Goodnight Joe

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish:

I appreciated this rare moment of candor:

The wolf in sheep’s clothing

dems=sheep!!!

Nice!!!

Jeffr (WOLF)

Hey Jeff hows that powerlifting meet coming?

Squatting lots of weight?

LOL.
[/quote]

little irish,

It’s coming along!!! Do you get powerlifing USA?

Oh wait…I know that answer.

JeffR

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The wolf in sheep’s clothing has been run out of the party…I might just call myself a Democrat again.

Goodbye Lieberman. Good riddance.

Irish,

I too was quite pleased when I saw Lieberman booted from office. However, I think our reasons differ, as you may have imagined.

Lieberman represented the voice of moderation in a party that is being increasingly pulled to the left by many democcrats who by any standard would be called “fringe.”

In this case we are seeing the fringe element actually gain more power. If this continues it could translate into less votes in November for the democratic party.

I was concerned that the republicans were going to lose seats in both houses of congress prior to the Lieberman loss. Now I have great hope that the republicans will keep control. As the democrats continue to veer left the country could very well punish them for this most recent turn.

Yes…it was good news indeed.[/quote]

He’s not the voice of moderation. He’s as mad as Bush is.

lumpy/100 meters:

Welcome back!!! We’ve missed having our very own terry “get your hands off me” mcaullife!!!

You go ahead and pin your hopes on “polls.”

Welcome again!!!

JeffR

[quote]reckless wrote:
He’s not the voice of moderation. He’s as mad as Bush is.[/quote]

reckless, calling someone else “mad” that’s rich.

What would you know about moderation?

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy/100 meters:

Welcome back!!! We’ve missed having our very own terry “get your hands off me” mcaullife!!!

You go ahead and pin your hopes on “polls.”

Welcome again!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Or you could explain how being against the war and bush would make one out of the mainstream.

but…
you…
can’t…

I haven’t said it yet but - I’m glad to see you back down here, 100M.

Now - you seem to think polling data means everything. Did you graduate from the Clinton School of Political Science?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The wolf in sheep’s clothing has been run out of the party…I might just call myself a Democrat again.

Goodbye Lieberman. Good riddance.[/quote]

So if you think the Dems may pick up 6 Senators in November, and Lieberman wins as an Independent, you think it’s wise for the Dems to piss him off?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I haven’t said it yet but - I’m glad to see you back down here, 100M.

Now - you seem to think polling data means everything. Did you graduate from the Clinton School of Political Science? [/quote]

It’s OK – we all know how much random polls of adults (as opposed to registered voters, which incidentally, are pretty worthless compared to polls of likely voters) matter…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I haven’t said it yet but - I’m glad to see you back down here, 100M.

Now - you seem to think polling data means everything. Did you graduate from the Clinton School of Political Science? [/quote]

I’ve been busy, very busy and a hernia operation (above the belly button) to boot!
But yes polling can give someone a general sense at how the public feels especially with numbers like 33 percent approval. It doesn’t mean everything, but it means something. If you agree with the vast majority of people on any given issue it hardly makes you less mainstream as the RNC often fakely proclaims.

But I’ll admit there is a disparity between how people feel on “issues” and how they vote—I mean incumbancy is a very powerful thing. People will vote for someone they don’t actually agree with rather than change…odd.

And no,I graduated from Maryland Institute College of Art.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I haven’t said it yet but - I’m glad to see you back down here, 100M.

Now - you seem to think polling data means everything. Did you graduate from the Clinton School of Political Science?

It’s OK – we all know how much random polls of adults (as opposed to registered voters, which incidentally, are pretty worthless compared to polls of likely voters) matter…[/quote]

Is it really this hard to admit that Lamont’s position on Iraq and Bush are not out of the mainstream?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I haven’t said it yet but - I’m glad to see you back down here, 100M.

Now - you seem to think polling data means everything. Did you graduate from the Clinton School of Political Science?

