Taxes - Clinton vs Bush years

[Logan13]

I guess thats a very subjective argument, and would depend largely on your definition of crazy...

Some would say that, state sanctioned torture, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wire tapping(4th Amend.)&data mining, and an Executive branch completely unaccountable to the House of Reps, would be crazy. Especially for the staple of Democracy to the world.

More over to be summed up, just the general disrespect, degradation, and ignorance towards the rule of law and the Constitution, thats pretty crazy.

Who do you personally know that has had their rights infringed in, need only last name? My problem with your rants lies in the fact that you speak in theoretical terms only.

[thegodfather]

Who do you personally know that has had their rights infringed in, need only last name? My problem with your rants lies in the fact that you speak in theoretical terms only.

It is quite a shame that you feel that I need to "personally know" someone who has had their rights violated in order to be concerned and upset that SOMEONES rights are getting violated. Slippery slope, thats what I'm concerned about.

[Pooks]

It is quite a shame that you feel that I need to "personally know" someone who has had their rights violated in order to be concerned and upset that SOMEONES rights are getting violated. Slippery slope, thats what I'm concerned about.

Thats good lawyer talk.. did the media tell u that? hehee

Luv yah godfather liek i love ron paul.. but u have to be wary sometimes of other influences out there that we most of the time don't even realize are forming and shaping our opinions on even such simple things as "what is freedom" etc...

henry Hazlitt. wiki him he's a liberitarian also.. and austrian economics and all that stuff. his book Economics in One lesson is a classic.

[thegodfather]

Thats good lawyer talk.. did the media tell u that? hehee

Luv yah godfather liek i love ron paul.. but u have to be wary sometimes of other influences out there that we most of the time don't even realize are forming and shaping our opinions on even such simple things as "what is freedom" etc...

henry Hazlitt. wiki him he's a liberitarian also.. and austrian economics and all that stuff. his book Economics in One lesson is a classic.

No bro, I dont listen to the MSM sorry. Im a Political Science major and im just appauled at the stuff going on these days. People do not understan the slipper slope, and how today it might be an isolated incidence, but it may not be that way forever. The founders understood these things, they had a few thousand years of tyrannical government with which to design a country that would hopefully be free from such tyranny. Also, I advise anyone who has the opportunity to take classes in Constitutional Interpretation.

[Pooks]

The slippery is a theory based on fear, which can be very debilitating.

all it is FEAR..

I trade commodities, currencies, futures, and sometimes stocks..
I know all about the slippery slope as a psychological barrier. Its an easy fear to invoke in people, but it's not based on reality or true facts.

If you have a sound strategy that works, and you have things outlined,,, like limits to the law and etc.. than thats what it is.

Slippery slope fear is me fearing a losing trade, on a system, on which I am 90% right.

Its an efficient system, that will give me results, over the long run..
but yes the odds are that there will be loss here and there, and maybe sometimes twice in a row.

in the beggining when i first started, yes it was debilitating, and after a loss I would not trade for a couple of days, cause I was so shocked by the loss.. even though I know the system is still 90% accurate.

eventually u grow out of that fear, and u realize that those fears are BULLSHIT!

same as these other slippery slope fears are bullshit!

The PATRIOTS ACT will gives us more FREEDOM not LESS!

The democrats will give us less freedom, when they take all our money, and we're chained to a 40 hour job..

or when they impose the UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE TAX..
so we'll be getting taxed not only on INCOME TAX< SOCIAL SECURITY TAX< BUT NOW A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CAR TAX..

than when u cant afford a damn thing, but a cartboard cutout car that everyone else has.. U'll have no freedom.

when the person who has the SUV is for some reason a criminal cause he lives his life the way he wants..

while everyone else is conforming to some BULLSHIT GOVT GUIDELINE
THAT IS NO FREEDOM.

