Re: Defending Bush beyond reality

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:52:30 GMT, Greek Shipping Magnets <an.ass.is@xxx> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:27:40 -0500, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>If a kid can learn something about people who are different from him/her then
>>there is a better chance of tolerance .
>
>Well up here in liberal NE, there are basically no practicing x-tians
>in many school locales. And x-tianity is openly poo-pooed in such
>circles. Maybe the kids need to learn some tolerance?
>
Could you please clarify this?


>>There is nothing to prevent a teacher from teaching (not preaching) what the beliefs and rituals
>>of various religions are.
>
>Then please explain why I never got taught any of that?

That's what you get for playing so much hooky. :-)


>
>>Yes, 51% is "everyone" - who's clueless?
>
>It's all you need for a controlling interest.
>

But that's clearly not everyone and when you burn the bridge on 48% of
Americans you are burning some pretty major bridges.

>Face it natch... the only reason why a dem got into office back in the
>90s was cause Perot stole so many votes that would have otherwise been
>cast as Conservative.
>

A U.S. president wins an election with electorial votes. Perot got none of them.

>You got a gimmie handed to you with the war in Iraq too. Every lefty
>wanker was seriously pissed at that. And all you could muster up was
>49%!
>
>Good luck in '08, when all of Bush's sins are a faded memory...

Since it can't be George, Jr. it remains to be seen who the GOP candidate will
be and if the GOP does some house cleaning it may be moot as far as I'm
concerned.
>
>>What figures would you like to discuss?
>
>Gallup's numbers showed ample support for the war in Iraq.
>

There are many different polls Please cite what you are referring to.



>>300 million drivers/riders
>
>I wasn't aware we have handed out more licenses than there are driving
>age Americans! Must be all those illegals eh?

One does not have to drive in order to be killed in an auto accident.

>
>> versus 150,000 US troops. The ratio is 2,000:1
>>So the adjusted death rate would be 2000 * 2000 = 4 million, or 2 million a
>>year, just a tad above the 32,000 (calc from your 3/4 month figure) automobile
>>deaths per year.
>
>Motorcyclists are 20X more likely to die therefore if everyone rode a
>bike it'd be more like 760,000 fatalities annually.
>

Hey, you were the one who brought up the comparison between highway deaths and
US solider casualties in Iraq - not me.
But now if you would like to re-examine it in terms of motorcycles, the current
statistics are in the vicinity of 4 to 6X more likely to get killed on an MC
than a car, not 20x. So even going with 6X that would be 6x32,000 annual
highway deaths = 192,000 deaths. That's still a factor of 2,000,000 war zone
dead versus 192,000 motorcycle deaths.


>Now let's adjust the figures to reflect reality. The ratio is closer
>to 750:1. Therefore there would be 750,000 fatalities in Iraq.
>
Reality? Ha. As I pointed out above your 20X factor for motorcycles is way to
high.


>Give or take a few thousand, it can go either way. A US solider is
>exposed to about as much danger as a US motorcyclist!
>
In your dreams... see above.


>>Wrong answer. Clinton did not try to paralyze the nation with fear during his
>>re-election campaign.
>
>hahahhaa! RE-election. But what about the first?
>
>Clinton didn't have to deal with the prospect of terrorism. Or more
>precisely, he didn't WANT to deal with it.
>

That;s backwards. The Bush Administration didn't want to deal with any of the
terrorist information that was made available to them by the outgoing Clinton
administration.


>>Wrong. Mind you, I'm not trying to defend Clinton but when he lied no one died.
>
>Oh don't make me puke with that silly sloganeering BS.
>
The real puke part is how the GOP, having come up empty handed after wasting 60
million dollars investigating the Clintons took it really personal and snagged
him on his affair.

>>He brought some disgrace to himself and that was it.
>
>Understatement alert!
>
>>On the other hand Bush has brought disgrace to the entire country with this needless war
>
>Sez you.
>
Sez the world.

>Politics is funny like that. Two different people, two different
>viewpoints.
>
>The more incredible part is how all of this is forgotten in due time.
>9-11 is a faded memory. As is Clinton's perjury. And soon, Bush's Iraq
>folly.
>

I beg to differ. I believe that they will all be remembered for years to come
but only Clinton's "infamy" will bring chuckles.

>>Oh Please, when it comes to stupid stuff the current administration takes first
>>prize.
>
>I wasn't aware we were handing out gold stars for stupidity. Must be a
>liberal fascination!

No, it's a Bush thing. Gold stars for the families of those who've died
serving under him for his, as you referred to it, " Iraq folly."


>
>>Don't let the facts ever get in the way of your argument. The fact is that at
>>the time of the vote it was still believed that Saddam might have a hidden WMD
>>arsenal. Several months later, at the time Bush decided to invade, it was
>>pretty clear there were no WMDs.
>
>Ok if you say so. But then why did so many liberal democarps vote yes
>to Iraq? Where are your brave warrriors of the people's interest?
>
What date was that vote on?


>>Nice try, but let me help you out a bit here.
>>
>>http://www.aw
>
>Yawn.
>
>Gore the whore and Kerry, like Bush Jr. both got cushy assignments
>thanks to daddy. The only service Clinton ever did was to his *** and
>that's about it.
>
What are you talking about? Kerry went to Vietnam and saw live combat..
But look down the rest of the list. It's about a 4:1 ratio of democrats to
republicans who served in the military.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html


>Now let's talk up and coming. McCain looks good for '08. The Dems got
>any POW war vets on their side?
>
Like I've said before. I'm not affiliated with the Dems. If McCain is the best
guy I will vote for him. As politicians go, McCain is someone I have great
respect for. My issue is what is happening right now, the Iraq war.


>>The Iraqi war was not necessary.
>
>Sez you.
>
>Hundreds of Congresscritters of all political persuasions disagreed.
>Including your own home state Hillary.
>
>Why did she and Schumer both vote yes to Iraq? It wouldn't be because
>they didn't want to piss off their NY based pro-Israel constituents
>now would it?!?
>
It was because at the time of the vote there was concern that Iraq was harboring
weapons of mass destruction.

>Talk about lecherous! I mean you dems claim to be pacifist and all
>that *** but apparently your representatives have no qualms sending
>boys off to die because it looks good for the cameras.
>

I am not a Democrat but I think you are confusing the Dems' shining hour of
supporting Bush when there was concern for our country's safety
with the way that Bush utterly abused this trust in the months to come.

>>Oh come on! Like we didn't know that Russia was helping North Vietnam before
>>we stepped into that one?
>
>Sure we did. And we entered anyways cause we *had* to. Did you miss
>the part where I said "boutique conflict"?

You said "it became" and I am saying it was disastrous from the start. After
all, the French were in that predicament first.

>
>>And kill everyone? I thought the goal was a democratic government.
>
>Those are just silly lies we spout in support of our agenda. Like when
>the pro-gay lobby says they want equality. When what they really want
>is protected species status that makes messing with them a more
>serious offense than say, messing with a single mother of three.

Every special interest group wants to do what's best for their constituents but
I think that giving gays some extra protection is a lot less harmful than
invading another country on false pretenses.

>
>Or when HCI says all they want right now is reasonable gun control
>when other literature they hand out clearly states their goal of
>eventually banning all handguns one law at a time.
>

Who is HCL? What is their web site?


>Intelligent people can see through this thinly veiled BS and more and
>more of them are voting against your interests. This is why you'll be
>a 49% loser for quite some time until you learn otherwise.

Ha. They are seeing through the deception that got us into this war. They are
seeing the damage loyalty to party rather than principles is causing.

Ben
.