

[quote]lixy wrote:

Read again, smartass. I didn’t talk about cheerleading Americans like you sitting on their asses. My point was about the “men and women protecting them” (i.e: the ones killing and dying).

If you can find a single poll that contradicts the one I posted, feel free to let us know.[/quote]

Another lie - Rainjack was discussing the current state of Americans’ thinking about the war. You replied with an out of date poll that was specific to people in the military.

Even if you wanted to make a point about the opinion of the military - which was not what RJ was talking about, but anyways - you could find a poll less than 2 years old. But you are too lazy or stupid.

Your problem is - you keep trying these bush league tactics, and you keep getting exposed. You got called on it - as you always do - and now you are indulging in post hoc rationalizations now that we all are laughing at you.

Lixy, how many times have posted information in bad faith? How many times have you posted an article to support some of your propagandistic garbage, only to find that the article, once actually read, contradicts your point?

How many times?

It’s getting tiresome scraping you off my shoe. Honestly, follow Rainjack’s advice - take a breather. You are a laughingstock. Your inability to hold up your end of a debate makes you completely uninteresting. Try and reboot with some better material - you’re too easy and transparent at this point.

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Another lie - Rainjack was discussing the current state of Americans’ thinking about the war. You replied with an out of date poll that was specific to people in the military.

Even if you wanted to make a point about the opinion of the military - which was not what RJ was talking about, but anyways - you could find a poll less than 2 years old. But you are too lazy or stupid. [/quote]

Nah. I replied to CrewPierce. RainJack replied to me, and quoted the portion of my post where I specifically discuss the opinion of the military.

If you can’t find a poll that contradicts mine (i.e: bringing something constructive to the table) I suggest you refrain from jumping in without bothering to read the whole thread. You’re just itching to make a fool of yourself.\

P.S: Technically, the poll I posted is “less than 2 years”.

67

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Another lie - Rainjack was discussing the current state of Americans’ thinking about the war. You replied with an out of date poll that was specific to people in the military.

Even if you wanted to make a point about the opinion of the military - which was not what RJ was talking about, but anyways - you could find a poll less than 2 years old. But you are too lazy or stupid.

Nah. I replied to CrewPierce. RainJack replied to me, and quoted the portion of my post where I specifically discuss the opinion of the military.

If you can’t find a poll that contradicts mine (i.e: bringing something constructive to the table) I suggest you refrain from jumping in without bothering to read the whole thread. You’re just itching to make a fool of yourself.\

P.S: Technically, the poll I posted is “less than 2 years”.[/quote]

Your own poll contradicts you. Why do we need to find another one?

DO you only read the parts you agree with?

68

[quote]lixy wrote:

Nah. I replied to CrewPierce. RainJack replied to me, and quoted the portion of my post where I specifically discuss the opinion of the military.

If you can’t find a poll that contradicts mine (i.e: bringing something constructive to the table) I suggest you refrain from jumping in without bothering to read the whole thread. You’re just itching to make a fool of yourself.\

P.S: Technically, the poll I posted is “less than 2 years”.[/quote]

What is hilarious is that you conveniently decline to address the other points I raise regarding the bad faith postings. Not surprising, but funny. So predictable.

And, note the pedantics - the poll is 2 years old in 2 weeks. Pathetic and embarrassing.

As for polls, here is one from the Military Times, dated December 31, 2007:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2007activepoll_iraq.php

[i]17) We currently have 175,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?
Zero
8.1%
1-50,000
10%
50,000-150,000
17.3%
150,000-175,000
8.3%
175,000
8.1%
175,000 to 200,000
10.7%
200,000+
20.8%
No opinion
12.8%
Decline to answer
4%

  1. We currently have 18,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many troops do you think we should have there?
    Zero
    5.2%
    1-10,000
    9.6%
    10,000-17,000
    8.7%
    18,000
    11.3%
    19,000-50,000
    30.9%
    50,000+
    16.2%
    No opinion/Don’t know
    18.2%[/i]

Enjoy, Lixy.

69

[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, I must give pookie some credit. On occasion he’ll sack up and admit his error.

It isn’t often, but, he does.

JeffR[/quote]

Like I always said, I’m all for success in Iraq. It’s in everyone’s (well, except for a few sack-of-shit terrorists) best interest that Iraq succeeds.

