1. 1

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “Sunset Bowl may rise again

    “It’s a longshot, but it could happen. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the end for the Sunset Bowl in Ballard. It could rise again … and be part of a complex with apartments and shops.

    Sunset Bowl and its land were bought in early January … by AvalonBay Communities — a large corporation with interests in 184 high-end apartment complexes in 10 states.

    “Brian Fritz, AvalonBay’s vice president of development for the Pacific Northwest, said his company was interested in the idea of a new Sunset Bowl constructed in the apartment complex. ‘We’re definitely going to study that use,’ Fritz said.”

    Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....wl29m.html

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Internet activism can change the world! First, we get rid of the Republican Party. Then, the sky is the limit!

  2. 4

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 2

    There is a lesson here.

    Only one?

    @ 3

    You missed the money quote:

    “We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn’t a crime,”

  3. 5

    Puddybud spews:

    Now this is interesting BO and BBG.

    “For Obama to win the April 22 election, or even to keep the race close, he needs to pull off an extraordinary feat: identifying sympathetic independent and Republican voters, and persuading them to register as Democrats. The registration deadline is Monday.”

    Isn’t that what Rush did in Ohio?

  4. 6

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe@4 Part 2: That was said by Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

    Since it came from a Donkey I don’t put much faith in it. At least they made the mistake of identifying what political side it came from.

  5. 7

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe@4 Part 1: You are right there are many lessons there. Can you figger out the “prime directive” of that post?

    Goldy posted “The Times HA they are a changin’”, so this is a perfect chance for Goldy to implement the “prime directive” in this post.

  6. 8

    Puddybud spews:

    Lefties: Today, March 29, for one hour from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. local time around the planet, millions of people are asked to shut non-essential electrical power off. How many HA Half-Wits will join in?

    Clueless Idiot will momma tell you to power down your computer since you post non-essential drivel here?

    Rujax!, will your potty mouth be silenced during this golden time?

    Pelletizer, why not work on your lung capacity during this hour?

    Will Busdrivermike be driving then?

    Since there is a claim of 100 cities participating and the Donkey control almost all cities, why are all these lights on anyway? Since your party in these cities have crime under control, many lights aren’t necessary and can be turned off. Permanently!

  7. 9

    Daddy Love spews:

    The difference between those of us who argue to end the stupid war in Iraq and those who argue to stay is very clear, and in fact mirrors many other differences between us and the GOP.

    This war has huge and real, calculable costs: billions of tax dollars spent heading towards trillions, tens of thousands of wounded, maimed, and mentally damaged US soldiers, thousands of US war dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, millions of Iraqi refugees, tens of millions of Iraqis living in fear and poverty without electricity or water, and so on.

    But the case for “staying the course” depends not on numbers, not on facts, but on imagining worst-case scenarios of possible outcomes that turn out to be not much worse than current conditions.

    Durig the Vietnam war, the war hawks (mostly but not exclusively GOP) argued that there was an absolutely certainty that the establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam would cause the inevitable spread of Communism to Malaysia, Indonesia, all of Asia, and soon enough the United States itself. The argument really was that we had to “face them over there” or else we’d be fending them off from our very shores. Were their warnings reasonable, founded in any kind of fact, or correct? OF COURSE NOT.

    The case for staying in Iraq forever depends solely on these kinds of illogical, lurid, worst-case scenarios spun by men and women who have proven repeatedly that they have NO IDEA of the dynamics in play in Iraq, and who in fact lie to us about them constantly (Iran backs AQI, pretending that Dawa and ISSI are not Iranian, claiming that “foreign fighters” are a huge problem, WMD, and so on). What are the chances they’re right? ZERO.

