Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Does it really matter that Nasa got 1934 and 1998 mixed up for warmest year on record when for the first time in human history both polar ice caps are melting?
"For the first time, scientists have confirmed Earth is melting at both ends, which could have disastrous effects for coastal cities and villages."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1
White House Forbids Telecom Companies From Telling Congress About Surveillance Activity
Phone Companies Muzzled On Eavesdropping
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16, 2007
(AP) Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.
"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," Watts wrote.
The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.
The letter from Verizon provided some detail on the kind of information the government is seeking.
Verizon has been regularly asked in subpoenas and national security letters to identify a "calling circle" for certain telephone numbers and to provide related subscriber information.
The company has never complied with such a request as it does not maintain calling-circle records, according to Verizon general counsel Randal Milch.
The House is about to consider a new government eavesdropping bill. The White House has threatened to veto the bill unless it includes retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted government investigations without court orders.
The Bush administration has said the companies cooperated in good faith because of their patriotism and desire to protect the country in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and should not be punished.
However, last week a Colorado court unsealed documents in the case of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading in April. Nacchio, who is appealing his conviction, maintains the National Security Agency asked Qwest to allow it to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in February 2001, six months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., asked the Justice Department and McConnell for a full briefing on what he termed Nacchio's "disturbing revelation."
House Democrats vowed last week not to grant immunity in the eavesdropping bill without being told exactly what the companies did that requires legal protection.
Roughly 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies for their alleged cooperation with the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the details of which are classified. U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly eavesdropped on calls and e-mails in the United States without court orders.
A Senate version of the bill, scheduled for committee action on Thursday, is likely to include an immunity provision.
The Bush administration has thus far refused to disclose to Congress details of the program other than classified briefings provided to a small group of House and Senate intelligence committee members.
Telecommunications companies regularly and legally provide assistance to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. According to Verizon's Milch, the company received 88,000 lawful requests and demands for information from government entities - 34,000 from federal officials and 54,000 from state and local officials. Of those, 23,700 were emergency requests, 300 of them from federal officials.
Verizon received more than 1,000 wiretap and other court orders in 2006, he said. It has received more than 630 court orders since last January.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/16/national/main3371566.shtml
>>>and the quagmire -- anyone mentioning that anymore -- Huge LOL<<<
Depends I guess.....if "nightmare with no end in sight" counts as quagmire and if 4 days ago counts as "anymore" then the answer to your question is yes. By a former commander of the Iraq coalition no less.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272663/
Wasn't referring to that but to the conclusion that man made greenhouse gases are insignificant and nothing to worry about.
Where do you get those conclusions from? The american coal burners association?
>>>MAN MADE global warming is a hoax.<<<
feeling a little lonely yet? not even george bush agrees with you on that.
"There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they're created. And there are problems with both approaches. We're making great progress through technology, but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source; although there is some promising work that is being done.
And a growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars. Even though we're making progress on conservation and energy efficiency and have significantly reduced the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP.
Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
>>>But is Sanchez advocating that we cut and run? The answer is no, but that is that much less interesting to the media and to the left, than your quote, which taken in isolation, separate from the entire text, conveys a different message, than he, in fact delivered.<<<
Such as what? He says complete withdrawal is out of the question but he also says this:
"Reporter Sig Christenson, who has covered military issues, attended the speech and told CBS News that General Sanchez does not believe the United States is capable of turning the situation in Iraq around.
"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope" that things are going to change, he said.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml
Where's the hope?
Ex-General Says Iraq Is A "Nightmare"
ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 13, 2007
(AP) The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency - such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies - including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year - a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/national/main3363824.shtml
Well, there you have it. Blackwater.........big guys, big guns, big paychecks and no brains. Even hap understands that winning hearts and minds in Iraq is a huge part of securing victory (if there's such a thing) but to these numbskulls every Iraqi is an "Islamofascist" and the the whole game is about finding a reason to kill them and to intimidate those who may be less bloodthirsty.....like US marines. Another great strategy financed by US tax payers.
lol......perfect. already in progress I bet.
Obviously so but you'd think and hope that antagonism should be offset by the mission they share. They both depend on each other whether they like each other or not.
US Troops: "Blackwater Shooting "Criminal"
(CBS/AP) The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene after Blackwater USA guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad intersection on Sept. 16, found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any weapons at the guards, the Washington Post reported Friday.
