Obama vs. McCain

Republicans have stressed military service constantly (see the bashing of Clinton), and when in 2004 the tables were finally turned, they turned out the libelous Swift Boat campaign to smear Kerry.

Libelous? Smear? If they were untrue, why has John Kerry never simply released his military records to easily rebut the charges?

Meanwhile, Dan Rather basically got forced out for reporting on Bush's failure to fulfill National Guard duties...and our "liberal" media still forced out their longtime anchor for this inconsistency.

What? Dear darko. Rather was forced to retire because he aired and then defended COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT documents that destroyed CBS News' credibility forever.

The secretary said she didn't type them or remember them but said that the *content was true*

Fake, but accurate!

the "liberal" media basically wound up discrediting and retracting this story because the authenticity of the memos themselves couldn't be completely confirmed although the content of the memos was basically asserted by those involved

They were fakes. Created in Microsoft Word. And the only person who could say if the sentiments were true is dead.

The question is...why do we even fucking care? George W. Bush didn't base his campaign or his political career on the fact he served in the TANG. John Kerry focused his entire campaign ("And I'm reporting for duty!") around his Vietnam service, which continues to have unanswered questions that he himself brought out for his Winter Soldier stuff, as proof of his strength on national security issues. The TANG stuff was just a stupid revenge campaign that only helped to raise the importance of questions about Kerry by suddenly injecting thirty year old crap into a modern campaign.

You said Obama is a religious zealot like Bush, which is simply ludicrous

I see a claim, but I don't see the support.

and at the same time you like Palin?

Strangely, I don't hate or like people based on their religious beliefs.

If anything I suspect Obama is agnostic as he wasn't really raised in the church, and he is trying to make himself look more religious to be electable and to combat the 'muslim' accusations.

Oh, okay, so he's a liar and a fraud. So much for new politics.

You said Bush shifted the tax burden disproportionately to the rich when his tax cuts did precisely the opposite.

I didn't say that. I said the Bush Tax Cuts shifted the tax burden more onto the rich than anytime in history. And that's 100% true.

And how can you suggest that Obama is a "dump ass", we've heard the guy speak and debate at length, and you still compare him to Palin - someone who as basically been exposed as little more than an average-to-below-average lady who is wholly unprepared to speak on political issues apart from scripted, rehearsed talking points.

Actually, that last part sounds like the perfect description of President Obama. Yeah, we've heard the guy speak. He often struggles to form coherent thoughts, and rambles meaninglessly without any point to his statements. This is why they started taking a teleprompter with him on the road.

And I wasn't comparing him to Palin, I was asking why she deserves a higher standard than he does. A question that has not been answered.

And BTW, you're so interested in preserving the constitution, but you think we *should* be teaching creationism and religion in science class??

I'd like to see where I said that specifically. (And I was responding to the lie stated on that website and elsewhere that Palin supports teaching Creationism in schools.)

I asked if we shouldn't teach about a view held by a large segment of the population in schools. Never said anything about "science class" even though it has its place there as well. I guess I'm weird in that I don't have a problem with teaching about multiple points of view instead of just the one I believe in.

I don't see how not being against actual teaching on history and philosophy of science violates the Constitution.

The only real time I've heard race mentioned in the campaign was when McCain's campaign started screaming "he played the race card!!" when Obama had the gall to mention how he had a funny name and didn't look like the typical candidate.

I think you need to pay better attention to the campaign. Mentions of race have been endless in this campaign. And will be endless for the next eight years.

EDIT. Because I missed someone who asked me direct questions:

Could anyone enlighten me on as to why the fact McCain cutting down on his use of the word "friends" merits a generous two to three minutes of air time?

Because he usually irritatingly says "my friends" over and over again. Which makes some of us want to stab ourselves in the eye with a Bic pen, especially the thought of hearing it in Presidential level speeches for four years. And he didn't say it once in the first debate.

I only ask because I don't quite understand the point made on how much McCain and Obama's stances oppose the idea. Are they taking away more freedoms of the people by increasing government regulations and controlling more facets of the economy, or does it go deeper than that?

Both. I mean, for example, both of the jerks want to control political speech to protect those in power.

Last edited by benji on Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

.... puttincmoptuers,
When did Obama bring up racism? At the moment, you're the only one bringing up racism and getting all defensive.

hmmm.... did i say i was voting for mccain? btw i am not

and BTW, you're so interested in preserving the constitution, but you think we *should* be teaching creationism and religion in science class??

hmmm... also interesting since atheism by definition is a religion.
Atheism-

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

doctrine-

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a belief (or system of beliefs)-

any cognitive content held as true
# impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webw

[/quote]

Did he say you were voting for McCain? btw, he did not

You just want to bone her, Gundy.

true. it's clear that she is a conservative toolbag but I like her motherly qualities.

and BTW, you're so interested in preserving the constitution, but you think we *should* be teaching creationism and religion in science class??

hmmm... also interesting since atheism by definition is a religion.
Atheism-

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

doctrine-

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a belief (or system of beliefs)-

any cognitive content held as true
# impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webw

[/quote]

By what definition could atheism be considered a religion? Is that series of quotes some convoluted, failed attempt to somehow define atheism as a religion? I have a belief that the Celtics are the best team in the NBA, is that a religion? Is the Bush doctrine or a Monroe doctrine a religion? It looks like what you are trying to do is say that atheism is a belief or doctrine, and then by extension that a belief or doctrine is a religion. That's a huge stretch in the first place and a logical fallacy; what I think you're trying to do is say that 1. Atheism is a belief/doctrine. 2. Religion is a belief/doctrine. 3. Therefore, atheism is a belief doctrine.

