What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama V: For Vendetta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

This might have been the genesis for the "millons" figure. From Friday.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/p...uge-turnout-at-glenn-becktea-party-gathering/

A top House Dem leadership aide has emailed a memo to Dem aides on the Hill and outside liberal groups warning they should brace for a turnout of up to two million people, suggesting Dems worry that if enough conservatives descend on the Mall it will amount to a major PR victory for the right.

The aide, Doug Thornell, warned in the memo that the dust-up over Joe “you lie” Wilson has been invigorating conservatives. “It looks like Saturday’s event is going to be a huge gathering, estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to 2 million people,” Thornell wrote in the memo, which was forwarded by a source.
Click to expand...

The memo was then posted on the site:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-dem-leadership-memo-on-912-rally/

When I read the "2 million" figure, I was flabbergasted. To be honest, I had been expecting a top-end turnout of about 30k and thought that would be pretty decent considering that conservatives really don't do rallies and protests. I figured it was Dems going overboard trying to minimize the rally (e.g., if 50k showed up, they could label it a massive failure).

I still don't think it was possibly any more than 300k, but even 200k is extremely impressive for any rally, let alone a conservative one, and is really being overshadowed by these claims of millions. It may have been over a million nationwide but I doubt it was in Washington alone.

The figures ranging from 50k (MSNBC) to 2 million (some conservative sites) shows both sides are playing games with the count. It's really ridiculous.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
Actually, there is something in there. The Tenth Amendment.

Remind me again why state governments can't fund police and road construction, again?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression you were saying that the govt shouldn't spend much on roads, education, healthcare, etc because its not in the Constitution. Now it appears that your happy with lots of govt spending as long as its state spending and not federal. Just trying to understand the shifting sands here...

Regardless...Should criminals crossing state lines not be a federal offense?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
Its amusing how neo-cons want everybody to be responsible for themselves.....UNLESS its the Iraqis, who apparently not only need the US to fight their own battles for them, but to also reconstruct the country to the tune of 1T dollars and counting. :rolleyes: All to justify a collosal blunder by their Lord, George W Bush and his Holy Ghost - Dick Cheney. :D Bottom line is, had the country not gone down the road of this conservative folly, it'd be a trillion dollars richer right now.
Click to expand...

It's all a distraction. It was supposed to be about WMD, which we never found. Once that happened, we had to manufacture other reasons to justify our existence there. Then it was about terrorism, but there are no known connections to al Qaeda. Now we're supposed to believe that its a long, drawn out process to influence Iraq to become more western so that other countries will (somehow) follow suit and perhaps, maybe, if we're lucky then the Islamic radicals will magically disappear.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

5mn_Major said:
I was under the impression you were saying that the govt shouldn't spend much on roads, education, healthcare, etc because its not in the Constitution. Now it appears that your happy with lots of govt spending as long as its state spending and not federal. Just trying to understand the shifting sands here...
Click to expand...

Hey, ExileonDaytonStreet, speaking of putting words in people mouths...

HELLO, 5MN, ARE YOU AWAKE? Good. Stay awake. I'm talking about the federal government spending WAY TOO MUCH MONEY on something that THEY should be spending NO money on.

Regardless...Should criminals crossing state lines not be a federal offense?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is exactly the same thing that we're talking about. Because I say there are some things the federal government shouldn't be involved in, I therefore believe that there's NOTHING they should be involved in.

I have a hard time believing your intelligence quotient is above room temperature.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
I'm starting to wonder if you might be Rover in disguise.

/sarc
Click to expand...
So I make a few points about al Qaeda, and Iraq not having anything to do with our fight against them. Suddenly, I mention bin Laden by name once and you assume that I'm making the point that all we have to do is kill bin Laden and BAM! fight's over?

You truly are the king of the straw men.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Wasn't the plan for the Iraqi oil to pay for all of this? But the 'no war for oil' screwed that.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
So I make a few points about al Qaeda, and Iraq not having anything to do with our fight against them. Suddenly, I mention bin Laden by name once and you assume that I'm making the point that all we have to do is kill bin Laden and BAM! fight's over?

You truly are the king of the straw men.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the strawman. That was your first mention of al Qaeda.

By the way, ever heard of al Qaeda in Iraq? Yeah, I know, I know. They "didn't exist before we went into Iraq." Yeahyeahyeah. For reals. :rolleyes:

EDIT: I went back and saw an earlier mention of al Qaeda. I apologize. But my point about al Qaeda (and dozens of other terrorist groups) operating in Iraq before the invasion still stands.

