Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM Edited Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Ick. Pat Dollard makes me sad.
"This war would probably be over...had we not been undermined by the Democrat party, and the mainstream media, who had such an investment in undermining George Bush...and who have clearly, blatantly been doing that...interested in making us lose this war in order to achieve those ends...people are supposed to die in a war...you don't stop a war just because people are dying."
I think one of the biggest problems is we haven't had a President who's actually led people in battle and knows what war is actually like to fight, since Eisenhower.
I lost a friend from high school in Iraq in Januray and another close friend is going out in July. I'm going to ask her to the art museum and dinner in a few days. I'm really proud of what she's doing, even if I don't agree with it. I'm going to ask her to paint something that's important to her to remember her by while she's gone.
It's interesting that all the other wars in the last century had fewer than 10,000 deaths and yet adding the above numbers (from Wikipedia) together only gives something around 600,000. That makes me wonder if Rush or the forward that you got or whatever else it was was doing some creative bookkeeping to get that 1.7 million number (my guess is actually that 'causalities' for the 'Democratic' wars included both injured and dead, whereas 'causalities' for the 'Republican' wars included only deaths). But lets move past that.
Now, it's true all of those started under Democratic presidents (making them Democratic wars in your book).
*but* The US would probably have joined WW I regardless of who was president.
We didn't start fighting when a British ship carrying Americans was sunk.
It wasn't until German submarines sank seven US merchant ships that we declared war (and I'd dare say, any President would declare war under those circumstances).
Also, former President Roosevelt (R) strongly urged Wilson (D) to enter the war even though Wilson didn't want to. Were Roosevelt still in office, we might have gone to war a lot sooner.
Then there's WW II.
Same story.
We didn't want to join in.
We waited and waited.
A more hawkish President would have begun fighting much earlier.
It wasn't until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor that we actually entered the war.
Do you think any President would have just sat back and watched that without fighting?
So, we can safely eliminate WW I and WW II as "Democratic" wars, because who was President at the time didn't make a damn bit of difference and was just a matter of chance.
Then we under 100,000 American deaths left - which is interesting because that number is on the same order of the number you gave for American causalities in 'Republican' wars.
Also - and this is something that's easy to overlook - weapons and tactics, and battlefield medicine have all advanced.
We can now surgically strike several targets with a single plane with only 1-2 people on board and do as much damage to that target as a bomber mission with something like 30-40 people.
Ground troops and trench warfare don't play nearly as much of a role as they did in the past - and fighting a desert war is significantly easier than fighting a jungle war (there are a lot fewer places to hide).
As for the medicine - the response time, equipment and techniques in use now can save lots of lives that would have been lost in the past. That's good *but* it also means that we have more people with amputations and other severe permanent injuries than in any war in the past (so fewer American deaths).
Now, to finish up, lets look at total deaths (because I'm kinda silly and I don't think 'American' lives are any more valuable than any one else's lives)
War
Total Deaths (millions)
World War I
15-66
World War II
60-70
Korean War
2.5-3.5
Vietnam War
2.3-3.8
Gulf War
0.1
Iraq War
0.2 - 0.65
Throwing out WW I/II again, that leaves us with something like 10:1 total deaths in "Democratic" wars vs "Republican" wars - not very far from your figure of 17:1.
But then you realize that North Korea started the Korean war by invading South Korea - making it a Communist war.
We can get rid of Vietnam too since fighting began before we got there.
Similarly, the first Gulf war, since Iraq started it.
I'll even give you Afghanistan as being started on 9/11.
So we've got 0.2-0.65 million causalities on the Republican side for wars they pulled the trigger on (the current war) versus - well... none on the above list (or, as far as I know, not on the above list, for that matter) - for 'Democratic' wars.
Lets do the math - ( 0.2 to 0.65 ) / 0 ... hmmm - that's infinity: 1.
So, if we're going to do finger pointing, Reps lead Dems literally by an infinite amount.
I'm not such an unfair bastard that I would actually say that (especially considering that many Democrats voted to give President Bush the power to invade, so they're just as culpable in my book).
Still - this is (as far as I know) the first preemptive war started by the US in the past century (maybe even since the Revolutionary War, but my history isn't good enough to be able to say that with confidence).
Throwing out WW I/II again, that leaves us with something like 10:1 total deaths in "Democratic" wars vs "Republican" wars - not very far from your figure of 17:1.