[SMCengineer]

Bottom line.. Democrats view everyone as Idiots, and as if they need to be taken care off.. Like a Mother takes care of a baby. They take your money and spend it for you.. but they don't really know what u want or need.. the deeper inner desires and aspirations beyond clothes and food.

Republicans..PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED people are intelligent and can take of themselves. Treats people like grown adults. They let you keep your money and you can choose to spend it as u like, BUT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ANYMORE.

Now which of the two above, sounds like more freedom?

In bold.

Republicans today are acting more like Democrats and we are completely losing our conservative base.

[thegodfather]

There is absolutely NOTHING Conservative about a NeoConservating, repeat, NOTHING.

If the slippery slope theory is in fact not based in reality as you suggest....Then I suggest you look back into history at some leaders who were elected and then turned their countries into despotic Totalitarian states.

[RANA]

In bold.

Republicans today are acting more like Democrats and we are completely losing our conservative base.

Yes, I have to agree with part of that statement, but not all Conservatives

[Logan13]

In bold.

Republicans today are acting more like Democrats and we are completely losing our conservative base.

This is why we will all have to endure a Democratic Whitehouse for at least the next 4 years. History does repeat itself.
Because of Nixon, we got Carter.
Because of Bush 1 and Perot, we got Clinton.
Because of Bush 2 and the Rep. controlled Congress, we will get another Clinton or Obama.

Time to put your money overseas, unless you want it being redistributed.......

[SMCengineer]

This is why we will all have to endure a Democratic Whitehouse for at least the next 4 years. History does repeat itself.
Because of Nixon, we got Carter.
Because of Bush 1 and Perot, we got Clinton.
Because of Bush 2 and the Rep. controlled Congress, we will get another Clinton or Obama.

Time to put your money overseas, unless you want it being redistributed.......

Incase anyone missed it, Obama's Global taxation proposal: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...or-senate-vote.

[tjpatrick1987]

Geez, im 21 years old and i am more educated on politics than nearly 99% of my age group....They took away my man Rominee and now i dont know if i can vote for Mccain .... I am 100% conservative. Big Government is the worst thing for this country... And i am 100 % behind the walk out in the house.... Democrats are grandstanding!!!! And its BS .... Lets protect our country not give the terorist oppurtunity.... All you democrats are trying to doing is gain controll over people and tell them how to thinK..... Go ahead and win this election (Dem.) and next election no one will ever vote for a liberal again!!!! Get Ready for recession

[Pooks]

Geez, im 21 years old and i am more educated on politics than nearly 99% of my age group....They took away my man Rominee and now i dont know if i can vote for Mccain .... I am 100% conservative. Big Government is the worst thing for this country... And i am 100 % behind the walk out in the house.... Democrats are grandstanding!!!! And its BS .... Lets protect our country not give the terorist oppurtunity.... All you democrats are trying to doing is gain controll over people and tell them how to thinK..... Go ahead and win this election (Dem.) and next election no one will ever vote for a liberal again!!!! Get Ready for recession

WELCOME ABOARD! I like this guy ( i dont wanna give no dem this election tho, **** that haha)

[SMCengineer]

Geez, im 21 years old and i am more educated on politics than nearly 99% of my age group....They took away my man Rominee and now i dont know if i can vote for Mccain .... I am 100% conservative. Big Government is the worst thing for this country... And i am 100 % behind the walk out in the house.... Democrats are grandstanding!!!! And its BS .... Lets protect our country not give the terorist oppurtunity.... All you democrats are trying to doing is gain controll over people and tell them how to thinK..... Go ahead and win this election (Dem.) and next election no one will ever vote for a liberal again!!!! Get Ready for recession

If, by that, you mean preemptive war than your contradicting yourself. A "pro-preemptive war conservative" is an oxymoron.

[Logan13]

If, by that, you mean preemptive war than your contradicting yourself. A "pro-preemptive war conservative" is an oxymoron.