I trust that you'll also be as vigilant against strawmen when Rover <strike>uses them</strike> posts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
By the way, ever heard of al Qaeda in Iraq? Yeah, I know, I know. They "didn't exist before we went into Iraq." Yeahyeahyeah. For reals. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Are you saying that I, or anyone else, claims that al Qaeda didn't exist before 2003? Seriously? No wonder so many people here just ignore you.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Are you saying that I, or anyone else, claims that al Qaeda didn't exist before 2003? Seriously? No wonder so many people here just ignore you.
Click to expand...

No. Read carefully. Very carefully.

People ignore reality all of the time, why should it be any different when it comes to me? If you really want to lump yourself in with the pseudo-intellectual Keplers of the world, knock yourself out. I'm not here to save you from yourself.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
When I read the "2 million" figure, I was flabbergasted. To be honest, I had been expecting a top-end turnout of about 30k and thought that would be pretty decent considering that conservatives really don't do rallies and protests. I figured it was Dems going overboard trying to minimize the rally (e.g., if 50k showed up, they could label it a massive failure).
Click to expand...

Additionally, predicting a high number made it more likely the other side would run with that as an official number, so that they could then claim the other side was exaggerating the count on purpose. So lots of gaming going on in general.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
I trust that you'll also be as vigilant against strawmen when Rover <strike>uses them</strike> posts.
Click to expand...

I don't put much more credence in Rover's posts than I do in yours. I wouldn't worry about it.

al Qaeda's interests in Iraq have often been of a conflicting nature. As I understand it, they were offering troops to the Sauidis in case Saddam tried to do invade after he had taken control of Kuwait. Plus, the Baath (is that how its spelled) party was much more secular than al Qaeda would ever allow. As far as Muslim political groups go, they were on opposite sides. Kind of like neo-cons and socialists in America. So I don't buy the argument that al Qaeda and the Iraqi government were in league pre-2003. Their only common interest would be that we're a common enemy for them. Until 2003, that wasn't really an issue.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
I don't put much more credence in Rover's posts than I do in yours. I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Well, at least that makes you half informed.

al Qaeda's interests in Iraq have often been of a conflicting nature. As I understand it, they were offering troops to the Sauidis in case Saddam tried to do invade after he had taken control of Kuwait. Plus, the Baath (is that how its spelled) party was much more secular than al Qaeda would ever allow. As far as Muslim political groups go, they were on opposite sides. Kind of like neo-cons and socialists in America.
Click to expand...

That they were present in the country ahead of time doesn't mean that they were there and operating with the permission of the government. Saddam's government regularly pursued and harassed its own citizens, they certainly wouldn't have been squeamish about doing the same for foriegners, and they weren't. Look up Ansar al-Islam.

Baath is an acceptable spelling, yes. I see Ba'ath quite frequently.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

French Rage said:
Additionally, predicting a high number made it more likely the other side would run with that as an official number, so that they could then claim the other side was exaggerating the count on purpose. So lots of gaming going on in general.
Click to expand...

Great, it's good to see both sides are more interested in hyperbole than reporting facts.

Hopefully, everyone on here can agree that this is not a good thing. But I doubt it.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Jon said:
Great, it's good to see both sides are more interested in hyperbole than reporting facts.

Hopefully, everyone on here can agree that this is not a good thing. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I'm down with that.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Red Cloud said:
That they were present in the country ahead of time doesn't mean that they were there and operating with the permission of the government. Saddam's government regularly pursued and harassed its own citizens, they certainly wouldn't have been squeamish about doing the same for foriegners, and they weren't. Look up Ansar al-Islam.

Baath is an acceptable spelling, yes. I see Ba'ath quite frequently.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but with that being the case, then I don't think we can make the claim that al Qaeda's presence in Iraq can justify invading Iraq as a terrorist fighting mechanism. The Taliban openly supported al Qaeda, so it made sense to go after them. But it wouldn't make sense to go after a government that harassed al Qaeda and say that it was done to fight al Qaeda. Fighting your enemy's enemy isn't the same as fighting your enemy. Certainly, we can agree on that.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Jon said:
Great, it's good to see both sides are more interested in hyperbole than reporting facts.

Hopefully, everyone on here can agree that this is not a good thing. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Should I disagree, just for kicks?

The media knows what its talking about!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top