First of all, you can't just dump the World Wars because "any president would have entered them", so right there you take away all the responsibility from the Dems using a fallacy, even if it is true a Republican pres might have done similar actions, there's one minor detail, he didn't. Roosevelte was Democratic. Wilson was democratic, therefore they were Demo wars. And just like you said, EVEN if you dump those two "minor" wars, Dems STILL lead 10:1! You're making my life easy by doing all the official math. thanks.
I will give you the gratification of knowing your work was not for naught, I read the whole thing.
But then you realize that North Korea started the Korean war by invading South Korea - making it a Communist war.
Isn't it cute how everyone is so quick to forget how terribly we failed in this war? Here's 2 words for you, democrats from the past, "Don't Meddle". We lost tons of troops, we didn't stop anyone from becoming Communist [which isn't really our business anyway]. We chose to support a HORRIbLE man for leader, JUST because he wasn't communist? Hey this bum who sucks at life wants to run Korea, let's support him! This war was an unecessary war, hey that reminds me of something the hypocritical Democrats are always whining about, it starts with an "I" and ends in a "Q"!
We can get rid of Vietnam too since fighting began before we got there. I love how easily you can "get rid" of wars, just because. I have a strong feeling that if the exact same thing happened in history, with the change of party, you'd be listing all the reasons why the Vietnam War was stupid, and how Republicans are idiots for losing, and listing plenty of casualty statistics, but when it's Democratic president under power, it is just "gotten rid of".
I'd love to see you argue from the Pro-Republican side, you'd make us look like Gods, and the Demos look like the Devil Incarnate!
I LOVE how out of all the wars in history America has been involved with, you only "count" one. The Iraq war. And omg, guess what, it's pretty much the only Republican War on the list! Omg! What a coincidence! Therefore the Democrats have not a single drop of blood on their hands!!!
anobody, I want you to think about all the work you just did to prove Stryker wrong
He didn't, in simple terms, he took the 6 or 7 wars started when Democrats were in power, then said they "don't count" for various reasons, then listed the one Republican war, took the deaths, divided by zero, and claimed the Democrats have no blood on their hands, except for the ones who voted for bush.
ok 1. most the majority of demos weren't even alive that far back. so ya u could say the demos have no blood on their hands. 2. Roosevelt and Truman are both ranked as one of the top 5-10 presidents of all time. 3. neither of them ever had anything as low as a 28% approval rating. 4. u can't justify one bad thing with an other. just because people died in the past doesn't mean it's ok for them to die now or in the future. 5. depending on what u believe this was an illegitimate war sold to the American public under false pretenses. at least troops back then knew what they were getting into (because they weren't lied to) and gave the lives for noble causes.
and i know its easy to point fingers. but u know whats easier to do sit on the sidelines and support a war ur not participating in because that makes u patriotic right?
oh and did i mention 28%? when r u guys going to man up and admit u were wrong (like the rest of us) so we can bring the troops home (save their lives), they've done enough for us, shouldn't we do something for them?
they're dying because people like u don't want to admit u were wrong...that actually is blood on ur hands.
1) I'm talking about the Democratic party as a whole obviously, not some 12 year old kid that prefers the democrats, of course he has no blood on his hands, so this is a pointless argument
2) Great! Are we arguing the greatest presidents of all time? No. Did I once defend bush or the Iraq war? No. Did I say I hate Roosevelt? No. Just because he's ranked as a great president doesn't mean he didn't kill a lot of innocent Americans. That being said, as a staunch Republican, I probably WOULD have voted for Roosevelt, he was a proven leader. I think Truman was a terrible leader and made terrible judgments. I don't know where you got that statistic, but I disagree with it. U2 is ranked as one of the greatest bands of all time by Rolling Stone, does that mean they are great? No. It just means the people ranking them are biased, which you can't blame them for.
3) "In February 1952, Truman's approval mark stood at 22% according to Gallup polls, the all-time lowest approval mark for an active American President." pwnd
4) I'm not! I do think the Iraq war was necessary, I don't think it went very well, we had our slip ups, I'm not defending bush here, why don't you read what I wrote? I'm saying demos are hypocrites, and in the grand scheme of things, not too many lives are being lost in comparison to all the Democratic wars.
5) okay....every single war in history has had huge lies and cover-ups, bush's were just exposed much more heavily than any of the other wars.
