2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[memebag]

Here's something worth reading.

That's from the same fella who said the US provoked the Georgia crisis. That's the best source you've got?

There are dozens more of examples if you just try looking. Even if Saddam physically didn't have WMD's, do you really think he would not go so far as to have someone else supply them if he provided a trained carrier?

It doesn't matter what I think he might have done. He didn't start the war. We did. That's not the US I grew up with, and it's not the US I want.

Face it, we're never leaving Iraq. Not until we've neutralized the terroristic threat to the Middle East.

You can never "neutralize" the "terroristic threat" to anything. Terrorism is a fact of life, and will be with us as long as one person sees violence as the only way to effect change. Keeping troops in Iraq won't make us any safer from that.

[barracuda]

McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

[musicman]

You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

so when the current tax breaks aren't extended capital gains taxes will go up for big businesses and anyone investing in these businesses, including retirees.

[memebag]

Has anyone else seen this? On the Eagle Forum Alaska Blog, they gave the gubernatorial candidates a questionnaire. One of the questions was:

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Ms. Palin's response:

Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I can't stop laughing.

[TJones]

Given your disgust with both McCain and Palin, one must really question why you are the most ardent supporter of the GOP then, TJ. Look through this thread. NO ONE fights harder and throws more mud than you do. It boggles the mind. I've been where you are. In 2004, I trashed Bush, but I was no fan of Kerry. But, your attack dog stance on this thread belies your stated animosity toward McCain and Palin.

I have no real "disgust" with McCain, except for the fact that he DOES NOT truly represent me as a Republican. If I have to choose between an olddog of the faded Republican guard, that may still hold onto some Bush policies OR some no talent, no experience(143 days in Washington), wanna-be celebutant Socialist who's never had a real job a day in his life ? I will go with the olddog.

Palin, 3 words, WORST PICK EVER !

Absolutely no thought went into this pick, it is as if McCain's camp scrambled and the conversation probably went like this last Sunday night, "Ok, Obama didn't pick Hillary, who is a woman with the highest political office that is younger than Obama to show America that we have a pulse on the younger generation and we can swipe all the Hillary votes ? Who, Palin, oh.....that chick with the Librarian hairdo, get her on the horn !!! ", "Ummm, didn't she say a few weeks ago that she had NO CLUE what a VP does ?", " Yeah, we'll play that off, we'll say she was joking, besides, nobody has youtubed that clip yet, we'll probably be alright.", "My God... this is gonna be beautiful !!!"

[TJones]

You are talking about empty jobs and projects that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.

Since you are thinking of doing business. That's would be like you hiring a bunch of ppl to do a job like staring at the desk, or basically anything tasks that doesn't bring productivity to your business. Would you be so nice as to give away your money like that unless its to provide some sort of welfare for his or her family?

Psssstt.......webdude.........Umm, the people building the Mine Sweeping Troop Transports in Sealy. You know, the same warmongering ones I dare you to go tell how disgusting they are to you, to their faces. They are all Civilians like you and me. They are your next door neighbors, they buy groceries with you at HEB, they fill up at the same gas stations you do. Some of them probably even wear the same brand "Hemp clothes" you do. These people are productive members of society, they aren't sitting on their front porches waiting for a check to come, they are earning their keep in this country to build a quality product to help protect all the men and women who volunteered to protect you and me from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These people are building an actual product on an assembly line, they aren't "staring at desks." There is no "welfare" going on there, but I would like you to add the whole part about how "they are on welfare" to your little speech to those workers if you could. Thanks Chief !

[BryanS]

In watching CNN, MSNBC, etc... when Republican strategists are asked:

"Is Palin the best, most qualified VP pick?"

Republican Answer: "She is the best pick for John McCain."

That was not the question. That is not an answer.

Is she, out of the hundreds of Republicans out there that could be VP (e.g. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, airhead Kay Bailey, etc.)... is she the best pick? That is a yes or no question.

Compared to others out there... the answer is no. And people know it.

And this dangerously unqualified person... could be President of the United States in as little as six months. Think about that.

Here she was, back in her sports news caster days (from Americablog):

President of the United States? God help us all.

