Why should anyone believe that? Do you think typing something in a signature makes it true? Have you read mine?
The question is not whether you believe it. Your beliefs about my reality are non-determinative about its existence. You can also write in your signature that Mitt Romney, will win the Presidency on November 6th, too - but that won't change the reality of that day.
Are you starting to see how this works?
I judge people on the way they post, and you post like a pseudo intellectual hack.
If you see pseudo intellectualism, then you should be able to counter it with fact. Else, you end up falling into the category of jealous blither and inconsequential swipes at that which you do not truly understand.
The proof is in the pudding.
Well, my dear friend. It has been some years since my Sophomore Year in College. Yet, I still remember that year vividly. It was the year I became POC Cadet and it was the year that I got the opportunity to fly the C-5B Galaxy for the first time in my life between Travis and Columbus. I was the year I won a regional Aerobatic Championship Award and it was the same year I obtained my first Jet Type Rating in a Lear 35A. It was a busy year, and one that I was proud of. However, school did suffer that last semester. I net a flat "B" for the year, which was somewhat disappointing because that was the first "B" I had earned since my Junior Year in High School, where I was straight "A" student for three (3) years in a row.
I registered on campus in Donahue Hall and the rest is now history.
What were you doing in your Sophomore Year in College?
When, exactly, did the Republican party allow itself to be taken over by extremists? Was it in 2010?
I clearly introduced that date into evidence as 2000, with the election of George aWol Bush. Sorry, I just don't like it when men walk around in Flight Suits that they did not earn and do not serve to wear. But, I digress.
Neocons, have been lurking in the background and tweaking policy through Washington think-tanks for quite some time, starting with Reagan's Administration. They could not get too far in the Reagan Regime, so they remained patient and continued to maintain, grow and develop their structural roots in Washington. By the time Bush 41, came to office, the Neocons had legitimate positions within and Administration where they could actually gain net effect from their efforts.
The Republican Party, in all honesty, was on the Neocon slippery slope during this same period and were actively engaged in deception that was delivered to Saddam, which made it clear to him that the United States was really not all that interested in his potential annexing of Kuwait. Of course, we lied to him and he took that lie and ran with it. We then launched DS1 and moved Saddam back to Baghdad. Neocons, wanted to go further, but similar to Reagan, Bush 41, would not desire to be responsible for that - citing the fact that - at that time, he saw no justification for going into Baghdad.
Neocons, then suffered a set-back in the 1992 Presidential election, when Bill Clinton, became the 42 President of the United States and began retooling for their next move. Paul Wolfowitz, wrote a document called the "Defense Planning Guidance," which pretty much outlined the PNAC manifesto that was to come some 7/8 years into the future. In the original Wolfowitz DPG, he set-up the United States Military as the "Preemptive" arm of diplomacy to deal with what Neocons called "States that sponsored terrorist acts." In that document, Paul, called for the preemptive use of our military in not just multi-lateral campaigns, but in
unilateral moves that literally bring about
"regime change" in nations that Neocons targeted as stumbling blocks to U.S. dominance as a world superpower.
The goal of the Neocons is the imperial domination of the world's natural resources, from both an Economic and Militaristic standpoint and to establish the United States of America, as the world's only unchallenged Superpower, by any means necessary. Of course, in order to use that 'preemptive" unilateral policy, you have to
make an enemy. This is how the
shift from the old cold war with the Russians, lost its focus in Washington Foreign Policy, to the
new enemy of U.S. interest world wide called "Terrorists."
By the time 2000, rolled around and Bush 43 took office, the Paul Wolfowitz, DPG morphed into a watered down version of the Project for The New American Century (PNAC), where Neocon's in all of their boldness went as far as to actually predict 911, by instantiating the
requirement that in order to get the ball of "transformation" rolling (speaking about their desire to dominate and control the world natural resources), there had to be some kind of
"catalyzing event" on the order and the magnitude of
"Pearl Harbor." Of course, intelligent people will want to know, how the heck they knew that in advance of 911. Of course, the people who are still asleep about 911, won't even understand the need for the question.
By now, Neocon's like Perl, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Weber, Tucker, Rove, Libby, Kristol and others, were either prominently featured as Bush 43 Administrative officials, or stood closely by in the wings behind the scenes, rigging the machinery and mastering the puppet - aka:
shaping Foreign Policy with respect to the Middle East. Bogus, WMD charges were fabricated out of post DS1 CIA assessments and transfered over to the "new" pre-2003 NIE on Iraq, whereupon the Oval Office submitted its "version" to the Congress to seek its authorization. In the meantime, a WMD dog and pony powerpoint slide presentation coupled to the continuous use of the word
"TERRORISTS!" was trotted out in front of the United Nations Security Counsel in an attempt to get resolution 1441 solidified and made actionable.