No, it's not. You are just repeating what new sources and editorial blogs have written in an effort to divide the Republican party. Going back to the Reagan administration, Ron Paul was not and has not been a leader in the Republican party for a reason. Even then he did not exemplify the standard Conservative. I say this because I know that you are using him as a basis for what "Republicans were/are". You want to hear a real Republican speak, check out the following video.
Ronald Reagan on Appeasement (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec63B...eature=related

Conservatism: Preemptive War
http://conservativeinc.com/conservatism-preemptive-war/

Everyday is frightening for leftists because everyday they see evil neocons lurking around the corner plotting a preemptive attack on some country 95% of Americans could not pinpoint on a map. To the liberals preemptive war is seen as this new tactic developed by (Jew [read it with a hiss]) conservatives so that they can control more of the world’s oil supply. I guess no one on the left got the memo that the Kennedy’s are staying drowned in vodka thanks to oil dividends. Oh well, someone should tell them though. Back to the article.

Preemptive war is a perfectly legitimate military option. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if someone had attacked Germany in the mid 1930s? How about if someone had gone into Russia in the early 20th century and deposed the communists? The Israelis have done it taking out nuclear facilities the most recent of which was in Syria. And it just makes tactical sense.

Let’s say you know that a nation is going to attack you. You could always send diplomats but they rarely succeed at more then sewing their seed in different countries. Or you could strike before the other guy does. That’s what I would do.

This doesn’t mean go all in with a conventional war. But it does mean you can wage a war against your enemy in other ways. Sabotage, support of dissident groups, or other methods of undermining their regime. Perhaps the greatest preemptive war fought in recent times was Reagan’s preemptive flourish against the Soviets. If he had not used the threat of war against the Evil Empire it would not have fallen. So, in essence, we won that preemptive war without ever firing a single bullet (don’t bring up the proxy wars right now).

In fact I think that the best thing to do is to be proactive about conflicts. Without being proactive about countries like Iran we risk being thrown into a much worse war with them later on. Our only option is to face the problem right now before things can get worse.

Fight Iran with other weapons then bombs and bullets though. Don’t fight them with sanctions because they only serve to piss off the country and increase their standing among their neighbors and other sympathetic (emphasis on pathetic) parties. Fight them in a more nuanced way.

Support trade unions in the country. Do what Reagan did and create a strike fund for the workers. Have them do nationwide strikes and cripple the government.

Increase our own military spending. Go through with the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Hell, extend that shield to Israel while we’re at it. Make it so that they can’t just lob bombs and win a war. This will also force them to spend a hell of a lot more money developing their own weapons. Bleed them dry.

Make sure that the people in Iran can get access to real news. Get them access to radio, television, satellite, and internet sources of information. Make it so that everyone in the country knows the truth about what their country is doing and the truth about what is going outside the country as well.

Freeze the accounts of those in the leadership, free up our businesses to make deals with Iranian businesses, and seriously fund opposition groups. Freezing the assets of the ruling class may not be plausible but slowly draining their bank accounts over a couple of decades is doable. Give the money to the opposition groups. And letting our business guys do business with their business guys will foster goodwill, improve our economy and the economy of the Iranians who oppose Ahmadinejad’s crew, and will give us some badly needed human intelligence in the country.

And there needs to be our own special ops guys in that country. When the bad guys try to strong arm people who support change we can send them a message. Blow up one of the thugs’ houses, kill one of them, basically make it known that if you try to hurt one of our friends we’re going to hurt you back ten times harder.

Proactively and preemptively attacking Iran and other hostile nations in this manner would help end conventional wars. Doing it this way would help put the impetus on the Iranian citizens who are the ones who should want change the most. Help them start and complete the revolution they can’t do on their own. I think if we gave the citizens of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria a lot of support and a push in the right direction they will eventually take over.

It is working in Iraq now. I think Iraq is probably the most extreme case of preemptive war available because we precluded ourselves from waging an asymmetrical war against that thugocracy. But we have come a lot further then I thought we would have by this point. At minimum I thought it was going to take a generation before Sunni and Shiite could work together on such a large scale in Iraq. Now they are working together against their shared enemy in al Qaeda.

