A rally against taxes, to me, is almost like a rally against Obama. I didn't see many rallies against taxes when Bush was spending taxpayer money on the war. I saw rallies against the war, which I took as a rally against Bush. But that is just the initial impression I get without diving into it . . . maybe these rallies have nothing to do with teh president and I have mischaracterized them (I really haven't got that into this tea bag issue, so I don't know).
So incredibly weak. Bitching is fine. Taking delight in others "knowing what we had to deal with", without regard to what is actually best for the country, is ignorant and close-minded.
So you're saying Obama symbolizes taxes? hehe. Many people were / are upset about the amount of money being spent on the war. But that is petty change compared to what Obama has pledged to spend. It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to understand that the outrage would be much larger with respect to spending that is much larger.
It's not even close. Every 2 months under Obama's plan, we are spending as much as the entire cost of the Iraq war.
I think the issue is is the money being spent wisely. I understand that you think the stimulus package is an unwise cost to the taxpayers and the war isn't. But hopefully you understand that other people have the opposite view. But it isn't about which cost more, it is about was the money spent wisely . . . and obviously this is a complex debate for both the war and the stimulus package
CNN has now forced YouTube to remove the video!! When you click on the video, you get a message that says, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Cable News Network, Inc.." This is good. This is very good. CNN is running scared, because they're afraid that everybody in the world is going to realize that they aren't a real news organization, but just a mouthpiece for the Left.
If you find another different title of this video please post it! This has some behind the scenes. Was this the video that got deleted? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
That's one I'd advise you to break ASAP. You're going to have a wobbly-legged .mp3 recorder climbing your curtains any day now...
Simplistic reasoning from my point of view. I would hope when people determine how outraged they are about the war, it's not just a cost breakdown. There are thousands of US lives lost as well. I haven't followed this tea bag thing much but the rallies showing outrage over the war got very intense at times. I suspect the outrage over the war and taxes are about the same if not more outrage on the war . . . in spite of the cost difference.
My favorite sign so far was in the background of a photo of the Salem Tea Party, which read, "If debt is the problem, how can it also be the solution?"
Dude, you said this a couple posts ago: It is pretty difficult to have a conversation with somebody that keeps changing the point they are trying to make.
It is pretty difficult because you quoted half a sentence: I didn't see many rallies against taxes when Bush was spending taxpayer money on the war. I saw rallies against the war, which I took as a rally against Bush And that conversation was that I see the tea bag rallies against Obama (which ADP does not) and the war rallies against Bush . . . which has nothing to do with your wrong analysis that people are more upset about the stimulus package because it costs more that the war. Simplistic analysis, IMO. But go ahead and quote half a sentence and take shots on my post I make . . . par for the course for you.
A sentence ends with a period. I quoted your entire sentence. If you are talking about a paragraph, well, it isn't my fault that you put to separate thoughts in a single paragraph. You are very confused, as usual. Once again, you stated: I responded by saying there are probably more rallies against tax-and-spend now because Obama is spending much, much, much more taxpayer money than Bush did on the war.
That wasn't your response. Your response was: Many people were / are upset about the amount of money being spent on the war. But that is petty change compared to what Obama has pledged to spend. It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to understand that the outrage would be much larger with respect to spending that is much larger. And that is what I disagree with. That "reasoning" is way too simplistic. There may be more rallies against tax and spend now because Obama is spending more, but that doesn't mean there are more rallies against Obama. You see, this is hard to understand, but not everyone who rallies makes their decisons based on money. Some people rally based on other ideas . . . which is why I find your analysis of people being more outraged about Obama because he is spending more to be simplistic. Bush may have spent less, but drew just as much if not more 'outrage". Also, if people are thinking that the spending is wise, even if more, they won't be as outraged as someone who is wasting money, even if that waste is lower amount. Any of this make sense or you still feel outrage about taxes is only detremined by how much a president spends? Basically to say the outrage about taxes is determined by how mucha president spends, is just wrong. So if you want to take my posts and say I'm all confused and pick and choose which sentences to attack in my psots, I don't care. The issue is when you say the "outrage " people feel against the president (and or taxes) is determined by how much they spend . . . is that accurate? I say no way
FYI Deaths of military personnel, while serving the nation: FIGURES ARE CONFIRMED ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITE 1980 2,392 1981 2,380 1982 2,319 1983 2,465 1984 1,999 1985 2,252 1986 1,984 1987 1,983 1988 1,819 1989 1,636 1990 1,507 1991 1,787 1992 1,293 1993 1,213 1994 1,075 1995 1,040 1996 974 1997 817 1998 827 1999 796 2000 758 2001 891 2002 999 2003 1,410 534* 2004 1,887 900* 2005 919* 2006 920* * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only
Do you have the number of injuried during combat for the same years, I would be intersted. I ask because I remember reading something about how modern medicine has helped reduce a lot of the deaths but the number of military with severe injuries (or brian injuries) were up. I could see this be true but don't have a link and don't know if it is facft.
This document seems to verify the figures, and contains information about deaths from the various wars and other military actions. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf We lost like 200+ in one swoop in Lebanon, or 1/20th of all of Iraq. I do think the law of averages is at play. The military was much larger in 1980 than now. There was the peace dividend when the USSR fell (reduction in military size). Base closings, remember? Just walking around in the USA, some % of people get hit by cars, drown in bathtubs, or of natural causes, etc. True for anyone, even guys in the military. In some respects, I'd think it would be safer in Iraq than here. SOME respects. Like here you don't have the kind of alert status you do there, the computers tracking the soldiers' whereabouts, the (finally) routine driving around in nothing but armored vehicles, etc. In other respects (obviously), it has been 2x more likely a soldier would die because of Iraq, though it really would depend on when a soldier was there (deadlier vs. more peaceful times) and where the soldier is deployed (green zone pretty safe). In any case, you can't look at 4K+ deaths and attribute them all to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but surely the non-fatal injuries I'd think would be significantly higher during those wars than in peacetime. The relative size of the war and casualties can be seen in the PDF file as well. 4K deaths vs. 58K in vietnam, for example.
