166 replies to this topic

[k2skier]

mjturley34, on Sep 3 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

I heard there were some pics of Gov Palin in a stars & stripes bikini. If she sent me an autographed copy I might could vote for her

And holding a gun, many Republicans now have impure thoughts

Attached File(s)

•  2008_09_02_images_sarahpalinbikini.jpg (104.45K)
  Number of downloads: 47

[Callao]

Thank you, Skier. I have also found some stats of my own, albeit, only posted once each.

3,861 American troops had been killed in Iraq by November 2007 (http://www.heritage....y/ed111407b.cfm).

4,142 US troops had been killed by August 2008 (http://usliberals.ab...IraqNumbers.htm).

“The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 86,663 – 94,560 violent, non-combatant civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as of August 24, 2008,” which has been criticized as an undercount (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003 (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

25,000 militants are in military custody (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).
Fatalities from Terrorist attacks have decreased 40% since 2001. (Human Security Project, Simon Fraser University, Canada).

The Iraqi War will cost at least $3 trillion. The war in Afghanistan could approach $5 trillion. (Joseph Stiglitz, economist from Columbia University and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University).

“The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[243] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion” (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

"A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion"
(http://corner.nation...TkxZWRjNjFjNzA=).

53% of Americans think “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. (Pew Research Center for the People and Press).

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

“Iraq may see as much as 7 percent economic growth this year, and 7 to 8 percent next year” and the Iraqi Government was able to pay its entire outstanding debt to the International Monetary Fund early, totaling about $470 million (The Washington Times, Jan. 23, 2008).

“In September, the situation in Iraq began to improve. In October, the number of U.S. troops there peaked at 171,000 — 35,000 more than the previous January. By December 2007, U.S. deaths were at their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion, civilian casualties were down, and street life was resuming in Baghdad.
“The impact on American politics has been nearly as striking. As the U.S. effort has shown more success, the slowing economy has eclipsed the war as voters' No. 1 concern, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 4-6” (http://www.usatoday....qcongress_N.htm).

[k2skier]

Callao, on Sep 4 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Thank you, Skier. I have also found some stats of my own, albeit, only posted once each.

3,861 American troops had been killed in Iraq by November 2007 (http://www.heritage....y/ed111407b.cfm).

4,142 US troops had been killed by August 2008 (http://usliberals.ab...IraqNumbers.htm).

“The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 86,663 – 94,560 violent, non-combatant civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as of August 24, 2008,” which has been criticized as an undercount (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003 (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

25,000 militants are in military custody (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).
Fatalities from Terrorist attacks have decreased 40% since 2001. (Human Security Project, Simon Fraser University, Canada).

The Iraqi War will cost at least $3 trillion. The war in Afghanistan could approach $5 trillion. (Joseph Stiglitz, economist from Columbia University and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University).

“The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[243] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion” (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

"A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion"
(http://corner.nation...TkxZWRjNjFjNzA=).

53% of Americans think “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. (Pew Research Center for the People and Press).

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

“Iraq may see as much as 7 percent economic growth this year, and 7 to 8 percent next year” and the Iraqi Government was able to pay its entire outstanding debt to the International Monetary Fund early, totaling about $470 million (The Washington Times, Jan. 23, 2008).

“In September, the situation in Iraq began to improve. In October, the number of U.S. troops there peaked at 171,000 — 35,000 more than the previous January. By December 2007, U.S. deaths were at their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion, civilian casualties were down, and street life was resuming in Baghdad.
“The impact on American politics has been nearly as striking. As the U.S. effort has shown more success, the slowing economy has eclipsed the war as voters' No. 1 concern, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 4-6” (http://www.usatoday....qcongress_N.htm).

What does this mean to you? Are you for or against the war in Iraq?

[towertop]

Callao, on Sep 4 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Thank you, Skier. I have also found some stats of my own, albeit, only posted once each.

3,861 American troops had been killed in Iraq by November 2007 (http://www.heritage....y/ed111407b.cfm).

4,142 US troops had been killed by August 2008 (http://usliberals.ab...IraqNumbers.htm).

“The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 86,663 – 94,560 violent, non-combatant civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as of August 24, 2008,” which has been criticized as an undercount (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003 (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

25,000 militants are in military custody (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).
Fatalities from Terrorist attacks have decreased 40% since 2001. (Human Security Project, Simon Fraser University, Canada).