6) learn to fucking type.
oh and did i mention 28%? Oh, did I mention pwned?
*surprised Stryker's head doesn't explode from all his doubletalk*
You put a verb or an onomatopoeia in between the asterisks, such as *coughs* or *faints*, not an adjective plastered with a lame attempt at a joke, [I think?] you fucking dumbshit. Can you do ANYTHING right?
Here's 2 words for you, democrats from the past, "Don't Meddle".
Um.... do I really need to point out the obvious here?
Following your own advice (which - I don't even agree with, by the way, we shouldn't be in Iraq).
We lost tons of troops, we didn't stop anyone from becoming Communist [which isn't really our business anyway].
Man you are young. There was this thing called the Cold War going on at the time.
We chose to support a HORRIbLE man for leader, JUST because he wasn't communist? Hey this bum who sucks at life wants to run Korea, let's support him!
What's your point?
I never said Korea was a just war or that the outcome was favorable.
If anything, you should look to it as a cautionary tale as to why we probably shouldn't be in Iraq right now.
This war was an unecessary war, hey that reminds me of something the hypocritical Democrats are always whining about, it starts with an "I" and ends in a "Q"!
Just for the record - I'm not a Democrat.
That out of the way, even if I were, being a Democrat now wouldn't make me any more or less responsible for wars in the past
just like you said, EVEN if you dump those two "minor" wars,
Minor - your word, not mine. I never remotely said or implied that either world war was minor. Just that whoever was President at the time would have been compelled to fight in them.
Dems STILL lead 10:1! You're making my life easy by doing all the official math.
The whole point here is that we are in a pre-emptive war that we started (which is unprecedented).
That would be why I went on after the 10:1 thing to apply your own definition of "Democratic" and "Republican" wars to Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War.
All three - in fact WW I and WW II were all started by someone outside of the United States.
In each case - except for the current Iraq War - some President decided to join in, but they didn't throw the first punch.
Also, in each case - except for the current Iraq War (and, if you want to argue about the Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam) - there was an attack on United States vessels or bases that forced our hand into fighting.
I love how easily you can "get rid" of wars, just because
Not "just because".
If we had no real choice about joining a war, you can't claim that if a Republican was sitting in the White House at the time, they wouldn't have joined in that war.
I'd love to see you argue from the Pro-Republican side, you'd make us look like Gods, and the Demos look like the Devil Incarnate!
I don't know why you're so hung up on this Pro-Republican / Pro-Democratic bullshit.
As I said - the Democrats are just as responsible for us being in the current war as the Republicans.
I LOVE how out of all the wars in history America has been involved with, you only "count" one. The Iraq war. And omg, guess what, it's pretty much the only Republican War on the list! Omg! What a coincidence! Therefore the Democrats have not a single drop of blood on their hands!!!
I only counted one in the last hundred years (not in all of American history; that was your parameter, not mine) because only one of the wars / pseudo-wars that we've fought in the last 100 years began as an attack on a country that was entirely initiated by the United States.
There was no state of war involving Iraq, and no hot regional conflict involving the same.
We (namely Bush et al.) decided unilaterally to go in and attack unprovoked, and without exhausting diplomacy.
That is (as I've said several times) unprecedented and (in my opinion) completely immoral and unethical.
He didn't, in simple terms, he took the 6 or 7 wars started when Democrats were in power, then said they "don't count" for various reasons, then listed the one Republican war, took the deaths, divided by zero, and claimed the Democrats have no blood on their hands, except for the ones who voted for bush.
When did I ever claim the Democrats have no blood on their hands? And (getting side-tracked) exactly how many Democrats do you claim voted for Bush?
Just about every Democrat in the House and the Senate at the time the current war started has blood on their hands.
and i know its easy to point fingers. but u know whats easier to do sit on the sidelines and support a war ur not participating in because that makes u patriotic right?
That is an interesting point - have you contacted your recruiter yet, Stryker?
oh and did i mention 28%? when r u guys going to man up and admit u were wrong (like the rest of us) so we can bring the troops home (save their lives), they've done enough for us, shouldn't we do something for them?
they're dying because people like u don't want to admit u were wrong...that actually is blood on ur hands.
My only argument with that is this - once we committed to the war, we probably should have gone "all-in".
I'm talking massive and overwhelming troop and weapons deployment, considerable international cooperation, and a hell of a lot of strategy and planning - "all battles are won or lost before they are fought".