  8. 10

    Mr. Cynical spews:
    NOTE: Goldy won’t let me post the link w/ www in front
    From the Congressional Research Services Report to Congress in 2007:

    The annual fatalities of military members while
    actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
    1980 ……… 2,392 (Carter Year)
    1981 ……… 2,380 (Reagan Year)
    1984 …….. 1,999 (Reagan Year)
    1988 ………. 1,819 (Reagan Year)
    1989 ……… 1,636 (George HW Year)
    1990 ……… 1,508 (George HW Year)
    1991 ………. 1,787 (George HW Year)
    1992 ………. 1,293 (George HW Year)
    1993 ……… 1,213 (Clinton Year)
    1994 ………. 1,075 (Clinton Year)
    1995 ……… 2,465 (Clinton Year)
    1996 ………. 2,318 (Clinton Year)
    1997 ………… 817 (Clinton Year)
    1998 ……… 2,252 (Clinton Year)
    1999 ……… 1,984 (Clinton Year)
    2000 ……… 1,983 (Clinton Year)
    Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
    2001 ………… 890 (George W Year)
    2002 …….. 1,007 (George W Year)
    2003 …….. 1,410 (George W Year)
    2004 …….. 1,887 (George W Year)
    2005 …………. 919 (George W Year)
    2006………….. 920 (George W Year)
    2007……899 (George W Year)
    George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

    Seems like you have huffed & puffed about ALL the deaths.
    Here is a little perspective.
    So where was your outrage during the Clinton Years?
    Look at 1980…the holier-than-thou Carter year?
    Where is your outrage KLOWNS?

  9. 11

    Daddy Love spews:

    10 cynical

    According to the DoD (, your figures are incorrect for every year between 1980 and 1999 ecept one (1991), the military deaths during the Clinton administration from 1992 and 1999 totaled 8,189, with only 60 deaths due to hostile action. So unless 6K men died from accident in 2000, you’re wrong there too.

    Where’s your outrage?

  10. 12

    Daddy Love spews:

    10 Cynical

    And, since most of our peacetime military deaths are from accident and therefore are part and parcel of military life and training (that is, reduceable only somewhat), our “outrage” is that we have wasted 4000 American lives and more than 30,000 wounded, crippled, and mentally impaired young American men for an illegal war of choice against and thuggish occupation of a peaceful sovereign nation. You bet you ass we’re outraged.

  11. 13

    Hannah spews:

    @10 & 11 – looking at both reports the number of deaths are identical for all years?

    I see the difference in number of hostile vs non-hostile, but considering we are at war that number doesn’t surprise me…what surprises me is the total number of military death all the way back to the 80’s and especially the suicide rate (straight down the list)

  12. 14

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Daddy Love has a hard time with the facts, doesn’t he.
    If the facts don’t fit his predetermined Hate Bush Agenda, he ignores them or twists them.
    You bet deaths due to hostilities are upsetting.
    But why not be upset by all deaths??
    Answer: Cuz it don’t fit Daddy Love’s agenda of hate-Bush & Leftist fear-mongering.

  13. 15

    Hannah spews:

    @10 actually 1995 was 1040
    1996 was 974
    1998 was 827
    1999 was 796
    2000 was 758
    And the 2005 (actual 1942) and 2006 (actual 1858) numbers are way off. (According to your link, which I happened to look at yesterday.)

  14. 16


    Daddy Love:

    Thanks for the reference. Since I doubt that Mr. Cynical came up with those numbers himself I would be interested in hearing about his source.

    Mr. Cynical:

    No insult intended, Mr. C. I’ll assume that you gave us those figures in good faith. I really am just interested in who is putting together bogus casualty numbers. Bottom line – I think someone you trusted lied to you, and I’d like to know who it is.

    Whoever put those numbers together is deliberately putting out disinformation, and is hiding behind you and others like you to promulgate bald-faced lies.

    So here is something we can both be outraged about.

  15. 17

    Hannah spews:

    I do realize the numbers during a time of way should be WAY higher than when we are “at peace” so the total deaths does not surprise me much. Most military personnel I know (mostly family and friends) who have been in Iraq and a few in Afghanistan, always tell me death is to be expected during war. It’s still sad and hard.

  16. 18

    Hannah spews:

    John – most the numbers are correct except for the few I pointed out, both Cynicals and Daddy Loves research pages match….basically both from the same source, Dept of Defense.

  17. 19

    Hannah spews:

    Totalling the numbers as Mr Cynical did,
    Clinton (1993-2000) 7500
    GWB (2001 – 2006) 8792

    This data does NOT include 2007 at all.

  18. 20



    I’m not sure where your numbers are coming from. Daddy Love’s come from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report on Worldwide Active Duty Deaths, and include deaths from all causes, with those numbers broken down into various categories.

