|
Post by Ken on Dec 12, 2004 7:53:44 GMT -5
I'm glad you noticed that too Ring. The Post and the Daily News are constantly warring with each other. Every chance they get, they slam each other, in articles, editorials, even in advertisements. These two papers despise each other. One day I'm expecting all the employees of both papers to meet on the Great Lawn of Central Park, each one bearing his choice of weaponry, and just go at it, "a la Gangs of New York."
But you have to admit, that for pure, serious, news content, for sheer amount of in-depth information, the New York Times is the only paper worth reading. The Post and Daily News are great for local New York stuff and goofy shit, like the Post's "Weird But True" articles. Also the Daily News and The Post can't be beat for their sports sections.
True that the Daily News is a little more to the left than the others. Yet Bill O'Reilly publishes his weekly editorial there and not in The Post, which is owned by Fox.
In other news, Kerick had to withdraw from the Homeland Security job because he had an illegal immigrant for a maid/nanny and not only that, but he didn't pay taxes for her either. I knew it would be a mistake to name a NYC Police Chief for a national position. NYC Chiefs are some of the dirtiest public servants out there, with way too many ghosts in their closets.
Bush should have known that. (Is that a criticism of Bush)?
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Dec 12, 2004 11:26:05 GMT -5
Meet the Press just reported this morning that Kerry finished the Presidential race with 15 million dollars in his war chest. Does anyone find this weird? How come he didn't spend this money like crazy on commercials, print ads, or other media advertising?
Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Dec 13, 2004 9:07:46 GMT -5
I read in the paper that ClearChannel - which owns like 1/3 of all American radio stations - will be leasing news reporting from Fox. This is amazing and worth more than the two sentence report it got in the local paper.
Yes, Kerry's war chest remainder is confusing. I heard they had dissent among the decision-makers in his war-room, but that is not a good excuse. Maybe some donations came in too late to be used for scheduling ad time? Maybe they all always do this to roll a starter account into the next election? There's weird rules about those funds. You can pay yourself a salary from part of it and donate some to other campaigns. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Dec 13, 2004 10:11:51 GMT -5
I cant believ Kerrick wont get the Job. I thought he was good choice. But better for him though. That Homeland security is a cluster fuck of epic proportiions. And since all its component organizatiuons used to be autonomous i imagine their individual leadship is now difficlut to work with .
The 15 million: I am preatty sure Bush and Kerry both had more money to run then anyone else in the history of the universe. But no matter how much either spent they always remained in a dead head. Kept track of by a poll system with a margin of error greater then the difference between the two. I would not be shocked if both Bush and Kerry had cream left over. Still though if people gave you money you should probably spend it even if its totally inefficient by that point. This money should be returned.
John Kerry, Mister Gault wants his 20 dolllars back.
O'reilly is coooooooooollllll
|
|
|
Post by larry g on Dec 29, 2004 5:58:08 GMT -5
heres some interesting facts i found on a pro war web site
Entry: Sick of Iraqinam Thursday, September 23, 2004 I've had it! I am so sick of hearing about how Iraq is such a terrible quagmire that is just as bad, if not worse than Vietnam. It's like opening up the help wanted ads in your newspaper and seeing the plethora of jobs while John Kerry talks about us teetering on the Great Depression. We are no where near Herbert Hoover days.
By the same token, we are no where near Vietnam. We've been listening to the the left tell us what a mess Iraq is since day one. Well if that's what they think of it, then what on earth do they say about these other wars?
I am sick enough to run the numbers, if anybody has any doubt, run the numbers yourself and then tell me if you get something different.