Which is as valid as saying 1. A square is a shape. 2. A triangle is a shape. 3. Therefore, a square is a triangle.

This is all speculation, since you weren't even able to articulate your fallacy.

In any case, since when was atheism taught in schools? That would clearly be wrong. But teaching evolution in schools without teaching creationism isn't much different than teaching that the earth revolves arond the sun. They're both scientific theories that various religions have taken issues with at some point and that those religions should be free to argue about and present their own perspectives...at their own church services on Sunday.

Last edited by mchakko on Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

You said Obama is a religious zealot like Bush, which is simply ludicrous

I see a claim, but I don't see the support.

You are the one making a claim with no support other than vague religious statements such as most candidates make. I have never heard of anyone even suggesting that Obama is some kind of religious maniac in my life. Meanwhile Bush mentions how he talks to God and takes instructions from him, and you equate the two?

Strangely, I don't hate or like people based on their religious beliefs.

Then why are you accusing and criticizing Obama for being some kind of zealot?

If anything I suspect Obama is agnostic as he wasn't really raised in the church, and he is trying to make himself look more religious to be electable and to combat the 'muslim' accusations.

Oh, okay, so he's a liar and a fraud. So much for new politics.

Exaggerating your religious beliefs for political purposes is hardly a crime, a lie, or a fraud. That's his personal business and if he wants to project and image to be more appealing in the eyes of those foolish enough to care, that's politics and I have no problem with it.

You said Bush shifted the tax burden disproportionately to the rich when his tax cuts did precisely the opposite.

I didn't say that. I said the Bush Tax Cuts shifted the tax burden more onto the rich than anytime in history. And that's 100% true.

You're so mixed up I'm even getting confused. I thought you corrected yourself here and the original was a typo. But you actually just denied saying that, and then REPEATED THE SAME THING!!! Unless it is the 'disproportionately' that you take issue with?

Please explain how tax cuts to the rich somehow shifted the tax burden MORE to the rich? That makes sense.

Actually, that last part sounds like the perfect description of President Obama. Yeah, we've heard the guy speak. He often struggles to form coherent thoughts, and rambles meaninglessly without any point to his statements. This is why they started taking a teleprompter with him on the road.
And I wasn't comparing him to Palin, I was asking why she deserves a higher standard than he does. A question that has not been answered.

I don't knwo what you're talking about, everyone else whose heard the guy speak has seen an excellent orator who has more coherent thoughts than anyone I've heard in a long time. That's why most seem to think he has done well in the debates. Sure he's avoided some questions like everyone else, and I don't like that...but he's a lot closer to Clinton than he is to Bush/Quayle/Palin.

You're talking complete nonsense again about Palin. If anything, Palin is being held to a LOWER standard than everyone, remember the debate when everyone said it would be a victory for her and the republicans if she doesn't drool or trip on the way to the podium? Then, she proceeded to do a decent job, stumbling through her rehearsed points, struggling any time she had to think on the fly - and everyone agreed that she did pretty well, when any other candidate who gave a similar performance would be looked at as a complete failure in the debate. That is a LOWER standard than everyone else is held to. You just think Obama (and Biden, and McCain) are not being held to this 'higher standard' you think Palin is being held to because they are competent speakers and thinkers who are able to easily answer the sort of simple questions that reduce Palin to gibberish.

And BTW, you're so interested in preserving the constitution, but you think we *should* be teaching creationism and religion in science class??

I'd like to see where I said that specifically. (And I was responding to the lie stated on that website and elsewhere that Palin supports teaching Creationism in schools.)

I asked if we shouldn't teach about a view held by a large segment of the population in schools. Never said anything about "science class" even though it has its place there as well. I guess I'm weird in that I don't have a problem with teaching about multiple points of view instead of just the one I believe in.

I don't see how not being against actual teaching on history and philosophy of science violates the Constitution.

You are distorting what you said; when the list mentioned teaching creationism you said "WE SHOULDN'T?????", cleary implying that you think we should. Sure, it would make sense in a comparative religion class, but how many schools have room in their curriculum for that? I went to a small school that did discuss creationism - they never mentioned any other religious beliefs, and held it as a an equal alternative to science, and this BLATANTLY promotes the JudeoChristian creation in public school, ABSOLUTELY tantamount to endorsing the JudeoChristian belief system as a state-endorsed religion. And that's why it's completely unconstitutional.