The Iraqi War will cost at least $3 trillion. The war in Afghanistan could approach $5 trillion. (Joseph Stiglitz, economist from Columbia University and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University).

“The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[243] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion” (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

"A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion"
(http://corner.nation...TkxZWRjNjFjNzA=).

53% of Americans think “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. (Pew Research Center for the People and Press).

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

“Iraq may see as much as 7 percent economic growth this year, and 7 to 8 percent next year” and the Iraqi Government was able to pay its entire outstanding debt to the International Monetary Fund early, totaling about $470 million (The Washington Times, Jan. 23, 2008).

“In September, the situation in Iraq began to improve. In October, the number of U.S. troops there peaked at 171,000 — 35,000 more than the previous January. By December 2007, U.S. deaths were at their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion, civilian casualties were down, and street life was resuming in Baghdad.
“The impact on American politics has been nearly as striking. As the U.S. effort has shown more success, the slowing economy has eclipsed the war as voters' No. 1 concern, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 4-6” (http://www.usatoday....qcongress_N.htm).

Just NUKE'EM! Come on I'm a vet. Please support our troops!

[towertop]

k2skier, on Sep 4 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

And holding a gun, many Republicans now have impure thoughts

Vote for anyone with a gun and a Shlitz BEER!

[LuvPow]

towertop, on Sep 4 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

Just NUKE'EM! Come on I'm a vet. Please support our troops!

come on... back to this old discussion...
JUst because a person does agree with the war in Iraq does not mean they do not want the troops to be safe and out of danger

[Peter]

Callao, on Sep 4 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Thank you, Skier. I have also found some stats of my own, albeit, only posted once each.

Sorry, didn't mean to post the same thing twice

3,861 American troops had been killed in Iraq by November 2007 (http://www.heritage....y/ed111407b.cfm).

4,142 US troops had been killed by August 2008 (http://usliberals.ab...IraqNumbers.htm).

“The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 86,663 – 94,560 violent, non-combatant civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as of August 24, 2008,” which has been criticized as an undercount (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003 (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

25,000 militants are in military custody (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).
Fatalities from Terrorist attacks have decreased 40% since 2001. (Human Security Project, Simon Fraser University, Canada).

The Iraqi War will cost at least $3 trillion. The war in Afghanistan could approach $5 trillion. (Joseph Stiglitz, economist from Columbia University and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University).

Are you trying to say the Iraq war is a bargain? The reason the economic and human costs of the war in Afghanistan are so much more accepted is because the people who originally attacked us actually operate there.

“The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[243] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion” (http://en.wikipedia....ualty_estimates).

"A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion"
(http://corner.nation...TkxZWRjNjFjNzA=).

53% of Americans think “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. (Pew Research Center for the People and Press).

What exactly are those goals?

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens (http://www.heritage....y/ed052708c.cfm).

How long do you think the democratic government will actually last one we leave, whenever that may be?

“Iraq may see as much as 7 percent economic growth this year, and 7 to 8 percent next year” and the Iraqi Government was able to pay its entire outstanding debt to the International Monetary Fund early, totaling about $470 million (The Washington Times, Jan. 23, 2008).

Shouldn't some of Iraq's money be given to the United States given all we have given them?

“In September, the situation in Iraq began to improve. In October, the number of U.S. troops there peaked at 171,000 — 35,000 more than the previous January. By December 2007, U.S. deaths were at their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion, civilian casualties were down, and street life was resuming in Baghdad.
“The impact on American politics has been nearly as striking. As the U.S. effort has shown more success, the slowing economy has eclipsed the war as voters' No. 1 concern, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 4-6” (http://www.usatoday....qcongress_N.htm).

I would argue that any number of casualties is too high, given what is being fought for. We have spent 5+ years creating a puppet government that will most likely not withstand the test of time.

And while we're on this topic, I HATE when people equate supporting the troops with supporting Bush's foreign policy. Isn't wanting them out of harm's way supporting them?

This post has been edited by Skier: 04 September 2008 - 12:19 PM

[LuvPow]

LuvPow, on Sep 4 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

come on... back to this old discussion...
JUst because a person does NOT agree with the war in Iraq does not mean they do not want the troops to be safe and out of danger

Sorry.. need to proof um better
Meant to say Does NOT agree w/the war.