It’s OK – we all know how much random polls of adults (as opposed to registered voters, which incidentally, are pretty worthless compared to polls of likely voters) matter…[/quote]

So you would argue with Zeb that Lamont running against the war and Bush puts him on the “fringe” in relation to most americans despite no proof/evidence/evidence to the contrary.

I feel like most of us (not JeffR) are smart enough to see this as RNC labeling: the loony left, fringe, out of touch, that as per their formula is usually the opposite of the truth.

I’m not saying how this translates into votes per say, only that logic would dictate a favorable outcome if you boldly run on positions widely held. Of course we all know that people don’t always or completely vote on issues, there’s the physical appearance, personaltiy, various intangibles that have nothing to do with issues, that creates a disparity between polls on issues and voting results.

[quote]100meters wrote:

So you would argue with Zeb that Lamont running against the war and Bush puts him on the “fringe” in relation to most americans despite no proof/evidence/evidence to the contrary.

I feel like most of us (not JeffR) are smart enough to see this as RNC labeling: the loony left, fringe, out of touch, that as per their formula is usually the opposite of the truth.[/quote]

Actually, I was just making my own point that “mainstream” undefined doesn’t matter anything if you’re talking politics – except, of course, as a label…

[quote]100meters wrote:
I’m not saying how this translates into votes per say, only that logic would dictate a favorable outcome if you boldly run on positions widely held. Of course we all know that people don’t always or completely vote on issues, there’s the physical appearance, personaltiy, various intangibles that have nothing to do with issues, that creates a disparity between polls on issues and voting results.
[/quote]

Not necessarily – only if you assume that the opinions widely held by average adults are a good representation of opinions widely held by likely voters – which I don’t think you can assume.

The disparity between polls and electoral results – especially issue-based polls – is largely a result of this sample error, combined with the fact that the polls on issues can – and do – reach vastly different results depending on their wording. Which is nice for the push-poll news headline, but bad for predictability of results.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

The disparity between polls and electoral results – especially issue-based polls – is largely a result of this sample error, combined with the fact that the polls on issues can – and do – reach vastly different results depending on their wording. Which is nice for the push-poll news headline, but bad for predictability of results.[/quote]

There’s also a lot of people who believe something in between the polled question, don’t know what they want, or hold somewhat contradictory views. I think there is a huge difference in the number of people who disapprove of the war and the number that want to pull out now.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in the number of people who disapprove of the war and the number that want to pull out now.[/quote]

I agree. There is a huge leap between not liking the war and wanting to cut and run.

Here is where the DNC dyslexia kicks in. They assume that disapproving of the war is equal to cut and run.

That a 30% approval rating is the same as throw the bums out.

November will prove the folly of their thinking.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ExNole wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in the number of people who disapprove of the war and the number that want to pull out now.

I agree. There is a huge leap between not liking the war and wanting to cut and run.

Here is where the DNC dyslexia kicks in. They assume that disapproving of the war is equal to cut and run.

That a 30% approval rating is the same as throw the bums out.

November will prove the folly of their thinking. [/quote]

I think the Dems will at least pick up a few seats, I can’t imagine them losing ground. But I guess we’ll have to see how the races play out.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ExNole wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in the number of people who disapprove of the war and the number that want to pull out now.

I agree. There is a huge leap between not liking the war and wanting to cut and run.

Here is where the DNC dyslexia kicks in. They assume that disapproving of the war is equal to cut and run.

That a 30% approval rating is the same as throw the bums out.

November will prove the folly of their thinking. [/quote]

Of course “cut and run” (sounds bad) is RNC speak for a “timetable for withdrawal” (sounds sensible) again something supported by a nice majority of the population and Lamont.

Disapproval of the war is 60%
Support for “timetable for withdrawal” 57%.(Would this explain a logical dem’s “assumption”)

Of course this isn’t figuring BB’s 57% margin of error

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ExNole wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in the number of people who disapprove of the war and the number that want to pull out now.

