Even though I agree with one not always going along with an opinion poll I think that a response of "So?" to the two-thirds of the American people who oppose the continuation of the American involvement in President Bush's Folly in Iraq was beneath the dignity of the office of vice president of these United States.
His comments here aren't going to change any minds.
You can disagree with his opinions, but his basic position is that we cannot manage the war according to opinion polls.
I believe he is correct on that issue.
I believe we should go in a different direction on the war, but opinion polls shouldn't be the determining factor.
"So?"
A 2/3 majority?
That's about the number that favors organized prayer in public schools and opposes busing to further integrate those schools.
"So?" is essentially the answer to all cowardly politicians when there is that substantial a majority.
This just shows the level that the desparation of someone like Ken leads to. When you cannot come up with something substantive, you will complain about something this silly, all the while professing to agree with the point.
His whole support of Obama is based on lies and deception. Obama is a master politician. And the weakminded are more easily taken in by it than thinking people are.
Goodness! I merely commented on his remark. I hope that my simply stating my opinion about something has not become regarded as "blowing this out of proportion" in this forum. :confused:
Obsession with you? Hate to break the news to you, but I don't even think about you, Ken. You seem to be obsessed with yourself, and think everyone else is obsessed about you as well. Understand this: I don't care and very few others do. The sooner you get over yourself, the better things will be.
The fact remains that you make silly arguments that have no substance. But rather than face up to that, you would rather talk about other people who have the courage and love for you to confront the kind of silliness you are putting forth, and call on you to stop it in the name of truth and common sense.
What could possibly be more irrelevent in the world of politics than a lame duck VP?
And if you say "these United States" one more time, I am going to check myself into the Baptist Board nut house.
I do not think that PL is obsessed with Ken.
Both are very opinionated and its a natural interaction.
Sometimes people express strong feelings about an issue without having experienced the situation, counted the cost, or thought it through.
For example, if a person is adamant about staying in Iraq, and invading Iran, and that person never served, and has no sacrifice to make, it is hard to take the remark seriously, as they do not have a clue.
They base their opinion on the latest news flash.
If you ask them to lead the charge, they are no where to be found.
And guess where Dick Cheney, the chief promoter of the Iraq War, spent the fifth anniversary of the worst foreign policy decision in the history of these United States?
Fishing on the royal yacht of the Sultan of Oman.
I am not surprised, though.
Dick Cheney made sure he avoided serving our nation in the Vietnam War, unlike my brother and brother-in-law.
To the point, it was arrogant and stupid for the Evil Vice-Emporer to dismiss it with "So?". However soon his servant, Darth Dubya will be defeated by young Barack Skywalker and the forces of the Republic!
Love who? If this was directed at me, I don't love any of these politicians. I think they are all crooked.
Who is the "Evil Vice-Emperor"? This thread was about Cheney's comment, and I find it hard to think that anyone would seriuosly argue we should run a war (or anything else) by public opinion.