Blitzkrieg Baghdad, execute all of the existing leaders immediately, show so much strength at first that no sane person would consider trying to rise up.
And then - finish all of that as quickly as possible.
The situation we're in now is a no-win - and that's directly the result of crappy planning and stupidity; it didn't have to be that way.
Sitting there, smoldering, breeding contempt, dying slowly in small bits - it's not a great plan.
As things stand, the only choices seem to be pulling out (and if you're going to do that, you might as well do it sooner than later) or occupying the country forever (and we have neither the resources nor the wherewithal to do that).
they're dying because people like u don't want to admit u were wrong...that actually is blood on ur hands. —lace
I like you lace, please stick around.
5) okay....every single war in history has had huge lies and cover-ups, bush's were just exposed much more heavily than any of the other wars. —Stryker311
Maybe. I participate less and less in political discussions the more I contemplate the genetics of all of it. Or maybe I'm just getting older and losing some of my energy about all of that.
The conclusion that I've come to is that there are some people that for whatever reason (genetics, environment, chance, etc) just won't get it. Anfernee, you're one of those people.
Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:27 PM Edited Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:28 PM
"In February 1952, Truman's approval mark stood at 22% according to Gallup polls, the all-time lowest approval mark for an active American President." pwnd
Oh shit!
U2 is ranked as one of the greatest bands of all time by Rolling Stone, does that mean they are great? No.
I think anyone who decides to make a list of the greatest whatevers of all time is a total douchebag because it is completely subjective. It should just be John Doe's favorite presidents and who even gives a shit about that.
Coolidge is my favorite president. Nigga had a pet hippo.
K first with Truman, i overlooked the Korean war in my astonishment of how wrong a someone could be. Second I'll go ahead and let u call all demos 75 and over (those who were 13 or over when the second world war ended) hypocrites(in the grand scheme of thing). Third, well if less lives are being lost in this "republican war" gosh darn it why didn't u say so? I guess it's only significant after a certain number of deaths (I bet the troops totally appreciate having people like you support the war).
And fourth, now this is the really important one, "every single war in history has had huge lies and cover-ups" you really have to stop justifying bad things with other bad things that happened before it really doesn't make it any better.
oh and quit whining "b'but the democrats did it....."
Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:56 PM Edited Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:58 PM
of course american idol is subjective, although not completely because the winner is based on a number of votes.
some dude deciding on the most influential people of the 20th century is just stupid. only assholes do that. (yeah, that was a subjective statement). and its clearly just one guy's opinion, but he makes it out to be fact. like some dick will say that elvis is the most important person ever according to some list he made up and i'm all wtf.
The whole point here is that we are in a pre-emptive war that we started (which is unprecedented).
We've started wars on our own before. Our first war was started by us.
American lives lost in democratic wars in the past century, oh approximately 1.7 million.
Republican wars? under 100k.
dems lead 17 deaths to 1! gonna keep complaining?
—Stryker311
Tell us where you got that (10 to 1 it's from a dildohead err dittohead) so we can laugh at you. Then back it up and show a the actual numbers from a source. Until then you will go on as TLC's resident idiot second class. If you're really applying to college and somehow your application wrongly ends up in the accepted pile prepare for some nice red F's on your papers when you pull this shit--god knows you're not rich enough to earn the "gentleman's C."
I think anyone who decides to make a list of the greatest whatevers of all time is a total douchebag because it is completely subjective. It should just be John Doe's favorite presidents and who even gives a shit about that.
Coolidge is my favorite president. Nigga had a pet hippo.
this is why mandee is mah nigga, she's knows whats up.
i overlooked the Korean war in my astonishment of how wrong a someone could be.
am I that "a someone"? What was I wrong about?
That is an interesting point - have you contacted your recruiter yet, Stryker? First of all, I didn't know you had to be cannon fodder to support a war. Secondly, I'm not supporting this war, I think it was a good idea, poorly planned and executed, I still support it, blitzkrieg style as anobody said
My only argument with that is this - once we committed to the war, we probably should have gone "all-in".
I agree with that, but since I'm not dressed up in the army garb I can't support what they're doing? I'm sure they'd be a lot more offended at what you're saying then what I'm saying. You're basically saying they're losing their lives for nothing. At least I think there's an important cause behind it all.
