Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Military Losses
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 31 12:53:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007



Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. Military losses, 1980 through 2007.


As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.

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): 14,107 deaths

George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton 's presidency;
when America wasn't even involved in a war! (Unless you include Bosnia or the disgrace of Mogadishu , Somalia when Clinton failed to respond to terrorists; Remember 'Blackhawk Down'?)

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter , there were 2,392 US military fatalities! From what? How?

I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by race:

European descent ........................69.12%

Hispanic........................................12.5%
Black .................... .......................12.3%

Asian............................................ 3.7%

Native American............................1.0%

Other..............................................2.6%

Many media lead us to feel the military death ratio is off balanced compared to the distribution by race in America . Here are the fatalities by RACE over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom. Do the comparison yourself.


European descent (white) ........74.31%

Hispanic....................................10.74%
Black ........................................ 9.67%

Asian......................................... 1.81%

Native American........................ 1.09%

Other.......................................... 0.33%

I was surprised again. Our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more. It's all about politics.


I hope that during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher:

the facts from the spin,

the spinners from the leaders,

those who seek even more power from those that seek justice,
and the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

'History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.' - Dwight D. Eisenhower


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 31 14:06:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's pretty interesting if true.

I wouldn't be surprised either.



That's all good and well though, in the end I'm pretty sure history will remember this presidency as the one that ruined the US both economically and politically as the world's sole superpower.

And seeing as to how Obama will get elected I wouldn't expect stuff to get any better.


 
libra Posted: Thu Jul 31 14:57:38 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  First of all, the numbers hif has listed are wrong for the years 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007. Please see:

CRS Report for Congress, May 2008
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

and

U.S. Active Military Deaths, Defense Manpower Data Center, April 22, 2008
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf


And while I just *love* the idea of measuring our presidents by the number of people they kill, I will play hifs game for a few more moments.

I crunched the numbers from the above documents.

Clinton Presidency:
Total Casualties: 7,500

Bush Presidency:
Total Casualties: 10,946

Also, I did the math for the way in which the military personnel died, which I feel is important to the discussion:

During the Clinton Presidency:
Accident: 52%
Illness: 18.8%
Homicide: 5.7%
Self-Inflicted: 20%
Hostile Action: 0.013%

During the Bush Presidency:
Accident: 35.7%
Illness: 15%
Homicide: 3.02%
Self-Inflicted: 11.8%
Pending: 0.95%
Hostile Action: 31.6%

And while it's stupendous that the rate of 'accidental' and 'self-inflicted' deaths have gone down since the Clinton Presidency, I'd say that the number of deaths in Hostile Action has gone up quite a bit.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 31 16:23:29 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra...it's not the accuracy of statistics conservatives are interested in. It's just putting any ol' number down that makes them look good and the dems bad (they do it with economic figures as well).
The neo-cons have discovered that a whole mess of voters will believe anything they say. Integrity and truthfullness have nothing to do with it.
That's why they say things like "Obama is a muslim", even though they know it's a load of shit. Because 12% of the republican voters out their believe he really is (for real)...and that Saddam and Al-queda were in league, and that Iraq was buying yellow cake, etc...etc..
The conservatives worst nightmare would be to wake up and find a voting public that all used their brains.

*and my Belgian friend...you better pray that Obama doesn't get elected. His first order of business is to outlaw midget porn.



 
libra Posted: Thu Jul 31 16:32:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, I know addi. I really know. But if I can show how absurd it is here, that's a step, even if it is small.




 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 31 16:52:12 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Oh, I know addi. I really know. But if I can show how absurd it is here, that's a step, even if it is small.

I know, and I appreciate the effort : )

Needless Deaths under President Bush: as of 7/31/08...4,125

Over 29,000 soldiers wounded since the start of the Iraq war. Lord only knows how many more weren't wounded but are suffering from very serious psychological effects having gone through what they have there that will be with them the rest of their lives.




 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 31 17:04:26 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>That's why they say things like "Obama is a muslim", even though they know it's a load of shit.

From what I hear he has a racist wigger priest mentor/friend that he sticks by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FrBgU0wDQ


Notice the crowd. Socialists and frustrated enviousness at their finest.



>*and my Belgian friend...you better pray that Obama doesn't get elected. His first order of business is to outlaw midget porn.

No! Not the midget porn!


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 31 17:09:03 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Recently I've been doing some reading on Obama's viewpoints, he was in Europe a while ago and I'm telling you that 98% of the people don't have a clue about what he does or does not stand for, in my opinion he's a bit like an iPod; new, stylish design, expensive and grossly overhyped by the fanboys.

It's such a sharade, politics and ideology stopped having anything to do with it quite a long while ago I think, they just turned the guy into a tabloid movie star and people go crazy over him like they go crazy over any other celebrity more because of the fact that he's famous than all other reasons combined.



Spin it any way you want, in the end he's an opportunistic psuedo-socialist.

Can't blame him for playing his cards right, but integrity level = 0.


 
mat_j Posted: Thu Jul 31 17:15:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have no idea what you think a socialist is Chris, he's another liberal waste of space.


The thing i was surprised at is that Hif either actually A. believed those numbers B. Thought nobody would do some research.

P.S. I wonder if anyone can get the figures for the civilian contractors eh?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 31 17:34:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>First of all, the numbers hif has listed are wrong for the years 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007. Please see:
>
>CRS Report for Congress, May 2008
>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>
>and
>
>U.S. Active Military Deaths, Defense Manpower Data Center, April 22, 2008
>http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
>
>
>And while I just *love* the idea of measuring our presidents by the number of people they kill, I will play hifs game for a few more moments.
>

>I crunched the numbers from the above documents.
>
>Clinton Presidency:
>Total Casualties: 7,500
>
>Bush Presidency:
>Total Casualties: 10,946
>
>Also, I did the math for the way in which the military personnel died, which I feel is important to the discussion:
>
>During the Clinton Presidency:
>Accident: 52%
>Illness: 18.8%
>Homicide: 5.7%
>Self-Inflicted: 20%
>Hostile Action: 0.013%
>
>During the Bush Presidency:
>Accident: 35.7%
>Illness: 15%
>Homicide: 3.02%
>Self-Inflicted: 11.8%
>Pending: 0.95%
>Hostile Action: 31.6%
>
I will agree with you that my numbers are not correct as shown in the tables from the source material.
This is the embarassment I get when I forward info from someone I trusted without checking their source.
However this was not an attempt to "rate our presidents by the number of people they kill", as you so willingly put those words in my mouth.
The whole statement was to show the obvious liberal bias of the press and how they selectively report these things.
Even with the correct numbers as you have them, how would you explain 7500 military deaths for the Clinton era with no major military actions and where was the press with their body counts then ?

>And while it's stupendous that the rate of 'accidental' and 'self-inflicted' deaths have gone down since the Clinton Presidency, I'd say that the number of deaths in Hostile Action has gone up quite a bit.
>
Kinda makes sense since there were no major hostile actions during the Clinton era and most of Dubya's era has included two major wars.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 31 17:56:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Still lovz ya anyway, hiffer

*but not in a gay midget sexual way


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 31 18:54:43 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>I have no idea what you think a socialist is Chris, he's another liberal waste of space.


If anything, he isn't a liberal.

I hate how US "liberals" have distorted the whole concept of liberalism, honestly.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 31 19:07:31 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  US "liberals" are utilitarians or social democrats at best, but many of their "ideals" from what I gather are completely opposed to what "true" liberalism (= classical liberalism) stands for.


I think this detracts a lot of people from truly comprehending what liberalism is, I hate to see this, my, ideology and believes diluted by groups of people who basicly just use it because "liber" has the ring of "free" and it appeals to the masses who basicly don't have a clue as to what actual freedom is or entails, let alone live by its standards.




I'm getting my panties in a twist.


 
libra Posted: Fri Aug 1 02:20:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:

>Even with the correct numbers as you have them, how would you explain 7500 military deaths for the Clinton era with no major military actions and where was the press with their body counts then ?
>

I would explain it by seeing that there seems to be a general yearly average of deaths in the military from the things listed in the 'cause of death' in the document. Illness, Self-Inflicted, and Accidental deaths were the highest during those years, as 'normal' deaths, I would not attribute those to the party in office at the time. It seems that there is a general danger of being in the military even during peacetime, and that one can expect deaths no matter what. I would also add that it probably wouldn't be good for the military's reputation (or recruiting numbers) to report to the public that they happen to have people dying from accidents, illness, and self-inflicted deaths during peaceful times.