But many have died when they didn’t have to. If we had been actively undermining Saddam’s regime all along we might not have had to go into Iraq when we did. There’s no doubt in my mind that he would have responded to our attempts in his historically brutal fashion. All that means is that we would have to have been more brutal to his regime killing and threatening them in more brutal ways.

I truly think that these tactics would work to bring about change in the most repressive regimes. It would require our bravest and finest men and women (women are some of the best spies, you figure it out) to do some brutal things to other “human” beings. If you don’t have the stomach for this then just don’t look. Preemptively attacking a hostile nation in this asymmetric fashion could prevent a much larger war in the future and that is what is so important and so necessary about preemptive war.

[SMCengineer]

No, it's not. You are just repeating what new sources and editorial blogs have written in an effort to divide the Republican party. Going back to the Reagan administration, Ron Paul was not and has not been a leader in the Republican party for a reason. Even then he did not exemplify the standard Conservative. I say this because I know that you are using him as a basis for what "Republicans were/are". You want to hear a real Republican speak, check out the following video.
Ronald Reagan on Appeasement (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec63B...eature=related

Conservatism: Preemptive War
http://conservativeinc.com/conservatism-preemptive-war/

Everyday is frightening for leftists because everyday they see evil neocons lurking around the corner plotting a preemptive attack on some country 95% of Americans could not pinpoint on a map. To the liberals preemptive war is seen as this new tactic developed by (Jew [read it with a hiss]) conservatives so that they can control more of the world’s oil supply. I guess no one on the left got the memo that the Kennedy’s are staying drowned in vodka thanks to oil dividends. Oh well, someone should tell them though. Back to the article.

Preemptive war is a perfectly legitimate military option. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if someone had attacked Germany in the mid 1930s? How about if someone had gone into Russia in the early 20th century and deposed the communists? The Israelis have done it taking out nuclear facilities the most recent of which was in Syria. And it just makes tactical sense.

Let’s say you know that a nation is going to attack you. You could always send diplomats but they rarely succeed at more then sewing their seed in different countries. Or you could strike before the other guy does. That’s what I would do.

This doesn’t mean go all in with a conventional war. But it does mean you can wage a war against your enemy in other ways. Sabotage, support of dissident groups, or other methods of undermining their regime. Perhaps the greatest preemptive war fought in recent times was Reagan’s preemptive flourish against the Soviets. If he had not used the threat of war against the Evil Empire it would not have fallen. So, in essence, we won that preemptive war without ever firing a single bullet (don’t bring up the proxy wars right now).

In fact I think that the best thing to do is to be proactive about conflicts. Without being proactive about countries like Iran we risk being thrown into a much worse war with them later on. Our only option is to face the problem right now before things can get worse.

Fight Iran with other weapons then bombs and bullets though. Don’t fight them with sanctions because they only serve to piss off the country and increase their standing among their neighbors and other sympathetic (emphasis on pathetic) parties. Fight them in a more nuanced way.

Support trade unions in the country. Do what Reagan did and create a strike fund for the workers. Have them do nationwide strikes and cripple the government.

Increase our own military spending. Go through with the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Hell, extend that shield to Israel while we’re at it. Make it so that they can’t just lob bombs and win a war. This will also force them to spend a hell of a lot more money developing their own weapons. Bleed them dry.

Make sure that the people in Iran can get access to real news. Get them access to radio, television, satellite, and internet sources of information. Make it so that everyone in the country knows the truth about what their country is doing and the truth about what is going outside the country as well.

Freeze the accounts of those in the leadership, free up our businesses to make deals with Iranian businesses, and seriously fund opposition groups. Freezing the assets of the ruling class may not be plausible but slowly draining their bank accounts over a couple of decades is doable. Give the money to the opposition groups. And letting our business guys do business with their business guys will foster goodwill, improve our economy and the economy of the Iranians who oppose Ahmadinejad’s crew, and will give us some badly needed human intelligence in the country.

