Where Does the GOP Find These People? - Page 3

I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it!

You have an excuse for everything Bush! However the same rules don't apply to people you're trying to discredit.

Gotcha!


Hey SDW! You sound just like you did before the 2006 election!

Remember what happened then?

The people are tired of this crap! Get over it!

Really almost any policy as an alternative to Bush's would be better.

Getting out of Iraq would be a good start! That country has become an albatross around our necks!

I really like the latest from Bush : Send everyone some money and that will fix the economy!

It probably cost more than it's worth to print all those checks.

SDW it's out in the open now. Bush is a Fu@& up! Big time!

Why you keep trying to support him is beyond me!

However like I've said before I've learned that trying to point out to you what's wrong with this administration is a waste of my time.

You'll have an excuse for everything. And as I said in the beginning. The president is one place that should not be excused as in " The buck stops here ". Harry Truman got it why can't you?

" Obama will not win. "

Obama, Clinton, it won't matter who. It's not going to be McCain.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

jimmac:



It would be nice if your words had any meaning whatsoever. It was clear that GOP was probably going to lose in 2006. I didn't want them to, because I thought that while they screwed up, the Dems would be worse. Oh look, I was right.



That's simply not logical.



I realize that's a position you hold. But how we leave is very important.



I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it!



I absolutely agree. It will cost millions more by the time we pay back the $600-900 the government borrowed on our behalf.



I don't agree with that. In fact, going that far is unfair in my opinion. It's fine to disagree with someone, even vehemently so. But a Fuck Up?

You said the same sort of things when the democrats were about to take the senate.

You have a nice day also ( not too many left I suppose with a republican in the Whitehouse )!

Oh! This just in : http://www.comcast.net/news/articles....Race.AP.Poll/


As I said have a nice day!

Originally Posted by tonton

The "100 years is fine by me!" quote that Dean and the Dems are going to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, is going to kill him.

McCain said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Apparently Rev Wright and McCain got a two-fer on "out of context," eh?

a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me,

Originally Posted by SDW2001

jimmac:



Uhh...no I didn't.



Yup, it's all the GOP's fault. All of it.



Wow. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I've said CLINTON HAS A BETTER CHANCE THAN OBAMA?

Regardless, the poll doesn't mean anything, because it's a national poll. National polls are only good for showing trends...if that. It's the electoral math that matters. In this respect, Hillary has a better shot. She'll do better in the Northeast and Midwest, and will take traditionally liberal states. The problem with her is moderates and white males. McCain is going to kill her in those demos. That puts PA, FL, OH and other swing states in question. Her negatives also remain quite high. Then there is the whole issue with her becoming the nominee to begin with. I love how dems like yourself just pretend that whomever "wins" the dem contest will emerge unscathed and unite the party. But that's not going to happen, especially if she "acquires" the nomination at a brokered convention. There will be a freaking war within the party.

So Obama can't win. Hillary can win, but can't become the nominee. Wow. You guys really know how to....eh...party.

Originally Posted by tonton

Briefly caught a question on syndicated "Power of 10" last night...

What percentage of Americans think we should stay in Iraq and "finish the job"?

The answer: 11%.

McCain can't win. Against Obama. Against Hillary. Even Gore or Kerry would beat him this time around.

The "100 years is fine by me!" quote that Dean and the Dems are going to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, is going to kill him.

Originally Posted by tonton

Define harm. I believe the economic impact is harming Americans every day.

And would that be the Al Qaeda that's being trained by Iran?

Al Qaeda is not motivating people to fight Americans... America is.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Wow! I love your wishful thinking! You see I really don't care if it's Obama or Clinton. Both can beat McCain.

You just don't get it do you? This is the endgame. My feeling about people being fed up isn't vague at all.

Also there's not going to be any war within the party.

As soon as the nomination takes place all support will go to that person.

Because they will see the alternative.

Yes I can see you've got it all mapped out ( the way you'd like it to go ).

And yes you were saying these kinds of things during the 2006 election. You also said the democrats would never take the senate. Well........

Keep it up SDW until the end. I know you will.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It depends on how the question is asked. Ask Americans if we should retreat and let the country be taken over by extremists, or whether should stay as long as needed...you'll get a much different answer.