Are you going to argue against that with "the intent of the founding fathers"? In one of those previous posts it was just painfully smug how you explained the 3/5th of a man for slave state representation purposes. Everyone knows what that meant and how it was a compromise, but if you're not trying to smugly refute someone you'd realize how ultimately that example *DOES* point out the hypocrisy and racism of the era (particularly of the slave states, of course.)


My favorite point you brought up in this whole thread, you somehow contend that we had similar numbers of military deaths under Clinton as we have had under Bush with the Iraq war? I don't have the numbers, but I certainly remember casualties being fairly rare under Clinton's small military endeavors and being absolute routine in Iraq, with the most deaths since Vietnam. I think you're completely making things up.

You really have some selective memory about the start of the Iraq war too. You mentioned that we'd been there for years and that "no war" was never an option, only finishing it or not finishing it? Well, how about the option of *maintaining the damned status quo with sanctions in Iraq since nothing new was happening there at the moment and we were just a LITTLE preoccupied in Afghanistan at the time????* And as for congress and everything authorizing it; I don't believe that the UN or anyone really beleive Saddam had WMD; meanwhile Bush et al fraudulently claimed to have evidence, used his post 9/11 political capital to say "you've got to trust me on this one", and to label anyone who disagrees with him as "unpatriotic". So when democrats in congress grudgingly went along with Bush, their only real mistake was trusting Bush and the republicans, and not having the guts to stand up to them. And now you try to spread the blame equally with your revisionist history.

Why do you say Dukakis policies would not be "change" anyway? We want a change from Bush and the republicans (although, increasing spending with the war, is of course, not really conservative. BUT, the complete jackass move of trying to have it both ways, slashing taxes for the rich while still increasing spending and allowing the deficit to balloon is somewhat of a republican tradition, dating back to Reagan, "conservative" or not.) In any case you're completely talking out of your ass by saying that a change to more liberal policies would not be change - that's as silly as McCain saying he'll be change and calling himself a Maverick. Luckily Biden was able to skewer this one.



I saw you respond to Andrew and others who are foreign and not really up on things, and who seemed to accept your warped right-wing propaganda and utter distortions of the truth, and felt the need to rebut things, hence the long posts. Your posts seem to make sense at first, since you don't have the spelling errors and such of many idiots, but ultimately it's just a lot of gibberish strung together like Palin.

mchakko,

By what definition could atheism be considered a religion?

here ya go. taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

religion
2 entries found.

1. religion
2. 1get (verb)


Main Entry:
re·li·gion Listen to the pronunciation of religion
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date:
13th century

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective

therefor considering number 4 atheism is a religion[/u][/i]

who seemed to accept your warped right-wing propaganda and utter distortions of the truth, and felt the need to rebut things, hence the long posts. Your posts seem to make sense at first, since you don't have the spelling errors and such of many idiots, but ultimately it's just a lot of gibberish strung together like Palin.

When faced with dissent "insult"?

You are the one making a claim with no support other than vague religious statements such as most candidates make. I have never heard of anyone even suggesting that Obama is some kind of religious maniac in my life. Meanwhile Bush mentions how he talks to God and takes instructions from him, and you equate the two?

President Obama was regularly preaching from the pulpit of churches about the absolute of faith and God. He insinuates he is the one to build a Kingdom on Earth, as a human incarnation of God.

I guess you are right. Bush talks to God and has faith in His guidance. President Obama has a God complex and is answerable to the "steady gaze of [his] own conscience."

Then why are you accusing and criticizing Obama for being some kind of zealot?

Was I? I was saying he's not any different from Bush. Unless they aren't both religious driven people who want to use the power of the state to "save" people.

I guess comparing someone to Bush = criticism?

Exaggerating your religious beliefs for political purposes is hardly a crime, a lie, or a fraud. That's his personal business and if he wants to project and image to be more appealing in the eyes of those foolish enough to care, that's politics and I have no problem with it.

So despite being a "new type" of politician who would move us past the "politics of old" and usher in a new form of reality, whatever he needs to twist and distort to win is fine.

So President Obama is just more of the same. Can we really afford eight more years of the same old failed policies?

You're so mixed up I'm even getting confused. I thought you corrected yourself here and the original was a typo. But you actually just denied saying that, and then REPEATED THE SAME THING!!! Unless it is the 'disproportionately' that you take issue with?

Please explain how tax cuts to the rich somehow shifted the tax burden MORE to the rich? That makes sense.

Table Six of this is what you want.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The tax cut package came in 2001 with a series of phase-ins, the 2003 bill accelerates this to have them happen "immediately". (As immediate as federal government works.)

2002 - Top 1%: 33.7%, Top 10%: 65.7%, Top 25%: 83.9%, Top 50%: 96.5%, Bottom 50%: 3.5%
2004 - Top 1%: 36.9%, Top 10%: 68.2%, Top 25%: 84.9%, Top 50%: 96.7%, Bottom 50%: 3.3%
2006 - Top 1%: 39.9%, Top 10%: 70.8%, Top 25%: 86.3%, Top 50%: 97.0%, Bottom 50%: 3.0%
The last one dropped because more people were dropped off the tax rolls than in any previous tax cut before.

