Obama The 1st Black President

[hblask 1]

There is investment in socialism as well, and any society cannot function without laws, that's a pretty basic concept. as for not harming customers...that happens all the time, no matter how logical it may seem to do otherwise. fast food? cigarettes?

Well, you are just wrong about that. In every society that has tried socialism/communism/totalitarianism (or whatever you want to call the notion that "society" is more important than "person"), rule of law is one of the first victims. You don't seriously think that those 100 million people died after fair trials with juries of their peers, do you?As for these evil corporations harming their customers, do you also blame that mom-and-pop stores that sell those things? What about all the evil mothers giving their children fatty food when they come home from college? Do you condemn them, also? Or is it only evil when a corporation does it? Seriously, these are ridiculous examples. You could at least find an example of some amoral corporate stooge dumping toxic chemicals into the city's water supply. Of course, then you have to face that fact that the most polluted sites in the US are, by something like a 10:1 margin, owned and polluted by the government. You also have to face the fact that individuals illegally pollute all the time, too. (Ever throw a memory card in the trash? Paint?) And once you face those things, it's pretty hard to maintain the "corporations are evil" rhetoric. I'm sure that won't stop you, but hey, it's a free world.

[Nimue1995 1]

I never said corporations are evil. I said that corporations by their very nature are amoral. They are run by human beings behaving humanly. That means that if they can make a profit but it harms the environment they will go ahead unless there is a law to stop them. You ask about new laws. Every law we have was at one time a new law enacted to address a problem. Lol, I have to laugh at you supporting child labor. I suppose you support the companies that have gone overseas because they can pay the workers there less, have no particular labor laws including child labor laws and no environmental laws. And for some reason you figure that it's a good thing to be pissing in our own nest. I for one don't think you'd like it so much if you'd lived through the Great Depression like my parents did. They lived in a converted garage at that time and there was only one member of the family my uncle that had a job. But that was your great laissez-faire capitalism that caused it. So how many died in the dust bowls of the thirties which speculation in wheat caused? Try reading about it sometime. It's an eye-opener about a time and area of the country that I hadn't read about before. And the aquifer that is currently being used for most of the irrigation and drinking water in that area of the country is being used at a rate that in the next 50 years it will dry up unless another source of water is found. Do you think that people and the ag companies will stop using it or conserve it unless there is a law enacted? Or will they continue to act in their short-term interests at the expense of their children and grand-children? How about Atlanta GA? They overbuilt for the water supply and now that drought has set in, they've waited until the fricking lake they are using for drinking water is drying up before sounding the alarm. Isn't that a little late? And that's right out in the open in front of them. Do you think anyone's going to act about the aquifer until they turn on the tap and nothing comes out? This is just one example I can think of right now of companies (the big ag companies in this case) acting in their short term interests with detriment to the long term viability of that area. And just like the mining corporations in Montana, when it dries up they'll move on leaving the mess unless they're forced into conservation. I believe in progressivism. I believe that it's part of what's made life better for more people here in the United States. And I believe in capitalism as well. But I believe that too much of either one is bad for society. And we've had about 20 years where capitalism has been lifted up as the model at the expense of many of the poor and middle class members of society and it's time that the pendulum went back a bit. Unfortunately it is a pendulum and we don't seem to be able to stay in balance. It's always headed one way or the other. But the result of not paying attention to the poor and middle class can be revolution if they start feeling like they're being trod on too often. It's happened in other countries and it can happen here. It's better to have that pendulum swing back a bit then to have the whole clock broken.

[hblask 1]

It's not clear, though. I wish I had the raw data so I could do a real analysis, but if you look at the highest few points in terms of GDP, they are more or less flat as a function of economic freedom. The highest isn't the most economically free, the second highest certainly isn't and is a huge outlier, and the rest are more or less flat.

OK, curiosity got the best of me, so I checked a couple of the outliers. As expected they are true outliers: countries with a small population and lots of oil.Qatar, per capita GDP 75,900, population less than a million, freedom score 60.73Libya, per capita GDP 13,100, population, 6 million.I'm guessing the other outliers are similar cases, such as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. (It's kind of hard to figure them out). Unfortunately, if you start eliminating data points, it becomes cherry picking, and I don't want to engage in that.But I think it's safe to say that you need EITHER to have your country over an oil field OR have an economy that ranks highly on the 10 economic freedoms measured by this index in order to have economic success.