    They don’t match your numbers, and are not even close to Mr. Cynical’s.

    There’s also a more complete, updated report at:

    This is also from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and includes some small revisions to the numbers. Perhaps the most gruesome figures are those of deaths due to hostile action:

    1980-1982 – zero
    1983 – 18
    1984 – 1
    1985 – zero
    1986 – 2
    1987 – 36
    1988 – zero
    1989 – 23
    1990 – zero
    1991 – 147
    1992-1995 – zero
    1996 – 1
    1997-2000 – zero
    2001 – 3
    2002 – 18
    2003 – 343
    2004 – 739
    2005 – 739
    2006 – 761

    Please remember. These aren’t from CNN or MSNBC. These numbers come from and official report published by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. (Darn liberal DOD.)

  19. 21

    Hannah spews:

    @20 – The numbers both Daddy Love and Cynical were looking at (TOTAL number os US military deaths) came from the same info and were identical except those years I corrected Cynical…go to and in the search box type “military deaths) and the PDF will show up…same as the DOD, as the report was done for the DOD.

  20. 22


    Additional note:

    Since we’re comparing Presidential casualty rates, it seems appropriate to exclude such things as traffic accidents.

    I am somewhat reluctant to give President Bush much credit for the reduction in deaths due to homicide. Yes, I suppose that if he hadn’t sent those troops to Iraq, some of them would have been killed in robberies and from random street violence, but somehow I just cannot give the President credit for keeping our Soldiers safe by sending them to a war zone.

    So, according to the Department of Defense we have:

    President Clinton – 1993-2000, eight years, one death due to hostile action.

    President Bush – 2001-2006, six years, 2603 deaths due to hostile action.

    And the DOD figures for 2006 had the notation “Data subject to change – as of Nov. 22, 2007 (reflects preliminary counts for 2006 and revised figures for 2004 and 2005).”

  21. 23

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 7

    You are right there are many lessons there. Can you figger out the “prime directive” of that post?

    Oh, I can guess at what you would think is the “prime directive” in that post, but what’s the point?

    The guy advocates a confrontational approach to eliminating prejudice, but one wonders. Does such an approach actually change the way people think and feel, or does it merely change outward appearances?

  22. 24


    Oh, and Hannah. You need to make sure that you’re looking at numbers for active duty personnel.

    I’m an overweight, 52 year old Realtor, but if I get hit by the number 100 bus tomorrow or choke to death on a meatball sandwich, I count as a “military” death, because I’m still on the books.

    Of course, the way things are going, I may find myself back in uniform, patrolling the streets of Baghdad. 40 lbs overweight, bad hip and all. More than once, I’ve noticed that the tapes on some of the uniforms you see on the evening news read “U.S. NAVY”.

  23. 25

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    I love how the Leftists discount Military deaths not due to hostile action, but inpart due to the gutting of the Military Budget.
    So non-hostile deaths don’t count??
    Military personnel sadly die in War & Peace.
    When on US Bases, they can die from a number of reasons in training, driving whatever.
    They still died….while serving.
    Gimmee a break.

    I gave my source:

    I can’t get it to post with the www infront for some reason.
    Good debate on this though.
    I believe all lives count…including civilians.
    How many civilians died while Saddam was in charge?
    Hundreds of thousands.
    Don’t those count??
    Not very politically appealing, are they.
    How about deaths in other country’s engaged in Civil Wars?
    How many died in Rwanda, Darfur and other horrible hostilities.

    My point is if you want to talk about Military Deaths, let’s talk about ALL of them and put it in perspective.
    If you want to talk about Civilian Deaths, let’s talk about ALL of them and put that in perspective too.

  24. 26

    Hannah spews:

    John – Every time I try to link both the websites each Cynical and Daddy Love used so we can see a side by side comparison, my post never shows up…hmmmm

    So the way I found the numbers and compared both of their figures, was opening each one up side by side and compared. And yes during a time of war the hostile fire death rates are HIGH!

  25. 28

    YLB spews:

    Cynical – what a joke. It’s ok to him that a 3 trillion dollar liability has been imposed on future generations for bullshit reasons.

    He won’t have to pay it.

