The times will change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> The times will change (12/7/2014 12:39:16 PM)

I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?



DaddySatyr -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 12:49:10 PM)


Isn't it amazing how abuse of power and privilege is okay with some, when it falls in their favor, Rich?

I think the left has been the party of negative for so long that they will need some time to rebuild in the eyes of quite a few centrists.

Let's face it; the dyed-in-the-wool types (on either side) aren't going anywhere. The war is for the people in the center.

Of course, I don't believe that there are as many centrists as polls would have us believe but I do believe they're still a sizable chunk. Think about it; according to Slick Willy, he was a centrist. I agree that he had, at least, a passing familiarity with compromise which is absent in the current failure-in-chief but centrist? Hardly.

So, I think the left has some re-building to do. Certainly most of the promises of seven years ago have gone un-kept (or did we close/empty Guantanamo and pull out of Afghanistan when I wasn't looking?). How's that economic recovery coming along? Unemployment is down to what ... just above where it was, when King George II left office, six years ago?

I think the "big players" on the left have a huge loss of credibility that will take some time to re-build with "Middle America" (Typed by the guy that wrote in a democrat for the commonwealth elections in November).



Michael



TheHeretic -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 1:01:07 PM)

I still hold a lot of the values I used to think made me a liberal, but I dumped the Democrat party and moved to direct opposition of them after seeing how quickly the dumped the seemingly shared values the moment those values became inconvenient.

For the purposes of this thread, though, how can our local libs ever hope to challenge domestic spying, military adventurism (especially the unilateral variety), abuse of power, and general contempt for the governed? If people refused to acknowledge there is a problem with the IRS scandal, where will they find footing when a Republican President has something fishy in his/her administration? How can anyone who sat silent when President Obama made war on Libya hope to be seen as anything but a partisan opportunist with no values when they try to take shots at the military decisions of a future Republican?



DaddySatyr -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 1:04:53 PM)


I think your question answers itself. They can't.

Just basic logic dictates that either you're against something like the IRS targeting certain groups or you're a hypocrite, when you challenge "the other side" doing it. I guess the words "party hack" could be substituted for "hypocrite".



Michael



Musicmystery -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 2:33:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?

Back at ya. Did you think this wasn't going to be used by subsequent Democrats in the White House?




cloudboy -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 2:36:22 PM)

It's sad to see you hanging on the IRS "scandal" but now that the Republicans officially had to put Benghazi to bed, you've got nothing left.

**** (Four Stars) for Obama's executive action on immigration.

I see economic growth and two dialed down wars; you see a black man in the white house and shit yourself over faux scandals. It's weird to see someone live with such angst over perceived hardships (Obama) and bliss over actual ones (GWB.)

Before the rest of us get buried in our graves, would be nice to see you make a post with some actual content in it.



enslaver -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 2:54:00 PM)

The only way times will change in Washington is if a nuke goes off there and we start all over. Face it people, both parties are failures, both are bought and paid for, enjoy your plutocracy.



deathtothepixies -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 5:19:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


For the purposes of this thread, though How can anyone who sat silent when President Obama made war on Libya hope to be seen as anything but a partisan opportunist with no values when they try to take shots at the military decisions of a future Republican?


Yeah, that war on Libya sure took its toll didn't it?

How many of your servicemen died in that one?

How many died in Iraq?

How many died in Afghanistan?

Feel free to find the numbers for each war and then put the appropriate "D" or "R" with them.

Oh, and if you're bored, have a look at the civilian deaths too



servantforuse -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 6:20:31 PM)

Benghazi has not been put to bed. You probably wish it had though.



Lucylastic -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 6:30:56 PM)

you mean fox news and heritage foundation havent put it to bed...LOL
what a surprise



DomKen -> RE: The times will change (12/7/2014 7:36:22 PM)

FR
Speaking of lawlessness by the President, get back to us next week when the torture report finally gets released.

Or is this a preemptive to muddy the waters prior to that?



DesideriScuri -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 1:07:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?


I said it before, Rich, Candidate Obama's promise to fundamentally change the way Washington works, was to change it from Republican control to Democrat control. The Democrats are not frying up the shit sandwiches, instead of the Republicans.

How many right-leaning posters are going to suddenly go silent when the next GOP President takes the same path President Obama is taking?




TheHeretic -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 6:51:02 AM)

We know who our partisan whores are on the more conservative side of the spectrum, DS. I don't think they'll be able to expect smooth sailing.

Of course, marching in lockstep is more of a Democrat thing anyway.



