Does this not sound familiar?

With all his bluff and bluster, Sam stands in contrast to [the] calmly cocky rabbit. Sam is significantly tougher and more aggressive when challenging Bugs. He is also quicker to learn from his mistakes, and never falls for the same ploy twice.

However it is Sam's own cockiness that always gets the best of him; Bugs learns to deal with Sam upon learning that he is incapable of turning down a challenge. Every time Bugs dares Sam to "step across that line," Sam can't help but do so, even if he steps off into empty space or down a mine shaft.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Not to mention the fact that McCain's response to the "3 a.m." situation would likely involve him jumping up and firing imaginary (we hope...otherwise, who knows how many blondes could be killed!) six-shooters in the air and demanding that we MUST BLOW SOMETHING UP! RIGHT NOW!!!

That makes a lot of sense because everything going on in the world is just a figment of his imaginiation, if you stick your head in the sand or just blame Bush, everything will magically disappear.

<link>

I would rather Yosemite Sam then the Democratic alternative approach of Winnie the Pooh.

Winnie the Pooh did, quite often, try to figure out the solution to his problems by exhorting himself to "think, think, think".

I can see why that sort of thing would be so distasteful to Republicans...

Yes "think think think" right up until the polling numbers arrive to tell them what to do.

Paying attention to whats going on in the world? Last year almost half the nation STILL thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Who do you think those people are voting for?

<link>

<link>

If you think Bush has handled everything excellently, then you should want McCain in office.

I don't feel that Bush has handled everything excellently and I do want McCain in office.

Please tell me what people thinking for some reason that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 has to do with any of this?

To be fair, your original comment didn't make a tremendous amount of sense ("That makes a lot of sense because everything going on in the world is just a figment of his imaginiation, if you stick your head in the sand or just blame Bush, everything will magically disappear."), so it's hard to decide what to respond to (to wit, I decided to riff off the Winnie the Pooh comment).

I do not presume to speak for someone else, but I read it in the sense of both a reproach for your inference that it is somehow Democrats who are sticking their head in the sand, when the continued insistence of the Republican base in such things as the imaginary Saddam/911 connection is a far more compelling argument in favor of one side's willful ignorance. Also, a commentary that, while you may not agree with Bush's handling of "everything," you do seem to be on board with his whole mindless belligerence thing (as evidenced by your support for John "There's Gonna Be Other Wars" McCain).

But, then again, the polls told me to say that...

Yep those "Winnie the Pooh's" that won two world wars and blasted the shit out of Korea and SE Asia. And your porky pig republicans are still stuttering around Iraq, fighting boys in skirts that have archaid weapons and home made bombs. The Do Nothing, sell America to the commies Republicans.

"To be fair, your original comment didn't make a tremendous amount of sense ("That makes a lot of sense because everything going on in the world is just a figment of his imaginiation, if you stick your head in the sand or just blame Bush, everything will magically disappear."), so it's hard to decide what to respond to (to wit, I decided to riff off the Winnie the Pooh comment)."

The implication in the original post was that a lot of what is going on in the world, is nothing. That all of this is some made up venture by Bush and once he is gone we will have nothing to worry about. Democrats rarely ever admit we are even fighting a war let alone what to do about it. We can sit down and talk to the Iranians and Syrians once Bush is gone everyone will make nice (I suggest you read the link I provided from the UN Ambassador). I think its much easier for people to pretend that is the case. Your first post ended with "we must blow something up" as if there will never actually be a day when that decision will actually have to be made.

Frankly I don't know what your going to do when you can no longer blame Bush for all the worlds problems. As far as McCain goes, he is correct there will be more wars. If you think he is lying please find the nearest history book and read it.

BlueOhio, you read me right.

That was just an extreme example of how conservatives\war hawks don't have credebility to say that they are aware of what's going on in the world.

How many times, in this forum, in real life, on the news, do I hear over and over how conservatives don't want to hear history lessons. They don't want to understand their enemy. They aren't interested in the the details of the middle east. They aren't concerned about our influence abroad. All they need to know is that there are enemies out there, somewhere, and our soldiers are shooting at them.

This is the fundamental core of the war-supporter viewpoint. I fully believe that there is a war on terror going on, and that we can and must win it. Bush hasn't done everything wrong, but he's made such grevious blunders, compounded by ignorance, that I don't want anyone who likes his ideas anywhere near the oval office. Yet conservatives are falling in line behind a militaristic policy that has had diminishing returns.

Giuliani wasn't interested in hearing what the CIA had to say about the roots of 9-11... what a picture of willfull ignorance, to have been on the front lines and not even care to understand the full scope of the situation, lest it tarnish one's self image. Nevermind the facts, nevermind the strategy, just as long as we fight, we're right.

Bush realized that facts mattered in war too late, and did too little to change course. McCain is deadset to continue this policy of swatting at phantoms while the world crumbles due to lack of US leadership.

So I take a mixture of humor and offense at the idea that it is conservatives, this time around, that are more aware of whats going on out there than liberals.

BlueOhio:

Not to mention the fact that McCain's response to the "3 a.m." situation would likely involve him jumping up and firing imaginary (we hope...otherwise, who knows how many blondes could be killed!) six-shooters in the air and demanding that we MUST BLOW SOMETHING UP! RIGHT NOW!!!

....while singing "Bomb..Bomb..Bomb....Bomb-Bomb Iran"

"Yep those "Winnie the Pooh's" that won two world wars and blasted the shit out of Korea and SE Asia. "

Thats really funny when Truman left office (hated by the way) we had lost 49,000 troops in Korea and it was widely seen as a complete and utter disaster.

Today he is considered one of our finest Presidents.

Yes, McCain is technically right that there will be other wars. I know that. Other wars are inevetable

The question is, as president, is he going to be an agent of that inevetability? Almost everything he has said, including the comment itself, indicates that he is predisposed to pull triggers. That he said that, along with the "100 years" comment, is not to be taken as his literal plans, but as an insight into how he thinks. Damned if I want that mindset leading us for the next 4.

Then I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot, and that it was my use of the word "imaginary" that set you off. I did not mean to imply that the problems of the world are imaginary, merely that the metaphorical six-shooters that the hypothetical McCain would be shooting in the air upon being awakened in case of a crisis, are.

I merely meant to convey my impression of John "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain's tendency to, in any and all situations, only consider aggressive military responses. In that way (mindless belligerence in the face of any and all crises), he is both like Yosemite Sam and George W. Bush (okay, have I spelled out what I originally thought was a pretty pithy joke about McCain enough?)

As for your claim that "Democrats rarely ever admit we are even fighting a war let alone what to do about it," I don't know what to tell you, man, except that you're wrong. We talk about the war ad nauseam. But I think you mean Democrats don't claim to have some magic plan that will make it all okay (like, for example, simply repeating "the surge is working" over and over). There are no good options, and we're choosing from a set of bad ones, but choose from the set of bad ones we will, because that's what being responsible is.

And, as to your question of what we're ever going to do when we can no longer blame Bush for all the world's problems, I'll tell you.

We're going to start trying to solve them.