Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

There's no real conflict. The specific brigades that were involved in the surge are indeed being rotated out--because their tours are ending. But you have to look at pre- and post-surge troop levels to judge whether the surge has ended. Pre-surge levels were around 128,000. Right now the U.S. forces in Iraq are 155,000 with plans to get down to 140,000 by the end of July. There's no return to pre-surge troop levels in the offing.

When McCain said that they were "down to pre-surge levels" he was either fudging the truth or uninformed. Neither is particularly promising. Of course, he's made a number of Iraq-related claims that are so untrue as to be just bizarre, so one wonders if it's something pathological with him.

Here's a link for the info:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...verb_tens.html

Alzheimers?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

There's no real conflict. The specific brigades that were involved in the surge are indeed being rotated out--because their tours are ending.

Yes there is a conflict. The Washington Post says the troops were replaced and the Science Monitor says they were not replaced. One of them isn't telling the truth.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Careful with that generalization there! Iceland, Austria, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, all have lower unemployment rates than the U.S.

Unemployment rates do vary across Europe, but in 2007 the unemployment rates in Sweden, the U.K., the Netherlands and Norway were all very similar to the U.S. Certainly not "a LOT higher," as you claim. You can find lots of this information at http://www.bls.gov/ though you may have to do some poking around.

When you consider that the global unemployment rate is 6.3 percent, the U.S. doesn't really look like the champion of the world anyway. They're about middle of the pack for a developed country.

Now--explain to me how universal access to higher edcation causes unemployment? Even if it were true that countries that offer this have higher unemplyment rates (it isn't) how could that be the cause? Wouldn't other, more local factors be likelier causes?

The point is that government entitlement programs make people less self-resilient and they start expecting the government to look out for them.

Unemployment is a by-product of that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

No, the difference is Hillary's staying in the race isn't getting people killed

Well....she might have been expecting Obama to kick the bucket.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Imagine that....a society where you are don't have to work for a thing. In other words....a pipe dream.

There is nothing wrong with make university more accessible to more people....but the government has no right, nor do they have the money to start paying everyone who turns 18 a free ride through university.

I didn't hear Obama's comments. Did he say that every 18 year old in the United States should get a free ride through university?

If he did, I'm with you. That's just not possible.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and you're saying the USA invasion and conquering of Iraq for it's oil is good. An invasion based on lies, by the way so it's really hard for me to understand your Christian values supporting a lie when the Bible says 'the truth shall set you free' or do you only follow it's teachings when convenient.

Still harping on the whole 'for the oil' argument, are we?

I thought you moved beyond that already....considering that Iraq only recently came back to the pre-invasion stages in regards to oil production.

Unless of course you believe this war was started because Bush wanted to make a bunch of money for his cronies....and at that point you're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. I guess the rest of Congress wanted to make a bunch of money for their cronies too, considering they voted for the war and all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I didn't hear Obama's comments. Did he say that every 18 year old in the United States should get a free ride through university?

If he did, I'm with you. That's just not possible.

The only thing I can find is that he wants the first $4,000 dollars to be free for every college kid on the basis that they do 100 hours public service or something like that.

I wasn't really responding to what Obama said, but rather to the ridiculous comment by HHH that the government should start paying for university/college.

Like CC, I have no problem with specialized student loans....or even pouring more money into education itself(better schools, better facilities, etc, etc)...but I do have a problem with giving kids free education.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Still harping on the whole 'for the oil' argument, are we?

I thought you moved beyond that already....considering that Iraq only recently came back to the pre-invasion stages in regards to oil production.

Unless of course you believe this war was started because Bush wanted to make a bunch of money for his cronies....and at that point you're nothing more than a conspiracy theorists. I guess the rest of Congress wanted to make a bunch of money for their cronies too, considering they voted for the war and all.

You got a better reason for the invasion? I'm all ears.

As for what I put in bold, just another example of failure and incompetence.

Congress I guess, was just more incompetence, or scared or bought off.

You or anybody else still haven't answered why a war based on lies is somehow moral.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I didn't hear Obama's comments. Did he say that every 18 year old in the United States should get a free ride through university?

If he did, I'm with you. That's just not possible.

Here is what he stated in his speech at a high school last month in Billings, MT:

1. The G.I. Bill should be altered so returning veterans will recieve a stipend equal to the most expensive public university in their home state.

2. College students should be able to get up to $4,000 per year toward college expenses if they perform community service. Volunteering at retirement homes was the example he gave.

To say a university education is currently not accessible to all U.S. teens is a bit misleading.

All teens are able to go to university, granted most will rely on student loans or financial aid. If financial aid is not available to students right out of high school due to their parents earning too much, and they are unwilling to take loans, they may have to put off college for a while.

Students are considered off of their parents income at age 24, married, or with a child. Personally, I think the age of independence from your parents should be lowered.

Granted, you may not be able to attend Stanford or Yale, but everyone has access to funds for tuition to local universities or community colleges.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You got a better reason for the invasion? I'm all ears.

As for what I put in bold, just another example of failure and incompetence.

Congress I guess, was just more incompetence, or scared or bought off.

You or anybody else still haven't answered why a war based on lies is somehow moral.

First of all....I don't believe that the war was based on 'lies'....but rather on poor intelligence created by almost 30 years of CIA screwups. They never had people in Iraq doing their dirty work, and instead relying upon intelligence from foreign agencies. Tenet even acknowledged this in an interview.