  26. 29

    Hannah spews:

    @25 At least you can get the link to post! :) Every time I try to post it, my post doesn’t show up….I think by comparing both the one you posted and DL posted, the numbers match and they are Active Duty only. And yes, civilian deaths are phenomenal in places such as Darfur, Rwans, Pakistan and Iraq before and after the take down of Saddam.

  27. 30

    Jane Balough's Dog spews:

    I don’t know about you donks, but I can’t wait until global warming season gets here. roof roof.

  28. 31



    For some reason, probably having to do with discouraging people from posting links in order to increase Google ranking, URLs are posted with a gap somewhere in the address. Look for that gap and remove it, then the address works.

    Mr. Cynical.

    Yes, I do differentiate between combat deaths and auto accidents, as does the military. I also differentiate between a reservist being killed while working on his civilian job and an active duty Soldier killed in combat. Certainly, any reasonable person would do so.

    My original thought was that you were posting these numbers and expressing actual outrage. Now I realize that you know that the numbers you posted were deliberately misleading.

    So, am I outraged because some military personnel got into auto accidents while on active duty? No, just saddened.

    Am I outraged because some military personnel were killed in training? Only if there was negligence on the part of the trainers. Otherwise, it’s just saddened.

    Am I outraged because someone lied to get sent our troops into combat, sent them without proper equipment and got them killed? Yes. Absolutely.

    And am I outraged that someone would compare the deaths of those brave young men and women to a traffic accident, saying that they are somehow equivalent? Oh, yes.

    I’m pretty good with words, but they escape me now as I try to express just how outraged I am. Just leave it to say that I’m glad that this discussion is being handled over a computer.

    But, you have my permission to walk into the nearest Marine Corps Recruiting Station and express that view to any of the people there.

    We teach Marines a certain amount of self-restraint, so they’d probably let you live.

  29. 33

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @10 Gee, that’s really helpful to the dead, isn’t it Cynical? Meanwhile, America’s most notorious CHEAP LABOR employer sues a disabled ex-employee who had the temerity to actually make a claim under the health insurance she paid for — and, oh yeah, who lost a son in Iraq:

    “Wal-Mart Sues Disabled Ex-Employee

    “JACKSON, Missouri (March 29) – Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The 52-year-old … attended her son’s funeral, but she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

    “Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that … left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home. It was the beginning of a series of battles … with Wal-Mart’s health plan. …

    “Wal-Mart … paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and … sued [her for the money] …. The Shanks lost …. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq. …

    “Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley … [said] in a statement: ‘… [T[]his is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to … the plan.’ …

    “The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid. Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. …

    “The family’s attorney [said,] ‘She’ll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. ….’ Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But … last week, the high court said it would not hear the case. …

    “Jim Shank said he’s disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case — not for the sake of his family — but for those who might face similar circumstances. … ‘Luckily, she’s oblivious to everything,’ he said. ‘We don’t tell her what’s going on because it will just upset her.'”

    Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: This, folks, is the Republican Party’s plan for your future: Donate your children’s lives to their endless wars, work for slave wages, and if you get hit by a truck your employer sues you for the money their
    health plan paid for your hospital bills! Who the fuck would knowingly vote for an agenda like that? This is why Republicans work so hard to convince the working class that if gays are allowed to get married in Massachusetts no child in Nebraska will be safe! Because if working-class voters paid attention to the economic rape being perpetrated against them at all levels by greedy Republican assholes, no one would vote for the GOP or any of their candidates.

  30. 34

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    YLB says:
    “Cynical – what a joke. It’s ok to him that a 3 trillion dollar liability has been imposed on future generations for bullshit reasons.”

    So what was your 2007 Income Tax Paid DumbAss??
    You have always been a tax freeloader YLB.
    Between $75k of Income Tax and $25K of Property Taxes and God only knows how many hidden taxes promulgated by LEFTISTS like you, I pay more than my fair share.
    You are a freeloader….meaning you use more services than you pay for…

  31. 35

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @11 Hmmm … Cynical is posting false information on HA? You don’t say! He must have got his “information” from one of those mass-circulation e-mails the Wingnut Lie Factory spews on a daily basis. And, of course, didn’t do any fact-checking. This doesn’t make Cynical a liar; it merely makes him a gullible fool.