[skiersage]

This topic is cooking now. let me see if I can't fuel the fire.

hoodoo, on Sep 4 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

These conventions (both parties) are meant to inspire their party... neither one of them have given any insights into what they truly have in mind.

I have to agree with you hoodoo. Every speech that a candidate performs is basically saying what they think the people of the U.S. want to hear. The thing is that people want (or at least I hope they want) to hear is what the candidate actually intends to do with his presidency. And this is what scares me about today's current politicians. If they can't say what they are actually going to do then their actual policy is against what the public will vote for......? I don't know but again this is what scares me.

Callao, on Sep 4 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

I wouldn't just pin the "head in the sand" problem on republicans. See, none of us are actually over there, and none of us are eye-witnesses. I'm not confident that most blabbing Americans know what is going on, or what they are talking about.

My personal opinion is that no one in the general public knows what they are talking about as far as politics goes. Even the educated ones. I mean seriously, does anyone really know what exactly goes on in the oval office? Pretty much what it comes down to is that what we know is what the president tells us in his speeches. And who is to say how those correlate to what actually goes on. The way I see it we all have our heads in the sand. Involuntarily.


My opinion on John McCain:
The way I see it, there really isn't much to be said about John McCain. He ran for president back in 2000. He LOST to George W. Bush. If you think Bush was a bad president, wait until the guy who lost to him takes the throne.

My opinion on Barack Obama:
My first impression of Barack was about two years ago. This was before anyone knew who he was and he was just a democrat party nominee hopeful that seemingly had a one in a million shot at being significant player in this election. NPR was playing a segment about Barack taking trips over to Europe. He was talking about how in the past the U.S. used to be a respected country among the world. And how now everyone hates us because of people like George Bush. Furthermore he made a point that if he were president he would like to bring respect for the U.S. back to foreign countries. Personally I think that for nothing else, he should be elected for this reason. In this day and age, the world is more globalized then it ever has been. Therefore it is important that we elect a president who looks good in the eyes of the whole world, not just for us. Furthermore I don't think that he would have made it as far as he has if he wasn't trying to be elected for the right reasons.

My opinion on politics as a whole:
My personal opinion on politics is that the election system of today is totally corrupt. It is like what was said above. We know what they are telling us but we have no idea of what actually goes down. You can even think of it like these forums. I am sure that all of the general members would like to know what goes down in the industry only side of the forums. But the truth is that you will only know what the industry members post is the general forums. (on a side note to the general members, you haven't been missing out on much lately)

My opinion is that people vote for the political party rather than actual person who is running for office. Therefore, I believe that what needs to be done is we need to abandon the party system all together. We need to have an electoral system where individuals need to write a long paper about what they actually stand for and what they will actually do to improve the country over the term as presidency. After that the ones that have the best and most straight forward views will be given a predetermined amount of money by the government to campaign with. On top of that they all will be invited to the debates so that the public can learn what each of them thinks and stands for, etc. After that the public can vote for who they think is best and democracy will have worked. But this will never happen. Why? Because everyone is too happy with the way things are. Even though most of the truly smart people know that this system doesn't work but will never do anything because the system has them focused on making money. All I can do is hope that everything doesn't fall apart before I die.

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.

[LuvPow]

As the conventioneers keep pushing Sarah Palin as a strong executive with a track record of fiscal conservatism, keep her actual record in mind.

“Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.”—Fortune, September 1, 2008

Of course, the oil companies aren’t going to pay those taxes. They’re going to pass them on to me and you. Thus, as Governor, Sarah Palin’s policies of increased resource taxes have had the net effect of placing an indirect tax on every American who purchases gas or petroleum products, in order to subsidize the residents of Alaska. This is despite the fact that, at $51,571 per year, Alaska has the forth highest median household income in the United States, the Alaska permanent fund is already $40 billion dollars in the black, Alaska’s annual general fund expenditures are somewhat less than $1.2 billion per year, and each Alaskan had already received their annual oil revenue payment for 2007 ($1654).

That’s right. As those of us down here in the lower 48 were paying $4+ per gallon at the pumps, Sarah Palin was busy giving every man, woman, and child in Alaska $2854 of our money.

