You Know What's Wrong Around This Place?

[Cecilie1200]

A great deal of BS in that rant.

It is easy to see your confusion.

Prove that one goddam part of it is BS.

The confused in this country are the bible thumpers who believe some invisible man in the sky is directing their lives. People who earn less than $250,000 a year and vote for the Republican party on a national level should be in mental institutions.

By the way...I've gottcher rant a schwangin

You are a Perfect Example Of what happens when Fascists would do when they achieve Power. Maybe if you learned to re channel that anger you would again be able to get a natural hard on, and give the pills a break.

Hint. Individual Liberty is not about how much money you do or don't make.

And right and wrong are not subjective according to one's own personal situation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think you have seen our military. Either that, or you're trying to use exceptional cases to make a case of allegedly (and factually untrue) common diversity.

I don't think YOU'VE seen our military, or didn't think about it if you did. They DO contain people from all walks of life. Are there more lower-class than upper-class? Yes, but that's because the lower classes make up a larger proportion of our population in general. Duuuhh. There are also more white people than black people, for the same reason.

The DoD, with the help of the US Census Bureau, tracks what they call "representativeness" in order to aid recruiting efforts. As such, they have a very clear idea of the demographics of our military.

About 1/4 of military personnel are racial minorities, making 3/4 of them white. About 18% are black, as opposed to approximately 12% of the total population.

93% have either a high school diploma or GED and above, which is definitely NOT the case with non-military in the same age groups.

The average age of active-duty military is 28, with the majority actually falling between 22-30, rather than the picture many like to present of a bunch of kids just out of high school. In fact, in all branches except the Marines, the 18-21 group is outnumbered by the 31-40 group.

Only 11% of the military comes from the lowest quintile of income. Conversely, 25% come from the wealthiest quintile.

"A chalk outline is being drawn around common sense in this country, and most Americans can't even identify the victim" - Dennis Miller

Prove that part about the wealthiest quintile

When you start quoting or admiring Dennis Miller you just lost all credibility. He...like Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until they started making big bucks. Then they switched parties. Ronald Reagan was the president of a union for many years while he was a Democrat.

Population Representation In the Military Services

Feel free to dig through the masses of info on that site and figure it out for yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think YOU'VE seen our military, or didn't think about it if you did. They DO contain people from all walks of life. Are there more lower-class than upper-class? Yes, but that's because the lower classes make up a larger proportion of our population in general. Duuuhh. There are also more white people than black people, for the same reason.

The DoD, with the help of the US Census Bureau, tracks what they call "representativeness" in order to aid recruiting efforts. As such, they have a very clear idea of the demographics of our military.

About 1/4 of military personnel are racial minorities, making 3/4 of them white. About 18% are black, as opposed to approximately 12% of the total population.

93% have either a high school diploma or GED and above, which is definitely NOT the case with non-military in the same age groups.

The average age of active-duty military is 28, with the majority actually falling between 22-30, rather than the picture many like to present of a bunch of kids just out of high school. In fact, in all branches except the Marines, the 18-21 group is outnumbered by the 31-40 group.

Only 11% of the military comes from the lowest quintile of income. Conversely, 25% come from the wealthiest quintile.

Okay, so you acknowledge that there are certain racial demographics where the military is not proportionate to the general public. That's a good start.

No, dummy, I said nothing of the sort. You just wanted me to, so that's what you heard.

In fact, blacks (the only racial group I mentioned specifically) are statistically about the same as they are in the general population, when you consider the numerical difference between 12% and 18% of such large groups.

It is true that racial minorities in general are UNDER-represented in the military, but I doubt that's actually the "disproportion" you were looking for.

In terms of education, it is a loaded and useless stat, because the military maintains educational requirements for joining. If we consider that the majority of enlisted personnel are not college educated, and that those who do have college educations obtained them free of charge through military benefits, common sense indicates that there is no doubt that the military attracts mostly less educated people overall. But whether that fact has anything other than academic value is another story (seeing as I'm not here to debate the value of military recruitment, merely pointing out the demographic differences between the military and civilian populations).

