Give to the Red Cross, unless your name is Romney

[Quantum Windbag]

All of your posts should come with a warning that reading them might lead to lower IQs.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so who do you think it is?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[mex]

You claim you are. Strangely enough, I don't believe you, despite your massive ignorance.

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)

Only conspiracy nuts with no brains think the world runs on conspiracies.

Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.




Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.




Keep reading.




The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.




Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.






Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.




So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.




The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.





Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.




Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.





LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.




Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.




The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.




No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.




I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.




Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!





Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.




That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.




You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.




More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:



So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.

Let me sum it up for you, I don't care.

It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.

You have a Boeing 757 rating that says that aliens implant mind control devices using anal probes?

The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

One word:

DECAF.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Only conspiracy nuts with no brains think the world runs on conspiracies.

Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.

Uhggggg...LOL! Aren't 9/11 conspiracy theorists a laugh? They remind me of the character that Bill Paxton played in a movie called True Lies. They're always peeing themselves and calling themselves navel lint. They got little d**ks. It's pathetic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All of your posts should come with a warning that reading them might lead to lower IQs.

Well, they HAVE his name on them.

 

[thanatos144]

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Attacks Romney For Collecting Storm Supplies For Event - YouTube!

Romney wanted to give them food, they wanted money. They ALWAYS want money and very little of the cash you give them gets to those for whom it's intended. Did you know the blood you donate to the red cross is SOLD to hospitals? That during WWII they took up a collection here to provide coffee and refreshments for the soldiers overseas and then they CHARGED those soldiers for the refreshments the people here paid for?

I'm surprised nobody shot them dead.

I will not donate blood to the Red Cross...I donate to another organization. They may not be any better, but I have a hard time thinking they could be any worse.

My wife works at the blood donor nonprofit and yes they charge the hospital for the processing and testing...People seem to forget the bag and tubes and buildings and people cost money.....

 

[tinydancer]

so who do you think it is?

Am I allowed to name him?

From Hannity. OMG it's horrid. It's a fate worse than death. At one point your eyes glaze over and you just want to kill yourself.

This is bi partisan hatred. No guff.

 

[Jarlaxle]

so who do you think it is?

An escapee from the local nut farm?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You claim you are. Strangely enough, I don't believe you, despite your massive ignorance.

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)




Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.




Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.




Keep reading.




The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.




Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.






Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.




So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.




The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.





Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.




Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.





LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.




Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.




The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.




No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.




I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.




Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!





Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.




That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.




You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.




More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:



So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.




It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.

You have a Boeing 757 rating that says that aliens implant mind control devices using anal probes?

The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

One word:

DECAF.

A better word for him: THORAZINE!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)




Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.




Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.




Keep reading.




The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.




Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.






Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.




So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.




The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.





Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.




Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.





LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.




Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.




The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.




No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.




I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.




Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!





Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.




That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.




You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.




More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:



So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.




It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.



The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

One word:

DECAF.

A better word for him: THORAZINE!

This is what reading his posts sound like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04]Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

Cut & Paste of someone else's work is so...Omabaest 336.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh my it's like the worst torment ever. Worse than abu graib. oh god no no. don't let this person post here.

I negged him for stealing 5 minutes of my life.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh my it's like the worst torment ever. Worse than abu graib. oh god no no. don't let this person post here.

I negged him for stealing 5 minutes of my life.

I just put him in the corner of my litter box.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)




Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.




Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.




Keep reading.




The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.




Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.






Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.




So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.




The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.





Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.




Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.





LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.




Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.




The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.




No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.




I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.




Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!





Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.




That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.




You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.




More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:



So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.




It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.



The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

One word:

DECAF.

A better word for him: THORAZINE!

An even better word for him: NOOSE!

 

[Ernie S.]

You claim you are. Strangely enough, I don't believe you, despite your massive ignorance.

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)




Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.




Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.




Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.




Keep reading.




The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.




Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.






Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.




So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.




The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.





Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.




Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.





LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.




Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.




The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.




No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.




I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.




Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!





Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.




That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.




You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.




More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:



So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.




It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.

You have a Boeing 757 rating that says that aliens implant mind control devices using anal probes?

The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

One word:

DECAF.

Negged for the strain on my finger scrolling by all that crap.

 

[Ernie S.]

One word:

DECAF.

A better word for him: THORAZINE!

This is what reading his posts sound like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04]Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube[/ame]

The teacher makes at least as much sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A better word for him: THORAZINE!

This is what reading his posts sound like.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04"]Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube[/ame]

The teacher makes at least as much sense.

I thought she made more sense.

 

[Conservative]

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300.... (post edited for brevity and sanity of the board)

you really do have a very high opinion of yourself.

 

[Conservative]

so who do you think it is?

Personally, I think the fake NASA artist/astronaut is back.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300.... (post edited for brevity and sanity of the board)

you really do have a very high opinion of yourself.

What's really amusing is that HE told us that our belief was necessary to and desired by him when he came prancing in here, tying himself into knots to impress us.