...and then the typical Republican tort: "Obama doesn't have experience either." ... Again, not the question, not the issue. You have a person, that is an embarrassment on your ticket, that has a thin candy skull filled with right-wing, knee-jerk talking points, and is a hypocrite on top of that. Regardless of her PTA activism, is this person the best you could come up with? Yes or no?

[webdude]

Sporting rifles, clothing, tactical gear for law enforcement, etc etc are all funded via our tax dollars. The difference, again, is that when the government gives these people (in the forms of corporate redistribution via employment compensation) money, they're encouraging economic growth through private sector sales.

Tell me again how giving people on welfare their checks helps to create any new economic development? Them spending their check on good and services doesn't count as they are simple replacing the same taxed amount of money back into the economy, where the war contract companies create new revenue streams by using the money the government gives them to create ways for more money to be injected into the economy through private sales of the same goods they've been paid to create for the war effort.

They then take that money that the private sector spends on their excess goods and create more good, which means buying more supply from more distributers, and hiring more people to build said good. It means that the retailers who sale their goods will make more money and do the same - hire more people.

So tell me again how giving someone a welfare a check is going to cause more money to be spent that what has been given to them, as well as create more jobs? Furthermore, where do you propose the thousands if not millions of people who are somehow involved in the war effort, would work if there was no war? You watch.. if Obama ends this war, unemployment will go up, and tax cuts will go down.

Psssstt.......webdude.........Umm, the people building the Mine Sweeping Troop Transports in Sealy. You know, the same warmongering ones I dare you to go tell how disgusting they are to you, to their faces. They are all Civilians like you and me. They are your next door neighbors, they buy groceries with you at HEB, they fill up at the same gas stations you do. Some of them probably even wear the same brand "Hemp clothes" you do. These people are productive members of society, they aren't sitting on their front porches waiting for a check to come, they are earning their keep in this country to build a quality product to help protect all the men and women who volunteered to protect you and me from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These people are building an actual product on an assembly line, they aren't "staring at desks." There is no "welfare" going on there, but I would like you to add the whole part about how "they are on welfare" to your little speech to those workers if you could. Thanks Chief !

Jeebus and also Ummm, mr not getting it,

First, don't try and lie again saying that their job is for protecting me from my enemies, that's what they sign up to do, but definitely not deployed to do.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

And how sick is this. To continue the war so folks have jobs. Especially the bolded words of Jeebus.

Both of you know which other government in history professes the same love you have for military keynesianism?

[RedScare]

McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

If the top tax rate on income is critical to whether you and your wife start a business, you really do not belong in business. I have spent 15 years in self-employment. During that time, I have started and run at least 6 different businesses, including solo law firms, partnerships, two restaurant/bars and a boat/jetski rental business. Never have I looked to the top tax rates when deciding whether to open these businesses. NEVER. Not once. Ever. I was FAR too worried about startup capital, business plans, costs of business, marketing, and all of the other issues involved in starting and running a business to be concerned with the tax rate involved IF my business became SO successful that I am in the top tax bracket. Anyone that claims that as a reason not to go into business has no interest in self-employment. Period. That includes Niche, who used this lame excuse previously. Those of us that have done it just flat don't think about it.

I also must wonder about the fortitude required to start a business from someone who would quit because the top tax rate increased to 39.6%. Throughout the 20th Century, America's greatest economic century, the top tax rates were 70% to 90%. Entreprenuers did not let that stop them, and economic studies show that tax rates did not inhibit the economy, despite the myth propagated by Republicans. Even during Reagan's presidency, the top rate was 50%. For you to quit before you start, simply because Obama would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, returning the top rate to 20% LESS than Reagan's, suggest that you do not have the mental toughness needed to succeed at self-employment. Take it from one who has been there. Don't do it. It is only for the tough.

It might interest you to know why I am no longer self-employed. It had nothing to do with the top tax rate, which under Bush is now only 33%. In fact, it was some of Bush/McCain's OTHER policies that drove me out. The cost of health insurance quadrupled in just 5 years, not only for me, but for the employees I was trying to insure. Obama's plans for universal health care would actually HELP entreprenuers, by reducing their insurance costs. The cost of insurance and the need for a secure retirement plan put me OUT of the self-employment business, not in it. These are issues that Democratic policies help small businesses on, and Republicans frankly, cost small business on. Why people think otherwise is beyond me.