Prove that the majority of enlisted personnel are not college-educated, please. And what is it you find objectionable about using military benefits to pay for a college education? Does that make you less-educated or less intelligent than those who put themselves and their parents tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt?

Common sense indicates that the military attracts people who are very smart and from good homes, many of whom shrewdly choose to take advantage of the benefits of attending school during or after enlistment. Big difference from the picture YOU were trying to present.

The demographic difference this points up is that the military is far from being the "last choice of poor, uneducated people with limited options" that the left likes to pretend it is. No amount of ducking, dodging, and goalpost-moving is going to deflect this.

Wealth "diversity" in the military is generally segregated among the ranks. Those with affluent backgrounds tend to be officers, which are a small portion of the overall military force. Among enlisted personnel it is much less common to find people from affluent backgrounds. I'm a little curious what you mean by "come from." Are you saying that 25% of military personnel belong in such group? Because that would kinda be a pointless stat, since the military tends to pay quite well if you stick with it down the years.

Again, prove it.

Yes, officers tend to be more affluent IN AND OF THEMSELVES, both because they get paid better than enlisted personnel, and also because they tend to be older and have an even higher education average (something like 90-95%). However, that's personally acquired affluence, and says nothing about the families they came from. So feel free to prove your assertion.

Now, I for one do not really care about the differences in demographics between our military and civilian populations. At the end of the day I don't care who/what you are, anyone serving honorably in our military is grade A in my book. I'm merely affirming that the demographics in our military are not really on par with the general populace when you take all things into consideration. Anyone who says they are is either not being honest, not taking the full picture into consideration, and/or is relying on personal observations of non representative portions of the military, and generalizing over the entire group.

No, you're merely ASSERTING it, and having your ass handed to you in the process. Feel free to stop asserting and start proving any time now.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, dummy, I said nothing of the sort. You just wanted me to, so that's what you heard.

Wow, getting abusive, huh? There's no reason for that, unless you're just out of intellectual ammunition.

In fact, blacks (the only racial group I mentioned specifically) are statistically about the same as they are in the general population, when you consider the numerical difference between 12% and 18% of such large groups.

So, you call a 50% increase statistically the same?

It is true that racial minorities in general are UNDER-represented in the military, but I doubt that's actually the "disproportion" you were looking for.

What is it that you think I'm "looking for"? All I've been doing here is saying that the demographics of the military do not really match up with the demographics of the general population. First you point to the fact that blacks are over represented in the military. Now, you point to the fact that other minorities are under represented by the military. And yet you continue to say that the demographics are equal? C'mon.

Prove that the majority of enlisted personnel are not college-educated, please.

Well, I could anecdotally point to my own military experience, like the Marine to whom I was responding in the first place did. Or I could point to the more objective fact that a college degree usually means commissioning upon initial entry, so ipso facto.

And what is it you find objectionable about using military benefits to pay for a college education? Does that make you less-educated or less intelligent than those who put themselves and their parents tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt?

When did I say that there was anything objectionable about it? Great, go for it, I'm all for people doing it. All I said was that the oft repeated line about people in the military being more educated than the general population is not a valid comparison. Given the military's educational requirements for joining, and the vast benefits it offers to service men and women to further their education, a more educated population is once again an ipso facto.

Common sense indicates that the military attracts people who are very smart and from good homes, many of whom shrewdly choose to take advantage of the benefits of attending school during or after enlistment.

In order to join the military, one needs only score a minimum of 30th percentile on the ASVAB. So smart does not really factor into the equation as any kind of necessity. Common sense indicates that the military attracts people for a variety of reasons. Some want to carry on a family tradition. Some want to serve their community. Some haven't any other option because they have no money, no useful education, no real career opportunities. Some are convinced by a friend who is joining and will get a promotion for getting someone else to also join with them. Some want to put themselves through a challenge. Some people join because they are naturally violent people and simply want a way to let otherwise negative traits be focused into a positive end. Some people do it for college money. Or as one of my Drill Sgts from BCT said, "I wanted to get the hell out of my parent's house."

Big difference from the picture YOU were trying to present.

I was not trying to present any picture, other than to say the demographics are different.

Again, prove it.

