Question for Wayne

[kosar]

Hi Wayne,

Over the years, your astute political eye quickly and gleefully noted every time a country elected a president that was more right wing than his opponent. Spain, Canada, Germany and Aussieland come to mind. You seemed to think it was some sort of mandate of W's policies. That logic is dubious to begin with, at best, but what do you think about what happened in our very own country on tuesday?

Is that a mandate for change of course? Or is this different somehow?

 

[smurphy]

Get in line, Kosar. Wayne is on assignment to find posts where I choose opinion over fact.

I will try and answer for you as his proxy in the meantime. The answer to your question is as follows:

"Bill Clinton"

 

[AR182]

kosar my friend...

i'm sorry that dtb can't answer that question now....he is busy doing something that is very foreign to both you & mr. murphy....it's called...working......you guys should try it you may like it...when he finishes doing what he does...i'm sure that he will be happy to answer your question.

 

[smurphy]

AR, you ingorant slut. ...I mean lazy slug. Those without sin can cast the first stone. I've seen your idea of work, and it's laughable. Kicking potheads out of rentals is not exactly taxing labor.

As for DTB being happy to answer a question - well - sure, as long as he can take deflection and spin liberties with said queries.

Kosar's question should be an easy and direct one. I am very much looking forward to Wayne's reply....

 

[kosar]

kosar my friend...

i'm sorry that dtb can't answer that question now....he is busy doing something that is very foreign to both you & mr. murphy....it's called...working......you guys should try it you may like it...when he finishes doing what he does...i'm sure that he will be happy to answer your question.

Thanks for the update, Al.

I couldn't help but notice he responded to another thread here about 25 minutes ago, well after I posted this thread, so it seems that he is as equally unencumbered as smurphy, myself, or you for that matter.

I look forward to his spin....errrrrr.....answer.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hey Matt-- My opinion hasn't changed from Terry's pre election thread.
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259382

As I stated in it not much surprised and see lots of positives.

I think you will agree mid pres term elections are far cry from from presidential.

Will agree war was main issue with about 60% against 40% for--quite understandable--after all only 26% favored getting into world war 2--and we know who was on right side there.

Again I find lots of positives and gives the people 2 year window to look if Dems have as many answers as they did complaints--I hope they do and if so don't have any objections to them doing same in 08--but wth Reid-Pelosi-and Dean at helm do you really think that will happen--NOT.

I did get one very big surprise and that on gay marriage vote in AR--would have bet a bunch on that one--and did forget to sell Merck stock prior to election--that was a brain fart.

In case you didn't read terry's link--I think GOP needed a wake up--they had gotten way to complacent--and forgot about the Contract with America that got them there.

Can't see much changing on war front--doubt GW goes to unilatiral talks Dems and NK want(again) --and he won't leave Iraq hanging and dems in charge might be just enough of fear factor to get iraq'i butts in gear knowing 2 years might be all they have.

Will be interesting Matt.

 

[smurphy]

Will agree war was main issue with about 60% against 40% for--quite understandable--after all only 26% favored getting into world war 2--and we know who was on right side there.
.

Why do you do this? Ridiculous. OK - yeah - BEFORE Pearl Harbor most people were against entering war - afterall we were never attacked. You might as well say that in 1930 0% of the population wanted to enter a non-existing war. But after Pearl Harbor, the overwhelming majority was in favor of it. You know this of course, but conveniently make your statement make it seem otherwise. You're becoming just a right wing version of Sponge.

....and what have said about WWII comparisons, anyway?!:nono:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I think its great example Smurph--

I assume the 26% was before Japan invaded--couldn't imagine those #'s afterwards.

Suppose we went with public opinion --and waited till our allies were defeated--do you think they would not have come for us eventially--and you think are chances would have been better without help of allies.

I can't for the life of me see how many think we can sit back and do nothing (again) and it will go away!
They are not going away--until they are soundly defeated everywhere they exist.

 

[smurphy]

OK, since you want to go with WW2, let's do that. Who did we declare war on after Pearl Harbor? Was it the country that attacked us or was it some other country that happened to be in the same region of the world?

Not sure if you remember, but we didn't even decalre war on Germany at that moment. Germany actually decalred war on us after we declared war on Japan. Sssooooo, I'm not even sure if our European involvement would have been exactly the same if Germany didn't declare war on us first. Things get very hypothetical there.

As for this question about waiting for our allies to be defeated ....well, this is just getting way too hypothetical. For one, I don't think Britain was going to be defeated regardless. Despite being bombed to hell, they were still bombing right back and causing damage to German cities. Any invasion of England by Germany would have been a slaughter - Nazis would have been shredded.

Germany was doomed to failure almost no matter what, as their strategies were terrible. They spread themselves out way beyond manageability. Even if we did nothing more than material help, sea and air support (like pre Pearl Harbor), Germany would have lost in the long run. It was mathematically impossible for them to keep going the way they were. In addition to their own futile attempt to fight a 4 front war, they had to baby Italy every step of the way. No way they would ever take Britain, no way they would ever take Soviets. The only thing they could do well was take their direct neighbors - half of whom were already sympatetic to their cause.

Other than all of that, sure - lots of reasonable comparisons of Iraq to WW2.:shrug: