| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Oh Noooo.....another Lib theory smashed! |
Topic: Oh Noooo.....another Lib theory smashed!
| Author | Message |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 11/23/2007 10:45:07 AM | show profile http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002 |
| mkelly | Posted – 11/23/2007 10:57:03 AM | show profile What, rich and successful states tend to be Democratic while poor backwaters are Republican? Who didn't know that? If voting Democrat keeps me and my state rich, I'm all for it. I'd advise you to do the same. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 11:30:34 AM | show profile Yeah, I want to move somewhere and work at Wal- Mart and live in a cardboard box. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 11/23/2007 11:35:38 AM | show profile For you Dog...that would be a move "up"....You little social climber! |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 1:11:57 PM | show profile Jim - is that's the case - I'll be looking down at you. |
| chucho | Posted – 11/23/2007 2:15:17 PM | show profile Yep, and don't forget that these rich liberal states provide WELFARE to a lot of poor, conservative states. For example, Oklahoma: for every $1 that "pull yerself up by yer bootstraps" state pays into federal income tax it consistently gets over $1.30 back (since the early 80s, it has been a welfare state). The same applies to a lot of other predominantly conservative states (the source is the Treasury Department, if you don't beleive me get off yer lazy ass and look it up yerself because Fox isn't going to tell you this and I'm not your mommy). To be fair: Texas is on par, but that's because of the high property tax in that state, which the hilllbillies are always complaining about (they'd rather "Taxachusetts" subsidize their highway funding instead of paying fer it themselves, the hypocrites). So yeah: makes perfect sense that liberal states are wealthier and pay higher taxes: they're wiser and they prop up states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama and Kansas. So there. |
| chucho | Posted – 11/23/2007 2:17:07 PM | show profile PS: The Washington Times is a right-wing shit paper owned by a crazy Korean-American cult leader who gives tons of money to conservative assholes. (Consider him the conservative version of George Soros, only wackier.) |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 11/23/2007 3:07:19 PM | show profile Democrats have always been the party of the rich They have lied to blacks and hispanics for years. Some of the most violent cities,cities with the worst school systems, are all in blue states.All ran by Democrats. Philadelphia,Baltimore,Washington,Oakland,Detroit,Los Angeles. Almost all the inner cities in red states are all ran by Democrats.All have the worst schools and high crime. Democrat party is the education party.Thats so funny. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 3:28:37 PM | show profile Obly - sometimes with all the resources and best intentions you can't educate under achievers like you. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 3:33:37 PM | show profile Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook What's this? By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY. The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 11/23/2007 5:33:50 PM | show profile Hey Dog,I know how deeply concerned you are about the troops Try these numbers Lib! Here is some interesting information, put together by a couple of > West Point guys. You can confirm it by going to the source (see link > at end of piece) > > Bet you didn`t know this. You will be surprised! > > Why has the media not complained before the I raq war???? > These are some rather eye-opening facts: > > As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, > consider the following statistics. > > Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the > armed forces from 1980 through 2004: > > 1980 .......... 2,392 > 1981 .......... 2,380 > 1982 .......... 2,318 > 1983 .......... 2,465 > 1984 .......... 1,999 > 1985 .......... 2,252 > 1986 .......... 1,984 > 1987 .......... 1,983 > 1988 .......... 1,819 > 1989 .......... 1,636 > 1990 .......... 1,508 > 1991 .......... 1,787 > 1992 .......... 1,293 > 1993 .......... 1,213 > 1994 .......... 1,075 > 1995 .......... 1,040 > 1996 .......... 974 > 1997 .......... 817 > 1998 .......... 826 > 1999 .......... 795 > 2000 .......... 774 > 2001 ......... 890 > 2002 .......... 1007 > 2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534* > 2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 90 0* > 2005 .......... 919* > 2006 .......... 920* > * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring > Freedom fatalities only > > Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in > >>>> the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel > during Mr. Clinton's presidency? > > Were we at war? > > Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? > > Especially look at 1980, during the reign of President 'Nobel Peace > Prize, Jimmy Carter' himself, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. > > What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal > politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those > facts that support their agenda driven reportin g . > > Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that > these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong > again - The latest census shows the following: > > European descent (white) ... 69.12% > Hispanic .. 12.5% > African American ..... 12.3% > Asian ..... 3.7% > Native American ..... 1.0% > Other ..... 2.6% > ; > Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are: > > European descent (white) .... 74.31% > Hispanic ..... 10.74% > African American ..... 9.67% > Asian ..... 