President McCain can add class to his repertoire

[PeriscopeDepth]

Gosh! You get to attack Dems for being both spineless wimps and warmongers, that hardly seems fair or logical.

PD

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Got a source for that claim?

World War I--Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II--Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
Korea--Harry Truman,Democrat
Vietnam--John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson,Democrat/Democrat
Somalian Debacle--William Clinton,Democrat
Kosovo--Bill Clinton, Democrat

You can do the math on the casualties, although casualties is not the subject

Granada--Ronald Reagan, Republican
The Noriega Caper--Ronald Reagan, Republican
Gulf War I--George Bush the Senior, Republican sort of
Gulf War II--George W Bush, Republican in name only

We lost more men in one day at Tarawa than all the Republican wars combined.

In fairness, the Democratic party before Lyndon Johnson would all be Republicans today. Kennedy, for example, was the first president to preach and use supply side economics. I remember my Republican parents being totally opposed to Kennedy's tax cut that resulted in an unprecedented surge of prosperity for the country. All Reagan did was copy Kennedy's great economic comprehension.

But as far as the OP is concerned, there will be no President McCain. He failed in communicating his ideas in a compelling way. It isn't enough to believe the right things. If you can't lead or can't communicate the right ideas in a way that compels people to adopt them, other ideas will win. McCain had several softballs float right over the plate during the last debate, a couple of them tossed by Obama and he didn't even swing at them. I'm voting for him but he deserves to lose. Too bad Obama doesn't deserve to win.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

In fairness, the Democratic party before Lyndon Johnson would all be Republicans today.

That's actually a major issue when you are counting war casualties by political party for the past several hundred or so years and tabulating them in two neat little columns. Unfortunately for the guy who posted that link with wars and casualties, those two columns have only existed in their present form since the mid 20th century.

But hey, like that web site's tag line says: "See 231 years of history in 90 seconds".

And the post before he says to a forum member:
"If you ever went to college, you would know that."
And I just don't have it in me to stoop to that level of "intellectual superiority" that belittles forum members for their supposed lack of education while posting links to websites that let you "See 231 years of history in 90 seconds".

PD

[Hylander_1314]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

This is kind of a cool map:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html

Shows how many troops died under each party - up to present day.

So really, you should vote Whig, or Federalist, or Democratic Republican, since they have the best records.

I'm a 3rd party advocate myself. One of the guys, can't remember his name right off, I just got up, but his slogan is, "We gave this nation liberty once before, so it looks like it's up to us to do it again".

Though it would be refreshing, it would be a great culture shock to not have government in an intrusive manner. It would take some getting used to.

Where was this hiding during the primaries? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/827544...es_uncensored/

Here's a little joke,

Washington DC is the only place in the world where you can run for ten square miles, and never leave the scene of the crime.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It would be most appropriate if Obama and Biden where in your army man pictures. Historically, Democrats are the most likely to go to war, especially when there hasn't been an attack on US interest.

If you don't like war, you are less likely to get one with a Repub in office.

-S

Big nose Bill Clinton bombing Serb civilians comes to mind...And let me see...Who was it that escalated the Vietnam war....?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101002897.html

-S

Funny how only after the media makes it an issue does he do something about the unbridled hate at his rallies.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

If you ever went to college, you would know that. Its in every history class. Google it!

-S

And this shows... what? World War I and World War II were necessary wars. The Zimmermann Telegram in World War I showed that the Germans were becoming increasingly hostile to the United States due to their support of Britain (asking Mexico to attack is a pretty unfriendly thing to do). World War II was necessary because if Hitler had won, we'd all be speaking German and the world would be a much more loathsome place.

Korea... might have been necessary to keep the peace in Asia. Who knows. Either way, it has been officially termed a "police action", not a war.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

World War I--Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II--Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
Korea--Harry Truman,Democrat
Vietnam--John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson,Democrat/Democrat
Somalian Debacle--William Clinton,Democrat
Kosovo--Bill Clinton, Democrat

You can do the math on the casualties, although casualties is not the subject

Granada--Ronald Reagan, Republican
The Noriega Caper--Ronald Reagan, Republican
Gulf War I--George Bush the Senior, Republican sort of
Gulf War II--George W Bush, Republican in name only

We lost more men in one day at Tarawa than all the Republican wars combined.

You forgot to mention that Truman ended the Second World War.

Also, you didn't include the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine-American War for a list of wars in which there was a Republican president.

Civil War - Abraham Lincoln
Indian Wars (like the Black Hills campaign; several others along the time frame) - Rutherford Hayes and Ulysses Grant
Spanish-American War - William McKinley
Philippine-American War - William McKinley

The Civil War... might have been prevented by preceding events in the 1840s and 1850s. The Indian Wars were unnecessary. The Spanish-American War marked when the country decided that it had to be the "World's Policeman", and the Philippine-American War was a combination of that idea and the growing favoritism of imperialism and Anglo-Saxonism.

That's all I've got to say to that.

Although, your Tarawa quote is just a bit wrong for two reasons:

1) The Spanish-American War killed around 56,000 soldiers, most of which died from disease (53,000 more men than the number that died at Tarawa). The Civil War killed MILLIONS of people. The Indian Wars killed around 20,000. The Philippine-American War killed 4,200 people.

2) You said that casualties were not part of this topic, so your own argument is meaningless on that account.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

In fairness, the Democratic party before Lyndon Johnson would all be Republicans today.

Pff, Franklin Roosevelt was a Liberal Democrat, and he remained that way until his death; Harry Truman remained loyal to the Democratic Party until his death. Woodrow Wilson also stuck with the Democrats until the end of his life. John Kennedy was a Democrat until his assassination. Now, say what you want, but nobody can really be sure who they'd side with in today's world. I just told you how they were as people in their era.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

But as far as the OP is concerned, there will be no President McCain. He failed in communicating his ideas in a compelling way. It isn't enough to believe the right things. If you can't lead or can't communicate the right ideas in a way that compels people to adopt them, other ideas will win. McCain had several softballs float right over the plate during the last debate, a couple of them tossed by Obama and he didn't even swing at them. I'm voting for him but he deserves to lose. Too bad Obama doesn't deserve to win.

I'd take Obama over McCain, but as far as the whole thing is concerned, it's just about deciding which candidate is filled with less sh** than the other.