However, like addi said, there are a great number of unnecessary deaths during Bush's presidency, for if we had not gone to war, we would not have that high percentage of 'Hostile Action' deaths we have now.


 
FN Posted: Fri Aug 1 06:39:41 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I doubt it's that black and white.


You can be against the reasons that they went to war, like me, but the war itself and the removal of Saddam and basicly kicking some fundamentalist ass, I don't know how much you can really oppose that aside from not wanting to have an interventionist policy. But I'm not going to say that the means always justify the end, I'll leave that to the utilitarians ;)

They should have gone after Iran but I don't know much about its oil reserves, and there's their ties with China and Russia.

Anyway, "unnecessary" isn't really the word you're looking for here I think.



Also, are we forgetting that the people who died weren't drafted but signed up for it themselves?


 
libra Posted: Fri Aug 1 13:28:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I doubt it's that black and white.
>
>
>You can be against the reasons that they went to war, like me, but the war itself and the removal of Saddam and basicly kicking some fundamentalist ass, I don't know how much you can really oppose that aside from not wanting to have an interventionist policy. But I'm not going to say that the means always justify the end, I'll leave that to the utilitarians ;)
>

I am saying that the means didn't justify the ends. And I don't want the US to pursue a unilateral interventionist policy worldwide. I'm not saying we should never become involved in conflicts, but I think that when we do, we should think very long and hard before they happen. And they shouldn't be for anything like oil or something that benefits our corporations. If we get involved in conflicts with countries whose leaders commit human rights abuses we should do it in conjunction with the rest of the world, with an understanding that we will not take over the country indefinitely.

>They should have gone after Iran but I don't know much about its oil reserves, and there's their ties with China and Russia.
>
>Anyway, "unnecessary" isn't really the word you're looking for here I think.
>
Maybe not, but they certainly weren't lives I, or many Americans, wanted to sacrifice for the cause.
>
>Also, are we forgetting that the people who died weren't drafted but signed up for it themselves?

I don't know if the military is different in Belgium (I'm guessing it is), but aside from some people who seriously do volunteer, the military is filled with young men who feel that there aren't really any other options for them. College is too expensive, the public school system failed them, there aren't enough well-paying jobs you can get with just a high-school diploma anymore. Military recruiters focus on these individuals. My brother (who had a really high GPA and got into multiple colleges, and has no military plans whatsoever) got calls from recruiters about once a week, and mail from them every other week. If that's what he got from them, I can't imagine the pressure other boys who haven't gotten into colleges (and live in more rural areas) get.
After all of that my point is that choices aren't black and white, and when people make these kinds of choices under duress, I wouldn't say it is entirely voluntary.


 
FN Posted: Fri Aug 1 13:51:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>And they shouldn't be for anything like oil or something that benefits our corporations.

Fair enough, but I don't see what people have against corporations. They bring food and luxury.

>they certainly weren't lives I, or many Americans, wanted to sacrifice for the cause.

Can't please everyone

>the military is filled with young men who feel that there aren't really any other options for them.

You always have options in our parts of the world.

>College is too expensive, the public school system failed them, there aren't enough well-paying jobs you can get with just a high-school diploma anymore.

Chances are they failed the school system. Some people simply fuck up, and seriously, no well paying jobs for just a highschool diploma? Study. How would you get people to pursue any serious studies if joe shmoe without an education gets the same kind of money.

I'm talking about current generations, I know that the generation before mine still offered a lot of possibilities for people with regular high school diploma's, there's nothing wrong with people not having longer education, but then don't whine about not getting paid as much either I say.

>Military recruiters focus on these individuals.

Lol, so what. If they say no it's still no. If you sign up for the military you can't complain about being sent to war, it really is that simple. A military isn't a welfare program.

>My brother (who had a really high GPA and got into multiple colleges, and has no military plans whatsoever) got calls from recruiters about once a week, and mail from them every other week. If that's what he got from them, I can't imagine the pressure other boys who haven't gotten into colleges (and live in more rural areas) get.

Again, so what. E-mails can be blocked in 2 clicks, and putting the phone down takes what, 0.01 calories?

>After all of that my point is that choices aren't black and white, and when people make these kinds of choices under duress, I wouldn't say it is entirely voluntary.

So basicly they should have just gotten money from the army without actually having to do anything? What kind of logic is that?

If you have no education go work at mcdonalds or at some store or get a license to drive a forklift and go work in a recycling plant and get paid extra for doing "hazardous" but in reality perfectly safe work.


I hear the same about the job market over here, the reality is that those without an education feel too good to take "low paying" jobs. Well guess what, you don't have a degree and other people have, how would it be fair to them to give you equal pay. Here it's even worse with the welfare system.




So long story short, no education no mansion. Tough luck. Sad? Maybe. Unjust? No.

If you join the army you know chances are you get your head blown off, end of story. If you're too stupid to realize that there's probably not too much that get blown off anyway.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 1 17:55:11 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I don't know if the military is different in Belgium (I'm guessing it is), but aside from some people who seriously do volunteer, the military is filled with young men who feel that there aren't really any other options for them. College is too expensive, the public school system failed them, there aren't enough well-paying jobs you can get with just a high-school diploma anymore. Military recruiters focus on these individuals. My brother (who had a really high GPA and got into multiple colleges, and has no military plans whatsoever) got calls from recruiters about once a week, and mail from them every other week. If that's what he got from them, I can't imagine the pressure other boys who haven't gotten into colleges (and live in more rural areas) get.
>After all of that my point is that choices aren't black and white, and when people make these kinds of choices under duress, I wouldn't say it is entirely voluntary.
>
What a load of crap !
Your post smacks of elitism and snobbery. I know that you are not really an elitist snob but your post sure comes off that way. And it is quite insulting to the most efficient, professional, and best educated military ever created.

From the Brookings Institution released today "As of 2005, moreover, 90 percent of recruits continued to have high-school diplomas, comparable to the 1985 figure at the height of the Reagan buildup. And the typical recruit scored better on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) in 2005 than in 1985."

That 90 percent figure is better than the 85 percent of US civilians having high school diplomas, which by the way, is an all time high for US.
Yes the Army has lowered it's standards to accomodate their recruiting benchmarks and only hold a 70 percent diploma rate, but the military as a whole is at 90 percent.
Considering that most of these recruits are infantry, that is to be expected.

Our military is obviously not full of desperate uneducated people.

And the recruiters do not focus on these types either. If they were as desperate as you say, they would not need to agressively recruited.
The recruiter focus on guys like your brother because they want guys like him, same as any employer would want an overachiever.

I would ask, how many people in the military do you actually know ?
I'm pretty sure I didn't enlist under duress or out of desperation. Neither did my brother, uncle, or my dad.

That fact is, if you interviewed most of the military enlisted, you would get a lot of people who joined for the GI Bill, or just wanted to serve their country, or for vocational education.

With unemployment still under 6 percent, nobody is really that desperate.



 
libra Posted: Fri Aug 1 21:42:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  First of all, we know well that the US has lowered its standards for military recruiting since the war began because of its inability to recruit people.

Secondly, Chris's point was that the army recruits should be aware of the danger and voluntarily signed up. I would think that no matter what, the United States government should value these people's service and their lives, and only put them in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary.
I can imagine that someone signing up for the military would expect that in return for their service, their lives not be put in danger for unnecessary purposes.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 1 21:49:33 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>First of all, we know well that the US has lowered its standards for military recruiting since the war began because of its inability to recruit people.
>
No, the Army lowered it's standards, not the US military.
And as I said before, considering the vast majority of these recruits would be infantry, this would be expected.