In case you were wondering, there are around 674,000 people in Alaska, for a net outlay of $1,923,596,000 (nearly $2 billion).

No wonder Sarah Palin said no to the bridge to nowhere after she said yes to it. Sarah doesn’t need anything as cumbersome as the US Senate to rape the American tax payer.

[Callao]

I have not advocated either side of this debate; I have only challenged what people say they know (nothing bothers me more than pretenders). k2skier and Skier both ask what point I was trying to make in the stats I provided--because you can't tell from the stats. That was the point. The truth is, I haven't officially picked a side yet, either for elections, or for the Iraqi War. I don't feel I know enough of the issues to decide, so I have researched, and have asked for hard facts, rather than your opinions, which proliferate on this site.

Instead of advocating either side of, say, the Iraqi War, the argument is what would have cost more: going to war, or not going to war. Monetary costs, and otherwise. Nobody addresses the issue of not going to war, so I bring it up as a consideration. Don't want to think about that new dimension? Then put your head back in the sand.

I have not advocated either side. I have only appealed for reason, and appealed for authority. And yet, I'm getting some attacks, mostly from the democratic side--what, does my cool logic sound too conservative for you? If you feel offended by my appeal to reason and my call for hard data, you'd better just deal with it. You are going to have to deal with reasonable people for the rest of you life.

Quit the emotional attacks. People who get so emotionally involved with the decisions they've made will inevitably hamper their own judgment. In other words, they have decided--and they are close-minded. Heed hoodoo's warning, which is much akin to avoiding being "close-minded" and following like gullible "sheep": avoid putting your head in the sand.

I question things. I question people. And I think everybody should. If you don't like that, too bad. Deal with it.

[k2skier]

Callao, on Seep 4 2008, 04:03 PM, said:

I have not advocated either side of this debate; I have only challenged what people say they know (nothing bothers me more than pretenders). skier and Skier both ask what point I was trying to make in the stats I provided--because you can't tell from the stats. That was the point. The truth is, I haven't officially picked a side yet, either for elections, or for the Iraqi War. I don't feel I know enough of the issues to decide, so I have researched, and have asked for hard facts, rather than your opinions, which proliferate on this site.

Instead of advocating either side of, say, the Iraqi War, the argument is what would have cost more: going to war, or not going to war. Monetary costs, and otherwise. Nobody addresses the issue of not going to war, so I bring it up as a consideration. Don't want to think about that new dimension? Then put your head back in the sand.

I have not advocated either side. I have only appealed for reason, and appealed for authority. And yet, I'm getting some attacks, mostly from the democratic side--what, does my cool logic sound too conservative for you? If you feel offended by my appeal to reason and my call for hard data, you'd better just deal with it. You are going to have to deal with reasonable people for the rest of you life.

Quit the emotional attacks. People who get so emotionally involved with the decisions they've made will inevitably hamper their own judgment. In other words, they have decided--and they are close-minded. Heed hoodoo's warning, which is much akin to avoiding being "close-minded" and following like gullible "sheep": avoid putting your head in the sand.

I question things. I question people. And I think everybody should. If you don't like that, too bad. Deal with it.

With this logic you must think we won the Vietnam war then. War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left. The Iraq war is the biggest mistake the USA has ever made, in recent history. We went in for WMD's, now they tell us were there for terrorism. If we wanted to avenge 9-11 we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, where the hi-jackers came from.

Check out this hypocrisy from Rove.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...lin-gender-card

[Andoman]

k2skier, on Sep 4 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

And holding a gun, many Republicans now have impure thoughts

Wow......bikini & guns, that's one hell of a dream woman there

[Andoman]

hoodoo, on Sep 4 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

soldiers_in_mud.jpg
Soldiers_in_sand.jpg
Peaceful_sleep.jpg




Looks like fun , huh Callao?

Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a task from God... wonder what these guys think?

I'd have to say it doesn't look like fun but I have at least 5 people I went to high school with over there and one estimator from work, and they all said the same thing "we're doing some serious good over there". In fact I haven't meet anyone that has came back and bitched about it unless they're in the national guard and thought they were going to get a free trip to college for signing up for the military. Our senior estimator is a helicopter mechanic in the guard and he's signed up to go back every time they ask.

