Questions for Republicans, Conservatives, RINOs, Tea Partiers, et al:

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers: If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

No. Not under any circumstances. We've made ut clear over the last 2 Presidential Elections that we will not support a non-Conservative candidate. The Republican Party can now stew in its own blood if they still haven't gotten the message.

that's false. conservatives voted for romney while holding their noses. but they voted. this fantasy that if an extremist is nominated that suddenly enough of "the base" will vote to carry an extremist rightwinger to the presidency is fantasy.

Actually a lot of republicans chose not to vote for Romney in the last presidential election. Put a liberal up as your nominee and you are certain to pay for it on Election Day.

you can pretend that's true.

he was only a "liberal" in rightwingnuthackworld. but feel free to tell me how someone running on an anti-choice, theocratic, pro top 1%, anti poor anti social justice etc platform is a liberal.

we'll wait.

Ever heard of Romneycare in Massachusetts, the plan that Obama / Pelosi / Reed would use as their success story template in formulating the new healthcare mandate? Only that plan hasn't done very much with reducing healthcare costs, as the state had become burdened under all that additional growing debt, all while extended wait times hasn't made the overall "quality" of care any better. One thing government has NEVER been known for is being cost efficient. Whatever program government gets a hold of, turns into a mess of uncontrollable debt. A debt that always turns into some form of cost compromise to solve, one that never bodes well for the taxpayer who depends on it. But then liberals usually go into this false pretense thinking government can do it better.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Served 12 years on active duty in the airborne infantry, kid.

Your comment is simply your comment with no actual, objective evidence.

We spend more and are stronger than the next 25 countries.

You sunshine patriots are a loathsome type of mutants.

Glad you asked about that evidence, I was hoping your arrogance would be too much that you'd walk yourself right into it. One thing about being in the military, you never forget those programs the administration uses to cut into the effectiveness of doing your job. Let me provide those specific FACTS to help educate you about that downsizing that Democrats love to get involved in. After which you are free to go on about your "opinions".

Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), 1992-2001 (FY1993-FY2001)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB85159.pdf

The FY1993 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 4403, P.L. 102-484) granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown.TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual ways except that there is an additional reduction of one percent for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.

Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military.html
By Lynn Woolley — Posted Dec 21, 2006

In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.

There were more peacekeeping missions to come, including in Somalia where 1,800 Marines provided cover for the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers. But the downsizing of the military continued with 40,000 troops removed from Europe. The Base Closure Commission recommended shuttering 79 more bases. Clinton’s budget request for fiscal 1996 was $10.2 billion lower than the prior year.

At this point, we are well into the Clinton presidency and the eleventh straight year of declining military budgets. The president and the Congress have slashed the defense budget to the point where, after adjusting for inflation, it is some 40% less than in 1985 during the second Reagan term.

The year 1996 saw cruise missile strikes against Iraq and 18,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans as part of a NATO force. Clinton sent the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence and three other ships to the Taiwan Strait because of tensions between Taiwan and China. For 1997, Clinton sought another $10 billion reduction, though the bill he eventually signed set aside $244 billion for defense—finally halting the long string of declining budgets, but just barely.

Defense Secretary William Cohen had become concerned about his budget, and so he called for more base closings—and more money. The Joint Chiefs said that unless funding levels could be increased, some weapons systems or overseas deployments would have to be eliminated. In 1999, the budget was at $250 billion—the same year we were using our military to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.

For fiscal 2000, Defense requested $267.2 billion billion, including a pay raise for soldiers. The USS Cole was bombed and peacekeeping efforts continued in the usual spots like Kosovo and Bosnia. Clinton’s presidency was winding down and his final Defense budget totaled $288 billion with a supplemental bill of $6.5 billon to help pay for all the peacekeeping.

After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, you show nothing of the weapons and human development under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. You are so arrogant to think that we are going to accept misinterpretation drive by hit pieces by the likes of you. We won't and don't. We have had to rebuild the military after the incredible incompetency of the Bush administration overseas and stateside in developing and rebuilding our forces.

We will continue to do so and grind into submission anyone who gets in the way.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles, you show nothing of the weapons and human development under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. You are so arrogant to think that we are going to accept misinterpretation drive by hit pieces by the likes of you. We won't and don't. We have had to rebuild the military after the incredible incompetency of the Bush administration overseas and stateside in developing and rebuilding our forces.

We will continue to do so and grind into submission anyone who gets in the way.

That may very well be your opinion. However, like a lot of your posts, you never seem to provide much of anything beyond mere conjecture in stating that the military was indeed stronger under Clinton or that Bush even weakened it. Personally I think you're full of it. Try getting back to me when you have something in the way of substance you can actually provide me. If I provided "misinformation" certainly you'd have no problem providing some detailed facts of your own.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, "like a lot of your posts, you never seem to provide much of anything beyond mere conjecture" is the real point. You offer nothing of worth.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles, "like a lot of your posts, you never seem to provide much of anything beyond mere conjecture" is the real point. You offer nothing of worth.

I provided a specific government link and another source as evidence beyond conjecture. At lest try having an overall knowledge of its definition before using it in a reply, it's clearly evident you don't even know what the term means.

Still waiting on those supportive links Jake. How is it exactly that supportive links seem so illusive in your posts? Are you having trouble backing up your points, or do you merely enjoy bloviating?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your link was for temporary offers for retirement or riff'd.

You have failed, nothing new, shakles.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Your link was for temporary offers for retirement or riff'd.

You have failed, nothing new, shakles.

Whatever satisfies that little world of yours, Jake. Meanwhile, I'll be moving on engaging with those who can offer a little more substance in an intellectual discussion, without wasting my time and thread space with replies as to why they can't use links in their posts. When you show you have the ability to come around and actually offer something well thought out, insightful, articulate, with well supported documented researched links to facts, then we'll talk. I'm not going waste any more thread space responding to 2 or 4 sentence commentaries that offer nothing additional to the subject matter at hand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, you offering nothing intellectually what so ever.

You post an announcement, say it means such and such, and investigation once again shows it does not.

You are anything but intellectual.

 

[hunarcy]

I'll vote for a 3 legged dog before I vote for whoever the Democrats offer up this year.

So that means you'll vote Republican whether he's establishment or anti-establishment?
.

As opposed to voting for Hillary? yes