Squeaky wheel gets grease - again

From MSNBC

I have been reading news reports for days about the war protesters waiting to greet Bush on his UK visit with large demonstrations. Every story about his visit has focused on this. Turns out that 62% of Brits welcome his visit, and consider America "a force for good". Once again, a tiny, vocal group has been blown out of proportion by the media to make it seem that Bush and the US are universally reviled, when the reality is that we (and he) are viewed very positively...

*sigh*

Those protestors are traitors! We don''t need their kind in America East!

Pity those wimpy little brits wouldn''t play ball, eh?

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a ''mini-gun'', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade.

Diplomatic immunity + minigun = problem solved!

Honestly. I can understand snipers and such, but a minigun? I suspect someone''s been watching that lame Bruce Willis remake of the Jackal.

And I''d like to add, a certain somebody is getting a little too paranoid lately :).

It doesn''t trouble you that only 3/5ths of Brits consider America a ''force for good''? Boy, I really hope you just misinterpreted that statistic.

PRESIDENT BUSH: (Chuckles.) Well, first of all, you have got to know I don''t pay attention to polls. I just don''t.

Come on Roy, if he doesn''t pay attention to polls, neither should you!

Roy?

That must be the name of Rat Boy''s mirror-universe conservative self.

Maybe Elysium is growing a second personality? You know the Anti-Elysium, three word straight sentences, no metaphors or irony. And before every reply it is a constant struggle in front of the keyboard.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Turns out that 62% of Brits welcome his visit, and consider America ""a force for good""

That''s rather misleading. 62% of the British consider America ""generally speaking, a force for good"". Only 43% thought he should visit Britain. I''d also have to go with Elysium on this one and say that having one of our greatest allies only having 63% of the population thinking we''re a force for good sorta bothers me. The article even mentions 15% thinks we''re evil. That''s not the majority but it''s not just the crazies either, that''s a sizeable chunk. At any rate, I really wouldn''t go around showing this off as support from England as the majority of the population didn''t support him being there.

That''s rather misleading. 62% of the British consider America ""generally speaking, a force for good"". Only 43% thought he should visit Britain.

That''s not what was in the article when I posted it...hmmm. Damn lefties always trying to mislead the rest of us!

How dare they beat us up with facts! Go get them, ral!

"ralcydan" wrote:

That''s not what was in the article when I posted it...hmmm. Damn lefties always trying to mislead the rest of us!

It''s okay, all would be forgiven as soon as you have the beard.

Well, unless they asked every single British citizen, any statistic on this is going to be half-assed. There have been plenty of news reports that lead of by saying ""56% of Americans..."" or whatever, where they only talked to a few thousand people.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -Benjamin Disraeli (probably)

Mark Twain, actually.

"Kriegshund" wrote:

Well, unless they asked every single British citizen, any statistic on this is going to be half-assed. There have been plenty of news reports that lead of by saying ""56% of Americans..."" or whatever, where they only talked to a few thousand people.

Then all statistics are half-assed. It''s all based on statistical theory, they don''t actually go ask every single person. Nobody ever does. They''re useful tools to gauge generally how people feel, but not gospel and shouldn''t be treated as such. This argument is usually only brought out when people happen to disagree with the statistics

Come on Roy, if he doesn''t pay attention to polls, neither should you!

What Certis fails to mention is that he is the Sigfried in that equation.

You know the Anti-Elysium, three word straight sentences, no metaphors or irony. And before every reply it is a constant struggle in front of the keyboard.

Hi im Roy. I think pools are lies. It uses math. Certis has a funy name. The war was good, because we are good. People who dont think the war was good are bad. England is dum. They have a king, and we beat them in the civil war. Thomas Jefferson would kick the king''s ass. LOL!11!!!

I like Bush LOL!!!1

[edit fur speling]

It''s responses like that that prove liberals have ruined America''s legal institutions.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Once again, a tiny, vocal group has been blown out of proportion by the media to make it seem that Bush and the US are universally reviled, when the reality is that we (and he) are viewed very positively...

We''re viewed positively by BRITS, maybe, but we''re universally reviled by the rest of the world! I don''t give a sh*t if the Brits want to kiss our ass, I''m more concerned about the thousands of terrorists we create every time we drop bombs in the name of Halibur...I mean ""freedom"". If Bush had any real interest in promoting democracy he would be looking at Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Sudan, and Egypt to name a few.

If Bush had any real interest in promoting democracy he would be looking at Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Sudan, and Egypt to name a few.