Shall I do what you did, throw up a link and claim that the information is there, when it in fact is not? I'll say again that my own time in the military showed me this fact, that relatively few enlisted personnel who "come from money" are present, and that those in the military who "come from money" are much more likely to be officers. And really, it makes perfect sense. Seeing as education benefits is often one of the biggest draws for enlisted people, we should expect that those who come from greater affluence will be more likely to join as officers. Because they have greater means to provide for their education before joining the military.

No, you're merely ASSERTING it, and having your ass handed to you in the process. Feel free to stop asserting and start proving any time now.

Actually, your own claims and comments are largely in agreement with what I've said. I've said that the demographics between the military and the general population are not really on par. You have yourself admitted there are multiple places where the demographics are different. But for some reason you continue to object, seeming to be bent on assigning some kind of moral value to the differences which does not exist in the first place, but would apparently be undesirable to you.

 

[rdean]

Class Warfare only leads to hateful division. Many Americans serve in our voluntary Military and they're from all walks of life. Some are very educated and some are not. Some are wealthy and some are not. It's not an all or nothing scenario. These kinds of Class-Envy/Class Warfare arguments never accomplish anything. We have a big Military so it's not made up of just one class of people. People just need to steer clear of the Class Warfare stuff. That's all just designed to intentionally divide the people. Try not to paint everything with that broad brush. It gets you nowhere in the end.

You can prove there's a lot of "rich" people in the military?

 

[Money]

There are many well to do 'Legacy' families which 'go to Westpoint' and serve.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The wealthy and powerful have quadrupled their wealth in the last 15 years while ordinary Americans either remained stagnant or lost ground. They know they've got it made. Their offspring will never go to a shithole desert 10,000 miles away and fight and die in some made up war which was totally unnecessary.

In Great Britain the wealthy and powerful and even royalty believe they owe it to the country which made them wealthy and powerful to enter the military and serve a reasonable time.

As we speak Prince Harry is preparing to become proficient as an Apache Helicopter pilot as did his brother and his father, the Prince of Wales. When Harry's training is complete he will return to Afghanistan.

Something must change in this country. It ain't working.

No one owes you shit you pathetic loser...

Briton is a shit hole of fascism and pseudo capitalism - not to mention the country is going broke...

It will take a Maoist totalitarian regime to even bring what you want to society in a nation of 300,000,000 people you stupid motherfucker.

It's called totalitarianism...

You think we will just give up our guns so you can enforce that on us???

This is why we have a Second Amendment motherfucker - because you're a crazy greedy tyrant asshole and the millions of your buddies are too.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is about the most feeble thing I've ever heard. Tell it to the 46,000,000 which are at or below the poverty level. This is the only industrialized country in the world where over 500 companies make money off of sick people and we still rate 37th in the world in general health. According to your analysis blame it on those who happen to get sick.

What a ridiculous comment. I'm talking about the nature of our economic and business practices in our culture. I never said anything about people getting sick. And even if I had, your claim doesn't even make any sense.

Claim? It's the truth. Big companies used to share profits with the government and their employees. Since the late 1990's they've been taking away pensions, outsourcing 25 year employees to companies which offer no benefits, increasing the number of work hours and automating processes and laying off.

In the late 40's and 50's a corporate executive earned about 5-10 times what a carpenter earned. By the 70's that factor had increased to about 50 times as much. Guess what we know about last year...2010. Yes sport's fans an average CEO in this country made about 550 times what an ordinary American worker earned. They also load up the boards of directors with a bunch who will agree to anything and fix it so that if the company fails they'll still make out like a bandit.

It ain't working.

Gosh I hate to ruin your day with reason and facts, but perhaps there are VALID reasons for increases in CEO pay since the 50s..

In the 50s, Caterpillar was a manageable size operation out of Peoria Illinois. Today

Everything from shoes to financing and mining equip.

Doubled in size just from 1960 to 1970.

93,000 employees. $70Bill assets.

Caterpillar products and components are manufactured 110 facilities worldwide. 51 plants are located in the United States and 59 overseas plants are located in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, the People's Republic of China, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa and Sweden.