A report compiled by the soldiers concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and called the incident a "criminal event," the Post reports.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers arrived at the scene 20 to 25 minutes after the shootings ended. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
The soldiers' conclusions - based upon their own observations, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraq police - are similar to those reached by the Iraqi government and contradict Blackwater's contention that its guards acted in self-defense after being shot at by the Iraqis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/12/iraq/main3360379.shtml
Supreme Court Rejects CIA Torture Case
"It will shatter all trust in the American justice system," Gnijdic said, charging that the United States expects every other nation to act responsibly, but refuses to take responsibility for its own actions.
Conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec said the Bush White House uses the doctrine too broadly. "The notion that state secrets can't be preserved by a judge who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution, that a judge cannot examine the strength of the claim is too troubling to be accepted," said Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University.
"What happened to him was lawless," Shapiro said, "You allow the government to essentially prevent the courts from ever independently reviewing the legality of the government's conduct."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/09/supremecourt/main3346689.shtml
Suit yourself. Just hope you take note of the fact that unlike you I won't make up an answer for you and post it on the board when you choose not to answer. Creep.
Any particular reason you post the same irrelevant response twice to the original post but ignore this?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23528417
A or B? I just can't make it any simpler.
You're embarrassing yourself. Check the post you referred to again please and answer A or B:
A: did I decline to answer because there were multiple questions, or......
B: Did I decline to answer because of your emotional disposition towards Israel?
It's spelled out clearly enough where even someone mildly retarded should get it...
You're a disingenuous, delusional liar. I didn't "refuse to respond to a simple question". I politely declined to respond to an Israeli loaded post of yours containing multiple questions and gave you my reason why. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23488689
From that you gather that I think the holocaust is a myth....? Not sure if you've been there all along but you're definitely there now.......at the bottom of the rightwing sulfur pit where "winning" arguments are made by lying about those you disagree with. Scumbag.
>>>How about you, are you a holocaust denier like seabass?<<<
Show me where I've as much as touched on that possibility or hang your head in shame you fu#@ing moron.
Since it's that important to you I'll answer but I don't care to discuss this subject with you.
No...I don't believe the holocaust was a myth and yes, I believe Israel has a right to exist but I hate their sense of entitlement to obscene amounts of american welfare as they seem to be doing just fine on their own. http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
I also don't think it would bother anyone (except Bush republicans) if they stopped thumbing their nose at UN resolutions since they already hold the world record in violations.
The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel. Israel's refusal to respond positively to the formal acceptance this past March by the Arab League of the land-for-peace formula put forward in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace. More clearly, Israel has defied Resolutions 267, 271 and 298, which demand that it rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as dozens of other resolutions insisting that Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolition of homes, collective punishment and seizure of private property.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021028/zunes
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417
Sorry, but I'd rather not talk Israel with either you or brainless. You're both fanatics and incapable of constructive dialogue on the subject (imo). Have no idea what either of you have vested in it but it's obviously emotional and goes way beyond plain old politics.
>>>He has also called the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world after the Second World War.<<<
"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html
>>>My IQ is 138,<<<
sorry, but that cuff you stuck your arm into at Wal Mart measures blood pressure, not IQ.
Unusual poll to say the least. A loaded question about the war followed by 4 questions about prayer.
Couple of things: For question # 40, add the response from independents and republicans and then consider the margin of error and the difference between democrats and reps./independents basically amounts to statistical noise.
Also.........I see that more democrats than republicans pray for the war to end. Does that mean that more republicans than democrats are ok with endless war for the troops they claim to support and pray for?
Don't suppose you could post the full article on that poll? Exactly how the question was asked, different answers available, context etc.
"9/11 has made us stupid"
September 30, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
9/11 Is Over
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.
Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.
Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.
Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us.
I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security. But sometimes the necessary is impossible — and we just can’t keep chasing that rainbow this way.
Look at our infrastructure. It’s not just the bridge that fell in my hometown, Minneapolis. Fly from Zurich’s ultramodern airport to La Guardia’s dump. It is like flying from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.
I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore. Last July, Microsoft, fed up with American restrictions on importing brain talent, opened its newest software development center in Vancouver. That’s in Canada, folks. If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?
We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html
One door closes, another one opens.
How many members in the old village people group? It's a good start...
Fred Thompson Bombs On Campaign Trail
"Can I have a round of applause?" Thompson is forced to ask a silent Iowan audience at the end of his 24 minutes of remarks. After a rustle of clapping and some laughter, he grumbles, "Well, I had to drag that out of you."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/the_skinny/main3328872.shtml
>>>Why cant' you find any recent polls to prop up your futile argument??<<<
Probably because there isn't one available. But I have a better idea. If you think my numbers are so incredibly idiotic, why don't you show us the numbers YOU go by that makes you feel that way? Or are you just ASSUMING that the result of the surge has reestablished order among the political ranks....i.e. 100% of republicans for indefinite Iraq presence and 100% of liberals for orderly withdrawal?