I like how lace just skips over me calling her out on the Truman approval rate thing and the old people? Once again, I'm not talking about individual people here, the party as a whole. This whole thread is so full of inaccuracies, I'm gonna puke
Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:25 PM Edited Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:27 PM
I'm sorry bguirk, not 17 - 1, its 10 - 1 as anobody kindly pointed out, but if you add the two World Wars, it's more like 1000 - 1. I was roughly counting innocent deaths as a whole, and came up with a rough estimate, but it wasn't perfect so here you come running after me. This isn't a numbers game, the bottom line is the democrats have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives, yet they're so quick to point out the couple thousand from the Iraq war. Why don't you idiots look back in time and go try and get those blood stains out, cuz compared to the puddle of iraq blood, it's a tidal wave. Yes lace, 2 wrongs don't make a right, I don't think the Iraq went well, Republicans do have blood on their hands, yet not NEARLY as much as the ones calling them out on it [democrats]. Take out the plank in your eye before you point out the splinter in someone else's. Yeah I just quoted the Bible...
you need to stop being so cocky bguirk, seriously it gets on my nerves with you and your "genius" sports picks. The thing I like about anobody is his humbleness, I totally disagree with the guy on just about everything, but we could probably hang cuz he ain't a stuck up bitch like you,
We've started wars on our own before. Our first war was started by us.
We're talking about the last 100 years.
I still support it, blitzkrieg style as anobody said
It's too late for that, though. "Time has passed"
You're basically saying they're losing their lives for nothing.
That wasn't really what I was saying *but* now that you mention it, I do think that their lives (and more often limbs) are being pissed away for nothing (or, at best, what is now a lost cause).
The same with all of the Iraqi causalities (which outnumber ours by far).
A bunch of young people being sent to die or be gravely injured by a bunch of old white fucks.
They should be offended - not at me but at the situation and the people who have put them there.
They signed up to protect and defend the United States.
I don't think they signed up to fill Halliburton's coffers or to just hang around waiting to get fragged by an IED or a shit bomb or a bleach bomb.
They should be fucking pissed as hell that this country's leadership has violated their trust with them.
At least I think there's an important cause behind it all.
And what exactly is that?
This isn't a numbers game
You were the one who brought numbers into this discussion.
the bottom line is the democrats have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives, yet they're so quick to point out the couple thousand from the Iraq war.
No - the bottom line is that the government (Democrats, Republicans and independents) are
Why don't you idiots look back in time and go try and get those blood stains out, cuz compared to the puddle of iraq blood, it's a tidal wave.
Why are you even talking about this tidal wave of blood? and -
Republicans do have blood on their hands, yet not NEARLY as much as the ones calling them out on it [democrats].
Why are you so obsessed with this Republican / Democrat thing?
Why do you want to blame all of the deaths in WW I and II on people who weren't even born - most of whose parents were - at most - just babies at the time?
What kind of thinking is that?
Do you really consider yourself responsible for murder if your grandpappy killed somebody?
Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM Edited Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM
you need to stop being so cocky bguirk, seriously it gets on my nerves with you and your "genius" sports picks. The thing I like about anobody is his humbleness, I totally disagree with the guy on just about everything, but we could probably hang cuz he ain't a stuck up bitch like you,
Humility is overrated. You are the most intellectually lazy person in the forum since striker stopped posting. Congrats.
This isn't a numbers game, the bottom line is the democrats have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives, yet they're so quick to point out the couple thousand from the Iraq war.
Even if this were close to true, which it's not--does my being a democrat mean I inherit the legacy of all democrats that went before me? Since many of the democrats in office today were barely in diapers during the wars they were allegedly responsible for how do they lose credibility to critique this one? Since you're a republican I guess it's OK for out of work air traffic controllers to kick you in the nuts because your guy busted their union. Do Germans born after 1950 have to keep apologizing to the jews? Let's not forget that there's a ton of republicans who aren't happy about this war either--11 of them went to Bush and told him to shape up. I don't think that dems are right and republicans are wrong on this--I just think you're being fucking stupid trying to prove some idiot point that's of no use anyway.
kangaroos have two penises. i don't know if that counts as being bifurcated because i think they are two separate ones. buuut, the female kangaroo has three vaginas and only two wombs, so they just have an extra one for good luck or something. earwigs have a spare penis. if one falls off, a new one grows in its place.
i've been vying for that crown for almost 4 years now and keep finishing 2nd or 3rd.