Now the problem is -- corporations are 10 times the size that they used to be. And finding folk who can manage 110 facilities worldwide is a little different than commuting to Peoria every morning.

That and it works out to be about $10 (out of every Million compensation) for every employee managed. Meaning you could mug the CEO in the parking lot, take all his yearly compensation and each employee would get maybe $40/month increase for that ONE YEAR. However if the cheap replacement you find for that mugged dude loses only 10% of Caterpillar's net worth in his first year on the job -- about 1 in 10 of them will be unemployed next year...

Think a bit -- stop being a parrot. And concentrate on the real problems. One of those is -- the GOVT FAVORS Huge Corps like Caterpillar every time they regulate. Making it increasingly impossible for NEW smaller bizzes to get started. Want MORE GOVT intervention in the market? Prepare to see EVEN HUGER Corporations..

 

[The Gadfly]

No, dummy, I said nothing of the sort. You just wanted me to, so that's what you heard.

Wow, getting abusive, huh? There's no reason for that, unless you're just out of intellectual ammunition.

In fact, blacks (the only racial group I mentioned specifically) are statistically about the same as they are in the general population, when you consider the numerical difference between 12% and 18% of such large groups.

So, you call a 50% increase statistically the same?



What is it that you think I'm "looking for"? All I've been doing here is saying that the demographics of the military do not really match up with the demographics of the general population. First you point to the fact that blacks are over represented in the military. Now, you point to the fact that other minorities are under represented by the military. And yet you continue to say that the demographics are equal? C'mon.



Well, I could anecdotally point to my own military experience, like the Marine to whom I was responding in the first place did. Or I could point to the more objective fact that a college degree usually means commissioning upon initial entry, so ipso facto.



When did I say that there was anything objectionable about it? Great, go for it, I'm all for people doing it. All I said was that the oft repeated line about people in the military being more educated than the general population is not a valid comparison. Given the military's educational requirements for joining, and the vast benefits it offers to service men and women to further their education, a more educated population is once again an ipso facto.



In order to join the military, one needs only score a minimum of 30th percentile on the ASVAB. So smart does not really factor into the equation as any kind of necessity. Common sense indicates that the military attracts people for a variety of reasons. Some want to carry on a family tradition. Some want to serve their community. Some haven't any other option because they have no money, no useful education, no real career opportunities. Some are convinced by a friend who is joining and will get a promotion for getting someone else to also join with them. Some want to put themselves through a challenge. Some people join because they are naturally violent people and simply want a way to let otherwise negative traits be focused into a positive end. Some people do it for college money. Or as one of my Drill Sgts from BCT said, "I wanted to get the hell out of my parent's house."



I was not trying to present any picture, other than to say the demographics are different.

Again, prove it.

Shall I do what you did, throw up a link and claim that the information is there, when it in fact is not? I'll say again that my own time in the military showed me this fact, that relatively few enlisted personnel who "come from money" are present, and that those in the military who "come from money" are much more likely to be officers. And really, it makes perfect sense. Seeing as education benefits is often one of the biggest draws for enlisted people, we should expect that those who come from greater affluence will be more likely to join as officers. Because they have greater means to provide for their education before joining the military.

No, you're merely ASSERTING it, and having your ass handed to you in the process. Feel free to stop asserting and start proving any time now.

Actually, your own claims and comments are largely in agreement with what I've said. I've said that the demographics between the military and the general population are not really on par. You have yourself admitted there are multiple places where the demographics are different. But for some reason you continue to object, seeming to be bent on assigning some kind of moral value to the differences which does not exist in the first place, but would apparently be undesirable to you.

Let me get this straight; are you saying people from "wealthy backgrounds" who serve in the military somehow don't REALLY serve, because they are officers? Service is service (or so I always thought), unless you believe that the enemy doesn't shoot at officers, out of "professional courtesy". That sure wasn't my experience, so I guess the VC and the NVA didn't get the memo on that; matter of fact, we found that wearing visible rank insignia in the field was a good way to draw fire....

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let me get this straight; are you saying people from "wealthy backgrounds" who serve in the military somehow don't REALLY serve, because they are officers?