I don't knwo what you're talking about, everyone else whose heard the guy speak has seen an excellent orator who has more coherent thoughts than anyone I've heard in a long time.

Have they heard him on the stump everyday? Or just in his well prepared events?

If anything, Palin is being held to a LOWER standard than everyone

Wait. What?

remember the debate when everyone said it would be a victory for her and the republicans if she doesn't drool or trip on the way to the podium?

Because there had been a months worth of smearing her? I don't recall "everyone" saying that either. Only the small faction who had bought into the myth that there has never been a stupider person.

You just think Obama (and Biden, and McCain) are not being held to this 'higher standard' you think Palin is being held to because they are competent speakers and thinkers who are able to easily answer the sort of simple questions that reduce Palin to gibberish.

Lulz, good darko no. They're the farthest thing from competent speakers and thinkers.

We were inundated for two months about Palin. Every media agency had people digging through trash and swarming Alaska. We know more about Palin in two months than we know about President Obama in two years. How long did it take for Wright to blow up? For Ayers? When does Rezko, the truth about President Obama's "community organizing", and Chicago politics as a whole get wall to wall media coverage? I know everything about the town of Wasilla, but nothing about what President Obama did in the State Senate beyond he voted present a lot and owned himself on an abortion bill.

Palin deals with a trooper who tazers a boy and threatens to kill an old man and you'd think she had wiped a town off the face of the earth. Palin answers truthfully in a debate and interview about some personal views, and later clarifies and you'd think she's burning witches.
President Obama has shady dealings for his houses, got all his opponents knocked off a ballot, and has worked in organizations that purport dangerous extremist views on education. But I haven't heard a major media peep. If Palin had destroyed all her records as mayor in Wasilla, like President Obama did after bailing out of the State Senate, you think it would just be swept under the rug and ignored?

I went to a small school that did discuss creationism - they never mentioned any other religious beliefs, and held it as a an equal alternative to science, and this BLATANTLY promotes the JudeoChristian creation in public school, ABSOLUTELY tantamount to endorsing the JudeoChristian belief system as a state-endorsed religion

Wait. What?

You are distorting what you said; when the list mentioned teaching creationism you said "WE SHOULDN'T?????", cleary implying that you think we should

Looks like you're the one distorting. Putting it in caps and adding question marks to make me look unhinged.

As I said, I think a view held by a significant portion of the population, and the dominant view of creation for thousands of years, should be included in any course purporting to cover the history and philosophy of science.

In one of those previous posts it was just painfully smug how you explained the 3/5th of a man for slave state representation purposes. Everyone knows what that meant and how it was a compromise,

No, they don't. *WARNING ANECDOTE* The gross majority of people I have run into, including people with PhD's, think the 3/5ths compromise was made because they only thought blacks were 3/5ths of a person.

you'd realize how ultimately that example *DOES* point out the hypocrisy and racism of the era (particularly of the slave states, of course.)

Huh? I don't why you keep trying to attribute claims to me. IIRC, el_badman mentioned it as an outdated part of the Constitution, and I thought (I believe correctly) he was not aware of why the clause is in there. I explained, and since it's not in force anymore I don't think it's necessarily cause to toss the entire Constitution as "outdated."

I never claimed that racism and hypocrisy are only modern developments.

My favorite point you brought up in this whole thread, you somehow contend that we had similar numbers of military deaths under Clinton as we have had under Bush with the Iraq war? I don't have the numbers, but I certainly remember casualties being fairly rare under Clinton's small military endeavors and being absolute routine in Iraq, with the most deaths since Vietnam. I think you're completely making things up.

As I said, I didn't remember the exact numbers, and I was off, yes. But it's absurd to claim casualities during the Clinton years were "fairly rare." Nearly 8,000 died during Clinton's eight years. And what was accomplished for those casualities? The USS Cole?

And there's no way it's the most deaths since Vietnam, look at the 1980s. In 1980 alone more were killed than any year (except 2001) by almost 20%.

Well, how about the option of *maintaining the damned status quo with sanctions in Iraq since nothing new was happening there at the moment and we were just a LITTLE preoccupied in Afghanistan at the time????*

Except something was happening: Sanctions were collapsing, we were still engaged in the No Fly Zone, and the Iraqi people were still under Saddam. Oh, and that Oil for Food scandal. You know, the biggest one in world history.

And as for congress and everything authorizing it; I don't believe that the UN or anyone really beleive Saddam had WMD

So why were they all out there for years saying it? Even before Bush came along.

to label anyone who disagrees with him as "unpatriotic"

Of course he did.

So when democrats in congress grudgingly went along with Bush, their only real mistake was trusting Bush and the republicans, and not having the guts to stand up to them.