1.81% > Native American ... .. 1.09% > Other ..... 2.33% > > These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at: http:// > www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 11/23/2007 6:19:04 PM | show profile what i see is the number of military fatalities declining steadily up to the Gulf War then rising sharply again, even without a corresponding rise in the overall number of troops. Am I missing something? |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 11/23/2007 6:27:11 PM | show profile btw, the above is true when you don't just abstract the Iraq War fatalities but add them to overall fatality numbers (as the DOD's helpful graph does), bringing them to 1,228, 1,874, 1,942 and 1,858 for the years 2003-2006 respectively. Then, weighing the figures as a percentage of the overall troop level, you find that we've just about erased all the gains made in troop safety over the previous two decades. Of course, to lay it out this way means using logic, so you're probably at a little disadvantage there. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 7:07:35 PM | show profile Jim - you loose! Let's put the figures aside since you've just made an ass of yourself and consider the suffering. Where do you stand on that - on the side of pain? Bush and company and vermin like Limbaugh and O'Reilly have dumped on soldiers in the most shameful manner. None care about the horror these servicemen have encountered - just like you who chooses to sum them up as numbers on a page. You should jump back in your hole rat face. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 11/23/2007 9:23:45 PM | show profile No gay slurs crimedog? |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/23/2007 9:31:56 PM | show profile Olby - stay in the closet and save the earth. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 11/23/2007 9:42:47 PM | show profile SPIN IT LIBS There was no war under Jimma.....member? |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 11/23/2007 10:47:32 PM | show profile I have a friend he was in the army, his dad was a drill sargeant, and he intends to send his son in there when he's old enough. He tells me there quite a few casualties during training and drills. For example some guy's hand slips, and drops the grenade into the trench. When you're training to use that level of weaponry in real battle situations, it's only natural that people will get killed once in a while. Have you noticed though, that the number of casulties went down consistently during the 90's? And back to the subject of the thread of course the rich side with dems. "A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys who got elected in 2006," he said. The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study." It says that George Bush strikes again, against his own party. His approval rating is, depending what poll you look at is from 24% to as high as 36%, with the lost being Zogby and the highest being Fox (go figure that, huh?). At that point, in a two party system, your rivals are going to carry the majority of just about every demographic. After vetoing SCHIP he may loose more of the middle-class, particularly the lower segment. I honestly expect because of that ,as well as poor fiscal policy and an encridibly weak dollar, the Democrats will pick up the White House, about 2 or 3 senate seats, and 4 or 5 seats in the House. Bush will be remembered as the worst thing to happen to the GOP ever. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 11/23/2007 10:48:45 PM | show profile no, of course, you're right. let's have more war so the troops can be even safer. |
| robsemail | Posted – 11/23/2007 11:08:00 PM | show profile What a surprise! Conservatives don't care about civilian deaths. Lots of civilians have died in Iraq, enough to populate a medium-sized city here in America. Several orders of magnitude more than died on 9/11. But then, those are dark-skinned people. They live on the other side of the world. And they're not christians. So they don't matter to the cons. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 11/23/2007 11:47:45 PM | show profile HEY LIBS.....CHEW ON THIS! Every time you would see MSNBC or CNN do a piece on Walter Reed hospital and the brave wounded vets who had lost limbs and worse....to a man said..that they all wanted to go back and finish the job! ....Some-how I just don't picture any of you Libs showing that kind of spunk..or ANY spunk for that matter. Hey,maybe Matthews quit doing the visits to WR ....he didn't get the answers he thought he would....ya think. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/24/2007 1:13:33 AM | show profile Jim - aren't you ready for the glue factory. George Bush didn't know what Walter Reed was. He thought is was chewing tobacco. |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 11/24/2007 1:18:56 AM | show profile Spunk You mean like when Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Rove, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Giulianni volunteered to serve in the military and Murtha, Kerry, and four-star general Wesley Clark didn't? Like when the dems ran an almost endless supply of Iraq war vets for congress in 2006? Or that they are continuing to support veterans for congress in '08 while the Bushies in the 2000 primaries couldn't bash McCain enough. Or in 2004, couldn't bash Kerry's service enough. In fact most veterans coming home to run for office, did so as democrats. In other words, the soldiers coming home that you say have so much "spunk" (btw, I hate that word), ARE in fact liberals. Or at least the ones politically active hate the GOP. P.S. Steve Sarvi for Congress! |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 11/24/2007 8:38:30 AM | show profile er, JIMBO, when are YOU going off to "finish the job?" or did you shoot all your spunk here? |