Since March 22, 2003 the United States has lost 1041 American lives in 550 days as of 9-22-04. 247 or 23.72% are considered Non-Hostile according to Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count
WAR-------------------------Total deaths----------Time Revolutionary War-------------------4,435---------6 years 8 months War of 1812--------------------------2,260---------2 years 6 months Mexican War-------------------------13,283--------1 year 8 months Civil War: Union---------------------359,528-------4 years -----Confederate-------------------- 198,524------4 years --------Combined---------------------558,052------4 years Spanish-American War--------------2,446---------4 months World War I--------------------------116,708-------1 year 7 months World War II-------------------------407,316-------3 years 8 months Korean War--------------------------33,651---------3 years 1 month Vietnam War-------------------------58,168---------7 years 6 months Gulf War------------------------------193------------1 month
Click for * source
The amount of time it would take for us to lose equal amount of American lives in Iraq by war. War-----------------------------Amount of time to equal casualties. Revolutionary War------------------- 6 years 153 days War of 1812-------------------------- 3 years 99 days Mexican War------------------------- 19 years 83 days Civil War: Union--------------------- 520 years 155 days -----Confederate-------------------- 287 years 134 days -------Combined--------------------- 807 years 289 days Spanish-American War-------------- 3 years 197 days World War I-------------------------- 168 years 338 days World War II------------------------- 589 years 218 days Korean War-------------------------- 48 years 259 days Vietnam War------------------------- 84 years 72 days Gulf War------------------------------ 102 days
Method used: Total number of American Deaths in Iraq (1041)/number of days (550) = 1.8927 average death per day Total casualties of wars Ex.--Vietnam 58,168 / 1.8927= 30,732 (Total number of days) Total number of days (30,732)/ number of days in year (365) = 84.199 (84 years) Total number of years (84) x number of days in a year (365) = Total number of days in years(30660) Total number of days (30,732) minus total number of days in years (30660) = days left over (72 days)
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Dec 29, 2004 22:58:50 GMT -5
I am not sure what all this means. Does it mean we are losing alot of guys Are we not losing alot of guys.
I do know that in every war you lose expenentionally more guys as time goes on. Not that many guys died early on in Vienam. The big numbers starting coming in towards the end. But when the numbers get pick they add up fast. The only good news is that in todays military we have the capacity to evacuate in a matter of days.
All i know is we are losing too many guys. I'm not saying george bush is responsible. I'm just saying i feel like more could be done by the military to stem the casualties.
God bless the soldiers that keep us free to converse on this message board.
|
|
|
Post by Ringleader1 on Dec 31, 2004 14:28:18 GMT -5
As we all know it is all about the type of warfare. I would say the war with Iraq is over. Iraq is now just a battle ground. We are fightning terrorist. Alot of them from other countries. City warfare is the worst only followed by jungle. The cover means mano e mano with small arms. We are slowly-I mean slowly cuting thier borders off and destroying their weapon caches and ammo. We make sweeps of whole city blocks, house to house. The native Iraqie grow weary of the warfare and want to go back to once was a modern lifestyle i.e. electricty, water, and entertainment(wishful thinking?). The Iraqie and others lost hundreads of thousands of men. I don't think this like Isreal. It is a different type of engagement all together. Of course it is nothing like vietnam. Except that it is being done all wrong. Here is my crazy Idea. Identify hostile city blocks. Around one in the mourning fly over and drop non-leathal bio agent. It makes people throw up and have the shits.(thats it) Sure some old fuckers will die from heart attacks or trip on the way to the crapper but thats war. Wait 3 hours and go in and sweep the city. No one is running and no one is in any condition to fight. Civilians might be sick for a few days but we could offer medical aid to them. What do you think. Idea 2, drop hustler mags. Those sand monkeys never seen no shit like that. They would all be jerking off and be too tired and relaxed to fight. They would be like "this is not so bad". F*ck set up free cable and give them the hot network, yea baby. Malt Beverages and crack might work too . Or Aids but then we would have to get out of there fast.
|
|
|
Post by larry g on Mar 14, 2005 2:19:17 GMT -5
any one who considers them selves a conservative should have watched bill mayer this week.
|
|
|
Post by larry g on Mar 22, 2005 16:48:36 GMT -5
what i would like to know is how putting less money into social security will make it last longer. george bushs private accounts is just another tax break for the rich. the money the middle class saves with this will make little or no differance in thier retirement.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Mar 26, 2005 15:22:06 GMT -5
Ok, So though I am more of a left wing guy theres certain right wing people I enjoy. For the most part the presentation of the right wing opinions is usually offensive to me. Anyhow one guy i do like is Bill O'reilly and The Factor. This guy says some real good shit and i feel like he really feels the way he says.
But i say something interesting today. A while back you'll remember Mel Gibson released the Passion of the Christ and for some bizzarre reason the establishment came down on him going so far as to call him an antisemite. Some real mean shit. Now most of this pressure came from the religious right. But O'reilly went way out of his way to come out for Mel and preesent mels side of the story. I thought that was fat. O'reilly going against his side to stop and evil agenda. But now i notice that Mel Gibsons Icon studio has optioned to buy and make a movie out of O'reilly fiction novel "Those who Trespass". Is anything uncorrutped.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Mar 28, 2005 0:41:15 GMT -5
Good call rob g
|
|