Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.
Yep, and there we have the old "I'm smarter and more educated" argument folks.

I knew we would see a blantant elitist post sooner or later

And some people wonder why people are labeled "elitists" - just take a look and how they present themselves and supposed "arguements".
CkG
No, we don't. I'd suggest you work on your own reading skills before you accuse others of comprehension problems.
The point is the Bush fan-boys lack facts to support their positions. Things are simply not going their way right now. There are two ways to address this. Rational Bush supporters will respond by withdrawing from the debate. (Charrison may be an example of this.) They cannot make well-reasoned arguments based on the information available, so they say nothing. They may be biding their time, waiting for new facts, or they may be reconsidering their support.
Irrational Bush supporters do not let the lack of supporting information deter them. They charge in swinging, again and again, hoping to either shout down their opposition or divert the discussion with red herrings and straw men.
For example, several have noted the Bushies no longer try to support their boy in D.C. They mostly attack others. Their response when someone points this out? More attacks. If they have valid, well-considered reasons for supporting Bush, they hide them well.
Contrary to Sir Cad's perverse twist on this, there is no elitism involved. It's simply an observation that the Bushies cannot defend their guy. Over the last few months, the closest they've come is one old artillery shell. When we've pointed out that this find is to be expected, that we never claimed Iraq had zero WMDs, that one shell does not come close to the Bush administration claims about Iraq's WMDs,
that even the Bush administration and experts like David Kay downplay the significance of the find, they ignore these inconvenient facts. Instead, they keep bleating the same disinformation and diversions.
Also contrary to the Bushies' claims, this is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is certainly not a Bush vs. anti-American / anti-troops / Saddam-lover / whatever issue. People from both ends of the political spectrum have come to realize Bush misrepresented the Iraqi situation to lead us into war. It is not only possible, but quite common to oppose Bush while still supporting America and our troops. The constant slurs based solely on someone's criticism of Bush are another sign of their weak position.
Simply put, the facts are not on Bush's side. Some Bushies have accepted this and moved on. Others bury their heads and try to deny reality. The shifting balance here reflects this.