[Jeebus]

You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

Thanks for posting that.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

I'll address your "artificial demand" comment, in that there is no such thing. The demand for the same products the war department is paying these contractors to make is real in the private sector - whether we are at war or not.

And welfare is SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. Paying contractors to provide a service is not welfare. It might be pork barrel waste, but its not welfare.

This goes back to my original statement of how I'd rather spend billions of tax dollars on defense and/or a volunteer war, than one tenth same amount on welfare checks for people to sit on their porches. Of course, if I could have things my way, I would have to pay for neither, and get to keep the money.

[TheNiche]

You didn't tell me anything. Again, I said I'd like to see you TELL a military family your thoughts. Typing from the comfort of your own home and hiding behind a keyboard hardly qualifies as "telling."

Why don't you own your thoughts and tell us your name or where you work?

Because that would get me fired tomorrow. It would be unpleasant.

FWIW, I work with people both that have your point of view and that are also ex-military. The ex-military ones are staunch McCain supporters. We give the guy that thinks like you a hard time.

And you'd take a neocon war exactly the same way the neocons do; by avoiding service and sending other people to do the dirty work.

I was in ROTC back in high school. Looking back, I actually regret that I didn't remain in the program when I started college and go into the armed services as an officer, even for a brief stint. So I'll conceed you this point, if only on a personal level.

It doesn't take much to "support" a war if all you are doing is placing a car magnet (likely made in China) on your bumper.

No, I don't believe in bumper stickers. I want the guy riding my ass to be paying attention to my ass' spatial dynamics, not to what I think about politics or anything else.

But moreover, I'd reiterate that I'd be willing to tolerate neocon wars is not the same as supporting them.

Never gonna happen. This weak character is a bonafide internet coward who will easily fold in you and your military family's presence.

I really don't think that it necessarily matters that the purveyor of an idea have an identity. The idea stands on its own. If you have to resort to attacking the person, rather than the idea, it would seem to indicate that your competing idea is too weak to stand on its own. Perhaps it requires revision.

**Oh, and what's this, I see? You edited your post three minutes after the original post! Clearly you made some embarrasing error in judgement that needs to be pointed out to everyone, not that I actually saw it. I just don't like you (j/k) and therefore it must be so!

To explain this would require that you exhibit empathy and respect for women.

Just because their mother was inpregnated by her father does not mean they don't have the right to live.

Don't you have concern for the health of the child or that child's offspring? Inbreeding has some nasty outcomes.

McCain would shift more of the tax burden to the middle class in favor of greater tax relief for the wealthiest Americans. Isn't that redistribution of wealth?

Tax brackets are already set up on a progressive structures, so it would seem that McCain favors backing off from that, towards flatter structure. I haven't noticed him advocating that we tax the poor at an equal rate yet, so I'm not perfectly happy, but with Obama wanting to move to a more progressive structure but also implement and expand expensive social programs that have the effect of reallocating society's resources on the basis of class, an imperfect McCain is clearly preferable to dismal policy proposals by Obama.

I don't see how you can assume that people who make less money are thereby less productive. Do you really think some CEO skimming millions off the top of a company is more productive than some line working putting in 60 hours a week?

There is a very clear and intuitive correlation between gross wages and productivity. It certainly isn't a perfect correlation, certainly, however for public policy purposes it may as well be. The truth of the matter is that a CEO of a large company didn't rise to the level of responsibility that he or she has on the basis of dumb luck or technical skill. They're there because a board of directors appointed by the shareholders deemed an individual to be the most qualified person to handle a major operation. That person's wage is bid up because there are other qualified persons but also other companies seeking said qualified persons; those firms would not pay such high wages if they did not believe it to be a sound investment that pays off. Qualifications take effort, ambition, and sacrifice to acheive, whereas being a line worker doesn't necessarily require almost any skill set at all. Productivity is a function of the value of output divided by the total time worked...this is not TheNiche talking, this is the definition of productivity as it applies to both micro and macroeconomics. A bad CEO can kill a company entirely, resulting in the loss of thousands or tens of thousands of jobs. A bad line worker is in and of themselves incapable of destroying such a company.

As for the guy in your example that is skimming money from his company, he's stealing from someone (doing on his own what Obama wants to do under government mandate), is a criminal, and needs to be brought swiftly to justice.

Your argument is easy to spin -- McCain favors those with extravagant incomes, with the freedom to bask in leisure time, over those productive members of society who are struggling to support a family. It is McCain's plan that would punish the most productive in our society -- the middle class folks who are the core of our economy. If millions of families can't afford to buy medicine or pay for education, our future doesn't sound too promising. Talk about unethical or disrespectful.

Besides, how many people are making over $250k? Those who support Republican tax cuts likely don't realize they are probably better off under Obama's plan. I can't understand why middle-class people are often so inclined to support Republican policies that HURT them rather than help them.

http://alchemytoday.com/category/politifacts/

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

To the extent that paid days of absence are a part of an employee's compensation package, that is accounted for in calculating income taxes. I do not suggest that leisure time be incentivized or deincentivized, one way or the other. Let that be negotiated between employer and employee. Let the individuals have their rights. Employees that work out something with their employer to have flexible hours, to work especially long hours some days or not others, to work only four days per week, or perhaps six days per week, or nine months per year...whatever can be mutually agreed to...give individuals more freedoms to structure their work life. This was a thorn in my side when I was working very odd hours in college but ran into labor laws that variously prevented me from working more than 30 hours per week without being considered full time or prevented me from working overtime without making time-and-a-half. I could've used the extra income and gotten more experience, but my employer would not have authorized it because of how much more expensive I was beyond a certain threshold.

I would point out that "core of our economy" is a hollow phrase; it is rhetoric. It has no meaning. CEOs are important, staff accountants are important, line workers are important, and janitors are important. We need all of them and many other occupations; there truthfully aren't many occupations that could be easily sacrificed altogether. Rich, poor, middle-class, they're all cogs in a wheel. Actions taken for or against any one hurt all the others. That doesn't mean that they have equal worth--why would anyone study accounting if they could get a job that pays just the same in some other less demanding occupation? Compensation is the carrot on the stick that gets people to do unpleasant things...like being a CEO.

As for education, I fully support not only more funding from it at the federal level, but also tremendous reforms. Not everyone needs to be college educated, and trying to boost enrollment too much could backfire with courses being dumbed down for the general population...just as they are in high schools. But certainly it is very much in everyone's interests for their neighbors' kids to grow up to be educated voters and citizens. And since labor is highly mobile, with state boundaries being effectively meaningless, it makes sense for kids in Louisiana to have educational opportunities equal to those in states that may at some point be inflicted with Louisiana's population. My take on healthcare is somewhat different. Preventative care is OK; otherwise I am a believer in personal responsibility and charity.

Besides, how many people are making over $250k? Those who support Republican tax cuts likely don't realize they are probably better off under Obama's plan. I can't understand why middle-class people are often so inclined to support Republican policies that HURT them rather than help them.

You're totally missing the point. I wouldn't dare to speak for other McCain supporters--especially considering how many of them only seem to be interested in religion or abortion--but I despise Obama's plans because it is tantamount to theft on an extreme scale. It is criminal. I hold no grudges against the wealthy for the wealth that they have earned. I do not believe that any of them are bound by any externally enforced duty to help any particular group of people; I believe that their charity must be rooted in their own sense of ethics. I respect them as human beings--not for their resources, but for what they have done to achieve those resources. And I sympathize with them because I too have been a victim of theft.

I agree with this to some degree. I think a consumption tax makes more sense than an income tax, but it will never fly. Corporate America will never go for a consumption tax.

We agree on this, at least. But all the same, I much prefer a VAT.

edit: Another thought. If the girl decides to have the baby and then after having it realizes that her life is "over" should she have the right to kill it after it has been born?

A convincing case can be made that babies and toddlers are not self-aware and thus aren't really any less OK to kill than are livestock, wild game, pests, or vermin. But it can't be proven. Any judgement on this matter is totally subjective.

The super wealthy folks are benefiting the most from centuries of investments by the federal government. I wouldn't say they should be taxed exorbitantly in a lop-sided scale, but they can afford to carry more of a tax burden than productive middle class folks who have bills piling up.

