obama the hypocrite

[rwh11385]

I love when people keep asking for the troops to come home. There are going to be US troops in Iraq for decades, even after there is no fighting I'd guess. There are still 90,000 US troops in Europe... and still troops in Asia... so we're not going to stick around ?

[LEANE30]

'A NEW DIRECTION'




Official Democratic Party campaign car designed exactly the way

Obama and Clinton lay out their campaign message





:)

trippy, my mind seriously tweeked for a second when i saw that.

and the next vote (atleast definately the democratic side) is just a vote for the country's next MASCOT

Personally i think Women deserve the ego boost more than the "other" whinier and more hypocritical demographic.

And on the topic that this thread sorta was started on, if Obama gets elected BET should be pulled off the air or they should create WhiteEntertainmentTV and YellowEntertainmentTV, fairs fair.

i'm probably crossing a line here, but i don't really care, i found this gif funny as hell, they did it to themselves

it's R3V, eh, who cares - worse has been said or implied by others before, i'm only stating the truth.

vote for the crusty white dude that will do what can be done to make more money from this shit hole of a situation, vote for the black guy that has no opinion but just one ill conceived rash one and will do whatever the highest bidder wants or vote for the old lady who sucks so bad at keeping her stories straight that she's unintentionally open about how fucking corrupt our "system" really is, but hey, atleast in her case there is a knowledgable husband who knows how to properly outsource what she's sucking at.

[DarkWing6]

The facts can be confirmed at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in
the US Armed Forces from 1980 through 2007:

> 1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
> 1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
> 1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
> 1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
> 1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
> 1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
> 1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
> 1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
> 1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
> 1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
> 1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
> 1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
> 1997 ............. 817 ( Clinton Year)
> 1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
> 1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
> 2000 ..........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
> 2001 .............890(George W Year)
> 2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
> 2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
> 2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
> 2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
> 2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
> 2007............ 899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2008: 8,000 deaths

Am I looking in the wrong spot of that report cause a lot of the numbers are not matching up. I'm not doubting you or saying I disagree with you, I just want to make sure facts are straight, and I cannot find some of those numbers in the report.

[Ral]

I just saw Barack's speech a few minutes ago... sickening. I almost thought it was a joke. "wealth redistribution"... talking about the "21st century economy, where there is no divide between social classes"..."The american economy is strong if everyone is equal", etc. It sounded remarkably like Karl Marx's ideas, rehashed. I know this has all been covered before in this thread, but it still pisses me off. The man is nearly communist, and trying to buy votes with unrealistic promises. He's a more well-spoken version of those hippies in Berkeley who want the Marines out, shown on the Daily Show.

link here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...es-in-berkeley

by this point, I'd rather have Hilary in office than this guy... but I don't think I'll have to worry about either of them.

edit: One last thing. The democrats currently running would completely fuck the economy if they succeeded in doing what they promise. But, since it takes a few years for any negative ramifications to manifest themselves in the real world, they'd be remembered as "great" presidents because they'd be associated with the short-term gains they provided while leaving someone else with the steaming pile of shit they've created.

[uofom3]

I love when people keep asking for the troops to come home. There are going to be US troops in Iraq for decades, even after there is no fighting I'd guess. There are still 90,000 US troops in Europe... and still troops in Asia... so we're not going to stick around ?

We both know it's just a "feel good" message. "BRING THEM HOME!" sounds great, and most people don't think past that.

[uofom3]

I'd rather have Hilary in office than this guy...

I've been saying this for a long time

[DarkWing6]

One last thing. The democrats currently running would completely fuck the economy if they succeeded in doing what they promise. But, since it takes a few years for any negative ramifications to manifest themselves in the real world, they'd be remembered as "great" presidents because they'd be associated with the short-term gains they provided while leaving someone else with the steaming pile of shit they've created.