[All_In 0]

Well, you are just wrong about that. In every society that has tried socialism/communism/totalitarianism (or whatever you want to call the notion that "society" is more important than "person"), rule of law is one of the first victims. You don't seriously think that those 100 million people died after fair trials with juries of their peers, do you?

There you go again, blindly steaming ahead with your idea of what socialism is, and then attributing mass death to it.As you would say, silly.And what exactly am i wrong about? That, 'There is investment in socialism as well, and any society cannot function without laws, that's a pretty basic concept'. Or that fast food and cigarettes harm the customer? You never did reply to me, except to rant.

As for these evil corporations harming their customers, do you also blame that mom-and-pop stores that sell those things? What about all the evil mothers giving their children fatty food when they come home from college? Do you condemn them, also?

Yes. But everything in moderation. A mom can offer healthy alternatives while fast food joints 'try' to (yet fail), and cigarette companies cannot.

Or is it only evil when a corporation does it?

No. But you have argued that capitalism does not harm the customer, yet have come up with an EXAMPLE OF YOUR OWN, of mom and pop stores doing that. Obviously you are not blind to this hypocrisy, why do you pretend?

Seriously, these are ridiculous examples. You could at least find an example of some amoral corporate stooge dumping toxic chemicals into the city's water supply. Of course, then you have to face that fact that the most polluted sites in the US are, by something like a 10:1 margin, owned and polluted by the government.

Really, wow. What are you trying to say?Fast food and cigarettes are NOT examples of an industry harming its customers?That you will only accept a counter-argument if you are the one to dictate what it should be?That the capitalistic government of the US is responsible for polluting your country, at a '10:1 margin' as compared to...well, you never specified, but I assume everyone else?

You also have to face the fact that individuals illegally pollute all the time, too. (Ever throw a memory card in the trash? Paint?) And once you face those things, it's pretty hard to maintain the "corporations are evil" rhetoric. I'm sure that won't stop you, but hey, it's a free world.

If you are comparing individuals' polluting with corporations' polluting, you must really be joking. Seriously.So I, first, have to accept what you say my argument should be, then I should accept all the pitfalls of that argument?LOL

[hblask 1]

There you go again, blindly steaming ahead with your idea of what socialism is, and then attributing mass death to it.

Is this where you insert the "that wasn't real socialism" line? If so, don't forget to add "just because every time it's been tried it's led to massive deaths is a coincidence".

That, 'There is investment in socialism as well, and any society cannot function without laws, that's a pretty basic concept'.

In full-blown socialism, there is no "investment" in any sense that the word is used in modern economics, because ownership is not secure. Instead what you get is government spending.And I didn't say "laws", I said "rule of law", which is completely different. "Laws" is whatever the idiots in charge decide to pass. "Rule of law" is a concept in which people are treated equally under law, have certain protections under law, and can make long-term plans knowing that the rug will not be pulled out from under them. Capitalism cannot exist without rule of law, socialism cannot exist with it.

Or that fast food and cigarettes harm the customer?

That's such a ridiculous definition of "harm", I didn't think it was necessary to point it out. No company has ever gone to somebody's home and forced them to smoke or eat fast food. Offering people the choices they wish is not "harm", it's a positive. It what makes the US rich. Yes, some of those people will make "bad" choices, or more specifically, choice that *you* think are a bad tradeoff for *their* life. But every human activity has some degree of risk, some degree of harm. Offering a world rich in choices is not a negative, it is a positive.

Yes. But everything in moderation. A mom can offer healthy alternatives while fast food joints 'try' to (yet fail), and cigarette companies cannot. But you have argued that capitalism does not harm the customer, yet have come up with an EXAMPLE OF YOUR OWN, of mom and pop stores doing that.

So are you saying there are no cigarettes or fast food under socialism? I guess that's partly true, because they have NO food, much less fast food. But what you are discussing is not a problem of capitalism, it's a problem of human nature. We sometimes make bad choices. Curiously, though, when given the full choices of capitalism, life expectancy is decades longer than under the "well-regulated" regime of socialism. So what were you saying about "harming consumers"?

