Every day I visit tons of website, forums, and social networks for all types of topics, most of which are technology based in some sort of form. This election cycle has really brought out the best of the liberal “group think” mentality regarding Obama. On just about every social network Obama is praised as “the one” and any hint of disagreement with his policies or ideals is immediately responded with accusations of racism, or just plain insults. Anybody who wants to claim that liberals are tolerant to others, please give me a shout because I can quickly debunk that. Even here on our network of sites, there have been insults tossed at the slightest hint of either supporting McCain, or being against Obama. I’m certainly not saying conservatives don’t dish out their fair share, but the mentality of liberals has once again bordered on the insane and hateful.
It’s tough being a proud conservative, as I will say what I think regardless of what the group and mob mentality is. The real shame is so many people, especially bloggers in the tech area, are afraid to do the same. I have received so many private notes and comments in support of standing up for conservatism, it’s almost crazy. The best comparison I can make is how conservative actors in Hollywood are often ridiculed or turned down for roles because of their conservative beliefs, and the same mentality is going on right now in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers, some of which can be considered A-list are having to remain silent about their thoughts on Obama and McCain, simply because they are afraid of retribution from their employers or just not being able to pickup work from other sites. It’s a shame, and it’s more telling about liberals than it is anything.
I am a conservative, I don’t like Obama, and I will never let anyone intimidate me because of that.
While there are numerous studies, the American Government has kept secret their own death tolls, for obvious reasons.
Here is an article from 2006 that represents the LOWEST agreed to figure by BOTH sides, US and Iraqi, at 150,000 innocent civilians killed.
It eliminates suicides, accidents, and combatant deaths, etc.
Other estimates put this figure as high as 600,000 but that more than likely includes the deaths excluded above.
Either way, these deaths WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if we hadn't pre-emptively invaded Iraq.
I'm not shedding tears for Saddam and his despicable sons, but I have always maintained that a few million dollars worth of cruise missiles were a better solution to the Saddam problem than a trillion dollars and 4,000+ American lives.
If you check the state by state polls, you'll find that Obama is leading in many states by 65% to 35% and in others by 54% to 40%, etc.
And, checking this as just one of the electoral college maps, you'll see that Obama vs. McCain currently represents a 2 to 1 LANDSLIDE of greater than Reagan proportions and represents, clearly, the will of the vast MAJORITY of the American people.
I assumed you were up on all of this, and didn't need to be handed what are easily available facts on every major news site.
Well, now you know.
Sorry. Not taking the diversionary bait. Let's stick to the subjects at hand. See my previous post for a proper rebuttal.
That's all fine and dandy but what does it have to do with Obama fixing health care?
Nope. Research why the Chinese have had to stop their 1 child per family policy for the reasons I stated above. Other countries, developed and otherwise, have to do the same thing, as the number of WORKING AGE taxpayers as a ratio to elderly dependants is trending DOWN for every nation except ours...due to illegal immigration.
You may not want to admit that we, as a nation, need them. But the facts are facts. I hope I have opened your eyes to the current state of immigration and world population trends as they affect our race and our planet over the next 50 years.
I'm old enough to remember watching the first Moon Landing on the TV, so I have seen well over 40 years of Presidents and their administrations. I'm also fortunate to have met, in person, many of them - some, like Reagan, more than once.
None that this is relevant, of course. You're just trying to have a pissing contest with John Holmes.
TRUTH: Here's just one simple to find source...complete with citations.
"Former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that Saddam Hussein was appeased by different United States governments. Saddam Hussein was seen in the past by the U.S. as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 60's, and as a counterweight to Iran in the 80's. They used him as their instrument for more than 40 years.[1][2] The Hussein-U.S. alliance came to an end in 1990 when Hussein invaded Kuwait."
and, from the same pages...backing up my previous comments on WHOSE weapons killed those Iranians and Kurds...
"The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Qassim and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad -- for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.[4]"
and, finally, in happier days...
"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19-20 December 1983. Rumsfeld, who supported Hussein in the 80's, led the coalition forces later in 2003 against him."