You know the rest of the story.
As for me, I flew 17 total combat sorties in DS2 (so-called "Operation Iraqi Freedom") which was nothing more than the continuation of what did not take place back in 1991, under Senior.
I trust that you've learned something here. Or, are at least willing to admit it. Most people think that Neocons simply popped into existence in 2000. Most people don't know that PNAC was derived from DPG and most people don't know that Saddam, felt he had a legitimate claim to the land betweeen Kuwait and Iraq, which had already been a multi-decade dispute between the two (2) nations.
When did the Independent party re elect a president? In fact, when did the Independent party have a president elected?
What you may not already know, is that sub-sequent to the 2000 election, a significant number of Republicans jumped ship and joined the Independent Party. Most of these people were old Reagan Democrats, and felt that their 2000 vote for Bush 43, was not properly placed and it is one of the primary reasons why Bush/Cheney lost the so-called Popular vote and many questioned the impact that had on the actual Electoral votes that were cast by the Electors.
These same people had no idea that 911, plus two (2) wars were on their way. By the 2004 vote, they coalesced their 2000 vote into a slightly stronger position in the Popular vote totals, as a direct result of the nation being at war on two fronts. It is my opinion that had there been on war in Iraq/Afghanistan, that John Kerry, would have won the 2004 Presidential Election. Therefore, it was Independents that "re-elected" George W. Bush.
40% of the nations voters are classified as Independent. That's why they are called the Swing Vote in national politics. Since there are statistically more Republican leaning Independents within that group, it stands to reason that in a time of War on two (2) fronts, that they would tend to lean more heavily. That theory was proven as fact, during the 2004 Presidential Election cycle.
Unregistered Free Agent voter, what the **** does that mean? Keep in mind you are talking to a guy that has never had a party affiliation in his life, and has never voted for a major party candidate for president, even when I was 18.
Do you have to declare Party Affiliation in order to vote in your State? Do you have to be registered to a specific party in order vote in your State?
I think it is good to remain the "Free Agent" that you say you are. However, like you say - I tend to judge people based on what the write and language such as "what the **** does that mean," tells me that I might want to see more posts from you before I'm sold on your "never voted for a major party candidate" rhetoric.
I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party.
It is clearly up to you as to whether or not you wish to suffer such a delusion of freedom. Merely because you intentionally lock yourself out of the house, does not make you free. For someone with your beliefs, there can only be two (2) possibilities:
1) You opted out of the voting process entirely and cast no ballot
2) You voted for someone who stood no statistical chance of ever being elected
In either case, you are forced to ask yourself the question: To what end? How does the nation benefit from the candidate that you supported, whose only instance of being in the White House, was on a White House Visitors Tour?
There is a massive distinction between attempting to expand the system to include other candidates with other ideas - something I strongly encourage people to do. However, at the end of the day, all altruism and all attempts to improve the system, have to actually have an opportunity to do so. Therefore, if you and other Third Party Supporters (which is something I willingly accept and appreciate) are genuinely serious about your efforts, then let me ask you several questions:
a) How many people have you made contact with over the past 365 days, where you began a conversation with them about the candidate that YOU support and WHY you support him/her?
b) How much of your personal time do you spend engaged in real efforts that will give the candidate that YOU support, the best opportunity to win enough votes to be elected the next President of the United States of America?
c) When was the last time that YOU took it upon yourself to author a White Paper and post it on-line, so that others may know what YOU stand for, and what YOUR candidate for office stands for, including WHY you believe that to be a better path for our nation to follow?
Those are things that you can being doing that cost you nothing but your time, energy, effort and writing skills. So, in light of these essential questions, when you tell me you are "free," just how free are you really - when you never get the opportunity to attend the Inauguration of the one you supported for President?
You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history,
Either you are attempting to convince yourself of something for which there is no evidence, or you are stupid enough to think I care.
- Does the candidate you support have a political platform upon which they stand?
- Does the candidate you support stand for anything, or nothing, or everything at the same time?
An ignorant political hack, is one who thinks that merely by opting out of the system, is some kind of rational proof that he's actually doing something valuable for the country. That type of individual is not only ignorant, but woefully incapable of understanding the fundamental purpose behind voting in the first place.
Merely because you support the guy that you believe to be outside the system, or somehow immune to the system, is proof positive of YOUR ignorance. Why? Because, this is a
Representative Democracy, not a dictatorship. That means that whoever you support, will ultimately have to walk the plank with the United States Congress. And, doing so will immediately mean that your guy will have to start making
compromises or your guy will get absolutely nothing done, whatsoever.
The ignorance comes when one fails to understand that salient point.
How do you justify your support of Obama's redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps
Apparently, ignorance is your forte.