Again, just not based on the electoral math. It's all based on a feeling of "people don't like Bush, this war," etc. I encourage you to do an objective analysis of how the election would play out in terms of Obama-McCain, and even Hillary-McCain. McCain is likely to win not so much because of who he is, but because of who his opponents are.





The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.



Oh boy. Here we go with that again. Call them AQ, freedom fighters, extremists, insurgents, whatever. Iran IS arming troops. That is the point.



That's silly. The belief that if we just pack up and go home--then hey, they'll leave us alone is exactly what got us to where we are now in the first place. We did that...for years. And we got attacked anyway...long before Iraq, Afghanistan....anything. They declared war on us and started fighting it. We just didn't pay attention.



Unsupported.



Then please support your position with some data. The electoral math says Obama cannot win. It favors Hillary over him. However, Hillary's high negatives and problems with white males is a serious disadvantage. That doesn't begin to take into account the next point....



I actually think you're right, because Obama will win. If he doesn't, just watch.



Patently false. There will be a statistically significant number of people that will not vote for Clinton or Obama. It will be worse if she wins, but if he does there will still be some Hillary voters who don't vote...or vote for McCain.



That's where I really have to laugh. The alternative is John McCain. John McCain is SEEN as moderate and mainstream. He's seen as experienced and trustworthy by the general public, whether you personally feel that's accurate or not. McCain will take Regan Democrats/moderates and the vast majority of conservatives. Game over.



If you disagree, please post some convincing arguments to the contrary.



Please post my statements then.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You and I both know it doesn't matter what anyone else posts to the contrary. You''l dismiss it. You'll keep on dismissing it until election day.

The republicans are dead in the water. Sure they'll get some votes. Will the next president be a republican? Nope!

Ah yeah those Hillary voters will vote for McCain!

Even the most stupid of democrats understands this is too good to past up! All 3 arms of the government democrat! No one to veto their agenda! Do you really think I'm the only one who can see this? And after the government we just had ( which I know you would give high marks for ) there's just no way they'd past this up. It's the only way to start the healing process in a big way ( yes I know you're going " Healing process? I just don't understand. " ). Trust me they won't pass up this opportunity.

But you keep the faith ( the way you did with finding the WMD ).

The republicans are dead in the water. Sure they'll get some votes. Will the next president be a republican? Nope!

Ah yeah those Hillary voters will vote for McCain!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

"People are mad" is not an argument.

Originally Posted by tonton

Oh my GOD. It's like explaining the concept of money to a three year-old.

Yeah, SDW. Yeah. The Iraq war is paying for itself... no.. maybe you're still claiming it will pay for itself... right...

That's the ticket!

Originally Posted by jamac

It is an argument to vote Republinsane. Indeed the only chance Republinsanes have to win.

Originally Posted by SDW2001


That said, a significant percentage of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, like we have here in PA. Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former first lady who hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years because of Secret Service restrictions, joined a blue-collar worker at a filling station Wednesday to illustrate how the high price of gasoline is squeezing consumers.

The Democratic presidential candidate and sheet metal worker Jason Wilfing, 33, pulled into the station in a large white Ford 250 pickup truck, Clinton riding shotgun. Never mind that it wasn't even Wilfing's truck he had borrowed his boss's larger vehicle to accommodate Clinton's security agent and personal assistant, who rode in the back.

Trailing Wilfing and Clinton was a Secret Service motorcade consisting of six gas-guzzling Suburbans, two squad cars and a green SUV bearing photographers and TV cameras. Several other reporters and cameramen stood shivering in unseasonably cold temperatures, ready to capture the multi-vehicle arrival.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So really..I'm waiting. Please explain how the Iraq War has caused the current economic situation. I'll even accept an answer as to what the economic impact is in general. Hint: There is at least a debatable case for both. I just don't think you know what it is.

For the past several years, the annual inflation-adjusted budget of the Department of Defense has been higher than the Cold War average of $342.4 billion per year (see Figure 1).



The money the Defense Department has spent on the Iraq war does not exhaust the costs of the war to the government. In a study released last February, Harvard policy analyst Linda Bilmes and Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that if we include spending by the Veterans Administration, demobilization costs, and interest on debt incurred because of the Iraq war, the cost of the war to the U.S. government rises to between $750 billion and $1.2 trillion. If we add in economic costs that are not borne by the governmente.g. the lost economic contributions of reservists while they are deployed, or after they are dead or injuredthe price tag for the war balloons by another $187 billion to $305 billion.