>Secondly, Chris's point was that the army recruits should be aware of the danger and voluntarily signed up. I would think that no matter what, the United States government should value these people's service and their lives, and only put them in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary.
>I can imagine that someone signing up for the military would expect that in return for their service, their lives not be put in danger for unnecessary purposes.
>
And if you join the military voluntarily, you also agree that decision would be made by your commander in chief, not by yourself.
Any soldier understands that the military is not a democracy and that the decision as to whether or not this war or that war is necessary is not his decision to make.
I would ask you if you think the many thousands of lives lost at Normandy were necessary or not ?
Who gets to decide these things ?
I believe you have zero concept of what the military is all about.


 
Ahriman Posted: Sat Aug 2 09:08:25 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And if you join the military voluntarily, you also agree that decision would be made by your commander in chief, not by yourself.
>Any soldier understands that the military is not a democracy and that the decision as to whether or not this war or that war is necessary is not his decision to make.
>I would ask you if you think the many thousands of lives lost at Normandy were necessary or not ?
>Who gets to decide these things ?
>I believe you have zero concept of what the military is all about.

reh-ruh


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 2 12:13:27 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And if you join the military voluntarily, you also agree that decision would be made by your commander in chief, not by yourself.
>>Any soldier understands that the military is not a democracy and that the decision as to whether or not this war or that war is necessary is not his decision to make.
>>I would ask you if you think the many thousands of lives lost at Normandy were necessary or not ?
>>Who gets to decide these things ?
>>I believe you have zero concept of what the military is all about.
>
>reh-ruh
>
I believe the correct term you are searching for is "OO-RAH", and it's only used by the marines, my culinary gifted friend.
:-)


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 2 13:23:46 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>
>>
>And if you join the military voluntarily, you also agree that decision would be made by your commander in chief, not by yourself.
>Any soldier understands that the military is not a democracy and that the decision as to whether or not this war or that war is necessary is not his decision to make.
>I would ask you if you think the many thousands of lives lost at Normandy were necessary or not ?
>Who gets to decide these things ?
>I believe you have zero concept of what the military is all about.

As an American citizen, whose life is supposedly being protected by the military, I would hope that the government would use these men and women only in dire situations. If my brother was in the military, or if my dad was in the military, I would definitely question the reasons why their lives were being put in danger.
I would assume that a president and government would have to earn the trust of the people he puts in harms way, by making responsible decisions. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Americans, President Bush has not earned that trust.
One of the things I like to think our country has been able to accomplish is that its citizens have been able to think for themselves and question the decisions of those above them. I would hope that this goes for the military as well as the family members of the individuals in the military. If we don't have this freedom, and if we don't USE this freedom, I would have to say that we are heading towards fascism.


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 2 13:27:09 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>First of all, we know well that the US has lowered its standards for military recruiting since the war began because of its inability to recruit people.
>>
>No, the Army lowered it's standards, not the US military.
>And as I said before, considering the vast majority of these recruits would be infantry, this would be expected.
>

So? Its still a branch of the military, and it is still a sign that there are not enough people willing to sign up with the previously higher qualifications.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 2 14:28:53 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>>First of all, we know well that the US has lowered its standards for military recruiting since the war began because of its inability to recruit people.
>>>
>>No, the Army lowered it's standards, not the US military.
>>And as I said before, considering the vast majority of these recruits would be infantry, this would be expected.
>>
>
>So? Its still a branch of the military, and it is still a sign that there are not enough people willing to sign up with the previously higher qualifications.
>
No, it's not and it still doesn't change the fact that 90 percent of the US military have high school diplomas or better, effectively rebutting your charge that our military is made of the dregs of our society.

and it's not that there aren't enough people willing to sign up, it's that once they have done their tour of duty, most are opting to get out and use their GI bill. Unless you plan to make it a career, there's not much point in staying in if you're an infantryman.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 2 14:35:24 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>As an American citizen, whose life is supposedly being protected by the military, I would hope that the government would use these men and women only in dire situations. If my brother was in the military, or if my dad was in the military, I would definitely question the reasons why their lives were being put in danger.
>
As an American citizen, you have the right to pose such questions.
This right was guaranteed by our military that is "supposedly" protecting your rights.
As a soldier or sailor, you do not have that right. You obey all lawful orders period.
That is the only way a military unit can work effectively.

>I would assume that a president and government would have to earn the trust of the people he puts in harms way, by making responsible decisions. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Americans, President Bush has not earned that trust.
Really ? you don't think our military trusts Bush ? You've got to be kidding !
Our military is probably his biggest support group. What rock have you been hiding under ?

>One of the things I like to think our country has been able to accomplish is that its citizens have been able to think for themselves and question the decisions of those above them. I would hope that this goes for the military as well as the family members of the individuals in the military. If we don't have this freedom, and if we don't USE this freedom, I would have to say that we are heading towards fascism.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, fascism. Bullshit.
You really have no concept of how the military works whatsoever.
Soldiers cannot question lawful order given by their commanders. They know this when they sign up.
As to whether the situation is dire enough to risk lives, well, who gets to make those decisions as we all know if put to a vote you will get too many different opinions.


 
FN Posted: Sat Aug 2 16:34:36 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I wouldn't throw the term fascism around too lightly. It takes the seriousness of it away and it's what'll make it come back sooner or later.

Over here everybody who doesn't believe in "positive" discrimination gets labelled as a nazi, especially by people who, for example, couldn't tell you the first thing about guys like Eichmann and von Ribbentrop, let alone about the tenets and context of national socialism.

So when fascism stares them in the face they don't know it's there because they don't know what it is aside from throwing the label around towards stuff that has nothing to do with it.


Saying that the US at this point in time is leaning towards fascism is both ridiculous and demeaning towards the people who lived under it.


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 2 18:45:34 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I would say that the country I live in right now is no longer a democracy. I don't know what term to call what we have right now, but I would not call our country a democracy.

And hif, I would argue that the Iraq war is illegal, based on the international law that the US has signed on to, and has vowed to treat as domestic law. If the iraq war is illegal, then any commands given to military personnel in the country would be illegal.

How about torture? Abu Ghraib? These were commands given by higher ups in the military...and I'd say that any soldier should question the validity of such commands.

I'd say that if it is unlawful for soldiers to question their superiors, this is something that should be changed, for the benefit of the military. Otherwise we have problems like we're having now.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 2 20:06:22 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I would say that the country I live in right now is no longer a democracy. I don't know what term to call what we have right now, but I would not call our country a democracy.
>
Would you argue that we had a democracy when Clinton was in office ?

>And hif, I would argue that the Iraq war is illegal, based on the international law that the US has signed on to, and has vowed to treat as domestic law. If the iraq war is illegal, then any commands given to military personnel in the country would be illegal.
>
Illegal ? How ?
Who in congress voted against it ?
You could argue all you want, but you would lose that argument.

>How about torture? Abu Ghraib? These were commands given by higher ups in the military...and I'd say that any soldier should question the validity of such commands.
>
And aren't those soldiers in prison now ?

>I'd say that if it is unlawful for soldiers to question their superiors, this is something that should be changed, for the benefit of the military. Otherwise we have problems like we're having now.
>
Would you mind telling me how you can have an effective military if every time a commander gave an order, it was questioned ? How in the world would that be beneficial to the military ?
Are you truly that naive ?


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 2 21:27:31 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>
>>
>Would you argue that we had a democracy when Clinton was in office ?
>
I don't think the US has been a democracy for a long long time. Bush has just taken it to a new low.

>>
>Illegal ? How ?
>Who in congress voted against it ?
>You could argue all you want, but you would lose that argument.
>
There are many lawyers who say that by international treaties and UN conventions that the US is a part of, the war in iraq is illegal. Whether or not congress voted for it.

>>How about torture? Abu Ghraib? These were commands given by higher ups in the military...and I'd say that any soldier should question the validity of such commands.
>>
>And aren't those soldiers in prison now ?
>
The people that ordered the soldiers to commit such acts are not. The people who torture people in Guantanamo and in our 'secret' prisons are not.

>>
>Would you mind telling me how you can have an effective military if every time a commander gave an order, it was questioned ? How in the world would that be beneficial to the military ?
>Are you truly that naive ?