  32. 36

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    We license dogs; why shouldn’t we license voters? A stupid voter is more dangerous than a rowdy dog.

  33. 37

    YLB spews:

    34 – What an asshole. Not only are you an asshole, you’re an idiot if you believe my kids are going to get something other than misery for a 3 trillion dollar bill courtesy of that other idiot you voted for twice.

    75k? You pulled every trick out of the tax accountant’s book and you could only get it that low? Well thanks for funding star wars boondoggles, cost-plus contracts and Republican bridges and trains to nowhere. I’m sure the pols from that corrupt joke of a Republican party that you mostly support are grateful.

  34. 39

    YLB spews:

    My original thought was that you were posting these numbers and expressing actual outrage. Now I realize that you know that the numbers you posted were deliberately misleading.

    Gee I hope that pans out. It would mean only more proof of how right wingers twist information to support their ugly agenda.

    Being a former CPA, Cynical should know better and he probably does.

  35. 40

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @25 “I love how the Leftists discount Military deaths not due to hostile action, but inpart due to the gutting of the Military Budget.”

    Did you ever actually serve in the military, Cynical? Do you have any fucking idea what causes “nonhostile” military deaths? How about …

    Vehicle accidents
    Aircraft accidents
    Training accidents
    Mishandling of firearms, ammunition, and explosives
    Maintenance workers falling off communications towers
    Accidents during dangerous maneuvers (e.g., planes taking off from carriers)
    The usual collection of fatal diseases

    With a couple million people on active duty at any given time, there is bound to be some deaths, just as in any civilian population, and we must expect the military death rate to be higher than for a comparable civilian population because of the inherently dangerous nature of military jobs. And this is true regardless of what the military budget is.

    For the record, though, military spending fell under Bush41 and rose again under Clinton. Clinton rebuilt the military, and Chimpface went to war with Clinton’s military. In the Gulf War, it took 3 days to order an airstrike and get bombs on target, and 90% of the ordnance was “dumb” bombs; in the Iraq War, the 3 days were reduced to 90 minutes and 90% of the bombs were “smart.” Clinton did that. It was Clinton who gave our military all the hi-tech equipment being used in the “war against terror” such as Predator drones. Executive summary: When wingnuts tell you Clinton gutted the military, they’re lying.

  36. 41

    Daddy Love spews:

    13 Hannah

    Yes, Cynical’s numbers and mine are the same if by “the same” you mean “not the same at all.” Here’s my extraction from the PDF:
    1980 2,391
    1981 2,421
    1982 2,311
    1983 2,202
    1984 2,313
    1985 2,016
    1986 2,241
    1987 1,991
    1988 1,845
    1989 1,679
    1990 1,526
    1991 1,787
    1992 1,332
    1993 1,245
    1994 1,109
    1995 1,055
    1996 1,008
    1997 864
    1998 815
    1999 761

  37. 42

    Daddy Love spews:

    25 Cynic

    Bullshit. What you “care” about is changing the subject. Deaths In Darfur are a tragedy, and if we had helped there it would have been great, but all Bush cares about is waging war in our interminable quagmire of Iraq. Deaths in Iraq under Saddam were a tragedy, but now we’re living in his palaces, torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and have killed hundreds of thousand Iraqis and forced five million more to become refugees. It seems YOUR “caring” is a little misguided.

    Maybe we should or should not do something about other tragedies on earth right now. It’s a matter to be discussed. But what there’s no question about is whether we shoudl nend the tragedy and the deaths that are under our immidiate control and due to our actions by ending our occupation of Iraq.

  38. 43

    Hannah spews:

    @41 – Keep reading my posts where I point out the years Cynical reported incorrectly..94-99

    I am just pointing out your link and his link when opened and compared side by side show the same exact numbers, he happened to report those number way off during the Clinton days and way low during 05-06 …. as I have pointed out.

  39. 46

    Hannah spews:

    ok so here’s DL’s link: l/CASUALTY/WWT.PDF

    and Cynical’s link: .pdf

    When I opened and compared the two…there are identical, just Cynical posted a few years with incorrect numbers both Clinton and GWB.

  40. 47

    Daddy Love spews:

    OK Hannah, you’re wrong. Here are the numbers side by side. WHy you don’t get it I don’t know. The numbers are the same only in 1991.