And there needs to be our own special ops guys in that country. When the bad guys try to strong arm people who support change we can send them a message. Blow up one of the thugs’ houses, kill one of them, basically make it known that if you try to hurt one of our friends we’re going to hurt you back ten times harder.

Proactively and preemptively attacking Iran and other hostile nations in this manner would help end conventional wars. Doing it this way would help put the impetus on the Iranian citizens who are the ones who should want change the most. Help them start and complete the revolution they can’t do on their own. I think if we gave the citizens of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria a lot of support and a push in the right direction they will eventually take over.

It is working in Iraq now. I think Iraq is probably the most extreme case of preemptive war available because we precluded ourselves from waging an asymmetrical war against that thugocracy. But we have come a lot further then I thought we would have by this point. At minimum I thought it was going to take a generation before Sunni and Shiite could work together on such a large scale in Iraq. Now they are working together against their shared enemy in al Qaeda.

But many have died when they didn’t have to. If we had been actively undermining Saddam’s regime all along we might not have had to go into Iraq when we did. There’s no doubt in my mind that he would have responded to our attempts in his historically brutal fashion. All that means is that we would have to have been more brutal to his regime killing and threatening them in more brutal ways.

I truly think that these tactics would work to bring about change in the most repressive regimes. It would require our bravest and finest men and women (women are some of the best spies, you figure it out) to do some brutal things to other “human” beings. If you don’t have the stomach for this then just don’t look. Preemptively attacking a hostile nation in this asymmetric fashion could prevent a much larger war in the future and that is what is so important and so necessary about preemptive war.

Logan, I'm actually baffled that you just posted that and prefaced it with a semi-putdown, as though I care about the divisiveness of any political party. The article you just posted, if you even read it, describes exactly what I just eluded too. Namely, the fact that preemptive war in the terms of the current administration is NOT a conservative trait. Here's a simpler explanation, the article you just posted is the conservative definition of preemptive war, which is not conventional war or did you just see the title and decide to post it. Either way, I have to thank you for strengthing my point. I'm not sure you know exactly what it means to be conservative, but if you need a hint look at the nature of the word conserve. True conservatives or classic liberals or libertarians, (pick which term you like) are about conserving the Union and the original intentions of the United States government, which is to be only as big as necessary and no bigger. More importantly, it is about defending the constitution. Conservatism is not about expanding governmental powers or expanding democracy to other nations. However, conservatives, if forced to war, believe that with a strong economy and a strong military we would destroy anything that opposed us. Considering we are currently the world's superpower, that line of thinking is very rational. I stress currently because with our current economy and waning national defense we may very well see China eclipse us as the supreme super power.

I never stated that we should try to pacify or negotiate with our enemies, which is what you implied by posting that Reagan video. Opposing "conventional preemptive war" does not mean appeasment. Preemptive war, in conservative terms, is defined perfectly in the article that you posted. Now, with Reagan in the discussion how about we discuss what he did with the Soviets during the Cold War. The Soviets had a very large nuclear weapon arsenal, yet Reagan was able to hold off on an actual war by bringing the Soviet Union to it's knee's. He was able to do this by economic degradation, not war. With the Iranians now threatening the possible acquisition of nuclear technology the government is up in arms. Let me ask you, do you not see a startling resemblence of the cold war with the current situation of Russia, only, with the roles reversed?

If you want to talk true conservatives, look at Barry Goldwater who essentially sparked the sea change that led to the Reagan Revolution. He was considered too conservative to be president. He was for the Vietnam War, but not in the terms of supporting preemptive war. What he was concerned with was that defensive wars aren't won. So, he wanted to declare all out war and end it with a victory as soon as possible.