Musicmystery -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 8:04:17 AM)

Ha! Since when? Democrats can't agree on anything, and range the spectrum from very conservative to progressive.



slvemike4u -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 8:17:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?

I'm just curious.Do any of you knuckle dragging ,righty sorts actually think your party can win a national election while you continue to demand that your candidates move further and further to the right in order to gain your party's nomination ?
Given the demand by the party base for more xenophobic,anti-immigration,pro multinational corporation hacks and anti scientific morons as your standard bearer the threat of a republican in the White house seems too remote for anyone to lose any sleep considering your question



dcnovice -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 9:00:21 AM)

quote:

Of course, marching in lockstep is more of a Democrat thing anyway.

This may ring truer to folks unfamiliar with the terms "RINO" and "Blue Dog Democrat."

Or with the vote breakdowns for the ARRA and ACA.



CreativeDominant -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 10:23:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?

I'm just curious.Do any of you knuckle dragging ,righty sorts actually think your party can win a national election while you continue to demand that your candidates move further and further to the right in order to gain your party's nomination ?
Given the demand by the party base for more xenophobic,anti-immigration,pro multinational corporation hacks and anti scientific morons as your standard bearer the threat of a republican in the White house seems too remote for anyone to lose any sleep considering your question

Funny how when the name calling starts, it is as likely...if not more likely...to come from the oh-so tolerant, oh-so sensitive to feelings left side of the spectrum.

Xenophobic...you do know that there's another description of xenophobia besides a "fear of foreigners", right? Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality". That description seems to fit the left in many instances...an exaltation of ANY culture besides their own. As for a fear of foreigners, it's amazing then that the right is so in favor of multi-national undertakings. a
Anti-science? The left has its own problems with anti-scientific stances: Left-wing antiscience - One expression of antiscience is the "denial of universality and... legitimisation of alternatives", and that the results of scientific findings do not always represent any underlying reality, but can merely reflect the ideology of dominant groups within society. In this view, science is associated with the political Right and is seen as a belief system that is conservative and conformist, that suppresses innovation, that resists change and that acts dictatorially. This includes the view, for example, that science has a "bourgeois and/or Eurocentric and/or masculinist world-view."

The anti-nuclear movement, often associated with the left, has been criticized for overstating the negative effects of nuclear power, and understating the environmental costs of non-nuclear sources that can be prevented through nuclear energy. ( taken from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience )

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/democrats-have-a-problem-with-science-too-107270.html#.VIXpJmnn_qB

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

Now then, you can come back with articles stating that I'm wrong but it's all from your perspective, just as mine is but note that the articles above are from liberal sources.

Not all of us on the right want the party to shift further right. Some of us believe in things similar to what DS believes and just like on the left, there are progressive, centrist, conservative and far,-right members



slvemike4u -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 10:35:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm just curious. Do any of you liberal leaning and lefty sorts think you'll ever have even a stump of credibility in the future, when you want to whine and snivel about how a Republican President is using executive authority to change laws to his liking, and go start wars on his whims?

I'm just curious.Do any of you knuckle dragging ,righty sorts actually think your party can win a national election while you continue to demand that your candidates move further and further to the right in order to gain your party's nomination ?
Given the demand by the party base for more xenophobic,anti-immigration,pro multinational corporation hacks and anti scientific morons as your standard bearer the threat of a republican in the White house seems too remote for anyone to lose any sleep considering your question

Funny how when the name calling starts, it is as likely...if not more likely...to come from the oh-so tolerant, oh-so sensitive to feelings left side of the spectrum.

Xenophobic...you do know that there's another description of xenophobia besides a "fear of foreigners", right? Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality". That description seems to fit the left in many instances...an exaltation of ANY culture besides their own. As for a fear of foreigners, it's amazing then that the right is so in favor of multi-national undertakings. a
Anti-science? The left has its own problems with anti-scientific stances: Left-wing antiscience - One expression of antiscience is the "denial of universality and... legitimisation of alternatives", and that the results of scientific findings do not always represent any underlying reality, but can merely reflect the ideology of dominant groups within society. In this view, science is associated with the political Right and is seen as a belief system that is conservative and conformist, that suppresses innovation, that resists change and that acts dictatorially. This includes the view, for example, that science has a "bourgeois and/or Eurocentric and/or masculinist world-view."

The anti-nuclear movement, often associated with the left, has been criticized for overstating the negative effects of nuclear power, and understating the environmental costs of non-nuclear sources that can be prevented through nuclear energy. ( taken from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience )

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/democrats-have-a-problem-with-science-too-107270.html#.VIXpJmnn_qB

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

Now then, you can come back with articles stating that I'm wrong but it's all from your perspective, just as mine is but note that the articles above are from liberal sources.

Not all of us on the right want the party to shift further right. Some of us believe in things similar to what DS believes and just like on the left, there are progressive, centrist, conservative and far,-right members

The problem,as has been demonstrated so often,is that Republicans with more centrist views have a snowballs chance in hell of making it through your primary.The selection process itself demands that any candidate who hopes to receive the nomination must ,as a requirement,move further an further to the right.
Which than makes it impossible to win the general....Romney talking to his base about the "takers" amongst us,self deportation and other silly points of view in order to seem Republican enough to secure the party nod.
Edited to add: I wish this was not so,the country is healthier when there are two vibrant and relevant parties trying to secure the Oval Office.....I used to be a Republican....but the Christian Right has hijacked your party,till you wrest back control from them and their corporate handmaidens !600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to be a Democratic seat.
Gerrymandered congressional seats is all the republican party can hope for,that and the odd mid term election here and there



Musicmystery -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 10:38:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Funny how when the name calling starts, it is as likely...if not more likely...to come from the oh-so tolerant, oh-so sensitive to feelings left side of the spectrum.

I'll bet that if you troubled to collect stats, you'd find it's a human tendency, not a partisan-specific one.



KenDckey -> RE: The times will change (12/8/2014 11:03:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


For the purposes of this thread, though How can anyone who sat silent when President Obama made war on Libya hope to be seen as anything but a partisan opportunist with no values when they try to take shots at the military decisions of a future Republican?


Yeah, that war on Libya sure took its toll didn't it?

How many of your servicemen died in that one?

How many died in Iraq?

How many died in Afghanistan?

Feel free to find the numbers for each war and then put the appropriate "D" or "R" with them.

Oh, and if you're bored, have a look at the civilian deaths too




The data on this website is NOT-COPYRIGHTED and may be used freely
Since 1988 Email The American War Library | Home

Permission granted to link to this site:
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/allwars.htm
The data on this website is not copyrighted and may be freely used without requesting permission from the Webmaster

Last Updated: 25 May 2011 12:01 PST

Click here for cost of wars

Numbers of Americans Killed/Wounded, by Action
Years Location Killed Wounded Dollar Cost Party
1775-1783 (1) Revolutionary War 25324 8445 --
1789 Indian Wars 6125 2156 --
1798-1800 Franco-Amer Naval War 20 42 --
1801-1815 Barbary Wars 35 64 --
1812-1815 War of 1812 2260 4505 --
1814 Marquesas Islands 4 1 --
1822-1825 West Indies 3 5 --
1832 Sumatra 2 11 --
1835-1836 Texas War Of Independence 704 138 --
1846-1848 Mexican War 13283 32 --
1855 Fiji 1 2 --
1859-1860 Texas Border Cortina War 5 18 --
1861-1865 (2) Civil War, North 363,020 281,104 --
1861-1865 (2) Civil War, South 199110 137102 --
1853 Japan 5 6 --
1867 Formosa 1 0 --
1870 Mexico 1 4 --
1871 Korea 4 10 --
1898 Spanish American War 2893 1637 --
1899-1902 Philippines War 4273 2840 --
1899 Samoa 4 5 --
1900 China Boxer Rebellion 53 253 -- R
1902-1913 Moro Campaigns 130 300 -- R
1904 Dominican Republic 1 0 -- R
1911-1919 Mexico 19 69 -- R
1912 Nicaragua 5 16 -- R & D
1915-1920 Haiti 146 26 -- D
1916-1922 Dominican Republic 144 50 -- D
1917-1918 World War I 116708 204002 $33 bil D
1918-1919 Russia North Expedition 246 307 -- D
1918-1920 Russia Siberia Expedition 170 52 -- D
1921-1941 China Yangtze Service 5 80 -- R & D
1927-1932 Nicaragua 136 66 -- R
1941 North Atlantic Naval War 141 44 -- D
1941 Pearl Harbor 2388 -- --
1941-1945 World War II 408306 670846 $360 bil D
1941-1945 Numbers are estimates
-----
Army
256,267
-----
Army AF
53,007
-----
Merch Mar
9,300
-----
Navy
34,607
-----
Mar Corps
17,376 to 19,733
-----