[hoodoo]

Andoman, on Sep 4 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

I'd have to say it doesn't look like fun but I have at least 5 people I went to high school with over there and one estimator from work, and they all said the same thing "we're doing some serious good over there". In fact I haven't meet anyone that has came back and bitched about it unless they're in the national guard and thought they were going to get a free trip to college for signing up for the military. Our senior estimator is a helicopter mechanic in the guard and he's signed up to go back every time they ask.

Nice..

My sincere apologies to all I have offended

[k2skier]

Andoman, on Sep 4 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I'd have to say it doesn't look like fun but I have at least 5 people I went to high school with over there and one estimator from work, and they all said the same thing "we're doing some serious good over there". In fact I haven't meet anyone that has came back and bitched about it unless they're in the national guard and thought they were going to get a free trip to college for signing up for the military. Our senior estimator is a helicopter mechanic in the guard and he's signed up to go back every time they ask.

That's because they "see" and report what the Army tells them and lets them. It's a quagmire and were in financial ruins for making a few rich from illegal weapons sells and a money and power trip. The war isn't about doing what's right, it's about power, money and weapons, (oil is part of money and power). the middle east will never have a Democracy, the sooner we leave the sooner we can get the USA back into the black financially. Going to war in Iraq is a major reason why our economy is in the worst condition since the Great Depression, statistically speaking.

Do you think if congress wasn't spoon fed the "bad" intel about WMD's that all the congressmen would have voted to go to war? I doubt it. We were lied to and now were all paying dearly.

[Andoman]

k2skier, on Sep 4 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

That's because they "see" and report what the Army tells them and lets them. It's a quagmire and were in financial ruins for making a few rich from illegal weapons sells and a money and power trip. The war isn't about doing what's right, it's about power, money and weapons, (oil is part of money and power). the middle east will never have a Democracy, the sooner we leave the sooner we can get the USA back into the black financially. Going to war in Iraq is a major reason why our economy is in the worst condition since the Great Depression, statistically speaking.

Do you think if congress wasn't spoon fed the "bad" intel about WMD's that all the congressmen would have voted to go to war? I doubt it. We were lied to and now were all paying dearly.

Well the people I know wouldn't let themselves be "TOLD" what they saw or what to tell other people. I don't know if someone is tell you what you saw and what you think?

Some people need to sit back and put things into perspective, this argument is like saying "maybe we shouldn't have gone into help Europe in WWII". Yes, I know you'll say Iraq isn't Germany but it's possible that not true because we didn't let them get that bad we stopped them early. Given the chance Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria would nuke Israel, Europe, India, China, and all of North and South America (i could keep going) because of religion. I also don't get people throwing up their hands and saying there isn't any point to helping people. Given a choice people will choose freedom and self-government but they have to be given a choice. After living under a dictatorship for years and years it will take time for people it's all most like these people have Stockholm syndrome. Some people forget that we're dealing with other human beings! The lovey hippie peace and love junk washes away really quick once you don't like something political. I honestly could care less who's the president or which party is in power, there is not reason to treat our soldiers like crap. Some people are taking this stuff to far, like the Oakland airport in California not allowing the soldiers enter the airport to use the facilities during a refueling stop or hotels refusing to allow soldiers as guests (happened recently in England). Remember our soldiers are completely volunteer and there hasn't been (and won't be) a draft. As for the "BAD" intel the brits and french had the exact same intel and so did President Clinton (remember bombing the asprin factory?).

[Emax]

OK - OK. War is politics and politics is war. Exactly why we are involved (real specifics) - we likely will not know. When an economy is endangered (even for stupid reasons), war happens - and the general populous seldom learns the real facts. Equally, they cannot effectively formulate an acceptable alternative solution. We're just not given the facts - and rightfully so.

Vietnam a waste of time? I don't think so - and I was there. Korea a waste of time? I don't think so - and several acquaintances of mine were there. Afghanistan and Iraq a waste of time? No - I have children and other relatives who are there and they don't think so. Formulating your opinions based solely on the evening news (especially in Utah) is the fast track to stupidity. There are both positive and negative forces at work on this planet at all times - and it's not possible for a normal functioning human being to keep up with all of the clutter this produces - so, we elect professionals to make appropriate decisions. Disagree with the decisions made? - elect someone else - but never forget that you're hiring a professional to do the work that you are not capable of doing yourself... not even maybe.