    ………Daddy Love …….Cynical
    1980 2,391………2,392
    1981 2,421………2,380
    1982 2,311………no #
    1983 2,202………no #
    1984 2,313………1,999
    1985 2,016………no #
    1986 2,241………no #
    1987 1,991………no #
    1988 1,845………1,819
    1989 1,679………1,636
    1990 1,526………1,508
    1991 1,787………1,787
    1992 1,332………1,293
    1993 1,245………1,213
    1994 1,109………1,075
    1995 1,055………2,465
    1996 1,008………2,318
    1997 864………817
    1998 815………2,252
    1999 761………1,984

  41. 48

    Daddy Love spews:

    BTW, just about 60 military deaths due to hostile action under Clinton. Peace, prosperity, I kinda miss them.

  42. 49

    Hannah spews:

    Ok I guess I was looking at yours and this isn’t yours?

  43. 50

    Hannah spews:

    Its from the same site but I couldn’t get to the one that ends with CASUALTY/WWT.pdf kept getting a Page Cannot Be Displayed

  44. 51

    Daddy Love spews:

    This is what I found at the link. Clinton years:
    1993 1,213
    1994 1,075
    1995 1,040
    1996 974
    1997 817
    1998 827
    1999 796
    2000 758
    Total 7,500

  45. 56

    Hannah spews:

    @52 – ok finally got that one to open….WIERD thing is that page along with /CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

    from the SAME EXACT website but 2 different pdf’s are different in numbers!

  46. 57

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    #20 John Barelli says:

    There’s also a more complete, updated report at: rsonnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.p df

    I wonder why so many suicides (self-inflicted) under clinton during a time of peace.
    Also why did the military lose numbers every year of clinton?
    And what’s up with the homicides?

  47. 58

    Daddy Love spews:

    57 MS

    The military was smaller every year during Clinton’s administration because they were continuing the long-term downsizing of our active-duty military that began In Bush 41’s term in response to the fact that the USSR disintegrated in 1989, so the downsizing began in 1991, in response to the advice of our military leaders. Why do you need to be told this?

    The Clinton administration FURTHER recognized that the threats against our country were not best suited to a military response, thus for example the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. He built up our intelligence apparatus, our counter-terrorism resources, and our cooperation with international agencies and allied nations to effectively respond to incidents of terrorism.

    Bush, on the other had, wanted to and did invade some country who had nothing to do with attcks on the US with armed forces that he has now weakened and decimated in a quagmire of useless death and violence in support of yet another uselesss fucking (Iranian-backed) puppet government without wide support. Good job.

  48. 59

    Daddy Love spews:

    I tried to pack as much as I could into each sentence. Hooray for me.

    Oh, Will, I gave you a few bucks.

  49. 60

    Hannah spews:

    @58 – “The military was smaller every year during Clinton’s administration because they were continuing the long-term downsizing of our active-duty military that began In Bush 41’s term in response to the fact that the USSR disintegrated in 1989, so the downsizing began in 1991, in response to the advice of our military leaders. ”

    But @40 – “For the record, though, military spending fell under Bush41 and rose again under Clinton. Clinton rebuilt the military”

    Which is it?

  50. 61



    Just from memory and not checking the numbers, there was a general increase in readiness and budgets under President Clinton.

    Overall numbers of military personnel went down a bit, and the overall force gained a bit of seniority, as we had fewer folks in the lower ranks. We reallocated our people in ways that made better use of their skills, and hired out functions that did not require uniformed personnel.

    In the Navy, modern ships were more automated, allowing smaller crews. Many onshore service jobs were outsourced to civilian firms.

    Some of those changes were better than others, but in general, readiness improved while the force got smaller.

  51. 62

    cmiklich spews:

    *expletive* holy *expletive*

    Could you lefties be any more wrong about “readiness” and death totals?

    That musta been a “love-bombing” at the Marine barracks in Beirut. Accidental, of course. That’s why you lefties chose not to list more than 18 deaths for ’83. Dishonest. Like most of what Satan or any liberal says. Just a little truth to confuse righteous folks.

    As one example, SE Asia did go communist after we exitted. A little feller name of Pol Pot (democrat party hero) slaughtered millions. Along with the Vietnamese communist leaders who slaughtered hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions, they’re not very open or honest, like democrats).

