Dear Mr. Walden, I am a common American man who lives in the Heartland of America. I am proud of my country and what it stands for, and it outrages me that my country's leaders are waging a war that the majority of Americans do not want and are presenting to the world a false image of America. The latest outrage is Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. I strongly believe, as do the people who are pictured in the story "Protest for Peace" on the enclosed newspaper page from the Herald and News of Klamath Falls, Oregon, that Bush and his administration have made an unnecessary mess in Iraq, and that throwing more troops at the problem will only exasserbate it. Bush lost my trust when the weapons of mass destruction that Bush said were in Iraq were not there, so I cannot trust him when he says more troops are necessary now. Mr. Walden, I urge you not to support any proposal on the House floor to escalate or further fund the war in Iraq. If you continue to support the Bush administration, you will not have my vote if you run for any office in 2008. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, [Valediction withheld]
It's when you grab a pencil or pen and write something on a piece of paper with your hand. That post wasn't handwritten, of course, but my actual letter to Congressman Walden was. Oh you're right. And I wrote it in pen too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh well, the letter is written. And it's not like anyone would care, I suppose.
Oregon isn't the heartland. "The term Heartland is also frequently used to describe the region in the United States that lies west of the Ohio River and Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland
handwritten letter. Now they have your fingerprints and DNA profile on file. Plus they ran it through the bomb sniffer. Now they know what you are up to. I would write the following letter (printed out on someone else his printer, handled with gloves at all time. Mailed in a different state). Dear Mr walden, Aren't you ashamed of the fact that I can't address you with Dr? I terribly upset about the canceling of the science fiction show ****** on tv. It was great although i can see why the mob didn't enjoy it. They were too stupid to see the brilliance. Anyhoo, I would like to inform you that Bush really sucks monkey dick. And I don't mean literally, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did, that cokehead. No mister (haha), i'm not pleased with all those extra troops being send to Iraq (or Iran, who cares) because my cousin (which is also my brother-in-law) is beind send there. My sister is already bitching about it and it gives me a frikking headache. Pardon my french. Now get your ass in gear and do what we pay you for. Call that boy in the whitehouse and tell him to get real. You know what I mean. And prompto. I can't believe you couldn't come up with this yourself. thanks for wasting my time. Like taxes get paid on not working. lator gator, your friend (as long as you keep it real)
i have to break my silence, sorry folks. i plagiarized this piece of brilliance, and sent it to King Albrecht of the Belgians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_II_of_Belgium he will probably be confused, but im sure he will take it to heart, when he is done skateboarding around brussels. *goes away again*
Do you have any actual evidence of that "majority of Americans" statement? Or are you depending on the silly polls that show up on the evening news shows? I would also remind you that the overwhelming majority of members of congress voted to go to war in Iraq ...and don't they represent the American people? Baron Max
Yeah, someone else pointed it out to me a bit ago. I was using it to mean "rural America", which this place is. But I guess I'll use something else from now on, so I won't be misunderstood.
So what do you prefer? We run away like cowards? Because we can't tolerate losing some men for the sacrifice needed for the mission? Are yellow bellies common out West?
It takes courage to admit a fuckup. Continuing the fuckup is cowardly. Lining up behind your criminal prophet in the White House and nodding to his every move, and loping along behind him, in full support, like a sheep. Blind allegiance is more dangerous to this country than any terrorist. If you fear terrorists soooo much, suit up and shut up. Baghdad is waiting, coward.
Actually, the polls are highly reliable. Not absolutely, one hundred percent reliable, but they're all pretty much saying the same thing, which is a damn good indication that the polls are on to something. Allow me to share some numbers and demonstrate to you the trend. I have for you a video with quite a few interesting numbers: Click. Here are some of the numbers: Bush's approval rating is 35%; 65% say Bush is suffering a long-term setback (a number that includes 40% of Republicans); 57% think Congress should have the lead role in setting political policy, against 22% who think Bush should; 65% say Iraq will not have a stable government (a number that includes 42% of Republicans); 65% think the president should listen to Congress if it opposes sending more troops. A quick Google search yielded more damning numbers: Link one — Towards the end of 2004, the Washington Post and ABC conducted a poll that showed 56% saying the Iraq War was a mistake. This was the first time a decisive majority have reached this conclusion concerning the war. Link two — A poll from late spring 2005 conducted by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup, showing 57% of those polled saying it was not worth going to war in Iraq. This was a drop in support for the war from that February. This is 2005; imagine how the numbers look now. Link three — About a month and a half after the poll in link two, 59% were opposed to the war in Iraq. Link four — Interesting numbers from October 2005: 55% thought the US should've stayed out of Iraq; 64% thought the war wasn't worth its costs; 59% thought the troops should come home ASAP; 62% thought spending for the war should be cut in order to fund post-Katrina reconstruction; 49% thought Iraq would never become a stable democracy, against 45% who thought it would but it would take more than a year or two; 55% think Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11 and 41% thought he was not working with al-Qaida against 39% who thought he was; among those whose community was affected by the war, 62% said it was a negative effect. Link five — Just have a fucking field day reading through the most recent poll results here. I could make a whole post on just these, but I'll just let you read it for yourself. Link six — Of those who saw the speech Bush gave earlier this month in which he announced the troop escalation, half disapproved. A whole 68% are uneasy about Bush's ability to make decisions about Iraq. Link seven — A poll from yesterday, showing Bush's approval rating reaching a new low: 28%. (Which reminds me: What was Nixon's approval rating just before he resigned?) Out of every ten people, 7 say Bush doesn't share their priorities, and 3 say he does; in case you missed it, that's a ratio of 7 to 3. A ratio of 2 to 1 applies to the public opinion concerning Bush's troop escalation. Three quarters say the war is going badly. It's interesting to note that just after President Clinton's impeachment trials, Clinton had an approval rating of 65%, and that Vietnam-War-torn Lyndon Johnson managed 47% in 1967. That also happened to be when Bush betrayed the American people's trust by taking us to war for reasons that later proved to be bullshit. Most of those people now either have realized the error of their ways (because Congress members are human, after all), or have been voted out. One can argue that the Congress's vote at that time was representative of what the American people wanted at the time. But man oh man, have times changed! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is that the best you can muster? Just sling tired insults at me like some immature neoconservative drone? Wow. Don't think too hard while you're doing that. You might end up hurting yourself.
That just shows that you don't know anything about the fine art of polling. Check it out sometime, you'll be amazed at how the pollsters can ask the "right" question at the "right" time to get whatever answer they want. It's essentially like "leading the witness" in court trials ...except there ain't no judge around to stop it. Think about it ....a poll will usually ask about 1,000 people a few questions ....then they make claims that the answers are indicative of the feelings and beliefs of 300,000,000 people. Baron Max
That's pretty much the function of a poll. To get an indicative overview of the feelings and beliefs of a large body of people. Here you can read about potential inaccuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy However, this does not diminish that polls are in fact indicative.
Come on Baron, stop lying to yourself. The science of statistics (Oh yeah, we're on a science forum!) is nothing like you portray it. These polls are reasonably accurate. Almost all non-partisan polls I've seen have turned out to be accurate. The sample population is almost always large enough to yield a statistically valid result. You don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
