Which do you fear more?

[BlancoNino]

Yes Bush has increased spending everywhere, but Kerry proposed more spending in the social area and more taxes. Higher taxes and increased social spending are two things that I don't want to see our country go in, even if the budget is more balanced.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yes Bush has increased spending everywhere, but Kerry proposed more spending in the social area and more taxes. Higher taxes and increased social spending are two things that I don't want to see our country go in, even if the budget is more balanced.

Like that Chinese owned debt, eh? You think Iraq is a threat, look at the 1.3 billion people whose country is buying $20,000,000,000+ debt EACH MONTH from the US and whose people are "starving" to take your (and my) jobs. :shocked:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: raildogg
A terrorist attack is from humans, and we can do something about it for the most part. We can't stop lightning, for example. Yes, I understand you people don't take terorrism seriously, but really, have you totally forgotten 9/11?

Lets just sit back, recall our troops, cut our defense spending and wait for these people to keep attacking us.

humans can do something about auto acidents to, and auto acidents kill a hell of a lot more poeple than terroism ever will.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TallBill
You should put "killed in iraq" on the list. More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq.

non-military are not counted in that figure, such as contractors and other civilians.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill
You should put "killed in iraq" on the list. More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq.

Uh...links?

Don't forget, the US invasion has killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. Not to mention 2,170 American soldiers and about 100 from the UK.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtradecenter.htm - 3020 dead

Thats just on 9/11. And Im only counting Americans of course. You realize that the 30,000 Iraqi's are all not just innocent civilians right?

Just saying, one attack got 3,000 people in one day.

Heck, June 6th, 1944. Lost about 10,000 soldiers in one day. Thats 10% of the landing force, in one day. We've lost less then 1% over 3 years.

the overwhelming majority of the dead would never have become terrorists/insurgants/freedom fighters/whatever.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill
You should put "killed in iraq" on the list. More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq.

Uh...links?

Don't forget, the US invasion has killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. Not to mention 2,170 American soldiers and about 100 from the UK.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtradecenter.htm - 3020 dead

Thats just on 9/11. And Im only counting Americans of course. You realize that the 30,000 Iraqi's are all not just innocent civilians right?

Just saying, one attack got 3,000 people in one day.

Heck, June 6th, 1944. Lost about 10,000 soldiers in one day. Thats 10% of the landing force, in one day. We've lost less then 1% over 3 years.

You said, and I quote, "More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq." Those are your words. Unless you're asserting that Iraqis are not people, your statement is false.

Your comment about D-Day is just irrelevant.

His statement kinda doesn't make sense since most of the people dying from terrorism are IN Iraq. I get what he's saying though.

iraq is better described as a civil/guerilla war than terrorism.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: conjur
Insurgents'/terrorists' deaths are not included in the iraqbodycount.org study.

And, btw, who's the troll? Not I.

Pretty much everyone that comes into P&N.

Please, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics...

Oh, and most of the Iraqi civilian deaths are caused by Iraqi citizens. Sounds like the country was full of murderers and loonies to begin with. When Germany invaded Holland, the citizens there didn't start blowing each other up did they?

holland didn't have a deep and long standing ethnic conflict did it?

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

If you voted for him, it's sheeple time! :laugh:

Okay, last off-topic post. Want to know why I voted for him?

Kerry's proposed social spending increases. :thumbsdown:

Pulling troops out of Iraq. :thumbsdown:

Unfair tax burden on wealthy (even though I am dirt poor).

Lesser of two evils? Maybe. I liked Bush's proposal on private accounts for social security too.

kerry was almost as much as a hawk as bush. he would never have pulled troops out once he got into office.

the ironic thing about your last statement in that you probably pay a higher % of your income than many of the super wealthy. ha.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yes Bush has increased spending everywhere, but Kerry proposed more spending in the social area and more taxes. Higher taxes and increased social spending are two things that I don't want to see our country go in, even if the budget is more balanced.

more guns and less butter huh? that sounds like a great plan.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yes Bush has increased spending everywhere, but Kerry proposed more spending in the social area and more taxes. Higher taxes and increased social spending are two things that I don't want to see our country go in, even if the budget is more balanced.