    Readiness increased under BJ? The clown cut forces around the world. He surrendered in Somalia and that strengthened Al Qaeda! Way to go, BJ!

    You lefties like to complain about the armor the troops aren’t getting. Well, that’s just ONE thing that WASN’T purchased from ’93-’01.

    BTW, RR @33, isn’t that the WalMart where Hillary Clinton was on the BOD? The same WalMart that supported BJ for President? Wow. Those damn democrats: Screwing the little guy every time!

  52. 63

    cmiklich spews:

    And, if anyone wants cite “retard” as a profession or insult, please direct it at the clown in the video.

    And, he is wrong. Patton, Eisenhower and MacArthur were very successful fighting a 2 front war: WWII.

    Hmmmm. What did all 3 of those men have in common? Let’s see…

    That’s right. They were ALL REPUBLICANS! Thank God!

  53. 64

    Puddybud spews:

    Clueless Idiot@37: You never answered Cynical’s taxes paid question. In fact you ran away from it as fast as possible. So there is a real story here.

    I think there are so many people interested here in how much you paid in US Income taxes last year Clueless Idiot. I bet I paid more than you too.

  54. 65

    YLB spews:

    64 – I don’t take orders from you Stupes. It’s none of anyone’s business what taxes I pay.

    And I’m not running. I’m here to see all you losers go down with the sinking ship that’s the GOP. You’re the most losing of them all – you’re going to be going “Yay Obama!” trying to hide from your past.

    No no no Stupes. I’m going to be here to remind everyone what a loser you are.

    Talk about freeloaders – the typical red state gets much more federal money than they pay out.

    Barry Goldwater’s family became rich through lucrative federal contracts.

    The examples go on and on. Pointing out right wing hypocrisy is my specialty. You’re going to be seeing a lot of it.

  55. 66

    Puddybud spews:

    Again Clueless Idiot whips out the “I don’t take orders”. Notice how he changes the subject. You can’t remind anyone of anything cuz you’ve never met me. You have no frame of reference. All you have are your idiot positions.

    Where was Barry Goldwater in any previous conversation?
    Where was red state in any previous conversation?
    Cynical said he paid around $100K in taxes.
    I said I paid more in taxes than you.
    I’ll even up the ante. I gave more in charitable contributions than you paid in taxes.
    You are like Al Gore – $353 in charitable contributions.

    You have no specialty because you are a clueless idiot. You are like the first two people in the Good Samaritan story. The religious leader and the priest, who upon seeing a beat up person walked to the other side and went their way.

    Run Yellow Libby Boy Run. Real people making real money already pay big taxes. Your minuscule brain can’t fathom that cuz you “claim” to have chillen but your commentary shows:

    1) You have schizophrenia – you write one position here but claim to have a different one at home. A house divided cannot stand
    2) You are an Idiot – already agreed to diagnosis
    3) Don’t know what the real world is like – armchair politician. Hasn’t lifted a finger to help the downtrodden
    4) You don’t have a clue – already agreed to diagnosis

    So Schizophrenic Clueless Idiot tell us again how much you “pay” in “taxes”?

  56. 67

    YLB spews:

    66 – You’re so funny when we on this side of the fence refuse to take your orders.

    Let’s hear ‘em Stupes!

    Command me!


  57. 69

    Puddybud spews:

    Clueless Idiot: Can’t answer the question of taxes, because it seems the HA Clueless Idiot doesn’t pay taxes. This lingering doubt of your working prowess becomes clearer each day. If you have kids (the BIG IF) they will be mentally messed up with you as their father. Now I understand why you hate MTR-XXXXXX so much. It’s not because he welshed on a bet; he calls you out every time he uses his consumer/producer argument and it really hits home on your sorry ass. You look in the mirror and see a sorry assed consumer.

    Worship – Jesus Christ the Son of God!

    How can one command the HA Clueless Idiot? One needs a mind to process commands, something sorely lacking in the Clueless Idiot.

    You drink the white sticky warm pulsating juice of Kos, CAP, DU, TPM, etc. everyday and we all know it.

    Dive under the bed. Hardly. I call out the lunacy of those on the left with facts.