Look at them to do what?

Look at them get rolled over by the tank treads of American freedom!

"ralcydan" wrote:
If Bush had any real interest in promoting democracy he would be looking at Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Sudan, and Egypt to name a few.

Look at them to do what?

To do what he (currently) claims to be doing in Iraq -- fostering democracy. Instead he throws his arm around Prince Abdullah and invites him to the ranch. Apparently you''re only ""evil"" if you aren''t doing business with the Bush family.

We''ll take these one at a time...

To do what he (currently) claims to be doing in Iraq -- fostering democracy.

You don''t think we''re trying to foster democracy in Iraq?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Look at them to do what?

To stop oppressing their own people. To allow some more voting for public office. To stop supporting terrorism. blah blah blah.

Add North Korea, they have the nuke program, the awful human rights record, the crazier dictator, etc...No bombs are raining down on them...why?

No bombs are raining down on them...why?

So you guys would prefer that we attack Saudi Arabia and N. Korea? Wow, and they call Bush a warmonger...

If you actually listened to the case made, it was clearly laid out that Iraq was a special case, mostly defined by the fact that Saddam was in violation of a cease-fire he agreed to. That doesn''t seem to be the case with N. Korea or Saudi Arabia.

It''s funny when liberals whine that we should use more diplomacy in foreign policy and then whine when we try to solve problems with N. Korea and Saudi Arabia with...diplomacy.

Its funny when conservatives attack the smaller threats and expect to be heralded worldwide for championing freedom.

I wasn''t saying ""what the hell, let''s get our bomb on with NK"". I was questioning the reasoning of bombing in the first place. We went to war with Iraq because he was a danger to the world for trying to get his hands on WMD.

Well, NK not only has been proven to the world to have a nuke program but pretty much is threatening people with it. Plus, their leader is just as, if not more, ""evil"" than Saddam was.

So, if Bush wanted to be consistant in his foriegn policy he''d be attacking NK. Instead he''s just sitting on a much worse situation.
All last spring we kept hearing NK is 5 months away from having a nuclear weapon...then all summer it was like a countdown. Now, we''ve all but conceded that they have them.

So, we go to war with Iraq because we think that they might be trying to get them but, allow an even crazier guy, who threatens everybody with them get his hands on some?

Now it just looks like the U.S. went after Saddam as a personal vendetta or for, well, oil...

I''m not saying I want us to start dropping bombs on every other country but, can''t we make it look a little less obvious of our intentions?

And noone said we SHOULD be attacking the Saudi''s or the other countries mentioned. We''re propping up dictators that oppress thier people. Why don''t we cut off some money and support to these guys. That''s more along the lines of what we (at least I) was saying.

edit: added Emphasis

So, we go to war with Iraq because we think that they might be trying to get them but, allow an even crazier guy, who threatens everybody with them get his hands on some?

Now it just looks like the U.S. went after Saddam as a personal vendetta or for, well, oil...

Only to the delusional or those easily led by the nose.

Again, what solution are you offering? Sounds like you''re disappointed that we don''t invade more countries to me... Either that or you''re upset that the administration has a complicated foreign policy which uses the gamut of military, financial, and diplomatic tools to achieve its goals.

The case for invading Iraq was complex and didn''t hinge on WMD''s or Saddam being a bad guy - rather it was based on those things, combined with his support for terrorism and his stated emnity towards the US. And even all of that would not have been enough had he not had violated 12 years of UN resolutions. You are implying that the administration is inconsistent for not applying the ""bad guy"" standard to all bad guys. Well, that''s YOUR standard, not theirs.

Also, what would you prefer? Thanks to George Bush there are now two less rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states. There are two fledgling democracies in a region that never had Muslims living in freedom. There are 50 million people in those countries whose children will be born into liberty and a hope for modernity and prosperity. And you are complaining that it happened.

We can''t end every dictatorship or free every people - but you make it sound like we should be sorry for the one''s we are able to help. Well, I thank God we have a president willing to fight for freedom.

Its funny when conservatives attack the smaller threats and expect to be heralded worldwide for championing freedom.

OK, fang - what are the bigger threats and what are your solutions to them?

""Its funny when conservatives attack the smaller threats and expect to be heralded worldwide for championing freedom.""

Bingo! I believe more people will die as a result of pollution than terrorist attacks, why aren''t we doing anything about that? We need to approve the Kyoto Treaty and stop poisoning our future!