Sources: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, "U.S Military Spending vs. the World," February 6, 2006, www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php (see also http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/...ex_trends.html).


Bilmes and Stiglitz also attempt to estimate the larger macroeconomic costs of the Iraq war. One source of such costs is the higher price of oilnow over $50 per barrel, vs. $25 per barrel before the warplausibly due to instability in the Middle East resulting from the war. They argue that even assuming, conservatively, that only 10-20% of the increase is due to the war, this translates into a $25-50 billion dollar added expense. Addressing a number of other possible consequences of the warincreased security threats, higher interest rates, and opportunity costs of devoting so many resources to the war in Iraqthey conclude that even with conservative estimates, its macroeconomic costs "are potentially very large; possibly even a multiple of the direct costs," that is, possibly several trillion dollars. /IMG]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I have to say your post has crossed the line between illogical and straight up baffling.

You have not supported your position at all. I'm not even asking for polling data...I'm just asking you to make an argument in support of your position that McCain will lose. I've laid how, according to the electoral map, Obama will have a tough time. Yet you're ignoring all of it. I would be HAPPY to see you post something that makes sense.



Again, please support that. "People are mad" is not an argument.



It depends on what voters we're talking about. I don't believe a good portion of Obama's base will vote for Hillary. However, Hillary's more educated, more well-to-do liberal voters would certainly support Obama if she didn't get the nom.


That said, a significant percentage of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, like we have here in PA. Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why?

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman


We keep feeding you the medicine, but you keep spitting it out...

Originally Posted by jimmac

Ok you think I'm wrong. Myself and others have given really good reasons why this will happen.

You of course have choosen to ignore them.

But that's ok! Just watch like last time you were in denial about things. By the time the election rolls around people will be even more fed up. And SDW they're the ones who get to decide.

" Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why? "

Yes!

I've already told you. I'm not repeating for you any more. Go back and read my post.

By the way I'm a boomer ( 1953 ) and I'd vote for Obama in a heart beat! Not McCain ( Gak ! ). Besides he might pick " Huckelberry Hound " as his running mate and that's scary!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Art...how in the HELL does your post address mine...even a little? I encourage you to go back and read what I posted previously and then reconsider your response.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

You're so ignorant of anyone's contribution to break your distortion on so many topics I've lost count. Which one you talking about?

The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.

So really..I'm waiting. Please explain how the Iraq War has caused the current economic situation. I'll even accept an answer as to what the economic impact is in general. Hint: There is at least a debatable case for both. I just don't think you know what it is.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You've shown that it costs the government money. Well no shit.

Originally Posted by midwinter

See, Art, this is a classic example of moving the goalposts.

SDW: show me the economic impact of the war!
Art: here. it's cost $515 billion dollars. It costs $340 million a day.
SDW: Well yeah. It costs money! Duh! Show me the IMPACT!

Originally Posted by midwinter

See, Art, this is a classic example of moving the goalposts.

SDW: show me the economic impact of the war!
Art: here. it's cost $515 billion dollars. It costs $340 million a day.
SDW: Well yeah. It costs money! Duh! Show me the IMPACT!

Originally Posted by midwinter

Ding ding ding! And there we have the final bit of hair-splitting/goalpost-moving: "impact" is that which is defined by SDW2001 and which cannot be known to anyone else.

Originally Posted by midwinter

No. We don't know what "another 9/11" would be, how much it would cost, etc., and so there is simply no way to calculate that without delving into black swans and Buffy paradigms. I'm not even making arguments for/against the war. I'm just saying that it costs us $340 million a day. Period. SDW says, bizarrely, that that's "not impact."

Originally Posted by midwinter

And I'm about to point out that paralipsis is a kind of ad hominem and that people who use it should get one of those demerit thingies that Nick is collecting. But I won't. Although I'm mighty tempted to say things about water-carriers and sucking it. :P



Tell you what. Since now we've got financial vs fiscal vs economic, howsabout YOU tell us what would be acceptable examples of "economic impact"? That way we don't have to play your little game of "that's not 'economic'! It's financial! Or fiscal! Or something!"

Foreign Policy: What does $3 trillion mean for the average U.S. taxpayer?

Joseph Stiglitz: If you divide it by the [number of] U.S. households, it comes out to around $25,000 [per household]. Its a lot of money. But we actually talk about a range of total costs, between $3 trillion and $5 trillion.