Because they completely agreed with him on it and believed everything Bush did. They had spent TWELVE YEARS saying the same exact things. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden, etc. weren't suddenly newcomers in 2002 to the idea that Iraq was a serious problem that needed to be taken care of at some point.

Why do you say Dukakis policies would not be "change" anyway?

Did I say "change"? I meant "new"/"change from the old ideas" if I did. My mistake.

n any case you're completely talking out of your ass by saying that a change to more liberal policies would not be change - that's as silly as McCain saying he'll be change and calling himself a Maverick.

Wait, whose talking out of their ass by claiming Johm McCain is exactly 100% the same entity as George W. Bush and that wouldn't himself be change. You're seriously going to claim that Johm McCain would not be change from George W. Bush?

And President Obama isn't liberal policies, President Obama is complete outright fascism that will destroy what is left of our country. (And McCain will either just let it continue to wither away. Or will be like his idol and make sure to murder it himself. Since you're convinced I'm some kind of Republican partisan. I like Palin personally, and consider her the best of the four because she's the only one who would even be remotely likely to stand against the overwhelming Democrat Congress on principle.)

Maybe President Obama is truly the Messiah and will usher in a Great Society. One common definition (or meme) used for insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

right-wing

What does this even mean?

One common definition used for insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

That's not insanity. When I hit my head with a hammer, sometimes I stay awake, sometimes I pass out. See, same thing, different results. Silly benji.

mchakko,

By what definition could atheism be considered a religion?

here ya go. taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

religion
2 entries found.

1. religion
2. 1get (verb)


Main Entry:
re·li·gion Listen to the pronunciation of religion
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date:
13th century

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective

therefor considering number 4 atheism is a religion[/u][/i]

Considering number 4, the triangle offense is also a religion. This doesn't help your argument one bit.

Was I? I was saying he's not any different from Bush. Unless they aren't both religious driven people who want to use the power of the state to "save" people.

Bush has been well documented as being an evangelical christian who is driven by his religion to an extent that frightens many people. You are the first person I have ever seen suggest this about Obama, apart from those who say he's a Muslim for some reason.

Exaggerating your religious beliefs for political purposes is hardly a crime, a lie, or a fraud.

So despite being a "new type" of politician who would move us past the "politics of old" and usher in a new form of reality, whatever he needs to twist and distort to win is fine.

Exaggerating your religious beliefs to the extent Obama has can barely be considered twisting or distorting. It's about as much of a distortion as wearing vertical stripes to look less fat.

Please explain how tax cuts to the rich somehow shifted the tax burden MORE to the rich? That makes sense.

Table Six of this is what you want.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Actually, tables 3 and 5 are what we really want. While table 6 shows that you are right in a literal sense, tables 3 and 5 show that this is true only because of the dramatic increase in the incomes of the most wealthy over the same period. If not for Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, incomprehensibly implemented despite the war, the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy would have been MUCH more.

So, the correct answer is, that a greater proportion of the tax burden fell to the rich DESPITE Bush's tax cuts. Or more precisely, due to their increased incomes, the most wealthy were responsible for a greater proportion of the tax burden than ever and history, and DESPITE Bush's tax cuts which came at a time when they were prospering more than ever, they still wound up paying a greater proportion of the overall tax than ever before. In my opinion and Obama/Biden's opinion, this proportion was much less than their fair share, thanks to Bush's cuts.

The bottom line is you are deceptively citing a statistic that has much more to do with the polarization of the rich and the poor than with Bush's tax cuts.

Palin deals with a trooper who tazers a boy and threatens to kill an old man and you'd think she had wiped a town off the face of the earth. Palin answers truthfully in a debate and interview about some personal views, and later clarifies and you'd think she's burning witches.

Tried to pressure and fire a legislator who had the gall to oppose the NRA's agenda of allowing concealed weapons in bars and *schools* too. Nice lady.

Looks like you're the one distorting. Putting it in caps and adding question marks to make me look unhinged.

Don't need caps to do that...just some careful reading and refutation of your points exposes them for the propaganda they are.

As I said, I didn't remember the exact numbers, and I was off, yes. But it's absurd to claim casualities during the Clinton years were "fairly rare." Nearly 8,000 died during Clinton's eight years. And what was accomplished for those casualities? The USS Cole?

The vast majority of those are due to accident, sickness, etc. Those things stay constant and I didn't think anyone was ever talking about those. What we were discussing the whole time was military actions that Clinton took, and according to the chart there was *ONE* death from hostile action during Clinton's tenure. Add on another 76 due to terrorists if you wish. Still fairly rare. Compare this to *3,458* dead from hostile action under Bush.

So no, it is not absurd to claim that casualties related to military action were "fairly rare" under Clinton. One in eight years is fairly rare.

Your original contention is not the sort of thing one gets mixed up. It was a blatant lie trying to downplay casualties in Iraq and equate them from the death toll in Bosnia, etc.

And there's no way it's the most deaths since Vietnam, look at the 1980s. In 1980 alone more were killed than any year (except 2001) by almost 20%.

