Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't know what climbdown means.

I suspect, although this can't be proven, that the poll options are tongue-in-cheek and are meant for Obama supporters (I'm not an Obama supporter, so I did not respond to the poll). Frankly, I suspect the president (and most members of Congress) are looking to increase U.S. power in the Middle East through intervention. I suspect this because I have not heard the president or any members of Congress indicate that this is the reason; rather, I've had various things centered around "it's the right thing to do for the Syrian people" when a few hundred miles south, the people of the Sudan are suffering in worse ways.

And most of President Obama's supporters in the previous two elections (e.g. Frigidus) were ardently anti-war and anti-intervention in foreign conflicts. Those items largely influenced voting (especially in the 2008 presidential election). So, presumably (and again, I can't prove this because I'm not BBS), the question is whether the president's supporters are still as supportive or whether they are upset by the president's attempt to be Bush III (other than giving tax breaks and other benefits to big business).

I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

How do you feel knowing that your president is as aggressive as Bush 2.0?

You're American, your president is Obama. I feel like we've had a climbdown from the topic title, and the poll that heads every page, to a more rational discussion. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in seeing that as so.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't know what climbdown means.

I suspect, although this can't be proven, that the poll options are tongue-in-cheek and are meant for Obama supporters (I'm not an Obama supporter, so I did not respond to the poll). Frankly, I suspect the president (and most members of Congress) are looking to increase U.S. power in the Middle East through intervention. I suspect this because I have not heard the president or any members of Congress indicate that this is the reason; rather, I've had various things centered around "it's the right thing to do for the Syrian people" when a few hundred miles south, the people of the Sudan are suffering in worse ways.

And most of President Obama's supporters in the previous two elections (e.g. Frigidus) were ardently anti-war and anti-intervention in foreign conflicts. Those items largely influenced voting (especially in the 2008 presidential election). So, presumably (and again, I can't prove this because I'm not BBS), the question is whether the president's supporters are still as supportive or whether they are upset by the president's attempt to be Bush III (other than giving tax breaks and other benefits to big business).

I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

How do you feel knowing that your president is as aggressive as Bush 2.0?

You're American, your president is Obama. I feel like we've had a climbdown from the topic title, and the poll that heads every page, to a more rational discussion. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in seeing that as so.

Like I wrote, I think he's being tongue-in-cheek with the climbup (?) of the poll question. I'm all for rational discussion!

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

Phatscotty wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

oVo wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Ha Ha! I get it. This is funny because the majority of Americans
now work at fast food outlets across the USA, right?

Phatscotty wrote: Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

Barack Obama wrote:We are not yet where we need to be.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

All of them, how many do you know?

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

All of them, how many do you know?

hmm, all of them? Are there a lot of Ron Paul meet ups in London, mate?l

Now we're off the ridiculous questions, what's your take on Ron Paul looking for support with his virulently racist and homophobic newsletters? Was he speaking to you? Or do you feel annoyed that he saw his base as lying among such folk?

Symmetry wrote:
I'll add one more, what made it so difficult for you to answer the first time?