While I agree with you on this; I would have to ammend the timeline. Since we are in a recession right now, I think their objectives would hit harder and quicker that usual. First off, they wont help anyone, so we wont see any significant short term gains. Pouring all of that money back into the economy with their "plans" and "programs" wont last 4 years (probably a year at best). After that is all gone it wont be able to ride out a full term. If Clinton or Obama makes it into office this country will remember them for the terrible president they will be.

[E30 Wagen]

by this point, I'd rather have Hilary in office than this guy...

so, i'm not alone?!

HILLARY FOR 2008!!!:hitler:

[Ral]

so, i'm not alone?!

HILLARY FOR 2008!!!:hitler:

no, you're still alone... McCain has my vote.

[Turf1600]

I trust hillary far better than obama. However, I like McCain too. It it is hillary vs mccain i may not vote. Like it matters anyways - i live in TX.

[Hallen]

I just saw Barack's speech a few minutes ago... sickening. I almost thought it was a joke. "wealth redistribution"... talking about the "21st century economy, where there is no divide between social classes"..."The american economy is strong if everyone is equal", etc. It sounded remarkably like Karl Marx's ideas, rehashed. I know this has all been covered before in this thread, but it still pisses me off. The man is nearly communist, and trying to buy votes with unrealistic promises. He's a more well-spoken version of those hippies in Berkeley who want the Marines out, shown on the Daily Show.

link here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley

by this point, I'd rather have Hilary in office than this guy... but I don't think I'll have to worry about either of them.

edit: One last thing. The democrats currently running would completely fuck the economy if they succeeded in doing what they promise. But, since it takes a few years for any negative ramifications to manifest themselves in the real world, they'd be remembered as "great" presidents because they'd be associated with the short-term gains they provided while leaving someone else with the steaming pile of shit they've created.

The wealth redistribution stuff and the "we all must all be equal" meaning on equal economic footing and equal pay no matter what it is that you do, is a truly frightening thing. If you want constant substandard results, where mediocrity is the highest achievement, then let's go for it. I just picture every workplace being like the DMV. Hell on earth.

About the comments on the military:

Mandatory duty won't work well. As a military leader, you will spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time disciplining and managing all the people who don't want to be there. Without commitment, you do not have a professional military. If you volunteer, there is always some level of commitment there. Most of the ones with absolutely no fortitude will wash out in basic training. The rest may bitch and moan their whole enlistment period, but they know they willingly raised their hand and said "swore to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies..."

Deaths in the military happen all the time. Training accidents, normal medical fatalities (heat stroke, etc) and yes, those disturbing traffic accidents. When I was at Ft. Campbell, the post commander would give everybody a 4 day pass if we went a month without losing a soldier. We got one 4 day pass the three years I was there. Most were killed out on Hwy 41A, a notoriously dangerous road... mostly because of all the drunk 18 year old soldiers driving it. No wonder the locals hated us.

The funny thing is, when you are at war, the whole military is more focused and everybody takes things more seriously. Training accidents go down and everybody is too busy to spend much time out drinking.

Over the last 20 years or so, the military has made huge strides in safety awareness and accident prevention. Each officer and non-commissioned officer (sergeants) gets hours and hours of training on it and they are all rated on their safety programs. This effort has also lead to a big decline in training and other fatalities. So, those numbers don't exactly surprise me. Obviously, if you count combat deaths, the numbers are completely different.

I also want to apologize for my personal attacks earlier. I got a little riled up. I should have stuck to the facts and to trying to rebut an argument instead of calling people names.

Now it is time to go watch Reaper for a little totally random and unrealistic humor.:o

[Ral]

About the comments on the military:

Mandatory duty won't work well. As a military leader, you will spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time disciplining and managing all the people who don't want to be there. Without commitment, you do not have a professional military. If you volunteer, there is always some level of commitment there. Most of the ones with absolutely no fortitude will wash out in basic training. The rest may bitch and moan their whole enlistment period, but they know they willingly raised their hand and said "swore to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies..."