We're getting quite a bit off-topic here but I must address your misinformation. Where's your proof that Kerry proposed increased social spending? I believe it was more a matter of rescinding the ill-advised tax cuts and not cutting social programs as this administration has done.

Kerry was proposing pay-as-you-go budgeting, as Clinton had done, in order to bring the budget back into balance.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AragornTK
ok... if all republicans are rush bots and foxnews fan boys... what about the democrats out there? you guys just all spontaneously have the exact same thoughts and claim them as being completely original? that would be impossible, since all democrats have such big ego's you guys would be fighting amongst yourselves over who came up with what

Special EBT

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Honestly, I listen to an average of about 1-2 hours of Rush Limbaugh a week. Maybe even a month.

I honestly do think for myself, and it's really tough to do considering most of my peers (even in a slightly right-leaning town) disagree with me. What I'm trying to say is each day I am exposed to way more views and talking-points that are contradictory to mine, so I have to think for myself. I don't think joining this message board has helped to even things up either.

As far as this thread goes. Here's another question. Were people living in the United States more likely to die from the Germans than the things mentioned in the original post?

From your short history here, you seems like a kid who lives at home, has inherited his father's right wing views and has little real world perspective. The first step in forming your own informed opinions would be to read.. read opposing viewpoints and don't trust bumper sticker speeches you see on 30 second clips on Fox. Don't listen to talking heads, they are in it for the money and have no interest in spreading information or being honest. Try something dry and non-commercial like NPR.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill
You should put "killed in iraq" on the list. More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq.

Uh...links?

Don't forget, the US invasion has killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. Not to mention 2,170 American soldiers and about 100 from the UK.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtradecenter.htm - 3020 dead

Thats just on 9/11. And Im only counting Americans of course. You realize that the 30,000 Iraqi's are all not just innocent civilians right?

Just saying, one attack got 3,000 people in one day.

Heck, June 6th, 1944. Lost about 10,000 soldiers in one day. Thats 10% of the landing force, in one day. We've lost less then 1% over 3 years.

You said, and I quote, "More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq." Those are your words. Unless you're asserting that Iraqis are not people, your statement is false.

Your comment about D-Day is just irrelevant.

His statement kinda doesn't make sense since most of the people dying from terrorism are IN Iraq. I get what he's saying though.

iraq is better described as a civil/guerilla war than terrorism.

When you kill innocent civilians, it is terrorism.

Originally posted by: AragornTK
ok... if all republicans are rush bots and foxnews fan boys... what about the democrats out there? you guys just all spontaneously have the exact same thoughts and claim them as being completely original? that would be impossible, since all democrats have such big ego's you guys would be fighting amongst yourselves over who came up with what

Hey, you're breaking the rules around here. Republicans are always bad and Demoncats are always good. Hush.

Originally posted by: Todd33
From your short history here, you seems like a kid who lives at home, has inherited his father's right wing views and has little real world perspective. The first step in forming your own informed opinions would be to read.. read opposing viewpoints and don't trust bumper sticker speeches you see on 30 second clips on Fox. Don't listen to talking heads, they are in it for the money and have no interest in spreading information or being honest. Try something dry and non-commercial like NPR.

Well, Mr. Tolerance and Diversity, I would suggest you do the same. The people on the left are just as greedy as the Republicans, if not more. But hey, I don't want to go against the policy line here, so I'll just say "Republicans bad, Demoncats good". Happy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."

It's still true today.

It's true. Ironic as this sounds, fear is the greatest thing to be feared. Fear is worse than death itself. Fear's greatest danger is its deception: it makes you feel alive while it steals your reason, paralyzes your action, and slowly eats away at your body. Fear makes your fears come true. "What if?" "What if?" You're a deer frozen in the headlights.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
non-military are not counted in that figure, such as contractors and other civilians.

Yes, I'd say maybe 100 US civilians have died there. Theres obviously no way to tell, but its not a very common occurance.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
holland didn't have a deep and long standing ethnic conflict did it?