I agree. There is a huge leap between not liking the war and wanting to cut and run.

Here is where the DNC dyslexia kicks in. They assume that disapproving of the war is equal to cut and run.

That a 30% approval rating is the same as throw the bums out.

November will prove the folly of their thinking.

Of course “cut and run” (sounds bad) is RNC speak for a “timetable for withdrawal” (sounds sensible) again something supported by a nice majority of the population and Lamont.

Disapproval of the war is 60%
Support for “timetable for withdrawal” 57%.(Would this explain a logical dem’s “assumption”)

Of course this isn’t figuring BB’s 57% margin of error
[/quote]

Quitting is quitting. You can call it what you want. Unless the Senate has a complete turnover, your “timetable” is dead.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Of course “cut and run” (sounds bad) is RNC speak for a “timetable for withdrawal” (sounds sensible) again something supported by a nice majority of the population and Lamont.[/quote]

100m,

The very same thing IMHO, just a different marketing spin don’t you think?

I’ll say this, I certainly don’t respond to a structure fire with the intent of clearing the scene in “X” amount of time.

The job is done when the job is done.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Of course “cut and run” (sounds bad) is RNC speak for a “timetable for withdrawal” (sounds sensible) again something supported by a nice majority of the population and Lamont.

100m,

The very same thing IMHO, just a different marketing spin don’t you think?

I’ll say this, I certainly don’t respond to a structure fire with the intent of clearing the scene in “X” amount of time.

The job is done when the job is done.

[/quote]

The structure fire also doesn’t spread in from other buildings, blend in with the walls, burn when it wants, and then fade back into the wallpaper.

When would the job have been done in Vietnam? Or for the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Things aren’t black and white.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Of course “cut and run” (sounds bad) is RNC speak for a “timetable for withdrawal” (sounds sensible) again something supported by a nice majority of the population and Lamont.

100m,

The very same thing IMHO, just a different marketing spin don’t you think?

I’ll say this, I certainly don’t respond to a structure fire with the intent of clearing the scene in “X” amount of time.

The job is done when the job is done.

The structure fire also doesn’t spread in from other buildings,[/quote]

Sure it does. It’s refered to as an exposure fire. Heat, either conducted, radiated, convected, etc.; can significantly contribute to the spread of fire. Directly following rescue needs, exposure control is a primary concern to the incident commander.

[quote]
blend in with the walls, burn when it wants, and then fade back into the wallpaper.[/quote]

Man, balloon frame construction is a bitch and backdrafts can kill. A small fire in the basement can spread to the wall and race right up to the attic. Thereby causing an even bigger fire in the attic. You can think you have a small basement fire out and BAM!, big fire in attic.

Hell, I’ve seen on a number of occasions a plumber who was sweating pipe and inadvertantly conducted heat down the pipe and into the wall starting a fire in the wall that causes a large fire in the attic. Plumber keeps on working and doesn’t even know there is a problem till he smells smoke and hears someone outside yelling “there’s fire coming from the roof!” That particular incident burned half of the damned apartment building to the ground.

I can remember Chief Ray Hoff saying that a fire should be B.A.G.ed (where has the fire Been?, where’s the fire At?, where’s the fire Going?)

I’m begining to think that we need more fire chiefs and less generals in Iraq :-]

[quote]
When would the job have been done in Vietnam? Or for the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Things aren’t black and white.[/quote]

I agree that things aren’t always black and white. But my point is that no matter how many twists, turns, and hurdles we face as a nation; I don’t think it will bode well for us to leave before the job is done. Wouldn’t be right IMHO.

Now, as long as we’re throwing around firefighter analogies, I learned in my fire officer classes that a good incident commander needs to know when the incident action plan needs to be revised. Incidents change and so should the plan for victory.

It’s my hope that we come up with a plan that gives us some undeniable success in the middle east. I just don’t think that the nation will have the patience that “victory” in Iraq will require. We are a very impatient nation.

-Bigflamer