Who's to say what can be afforded and what cannot? Nobody is guaranteed a standard of living. Sometimes that means that households forgo a new TV or that they must reduce their consumption of Budweiser. Sometimes that means that they must forgo a single-family home and lease an apartment, or even move into a trailer. Households must live within their means.

Since the burden shifts back and forth between economic groups depending on which party is in charge, I would likely support a flat percentage tax starting above poverty, as that seems like the fairest form of income tax distribution.

If we define "poverty" as being a level of household income below that of subsistence, I would agree with you. Amazing!

Yeah, yeah, you want everyone to take care of themselves. You also are willing to endure endless war if it means you can spend money on things that bring you happiness. You're missing the part of your brain that makes you identify with other humans, even if you don't know them.

Read some of my replies, here. Also read my sig. I'm chiefly concerned with what amounts to theft. I'm also concerned with the market distortions which would close off opportunities to people. The prospect of war doesn't bother me so much (not that it doesn't bother me at all) in part because it is a much smaller issue, but also because our military is staffed by way of volunteers and private contractors--people that take on risks of their own free volition. Those people have my respect, but no more than any other person. Their life is their own to manage.

Do you suppose you can try and counter my ideas and arguments rather than just insult me, as though that is a good way to make a case?

Interestingly, it appears that the vast majority of Americans are better off traditionally when a Democrat is in power. This includes poor families and even families making more than 95% of all families. This blows away the economic argument I often hear from people who vote Republican. It's amazing how Republicans have managed to trick millions of voters into thinking they're better off under a Republican when it's actually the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business...amp;oref=slogin

Influence of the presidency on the economic well-being of households within that same term is dubious at best. It is not to say that there is no influence, but Congress has to actually originate and pass the legislation. And even then, much of the impact (for better or worse) only really has an opportunity to set in years later, often after a sitting President has been replaced.

A case in point is Bill Clinton's work towards more free trade agreements with other nations. Globalization was always a hot button issue, but the effect of Clinton's efforts were delayed and only really came to pass in such a big way during Bush's terms in office.

Another case in point is that the "irrational exuberance" leading up to the popping of the tech bubble took place in the latter part of the Clinton years, but that Clinton was himself basically powerless to stop it, assuming that he recognized it...assuming that he wanted to taint his legacy with a recession timed just as he was leaving office. So sometimes the presidency just can't stop a runaway train.

I suppose that the classic argument that could be made about a President's legacy on a sour economy was that the previous guy set him up to fail. There's certainly some small bit of validity to the argument, but ultimately I'm not really sure that the bigger picture (at least during the later 20th century up to present day) justifies almost any meaningful explanation at all. The economy is a big hulking complicated beast; the President just can't make it turn on a dime, and there have been too many complicating factors, both politically and economically, to allow for praise and blame to be placed meaningfully.

[sarahiki]

Jeebus and also Ummm, mr not getting it,

First, don't try and lie again saying that their job is for protecting me from my enemies, that's what they sign up to do, but definitely not deployed to do.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

And how sick is this. To continue the war so folks have jobs. Especially the bolded words of Jeebus.

100% with you on that. I bet some little Iraqi kid who just watched her family get blown up would agree, too.

[TJones]

100% with you on that. I bet some little Iraqi kid who just watched her family get blown up would agree, too.

Perhaps her father and brothers shouldn't have been firing RPGs at the U.S. convoy driving by , then she wouldn't have had to have seen that sara.

The saddest part of your statement, is that you actually believe that is all our military is doing over there. Have you actually tried talking to someone in the military who has been to Iraq ?

[memebag]

Perhaps her father and brothers shouldn't have been firing RPGs at the U.S. convoy driving by , then she wouldn't have had to have seen that sara.

Are you seriously claiming that only the bad guys get killed or wounded? You can't ease your conscience with that lie. War spending kills innocent people. The ethics are no different from terrorist fund raising. We have blood on our tax dollars.

[moni]

What is wrong with giving needy people financial or medical help? England has always had a certain portion of their population on the "dole", the Netherlands, too. It is uncivilized to have a country as wealthy as ours to not help the poor among us. I give to charity as much as possible, but I do believe that as a nation, we can and should do better. Don't be so greedy folks, you never know what your future holds.