I'm not making this up. I witnessed all of this, as it happened, and I REMEMBER the lies and the spin they used then, and what they used in the Gulf War, and then what they used in 2003. If you don't, consider yourself educated.
Either way consider yourself SERVED.
Good question. McCain's plan just uses taxpayer dollars to prop up the corrupt HMO system. They keep raising prices, we keep paying for it, yet no one gets better healthcare and there are no controls on costs at all.
Obama's plan doesn't go far enough either, but it's a far better start.
What, marrying one and supporting him through college to the tune of $20,000 isn't putting enough of my money where my mouth is? (Housing, clothing, food, health care....adds up to more than a monthly donation).
And Hamas endorsed Obama.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html
As does Al Jazeera:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Al_Jazeera_Obama/2008/10/21/142620.html
Nixon got us out after the American people put a gun to his head and ordered him to. Before that (though he did continue negotiations to get us out of Vietnam), he escalated and widened the conflict into adjoining nations (Cambodia, Laos, etc.) along with Johnson, and yes Kennedy started it in a failed effort to cover France's retreating ass, hehe.
There endeth the irrelevant Vietnam history lesson.
Regardless, my point was a FINANCIAL one, not a "who started/was responsible for". I was mentioning this in the context that it was Ford and then Carter who were stuck with the bills of Vietnam and all the ramifications that came along with that.
And all Carter was hosed with was a mild recession...which I remember as NO FRIGGIN BIG DEAL when I lived through it. Yet you want to pretend that he's a worse President than Lil Bush?! On what scale does a minor 1970's recession compare with what even the most conservative analysts are touting as the Second Great Depression?!
that's why Al Qaeda endorces McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?em
And Hamas endorsed Obama.http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.htmlAs does Al Jazeera:http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Al_Jazeera_Obama/2008/10/21/142620.html
Who gives a rat's ass?! And I'm sure Charles Manson supports god-knows-who! What does THAT have to do with anything at all!?
A whole BUNCH of staunch conservatives have started endorsing Obama as well this week.
Wait! Are you saying that these staunch conservatives and Hamas are now working TOGETHER?!
Are the conservatives in the RNC now palling around with terrorists?!
OMG you've discovered something...as completely irrelevant as it can be.
Seriously, who'd be dumb enough to vote/not vote for someone based on any other NUTTER's opinion?
SNAP!
Geezus....anyone that can even remotely try and compare Jimmy Carter to George Bush is either insane or is completely out of touch with reality. George Bush has done more damage to this country in his sleep than Carter could have ever done awake. And Carter wasn't all that bad of a president...everyone just made fun of him because he was a peanut farmer.
"It's not his fault, (insert name) did it." ...."nuh uh, (insert another name) started it!" "Did not!" Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"
I'm sick of it all.
Hmm. Not to niggle, but - from the article you cite:
The emphasis is mine. That would appear to contradict your claim. Furthermore, the article reports that the number arrived at was an 'estimate' based on an 'incomplete' household survey (a poll) asking simply if anyone had died, with at least two fudge factors - an assumption of underreporting of deaths and an 'allowance' for out-migration, without the benefit of citation as to the basis for either. Further yet, I found no basis or evidence for reliable estimates of the rate of violent deaths prior to the invasion; I doubt there are any, though mass graves suggest they certainly occurred. Interestingly, the survey asked for the number of deaths during the 3 years after the invasion but for the number of deaths which occurred during only the 2 years prior. Not sure why the asymmetry.
In any event, one of us appears to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm open to enlightenment.
The first thing that needs to be done is CHANGE the system. Besides working to build up a multi-party system for the long term, reforming the lobbyist system, and ending the HMOs. it means throwing the bums out who've been bought and paid for by BOTH SIDES.
And once the election is over, which is going to dominate this debate until next week, I would LOVE to spend time in these forums talking about alternatives and solving these problems. I hope you do too, sir.
Fair enough. It's late for me and I've been doing a lot of posting, hehe. But this doesn't undermine my argument, now does it?