That the capitalistic government of the US is responsible for polluting your country, at a '10:1 margin' as compared to...well, you never specified, but I assume everyone else?

I'm referring to the federally designated Superfund sites, the most polluted in the country. Almost all of them were government owned and operated. Those nasty capitalists pollute at a fraction of the rate of the people who you think should manage every area of our lives. Also, governments aren't capitalistic. Capitalism is an economic system. Our country's political system, i.e., it's government, is a democratic republic. Socialism is a nasty blend of economics and politics.

If you are comparing individuals' polluting with corporations' polluting, you must really be joking. Seriously.

Yes, I will gladly compare the pollution from a large company to that of individuals. Why? Because if you look at how many widgets the company produces vs the amount of pollution it produces, and compare it to the amount of pollution that would be created if each person produced the widgets for themselves, the large company would produce much less pollution. It isn't even close. The reason is because pollution is, in the end, an inefficient use of resources. An individual doesn't mind losing 15 cents making a widget. A company that makes 10 million of them can't afford that type of waste.Perhaps you are confused by the fact that large companies, in effect, collect everyone else's pollution in to one spot, making it obvious or smelly or noisy or whatever problem this particular pollution has. So it's a bit unfair to talk about evil corporate polluters when they are doing two things people want: reducing total pollution, and supplying people with the things they want.

[All_In 0]

Is this where you insert the "that wasn't real socialism" line? If so, don't forget to add "just because every time it's been tried it's led to massive deaths is a coincidence".In full-blown socialism, there is no "investment" in any sense that the word is used in modern economics, because ownership is not secure. Instead what you get is government spending.And I didn't say "laws", I said "rule of law", which is completely different. "Laws" is whatever the idiots in charge decide to pass. "Rule of law" is a concept in which people are treated equally under law, have certain protections under law, and can make long-term plans knowing that the rug will not be pulled out from under them. Capitalism cannot exist without rule of law, socialism cannot exist with it.That's such a ridiculous definition of "harm", I didn't think it was necessary to point it out. No company has ever gone to somebody's home and forced them to smoke or eat fast food. Offering people the choices they wish is not "harm", it's a positive. It what makes the US rich. Yes, some of those people will make "bad" choices, or more specifically, choice that *you* think are a bad tradeoff for *their* life. But every human activity has some degree of risk, some degree of harm. Offering a world rich in choices is not a negative, it is a positive.So are you saying there are no cigarettes or fast food under socialism? I guess that's partly true, because they have NO food, much less fast food. But what you are discussing is not a problem of capitalism, it's a problem of human nature. We sometimes make bad choices. Curiously, though, when given the full choices of capitalism, life expectancy is decades longer than under the "well-regulated" regime of socialism. So what were you saying about "harming consumers"?I'm referring to the federally designated Superfund sites, the most polluted in the country. Almost all of them were government owned and operated. Those nasty capitalists pollute at a fraction of the rate of the people who you think should manage every area of our lives. Also, governments aren't capitalistic. Capitalism is an economic system. Our country's political system, i.e., it's government, is a democratic republic. Socialism is a nasty blend of economics and politics.Yes, I will gladly compare the pollution from a large company to that of individuals. Why? Because if you look at how many widgets the company produces vs the amount of pollution it produces, and compare it to the amount of pollution that would be created if each person produced the widgets for themselves, the large company would produce much less pollution. It isn't even close. The reason is because pollution is, in the end, an inefficient use of resources. An individual doesn't mind losing 15 cents making a widget. A company that makes 10 million of them can't afford that type of waste.Perhaps you are confused by the fact that large companies, in effect, collect everyone else's pollution in to one spot, making it obvious or smelly or noisy or whatever problem this particular pollution has. So it's a bit unfair to talk about evil corporate polluters when they are doing two things people want: reducing total pollution, and supplying people with the things they want.

OK, i am finished with this.You tell me what I am supposed to think, so that it can fit in your misguided opinion of what socialism is. Then you can attack it.You continue to make things up and use the far end of the spectrum when arguing against socialism. There is plenty of investment in Canada, Sweden, etc.You say silly things, like socialist countries do not have rule of law. You say socialist countries do not treat people equally or give them protections, which basically flies in the face of what socialism is all about.You say fast food and cigarettes are ridiculous examples of harm, why? I really don't know, it is common knowledge, i didn't think I had to point THAT out.You make ridiculous arguments using widgets as an example.Bye.