Its basic arithmetic, but you break the costs down into the various categories. Once you start doing that, its very hard to come up with a number under $3 trillion. We view our estimate as very conservative. Some of it is pretty straightforward and totally noncontroversial: the amount that the U.S. government admits is going into Iraq. But almost everything beyond that requires some forecasting, like troop deployment. And there are also numbers that we have not included that are hard to get out of the government. For instance, the government provides insurance for contractors [working in Iraq]. Nobody will insure them, so the government winds up paying the premium. And then the insurance policies have an exclusion for hostile action. Most of the contractors who die, die in hostile action, so the government winds up paying not just the premiums, but also the benefits. Thats an example where the governments accounting makes it very hard to tease out.

Two big costs are having to pay more for recruiting, and replacing our materiel that is wearing out. The big items going forward on the budgetary side are the costs of replenishing the armed forcesthats called resetand disability for returning veterans. We know that the number of disabled soldiers coming home is much larger, and we know that cases of [post-traumatic stress disorder] increase with longer and repeat deployments.

FP: You mentioned reset and veterans care. Are there any other large costs that are frequently overlooked or not included when we talk about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan?

JS: Part of the overlooked budgetary costs is interest, because we are going to have to pay interest on what weve borrowed [to pay for the war]. And there is also Social Security disability pay. Thats something that normally would be left out. One of the things that we dont include but should be included is Medicaid. Because many of the disabled soldiers returning home have low incomes, they are eligible for Medicaid. We also argue that the war has had an adverse effect on the economy. If there is a negative effect on the economy, then that is going to decrease tax revenues.

On the nonbudgetary side are the costs that are borne by families. One in 5 families has someone who is seriously disabled, and someone has to take care of them. There is also the fact that the National Guard has been pulled out of their homes and away from jobs. They face an enormous disruption and are not being fully compensated.

FP: How does war spending exacerbate the economic downturn in the United States?

JS: To the extent that the war caused the price of oil to go up, and the fact that the war expenditures dont stimulate the economy as much as domestic expenditures would have, the economy is weaker. The Fed has let forth more liquidity, which allows consumption to go up and savings to go closer to zero or negative. So, we have more of a mountain of debt in order to offset the negative effects of war spending, and that mountain of debt is now the problem were dealing with. There is a clear connection between the two. Were spending money abroad that we could have spent at home.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, you haven't. You''ve said "people are mad" and they think McCain is close to Bush. You've given no detail beyond that at all. You've made no electoral case. You've ignored Dems nominating war and it's possible effects. You've presented jack shit, actually.



Actually, I've specifically acknowledged those points. Some peope...a significant number DO associate McCain with Bush. In addition, people ARE angry about the direction of the country and specific issues. I'm simply addressing the actual election...the process by which someone gets elected. In other words, my argument is supportable and yours isn't.




Denial? My feeling was the Republicans stood a good shot at losing big. I was hoping they would not. I did not think they would lose the Senate, but that wasn't some vague "wishing for the best" feeling. I really didn't think it would go that way, mathematically speaking. But it did...so feel free to gloat while your party destroys itself.



OK, fine. WHY?

Facts:

1. Hillary is strong among older voters and the working class.
2. Obama is not.

All the data suggests a significant portion of Hillary's supporters (from #1) will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee. So, how do you disagree? Really..I can't wait.



Tell ya what. You point to the specific post you're referencing and I'll read it. Perhaps I missed the part where you made any valid argument whatsoever.



Color me shocked. YOU'RE AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. Duh. Really...how can you manufacture the number of Strawmen that you do on a daily basis? It must be quite time consuming. I never claimed Obama didn't have boomer support. I didn't even claim that none of Hillary's boomer support would go to Obama.

I said:



I really would like to summarize your arguments here for all to see:

1. People are mad.
2. McCain is Bush

That is the sum total of your responses at this point.

Well, the strange truth is that Tony Krvaric is none other than a co-founder of notorious warez group, Fairlight. Krvaric -who started his cracking career at the West Coast Crackers- was in fact one of the most well-known individuals in the Warez scene at the time. Fairlight remained active after Krvaric left in 1993, and several members of the group were eventually arrested by the FBI in 2004

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Deficit spending itself does not directly impact the economy in the short term...