DanG

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DanG

  1. DanG
    Actually, it was obvious that your point was the UN blamed Bush, et al. for killing civilians in Iraq, and blames the Taliban for killing civilians in Afghanistan. Of course, the first part of your claim was pure fiction. The UN never directly blamed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for killing civilians, but it made a nice partisan talking point for you. It has always been clear in both wars that the majority of civilian deaths has been due to local actors. Your attempt to make some anti-UN, anti-Obama partisan dig was complete nonsense. - Dan G
  2. DanG
    What, exactly, is your level of experience on the subject? And a related question, when did they change the name of SERE school? - Dan G
  3. DanG
    You are completely full of shit on this. Obama escalated the intelligence focus on bin Laden significantly. He also shifted the focus to Afghanistan, where it should have been all along. These are simple facts. Just because they don't support your worldview, you can't pretend they aren't true. - Dan G
  4. DanG
    Are you aware that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same place? - Dan G
  5. DanG

    Obama Care

    DanG replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner

    Citation needed. - Dan G
  6. DanG

    CABLE NEWS RACE

    DanG replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner

    No, probably not. Nancy Grade is still an idiot. - Dan G
  7. DanG

    CABLE NEWS RACE

    DanG replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner

    I'd be willing to bet that most of the Fox watchers are the same people, counted five times. BTW, Nancy Grace is a shrill idiot. - Dan G
  8. DanG
    You forgot: Scenario #5: No one can agree on any cuts, so Congress amends the current deal so that the trigger is either pushed farther into the future, or taken out entirely. I vote for #5. - Dan G
  9. DanG
    You do realize that you, too, are on dz.com, right? - Dan G
  10. DanG
    Actually, if we cut $250 billion from defense spending, that money is not going to go back to the citizens it was taken from, it just won't get borrowed. If you cut $250 billion and then institute $250 billion in tax cuts, you haven't changed the deficit. What slashing the military budget is actually doing is taking $250 billion out of the pockets of currently living citizens, and giving in back (with interest) to their kids and grandkids, who would have had to pay for it later. To believe $250 billion in defense cuts will have a positive short term impact on the economy is 100% wrong. It will negatively affect the short term economy in order to avoid even worse pain in the long term. Not that it's not a good idea, but you need to understand what will happen in the short term if we slash the budget, any budget. We are either going to eat an economic shit sandwich now, or have future generations eat a whole shit Happy Meal. - Dan G
  11. DanG
    I remember that school, it was the one on top of the hill that was uphill both ways. Yeah, the one that always had snow and ice all over it, and the kids wore cardboard shoes. - Dan G
  12. DanG
    I thought it was strange that you forgot how to spell ridiculous. - Dan G
  13. DanG
    The fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. - Dan G
  14. DanG
    That there's your problem. Start doing that and millions of people will love you unquestioningly. - Dan G
  15. DanG
    I was being generous. What little credibility rushmc had is officially gone and dead. - Dan G
  16. DanG
    Of course, because what kind of people attended Hitler Youth camps? Certainly not Hitler Youth. Duh. - Dan G
  17. DanG
    Dude, seriously. Just admit you were wrong. Are you really willing to destroy all your credibility over something this stupid? - Dan G
  18. DanG
    Actually, the poll you cited is of adults, not likely voters. As you've stated before, polls like that have no meaning. - Dan G
  19. DanG
    This is what I've come to expect from you. Never putting your neck out and saying something, just vague insults and one liners. Why do you bother? Here's my post that you responded to: It may not be "War and Peace", but are you really claiming that is not substantive? You, yourself state that I drew conclusions. That implies a substantive content. If you don't care to respond to the substance, why respond at all? Is it just to get some digs in and score point for your "team"? Sure seems like it. - Dan G
  20. DanG
    The post you originally replied to was substantive. Maybe you're not familiar with the meaning of the word? - Dan G
  21. DanG
    As usual, no substance from you. Do you believe, as the OP suggests, that minorities and young people should not be entrusted with the vote? - Dan G
  22. DanG
    The OP, apparently. - Dan G
  23. DanG
    No, they didn't target black voters because they knew 96% would vote for Obama. If that were the case, they would have targeted them at the same level in 2004. They targeted black voters in 2008 because they knew that they were more likely to actually go to the polls. The ones that went to the polls in 2004 voted Democratic at the same level as in 2008. Last time I checked, Al Gore was about as white as they come. More blacks went to the polls in 2008. You can call that racism if you want. I would say that black voters finally had a candidate they cared about, and thought would make a difference in their lives. We'll see if as many black voters show up in 2012. The percentage votes for Obama will probably still be about 96%. It's the sheer numbers that will make a difference. - Dan G
  24. DanG
    I don't dispute whatsoever the fact that the Democrats tried hard to get blacks out to vote. That's just good politics. Are you implying that the Republicans don't try to get likely Republican voters out to vote? As I pointed out before, and you chose to ignore, blacks are very consistent Democratic voters. You're clinging to the idea that they voted for Obama because he was black. The facts seem to support the idea that they voted at all because there was a black candidate in the race. It will be interesting to see if Herman Cain gets the Republican nomination, if 96% of black voters vote for him. I find that highly unlikely. - Dan G
  25. DanG
    Actually 96% of black voters voted for Obama. Considering 95% of black voters voted for Gore in 2004, I think you'll have a hard time proving the overriding reason they voted for Obama was because he was black. You'll do better arguing that more black voters went to the polls because they finally had a candidate they could relate to. Of course, the OP has already implied that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. How do you feel about that proposal? - Dan G