[hblask 1]

You continue to make things up and use the far end of the spectrum when arguing against socialism. There is plenty of investment in Canada, Sweden, etc.

Those are not socialist countries; their economic freedom scores overall are pretty similar to the US. They are capitalist countries with large welfare states and/or one or more socialist programs -- much like the US, which also have several soon-to-be-bankrupt socialist programs.

You say silly things, like socialist countries do not have rule of law. You say socialist countries do not treat people equally or give them protections, which basically flies in the face of what socialism is all about

Socialism cannot exist with rule of law, because it is against human nature to work, over a lifetime, for the benefit of others. The only way the system can be maintained is to remove human rights.Again, it seems silly that I have to point out every single point, but I'm talking about truly socialist countries, not Canada and their socialized healthcare. You have to face a simple fact of history: every nation that has converted to socialism has basically instantly removed all rule of law and basic human rights. If you would like to explain why it's "just a coincidence", that would be good for a few laughs, but you have lots of trials to write off as anomalies.

You say fast food and cigarettes are ridiculous examples of harm, why?

I explained why they are ridiculous examples. The company is not coming to their home, forcing them to eat/smoke. It is not sneaking it into their food supply. No, smoking and fast food are consumed by the choice of the consumer. Saying that the seller is "harming" the buyer is not in the normal usage of the word "harm". You can't make words mean whatever they want. By your definition, you seem to be saying that anyone who sells any product that has any potential to harm the buyer is actively harming that person. Right? That's what you are saying about smoking and fast food. Does this apply to cars? To skis? To toasters? Steak knives? I'd be interested in your theory of where this re-definition of the word "harm" begins and where it ends. Is there no limit to blaming the seller, or is it just for products that you personally disapprove of?

[Nimue1995 1]

Those are not socialist countries; their economic freedom scores overall are pretty similar to the US. They are capitalist countries with large welfare states and/or one or more socialist programs -- much like the US, which also have several soon-to-be-bankrupt socialist programs.Socialism cannot exist with rule of law, because it is against human nature to work, over a lifetime, for the benefit of others. The only way the system can be maintained is to remove human rights.Again, it seems silly that I have to point out every single point, but I'm talking about truly socialist countries, not Canada and their socialized healthcare. You have to face a simple fact of history: every nation that has converted to socialism has basically instantly removed all rule of law and basic human rights. If you would like to explain why it's "just a coincidence", that would be good for a few laughs, but you have lots of trials to write off as anomalies.I explained why they are ridiculous examples. The company is not coming to their home, forcing them to eat/smoke. It is not sneaking it into their food supply. No, smoking and fast food are consumed by the choice of the consumer. Saying that the seller is "harming" the buyer is not in the normal usage of the word "harm". You can't make words mean whatever they want. By your definition, you seem to be saying that anyone who sells any product that has any potential to harm the buyer is actively harming that person. Right? That's what you are saying about smoking and fast food. Does this apply to cars? To skis? To toasters? Steak knives? I'd be interested in your theory of where this re-definition of the word "harm" begins and where it ends. Is there no limit to blaming the seller, or is it just for products that you personally disapprove of?

What about WR Grace selling vermiculite to consumers with asbestos in it? Wouldn't that count as harming the customer?

[hblask 1]

What about WR Grace selling vermiculite to consumers with asbestos in it? Wouldn't that count as harming the customer?

Some people broke the law, and they paid the price. The system worked like it was supposed to. Do you have a problem with that? See, this is something I brought up before, but since you keep coming back to the same examples, I'm assuming you are not reading the responses. There are people with a broken moral compass who work for corporations. There are people with a broken moral compass who work for mom-and-pop shops. There are people with a broken moral compass who are self-employed. There are people with a broken moral compass who work for government. One of those categories of people can harm people mostly without repercussions. I'll let you see if you can figure out which one it is.

[All_In 0]

Socialism cannot exist with rule of law, because it is against human nature to work, over a lifetime, for the benefit of others.

OK, i had to reply.You don't see how funny this statement of yours is? You are telling me 80-90% (maybe more) of americans are not working for the benefit of others? For the very few?Think about it.

