But you just said that a significant portion of the troops, if not the majority, support anti-war candidates! Which is it Batman? 20% as you are willing to bet above, or 50% which you offered up a mere two posts ago? You just destroyed your entire premise from this thread! I guess when it came time to put your money where your mouth is, your story changed... telling...
Ugh. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but naturally, you would mischaracterize it as so. In past elections, it's gone 80/20. Batman's saying his bet of under 80 would be a really good one based on the pieces of info we have for the upcoming election.
He was talking big, insinuating that a MAJORITY of the troops support anti-win (or anti-war) candidates. But when it came time to put it on the line, he wilted like a FLOWER and backed down to 20%. Typical. Talk big and don't back it up. no huevos...
Poor Jorge. I don't agree with you that it takes "huevos" to make bets over internet signatures. Or to do anything else on the internet. If I believed in this war, for example, I'd have the "huevos" to fight in it instead of just talking about it on the internet. rimrocker has it right regarding my estimation of the troops and their support/opposition to the war and feelings about the candidates reflect those differing views. I only started this thread to report another small bit of evidence that this war is so spectactularly stupid, ill conceived and ill executed that the damn troops themselves are registering opposition in various ways and in unusual numbers. When I suggested that many, maybe even a majority, seem to be registering opposition to it and the candidates that support it I was merely reporting the polls in which troops said they thought it was a mistake to begin with and should end soon, the records that showed definitively that more troops gave more money to anti-war candidates Obama and Paul than to anyone who supports the war and this latest anecdotal piece on random soldiers endorsing Democrats. All of this is unusual. It is unusual for soldiers to register opposition to a war they're fighting in. It is unusual for them to give money to anti-war Democrats (or anti-war Republicans). But it is a symptom of how incredibly stupid this war was from the start and continues to be. The last morons supporting it here have little room to talk about anything, but especially about the war itself. NOTE TO JORGE: If one agrees with the troops, he can hardly be accused of failing to support them. The converse is also true.
I want to know the percentage of those who supported Paul due to his strong stance on the 2nd admendment...I want to know exactly the number of military personnel that has given rather than dollar amount given to Obama. let's get all the information. How many were interviewed in Iraq? What is the percentage? Let's stop the random sampling, because we heard it all before and random sampling means poo-poo.
So ROX all you have to do is come up with an article that refutes this one and you're golden. Where are the "I want to stay in Iraq for 100 years" boys? anyone?
No. What you are not grasping is that this miniscule sampling in a biased fluff piece is simply not instructive in any way. If this meets your standards of evidence, then you sir, are right at home amongst the Obama brain-dead cult worshippers. Then you started trumpeting that a substantial percentage of the military supports anti-war candidates, maybe even a majority, all of which is based on ridiculously flimsy evidence and incredibly biased fluff pieces. I'm sorry, sport, but that dog don't hunt. Your naivete is on a level that ought not even be discussed. Leadership is NOT tucking tail and runnin' when things don't go according to plan. Leadership is NOT making rash decisions and ignoring the consequences. Leadership is NOT abandonding your mission and your principles because the media and self-interested politicians have a separate agenda. You sir, are not a leader. You sir, have no huevos.
I saw Frontline's Bad Voodoo's War last week. Quite an interesting look from soldiers on the battlefield. That is all...
A list of feature film documentaries of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraq_War_documentaries It's already pretty long.
Very few troops are going to vote for Hillaroid or Balack after their ridiculous grandstanding in front of Patraeus today. I mean, at one point, Balack starts grandstanding about how it was a 'massive strategic blunder' to go into Iraq. Sorry, but what does that have to do with winning in Iraq? Nothing. What does it have to do with serving our strategic interests abroad? Nothing. It's SELFISH grandstanding intended to embarrass Patraeus and create division. When will the selfish, spineless libpigs realize that we must focus on the FUTURE of Iraq? When will they move beyond bumper sticker mantras and logic and realize that our involvement has broad reaching implications that you simply can not abandon. These libpigs need a reality check.
T_J, the great uniter. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q8H5263jCGg&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q8H5263jCGg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Well we do know that since at least 2004 the Bush Admin's VA has been fighting to keeps vets from registering to vote at VA hospitals. This does make it seem like the GOP is afraid of whom the vets will vote for. http://www.alternet.org/democracy/80024/?page=2
If anything, wouldn't that make it seem like the GOP is afraid of who INJURED vets would vote for? The number of vets who are injured is a minuscule percentage of the military. If you are really so deluded as to think that the GOP is afraid of the military vote, why not take me up on my sig bet?
How about focusing on the future of AMERICA einstein?!! If you're soooo worried about Iraq, why don't you move there and do something about it? Our involvement only lengthens the strain on our troops, unless there is a draft. And I doubt you'd be willing to volunteer anyway chickenhawk, because like your sister you do much more for the future of Iraq by typing your garbage on this site instead of going there and doing something about it. So traitor_j you finally live up to your name. More concerned about the future of Iraq, than the one you profess to love. Typical republican, more interested in supporting your party than your country. Unless that country is Iraq.
That would require an effort on the part of the media-- the vast majority of whom oppose the war in Iraq. Maybe we should pull troops out of other parts of the world before we do so in Iraq? Things are pretty stable in Germany and Japan. I wouldn't do Korea just yet.