No, but I think that the Iraqi people would have popped regardless of us coming there. They obviously had a lot of weaponry and and lot of killers. All that stuff didn't just show up when we did.

 

[BBond]

All that stuff was kept in check by a dictator. George HW Bush knew that. His son refused to recognize it. Bush's invasion freed the Iraqi people to do what they couldn't do under Saddam because they feared him. Now they're free to have their civil war thanks to George W. Bush and his PNAC maniac buddies.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BBond
All that stuff was kept in check by a dictator. George HW Bush knew that. His son refused to recognize it. Bush's invasion freed the Iraqi people to do what they couldn't do under Saddam because they feared him. Now they're free to have their civil war thanks to George W. Bush and his PNAC maniac buddies.

Saddam wouldn't have been around forevor.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
non-military are not counted in that figure, such as contractors and other civilians.

Yes, I'd say maybe 100 US civilians have died there. Theres obviously no way to tell, but its not a very common occurance.

In Iraq??

Contractor deaths in Iraq from icasualties.org:
Total: 293 Fatalities

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
non-military are not counted in that figure, such as contractors and other civilians.

Yes, I'd say maybe 100 US civilians have died there. Theres obviously no way to tell, but its not a very common occurance.

In Iraq??

Contractor deaths in Iraq from icasualties.org:
Total: 293 Fatalities

thanks. i couldnt find it for some reason.

That includes people from all countries though, not just us citizens.

Its 110 US citizens. Pretty damn close to 100.

 

[conjur]

Yeah, but most were working for US companies (probably some as slaves or at slave wages thru subcontractors since the US - Pentagon - declared contractors don't have to worry about human trafficking)

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, but most were working for US companies (probably some as slaves or at slave wages thru subcontractors since the US - Pentagon - declared contractors don't have to worry about human trafficking)

Nobody forced them to do anything. Anyways, they still dont count in my statement. Not that it really matters anyways.

 

[azazyel]

spiders scare me more than the thought of a terrorist attack.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: azazyel
spiders scare me more than the thought of a terrorist attack.

FTW!


:laugh:

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: raildogg


When you kill innocent civilians, it is terrorism.

Text

Text

By that logic you could easily classify US military bombing operations as terrorist actions. We kill cilivians in bombing raids, whether we intend to or not. I'm sure some bean counter somewhere figures that handfuls of civilian deaths are better than expending US solider lives in ground combat.

I also fear soccer moms talking on cellphones more than anything. Matter of fact I was rear-ended by one last week. She was driving too close and fast, for the weather condtions.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Honestly, I listen to an average of about 1-2 hours of Rush Limbaugh a week. Maybe even a month.

I honestly do think for myself, and it's really tough to do considering most of my peers (even in a slightly right-leaning town) disagree with me. What I'm trying to say is each day I am exposed to way more views and talking-points that are contradictory to mine, so I have to think for myself. I don't think joining this message board has helped to even things up either.

As far as this thread goes. Here's another question. Were people living in the United States more likely to die from the Germans than the things mentioned in the original post?

From your short history here, you seems like a kid who lives at home, has inherited his father's right wing views and has little real world perspective. The first step in forming your own informed opinions would be to read.. read opposing viewpoints and don't trust bumper sticker speeches you see on 30 second clips on Fox. Don't listen to talking heads, they are in it for the money and have no interest in spreading information or being honest. Try something dry and non-commercial like NPR.

You replied to my post, but it doesn't seem as if you actually read it.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: raildogg


When you kill innocent civilians, it is terrorism.

Text

Text

By that logic you could easily classify US military bombing operations as terrorist actions. We kill cilivians in bombing raids, whether we intend to or not. I'm sure some bean counter somewhere figures that handfuls of civilian deaths are better than expending US solider lives in ground combat.

I also fear soccer moms talking on cellphones more than anything. Matter of fact I was rear-ended by one last week. She was driving too close and fast, for the weather condtions.

Innocent people dying in warfare? That must be a first.