Because there were a lot more deaths due to accident back then. Hardly relevant to our discussion.

Except something was happening: Sanctions were collapsing, we were still engaged in the No Fly Zone, and the Iraqi people were still under Saddam. Oh, and that Oil for Food scandal. You know, the biggest one in world history.

So, basically, the status quo. And absolutely no reason to take action while we were busy fighting for a legitimate cause in Afghanistan (no reason other than having political capital to spend and a climate where you can label anyone who disagrees with you a traitor.)

Because they completely agreed with him on it and believed everything Bush did. They had spent TWELVE YEARS saying the same exact things. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden, etc. weren't suddenly newcomers in 2002 to the idea that Iraq was a serious problem that needed to be taken care of at some point.

"At some point", exactly - at some point when we're not in the midst of a crisis in Afghanistan. And Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden, etc, were newcomers to the idea that Bush suddenly had some new intelligence , contrary to the belief of the UN and basically everyone, that Saddam had WMD and needed to be taken out at THAT moment. And that we need to trust him, and if we don't, we're a traitor. That has very little to do with the idea that Saddam had been bad guy for 12 years and should be dealt with at an appropriate time.

Wait, whose talking out of their ass by claiming Johm McCain is exactly 100% the same entity as George W. Bush and that wouldn't himself be change. You're seriously going to claim that Johm McCain would not be change from George W. Bush?

Not I. To a certain extent the Obama campaign is by saying McCain=Bush. But the overall point is correct, and campaign ads saying "McCain will only be a tiny change from Bush" are way too subtle; hence, McCain=Bush." McCain would certainly be small, incremental, improvement over Bush - and a bigger change than many other Republicans. But it's like in the republican debates - every candidate continued to endorse the same viewpoints Bush had, they just avoided mentioning his name due to unpopularity. At the same time, McCain knows that America hates bush and his policies and wants change from them, and so he yaks about change. But like Biden pointed out, he talks about being a maverick, but his views on tax cuts, Iraq, the main things the people care about - are all the same as Bush's.

So yeah obviously McCain is a different person from Bush and isn't *exactly* the same. No shit. But the bottom line is pretty much any Republican is going to continue mostly the same course that Bush led us on - not much of a change. It's awfully hard to have a significant change from someone in the same political party, if we want change, we need to put in a liberal.

And President Obama isn't liberal policies, President Obama is complete outright fascism that will destroy what is left of our country. (And McCain will either just let it continue to wither away. Or will be like his idol and make sure to murder it himself. Since you're convinced I'm some kind of Republican partisan. I like Palin personally, and consider her the best of the four because she's the only one who would even be remotely likely to stand against the overwhelming Democrat Congress on principle.)

FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST! You're not doing anything but calling Obama names. Obama is liberal policies whether you like it or not.

I dislike Palin because she seems clearly to be an average to below-average lady who lacks the experience or the aptitude one would want in a leader (seems like another W, or Quayle). Plus she appears to be a right wing gun nut, religious fanatic, etc; at least McCain isn't that far off to the right and at least in the past was one of the more reasonable republicans.

Oh yeah, that overwhelming Democrat Congress? They've only been there for 2 years, were voted in by the people, and were just the first phase of the change that the people want. And despite what you'd like to think, change this year does not constitute 'changing it back.'

One common definition (or meme) used for insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Like...electing a republican president? It worked so well with Bush maybe we can get change by electing McCain and expecting different results?

We've only had a democrat in the white house and a democratically controlled congress simultaneously for 2 of the past 28 years. Trying that hardly constitutes trying the same thing over and over again.

Exaggerating your religious beliefs to the extent Obama has can barely be considered twisting or distorting.

So we should support him, or think highly of him, because he's dishonest?

Or more precisely, due to their increased incomes, the most wealthy were responsible for a greater proportion of the tax burden than ever and history, and DESPITE Bush's tax cuts which came at a time when they were prospering more than ever, they still wound up paying a greater proportion of the overall tax than ever before.

Because lowering taxes could never spur economic growth and raise incomes right?

Tried to pressure and fire a legislator

How do you fire a legislator? I'm pretty sure you mean "Chief of Police."

And I didn't know it was a problem to fire people in appointed political offices who disagree with and oppose you. I look forward to President Obama keeping all of Bush's cabinet and appointments.

The vast majority of those are due to accident, sickness, etc.

Oh, so they don't count. I see.

So no, it is not absurd to claim that casualties related to military action were "fairly rare" under Clinton.

I guess your definition of "military action" is "combat" and mine is "being deployed"?

It was a blatant lie trying to downplay casualties in Iraq and equate them from the death toll in Bosnia, etc.

Proof or ban.

So, basically, the status quo.

Personally, I don't want more of the same failed policies. I like change.

Why do you want to continue failed policies of the previous eight years?

And that we need to trust him, and if we don't, we're a traitor.

Yep, because he just said that all the time didn't he.