>>>so why do you not post a link to current poll<<<
Because that's the most current one I could find that breaks down opposition by party affiliation. You find a more recent one. What do you expect to see? All 38% of republicans back in the fold because of the amazing success of the surge?
>>>"Do you want the troops to come home defeated by the terrorists ?" why not ask that question ?<<<
Because it's a stupid question. All but 6%-8% of the "terrorists in Iraq were not a threat to americans until they arrived uninvited with bombs and guns blazing. The remaining 6%-8% have always been around and always will be no matter where the troops go or how long they stay. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the more places they go and the longer they stay and shoot things up the larger that group grows making the current strategy counter productive.
>>>and why is it not 100% that want the Iraq war finished and the fighting troops home ?<<<
It IS 100%. Difference is that 70% understand that the military's job is done and that asking them to mediate in a 1000 year old civil war and make a dysfunctional government functional is not their job.
>>>So you bash the libs in Congress because they're not being "left wing" enough<<<
Listen to yourself. You equate opposition to the war with extreme left wing even while more than 70% of the country want all troops out by April 2008.
"Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/26/poll.iraq.schneider/index.html
You, eddy, razor and a few others here act like you're living in holes. Everything is what you think it should be and if you're shown proof to the contrary there's something wrong with the source. Hopeless...
>>>Considering that I'm a professional buy-side trader who makes dozens of analytical decisions a day<<<
Since when does making analytical decisions automatically make you a good analyst? But I give you the benefit of the doubt and concede you may be good at analyzing trading opportunities. People.......obviously not. You've read enough of my posts here where I've addressed immigration, taxes, welfare etc. and you still call me far left lol.
>>>Also if you think Rush feels that way about the troops, then I challenge you to find other, similar comments by him on the topic.<<<
I don't think he feels that way about troops. I think he feels that way about anybody opposing Bush's Iraq policy. They're basically traitors in his opinion or phony americans if you will. And if it's a US soldier......so be it. That's what happened the other day. I've also read that transcript several times and the only connection I can find with MacBeth is that he may have triggered the comment but was obviously not the lone target since the comment was aimed at certain outspoken "troops" rather than one individual.
>>>Considering the fact that you never bash the libs<<<
Yesterday: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=23375274&txt2find=gutless
Lots, lots more if you bother with a search.
>>>I think it's safe to say you lean to the left, if not the far left.<<<
Whatever you do for a living I'm sure you're good at it. And I'm also sure it doesn't involve any kind of analysis or profiling since you're truly clueless in that field.
>>>When Kerry made his infamous "stuck in Iraq" comment you were the first to say "he misspoke...take it in context..." blah blah blah.<<<
I don't even like Kerry but I still think I know what he tried to say but couldn't quiet deliver.
>>>Now when it comes to a conservative, you try him as guilty as charged, even BEFORE you know the whole story (by your own admission)!<<<
I didn't have to know the first thing about MacBeth to conclude what Rush was saying. Read the transcript again. He's not referring to any one soldier but to a certain group of soldiers - those who speak out against the war.
>>>it seems pretty obvious that your guys in Congress are trying to distract<<<
"Your guys"? Is it possible in your mind to detest George Bush and what he's done to the republican party without being a liberal?
>>>Rush has supported the troops for twenty years there's no way he meant how the democrats are trying to spin it!<<<
Rush's the one doing the spinning and he'd be better off just admitting he considers any soldier who speaks up against the mission a phony soldier. Any real soldier in Rush's mind just follows orders, kills enemies and shuts up. Just say it, be done with it and move on to the next distraction.
>>>Macbeth is a phony isn't he, or do you deny that?<<<
Didn't know much about him to be honest so I googled him and it looks like he's both a phony and a liar and probably other things too. Don't see how that ties into Rush's comment though.
"CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010
Do you think "the phony soldiers (note the "s" meaning more than one) that come up out of the blue and talk to the media" refers to all soldiers opposing the war in public or to Jesse MacBeth? Can't even find his name in the transcript which probably means it's further along and obviously unrelated to the comment in question.
>>>Sheesh, wrong again- you'd think by the law of averages you'd get it right once and a while HE crapped over Jesse McBeth, and Scott Beauchamp<<<
That's what Rush's telling you. Have you even read the transcript?
"LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010
Please feel free to post a transcript that shows how and where Jesse McBeth fits into that discussion. Also feel free to apologize for telling me I'm wrong every time you manage to string a few sentences together without EVER being able to back it up. Just the other day I asked you three times in one day to explain yourself on another one of these accusations and you disappeared - as usual - tail between legs. You're a joke in case that's not clear yet.
>>>Don't you think that the success of the surge might have changed the opinions of rational folks<<<
Looks like the "success" is only evident to a few select. August poll numbers are pretty much within the margin of error when compared to previous ones.
"According to the early August Gallup poll, 66% of Americans favor removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April of next year, except for a limited number involved in counter-terrorist operations."
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28390
>>>Why have the Dems repeatedly refused to act consistently and cut funding for the war NOW?<<<
Because they're gutless cowards. The right would label them traitors of the century the moment they cut the first nickel from the war funding. Clear enough?
>>>the flap over Rush's statemen that they distorted and attempted to make an issue of. Truly pathetic<<<
Let me understand: Rush crapped all over every soldier who opposes the war calling them "phony" and those taking offense of that are pathetic. But when moveon.org criticized a general, those who took offense were heroic patriots. So basically, US troops can be trashed and belittled so long as the trashing originates with a Bush friendly source. Correct?
>>>Yeah, people are disgusted with this Congress because they aren't radical left enough<<<
To produce a comment like that you have to believe that opposition to the war only comes from the radical left.
More than seven in 10 favor removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll_N.htm
And you also have to believe that more than 70% of the country are radical leftists just as you finished typing this: "The vast majority of this country is center/right.
If that sounds a bit too goofy to be real, just revisit your own post which this was in response to.
Agree completely. I think what the article referred to was that segments of the electorate that have been republican shoe-ins for decades have defected.
>>>the country is really vastly left wing<<<
Used to be a time where that statement would have been a joke or at least deeply sarcastic. Not so much anymore.
GOP No Longer The Party Of Business?
NEW YORK, Oct. 2, 2007
The Republican Party has been spending money like a shopaholic housewife with a new credit card, and now America's business community wants a divorce.
That's the gist of the Wall Street Journal's lead story, which tracks a multitude of indicators suggesting "a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity" away from its century-long handle as the party of business.
The most prominent sign of dissatisfaction has come from former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan, a long-time Republican who blasted the current state of his party in his new book. In an interview with the Journal, he said: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."
In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in September, 37 percent of professional managers identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44 percent three years ago.
And, increasingly, financially attuned people's money is going to Democrats. Hedge funds last year gave 77 percent of their contributions in congressional races to Democrats, up from 71 percent during the 2004 election. Overall, Democratic presidential candidates have raised more than $200 million this year, about 70 percent more than their Republican rivals.
Perhaps the grimmest news for the GOP's economic standing recently came from one of the party's own pollsters. Tony Fabrizio conduced a massive survey this year of the party's voters and compared it to results a decade ago. In 1997, about half of the party cared about economic issues and half about moral ones. Today, the culturally conservative wing is the same size, but economic conservatives accounted for just one in six Republicans. Meanwhile, the "deficit hawks" - fiscal conservatives of the Bob Dole and Bush 41 variety - are "all but extinct," the Journal reports.
"Democrats are the new conservatives," claims one former Reaganite corporate chairman who now helps with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. Republicans "are still talking tax cuts. It was one thing when Ronald Reagan was doing it and the top [income-tax] rate was about 80 percent. Now tax rates are reasonable. So what if I have to pay 5 percent more in taxes?"
Most Americans Want Cost Of Iraq War Trimmed
More grumbling about the Bush administration's spending habits showed up on the front page of the Washington Post this morning, in the form of a poll showing that most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush's approval rating tied an all time low of 33 percent in the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Congress is even less beloved, with a 29 percent approval rating.
All this unhappiness stems from the fact that most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party's failure to force the president into a significant change in policy. Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq policies.
Seven in 10 adults want the proposed $190 billion allocation for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely.
While people may be fed up with Congress, Republicans are catching most of the blame. By a 2-to-1 margin, those who see few accomplishments in the Democratic Congress's first nine months place more blame on Bush and the GOP than they do the Democrats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/the_skinny/main3317840.shtml
Doesn't sound like a country that's "vastly conservative".
>>>I am confident the war lovers on this board and elsewhere will gladly pay a tax to keep the Republican's war in Iraq going. Aren't you?<<<
If it had been a republican only sponsored bill.....yes since they would have called it the patriot tax and you know how republicans respond to anything with patriot in it. With democrats involved though the tax won't get a cute name so they'll be blamed for more tax and spend instead.