[Loismustdie 0]

OK, i had to reply.You don't see how funny this statement of yours is? You are telling me 80-90% (maybe more) of americans are not working for the benefit of others? For the very few?Think about it.

I don't. I work for my benefit. The fact that someone else sees what I do as beneficial to them as well only serves me that much the more. Do you see why?

[hblask 1]

OK, i had to reply. You don't see how funny this statement of yours is? You are telling me 80-90% (maybe more) of americans are not working for the benefit of others? For the very few? Think about it.

I have thought about it. People work for their own good and the good of their families. Those of us with good hearts also include some work for local and community needs, or even specific issues at a larger scale. NOBODY works for some obscure notion such as "the good of society" or "the greater good", and nobody has ever been willing to devote their entire life to it. Each person has their own notion of what problems are most important, and what issues require their immediate attention. This is why socialism fails; this is why the bigger ANY program is the more likely it is to fail. People cannot be expected to devote effort to things they don't care about for no reward. Instead what happens is the effort goes away, along with the production.So no, people work "for" others, in the sense that they are "employed by others'. But they don't work *for the benefit* of others (except in the cases I noted above).

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I think this is a case of understanding words differently. When hblask initially said "working for the benefit of others," All In heard the ECONOMIC benefit of others. Most Americans DO work for the economic benefit of others, in that most of us are employees rather than self-employed or entrepreneurs. Hblask clarified that he was thinking of the SOCIAL benefit of others, which is vastly different. I admit I saw it All In's way, too. I thought we were talking about economic benefit as well.But, hblask, I think your definitions are too rigid. First off, what about all the people who do work full-time in the non-profit sector (like me as well as millions of others)? The non-profit sector is a significant part of the economy, and we work for little monetary reward in order to better society (having selected our jobs based on the problem that we most want to fix). You suggest that nobody would choose this course willingly, but millions do. You can't force someone to choose it, agreed, but then again you couldn't force me to work for money alone for a corporation that I found ethically troubling. So the failing that you impute to socialism also exists in capitalism -- i.e., that people can't be forced to work for things they don't want to work for.But to say that "people work _for_ others in the sense that they are employed by them, but they don't work _for the benefit_ of others" seems to me a distinction without a difference. If I'm employed by someone, they're getting an economic benefit out of me; thus, I am working for their benefit whether I like it or not (in my case, I do). This seems to be such fine hair-splitting that your point collapses in it. If it isn't, can you re-phrase it a different way that might make it clearer? Thanks.

[hblask 1]

But, hblask, I think your definitions are too rigid. First off, what about all the people who do work full-time in the non-profit sector (like me as well as millions of others)? The non-profit sector is a significant part of the economy, and we work for little monetary reward in order to better society (having selected our jobs based on the problem that we most want to fix). You suggest that nobody would choose this course willingly, but millions do. You can't force someone to choose it, agreed, but then again you couldn't force me to work for money alone for a corporation that I found ethically troubling. So the failing that you impute to socialism also exists in capitalism -- i.e., that people can't be forced to work for things they don't want to work for.