I think you're reading the wrong thread because I never said that. Not even close. As a matter of fact I don't think even Carl Rove could spin that out of my statements.

What I said was that the vast majority of military personnel are enlisted. And the vast majority of enlisted personnel do not "come from money." Therefore, the majority of military personnel do not "come from money." If we look at how many people in the general population "come from money" and compare that to how many people in our military "come from money" the demographics are not really on par with each other. I also said that it makes sense that the military will attract many people who don't come from affluent backgrounds. A career in the military offers one of the best ways for a person from a less affluent background to gain education funding, stable work with better job security than many other people have, the eventual possibility to make a very comfortable living as one progresses in his/her career, and a generous host of benefits to include free medical care and a solid retirement pension. All of this means that we should expect, and simultaneously find no issue with, the demographics between the military population and general population regarding wealth background, to not be on par with each other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, dummy, I said nothing of the sort. You just wanted me to, so that's what you heard.

Wow, getting abusive, huh? There's no reason for that, unless you're just out of intellectual ammunition.

In fact, blacks (the only racial group I mentioned specifically) are statistically about the same as they are in the general population, when you consider the numerical difference between 12% and 18% of such large groups.

So, you call a 50% increase statistically the same?



What is it that you think I'm "looking for"? All I've been doing here is saying that the demographics of the military do not really match up with the demographics of the general population. First you point to the fact that blacks are over represented in the military. Now, you point to the fact that other minorities are under represented by the military. And yet you continue to say that the demographics are equal? C'mon.



Well, I could anecdotally point to my own military experience, like the Marine to whom I was responding in the first place did. Or I could point to the more objective fact that a college degree usually means commissioning upon initial entry, so ipso facto.



When did I say that there was anything objectionable about it? Great, go for it, I'm all for people doing it. All I said was that the oft repeated line about people in the military being more educated than the general population is not a valid comparison. Given the military's educational requirements for joining, and the vast benefits it offers to service men and women to further their education, a more educated population is once again an ipso facto.



In order to join the military, one needs only score a minimum of 30th percentile on the ASVAB. So smart does not really factor into the equation as any kind of necessity. Common sense indicates that the military attracts people for a variety of reasons. Some want to carry on a family tradition. Some want to serve their community. Some haven't any other option because they have no money, no useful education, no real career opportunities. Some are convinced by a friend who is joining and will get a promotion for getting someone else to also join with them. Some want to put themselves through a challenge. Some people join because they are naturally violent people and simply want a way to let otherwise negative traits be focused into a positive end. Some people do it for college money. Or as one of my Drill Sgts from BCT said, "I wanted to get the hell out of my parent's house."



I was not trying to present any picture, other than to say the demographics are different.

Again, prove it.

Shall I do what you did, throw up a link and claim that the information is there, when it in fact is not? I'll say again that my own time in the military showed me this fact, that relatively few enlisted personnel who "come from money" are present, and that those in the military who "come from money" are much more likely to be officers. And really, it makes perfect sense. Seeing as education benefits is often one of the biggest draws for enlisted people, we should expect that those who come from greater affluence will be more likely to join as officers. Because they have greater means to provide for their education before joining the military.

No, you're merely ASSERTING it, and having your ass handed to you in the process. Feel free to stop asserting and start proving any time now.

Actually, your own claims and comments are largely in agreement with what I've said. I've said that the demographics between the military and the general population are not really on par. You have yourself admitted there are multiple places where the demographics are different. But for some reason you continue to object, seeming to be bent on assigning some kind of moral value to the differences which does not exist in the first place, but would apparently be undesirable to you.

Let's be very clear here, because you're changing points faster than most people change socks.

We started with THIS statement from another poster:

Class Warfare only leads to hateful division. Many Americans serve in our voluntary Military and they're from all walks of life. Some are very educated and some are not. Some are wealthy and some are not.

You responded with this:

I don't think you have seen our military. Either that, or you're trying to use exceptional cases to make a case of allegedly (and factually untrue) common diversity.