"Throughout history civilian populations and political rulers have talked of peace. We have never been free of war. The soldier, whose profession is war, understands that peace must be enforced by superior military might. The certainty of defeat is the only effective deterrent we can use to maintain peace. Furthermore, we can be strong without being aggressive."
-Barry Goldwater

[Logan13]

Logan, I'm actually baffled that you just posted that and prefaced it with a semi-putdown, as though I care about the divisiveness of any political party. The article you just posted, if you even read it, describes exactly what I just eluded too. Namely, the fact that preemptive war in the terms of the current administration is NOT a conservative trait. Here's a simpler explanation, the article you just posted is the conservative definition of preemptive war, which is not conventional war or did you just see the title and decide to post it. Either way, I have to thank you for strengthing my point. I'm not sure you know exactly what it means to be conservative, but if you need a hint look at the nature of the word conserve. True conservatives or classic liberals or libertarians, (pick which term you like) are about conserving the Union and the original intentions of the United States government, which is to be only as big as necessary and no bigger. More importantly, it is about defending the constitution. Conservatism is not about expanding governmental powers or expanding democracy to other nations. However, conservatives, if forced to war, believe that with a strong economy and a strong military we would destroy anything that opposed us. Considering we are currently the world's superpower, that line of thinking is very rational. I stress currently because with our current economy and waning national defense we may very well see China eclipse us as the supreme super power.

I never stated that we should try to pacify or negotiate with our enemies, which is what you implied by posting that Reagan video. Opposing "conventional preemptive war" does not mean appeasment. Preemptive war, in conservative terms, is defined perfectly in the article that you posted. Now, with Reagan in the discussion how about we discuss what he did with the Soviets during the Cold War. The Soviets had a very large nuclear weapon arsenal, yet Reagan was able to hold off on an actual war by bringing the Soviet Union to it's knee's. He was able to do this by economic degradation, not war. With the Iranians now threatening the possible acquisition of nuclear technology the government is up in arms. Let me ask you, do you not see a startling resemblence of the cold war with the current situation of Russia, only, with the roles reversed?

If you want to talk true conservatives, look at Barry Goldwater who essentially sparked the sea change that led to the Reagan Revolution. He was considered too conservative to be president. He was for the Vietnam War, but not in the terms of supporting preemptive war. What he was concerned with was that defensive wars aren't won. So, he wanted to declare all out war and end it with a victory as soon as possible.

"Throughout history civilian populations and political rulers have talked of peace. We have never been free of war. The soldier, whose profession is war, understands that peace must be enforced by superior military might. The certainty of defeat is the only effective deterrent we can use to maintain peace. Furthermore, we can be strong without being aggressive."
-Barry Goldwater

we must be reading two different articles.

[SMCengineer]

...or your just not reading the article.

[Logan13]

...or your just not reading the article.

damn!

...or your comprehension skills just suck

[SMCengineer]

I have a feeling someone agrees, but doesn't want to admit it.

[spywizard]

So we got taxed more? Big whoop... We also didn't have a huge debt (we had quite the surplus of money), the dollar was worth something, and much of the world liked us... So... I personally would much rather not be a selfish human being and help my country out rather then suffer in the way we are doing now...

yea, we should let the rest of the world rape and kill everyone that they want to..

we should be isolationist right??

so what would that be 12 million Mexicans that we need to get out of our country and build the new Berlin wall??

can't have it both ways..

and bush didn't spend that money.. he signed the bills that congress (controlled by who?? ) sent for him to sign..

Obama i think has a bill in the works for what?? $87 Billion to eliminate poverty??

hell yea, let me get some of that..

[spywizard]

some of you are mixing foreign policy and domestic spending with taxation..

[thegodfather]

yea, we should let the rest of the world rape and kill everyone that they want to..

we should be isolationist right??
so what would that be 12 million Mexicans that we need to get out of our country and build the new Berlin wall??

can't have it both ways..

and bush didn't spend that money.. he signed the bills that congress (controlled by who?? ) sent for him to sign..

Obama i think has a bill in the works for what?? $87 Billion to eliminate poverty??

hell yea, let me get some of that..