I only chose that as the LOWEST number. There are much higher ones, and either way, with or without combatants, we're still responsible for starting all of this. Pre-emptively, without due cause, without being attacked first, without any strategic need whatsoever for our country. Saddam was de-clawed in the first Gulf War, period.
Well, actually, Yes, it does. And casts at least some doubt on the underpinnings of other arguments you've made.
Also the BEST number, bad a number as it is. Changing the subject must be a tactic covered in 'Debate 101' - but if the end result turns out to be a relatively stable & democratic Iraq, I have no problem with us accepting 'responsibility' for it.
During Saddam? How soon we forget. But you seem to be a rational person, let me ask you. Is an Iraqi life less important than an American life?
edit: removed...missed Diawa's response
the joy of being an "independant" is I don't feel constrained to be loyal to any single party. I think there should be some balance on both sides that isn't there due to the "liberal" and "conservative" constraints.
I personally don't trust the democratic candidate and certainly know too much about his running mate to like the idea of having him in second command.
I also have to say I am concerned that the republican candidate isn't going to help America as much as he probably could.I feel though that unfair emphasis is being put on his running mate's wardrobe and family life. If this candidate's running mate was male these things would not be of concern.
Instead of concentrating on important matters, like healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance companie's monopolies on the healthcare market, overseas outsourcing of American jobs, and the economical issues here in America, and lastly how the issues of the wars we are fighting in can be resolved , we are inundated with bickering and stupid commercials that say nothing but make the candidates look "rosy and bathed in light".
I think we've become a society of "survivor" voters."" I like the way he looks and think he has made strong 'alliances' and so I will not 'vote him off'."" (never mind that he has gotten where he is through trickery and sneaky whispering)
there is always good on both sides of the liberal/conservative fence. The question we need to really think about though is does that good really outweigh the bad? Choose your candidate based on what you KNOW he will do FOR the country that is positive. the best way to do that is to look at his past decisions and how they effected the country thus far.
It's seems the pro war crowd loves to spread that crap too 'we lost less people in Iraq than in Chicago' . a shitload more people died in Iraq.
Got numbers to say America spent 'trillions ' cleaning Chicago up?
look forward to you canceling out my vote Tuesday Bug........oh wait!.....you can't!
Nice try. But unlike you, I have cited my sources. Enough that when I have stated something incorrectly, it has been able to be corrected. And even that correction didn't undermine my position or the validity or my argument.
I'm still waiting for you, Daiwa, to substantiate a single word you've said or position you've taken.
I'm sure all the dead and maimed will rest easier knowing you feel better about their innocent and needless casualties.
I hope you will therefore support the war reparations we're going to need to pay when all of that comes up. We're going to be paying for this mistake for a VERY long time.
My main issue with Iraq is that we never do something so ill-conceived on such flimsy non-evidence for a clearly self-serving agenda again. We lost our moral standing in the world because of this preemtive vendetta war, torture, illegal renditions, guantanamo bay, etc. I'd like the nation's commitment to "never again".
And one man running for President voted against the war THEN and has been proven right NOW.
PS Oh, on Iraq, don't be surprised when those three ancient factions who have hated each other for longer than we've been a nation finally split up and try and kick us out. Their nation was artificially slapped together by the British a century ago, and like Yugoslavia after WW2, it was only a matter of time before it split apart. With Syria and Iran resurgent within Iraq, even if Iraq stays together, the odds are it will go the route of Hamas in Palestine or Hizbollah in Lebanon. Some societies (based on pre-Feudal political/religious structures) are not yet ready for Western-style democracy. In fact the only one that WAS Pro-West leaning in that part of the world was the one we completely screwed up due to our Cold War monkeying around...Iran. And we've all seen how well that's worked out...ahem. Our actions have echoes for decades, even centuries, not just within 4 year election cycles. It's time for this teenaged nation to grow up and accept some adult responsibility in the world.
the irony of that statement is probably lost on you.
This thread hasn't died yet?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