—plurry
I'm fairly certain you could grab the title. You just need to start throwing around some junk statistics in your posts. You're almost their buddy! Take a couple of hits before posting and that should help.
Or, just declare yourself as a Republican...That seems to do it around here
—Stryker311
It's a damn good start. Republicans have 9/11 and Iraq on their dance card. It's not a pretty picture these days. I can't wait until President Obama comes and fixes everything.
lol, obama, biggest nerd, he thinks he's hella tight by admitting he smoked weed. That's an obvious and lame attempt to snatch up the maybe half million stoners who actually get out there and vote. Plus, his voice does not match his person at all, it's too distracting.
The Republican candidates suck for 2008, seriously if I was going to vote for a dem for president, 2008 would definitely be the year. And what the fuck is Guiliani doing in the Republican Party? He isn't even Republican! McCain is too much of a weirdo, and he's too freaking old, he's older than Reagan! He has weirdo plans, you can tell. Mitt Romney, lol. You must admit though, that's one handsome candidate. I don't actually hate him, embarrassed as I am to admit it.
On the lefty side, we have Joe Biden, fat chance, Clinton, noooooooooo, Edwards is my favorite of the dems, he has some good ideas and potential, Dennis Kuchinich, omg if this pussy won, I would be tempted to leave the country lol, this guy is a joke, America is just not ready for a guy like obama, and then Bill Richardson, don't know anything about him.
what the fuck is Guiliani doing in the Republican Party? He isn't even Republican!
What? Just because you're a cross-dresser, you can't be a Republican?
Damned bigoted 'Pubs.
McCain is too much of a weirdo, and he's too freaking old, he's older than Reagan!
There was a time when I would have seriously considered voting for him (McCain, not Reagan).... I've since come to my senses.
Joe Biden, fat chance
Probably - but he'd still be better than Hillary.
Clinton, noooooooooo
I so want to like her - and I used to.... but then she started with the video games (lets pretend to freak out about a hidden sex scene in a game where you get points for killing cops and hookers).
Oddly, I think that was around the same time McCain started doing all of the "support Bush" stuff that completely put me off of him.
Edwards is my favorite of the dems, he has some good ideas and potential
Meh. He doesn't do all that much for me.
America is just not ready for a guy like obama
Why not?
Because if you squint when you look at him, he looks like he's black?
Do you really think people care about that? Do you?
To me it just seems like the Republican Mind Machine™ somehow set up a knee-jerk reaction in their dittoheads that makes them spit out "not ready" every time Obama's name is mentioned.
Or is it something about his platform that I'm missing? Did he come out and say he's gonna legalize pot and put a suicide booth on every street corner?
Actually - if he did say either of those, I might be more interested in him.
As it stands, it just doesn't seem like there's much there to me (though it does seem like either he or Hillary is the most likely to win in '08).
I love Kucinich. I wish the rest of America could share my love for him so that I could actually vote for him and it wouldn't be a waste. I talked to him on the phone and he answered all of my questions normally and he had such great things to say. He's too liberal for you bitches.
I love Kucinich. I wish the rest of America could share my love for him so that I could actually vote for him and it wouldn't be a waste. I talked to him on the phone and he answered all of my questions normally and he had such great things to say. He's too liberal for you bitches. —mandeemoo22
I don't know. There's a certain quality to leaders that he doesn't have. I think he would make a great cabinet member, but he doesn't have that kind of "alpha" quality.
And, you know, I hesitate to call it "alpha" because it's not exactly that. It's more like whether or not I'd trust you to go in a room with Vladimir Putin representing the United States. Bill Clinton had it. Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush had it (even though I didn't like either of them). The Dalai Lama has it. Nelson Mandela has it. George Walker Bush pretends to have it, but doesn't. Kucinich doesn't even pretend too.
The sad thing is that if people didn't think that way, then actually voting for who you want wouldn't be a waste. —anobody
Kucinich is more there to bring up things that wouldn't get discussed otherwise and to build momentum for the ultra-liberal pro-life wing of the Democratic party. He's good at doing that and I hope he continues to do it for years to come.
28% of America might not be ready him. Tell me striker are you not ready, or were you just speaking for other Americans besides yourself?...Why don't you just come out and say that he's black? I think hes got a lot going for him though I don't know if it will be enough to win him the presidency or the nomination for that matter.
there's a real American who's not afraid to tell it like it is and do what's right.
I love Kucinich. I wish the rest of America could share my love for him...
