You did! I never mentioned what the majority thought. You did. It seems to matter you. I rarely bring it up. I don't care. But since you were wrong I figured I would point it out. That's what I'm here for.

It still means 72% didn't vote for him. Now THAT'S a majority. A fairly large one, too. You said the "majority" wanted him. 28% is not a majority of anything no matter you dice it. That makes your statement flat out incorrect. The majority didn't vote for him then and don't like the job he's doing now. Had you said more people voted for him than for the next highest guy, that would be accurate. But that still doesn't change the fact that most people think he pretty much stinks as President.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

talked about in that other thread.

"There weren't many Japanese still alive by the time Macarthur set up government in Tokyo." What an idiot! There were probably 80 million Japanese alive at that time. And after 80,000 or so Japanese died in the firebombing of Tokyo, that still left millions alive in Tokyo.

I guess WWII isn't one of your strong suits. But I'm sure you are really knowledgeable about Iraq.
!

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

Excuse me, but 2,600,000 Japanese died in WWII. That is 36.1 deaths per thousand population. The US death total was 3.6 per thousand.

Again, the massive fire bombings and killing of significant segments of civilian populations had a dramatic effect on the Japanese population, but the main difference was allowing Japan to keep their Emperor in place. So long as the Emperor was standing, if only a figurehead, there was no incentive for Japanese resistance. The Japanese swore their alligance to the Emperor alone.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

It does because the left doesnt apply it to all conservatives. I have never heard a liberal call Pat Buchanan a neo-con.

Even assuming that is true, it still means there is a distinction. So the labels are justified.

Reagan also didnt have a huge problem overthrowing democratic governments to install friendly dictatorships...to neo-cons that is anathema. Blasphemy. Neo-cons are aggressively pro-democracy.

Reagan was not a crusader in the way that modern neo-cons are.

...using tactics we no longer can use.

It is like divinding animals into mammals and reptiles. A lot of reptiles are different from other reptiles, but it is still ok to label them as reptiles, because they have traits that they all share that make them very different from mammals.

And that is why labels are used. When someone is called a neo-con, it tells you something more than the fact that they are just a conservative.

A majority did not vote to get rid of him. THATS a majority too.

If they didnt, they would have voted him out of office.

In this case it is. I just explained why. See above.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page