I think this is probably an excellent clarification, I think you are saying what I wanted to say much better. People work for the the values that they, themselves, consider most important. Under a free market/capitalist/rule-of-law type system, that means each individual chooses what they value most. For some people it is money; for you, apparently, it's a need to feel you are doing good for the world (plus the money, of course); for me it is to spend as much time with my family as possible with money being secondary. And that's why capitalism/free markets work: each person can pursue the thing that drives them to excellence, the thing that gets them motivated in the morning. Every socialist system, by definition, pushes people into the jobs that a few central planners decide are important. That can never work, human nature doesn't allow it.And from there, it is a continuum. Different people have different thresholds, but basically, if you start taking from the most productive members of society (i.e., those who are motivated by money or by that need to produce something) to give to those who are less productive, you take away some of that motivation for them to work so hard. I can personally tell you that this is true. I used to make great sacrifices in my life to go where my skills were needed most -- which also happened to be financially very rewarding. Then one year, I paid over $60K in taxes, and figured out that, because I needed to pay for "society" or whatever the hell the excuse for that punitive tax rate is, it made no sense for me to work that hard. I could be less productive for almost the same amount of money without all the life sacrifices. So who loses? The tax money is gone, the productivity is gone. *Society* is worse off. I'm better off in some ways, worse off in others. It's a coin flip. And so, even in small doses, creeping socialism can hurt society. When I was really rich, I gave mountains of money to charity. Now, I can't afford that anymore. I still give when I can, but those who want to tax me to help their pet causes have harmed a lot of great charities. This is what I've been talking about with the "no free lunch" and "biting the hand that feeds you" discussions.Socialism in small amounts hurts a little, socialism in big amounts hurts a lot.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have thought about it. People work for their own good and the good of their families. Those of us with good hearts also include some work for local and community needs, or even specific issues at a larger scale. NOBODY works for some obscure notion such as "the good of society" or "the greater good", and nobody has ever been willing to devote their entire life to it. Each person has their own notion of what problems are most important, and what issues require their immediate attention. This is why socialism fails; this is why the bigger ANY program is the more likely it is to fail. People cannot be expected to devote effort to things they don't care about for no reward. Instead what happens is the effort goes away, along with the production.So no, people work "for" others, in the sense that they are "employed by others'. But they don't work *for the benefit* of others (except in the cases I noted above).

Of course the fact that America is 2.5 times more giving to charities then the 2nd most giving nation GB, and the rich in this country are twice as likely to be givers would also mean that we do in fact work more for others than any other nation.

[Balloon guy 158]

Speaking of numbers I was sent this link and find these numbers amazing:TOTAL Military deaths per yearAs tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: 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) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths1997 ............. 817 ( Clinton Year)1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)2000 .......... 1,983 ( Clinton Year) 2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)2006.............. 920 (George W Year)2007………...899 (George W Year)Here's the linkLink

[hblask 1]

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deathsGeorge W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

I'm very surprised by this. Where did we lose that many people during the Clinton years? A few in Bosnia, a few in Somalia? I may need to do some reading.

[Nimue1995 1]

I'm very surprised by this. Where did we lose that many people during the Clinton years? A few in Bosnia, a few in Somalia? I may need to do some reading.

Trying to remember. Was the bombing of the Marine base in Beirut during the Clinton years? I know the bombing of the USS Cole was during his administration. Though I'm a bit suspicious of those statistics. Where did you say they came from BG? Sometimes partisan groups can do a bit of a twist or downright lie with statistics. I've learned to be suspicious unless I know that the source is an official one and that we're comparing apples to apples.

[hblask 1]

Trying to remember. Was the bombing of the Marine base in Beirut during the Clinton years? I know the bombing of the USS Cole was during his administration. Though I'm a bit suspicious of those statistics. Where did you say they came from BG? Sometimes partisan groups can do a bit of a twist or downright lie with statistics. I've learned to be suspicious unless I know that the source is an official one and that we're comparing apples to apples.

He showed the link, it was some congressional thing (or possibly someone posing as that, but I think it was real). I believe the statistics as presented.I think the bombing of the base was then, but that's still only a couple hundred out of 14K..... I'm trying to imagine how it got that high with no single war, just lots of little skirmishes.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm almost positive the bombing of the Marine barracks was during Reagan or Bush I, and the USS Cole only killed something like 17 people. I'd like to see WHERE these deaths happened as well. I suspect if the numbers are legitimate at all, they might be counting all deaths under uniform, including car wrecks, retired soldiers, etc., under Clinton and only combat deaths under Bush.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