—mandeemoo22
Kucinich seems to know what's up, I actually like him. The only thing is he doesn't seem like presidential material. At least not to me. I think he lacks charisma.
Woooooooowwwww, I feel soooo gay rereading that. In my defense it was 2 AM, and I get really loopy late at night, just look at some of my weird arguments with anobody, plurry and grey from Friday night [Saturday morning]. What I meant is, he has a full head of brown hair and refined features, different from the almost seemingly required grey hair and wrinkles. Being too young will probably take votes away from him.
He's a Mormon, lol, what the fuck was I thinking??
I just want a President who keeps their damned religion to themselves (although, much as I love my Mormon friends, if we ever did have a Mormon President, I'd work with all the other world leaders to nuke the former United States into oblivion in a surprise attack just to avoid the coming of the antichrist and armageddon).
This is 100% what is wrong with the political process. It's what gives us "likable" douches like Bush. I'd rather have a woman/man who was awesome at their job and a total zero in the charisma department than what we have now. If Cheeney weren't so flat out wrong I'd rather have someone that dry and horrible in the personality dpt than the most charming mofo on the planet who can't spot a civil war when they see one. Most of the candidates on both sides are flat out horrible. I used to think McCain was competent but now he's sold his soul so he's out. Gore would be acceptable at this point. I joke about "President Obamma" but I don't feel it.
I used to think McCain was competent but now he's sold his soul so he's out
You do realize just because he's saying he supports Bush and shit doesn't mean he really does? And even if he did, who cares? It doesn't make him automatically evil, he's not Bush Jr. He's his own person, I think it's stupid to base your opinion off of that.
You do realize just because he's saying he supports Bush and shit doesn't mean he really does?
Exactly. Ex-act-ly.
It's a cynical B-S move.
If I actually thought he really supported Bush, I'd respect him a whole lot more (but then, I'd also lose respect for him for being a moron and not paying attention).
That's the same damn thing with Hillary - I don't believe for one damned second that she gives half a fuck about a mildly racy hidden scene in a video game where you get to be the criminal. I think she just did it to try to attract a certain group of people who care about bullshit 'family values'.
That is why I've lost so much respect for both of them, and wouldn't vote for either of them.
It's what gives us "likable" douches like Bush
I really hate that.
When he was elected, everybody was saying "he may not be very bright, but he's the kind of guy I'd like to go out and have some drinks with".
Ignoring the whole sobriety thing, that bothers me because - to me - he's the kind of guy who I can't stand to spend any time hanging out with - plus - he's not that bright.
Gore would be acceptable at this point
Gore would be my first choice (although I have heard a few things that make me wonder about him, he still seems better than any of the alternatives to me at this point).
My problem is the fact that you go out and say "I want to be president" means there's something wrong with you in my book a priori. People laugh when they say "oprah should be president." I think she'd be fucking brilliant. I could never watch her show, but the woman can build and run a billion dollar corporation doing the Donahue show which is more than we can say for the president AWOL who was bailed out by daddy his entire life. Right now healthcare is the thing that fucks me up at night--we'll all be paying 1k a month for insurance in less than ten years and you 20 year olds are about to discover how important that is once you put down the bong and go to the doctor and get put on three meds. Give me a governor who fixed it in her own State and take the plan national. Right now that's not on the ticket in either camp. In fact I can't really point to anyone on either side and say "wow they did X," instead we have a bunch of people who "opposed x."
My problem is the fact that you go out and say "I want to be president" means there's something wrong with you in my book a priori
Sad but true.
People laugh when they say "oprah should be president." I think she'd be fucking brilliant.
Although I agree she's good at business, she's so into quackery and anti-science (not to mention ego), that I'd hate to have her as President.
Right now healthcare is the thing that fucks me up at night
Health care really is a bad issue.
Everybody who is against socialized medicine here craps on the system in the UK, and other places, but just about everybody I talk with from places that have it like it (and the ones that don't are usually off-the-deep-end Libertarians who think the government shouldn't do anything).
The things that really piss me off and worry me about it are the whole concept of "preexisting conditions" and continuity of care / insurance.
If you get diagnosed with a condition that's going to require insurance companies to pay out, and you lose your insurance for whatever reason (like getting fired and taking a few months to find a new job), then you're plum fucked when you want to get insurance.
As it is now (just based on my time in the ER), most poor people do get some minimal care (in the ER).