Political reconciliation and progress is good news. My problem with it, is that it’s what, the 2nd or 3rd time since last summer’s walkout that we’ve had news of reunification and getting back to work… Sloth, if memory serves, posted similar news in early december. And here we are again, 2 months later, and the good news is again about Sunni-Shia reconciliation. When is the news about bona fide progress coming? Something concrete, instead of a bunch of smiling bearded guys shaking hands and promising to do much.

If I criticize the lack of political progress, it’s because I would like to see some. Real progress. As much of it as possible before the surge ends or the troops are called back. The current enforced peace should be capitalized upon by the Iraqis to put in place as much political and social structure as possible; so that when the US reduces troop levels or leaves, the whole thing doesn’t come crumbling down like a house of card. It has to be more than good words and swell intentions, though.

That’s why I get annoyed when guys like Jeff point out the reduced violence levels afforded by the surge and cry victory. It’s not victory. It’s a great opportunity for victory, but Iraq has to step up and take advantage of it. Walking out of parliament, taking summer vacations, staging repeated reconciliation photo-ops and news conference IS NOT what Iraq needs.

70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for polls, here is one from the Military Times, dated December 31, 2007:

[i]17) We currently have 175,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?
Zero
8.1%
1-50,000
10%
50,000-150,000
17.3%
150,000-175,000
8.3%
175,000
8.1%
175,000 to 200,000
10.7%
200,000+
20.8%
No opinion
12.8%
Decline to answer
4% [/quote]

Heh, so what should we make of that? That the American military personnel is opposed to increasing the number of troops?

Plus, that’s not even what I argued. I said the “war on Iraq”, not the bases in Kuwait or elsewhere.

Here’s an interesting tidbit from your poll:

[i]10) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed
19.5%
Somewhat likely to succeed
42%
Not very likely to succeed
23.1%
Not at all likely to succeed
9.5%
No opinion
2%
Decline to answer
3.8%[/i]

[quote]18) We currently have 18,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many troops do you think we should have there?
Zero
5.2%
1-10,000
9.6%
10,000-17,000
8.7%
18,000
11.3%
19,000-50,000
30.9%
50,000+
16.2%
No opinion/Don’t know
18.2%[/i] [/quote]

What’s Afghanistan got to do with anything?

71

[quote]lixy wrote:

Heh, so what should we make of that? That the American military personnel is opposed to increasing the number of troops?[/quote]

Let’s start at the beginning - it is a more recent poll that supplies different information that you are trying to pass off. Don’t lose sight of the first problem I addressed - bad faith.

Now, you cited a poll that said 29% of the military polled said the US should get out immediately. New poll suggests that isn’t the case at all - that category would be demonstrated in the “We currently have 175,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?” question posed in the recent poll with the answer being “zero” - that percentage was 8.1%.

29% does not equal 8.1%. Two master’s degrees, right?

Incorrect - the numbers refute the idea that US troops as a group want to get out now. It’s just that easy.

[quote]Here’s an interesting tidbit from your poll:

[i]10) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed
19.5%
Somewhat likely to succeed
42%
Not very likely to succeed
23.1%
Not at all likely to succeed
9.5%
No opinion
2%
Decline to answer
3.8%[/i][/quote]

Interesting, yes - what does it have to do with the nonsense you have been trying to defend? Nothing - but distraction and deflection is your specialty when someone starts exposing your typical hogwash.

So the US should be in Afghanistan? Good.

By the way, any response to my pointing out your bad faith in previous posts?

72

[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
How can a local government think it’s a good idea to tell the men and women protecting them that they aren’t welcome in their town?

I don’t think it’s the “protecting” they have issues with. As I understand it, it’s got more to do with the gratuitous acts of aggression that benefit a small cabal while everybody else suffers the consequences.

Among those “men and women protecting them”, the majority wants the war on Iraq to end. At least, according to every poll I’ve seen in the last couple of years. So, in essence, Berkeley is only echoing a general concern, albeit in a radical and sensationalistic way.

By the way, when was the last time Bush or his side-kick set foot in Vermont?[/quote]

While yes some are there protesting the war, the local government told the recruiters they aren’t welcome in their town.

If there were no recruiting stations how would someone sign-up for service? Our military forces would rapidly decline in numbers thus leaving us defenseless. Even if no one is attempting to invade our own soil, we still need the marines to protect our embassies over seas, as they are often attacked.

So clearly telling them to leave their town isn’t benefiting any American not even including the war efforts.

Also, the recruiting sites are good places to gain information on the GI bill. I know many college grads that would not have had the chance to go to college if it wasn�??t for the GI bill. So by telling them to leave the town they could be taking away a college opportunity for those who could not normally afford it.

