Since HH’s “Whats a good vibrator to buy for my 12 year old daughter” thread there shouldnt be much doubt that hes a troll.
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Since HH’s “Whats a good vibrator to buy for my 12 year old daughter” thread there shouldnt be much doubt that hes a troll.[/quote]
Why should we listen to someone who doesn’t know what an ‘apostrophe’ is? Wait! I saw one after my avatar’s initials! I take my criticism back.
Was Clinton at war? No. Yet deaths are about the same or lower for GWB. Go George, rip the Arabs a new one!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Was Clinton at war? No. Yet deaths are about the same or lower for GWB. Go George, rip the Arabs a new one!![/quote]
The military was active in low-intensity conflicts in central/eastern Europe, Africa, and the middle east throughout the Clinton administration.
And there was never a congressional declaration of war for our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan under GW. Are these wars? I’ve heard the confict in Iraq described as a war many times, but I’ve rarely heard the same said about Afghanistan, despite continued conflict with the Taliban there. Maybe this is an issue of the nebulous terminology used by the media(conflict vs. war, etc…)
How do you define a war anyways? It’s probably not defined by a formal declaration. We’ve only declared war a handful of times though we’ve taken foreign military action literally hundreds of times. And surely it has to include more than simple military action. Or does it? Is it just something you know when you see it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’[/quote]
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.[/quote]
That’s a nice answer but if you’re dead you don’t care about being unpopular.
Sad to say, but this will be a war of at least 100 years and it will be a battle of civilisations — a gift from us old pharts to you youngsters. Kind of like the Social Security/Medicare noose we put around your necks…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.
That’s a nice answer but if you’re dead you don’t care about being unpopular.
Sad to say, but this will be a war of at least 100 years and it will be a battle of civilisations — a gift from us old pharts to you youngsters. Kind of like the Social Security/Medicare noose we put around your necks…
[/quote]
Around their necks?
You think you will be able to force them to pay?
Coming from a high tax country I´d say you´re wrong.
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.
That’s a nice answer but if you’re dead you don’t care about being unpopular.
Sad to say, but this will be a war of at least 100 years and it will be a battle of civilisations — a gift from us old pharts to you youngsters. Kind of like the Social Security/Medicare noose we put around your necks…
Around their necks?
You think you will be able to force them to pay?
Coming from a high tax country I´d say you´re wrong.
[/quote]
The quantity of money to fund all of this is so enormous that only a very autocratic ‘Big Brother’ type government will even be able to attempt it. They will.
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
More troops died under Clinton than GWB. Yet one is honored and gets BJs from hottie-admirers, while the other is ridiculed…
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
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): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
The statistics also don’t bear out that minorities bear the brunt of all this. Compare the census with the deaths:
European descent …69.12%
Hispanic … … 12.5%
Black … …12. 3%
Asian … … 3.7%
Native American . 1.0%
Other … …2.6%
Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in
Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic … … 10.74%
Black … … . 9.67%
Asian … … … 1.81%
Native American … … 1.09%
Other … … … 0.33%
(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service,
and they may be confirmed by anyone at: Congressional Research Service Reports
natsec/RL32492.pdf)
First of all this is bullshit because there are almost as many private contractors in Iraq than soldiers which distorts this statistic.
So, one reason Bush has fewer dead soldiers because he privatized war and torture on a scale unseen since Wallenstein and the great religious war(s) in Europe.
Then, congratulations, after more than 1 million Iraqi dead, lots of them killed by the Clinton administration, lets nitpick over the few thousand soldiers who chose to be in harms way instead of just being killed to be “freed” without having any say in that matter.
I think I wrote something about myopic hubris and blindness in another thread, feel free top apply it to this one.
[/quote]
Sucks for you when the facts don’t support your personal bias, don’t it? Cry if you will…
[quote]pat wrote:
Sucks for you when the facts don’t support your personal bias, don’t it? Cry if you will…[/quote]
Did you miss the part where it(the original post) was a hoax?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
pat wrote:
Sucks for you when the facts don’t support your personal bias, don’t it? Cry if you will…
Did you miss the part where it(the original post) was a hoax?
[/quote]
I don’t see where they showed the original post was wrong. 'splain it to me, nice and slow? Numbers are not my friend! 
They also brought in Reagen. That doesn’t show the stuff is false.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.
That’s a nice answer but if you’re dead you don’t care about being unpopular.