We let the Rawandans commit genocide and kill 1,000,000 people with machedes didnt we? Wonder why we didn't step in there, mabye because we have no vested interest in their region or resources. Why is the the United States responsibility to be the helper/policeman of the world? I thought that was half of the responsibility of the United Nations. It's a tuff call, but I think I would much rather justify 4,000 dead American soldiers to stop mass genocide, than I would justify 4,000 dead American soldiers to give the wonderful "gift of Democracy" to an entire nation who doesn't even want it to begin with.

[RA]

Anyone thats going to vote Democrat should shoot me their rebate check. Ill find something useful to spend it on and you can feel good that you paid more in taxes.

[tjpatrick1987]

If, by that, you mean preemptive war than your contradicting yourself. A "pro-preemptive war conservative" is an oxymoron.

Blume!!!! you talk trash !!!!!!!!!!! and i am not contradicting crap. your trying to sound like you know everything!! When reality is knocking at your door wake up buddy no one wants to here yourself talk. We need to finish what we started... I went to an Oboma rally today and i hated it.. I'll say it again DEMOCRATS ARE GRANDSTANDING!!! We dont need higher taxes to scare away more companies than we already have!!! The Democrats are also making promises that congress will laugh at..... China also depends on us to support thier Economy. With out the United States the country would be nothing... The people had enough of communism and mark my words You Will See a Revolution In the Next 20 years ... Whats China gunna try and do anyways??try to take over the Stability of the world....But GO ahead BLUME im calling you out.....lets here some of the smart talk--- FROM the NEXT GENERATION and NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU GET OVER IT

[SMCengineer]

Blume!!!! you talk trash !!!!!!!!!!! and i am not contradicting crap. your trying to sound like you know everything!! When reality is knocking at your door wake up buddy no one wants to here yourself talk. We need to finish what we started... I went to an Oboma rally today and i hated it.. I'll say it again DEMOCRATS ARE GRANDSTANDING!!! We dont need higher taxes to scare away more companies than we already have!!! The Democrats are also making promises that congress will laugh at..... China also depends on us to support thier Economy. With out the United States the country would be nothing... The people had enough of communism and mark my words You Will See a Revolution In the Next 20 years ... Whats China gunna try and do anyways??try to take over the Stability of the world....But GO ahead BLUME im calling you out.....lets here some of the smart talk--- FROM the NEXT GENERATION and NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU GET OVER IT

I don't actually know how to reply to this incoherent mess. Are you implying that, because I can't stand Obama and Hillary, I'm a democrat? Or because I hate the fact that the left is taking over and will spend us into oblivion that I'm a liberal? I don't get your logic or most of your post for that matter. I will say that I agree with you about the revolution part, but I'm not sure you fully understand what your talking about. I'll also say that if you want to discuss something that's fine, but you should probably get your facts straight.

[tjpatrick1987]

You are just to into yourself blume.... everything makes sense thier buddy! You can go ahead and vote for your liberals. If Oboma loses the Nomination Bloomberg is going to give him 1 billion dollars to be his running mate and run as an independent! He will destroy the democrats. Just goes to show how blood thirsty you liberals are

[tjpatrick1987]

Blume get your facts straight

[SMCengineer]

You are just to into yourself blume.... everything makes sense thier buddy! You can go ahead and vote for your liberals. If Oboma loses the Nomination Bloomberg is going to give him 1 billion dollars to be his running mate and run as an independent! He will destroy the democrats. Just goes to show how blood thirsty you liberals are

Buddy, show me one quote where I say that I'm going to vote for a liberal or that I'm at all liberal.

[spywizard]

Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS---Left-Wing Media Lies Forever




Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..


Military losses for 20 years

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>> ;1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 ........ 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ....... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 ........ 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>>Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
>>Black..................................... 12.3%
>>Asian ...................................... 3.7%
>>Native American ................... . 1.0%
>>Other ...................................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .... 74.31%
>>Hispanic ........................... 10.74%
>>Black ................................... 9.67%
>>Asian ............................... . 1.81%
>>Native American .................. 1.09%
>>Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

[SMCengineer]

Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS---Left-Wing Media Lies Forever




Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..