Problem is that somebody who could have been treated for fifty dollars at a primary care facility ends up costing the state a thousand bucks at the ER (just about the definition of penny wise / pound foolish).
Also (and this is great) if you make more than some low minimum amount of income, you're no longer eligible for the Arizona public health care system (ACHSS or some other bullshit acronym they made up to sound like Access).
That means (an this actually happened to my ex-wife) if you have crappy insurance that won't cover certain things, then you're punished for actually trying to work, even if you're just scraping by on student's wages, whereas if you were a lazy bastard who didn't work, you'd get free care.
So we currently have the worst parts of socialized medicine, and the worst parts of privatized medicine.
Although I agree she's good at business, she's so into quackery and anti-science (not to mention ego), that I'd hate to have her as President.
good point. Not Oprah--but I have a feeling that Oprah show Oprah is not Oprah CEO. I can think of a lot of actual people from the business world though. Warren Buffet?
Honestly - I don't know enough about him to be able to say either way.
I do agree (with you and Adam) that it might be better if the President were drafted from the pool of successful CEOs (assuming you get the self-made ones and not the fat bastard leaches who move in and swindle their companies out of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars before escaping with their golden parachute (into another CEO position), just before the company goes under).
successful CEOs (assuming you get the self-made ones and not the fat bastard leaches who move in and swindle their companies out of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars before escaping with their golden parachute (into another CEO position), just before the company goes under).
those don't exist. if they did, the world would be a better place.
I don't believe for one damned second that she gives half a fuck about a mildly racy hidden scene in a video game where you get to be the criminal. I think she just did it to try to attract a certain group of people who care about bullshit 'family values'.
I never thought of that, but that makes sense...
That is why I've lost so much respect for both of them, and wouldn't vote for either of them.
I thought Hilary was your front runner? Behind Gore? And Gore would make a terrible leader, just look at his movie! It wasn't just global warming it was also "feel bad for me I lost the election 8 years ago, but I shouldn't have wah wah wah!"
Hell no (unless you just mean the Democratic front runner, which she may be, but - as I've said before - I'm not a Democrat).
And Gore would make a terrible leader...
I disagree.
"feel bad for me I lost the election 8 years ago, but I shouldn't have wah wah wah!"
I'm just gonna ignore the fact that he won the popular vote and that he may well have won the Electoral College had the counting gone a little differently.
Of course - that he didn't win against Bush by a substantial, especially coming off of Clinton's Presidency, does say something (he should have gotten at least 55% of the popular vote just by coasting, IMO; he actually had to work pretty hard not to have won overwhelmingly).
Back to the movie - it did have a Drakesque segment, but, for the most part, I thought he was good in it (and I thought it did a great job of presenting the science behind global warming).
A triumphant return to Cannes for documentary maker Michael Moore.
More than 2,000 people applauded loudly after the first Cannes screening of "Sicko" -- Moore's attack on the U.S. health care system.
The movie doesn't open until late June, but it's already been attacked by conservative politicians in the U.S. over scenes in which he takes ailing 9/11 rescuers to Cuba for treatment.
One reviewer said it was typical Michael Moore: hilarious, but the reviewer said he was "crying through about a third of it."
The trip to Cuba led the Treasury Department to investigate Moore for possibly breaking the U.S. embargo on the communist country. He could face a fine or jail time.
I didn't like the style, he provided a million statistics he could have made up, and many of which delve into the future with projected stats, which IMO are pointless. Plus what was that whole crap about his childhood? And how they stopped selling tobacco because his grandma died or something? Okay....How does that have anything to do with global warming? Like at all? You can't blame everything on global warming, it seemed like that's what he was trying to do. I still don't believe in it at all [I think it's a trend throughout history, and we just happen to be on the uprise, it will taper off then fall again, and then maybe another ice age in million years, it's all trends...] but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's real. Okay what has it done so far? Melted some big ass mountains a little bit? How do I know the "Before" pictures weren't taken in Winter and the "After" pictures taken in mid summer? Even if it did do that, who cares, it's not affecting anyone yet, and it won't in the next 1000 years anyone. If you talk about the delicate balance being upset or whatever, then that's just dumb. Even if we tried our hardest to affect this earth, we couldn't. We're just inhabitants making minor changes, but nothing drastic to our earth.
We're fine. The earth's fine. There is no "emergency". Stop making movies Al Gore!
