shropshire 0 #26 September 28, 2006 Americans kill more Americans than terrorists have... do the Maths. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #28 September 28, 2006 I know and that's why we need to kill off all of the godless people that are going around driving our country into sin. But this cleansing needs to happen all around the world as well as within. When you see a child who is going into a bad crowd and doesn't realize it, do you not want to help him? The world is like a little boy who means the best but doesn't really understand the consequences. We need to show them the way.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #29 September 28, 2006 I'm not knowledgeable enough on all the Presidents and their particulars to say he is the worst ever. I'd say, like any large lumbering organization, the largest single force driving our governments activities is momentum. From that perspective he represents a continuing failure of the US to act as a responsible global citizen, much less a global leader. We've become the same kind of bullying dominant force as every other state that has ever ascended to the throne of most powerful nation. He is strongly disliked by so many because he happens to be the current figurehead at the top of our bureacracy. Not too mention that no one person is going to be able to impart that kind of change in the short term of a presidency. Not that he has the ability to change that momentum. We've had our chance and failed. Our credibility is totally shot, only the blind or masochistic would risk throwing in with us and any attempt we made to create some sort of new world order. We've fucked over too many people to deserve to be trusted. i'm convinced that Ghandi himself coule be reincarnated and become our next president and people would still not trust us. Next person to get the job, . . . GOOD LUCK. Makes me wonder why anybody would want the job. Of course it also gives rise to the perception that most intelligent people know this, and that the only reason someone would take the job is to play the same old game of politics for personal benefit. I think the more interesting question is Who's Next? What country will be next at getting a chance to be world leader without becoming world bully? Is such a thing even possible? Many would say the inherent flaw of capitalism is that there is no incentive to be that way." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #30 September 28, 2006 I thought we just hated brown people. I was trying to figure our why we're not attacking the Australian outback with those boomarang weilding maniacs with their digeridoos."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 September 28, 2006 QuoteGads....the Republicans..... war on Communism, War on drugs, war on Terrorism..... When is the war on the Republicans going to begin? Holy fuck man.. if you listen to the right wing religious types it has been going on for years and years... they are SOOOO persecuted.....you only need listen to them.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #32 September 28, 2006 QuoteI know and that's why we need to kill off all of the godless people that are going around driving our country into sin. But this cleansing needs to happen all around the world as well as within. That sounds much like the preaching of the radical islamist. I fear the thoughts of anyone who endorse cleansing the planet of those unlike themselves."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #33 September 28, 2006 Yes, Maths From mathamatics (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #34 September 28, 2006 You are either a very scary man or truely gifted in the ways of wit - I so love your posts. Regards, (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #35 September 28, 2006 QuoteWhere does this place lie politically? Do you think that Dubya is the worst president ever or do you think he's been sent here by god to save the world from evil-doers? "Worst president ever" might be an overstatement. I think "greatest threat to world peace" may be more accurate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 September 28, 2006 QuoteAmericans kill more Americans than terrorists have... do the Maths. In rape trials this is called blaming the victim. Bad policy or not, the other side is killing the soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 September 28, 2006 Quote - Nixon for all his faults: -- Got us out of VN. -- Normalized relations with China. -- Had the last truly balanced budget. I'd take Nixon over Dubya any day of the week. Nixon's Vietnamization had more US casualties than LBJ's version of the war. Balanced budget? What year might you be speaking about? I recall that Carter got us as close to balanced as we had seen, but paid politically for it among his other faults. And as for Lucky's 'He did other stuff too, stuff that relates to helping people. He had a bad rap, but was a crook. " He got a bad rap, but was a crook? I'm speechless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #38 September 28, 2006 QuoteQuote - Nixon for all his faults: -- Got us out of VN. -- Normalized relations with China. -- Had the last truly balanced budget. I'd take Nixon over Dubya any day of the week. Nixon's Vietnamization had more US casualties than LBJ's version of the war. YEAR CASUALTIES 1964 206 1965 1,863 1966 6,143 1967 11,153 1968 16,592 ----------- LBJ total 35,957 YEAR CASUALTIES 1969 11,616 1970 6,081 1971 2,357 1972 641 1973 168 1974 178 ----------- NIXON total 21,041 Note that casualties were climbing under LBJ, and declining under Nixon. Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#year Quote Balanced budget? What year might you be speaking about? I recall that Carter got us as close to balanced as we had seen, but paid politically for it among his other faults. 1969 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/op011398.htm Alan Sloan is also the financial writer for NewsWeek."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #39 September 28, 2006 QuoteMaths? Abbreviation for the PLURAL noun "mathematics"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #40 September 28, 2006 worst? hell no best? hell no I'd put him below the average of other presidents though. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #41 September 28, 2006 >Note that casualties were climbing under LBJ, and declining under Nixon. Right - but that has more to do with the fact that LBJ was adding troops and Nixon was removing them. Interesting fact - in 1968, the year that Nixon started pulling troops out, there was a public-relations blitz in which the administration and the military attempted to claim that the US was winning in Vietnam. Then in 1969 we started pulling troops out. Now that I think about it, here are some more interesting vietnam facts: 1964 - the US claims an attack on US vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese forces; due to these claims, Congress authorizes funding for war. These claims later turn out to be largely untrue. 1968 - during the Tet Offensive, Viet Cong troops retake a few cities, to everyone's suprise. They are beaten back. The administration announces "we're winning the war." 1968 - the My Lai massacre occurs; US troops slaughter a village of several hundred elderly men, women and children. 1969 - Nixon announces "Vietnamization," a plan that basically states "as the Vietnamese stand up we will stand down." 1970 - US launches invasion of Cambodia. Massive protests ensue; four protesters are shot and killed by US troops in Ohio. The Cooper-Church amendment is passed, which attempted to limit presidential powers to prevent such an event in the future. 1974 - Congress passes law to cut off funding for South Vietnam military activities. Ford vetoes the bill. Congress overrides him. 1975 - the last US military action in Vietnam. 1995 - US establishes diplomatic relations with the new Vietnam. Hmm. So we're basically at the 1969 stage now, and are now eyeing Cambodia Iran. Who says you can't learn from history? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #42 September 28, 2006 Why don't you compare the amount of troops killed as well? We are nowhere near 1969 according to your comparison"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #43 September 28, 2006 QuoteDo you think that Dubya is the worst president ever or do you think he's been sent here by god to save the world from evil-doers? I've read a bit of what people have to say in this thread and it occurs to me the true test of whether or not a President has done well in office is probably not best judged by the absolute number of how many people under his charge have died in battle, but rather how well he has upheld the oath of office. Article 2, Section 1 Quote "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." By that criteria, and in my opinion, President Bush is perhaps the worst of all time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #44 September 28, 2006 >Why don't you compare the amount of troops killed as well? We're seeing way fewer troops killed; that's partly due to the much smaller forces we are using, and partly due to the incredible advances in medical care we have achieved since Vietnam. There are people coming back from Iraq missing chunks of their heads. It's sad that they have to live with that, but unlike a Vietnam soldier who had such a thing happen - at least they are living with it. Let's look at US casualties by year in Iraq: 2003 2408 2004 7997 2005 5946 2006 3949 (so far) 5500 if current levels continue That's almost 20,000 casualties so far. How many would have died 40 years ago? 10%? 20%? I don't know. Per the list above, there were 36,000 casualties by the beginning of 1969 (I assume he really meant deaths.) Let's compare by troop levels. In 1969 we had 550,000 soldiers in Vietnam, and 36,000 deaths. That's about a 6.4% fatality rate. In the Iraq war we're at about a 2.1% rate, or about one-third of Vietnam. If you assume that 20% more troops are surviving what would have been fatal injuries in 1969, then that's more like a 5% fatal-injury rate. So we are seeing far fewer deaths total but about the same level of violence directed at US troops. (Assuming that 20% of our injured troops would have died with circa-1960 medical care.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #45 September 28, 2006 QuoteYes, Maths From mathamatics But not spelling, obviouslyDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #46 September 28, 2006 Quoteads....the Republicans..... war on Communism, War on drugs, war on Terrorism..... When is the war on the Republicans going to begin? It damn sure won't come from the Democrats. They will want to pull out before they ever get started. Maybe that's why there are fewer babies being born to Democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #47 September 28, 2006 QuoteMaybe that's why there are fewer babies being born to Democrats. OR . . . more Democrats understand and use birth control.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #48 September 28, 2006 >Maybe that's why there are fewer babies being born to Democrats. Could be that. Or could be that they actually understand how birth control works, and aren't the victims of parents who believe that "if we don't tell them about sex they'll never have it." Edited to add - Dang, Quade beat me to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 September 28, 2006 Quote Note that casualties were climbing under LBJ, and declining under Nixon. Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#year hmm...I thought I had done the math to show a larger sum, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers in your link. 21,000 is still not a great withdrawl. I see Bill is trying to make those Vietnam parrallels again. He found a new angle with casualties. QuoteQuote Balanced budget? What year might you be speaking about? I recall that Carter got us as close to balanced as we had seen, but paid politically for it among his other faults. 1969 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/op011398.htm Alan Sloan is also the financial writer for NewsWeek. You can't give Nixon much credit for 1969 - that budget process was driven by the prior administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #50 September 29, 2006 QuoteWhy don't you compare the amount of troops killed as well? We are nowhere near 1969 according to your comparison Bush is working on it, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