73

Why are we fighting over poll numbers? I could make a poll up and skew the data any way I wanted. We could find polls that show Americans are against the war but then find a poll done the same day showing Americans are for the war.

The vast majority of polls I’ve seen done of the war have no more than 3,000 participants. That’s not even close to enough needed to make such broad generalizations.

74

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Everyone wants the war to end.

You don’t know that. People are speaking of stepping it up, going into Iran, staying a 100 years, etc.

That is not the same thing as being against the war.

Educate yourself, slim.

[/quote]

Case in point this study had 944 people interviewed and failed to mention how many did not take the survey.

75

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Why are we fighting over poll numbers? I could make a poll up and skew the data any way I wanted. We could find polls that show Americans are against the war but then find a poll done the same day showing Americans are for the war.

The vast majority of polls I’ve seen done of the war have no more than 3,000 participants. That’s not even close to enough needed to make such broad generalizations.
[/quote]

because that’s what lixy does. She thinks she can put her finger on the pulse of America by citing a poll.

She is a terrorist sympathizer with blood all over her dainty little fingers. She will do or say anything to accomplish her goal of destroying the Great Satan.

But this proves how truly stupid she is: She picks a fucking BBing site to wage her jihad. Like I said, duck hunting in a submarine.

76

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
lixy wrote:
And in the Bay of Pigs in 1961,
Havana fought the playboy in the Cuban sun,
For Castro is a colour,
Is a redder than red,
Those Washington bullets want Castro dead
For Castro is the colour…
…That will earn you a spray of lead

Those were Cubans shooting Cubans. Yes the US supplied the guns, but they weren’t US citizens pulling the trigger.[/quote]

you are missing the point of the song and the album. check it out, to me it ranks up there in best album ever made.

77

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
However, I must give pookie some credit. On occasion he’ll sack up and admit his error.

It isn’t often, but, he does.

JeffR

Like I always said, I’m all for success in Iraq. It’s in everyone’s (well, except for a few sack-of-shit terrorists) best interest that Iraq succeeds.

Political reconciliation and progress is good news. My problem with it, is that it’s what, the 2nd or 3rd time since last summer’s walkout that we’ve had news of reunification and getting back to work… Sloth, if memory serves, posted similar news in early december. And here we are again, 2 months later, and the good news is again about Sunni-Shia reconciliation. When is the news about bona fide progress coming? Something concrete, instead of a bunch of smiling bearded guys shaking hands and promising to do much.

If I criticize the lack of political progress, it’s because I would like to see some. Real progress. As much of it as possible before the surge ends or the troops are called back. The current enforced peace should be capitalized upon by the Iraqis to put in place as much political and social structure as possible; so that when the US reduces troop levels or leaves, the whole thing doesn’t come crumbling down like a house of card. It has to be more than good words and swell intentions, though.

That’s why I get annoyed when guys like Jeff point out the reduced violence levels afforded by the surge and cry victory. It’s not victory. It’s a great opportunity for victory, but Iraq has to step up and take advantage of it. Walking out of parliament, taking summer vacations, staging repeated reconciliation photo-ops and news conference IS NOT what Iraq needs.
[/quote]

pookie,

I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”

I was hoping you’d rise to the occasion.

JeffR

78

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”[/quote]

Since there’s been, according to you, real progress, and Iraq is thus closer to being self-sustainable; tell us Jeff, how many troops do you think you could bring back?

79

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”

Since there’s been, according to you, real progress, and Iraq is thus closer to being self-sustainable; tell us Jeff, how many troops do you think you could bring back?

[/quote]

Is the job finished? Do you call off the carpenters because it’s finally starting to look like a house instead of a concrete slab?

Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?

DO you quit training and eating when you start seeing real progress in the mirror?

C’mon pookster. At least pretend you can come in out of the rain.

80

[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”

Since there’s been, according to you, real progress, and Iraq is thus closer to being self-sustainable; tell us Jeff, how many troops do you think you could bring back?

Is the job finished? Do you call off the carpenters because it’s finally starting to look like a house instead of a concrete slab?

Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?

DO you quit training and eating when you start seeing real progress in the mirror?

C’mon pookster. At least pretend you can come in out of the rain.

[/quote]

I think you need to add into that scenario…that what progress is being made, is constantly being blown back to bits. Square one is every day. You can eat right, you can lift, you can live by the rules and expect the best, and only come out with the worst…everytime. No matter how hard you work and lift, the result will be an obese explosion. Because its not your body.