Because sometimes, as we saw in the Abu Ghraib/torture cases, people become so isolated within a system, become surrounded by only like-minded people, that they lose the ability to check their actions and decisions. They lose the ability to reason clearly in a way that would make sense to the people in the country they are serving. It is called group-think. One of the places where it is most documented is in government and military jobs. I'd say that allowing less entrenched minds question the decisions of those above them is a good idea. For humanity.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 2 21:41:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>
>>>
>>Would you argue that we had a democracy when Clinton was in office ?
>>
>I don't think the US has been a democracy for a long long time. Bush has just taken it to a new low.
>
Could you be more specific ?
When did we lose our democracy and why do you believe this ?
>>>
>>Illegal ? How ?
>>Who in congress voted against it ?
>>You could argue all you want, but you would lose that argument.
>>
>There are many lawyers who say that by international treaties and UN conventions that the US is a part of, the war in iraq is illegal. Whether or not congress voted for it.
>
Many lawyers do not a consensus make.
There are many lawyers who would disagree with you as well.
I would argue that we do not need the permission of anyone to protect our interests anywhere on the planet.

Besides there is a UN resolution that did give us permission to go to war in Iraq.

>>>How about torture? Abu Ghraib? These were commands given by higher ups in the military...and I'd say that any soldier should question the validity of such commands.
>>>
>>And aren't those soldiers in prison now ?
>>
>The people that ordered the soldiers to commit such acts are not. The people who torture people in Guantanamo and in our 'secret' prisons are not.
>
Um, I disagree, I'm pretty sure that Lynndie England did not receive orders to put prisoners on a leash and parade them around. I'm also pretty sure that orders were not given to make a naked human pyramid.
I also don't consider this to be torture. Humiliation maybe, but not necessarily torture.
I've seen worse at college hazings.
>>>
>>Would you mind telling me how you can have an effective military if every time a commander gave an order, it was questioned ? How in the world would that be beneficial to the military ?
>>Are you truly that naive ?
>
>Because sometimes, as we saw in the Abu Ghraib/torture cases, people become so isolated within a system, become surrounded by only like-minded people, that they lose the ability to check their actions and decisions. They lose the ability to reason clearly in a way that would make sense to the people in the country they are serving. It is called group-think. One of the places where it is most documented is in government and military jobs. I'd say that allowing less entrenched minds question the decisions of those above them is a good idea. For humanity.
>
I'd like to see you reason your way through an order you disagreed with when artillery shells are falling around you and bullets flying over your head and your squad leader gives you an order to move out. Then Annika says "sergant, I have a problem with this, can we talk about it?" HA !
You go girl !


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 2 23:08:35 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Could you be more specific ?
>When did we lose our democracy and why do you believe this ?
>>>>

Thinking about it, I would question whether or not we were ever a democracy. Since we have been practicing corporate socialism, we have not been. Before that, there was a huge amount of inequality, and certain groups (women and african americans) were not allowed to vote. I would say those are not characteristics of a true democracy.

>>
>Many lawyers do not a consensus make.
>There are many lawyers who would disagree with you as well.
>I would argue that we do not need the permission of anyone to protect our interests anywhere on the planet.
>
>Besides there is a UN resolution that did give us permission to go to war in Iraq.

When we signed onto international treaties we made them a part of our own constitution. This is American law. All international treaties ARE a part of our constitution. This means that if we violated any of those treaties in going to war, the war is illegal by our own constitution. Therefore, the war in iraq is illegal.

>>>
>Um, I disagree, I'm pretty sure that Lynndie England did not receive orders to put prisoners on a leash and parade them around. I'm also pretty sure that orders were not given to make a naked human pyramid.
>I also don't consider this to be torture. Humiliation maybe, but not necessarily torture.
>I've seen worse at college hazings.
>>>>

Whatever orders were given or not, there was a definite paper-trail that encouraged this type of behavior. It is all documented (see Mark Danner's book on the subject).
And it is torture. I'd call certain college hazings torture. Also, I'd say that whatever you call it, it is not proper treatment of prisoners. No matter what they did or who they are.

>>
>I'd like to see you reason your way through an order you disagreed with when artillery shells are falling around you and bullets flying over your head and your squad leader gives you an order to move out. Then Annika says "sergant, I have a problem with this, can we talk about it?" HA !
>You go girl !

Of course its not something that can be done in the middle of combat. However, the decision to go to war, the decisions to torture, the decisions to carry out the war in a certain way, should always be questioned. As we've learned from the fact that the soldiers had to create their own forums for the discussion of how to live in Iraq, because the military leaders had no fucking clue how to deal with a war of this kind, there is a certain amount of knowledge and ability on the lower ranks that does not get passed up to the top. These things are the things that allow them to have the insights to question, to second guess. Which is a good thing.



 
Ahriman Posted: Sun Aug 3 04:12:50 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>Of course its not something that can be done in the middle of combat. However, the decision to go to war, the decisions to torture, the decisions to carry out the war in a certain way, should always be questioned.

Torture and stress techniques. Difference.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 3 07:15:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>Thinking about it, I would question whether or not we were ever a democracy. Since we have been practicing corporate socialism, we have not been. Before that, there was a huge amount of inequality, and certain groups (women and african americans) were not allowed to vote. I would say those are not characteristics of a true democracy.
>
We have never had a true democracy in the strict definition of the word. If we did, minorities would never have any say in anything.
Women and blacks can vote now . . . YAY !
>>>


>When we signed onto international treaties we made them a part of our own constitution. This is American law. All international treaties ARE a part of our constitution. This means that if we violated any of those treaties in going to war, the war is illegal by our own constitution. Therefore, the war in iraq is illegal.
>
International treaties are part of our constitution ? Which article provides for this ?
Has it been tested in court ?
And which treaties would have been broken in going into Iraq ?
Seems it would have been a moot point anyway since the UN provided a resolution saying we could do it anyway.

>
>Whatever orders were given or not, there was a definite paper-trail that encouraged this type of behavior. It is all documented (see Mark Danner's book on the subject).
>And it is torture. I'd call certain college hazings torture. Also, I'd say that whatever you call it, it is not proper treatment of prisoners. No matter what they did or who they are.
>
A paper trail eh ?
Show me a document that encouraged lyndie England to engage in illegal acts.
The ones that broke the law in Abhu Ghraib were the ones that were prosecuted period.
Mark Danner is a communist sympathizer and married to the far left. No way is he ever going to write a book with an unbiased eye.
>>>

>Of course its not something that can be done in the middle of combat. However, the decision to go to war, the decisions to torture, the decisions to carry out the war in a certain way, should always be questioned.
>
Do you actually think that this wasn't debated and discussed before it happened ? I can assure you it was.
Over 12 years of UN resolutions made and then broken by Iraq over and over again, I can assure you it was.
Obviously not to your satisfaction, but still, it was.
>
As we've learned from the fact that the soldiers had to create their own forums for the discussion of how to live in Iraq, because the military leaders had no fucking clue how to deal with a war of this kind,
>
What exactly are you saying here, that the military leaders had no fucking clue how to deal with a war of this kind ?





 
libra Posted: Sun Aug 3 19:46:31 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>

>We have never had a true democracy in the strict definition of the word. If we did, minorities would never have any say in anything.
>Women and blacks can vote now . . . YAY !

Like I said, ever since our government has practiced corporate socialism, we have not had a democracy.

>International treaties are part of our constitution ? Which article provides for this ?
>Has it been tested in court ?
>And which treaties would have been broken in going into Iraq ?
>Seems it would have been a moot point anyway since the UN provided a resolution saying we could do it anyway.

Article VI of the US Constitution states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Kofi Annan has said that based on the UN Charter, the invasion of Iraq is illegal.

We've also violated the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

>A paper trail eh ?
>Show me a document that encouraged lyndie England to engage in illegal acts.
>The ones that broke the law in Abhu Ghraib were the ones that were prosecuted period.
>Mark Danner is a communist sympathizer and married to the far left. No way is he ever going to write a book with an unbiased eye.
>>>>

I could throw away 95% of the things you source based on their author's inability to be unbiased. Even if you won't accept Danner, the book contains only a few articles by him. The bulk of the book are the actual memos regarding torture passed around the legal teams of the white house.
See this article for more info on how it wasn't just a 'few bad apples.' The techniques used in Abu Ghraib mirrored the techniques used by interrogators at Guantanamo. And while Bush's argument is that Guantanamo is not bound by the Geneva conventions, the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq certainly is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702083.html

>Do you actually think that this wasn't debated and discussed before it happened ? I can assure you it was.
>Over 12 years of UN resolutions made and then broken by Iraq over and over again, I can assure you it was.
>Obviously not to your satisfaction, but still, it was.