That has very little to do with the idea that Saddam had been bad guy for 12 years and should be dealt with at an appropriate time.

I don't see why you, and everyone else, need to equate my reasoning with someone elses.

Should I condemn you for agreeing with a serial killer that Bush is bad?

It's awfully hard to have a significant change from someone in the same political party, if we want change, we need to put in a liberal.

Too bad none are running.

FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST! You're not doing anything but calling Obama names.

How is accurately describing his political views "name calling"? I don't find "fascist" to be a catch-all insult for people you don't like, but a political philosophy. Which it is. And President Obama, the Democrat party and most of the Republican one subscribe to it.

Obama is liberal policies whether you like it or not.

How? He's almost 100% diametrically opposed to the concept of liberalism.

who lacks the experience or the aptitude one would want in a leader (seems like another W, or Quayle).

But hey, a guy who joined the Senate for two years before running for President is awash in experience. And hey, he's got a contradictory fantasy world platform! So he's got "aptitude" covered, right?

And Dan Quayle had twelve years in Congress before becoming VP.

Am I doing this right? Wait, I've got another one:

at least McCain isn't that far off to the right...But like Biden pointed out, he talks about being a maverick, but his views on tax cuts, Iraq, the main things the people care about - are all the same as Bush's.

And Iraq no longer matters...while President Obama agrees with Bush on Iran, and the Middle East in general. And President Obama has said he won't roll back the Bush tax cuts in a bad economy, so he agrees on those being good for the economy. And he's with Bush on immigration, only thinks NCLB is underfunded liking the idea in general, and on major financial bailouts and Fed actions. His major difference with Johm McCain being the surge, which President Obama was clearly wrong on. Otherwise they agree on restricting free speech.

So can we really accept eight more years of the same failed Bush-McCain-Obama policies?

religious fanatic

Huh? I think you need to meet some actual religious fanatics.

Oh yeah, that overwhelming Democrat Congress? They've only been there for 2 years, were voted in by the people, and were just the first phase of the change that the people want. And despite what you'd like to think, change this year does not constitute 'changing it back.'

I have no clue what this has to do with anything I've said.

Like...electing a republican president? It worked so well with Bush maybe we can get change by electing McCain and expecting different results?

We've only had a democrat in the white house and a democratically controlled congress simultaneously for 2 of the past 28 years. Trying that hardly constitutes trying the same thing over and over again.

You seem to have read the thread, but at the same time give the impression you think I'm supporting Johm McCain specifically and the Republicans generally. So I don't know what else I can tell you.

right-wing

What does this even mean?

Still interested in this one. Especially with this lulzy comment:

right wing gun nut

Considering number 4, the triangle offense is also a religion. This doesn't help your argument one bit.

i agree

Tried to pressure and fire a legislator

How do you fire a legislator? I'm pretty sure you mean "Chief of Police."

Didn't remember exactly what the position was, and in fact hoped you'd clarify so I wouldn't half to look it up. So, ok. Is the chief of police an appointed position? It's elected in my hometown. But anyway, my point was her sickening pro-gun stance - concealed weapons in schools?????

The vast majority of those are due to accident, sickness, etc.

Oh, so they don't count. I see.

So no, it is not absurd to claim that casualties related to military action were "fairly rare" under Clinton.

I guess your definition of "military action" is "combat" and mine is "being deployed"?

You were refuting the contention that "loss of lives due to individual military deployments" were similar under Clinton compared to under Bush. It is awfully strange to consider a baseline level of accidents and illnesses to be "due to individual military deployments". And yes, I think most people with common sense would consider illnesses and accidents that could happen to anyone in training, on a base at peacetime, to be unrelated to individual deployments. I think it is intentionally deceptive.

How is accurately describing his political views "name calling"? I don't find "fascist" to be a catch-all insult for people you don't like, but a political philosophy. Which it is. And President Obama, the Democrat party and most of the Republican one subscribe to it.

You are certainly the first person I can recall throwing the term 'fascist' around is a non-perjorative fashion. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

You know I made these posts because I was disappointed to see other posters who seemed to have some sense, somehow get suckered by your posts and get fooled into saying you make sense, others thinking of replying but feeling they didn't know enough and backing down.

I think and hope that by my poking in and demonstrating the utter lack of logic in your arrogant "airtight" arguments such as -
1. Bush increased the tax burden on the rich by cutting their taxes.
2. Military missions under Clinton led to similar amounts of deaths as the Iraq war because of a fairly static baseline of accidents and illnesses that had little to do with any deployments.
3. Obama is a Christian religious and a nationalist fascist when because of innocuous religious and patriotic statements he has made, which ironically are to combat and cut-off criticisms that he is not Christian and not patriotic. Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't bashing him for *wearing* a lapel pin.
3a. Yet a religious conservative like Palin is ok. And when she is applauded and nearly declared a victor for not screwing up too bad in the debate, you consider this being held to a *higher standard.*

Your logic mostly seems akin to citing Columbus as evidence that the world is flat.