As a skilift technician (or a ski lift enthusiast) - sitting in your living room - do you really imagine that you are on an equal par with any professional government specialist? Even considering the various affairs, questionable affiliations and outright cheats - do you really think that you could do better? If you do, then you're a fool - 'cause it ain't so. The formulation of world affairs occurs in a league that people like us can't buy tickets to. On the back side, they'd be screwed if we didn't maintain their lifts. It's a matter of professionals doing what they do best - and just because you consider yourself a professional in a given field, NEVER assume that you are universally omniponent. You're not.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

This post has been edited by Emax: 04 September 2008 - 06:17 PM

[k2skier]

Emax, on Sep 4 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

OK - OK. War is politics and politics is war. Exactly why we are involved (real specifics) - we likely will not know. When an economy is endangered (even for stupid reasons), war happens - and the general populous seldom learns the real facts. Equally, they cannot effectively formulate an acceptable alternative solution. We're just not given the facts - and rightfully so.

Vietnam a waste of time? I don't think so - and I was there. Korea a waste of time? I don't think so - and several acquaintances of mine were there. Afghanistan and Iraq a waste of time? No - I have children and other relatives who are there and they don't think so. Formulating your opinions based solely on the evening news (especially in Utah) is the fast track to stupidity. There are both positive and negative forces at work on this planet at all times - and it's not possible for a normal functioning human being to keep up with all of the clutter this produces - so, we elect professionals to make appropriate decisions. Disagree with the decisions made? - elect someone else - but never forget that you're hiring a professional to do the work that you are not capable of doing yourself... not even maybe.

As a skilift technician (or a ski lift enthusiast) - sitting in your living room - do you really imagine that you are on an equal par with any professional government specialist? Even considering the various affairs, questionable affiliations and outright cheats - do you really think that you could do better? If you do, then you're a fool - 'cause it ain't so. The formulation of world affairs occurs in a league that people like us can't buy tickets to. On the back side, they'd be screwed if we didn't maintain their lifts. It's a matter of professionals doing what they do best - and just because you consider yourself a professional in a given field, NEVER assume that you are universally omniponent. You're not.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

We had moral and ethical reasons to go to Vietnam, Bush invaded Iraq for personal gain. That's why Saddam was assassinated before his trial was completed.

PS-why is it we spend billions and weapons but treat our vets like crap? Every year I donate to 2 different disabled Veteran organizations, the exact names escape me tonight. We need to treat the brave men and women a lot better when they return home!

Again; we went to Iraq for WMD's, it was manufactured intel all the way. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia if we wanted to avenge 9-11. We are in Iraq for personal gain more than to quell unrest in the middle east.

PSS- I don't watch TV news, or listen to AM radio. I search data and make my own decisions. I was a signature away from being enlisted myself, physical, test, paperwork was all done, I just had to sign and I was in, about 1982.

"Those who start wars don't fight them, those who fight wars don't like them." Michael Franti and Spearhead

Hate begets hate, war begets war.

[poloxskier]

LuvPow, on Sep 4 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

That’s right. As those of us down here in the lower 48 were paying $4+ per gallon at the pumps, Sarah Palin was busy giving every man, woman, and child in Alaska $2854 of our money.

What you don't take into account with claims like that is that Alaska has higher energy costs than the rest of the nation by far. The Alaska gas price average is the highest average in the nation. The permanent fund is in part an amount that is paid from the oil companies bottom line to help offset the high costs of bringing refined fuel to the state of Alaska. In Ketchikan this summer the prices of fuel topped out at $4.80 which is the low end of the average price for the state. Diesel was also close to $6 a gallon. As to the argument that Alaskans income is the fourth highest in the nation is in part because it has to be. In a place where building materials cost an average of 25% more than they do in the lower 48 and groceries are on average 50% higher wages must be higher to compensate. As well as the PFD, part of the high amount that you quote is also an energy credit that is funded by the state not directly from the oil companies. Also historically the dividend has been much higher than it currently is. The articles quoting things of this nature about Palin have been taken way out of context without all of the facts present.

While I am an independent and still undecided on who to vote for I do feel the need to put the argument into the perspective of how these factors affect those who reside in Alaska. While no politician is perfect Sarah Palin has done great things for the state of Alaska and I believe would be very effective as VP.

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 04 September 2008 - 09:15 PM