Of course I know that the neocons had this in the works way before bush got elected. However, no, i'm not satisfied. I'm not satisfied unless the war considered by our government has been deemed LEGAL. I'm glad that in order to respond to violations of UN conventions, we've decided to do the same in response. Hypocrisy is a really good way of dealing with one's enemies

>What exactly are you saying here, that the military leaders had no fucking clue how to deal with a war of this kind ?

Yes, I am.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/17/050117fa_fact



 
libra Posted: Sun Aug 3 19:49:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>libra said:
>
>>Of course its not something that can be done in the middle of combat. However, the decision to go to war, the decisions to torture, the decisions to carry out the war in a certain way, should always be questioned.
>
>Torture and stress techniques. Difference.

i'd say one person's stress techniques are another person's torture.

And I'd say sodomy, waterboarding, and pouring of phosphoric acid on people aren't 'stress' techniques we'd want used on our military personnel if they were POWs.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 4 07:05:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you want to split legal hairs about the war, so be it.

In the first place Kofi Annan has no more authority to declare anything legal or illegal than you or I.
Also he is a dickhead that would only declare a war legal if it enriched him personally.

At the end of the first Gulf war a cease-fire (temporary cessation of hostilities) was agreed to - terms that Saddam did not meet.

Saddam ordered the assassination of a US president.

He refused to account for or produce captured Kuwaitis - something he agreed to in the cease-fire. They were later found in a mass grave.

He put a bounty on US pilots and fired on our planes in the no-fly zone.

He openly sponsored terrorism in an attempt to destabilize the Middle East.

The list could go on and on, but any of these are justification for the resumption of hostilities.

Your article VI argument would not hold up in any court.

Furthermore, we are not at war with Iraq. Just ask any citizen of that country.





 
Nikki Posted: Mon Aug 4 09:16:38 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you're all a bunch of fucking geniuses!
Libra- I'm better than hif -

HIF - Libra you're wrong.

wah wah wah wah wah

Libras initial response is so so immature...oh my...dunce

What a bunch of immature babies

Grow up and enjoy life.

IDIOTS!!



 
libra Posted: Mon Aug 4 14:47:09 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No matter what arguments you throw out about how bad Saddam was, in the end, the war is still illegal.

My Article VI argument WOULD hold up in any court. If I have to say it again, I will. Not only has the Bush Administration violated international laws, it has violated the United States Constitution. Because the international treaties we sign are a PART of our own domestic law. That means I can use any of the International Covenants, the Geneva conventions, etc, in defending my rights in this nation. This also means that not only can other nations try the US for war crimes, we can do it here in our own country.

Unlike President Bush, I believe that we do not get to pick and choose what laws to obey and what laws to ignore. I believe that in order to remain a country that prides itself on having such a great constitution, we must actually FOLLOW that constitution. Otherwise, we are no better than Saddam Hussein and the other leaders we call out for violating international laws.

See:
http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm

And here's Richard Perle, one of Rumsfeld's advisors and one of the kings of Neo-con policy, telling us that based on international law, the war is illegal. Sure, he doesn't care that we have broken the law, but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of people who think it matters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 4 15:24:43 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>No matter what arguments you throw out about how bad Saddam was, in the end, the war is still illegal.
>
>My Article VI argument WOULD hold up in any court. If I have to say it again, I will. Not only has the Bush Administration violated international laws, it has violated the United States Constitution. Because the international treaties we sign are a PART of our own domestic law. That means I can use any of the International Covenants, the Geneva conventions, etc, in defending my rights in this nation. This also means that not only can other nations try the US for war crimes, we can do it here in our own country.
>
>Unlike President Bush, I believe that we do not get to pick and choose what laws to obey and what laws to ignore. I believe that in order to remain a country that prides itself on having such a great constitution, we must actually FOLLOW that constitution. Otherwise, we are no better than Saddam Hussein and the other leaders we call out for violating international laws.
>
>See:
>http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf
>
>http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm
>
>And here's Richard Perle, one of Rumsfeld's advisors and one of the kings of Neo-con policy, telling us that based on international law, the war is illegal. Sure, he doesn't care that we have broken the law, but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of people who think it matters.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
>
Use any covenant you want.
If it would hold up in court, then it already would have. You know it, the whole world knows it.
The UN would have already acted and so would have the American left.

I love the way you completely ignored the fact that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, thereby justifying the resumption of hostilities.
Based on this, the only way it could be illegal is the first gulf war was illegal to begin with.

BTW, I believe that in all the years you have been posting here, virtually every single one of your posts in reference to this country has been negative. You must really be miserable here.


 
libra Posted: Mon Aug 4 20:24:20 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>>
>Use any covenant you want.
>If it would hold up in court, then it already would have. You know it, the whole world knows it.
>The UN would have already acted and so would have the American left.
>

There are people who have acted upon it. Various international judges have, the National Lawyer's Guild has, and others. Not many people are willing to stand up to the U.S. If you haven't noticed, we kind of have a stronghold over things...

>I love the way you completely ignored the fact that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, thereby justifying the resumption of hostilities.
>Based on this, the only way it could be illegal is the first gulf war was illegal to begin with.
>

What was supposed to happen was that the UN was supposed to deal with this. What wasn't supposed to happen was the US deciding to unilaterally go to war with whoever they want, whenever they want.

>BTW, I believe that in all the years you have been posting here, virtually every single one of your posts in reference to this country has been negative. You must really be miserable here.

I have hope for this country. I am not negative, I am critical. Fredrick Douglas said: "A true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins."
I believe in that statement. And my support for the constitution of this country means I don't want to see our leaders shit all over it. I want the US to live up to the land of opportunity and freedom it claims to be. I'm not going to sit by and assume that everyone's doing there job well. Nor will I assume that just because someone is a member of a certain political party, they are doing everything right.


 
addi Posted: Mon Aug 4 22:14:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>I have hope for this country. I am not negative, I am critical. Fredrick Douglas said: "A true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins."

Ohhh Baby. You are so hot when you're full of righteous indignation!

Keep up the good fight : )


 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 00:37:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>
>Ohhh Baby. You are so hot when you're full of righteous indignation!
>
>Keep up the good fight : )

Thanks...i really should know better than to get involved in all this...I have so many other stressful things to do right now.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 03:03:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>>
>>Use any covenant you want.
>>If it would hold up in court, then it already would have. You know it, the whole world knows it.
>>The UN would have already acted and so would have the American left.
>>
>
>There are people who have acted upon it. Various international judges have, the National Lawyer's Guild has, and others. Not many people are willing to stand up to the U.S. If you haven't noticed, we kind of have a stronghold over things...
>
In other words . . . it hasn't held up in court . . . .
>>I love the way you completely ignored the fact that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, thereby justifying the resumption of hostilities.
>>Based on this, the only way it could be illegal is the first gulf war was illegal to begin with.
>>
>
>What was supposed to happen was that the UN was supposed to deal with this. What wasn't supposed to happen was the US deciding to unilaterally go to war with whoever they want, whenever they want.
>
As I stated before, any one of those actions was justification for the resumption of hostilities.
Just the fact that they repeatedly shot missiles at our planes and put a bounty on US pilots (not coalition, but US) is reason enough for us to go to war without violating any treaties.

>>BTW, I believe that in all the years you have been posting here, virtually every single one of your posts in reference to this country has been negative. You must really be miserable here.
>
>I have hope for this country. I am not negative, I am critical. Fredrick Douglas said: "A true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins."
>I believe in that statement. And my support for the constitution of this country means I don't want to see our leaders shit all over it. I want the US to live up to the land of opportunity and freedom it claims to be. I'm not going to sit by and assume that everyone's doing there job well. Nor will I assume that just because someone is a member of a certain political party, they are doing everything right.
>
Criticism is good, but to be 100 percent negative is not.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 06:40:16 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Libra, I understand your passion for this and I do respect your opinions no matter how vehemently I disagree with them.
I understand the necessity to have both a left and right on every issue.
I believe that both sides have something to offer the people and if it gets presented to them in an unbiased format, usually the people will make the right choice. The problem today is that the media no longer just reports the news, but they try to shape opinions.
Benjamin Rush viewed John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as the "north and south poles of our revolution."
Adams and Jefferson were at odds with each other on most issues, but came to respect each others' opinions and in the end, they were the best of friends despite their differences. They loved their country beyond their own differences.