Deaths in the military happen all the time. Training accidents, normal medical fatalities (heat stroke, etc) and yes, those disturbing traffic accidents. When I was at Ft. Campbell, the post commander would give everybody a 4 day pass if we went a month without losing a soldier. We got one 4 day pass the three years I was there. Most were killed out on Hwy 41A, a notoriously dangerous road... mostly because of all the drunk 18 year old soldiers driving it. No wonder the locals hated us.

The funny thing is, when you are at war, the whole military is more focused and everybody takes things more seriously. Training accidents go down and everybody is too busy to spend much time out drinking.

Over the last 20 years or so, the military has made huge strides in safety awareness and accident prevention. Each officer and non-commissioned officer (sergeants) gets hours and hours of training on it and they are all rated on their safety programs. This effort has also lead to a big decline in training and other fatalities. So, those numbers don't exactly surprise me. Obviously, if you count combat deaths, the numbers are completely different.

very true. In my admittedly limited experience, safety has been a huge push, and is factored into everything done. Everything- can't take a Physical Readiness Test without a corpsman present, anything remotely dangerous that's done as a sanctioned event must have paperwork showing an ORM (Operational Risk Management) analysis, etc. because of this issue. It borders on overbearing in my current environment, but the reasoning behind it is valid. A significant cause of military casualties is young sailors/soldiers/marines/airmen doing dumb things in dangerous environments. The military has enough problems with manpower, training, and resources without that capacity being reduced unnecessarily by traffic accidents, carelessness, etc.

long way from Obama's hypocrisy...

[DarkWing6]

Am I looking in the wrong spot of that report cause a lot of the numbers are not matching up. I'm not doubting you or saying I disagree with you, I just want to make sure facts are straight, and I cannot find some of those numbers in the report.

Still waiting for a response.... See my post on the last page.

[brandondan1]

The thing is, someone is always going to misinterpret your words, especially when dealing with controversial topics, such as race. It's like when Will Smith said that "Hitler thought what he was doing was a good thing." People then began to call Will a Nazi and all sorts of things.

When talking about race, everyone is going to find something to get offended about. It shows a lot of bravery on Obama's part to even think about discussing race relations when there is so much on the line. I think that he was being as sincere as possible, and that he was trying to bring us together, by providing real prospectives of people(which is controversial at times). To even begin to insinuate that he's racist or whatnot is ludicrous to me. He was raised by a white mother for crying out loud.

I think that people are being way too paranoid calling him the next Carl Marx. Why is a little government intervention so bad? All of the times we were without it, people were being exploited horribly (hard to argue with the history books, and hey, how does that saying go? History repeats itself?). Our country is based on giving everyone a fair shot at life, and how is this being done by providing tax cuts to wealthy people? Yes, "they provide jobs, new businesses. this theory is proven by scholars" .. but look at our economy right now. It is doing terribly, and our deficit is increasing monumentally everyday, under a CONSERVATIVE president. I find it funny that we're somehow supposed to gain prosperity by doing the same things. The war on Iraq is costs us billions and ultimately hurting Americans (how unpatriotic).

Anyway, I'm the minority here, so obviously I'm going to get raped.
I'm just saying how I feel.

[rwh11385]

I think that people are being way too paranoid calling him the next Carl Marx. Why is a little government intervention so bad? All of the times we were without it, people were being exploited horribly (hard to argue with the history books, and hey, how does that saying go? History repeats itself?). Our country is based on giving everyone a fair shot at life, and how is this being done by providing tax cuts to wealthy people? Yes, "they provide jobs, new businesses. this theory is proven by scholars" .. but look at our economy right now. It is doing terribly, and our deficit is increasing monumentally everyday, under a CONSERVATIVE president. I find it funny that we're somehow supposed to gain prosperity by doing the same things.

Read more about redistribution and economics and get back to me. (Rawls vs. Nozick)

Do you really think the nation will succeed on the basis of intrinsic desire for success if needs are provided for?

How do you think the economy would be fairing if a democrat was in charge instead of Bush? Government spending programs to help people deal with lost jobs or lower GDP instead of economic stimulus plan... yeah, that would have been great. Stagflation all over again, yay!