Secondly....I think it was common sense to anticipate that oil production in Iraq would have dropped. You freakin' invaded the country and destroying most of the infrastructure, removed the government, and took out of power most of the people making the oil flow in Iraq.

My reason for the invasion is simple. Bush thought Saddam had WMD, or was developing them; he thought Saddam was a threat; Bush felt that a decade of screwing over the UN meant that Saddam was hiding something.

Had the US actually have had people in Iraq figuring out what Saddam was hiding, or what he wasn't for that matter....there wouldn't have been a war.

Thirdly....war is not moral attribute....illegal war or not. At least not in my books.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

First of all....I don't believe that the war was based on 'lies'....but rather on poor intelligence created by almost 30 years of CIA screwups. They never had people in Iraq doing their dirty work, and instead relying upon intelligence from foreign agencies. Tenet even acknowledged this in an interview.

Secondly....I think it was common sense to anticipate that oil production in Iraq would have dropped. You freakin' invaded the country and destroying most of the infrastructure, removed the government, and took out of power most of the people making the oil flow in Iraq.

My reason for the invasion is simple. Bush thought Saddam had WMD, or was developing them; he thought Saddam was a threat; Bush felt that a decade of screwing over the UN meant that Saddam was hiding something.

Had the US actually have had people in Iraq figuring out what Saddam was hiding, or what he wasn't for that matter....there wouldn't have been a war.

Thirdly....war is not moral attribute....illegal war or not. At least not in my books.

Still believe all that bull, eh.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The point is that government entitlement programs make people less self-resilient and they start expecting the government to look out for them.

Unemployment is a by-product of that.

If that were so, you'd expect countries with more entitlement programs to be less economically prosperous, no? I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this is the case--and indeed, indications are that there is no such relationship. If unemployment is an indicator, as you implied, then the evidence for that claim is pretty weak.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Still believe all that bull, eh.

Typical response.

Like I said....its probably more fun to people it was all a lie.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that were so, you'd expect countries with more entitlement programs to be less economically prosperous, no? I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this is the case--and indeed, indications are that there is no such relationship. If unemployment is an indicator, as you implied, then the evidence for that claim is pretty weak.

You mean countries like Sweden who had a cradle to the grave system set up for a while now....and recently they kicked out their socialist government and went for a more conservative approach? Surely they didn't do it because their system of socialism was working so well, right?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Still believe all that bull, eh.

It not complete bull at all, in fact it could possibly go back farther than that. The US going back to Clinton ignored intelligence that could of prevented 9/11 all together.

If you go back to the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 in 1994 and the 1996 raids in Manilla of Ramzi Yousef's apartment where Police found a computer with black and white plans to use planes as weapons.

This information was largely ignored by the US.

So the fact that they chose not to ignore intelligence,whether it existed or not is not really a suprise and hardly bull. They got caught with there pants down once and saw the consequences, why would they do it again? They were made to look stupid once, better safe then sorry?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You mean countries like Sweden who had a cradle to the grave system set up for a while now....and recently they kicked out their socialist government and went for a more conservative approach? Surely they didn't do it because their system of socialism was working so well, right?

Sweden's "more conservative approach" still includes universal health care, free undergraduate education and unemployment benefits for job-seekers as well as welfare for the poor. I'd be careful about reading too much into a change in government--sometimes it just means the people at the top change.

As a point of interest, my 98 year old grandmother is Swedish. I'm kind of hoping longevity runs in the family.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You mean countries like Sweden who had a cradle to the grave system set up for a while now....and recently they kicked out their socialist government and went for a more conservative approach? Surely they didn't do it because their system of socialism was working so well, right?

I should add that Sweden's unemployment rate is below the global average, and is comparable to the U.S. rate. Sweden's actually the perfect example of a democracy with generous entitlement programs that is also economically prosperous, though there are of course others. (Iceland, anyone? )

Also--and this may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction--Sweden was never "socialist." They were a democracy with a leftist polity, but socialism to me implies soviet style communism.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It not complete bull at all, in fact it could possibly go back farther than that. The US going back to Clinton ignored intelligence that could of prevented 9/11 all together.

If you go back to the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 in 1994 and the 1996 raids in Manilla of Ramzi Yousef's apartment where Police found a computer with black and white plans to use planes as weapons.

This information was largely ignored by the US.

So the fact that they chose not to ignore intelligence,whether it existed or not is not really a suprise and hardly bull. They got caught with there pants down once and saw the consequences, why would they do it again? They were made to look stupid once, better safe then sorry?

Yeah, I just come to a very different conclusion with the facts. Bush ignored the CIA before 9/11 and before the Iraq invasion, he also ignored the UN and his own operatives and instead believed this deranged ex cabbie from Iraq, that the Germans had shown to be a phony, that Saddam had WMD. If you can swallow that it was just incompetence on George's part when some of his closest advisers are now saying he lied from the start there is no sense arguing anymore as these facts and conclusions have been discussed over and over again here and in the media and you still don't get it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sweden's "more conservative approach" still includes universal health care, free undergraduate education and unemployment benefits for job-seekers as well as welfare for the poor. I'd be careful about reading too much into a change in government--sometimes it just means the people at the top change.

As a point of interest, my 98 year old grandmother is Swedish. I'm kind of hoping longevity runs in the family.

And yet they still had to cut welfare programs back even more and privatize a lot of social services because of problems in the early 90's.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Alzheimers?

Heh. Well, let's hope not--this guy may have his finger on the button before too long!

(in fact, I recently found out that it's not a "button" but a thing called a "football" kept in a briefcase by a four star general. For some reason I was disappointed by this...)