Sad to say, but this will be a war of at least 100 years and it will be a battle of civilisations — a gift from us old pharts to you youngsters. Kind of like the Social Security/Medicare noose we put around your necks…
Around their necks?
You think you will be able to force them to pay?
Coming from a high tax country I´d say you´re wrong.
The quantity of money to fund all of this is so enormous that only a very autocratic ‘Big Brother’ type government will even be able to attempt it. They will.
[/quote]
You write depressing posts. Go and have some fun and stop being so gloomy!
[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
pat wrote:
Sucks for you when the facts don’t support your personal bias, don’t it? Cry if you will…
Did you miss the part where it(the original post) was a hoax?
I don’t see where they showed the original post was wrong. 'splain it to me, nice and slow? Numbers are not my friend!
They also brought in Reagen. That doesn’t show the stuff is false.
[/quote]
It goes like this. The original numbers were a chart that was artificially constructed based off of real numbers. In this chart, they count non active duty deaths under the Clinton years and they count only Active duty deaths for the Reagan ,Bush I and Bush II years. This artificially inflates the Clinton count while artificially deflating the Reagan, Bush and Bush II count.
In fact, if you count Active duty deaths only, The numbers indicate that the Clinton years were far lower than Reagan, Comparable to Bush I and lower than Bush II.
Additionally, the Chart excludes 2007 from GWB’s presidency, which is fair enough since there may not be an official count yet, but it is known that the count would be over 1000.
The email is a purposeful deception claiming false conclusions on altered data. In short, a hoax.
Never take chain emails at face value. They are designed to prey on ignorance and laziness. They hedge a bet that the majority of the people that read it will not research the claims but will still cite the information as if it were the truth.
More reading
This is the same source that Headhunter linked to to ‘verify’ the information. The first thing they say is to not believe the chain email ‘facts’ and then provides the accurate information.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I’m confused.
Are you saying that:
A. Clinton should be ridiculed?
B. GW should get honours and BJs from hotties?
C. Both?
Good point though.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
I think what he is saying is that I should be getting BJ’s from hotties, which is what we are all really thinking.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
pat wrote:
Sucks for you when the facts don’t support your personal bias, don’t it? Cry if you will…
Did you miss the part where it(the original post) was a hoax?
I don’t see where they showed the original post was wrong. 'splain it to me, nice and slow? Numbers are not my friend!
They also brought in Reagen. That doesn’t show the stuff is false.
It goes like this. The original numbers were a chart that was artificially constructed based off of real numbers. In this chart, they count non active duty deaths under the Clinton years and they count only Active duty deaths for the Reagan ,Bush I and Bush II years. This artificially inflates the Clinton count while artificially deflating the Reagan, Bush and Bush II count.
In fact, if you count Active duty deaths only, The numbers indicate that the Clinton years were far lower than Reagan, Comparable to Bush I and lower than Bush II.
Additionally, the Chart excludes 2007 from GWB’s presidency, which is fair enough since there may not be an official count yet, but it is known that the count would be over 1000.
The email is a purposeful deception claiming false conclusions on altered data. In short, a hoax.
Never take chain emails at face value. They are designed to prey on ignorance and laziness. They hedge a bet that the majority of the people that read it will not research the claims but will still cite the information as if it were the truth.
More reading
This is the same source that Headhunter linked to to ‘verify’ the information. The first thing they say is to not believe the chain email ‘facts’ and then provides the accurate information.
[/quote]
Great post. Game, set, match.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.
General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’
A) Bush privatized the war.
B) They changed the definitions of a war ‘death’ and murder. If you get shot in the back of the head, it is now considered murder, not a military death. I think it was changed in the late Clinton years, or at least, so I’ve read.
C) It’s less the military deaths, more the MONEY, the PRINCIPALS, and the GLOBAL RELATIONS that make the Iraq war to unpopular.
That’s a nice answer but if you’re dead you don’t care about being unpopular.
Sad to say, but this will be a war of at least 100 years and it will be a battle of civilisations — a gift from us old pharts to you youngsters. Kind of like the Social Security/Medicare noose we put around your necks…
Around their necks?
You think you will be able to force them to pay?
Coming from a high tax country I´d say you´re wrong.
The quantity of money to fund all of this is so enormous that only a very autocratic ‘Big Brother’ type government will even be able to attempt it. They will.
[/quote]
You are dreaming. Benefits will be cut. I feel bad for the poor politician that has to actually do it. You saw the shit storm Bush took when he tried to address the issue.