Democratic Socialism on the rise?

[kaz]

How many hundreds of thousands have died with his unsanctioned wars?

Oh, I think you should say MILLIONS of civilians have died under Obama.....After all, if you're going to bullshit, let it all out.......

Now, compare the US body bags count under Obama.....and, of course, baby-Bush.....

Since they have the same policies, tom-ay-to tom-ah-to

 

[nat4900]

Since they have the same policies,

Really???....Obama RE-invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just a reminder.....

Casualties in Iraq - Antiwar.com

Antiwar.com?

You dare insult my intelligence with this? This cites something known as "The Lancet Study" conducted in 2003 and 2006, and soundly debunked as a piece of propaganda, it claimed that Bush was responsible for an estimated 100,000 deaths in Iraq. The men behind it, Gilbert Burnham, and Les Roberts were rebuked by the American Association for Public Opinion Research in 2009 for their antics and was further investigated by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health for their nondisclosure of their methodology. And not only that, George Soros was responsible for half of the study's funding. Yeah, mmhmm.

Only someone as simpleminded as you would fall for such politically motivated debauchery.

Nondisclosure Cited in Iraq Casualties Study

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/6245758.html

Don't screw with me, liberal.

 

[nat4900]

You dare insult my intelligence with this?

Insult what doesn't exist??? LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

You dare insult my intelligence with this?

Insult what doesn't exist??? LOL

Yeah, you're done. If you had an argument, it's long since gone. Insulting me is all you have left. Here's another dose of reality, and it isn't grape flavored this time.

MUSINGS ON IRAQ: The Major Flaws With The Lancet Reports On Iraqi Deaths, Part I
MUSINGS ON IRAQ: Major Flaws With The Lancet Reports On Iraqi Deaths, Part II

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, nat, are you going to refute the links or call me names? Your choice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's more.

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.The report’s authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference’the number of “extra” deaths in the post-invasion period’signifies the war’s toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English’which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language’98,000’is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday’s election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It’s a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.

How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?

 

[nat4900]

Only someone as simpleminded as you would fall for such politically motivated debauchery.

"........They will greet us with flowers and chocolates...."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Only someone as simpleminded as you would fall for such politically motivated debauchery.

"........They will greet us with flowers and chocolates...."

Still won't refute my links? Hey, while I have this bag of bricks, let me drop a few more on your head.

“The 100,000 estimate immediately came under attack. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain questioned the methodology of the study and compared it with an Iraq Health Ministry figure that put civilian fatalities at less than 4,000. Other critics referred to the findings of the Iraq Body Count project, which has constructed a database of war-related civilian deaths from verified news media reports or official sources like hospitals and morgues.That database recently placed civilian deaths somewhere between 14,429 and 16,579, the range arising largely from uncertainty about whether some victims were civilians or insurgents. But because of its stringent conditions for including deaths in the database, the project has quite explicitly said, ”Our own total is certain to be an underestimate."

John Lott's Website: Lancet Survey on Post War Fatalities in Iraq Continues to be heavily Criticized
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/u...-and-the-innocents-lost-in-the-crossfire.html

 

[Iceweasel]

Bernie Sanders is NOT a democrat socialist. He is a socialist. He wants the government to spend 18 trillion dollars on his personal wet dream. THAT is how dictators are born, not by self reliant freedom loving Americans. Bernie's purpose is to make Hillary look more palatable, and it ain't easy.

How does Bernie differ from Obama again? Or Hillary? I mean with actual positions

Well, I mentioned it above. 18 trillion in social spending. Hillary put about a half trillion on the table. I don't see either being electable at this point though.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nat, your comebacks are terrible. Your lack of compassion is clearly evident. Now, two questions:

1) Did all the lives lost in Iraq matter more because Bush did it?
2) Do the lives lost in Iraq and elsewhere since then mean less because Obama did it?

The answers (or lack thereof) to these questions will prove you hypocrisy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey! For a brick, this flew pretty good!