[lockmat]

Are you seriously claiming that only the bad guys get killed or wounded? You can't ease your conscience with that lie. War spending kills innocent people. The ethics are no different from terrorist fund raising. We have blood on our tax dollars.

If we do go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys die.

If we don't go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys do not die.

[sarahiki]

Perhaps her father and brothers shouldn't have been firing RPGs at the U.S. convoy driving by , then she wouldn't have had to have seen that sara.

The saddest part of your statement, is that you actually believe that is all our military is doing over there. Have you actually tried talking to someone in the military who has been to Iraq ?

I never said that I believe that is all our military is doing over there. I believe our service men and women are valiantly doing their jobs, trying to protect people, rebuild infrastructure, etc. I admire them extremely.

However, in the process, people are getting killed. Including innocent people. And if you truly believe that only bad men setting explosives are getting killed, you are the deluded one. I'm glad Saddam is gone, he was a terrible dictator. But I don't believe that the deaths that have ensued are worth his removal. And that hypothetical little girl would agree with me.

[memebag]

If we do go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys die.

If we don't go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys do not die.

The number of innocent people killed jumped sharply after we invaded.

The number of people enraged enough to harm us jumped sharply after we invaded.

[Jeebus]

I never said that I believe that is all our military is doing over there. I believe our service men and women are valiantly doing their jobs, trying to protect people, rebuild infrastructure, etc. I admire them extremely.

However, in the process, people are getting killed. Including innocent people. And if you truly believe that only bad men setting explosives are getting killed, you are the deluded one. I'm glad Saddam is gone, he was a terrible dictator. But I don't believe that the deaths that have ensued are worth his removal. And that hypothetical little girl would agree with me.

If we do go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys die.

If we don't go into Iraq, innocent people get killed. Bad guys do not die.

I think that about sums it up. If we didn't go in there it would be just the same as it was, except now there are new hospitals, schools, the oil is putting money back in to the Iraqi economy, and best of all - there is no more dictatorship. Civil war is a long hard road. They are in the early stages of reconstruction. Granted, we shouldn't have had to fight their civil war for them, but it needed to be fought.

What is wrong with giving needy people financial or medical help? England has always had a certain portion of their population on the "dole", the Netherlands, too. It is uncivilized to have a country as wealthy as ours to not help the poor among us. I give to charity as much as possible, but I do believe that as a nation, we can and should do better. Don't be so greedy folks, you never know what your future holds.

There's nothing wrong with giving to those in need. I have no issue with ensuring that every child gets the best health care and education. I think every senior should be given the best personal healthcare from retirement until death. I think every handicapped person should be given top medical care for life. And I think all of this should be funded by the capable, we, the working class.

I'm just sick of all the people in the middle soaking up the unemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. Those people who have decided they don't have to work to contribute to help all those in need, but would rather act in need themselves.

Our nation has become so financially irresponsible and it always seems like the Democratic party wants to help fix it by pouring more money into it, where as the Republican party wants to fix it by demanding those that are irresponsible get off their butt and fix it themselves.

I guess I just prefer the latter "pull YOURself up by the boot-straps and get going" attitude. Most would be surprised how fast I'd vote Democrat on damn near EVERY other issue if they would just become more hard-lined on all this needless charity. I'm sick of hearing about the holy-roller crap. Typical politics.

I can't wait for Christmas.

[lockmat]

The number of innocent people killed jumped sharply after we invaded.

The number of people enraged enough to harm us jumped sharply after we invaded.

If reliable figures can be posted, I may be inclined to change my mind. However, a forecast of inevitable innocent killings by the bad guys who were killed must also be included. And that number never stops growing as long as they're alive.

[memebag]

If reliable figures can be posted, I may be inclined to change my mind. However, a forecast of inevitable innocent killings by the bad guys who were killed must also be included. And that number never stops growing as long as they're alive.

There's no "forecast" involved in my statement. You can find estimates of the number of people Saddam killed on the web, as well as estimates of the number of people Bush killed. Bush wins that race.

[lockmat]

There's no "forecast" involved in my statement. You can find estimates of the number of people Saddam killed on the web, as well as estimates of the number of people Bush killed. Bush wins that race.