1942, Jun through Aug Aleutian Campaign US 549;
Japan 2352 US 1148 combat;
2100 weather --
1945, Apr through Jun Okinawa US Navy 5,000
USMC/Army 8,000
Japan 107,539
Civilians 142,058 US 38,000 --
1945, Feb 19 through Mar 16 Iwo Jima USMC 6,891
Japan 19,788
Civilians -- US 18,070 --
1942, Jun 3/7 Midway 307 -- --
06 Jun 1944 D-Day Allied WIA
7900 (approx)

Allied KIA
2,400 (approx)

British KIA/WIA
2,700

Canadian KIA/WIA
946

United States
KIA 1465
WIA 3184
MIA 1928
POW 29
-- --
1945 Iwo Jima 6503 -- --
1945-1947 Italy Trieste 6 14 -- D
1945-1947 China Civil War 12 42 -- D
1950 Inchon 670 -- --
1950-1953 Korean War 54246 103284 $50 bil D
1954 Matsu and Quemoy 3 0 -- r&d
1957-1975 Vietnam War 58219 (4) 153356 $111 bil R&D
1958-1984 Lebanon 268 169 -- R&D
1962 Cuba 9 0 -- d
1964 Panama Canal Riots 4 85 -- D
1965-1966 Dominican Republic 59 174 -- D
1966-1969 South Korea 89 131 -- D
1967 Israel Attack/USS Liberty 34 171 -- D
1968 Tet (Vietnam) 7040 0 --
1980 Iran 8 0 -- D
1980-1991 Terrorism 28 0 --
1983 Grenada 19 100 $76 mil R
1983
23 Oct Beirut Lebanon 241 -- --
1983-1991 El Salvador 20 0 -- R
1984-1989 Honduras 1 28 -- R
1986 Libya 2 0 -- R
1987 (3) Persian Gulf 148 467 -- R
1989-1990 Panama 40 240 $163 mil R
1990-1991 Persian Gulf, Op Desert Shield/Storm 363 357 $61 bil R
1991-1992 Somalia, Op Restore Hope 8 -- $.52 bil R
1993, Feb 26 Terrorism, World Trade Center 6 1000+ - D
1995 Terrorism
Oklahoma City 168 400+ --
1995, Nov 13 Terrorism
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7 42 --
1995-2000 Terrorism 77 -- --
1996, Jun 25 Terroism
Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 19 500 --
2000 Yemen, USS Cole 17 651 --
2001, Sept 11 Flight 93 44 -- --
2001, Sept 11 World Trade Center 2,974 Total
19 Hijackers
2,603 New York City
125 Pentagon
24 Missing
All civilians except 55 military
1,366 at or above floors attacked
600 killed instantly
200 jumped to deaths
341 firefighters
2 paramedics
23 police officers
37 Port Authority
-- --
Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan Theater Total to date, 2012 2,114 -- --
2003-2012 Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq
4,452 COMBAT/ATTACKS
United States 4486
Australia 2
Britain (UK) 179
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 7
El Salvador 5
Estonia 2
Georgia 3
Hungary 1
Italy 33
Latvia 3
Netherlands 3
Poland 21
Romania 3
Slovakia 4
Spain 12
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
POW 7

Other Iraq War Casualty Resources:
I-Casualties
Iraq Body Count

IRAQIS KILLED
Military
19,217
American Est: Civilians and Military

British Est: Civilians and Military
21,700 to 55,000
INJURIES
US: 8,004 hostile
US: --- non-hostile
US: 11,413 [f1] --

(1) Includes Indian scouts, private militia, civiilians fighting with Army or Navy
(2) Adjusted for post war related deaths
(3) 3 combat, 148 terrorist casualties
(4) To be adusted yearly with post-combat deaths

[f1] 13 were victims of fragging incident, 23 Mar 2003, 101st Abn Div, 'Camp Pennsylvania', Kuwait

Cost of Wars

Figures are from the Congressional Research Service, courtesy of The Washington Post, 10 Sept 2003":

American Revolution: $3.2 billion.
War of 1812: $1 billion.
Mexican War: $1.8 billion.
Civil War: $50 billion Union, $21.8 billion Confederacy.
Spanish-American War: $6.5 billion.
World War I: $588 billion.
World War II: $4.8 trillion.
Korean War: $408 billion.
Vietnam War: $584 billion.
Persian Gulf War of 1991: $82 billion. Contributions from U.S. allies ended up covering more than 90 percent of this war's costs.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $197 billion, as of March 2006.

G.I. Photo Museum | Locator/Registry Forms | Vet/Military Websites | Business Card

Return to the Main Page

This website established 10 November 2008




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125