“On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants — that is: civilians who did not take up arms.”

Iraq Occupation Casualties Notes

 

[nat4900]

Well, I mentioned it above. 18 trillion in social spending. Hillary put about a half trillion on the table. I don't see either being electable at this point though.

.........and the entire country relies on your perceptive political acumen.....LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, I mentioned it above. 18 trillion in social spending. Hillary put about a half trillion on the table. I don't see either being electable at this point though.

.........and the entire country relies on your perceptive political acumen.....LOL

Your lack of research "acumen" is showing. Your childishness is showing. Refute my links. Now. Or you can keep clicking the funny button on my posts.

Come on now. Surely you have something to throw at me, rather than the shit you dug out of your backside.

 

[kaz]

Since they have the same policies,

Really???....Obama RE-invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

He continued the Iraq timeline and expanded Afghanistan. Did you actually think that was clever?

 

[kaz]

Bernie Sanders is NOT a democrat socialist. He is a socialist. He wants the government to spend 18 trillion dollars on his personal wet dream. THAT is how dictators are born, not by self reliant freedom loving Americans. Bernie's purpose is to make Hillary look more palatable, and it ain't easy.

How does Bernie differ from Obama again? Or Hillary? I mean with actual positions

Well, I mentioned it above. 18 trillion in social spending. Hillary put about a half trillion on the table. I don't see either being electable at this point though.

I'm not sure how the number they came up with for cost is an actual policy difference. It's not like the government holds itself to budgets anyway

 

[nat4900]

Your lack of research "acumen" is showing. Your childishness is showing. Refute my links. Now. Or you can keep clicking the funny button on my posts.

Come on now. Surely you have something to throw at me, rather than shit you dug out of your backside.

Find a link that states that NO Iraqi died....except for old age....Then we'll chat........... LOL:

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah! The left is so peace loving when they have their Nobel Prizes.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Interesting about your "new-found-love" for innocent civilians' lives......There may be hope.

How many countries did your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace have Congress declare we are at war with before or even after his campaigns?

Oh!!!!! That would be NONE.

How many hundreds of thousands have died with his unsanctioned wars?

Well over 25,000 died in his Libya campaign alone.

Can you say WAR CRIMINAL?

OR

Should we hang another Nobel Prize on his chest for his outstanding efforts of bridging the gap between the White House and the Middle East with the mutilated bodies of his endeavors?

*****CHUCKLE*****

It's the Right that usually goes for the military coup.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your lack of research "acumen" is showing. Your childishness is showing. Refute my links. Now. Or you can keep clicking the funny button on my posts.

Come on now. Surely you have something to throw at me, rather than shit you dug out of your backside.

Find a link that states that NO Iraqi died....except for old age....Then we'll chat........... LOL:

No, that's called moving the goalposts. Answer the links I posted. Do it. You've done nothing but exaggerate. When I started kicking your liberal butt from one end of this thread to the other, you started the namecalling. Roughly 15,000 at most died from the war, or little more than a tenth of the total of the study you cited.

You were guilty of exaggeration. I never once said "no Iraqis died." You claimed 100,000 of them were killed by Bush.

Your little game ended when you decided to throw those bogus statistics at me.

/thread

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah! The left is so peace loving when they have their Nobel Prizes.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Interesting about your "new-found-love" for innocent civilians' lives......There may be hope.

How many countries did your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace have Congress declare we are at war with before or even after his campaigns?

Oh!!!!! That would be NONE.

How many hundreds of thousands have died with his unsanctioned wars?

Well over 25,000 died in his Libya campaign alone.

Can you say WAR CRIMINAL?

OR

Should we hang another Nobel Prize on his chest for his outstanding efforts of bridging the gap between the White House and the Middle East with the mutilated bodies of his endeavors?

*****CHUCKLE*****

It's the Right that usually goes for the military coup.

And it's the Left who usually goes for the intellectual coup. Imagine that.