But for your statement to be relevant, don't you think it ought to include a forcast? The world will continue beyond our involvment in Iraq.

[TheNiche]

What is wrong with giving needy people financial or medical help? England has always had a certain portion of their population on the "dole", the Netherlands, too. It is uncivilized to have a country as wealthy as ours to not help the poor among us. I give to charity as much as possible, but I do believe that as a nation, we can and should do better. Don't be so greedy folks, you never know what your future holds.

I'm OK with social programs such as education, food stamps, and homeless shelters, where it is clear that the betterment of the poor is beneficial to everybody. But to say that the poor deserve a particular standard of living at all above subsistence is a morality issue. I neither desire to force morality upon others or have their morality forced upon me--that would be greedy.

[lockmat]

Here is what I've found so far:

Bush:

86,000-94,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Sadaam:

Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

[Jeebus]

There's no "forecast" involved in my statement. You can find estimates of the number of people Saddam killed on the web, as well as estimates of the number of people Bush killed. Bush wins that race.

I'm pretty sure Bush has come no where close to the number that Saddam has killed since his rise to power. Also, Bush has never ordered that innocent people be mercilessly killed - where Saddam has.

Just a little quick googling and I find various site that attribute over a million Iraqi deaths to Saddam, and still less than 100,000 to Bush.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

[memebag]

But for your statement to be relevant, don't you think it ought to include a forcast? The world will continue beyond our involvment in Iraq.

No. Neither of us can predict with any reasonable accuracy the number of innocent people who would have died if the US never invaded Iraq.

[TheNiche]

There's no "forecast" involved in my statement. You can find estimates of the number of people Saddam killed on the web, as well as estimates of the number of people Bush killed. Bush wins that race.

Bush and the Congress that authorized military force in Iraq and the countries that joined our coalition, together, probably will win one way or the other, but in all fairness, I don't see how this combined entity can be held responsible for a death squad of radicals hell-bent on the ethnic cleansing of a neighborhood. It's not that the combined entity didn't have a hand in it, just that there were other leaders, internal to the population of Iraq, that probably could be assigned as the proximal cause of many if not most of the civilian deaths.

[lockmat]

I'm pretty sure Bush has come no where close to the number that Saddam has killed since his rise to power. Also, Bush has never ordered that innocent people be mercilessly killed - where Saddam has.

Just a little quick googling and I find various site that attribute over a million Iraqi deaths to Saddam, and still less than 100,000 to Bush.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

Yeah, found the same Times article at the Iraqi foundation.

Even on a proportional basis, his(Stalin) crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

No. Neither of us can predict with any reasonable accuracy the number of innocent people who would have died if the US never invaded Iraq.

Of course it can't be done accurately. But would you agree that it would have continued?

[memebag]

Here is what I've found so far:

Bush:

86,000-94,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Sadaam:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Saddam was in power for 24 years. Bush has been killing people in Iraq for only 5. Compare the number of civilians Saddam killed in Iraq in the last 5 years of his reign with the number Bush killed (also in Iraq) in the first 5 years of our involvement there.

Of course it can't be done accurately. But would you agree that it would have continued?

Sure, but I think the number of civilians killed would have been lower if Saddam had stayed in power.

[TJones]

I never said that I believe that is all our military is doing over there. I believe our service men and women are valiantly doing their jobs, trying to protect people, rebuild infrastructure, etc. I admire them extremely.

However, in the process, people are getting killed. Including innocent people. And if you truly believe that only bad men setting explosives are getting killed, you are the deluded one. I'm glad Saddam is gone, he was a terrible dictator. But I don't believe that the deaths that have ensued are worth his removal. And that hypothetical little girl would agree with me.

You are agreeing "100%" with webdude and it is his view that we are only over in Iraq for "warprofiteering". Your previous post made it out to say that our military are the ones causing innocent little Iraqi girls to lose their families. When in reality, our troops do everything possible not to shoot any Iraqis, as the terms of engagement are clear, You do not fire unless fired upon, or if you are in fear of immediate threat to your fireteam. Out of 1000s of skirmishes in the past 5 years in Iraq, there have apparently only been 1 or 2 instances where a fireteam went "rogue" and killed innocents without provacation. Sara, keep in mind that this is WAR, bad things happen in times of war.