When I pointed out that, in fact, our military IS diverse, coming from all races and socioeconomic groups, you suddenly switched and tried to pretend that you were claiming the military wasn't exactly representative of the population, percentage-wise. But that was never the argument made.

So either show me how what I said proves your original point, or admit that you were wrong. Either/or, but we will not be topic-hopping and moving the goalposts.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So either show me how what I said proves your original point, or admit that you were wrong. Either/or, but we will not be topic-hopping and moving the goalposts.

Actually, what I was saying was that he seems to be using exceptional cases to paint a picture of common diversity. Yes, if you look at the military you will be able to find AT LEAST ONE person who could fit the bill of any given "walk of life" you might so wish to detail. But to say that the military population as a whole represents "all walks of life" is not supported by that process. Because exceptional examples do not establish common diversity. Hell, when I was in, I served with a guy from the Philipines who wasn't even a citizen. Does that mean that the military population as a whole represents Filipinos? Of course not. That's just one person.

You were the one who decided to take the issue even farther and come up with the babble about how there being more white people in the military was because there are more white people in the general population, and the demographical issues. Since you brought it up, I demonstrated how the demographics of the general population in fact don't really account for the demographics of the military population, because the demographics of both are not really on par.

So, go ahead and complain about moving goal posts all you want. Because you're the one doing it.

 

[Cammmpbell]

A great deal of BS in that rant.

It is easy to see your confusion.

Prove that one goddam part of it is BS.

The confused in this country are the bible thumpers who believe some invisible man in the sky is directing their lives. People who earn less than $250,000 a year and vote for the Republican party on a national level should be in mental institutions.

By the way...I've gottcher rant a schwangin

You are a Perfect Example Of what happens when Fascists would do when they achieve Power. Maybe if you learned to re channel that anger you would again be able to get a natural hard on, and give the pills a break.

Hint. Individual Liberty is not about how much money you do or don't make.

Republican's arguments no longer hold water. The Republican tank is so filled with holes that if it were not for the ignorant, superstitious, bible thumping Christians they couldn't win a county election.

 

[editec]

There are many well to do 'Legacy' families which 'go to Westpoint' and serve.

True DAT.

In fact in the uppermost ranks of the Military we practically have a military caste system.

A self-choosing caste system, admittedly.

I'm not complaining about that, incidently, I'm just pointing it out.

We see much the same in the families of firemen and policemen, too.

We see much the same son following into their father vocations in a LOT of different job types, don't we?

Check out real estate appraisers sometime, or check out diamond cutters and you will find an enormous percentage of those whose fathers (and often even gradfathers) were in the business before them.

One thing I DO find somewhat troubling is how often the son or grandson of a POL becomes a POL, too.

Those legacy politician types do concern me even though we can all point out such legacy politician families where the POLS did a pretty good job.

Anybody who thinks we do not have a CLASS system in this society has to be willfully ignoring the reality of how this society really works.

 

[Cammmpbell]

There are many well to do 'Legacy' families which 'go to Westpoint' and serve.

True DAT.

In fact in the uppermost ranks of the Military we practically have a military caste system.

A self-choosing caste system, admittedly.

I'm not complaining about that, incidently, I'm just pointing it out.

We see much the same in the families of firemen and policemen, too.

We see much the same son following into their father vocations in a LOT of different job types, don't we?

Check out real estate appraisers sometime, or check out diamond cutters and you will find an enormous percentage of those whose fathers (and often even gradfathers) were in the business before them.

One thing I DO find somewhat troubling is how often the son or grandson of a POL becomes a POL, too.

Those legacy politician types do concern me even though we can all point out such legacy politician families where the POLS did a pretty good job.

Anybody who thinks we do not have a CLASS system in this society has to be willfully ignoring the reality of how this society really works.

Exactly!

It has always pretty much been that way except that lately the upper class seem to be getting greedier. In most cases they inheirited a fortune and feel obligated to turn that fortune into a much larger fortune or create a dynasty. During my lifetime the American society has changed from one of sharing to one of "I've Got Mine, Now By God You Get Yours."

We're destined to do exactly what every other empire in the history of mankind has done...collapse.