I hope now that bystanders will see to take your arguments on other things like the Kerry campaign with a HUGE grain of salt.

I assumed you were just a hardcore conservative, maybe one who calls himself "independent", implying that you are "fair and balanced" but really just being further to the right than the republicans and nowhere near moderate.

But honestly, your posts just seem to be getting weirder and weirder. Calling people fascists but apparently not meaning it as an insult, and applying it to most mainstream politicians; continuing to claim that Obama is somehow not a liberal politician. Claiming that McCain/Palin would be a refreshing change from Bush but that Obama would not.

I really see only two assessments I can make:

1. You are trying to play some kind of semantic game by using odd definitions of liberal, fascist, etc, which are FAR out of common usage.

2. You are a straight-up kook.

I think it's a mix of both, and like I said before, I hope the rest of the board can see that by now, rather than being fooled by your calm posts that almost seem reasonable with a cursory read. You go along making sense for a while and then bust out with 2+2=5 and act like you're speaking a different language or are in an alternate universe.

Actually, I think I can speculate on a label / box to put you in...literal Constitution stickler and states rights freak??? That's my best guess, and while fairly harmless, that definitely seems kind of kooky in a global age when even national lines are blurred.

Anyway I don't think we have enough of a common language or logic system to have any reasonable discussion or argument.

So, ok. Is the chief of police an appointed position?

Yes, in Wasilla it was. And one that had only been in existance for a couple years.

But anyway, my point was her sickening pro-gun stance - concealed weapons in schools?????

All the better to shoot school shooters with. Right?

You are certainly the first person I can recall throwing the term 'fascist' around is a non-perjorative fashion.

I guess you don't read a lot of history or political theory then. Or Life magazines from the 1920s.

Bush increased the tax burden on the rich by cutting their taxes.

Which turned out to be true!

Military missions under Clinton led to similar amounts of deaths as the Iraq war because of a fairly static baseline of accidents and illnesses that had little to do with any deployments.

Except it's really hard to die at home, what with close high quality medical care. It's a lot easier to die when deployed simply due to logistics.

Obama is a Christian religious and a nationalist fascist when because of innocuous religious and patriotic statements he has made, which ironically are to combat and cut-off criticisms that he is not Christian and not patriotic.

Wait a minute, are you saying President Obama is not a Christian? Stop buying into the right-wing Republican propaganda.

And he's fascist because his political ideology is fascism, not because he's patriotic. Patriotism and fascism do not mean the same thing. You can have one without the other.

Yet a religious conservative like Palin is ok. And when she is applauded and nearly declared a victor for not screwing up too bad in the debate, you consider this being held to a *higher standard.*

You should probably read my posts instead of just assuming what they say. I think we had a thread where a forum leader told us about this once.

I assumed you were just a hardcore conservative ... really just being further to the right than

You still haven't answered what "right-wing" means. What does "further to the right" mean? Moar freedom? Does this mean Democrats are authoritarians? And their particular brand being fascism? So we agree then. Good to know.

nowhere near moderate

Dear darko, I hope not. I'd hate to have no principles.

Calling people fascists but apparently not meaning it as an insult, and applying it to most mainstream politicians;

How is it weird to properly label people based on their political ideologies?

continuing to claim that Obama is somehow not a liberal politician

I don't see how liberals support a larger state/restricting freedom and opposing the rule of law. But whatever, I'm apparently the one using "odd" definitions.

Claiming that McCain/Palin would be a refreshing change from Bush but that Obama would not.

Except, I never claimed that. You're making things up.

You are trying to play some kind of semantic game by using odd definitions of liberal, fascist, etc,

You mean, proper definitions. That make sense. And are historically accurate.

You are a straight-up kook

Good to see the ad hominems stopped.

Actually, I think I can speculate on a label / box to put you in

Must you put me in a box? Is it cardboard, because then I can hide from the soldiers.

freak

Lulz.

can someone tell me if it is all right if i were a police officer to tazer my son?

And threaten to kill people? And drink while on duty?

oh yeah thanks benji i forgot about that. oh and if i heard right the " abuse of her power" was in that she did not act quickly enough to have him fired!

I assumed you were just a hardcore conservative

Actually, I think I can speculate on a label / box to put you in

Must you put me in a box? Is it cardboard, because then I can hide from the soldiers.

This box:

all this talk is hurting my head. I don't think I'll vote. I probably would vote for Obama though. I don't think he's as bad as benji makes him out to be.

Why?

because I am a tool.

Wonderful.

its my opinion i am fucked either way, i think both of them will suck. i said this last election too with bush and kerry. wtf is up with all these piece of shit candidates?

anyway to answer the question, no matter how much i will hate it i will have to vote for mccain

Sauru's sentiments are all too right (although I quibble with his implication that there were ever "good" candidates...especially in the modern era) and both will continue this country down the same path. Obama offers it tommorrow, Johm McCain will give it to "[his] friends" next Tuesday.

So, are you going to vote McCain benji? Choosing turd sandwich over giant douche?