I'm not sure you have any respect at all for the opinions of the right.

In your earlier post, you insinuated that I might be giving Bush a pass merely because he is a republican.
Not true, I know he has been dismal on illegal immigration and energy. I do however support him on the war on terror.
Based on your posting here, I can't be sure that you love your country. Of course that's you're own prerogative.
You say you have hope for this country, but you have never once said anything about this country is good. Your criticism is always negative.
Is this true ? Do you really think it's so bad here that you cannot say a positive thing about it ?

You laid this war at the feet of Bush, yet you conveniently disregard the fact that it was overwhelmingly approved by a democrat controlled congress. A simple down vote by them would have ended this war immediately.

Sorry to hear about your stress.
Lighten up, it's no so bad, you're too young to be stressed out. Go camping up in the mountains where it gets cold at night and take some wine and some brandy and spend the night around the fire cuddling with your significant other. If he's not available to go with you then heed the words of Stephen Stills and Love the One You're With.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 09:11:49 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >libra said:
>
>I have hope for this country.


What you guys need is CHANGE.

CHANGE for the sake of CHANGE so we can CHANGE the way people think about CHANGE which should be CHANGEd to CHANGE everything. CHANGE is the solution! Look at how progressive we are!

Who did that remind you of.


Vote Obama, he'll make your wildest dreams come true.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 09:14:19 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, we can!




*some guy walks in*

Excuse me, Mr. Obama, what exactly do you mean by "yes we can"

"we can CHANGE!"

Change what?

"CHANGE the way this country works!"

What do you mean?

"CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!" *steam out of his ears*


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 5 09:54:42 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah...I get it. You're sick and tired of hearing that word.
Part of the problem (not all) is that the 24 news media coverage uses these soundbites over and over again. So viewers can get the feeling that that's all that he ever says.
In fact just a little digging on your part would actually bring you to some content of substance and particulars on how he would bring about much of the change he talks about. He gets specific on matters of foreign policy and economics and and many other issues we're facing. You may not agree with what those specifics are and that's fine, but accusing him of being all style over substance tells me you've relied on the vague mass media 10 second soundbites to draw your conclusions...and that will give you false impressions of Obama and McCain.


 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:20:56 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I can't really formulate an entire response right now. But I thought I'd say a few words in response to Hif.

1. I like the constitution of this country. I think its a pretty brilliant document. I like the checks and balances we have installed in our government. And like I said, over the last 8 years, I have seen the things I value about this country be thrown out the window. So yeah, I'm frustrated. Without a decent level of respect for the laws of this country, there's not much left to like.

2. I am deeply disappointed by what the democrats have (not) done over the last years. Their inability to deal with practically everything has made me very frustrated.

3. It's not that I have no respect for the viewpoints of the right. What I have a problem with is that so many of their policies tend to stem from what seems to be a fear or dislike of other groups of people. Or they squash the rights of other groups of people. (Whether they are women, gays, iraqis, Arab-Americans, etc) What I believe this country should do is allow as much as possible for people, unless those things hurt others. I think it is backwards to not regulate corporations, but regulate people's private lives. I think we should be able to trust people's human decency towards one another in face-to-face interactions before we trust their greed and willingness to exploit others in a faceless corporate world.

4. I admit that it is hard to be here sometimes. When I returned from Canada in the spring, I had to go through an adjustment. I honestly don't feel like I have a lot in common with many people in this country. Whenever I leave the bay area (and I have traveled around this country a decent amount), I feel like I'm in another world. Mostly because I'm sick of the lack of tolerance a lot of Americans have for a lifestyle different than their own.

And Chris, I don't think I'm voting Obama anyway, so that's not what I'm alluding to. Obama hasn't said or done anything to secure my vote, so I refuse to blindly give it to him.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:33:00 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nah as I said I dug a little deeper over the past few weeks, mainly because over here all you get is Obama, it's portrayed as if he already is the president. I'm willing to bet that over here 75% of the people who know what or who you mean when you say the word "Obama" won't be able to tell you who McCain is, at all.

And you're right, I don't agree with what he says. I believe that he is grossly overhyped, mainly because of his skin colour, and is an opportunist (which is normal for a candidate, but in the case of socialists it's the unwarranted indignation that makes me want to punch them in the face)


Stuff like:

Affirmative action

"In reference to state ballot initiatives on affirmative action, Obama's spokeperson Candice Toliver said that "Senator Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of race, gender or economic status. That's why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities."[67][68]

Obama writes in his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without diminishing opportunities for white students."[69] In July, Obama stated, "I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so that it is not just a quota, but it is acknowledging and taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced, continue to experience, and it also speaks to the value of diversity in all walks of American life.""

How can you take a guy like that serious.


He also wants to "rally the armies of compassion"? I would laugh if I wasn't so appalled by apparantly people taking it seriously.


 
Nikki Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:36:35 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Libra is so full of it! Ego fulfillment seeker! so so insecure. ha ha


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:39:16 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nikki said:
>Libra is so full of it! Ego fulfillment seeker! so so insecure. ha ha

You're quite avtice again lately.

Ho'w it going in Hungary


 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:40:49 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>...

I know. In the primaries he occasionally said things that made me think that he was someone who wouldn't put up with the BS that elections usually entail...the catch phrases and meaningless sentences these guys throw around. I'm sick of his flip-flopping, I'm sick of his assumption that we will all back him despite what he says or what his opinions are.
Anyway, I'm writing to google and supporting Ralph Nader being put in the google debates, if only to see how Obama responds to Nader. I think the democrats deserve to be questioned.


 
Nikki Posted: Tue Aug 5 13:25:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Nikki said:
>>Libra is so full of it! Ego fulfillment seeker! so so insecure. ha ha
>
>You're quite avtice again lately.
>
>Ho'w it going in Hungary

Christophe
I miss your sweet lips. All is well. You?


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 5 13:59:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's easy to overlook your general 1st grade mentality posts here, Dikki, but not so easy when they're personal attacks against someone I care about.
If you have anything semi-intelligent to say then fire away...otherwise go pollute some other site please. You're a waste of space, and would be more beneficial to mother earth serving as decomposing organic matter. You're already brain dead so you might as well finish what's started.

*Christophe you're a twit for even posting to her.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 14:08:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:


>4. I admit that it is hard to be here sometimes. When I returned from Canada in the spring, I had to go through an adjustment. I honestly don't feel like I have a lot in common with many people in this country. Whenever I leave the bay area (and I have traveled around this country a decent amount), I feel like I'm in another world. Mostly because I'm sick of the lack of tolerance a lot of Americans have for a lifestyle different than their own.
>
I live in the land of the redneck and I don't see any evidence of the "lack of tolerance" you speak of.
Is there some culture of bigotry on the left coast we don't know about ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 5 14:49:22 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I live in the land of the redneck and I don't see any evidence of the "lack of tolerance" you speak of.

I live in the land of the redneck as well and see evidence of it all the time...without even looking for it. Perhaps you need to get out more, or open your eyes good sir.

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 15:41:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I live in the land of the redneck and I don't see any evidence of the "lack of tolerance" you speak of.
>
>I live in the land of the redneck as well and see evidence of it all the time...without even looking for it. Perhaps you need to get out more, or open your eyes good sir.
>
>: )
OF course there is some intolerance here, consistent with normal human behavior, but nothing out of the ordinary such as Libra is talking about. Nothing that you wouldn't see in any other developed country.

Intolerance in one form or another exists in every corner on the planet and we are not immune, but neither do we have more than our fair share.

I seem to recall an Addi post earlier this year expounding on how blacks and whites intermingle socially and professionally quite well where you live. Perhaps you were speaking of another form of intolerance ?