Military losses for 20 years

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>> ;1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 ........ 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ....... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 ........ 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>>Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
>>Black..................................... 12.3%
>>Asian ...................................... 3.7%
>>Native American ................... . 1.0%
>>Other ...................................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .... 74.31%
>>Hispanic ........................... 10.74%
>>Black ................................... 9.67%
>>Asian ............................... . 1.81%
>>Native American .................. 1.09%
>>Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

We've seen this article before and it's very inaccurate. Check the source for yourself. Go to table CRS-7 and CRS-8 for proof. Media construes the truth no matter what side your on. At a steroid board, I would assume everyone knows this.

[spywizard]

thanks.. but the "facts" previously posted are correct right??

the main point i am making here is the "facts" are subjective, that's the problem..

[SMCengineer]

thanks.. but the "facts" previously posted are correct right??

No, they're very wrong. Check it out for yourself (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf from CRS-8):
Year Total Deaths

1980>>>>>>>>>>>>>2,392
1981 >>>>>>>>>>>>2,380
1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>2,319
1983 >>>>>>>>>>>>2,465
1984 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,999
1985 >>>>>>>>>>>>2,252
1986 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,984
1987 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,983
1988 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,819
1989 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,636
1990 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,507
1991 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,787
1992 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,293
1993 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,213
1994 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,075
1995 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,040
1996 >>>>>>>>>>>>974
1997 >>>>>>>>>>>>817
1998 >>>>>>>>>>>>827
1999 >>>>>>>>>>>>796
2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>758
2001 >>>>>>>>>>>>891
2002 >>>>>>>>>>>>999
2003 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,228
2004 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,874
2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,942
2006 >>>>>>>>>>>>1,858

[tjpatrick1987]

Spy Wizard Just Ignore Blume He Thinks He Knows Everything!!! Just Let Him Bask In His Ignorance. He"ll Be One Lonely Old Man

[SMCengineer]

^^You've still said nothing of substance. I'm assuming you can't find me saying anything liberal. Correct?

I win.

[tjpatrick1987]

Hey Blume your a LIBERAL!!!!!! I WIN BECAUSE I REPRESENT THE FUTURE >>>STEP ASIDE OLD MAN.....

[tjpatrick1987]

Sry You Dont Know Every Answer> If You Do Why Aren"t You Running For President ...............i Win Again

[RA]

Personal attacks arent allowed. Stay on topic.

[SMCengineer]

Hey Blume your a LIBERAL!!!!!! I WIN BECAUSE I REPRESENT THE FUTURE >>>STEP ASIDE OLD MAN.....

Dude, I'm not trying to fuel your little immature rants, but I'm only 23.

[tjpatrick1987]

Sry about that it just bugs me when people try and correct every single comment that someone rights and they dont even know as much as they think they do.... But sadly enough Rominee is gone and the next 4 years is going to be heck..... I have faith that the Conservatives in house will ban together and stick out till 2012...Liberal Facism....they want to give you free health care but will then try to tell you want you can and cant eat cuz they dont want to pay for your mistakes... there was a rumor that mississippi tried to make a law that in resturaunts there were certain items a obese person was not allowed to order...

[Tock]

Check this post -- it's from

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs

and it's post #16

Yep, we've hashed this BS already. History repeats itself. Might even 3-peat itself, who knows?

================================================== =========

Quote:
Originally Posted by rana173
MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts:
- - - - ( major BS snipped ) - - -
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidently you didn't check these statistics, or else you would have decided against putting your name to this little trophy of nonsense.

Click on your source, then go to Table 5 (page CRS8) and look at the figures under the columns Accident and Hostile Action. Then come back, and let's talk about figures that don't lie, and who the Media-liars are who figure.