 

[Intense]

Still, you are ignoring the Fact, that those who have, and want to continue to have, are circling their wagons because of the insecurity of the times. It can also be easily said that Obama, His Administration, and His Policies, bring out the worst in People. Personally, I don't see Government trying to correct any wrongs, just eliminate Competition and the Middle Man, so it has more direct Access to Our Possessions, and Greater Control over Our Lives.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Still, you are ignoring the Fact, that those who have, and want to continue to have, are circling their wagons because of the insecurity of the times. It can also be easily said that Obama, His Administration, and His Policies, bring out the worst in People. Personally, I don't see Government trying to correct any wrongs, just eliminate Competition and the Middle Man, so it has more direct Access to Our Possessions, and Greater Control over Our Lives.

Why is it that my instinctive 77 year old "sniffer" smells racism written all over that?

George W. Bush took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears. He cut taxes twice with over half going to the wealthiest of taxpayers...then for the first time in our history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks to fund it, started two wars...one totally unnecessary then proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 to over $11 trillion and wreck the economy. Is your memory that short?

 

[The T]

Still, you are ignoring the Fact, that those who have, and want to continue to have, are circling their wagons because of the insecurity of the times. It can also be easily said that Obama, His Administration, and His Policies, bring out the worst in People. Personally, I don't see Government trying to correct any wrongs, just eliminate Competition and the Middle Man, so it has more direct Access to Our Possessions, and Greater Control over Our Lives.

why is it that my instinctive 77 year old "sniffer" smells racism written all over that?

George W. Bush took over a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears. He cut taxes twice with over half going to the wealthiest of taxpayers, for the first time in our history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks to fund it, started two wars...one totally unnecessary and proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 to over $11 trillion and wreck the economy. Is your memory that short?

Uhmm...because YOU are looking for it to justify what you belive...in this case the poster's comment(s) had none.

But just as you idiots read shit into the Constitution that isn't there...you can't help but expose yourselves.

 

[Liability]

Still, you are ignoring the Fact, that those who have, and want to continue to have, are circling their wagons because of the insecurity of the times. It can also be easily said that Obama, His Administration, and His Policies, bring out the worst in People. Personally, I don't see Government trying to correct any wrongs, just eliminate Competition and the Middle Man, so it has more direct Access to Our Possessions, and Greater Control over Our Lives.

Why is it that my instinctive 77 year old "sniffer" smells racism written all over that?

George W. Bush took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears. He cut taxes twice with over half going to the wealthiest of taxpayers...then for the first time in our history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks to fund it, started two wars...one totally unnecessary then proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 to over $11 trillion and wreck the economy. Is your memory that short?

Possibly because your 77 year old brain is senile and encrusted with years of the plaque of your preconceived but baseless notions. Thus you "smell" whatever you choose to believe, regardless of the fact that it's neither present nor a rational inference of anything that is present.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Still, you are ignoring the Fact, that those who have, and want to continue to have, are circling their wagons because of the insecurity of the times. It can also be easily said that Obama, His Administration, and His Policies, bring out the worst in People. Personally, I don't see Government trying to correct any wrongs, just eliminate Competition and the Middle Man, so it has more direct Access to Our Possessions, and Greater Control over Our Lives.

Why is it that my instinctive 77 year old "sniffer" smells racism written all over that?

George W. Bush took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears. He cut taxes twice with over half going to the wealthiest of taxpayers...then for the first time in our history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks to fund it, started two wars...one totally unnecessary then proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 to over $11 trillion and wreck the economy. Is your memory that short?

Possibly because your 77 year old brain is senile and encrusted with years of the plaque of your preconceived but baseless notions. Thus you "smell" whatever you choose to believe, regardless of the fact that it's neither present nor a rational inference of anything that is present.

I didn't just smell this. Check this from the bureau of the national debt...any date:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 $907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 $826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 $771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 $698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 $620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 $533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 $475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 $427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 $398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 $370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 $353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 $347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 $326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 $319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 $317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 $311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 $305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 $298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 $288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 $286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 $284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 $276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 $270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 $272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 $274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 $271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 $266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 $259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 $255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 $257,357,352,351.04