 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 16:07:11 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There are all kinds of intolerance besides racial intolerance. And I hear things all the time about gays, muslims, women, etc. I think one of the major components of this is not necessarily that people are intentionally racist, but they are racist because they make assumptions and are misinformed. But the result is the same.
I know that in many areas of the US, there is less cultural/ethnic diversity, and it's harder for people to really understand and be able to 'put themselves in other's shoes' if they don't encounter those people regularly in daily life. However, I think everyone can give other groups the benefit of the doubt that they are generally decent people. In the long run, from one culture to the next, we're more alike than we are different.

A friend of mine whose ethnic background is Indian and Afghani said to me just the other day that she gets a lot of racist crap from people, even in the east bay where there are a lot of different ethnic groups.

I know intolerance exists everywhere, and I think to a certain level, it might be biologically ingrained in our behavior to be unsure of 'others.' However, one of the major elements of our country is that we are 'diverse' and tolerate all groups. I find this to be far from the truth.



 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 17:33:59 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nikki said:
>I miss your sweet lips. All is well. You?

I'm quite alright my pet, thanks for asking.


addi said:
>*Christophe you're a twit for even posting to her.

How could I not respond to the future mother of my children, addi ;)


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 17:36:07 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>And Chris, I don't think I'm voting Obama anyway, so that's not what I'm alluding to. Obama hasn't said or done anything to secure my vote, so I refuse to blindly give it to him.

+ the following post of yours

=

Good, you've climbed the esteem ladder a bit.

I wonder though, does this mean you won't be really voting?


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 5 18:12:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>they are racist because they make assumptions and are misinformed. But the result is the same.
>it's harder for people to really understand and be able to 'put themselves in other's shoes' if they don't encounter those people regularly in daily life. However, I think everyone can give other groups the benefit of the doubt that they are generally decent people.

I disagree, recently I've worked several months during an internship in a bank, where doing several tasks I came into constant contact with people from literally all imaginable ranks of life, from the poor to the rich and from the natives to the completely foreign.


Friends of mine did roughly the same tasks I did in different banks.

What we concluded was that it was beyond our wildest imagination how much stereotypes are true in the real world.

And that's noteworthy because I was already a believer of stereotypes and preconceived ideas when it comes to certain types of people, because experience rarely fails to deny them (and when it does I have no problem of changing my views either).

So assumptions aren't necessarily misinformed or wrong, 90% of the time they're dead on.


Some concrete examples:

People from European countries all tried to speak our native language (aside from French (with some exceptions) and English speaking ones), most of them pretty successfully, no matter how short a period of time since they had come to our country (even when their maternal languages are completely different and no matter how rich or poor they were).

People from arab or african nations generally either simply refuse to speak our language or don't know it (even when they've for example lived here for 30 or 40 years). The only exception to this are the ones aged around 20 and who had a job and didn't wear "gangsta"-type outfits. They also have absolutely no shame when it comes to collecting welfare payments, it's crazy.

Black people don't look after their kids.

Arab women are slaves of their violent husbands.

People with shitty names have shitty attitudes.

Poor people are either too submissive without any reason or cause shitloads of trouble because they think they have the right to have everything done for them.

Middle wealth people are friendly and don't cause trouble, unless they're old and think they're rich while they aren't.

Rich people either behave friendly or (like poor people) think that people automaticly kiss their asses because of their (lack of) money (and then get pissed off when you don't, or heaven forbid, tell them to fuck off)


But with my in my opinion pretty much no-BS rational views on life and a background of being accustomed to the notion of thinking certain things based on the way people look (clothes/skin colour/whatever) unless they do or say something to make me rethink it (could be just 1 sentence or gesture), even I was shocked, with the full gravity of the word, how stereotypical people are and how few stray from such generalities.

>In the long run, from one culture to the next, we're more alike than we are different.

Again I fundamentally disagree.

In terms of biology I might go along a bit, although there are differences obviously between blacks, asians, whites, etc.

In terms of culture, some groups of people simply are incompatible.

If the hardware of 2 computers is roughly the same but when the software on one has nothing to do with the software on the other, they're as different as when the hardware would be making the difference, maybe even more so because the functions and operations can be the same with differing hardware as long as the software is compatible.

>A friend of mine whose ethnic background is Indian and Afghani said to me just the other day that she gets a lot of racist crap from people, even in the east bay where there are a lot of different ethnic groups.

Well, if her hardware is Indian and her software is American I don't see a problem. If both the hardware and software are Afghan, it's a different story.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 5 19:51:20 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>How could I not respond to the future mother of my children, addi ;)

Sorry. Had no idea things had gotten that desperate for you.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 20:33:34 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>A friend of mine whose ethnic background is Indian and Afghani said to me just the other day that she gets a lot of racist crap from people, even in the east bay where there are a lot of different ethnic groups.
>
In the east bay area, would you say she might encounter several hundred or so people in a days time, maybe even more depending on her activities during that day, would you say she got crap from what, maybe just a few ?

>I know intolerance exists everywhere, and I think to a certain level, it might be biologically ingrained in our behavior to be unsure of 'others.' However, one of the major elements of our country is that we are 'diverse' and tolerate all groups. I find this to be far from the truth.
>
I disagree.
I think we tolerate all groups pretty well in this country, certainly better than the country of origin for said ethnic groups. When you consider the sheer number of different groups here and we have a working society without a lot of incidents based on bigotry other than a few taunts here and there, you have to conclude that we do well as a diverse society.
Where else on the planet do you think you can find a country built on this many different groups ? Anyone can come to this country and gain citizenship and they would be just as American as you and I. That just doesn't happen anywhere else.
Here in my town, we have quite a large community of Jews from Eastern Europe as well as a large Vietnamese community.
Also we have the obligatory number of illegal hispanics and of course our indigenous black community.
I almost forgot, we have a large population from India and a large number of Iranians. We get along quite well with each other.
I'm sure a lot of these folks encounter racism from time to time, but that certainly does not equal an intolerant society. Most of these folks are gainfully employed and quite a lot of them are educated professionals.
One of the best benefits of such a society is the availablity of so many different restaurants with ethnic foods.
Yummy !

Methinks you're just a glass half empty girl.
:-)




 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 21:00:07 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>
>I wonder though, does this mean you won't be really voting?

I'm waiting it out. I'm really hoping to see Nader in the Google debates. If Obama can prove his worth to me then, I'll go for him. If he doesn't, then I'm voting Nader.
P.S. I worked for Ralph this summer, and I have found him to be the smartest, most hard-working man I have ever met.


 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 5 21:04:53 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>
>In the east bay area, would you say she might encounter several hundred or so people in a days time, maybe even more depending on her activities during that day, would you say she got crap from what, maybe just a few ?

It doesn't matter. She shouldn't get any. I don't get crap from anyone for being white. Why should she for being Indian?

And besides race (which people spend a lot of time talking about), I think that sexism and homophobia go unchecked in our country.

I'm not glass half-empty, I just have high expectations.
:-)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 5 21:13:44 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>>
>>In the east bay area, would you say she might encounter several hundred or so people in a days time, maybe even more depending on her activities during that day, would you say she got crap from what, maybe just a few ?
>
>It doesn't matter. She shouldn't get any. I don't get crap from anyone for being white. Why should she for being Indian?
>
I'm not saying she should get any, what I am saying is it is human nature and that we as Americans are no more intolerant than anyone else, actually as a society we are far more tolerant than most.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 5 22:34:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>I'm waiting it out. I'm really hoping to see Nader in the Google debates. If Obama can prove his worth to me then, I'll go for him. If he doesn't, then I'm voting Nader.

