MUNKO1970 wrote: "when Bush was polling b/w 85% and 90% after September 11, it was all part of the "left's" BIASED polling, right?
Care to share with us any proof that polls are mostly done by the LEFT?"
-------------------------------
The answer is YES. Immediately after 9/11 the whole country, or that is the leftest polls wanted that image, was behind the president. After all we just suffered the worse attack on American soil in our history. But if you paid attention the months and then years after you see that the true view of the Left has surfaced. Of course no one, including the left, wanted to be seen as not a patriot. But as you probably know the American peoples memory is short lived and when it became safe to do so the left began presenting their true views.
Most of the major polls which are quoted come from sources such as The New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC just to name a few. These are, in differing degrees, all leftest sources.
Finally if you go back and look you will see that these same polls were completely wrong about the 2000 election, the 2004 election. The exit polls for heavens sakes were even completely wrong. Like I said if the polls had been accurate at all John Kerry would be president, a dreadful nightmare of a thought.

Do I really need to drum up quotes from Hitler, Stalin, etc., especially on such topics as immigration, to demonstrate the logical shortcomings of threads like these?

__________________
Man up.

Let's see, "the right" controls the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress.

What I see, is that "the right" has failed miserably in its task of nailing OBL.

"The right" has made a complete mockery out of the United States military, not to mention the total inability to harness the private sector to do what should have been a trivial job in Iraq.

What I see, is "the right" pointing fingers at "the left" to cover up their own ineptitude and incompetence.

"The left" has nothing to do with this equation. They have no power in today's political world. Heck, "the right" won't even let them participate in honest open debate in Congress, much less get a bill through committee.

So now, you tell me again how it's all "the left's" fault.

You and your imaginary "leftist" bogeymen.

It's all very convenient for you, isn't it? You come up with these insane arguments so you can pat yourselves on the back for doing nothing, and then nod your heads in agreement with yourselves for your mindless political drivel.

Way to go, guys. This is exactly why "the left" is going to kick your collective butts right out of power in November. All the polls you love to hate, show numbers that are so heavily weighted against "the right" that it's hard to imagine how they could swing back the other way between now and then.

OBL is no dummy. He's going to leave us well enough alone till November, and watch "the right" self-disintegrate.

And undoubtedly you'll find a way to blame that on "the left" too.

You're freakin' nuts. Guys like you give all of us Republicans a bad name, and I for one will not stand silent and let you weasels take over the universe.

Sorry bud - nothing personal - but I consider you NeoCons to be a dangerous lot, and I'd just as soon see you gone from my political party.

There you have it. I'm on "the right", and I'm also a Bush-hater. And it's not because he's not "conservative enough", it's because he's stupid. I don't want an individual like that representing my party, and I certainly don't want an individual like that representing the United States of America.

Duh offers us a classic example of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. In short, the aptly named poster offers the proposition that, since an enemy makes an argument, the position it takes must be flawed. This, of course, is nonsense. The idea being expressed has a life independent of the one giving it voice.

I don't even know if I count as part of the Left since I don't "bash Bush every chance" like the diehard Bush loyalists say I should or "hope for our defeat". Actually I don't even think the far-left wackos want us to lose, but hey. The point is that it's rally p!$$ing me off. I consider myself to be on the left and I am p!$$ed that some of the conservatives feel the need to push me out by defining the "left" as some group of strawmen.
But for now, I'll go with your definition. There is one major difference.
The "Left" doesn't support the insurgents. Maybe in your world they do. But in reality, no. Several times in the speech, bin Laden praises jihad. No leftist does that.
The only similarities are the exaggeration of Western brutalities (though I don't think the Right's choice of ignoring them completely is exactly wonderful either), the exaggerated belief in the insurgent/terrorist group's chances of "winning", and a certain fatalism of how this kind of radicalism will always exist in the ME.
No @$%&. He's aiming at a Western audience. Of course he's going to adopt some of the rhetoric. Synergy. Outrage his troops and try to speak "sense" to Americans at the same time.
But he doesn't change anyone's mind. If anyone agrees with any of his exaggerations, they already did. And, no, condolences to the Right TM; The Left TM isn't going to start cheering on the jihad and hoping for more terrorist attacks.

It's pretty simple. The Left TM exaggerates the negatives of the situation, most likely because of belief (no, I don't think it's over political revenge; it's emotional but not orchestrated). The Right TM, on the other hand ignores all the things that are going wrong in the name of troop morale and honor.
If you were a slimebag backing the jihad, which group would you pick to bolster the claims of? But I don't think the Right TM's version is any better. At least the Left TM's version sparks debate rather than covering everything up, albeit in such an exaggerated way that it makes all of us look like fools.

But I think what really makes me sick is how some of the spokesmen for the right get to define what both the Right TM and the Left TM are. $%&!
It's like I either have to become a strawman or quit referring to myself as liberal to avoid copyright infringement charges.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

It's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) clear that:

1. I'm really glad to read a post by Raytri

2. Republicans can't catch or kill Osama Bin Laden

3. Therefore Republicans must make up lies about Democrats supporting Osama to try to deflect from their own pathetic failures.

Democrats would have killed Osama Bin Laden by now. But not Republicans -- they'd rather villify democratic Americans than go after the real enemies of the U.S. And by that strategy, they prove that they themselves are part of the real enemies of freedom, democracy and the U.S.

By the way, people hate George W. Bush because he's a liar and the cause of over 2000+ dead American soldiers. And even a madman like Osama can see that that's the truth.

But, according to Duh's rhetorical fallacy, if you agree with the opinion of an enemy, it makes your position incorrect.
Rhetorical fallacies are used in lieu of thoughtful apologia and this posting site provides abundant examples.

wil killing OBL accomplish? Will the war be over? Will our safety be guaranteed? The guy that replaces him will probably be worse. This is a cultural war that ain't gonna end that easily. Get used to it.

I agree. Killing Osama would be of little but symbolic value and our resources are better spent on other tasks.
So what does demonizing other Americans accomplish? I'd rather hear calls for Osama's death at any cost than disingenuous attacks on other Americans by calling them terrorist sympathizers.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Let's make a clear point here, that these dodo birds who are still pulling for Chief Dodo Bird Bush and condoning the worst political/military blunder in history, number about 2 out of 10 Americans. It isn't about politics anymore. We are way past that now. If fact this war has erased the political dividing line in a way, as even the staunchest republicans have bailed ship. It's now about admitting the mistake, getting out, starting over, and putting it behind us rather than keeping it in front of us. Staying in Iraq has nothing to do with whether they attack on American soil again. That one attack took YEARS/DECADES to plan, and more than likely another one IS in the works now, but us fighting this ridiculous war in the middle east won't ever change that. Didn't George Bush take History in school? Did he not learn anything from Vietnam?

__________________
"Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and the waves, and they obey Him." Luke 8:25