BG, BG, BG.....Where are you getting these figures? I'm a geek and I read the whole report. I don't see any figures that match the ones you posted, and the vast majority of deaths in most years were listed as accidental, with illness and self-infliction the second and third causes of death, respectively. [by the way, the Marine Corps barracks bombing was 1983.]Here's what I found, from the same link:Calendar Year .....Total Deaths......Accident...... Hostile Action ....Homicide.........Illness.....Pending.. Self Inflicted....Terrorist Attack....Undetermined1980 2,392 1,556 0 174 419 0 231 1 111981 2,380 1,524 0 145 457 0 241 0 131982 2,319 1,495 0 108 446 0 254 0 161983 2,465 1,413 18 115 419 0 218 263 191984 1,999 1,293 1 84 374 0 225 6 161985 2,252 1,476 0 111 363 0 275 5 221986 1,984 1,199 2 103 384 0 269 0 271987 1,983 1,172 37 104 383 0 260 2 251988 1,819 1,080 0 90 321 0 285 17 261989 1,636 1,000 23 58 294 0 224 0 371990 1,507 880 0 74 277 0 232 1 431991 1,787 931 147 112 308 0 256 0 33 1992 1,293 676 0 109 252 0 238 1 171993 1,213 632 0 86 221 0 236 29 91994 1,075 544 0 83 206 0 232 0 101995 1,040 538 0 67 174 0 250 7 41996 974 527 1 52 173 0 188 19 141997 817 433 0 42 170 0 159 0 131998 827 445 0 26 168 10 161 3 141999 796 436 0 37 150 13 145 0 152000 758 398 0 34 138 0 151 17 202001 891 437 3 49 185 1 140 55 212002 999 547 18 51 190 6 160 0 272003 1,228 440 344 36 207 16 167 0 182004 1,874 604 739 46 270 19 188 0 82005 1,942 632 739 49 281 72 150 0 192006 1,858 465 753 30 205 238 155 0 12Now let's do that math again:Total Deaths from 1981 - 1988 (Reagan Years): 17,201 (Column A)Total Deaths from 1989 - 1992 (Bush I Years): 6,223 (Column A)Total Deaths from 1993 - 2000 (Clinton Years): 7,500 (Column A) That's two terms and only a slightly higher total than the one-term Bush I.Total Deaths from 2001 - 2006 (Bush II Years): 8,792 (Column A) That's missing 2007 and 2008.But more importantly, look at the third column, hostile action. 58 for Reagan, 170 for Bush I, 0 for Clinton (that's ZERO), and 2,596 for Bush (casualties from Iraq just crossed 4,000, so the missing years of 2007 and 2008 to date are big ones). Where on earth did you get 14,000 for Clinton? I saw that figure nowhere in this report.And for the next two minutes, I'm officially pissed at you for making me do all that math on a Friday night. You're in my personal penalty box. Okay, now you're out.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Ah, crap on a crap cracker!!! I had that all tabled up nicely, and the stupid program deleted all my tabs and spaces! [Now I know why it deletes one of the TWO spaces I always put between sentences.] Sorry 'bout that.

[gobears 0]

urban legend

Urban Legends To sum it up from the snopes article:Reagan 17,201First Bush 6,223 (One term)Clinton 7,500Second Bush 8,792 (doesn't include 2007 and 2008)Edit: basically what SB said above and the 14,000 is just a bogus number from whomever the originator was

[hblask 1]

Total Deaths from 1981 - 1988 (Reagan Years): 17,201 (Column A)Total Deaths from 1989 - 1992 (Bush I Years): 6,223 (Column A)Total Deaths from 1993 - 2000 (Clinton Years): 7,500 (Column A) That's two terms and only a slightly higher total than the one-term Bush I.Total Deaths from 2001 - 2006 (Bush II Years): 8,792 (Column A) That's missing 2007 and 2008.

Urban Legends To sum it up from the snopes article:Reagan 17,201First Bush 6,223 (One term)Clinton 7,500Second Bush 8,792 (doesn't include 2007 and 2008)Edit: basically what SB said above and the 14,000 is just a bogus number from whomever the originator was

I <3 this forum. Heck, I heart the internet. In the old days, urban legends would go unchallenged for years, and the few who discovered they were legends couldn't get the truth out. Now it follows behind the legends on the same channels.

[Balloon guy 158]

1st off: someone emailed me this so I know it's true2nd off: when the link didn't have .gov I was suspicious, but it made Clinton look worse so I ignored it.3rd off: I wish I didn't start with the off thing cause 3rd off doesn't work at all.4th: I do love how Bill Clinton has nearly 80% as many deaths under his admin without a war as GW does with a 5 year war and people act like the Iraq war is a human grinding machine.Any soldier death is serious, but training for war can be as serious as the war. During WWII there was one training accident that killed almost 3,000 men in one event.5th: Gobears KNOCK IT OFF, if people don't know about snopes then let them stay up adding large numbers and making graphs with tabs that don't copy and paste....oh wait never mind. Sorry SB