He's a smart man and you have to vote your conscience, but it's a wasted vote in the sense that he has about as much a chance to sit in the oval office as Obama does getting hif's vote.
This "third party" candidate issue has always torn me because I think people should be able to put an X by the candidate they most agree with. On the other hand votes for these candidates have ultimately ended up helping one of the major party candidates and hurt the other one. We know this from the last few elections, and since most voters for Nader tend to be liberal thinkers it's a vote that won't go for a dem, and will end up helping McCain in the close race states.


 
libra Posted: Wed Aug 6 01:41:11 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>libra said:
>
>>I'm waiting it out. I'm really hoping to see Nader in the Google debates. If Obama can prove his worth to me then, I'll go for him. If he doesn't, then I'm voting Nader.
>
>He's a smart man and you have to vote your conscience, but it's a wasted vote in the sense that he has about as much a chance to sit in the oval office as Obama does getting hif's vote.
>This "third party" candidate issue has always torn me because I think people should be able to put an X by the candidate they most agree with. On the other hand votes for these candidates have ultimately ended up helping one of the major party candidates and hurt the other one. We know this from the last few elections, and since most voters for Nader tend to be liberal thinkers it's a vote that won't go for a dem, and will end up helping McCain in the close race states.

I know this argument. But I have also followed the arguments of people who say Nader didn't take the election from Gore...that if you look at the numbers, it doesn't work that way. Bush took the election from Gore. And Gore ran a pretty shitty campaign. They also know that a lot of people who voted for Nader didn't vote usually. They only chose to vote that year because he was an option.

Right now, Nader's polling at 6% across the country. He has evangelical christian followers who don't like McCain but previously supported Bush. The people on the campaign are saying that if he can get into the google debates, his popularity could go WAY up.
My vote is probably easier to throw his way than yours, because California will likely go Obama anyway.

If I vote for Nader, I'm not voting for the president, I'm voting against the system in place...I'm voting against the assumptions Obama has that he can say anything and then pander to another group and still have us all blindly support him. I'm voting for the fact that it's getting harder and harder to see the difference between democrats and republicans.
Plus. I like Nader's issues...all of them.

This was a really sudden change for me. I was all for Obama for a while...more supportive than I had been for Gore or Kerry. But I guess when you're that committed to someone, they can disappoint you all the more...


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 6 07:13:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>If I vote for Nader, I'm not voting for the president, I'm voting against the system in place

Ahhh...jaded on politics at such an early age : )
I understand very well where you're coming from. Back in 80 I worked on the John Anderson (independent candidate) campaign.
In my opinion Nader has his own "issues" and setting him up on a pedistal will ultimately disappoint you as well.
Maybe our differences concerning Obama are that I don't (and haven't) seen him as a savior. I like the guy, but understand he's human and will make some rookie mistakes and questionable statements. He's young in political age. My full support for him has been primarily due to not liking Hillary and really not liking McCain (although all of the above will be a breath of fresh air compared to Dubya).
If Barack makes it to the white house he will no doubt do some things that will piss me off, and do some things that I will clap about...just like Bill Clinton did. A lot of the next president's success or failure will depend on what the idiots in congress decide to do over the next 4 years.


 
FN Posted: Wed Aug 6 07:17:15 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I don't get crap from anyone for being white.

Come to some parts of Antwerp or Brussels without wearing a burka and try and keep count of how many times they'll call you a whore in a 60 minute timeframe.


 
FN Posted: Wed Aug 6 07:19:50 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, I'm coming back from McCain, I'm disliking the guy more and more as well.


I think the US problem in terms of politics is that you only have 2 candidates to vote for and both suck, basicly.

If it can be of any comfort though, here we have like a dozen people who could potentially lead the country in terms of getting votes, but it can also cause trouble when they have to get along


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 6 09:55:22 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't see Obama getting into the White House and I see McCain as a one term president.
The one good thing for Obama is that should inherit the mantle of leader of the American black community. He's light years ahead of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for sure. Those guys should be in prison. Obama seems to be an honest guy and he surely could help to bring about sorely needed change in the black community.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 6 10:07:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Come to some parts of Antwerp or Brussels without wearing a burka and try and keep count of how many times they'll call you a whore in a 60 minute timeframe.

Does that just apply to women or would they call me a whore too?
: )


 
Nikki Posted: Wed Aug 6 11:45:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ha ha
Thanks Christophe

Addi don't be such a crybaby
you can't CONTROL everything - that makes you angry. Why should anyone let you control them. You were once married and I'm sure she left because of your violence. Poor woman.

Anger Management courses, perhaps?

btw. You can't control anything - including your bladder you old coot! I bet you're cut. ha ha


 
Nikki Posted: Wed Aug 6 11:47:25 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh and, Addi, it wouldn't hurt to have a "broader" mind. You DO NOT!

:-)

Libra is not your friend - just another user - like you! The other reason she left you is because you spent all of her money and ran up the debt. Or did you share that? :-)


 
libra Posted: Wed Aug 6 11:54:01 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>libra said:
>
>Ahhh...jaded on politics at such an early age : )
>I understand very well where you're coming from. Back in 80 I worked on the John Anderson (independent candidate) campaign.
>In my opinion Nader has his own "issues" and setting him up on a pedistal will ultimately disappoint you as well.

I don't think that's what I'm doing. He's just a really regular guy who happens to be really smart and done a lot for our country. I really like his family. His viewpoint on how to deal with the US's problems always make sense to me and, if given the choice between his solution, Obama's and McCain's, I would pick his.

>Maybe our differences concerning Obama are that I don't (and haven't) seen him as a savior. I like the guy, but understand he's human and will make some rookie mistakes and questionable statements. He's young in political age. My full support for him has been primarily due to not liking Hillary and really not liking McCain (although all of the above will be a breath of fresh air compared to Dubya).

I don't see him as a savior. He just did so well in the beginning and then became just like everyone else. And when he's saying that he's change and hope, I think he SHOULD be different than everyone else. Nader is different than everyone else. He flies coach, he has like two suits, he gets $12 haircuts. He doesn't take money from public interest groups. He's old-school.



 
Nikki Posted: Wed Aug 6 12:08:47 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  my gosh Libra.that is SO intelligent! I mean gosh really it is! You are just so fucking smart; and fast too! GENIUS!!



 
beetlebum Posted: Wed Aug 6 12:40:37 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ah, just like the good old days here on GT. I have a lot to say but not enough time to type it all... but I do want to chime in and say that I am really enjoying this debate. :)

And Libra-- it is so awesome that you worked for Nader! I would love to hear all about it if you ever have the time. What made you work for him? I've always been a fan; regardless of where he stands, I always feel like I know that he is standing for what he truly believes, instead of trying to appease his campaign contributors.







 
Nikki Posted: Wed Aug 6 13:21:53 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ahahahahahaha funeeeee


 
libra Posted: Wed Aug 6 13:43:13 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>
>And Libra-- it is so awesome that you worked for Nader! I would love to hear all about it if you ever have the time. What made you work for him? I've always been a fan; regardless of where he stands, I always feel like I know that he is standing for what he truly believes, instead of trying to appease his campaign contributors.


I only worked for him for about a month. My boyfriend has been working as his Volunteer Coordinator in DC this summer (this is his last week). But it was really interesting and fun. I've been a fan of the family since I took anthro classes with his sister at Berkeley.
I'll try to sign onto MSN soon and I'll let you know all about it!



 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 6 14:14:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>I don't see him as a savior. He just did so well in the beginning and then became just like everyone else. And when he's saying that he's change and hope, I think he SHOULD be different than everyone else. Nader is different than everyone else. He flies coach, he has like two suits, he gets $12 haircuts. He doesn't take money from public interest groups. He's old-school.

I fly coach, I don't own any suits at the moment, I get....hmmm...okay my haircuts cost most, but only because I have more hair. I don't take money from public interest groups, and I'm definately old school...
None of this means you should vote for me as the leader of our country
: )

If you had read my post closely I said the man was smart. I respect him.
My point was that voting for him is a vote for your conscience, and that's admirable, but you also have to understand the reality of the situation, and it's that he has zero chance to win. Hell...Ron Paul isn't even in the race anymore and he'll get more votes than Nader will. That's what I was hoping you'd address here.
Peace

*Oh yeah..I'm sorry I ran up our debt and spent all your money. I feel kinda bad about that. You have to admit I was great in bed though.
: )



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 6 16:05:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
Ewe have to admit I was great in bed though.
>: )
Uh huh . . .
:-)


 
Nikki Posted: Tue Dec 9 17:16:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi = cunt and prob cocksucker too

libra = BORING

:-)

Christophe = magic and romance


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]