Obama's Acceptance Speech (full text)

[Goth Brooks]

did you just basically say that you don't find 7000+ military deaths in an era of "peace" unusually high??

awesome...good job.

I don't have to read the report to find that number abnormally high.

And after reading the report, I find it rather suspect.

During Clinton's reign there was an average of 928 deaths per year that were non hostile/terrorist in nature.

During that 8yrs there was an average of 1,469,440.5 members serving per year.

That is less than .01% of the military population.

Let's re-iterate. Every year, for 8 years, out of 1.47 million people, only 1,000 died.

That is not high.

edit: i added up the wrong columns for the total military population, only added up the active duty instead of total military personnel. So the percentage of deaths is even smaller than I noted.

[Az_]

seems like maybe better precautions, and training, could have been taken.

It doesn't just "Seem" high....that is high.....no "war", and we're still looking at 7000 deaths...and now we can say that it's a "relatively" low number??

while I'm not going to argue....I will say that I find those reports to seem somewhat exagerated, or fuddled with...IMO

More than willing to be corrected. If you can find some data that comes from a good source that contradicts it by all means bring it up.

[Goth Brooks]

/tin foil hat

[Az_]

/tin foil hat

/digging up reality hat

[SaGa]

More than willing to be corrected. If you can find some data that comes from a good source that contradicts it by all means bring it up.

7000 in 8 years. thats not to bad. accidents happen. people do stupid things sometimes. people end up going crazy to. the list could go on of ways people die..... breaking there neck during training could happen. the list could go on and on.

[SaGa]

im accually more suprissed how low the ammount for the iraq war was.

i merged my double post yay

[Goth Brooks]

During that 27yr span there was a total of 42,108 deaths of service personnel. That's 1,560 deaths per year on average.

Of that, 38,850 were non hostile/terrorist deaths, or 1,439 per year.

Clinton's span is drastically under the over all average of that report.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Definitely knows how to speak, which is a nice change. I liked his comparison between "right" and "left" stances on various issues, but that there were (hopefully) extreme outcomes of many controversial issues no one wants to see, regardless of which party one ends up leaning toward. I got the "feeling" at least that he wants to do his best, rather than just "win". Might be an error on my part though.

McCain's one-night ad in response basically just congratulating him and not saying anything unkind was nice, at least for one night, not doing any smearing or counter-campaigning. "Tomorrow we'll be back at it.." I thought was a neat touch. Ha.

[phee]

It sure as f*ck was better than it is now, friend.

By comparison.... ABSOLUTELY

[Head Wreck]

Well, Afghanistan is another mess the Brits started if you go back any farther.

yep.

imperialism isn't the best way for anything lasting. something that needs to be taught to those who govern American foreign policy

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I did not say anything about Reagan and the Military. I said that during George Bush Sr administration the NeoCons tried to get the congress to massively increase the military. Far more than even Reagan did.

And a quick Fact Check shows you are referencing misleading data concerning the Clinton years.

Its a simple but unfortunate fact that people die even during peacetime defending our nation. And the rate of deaths during Clinton's presidency were within the average. In fact during Clinton's admin the numbers were decreasing and hit a record low.

Hrmm, that may have been what you meant... it's not what you said.

As for the military deaths, you got me there. So, you got that one thing right.

[violentivy]

Damn good speech. Raised a lot of good points. I always love a good debate, intelegent banter rather than "this person slept with so and so and such and such" Because, quite frankly I don't care who the president slept with, I just want to know that the guy or gal does their job to the best of their ability.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to say though... this was my favorite part of Obama's speach...

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

I laughed so damn hard I think I pee'd a little. Why would Obama say something like that? He's the one without a record.

[phee]

I would like to say though... this was my favorite part of Obama's speach...

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

I laughed so damn hard I think I pee'd a little. Why would Obama say something like that? He's the one without a record.

I think he was commenting on the bad record of his opponents

[Fin]

I would like to say though... this was my favorite part of Obama's speach...

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

I laughed so damn hard I think I pee'd a little. Why would Obama say something like that? He's the one without a record.

It was an interesting, bold statement.

I believe it was a jab at McCain's record of voting with George W Bush 9/10 times, which, in Democratic opinion, is having a very poor record. I suppose a better statement would have been "If you have a very poor record of voting for failed policies to run on, then...."

I also suspect the entire argument is one that suggests experience means much less if the candidate in question has shown poor legislative judgment during his/her career.

[phee]

It was an interesting, bold statement.

I believe it was a jab at McCain's record of voting with George W Bush 9/10 times, which, in Democratic opinion, is having a very poor record. I suppose a better statement would have been "If you have a very poor record of voting for failed policies to run on, then...."

I also suspect the entire argument is one that suggests experience means much less if the candidate in question has shown poor legislative judgment during his/her career.

That was my impression as well

[the eternal]

Obama encapsulated the whole thing by saying

"It's not that McCain doesn't care. It's that he doesn't get it"

Experience means nothing if it's experience making mistakes and fucking up this country over and over again.

You could tell me

"I've ran into a wall 35 times. You've never even had the chance to run into a wall to see what it feels like"

That would be true. I would chose to go around the wall from day one.

McCain and Bush, with all their experience, said we need to leave Afghanistan and go to Iraq, letting Bin Laden go when we still had a chance to catch him.

Obama wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and leave Iraq alone, and let the UN inspectors investigate if there really were WMD's----How did that turn out anyway?????

Obama will be a better leader and a better commander in chief because he has a cooler demeanor, better instincts, and has more reasoned judgement,

AND he's not afraid to look at the facts before jumping into a 10 foot pool without checking to see if there's any water in it.

With the economy in the shitter, our security a risk, and our standing around the world tenuous at best, we don't just need someone who's been around awhile, we need someone who can make good, sound judgements the first time.

BTW, anyone want to fill us in at how many hundreds of billions of dollars got wasted in Iraq, that could have gone to helping this country get back on its feet???

[phee]

Obama encapsulated the whole thing by saying

"It's not that McCain doesn't care. It's that he doesn't get it"

Experience means nothing if it's experience making mistakes and fucking up this country over and over again.

You could tell me

"I've ran into a wall 35 times. You've never even had the chance to run into a wall to see what it feels like"

That would be true. I would chose to go around the wall from day one.

McCain and Bush, with all their experience, said we need to leave Afghanistan and go to Iraq, letting Bin Laden go when we still had a chance to catch him.

Obama wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and leave Iraq alone, and let the UN inspectors investigate if there really were WMD's----How did that turn out anyway?????

Obama will be a better leader and a better commander in chief because he has a cooler demeanor, better instincts, and has more reasoned judgement,

AND he's not afraid to look at the facts before jumping into a 10 foot pool without checking to see if there's any water in it.

With the economy in the shitter, our security a risk, and our standing around the world tenuous at best, we don't just need someone who's been around awhile, we need someone who can make good, sound judgements the first time.

BTW, anyone want to fill us in at how many hundreds of billions of dollars got wasted in Iraq, that could have gone to helping this country get back on its feet???

*waits for the conservative response refuting all this and declaring socialism*

[freydis]

*waits for the conservative response refuting all this and declaring socialism*

[Rev.Reverence]

*waits for the conservative response refuting all this and declaring socialism*

*crickets*