What makes you think that I support a redefinition of either the 5th or the 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution?
Merely supporting the candidate that is most qualified to be President, out of the pool of candidates the system gives you, is not the signature of one who irrationally flushes a section of the constitution down the toilet. Second, I do not approve of the Patriot Act, nor do I approve of Obama's support of the Patriot Act, and further believe that the entire Patriot Act should be burned out of existence.
We already have Criminal Laws on the books that should be enough to deal with so-called "domestic terrorism," that we do not need to go off the deep end with "roving wiretaps." So, I am no fan of the Patriot Act.
However,
single issue voting is the hallmark of ideological ineptitude. The pollyanna approach to engaging in politics within a Representative Democracy, by foolishly believing that your guy is going to be able to solve all problems for all constituencies, is yet another great sign of both immaturity as a voter and a woeful misunderstanding about the unique and highly diverse nature of the aggregate constituency that our great country yields.
This gets back to my support for Obama. He's not the Second Coming, as his detractors incorrectly believe his supporters put faith in. He is instead, the best alternative available, given the next candidate in line. That was the case in 2008, and based on what the Republicans AND the Alternate Candidates have provided me for study, that will be the clear case in 2012.
Example: I like Ron Paul's willingness to abolish the Federal Reserve. However, Ron's fiscal policies with respect to many other issues such as funding Education as just one example, are not a group of policies that place him in the category of being a better candidate than Obama. That's just one example of many that explains WHY I am supporting Obama.
and defense of other Bush era polices that violate civil rights, his willingness to sign laws that allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, and his blatant disregard of the division of power in the Constitution?
You make the same false assumption that many Republicans make.
You charge Obama and fault him for policies that got rooted under Bush 43. It is the same exact thing with the national debt relative to federal spending. Republicans love to say that Obama, is blowing up the debt and deficit, to the tune of $16 trillion. That's false, and it always was false.
The actual CBO numbers clearly show and report that under Obama, the actual deficit will SHRINK, not expand by some several hundred billion dollar by 2017. What Republicans don't tell you is the simply fact that much of the Obama, spending came as a direct result of what Bush 43, had already put into place with two (2) wars that had to be concluded under Obama, the Omnibus spending that was not taken care of before Bush 43 left office that had to be dealt with under Obama, and both the
necessary Stimulus and TARP programs, including the Federal Auto Bailout programs.
So, if Obama, did not spend on stimulus, did not spend on TARP I and TARP II, did not bailout Detroit and did nothing to keep the Government running, then everybody in the world would have finally had a very legitimate opportunity to label this President as one of the worst managers of the nation's business in history. Yet, these very same highly disingenuous people who know full well that Obama, did not raise the debt by $5 trillion, are out there selling this nonsense to people who have not studied the CBO numbers as I and others clearly have.
Go look at CBO, read its reporting and you will see that current Obama spending policies, projects an actual DECREASE in the deficit over time, not the false increase that you've been sold. These are not my report, these come from CBO.
Source:
CBO.
Do you really think everyone is as ignorant and uninformed as you are?
No. I just think that YOU are as ignorant as you appear to be.
Why do you support Obama if you think $14 trillion in debt is a problem?
Obama, did not create $14 trillion in debt, Sherlock. You have your math all backwards, because you have not studied the actual data. You have instead, taken the exact same talking point measure and injected it into this thread.
Now, do you understand how to READ a CBO report? If so, I just gave you the link.
BO Monthly Budget Review 2012.
Are you aware that the national debt is currently north of $16 trillion? Does the fact that Obama has managed to dig us $5 trillion deeper into the hole in 4 years mean nothing to you?
If you actually were spouting real numbers and knew what you were spewing about, I might tend to agree with you. Your so-called intelligent retort leave much to be desired.
Fact:
From December 31th 2001 through December 31st 2008, George W. Bush, increased the national debt by nearly 179%. From December 31st 2009 through June 30th 2012, Barack Obama, increased the national debt by 128%, with the vast majority in the increase, coming directly from Bush 43 policies that were already in place. The wars had to be shut down and that cost money. A floor had to be put under the economy and that cost money. The auto industry needed a bailout and that cost money. The banks needed to be supported, or our entire economy would have entered a Greater Depression and that cost most. Foreclosures had to be stemmed and that cost money. Small business loans and auto loans had to be re-instantiated and that cost money.
The total lack of common sense that you have brought to this discussion is staggering. You don't even understand the concept of one President, having to follow-through on the massive clean-up of another President, who left the biggest gaping hole in our economy since 1932. Common sense should tell you that the next President in-line was
forced to spend money and increase the debt, else the nation's economy and the broader global economy would have slipped well past the point of no return.
That is funny, considering you support the guy that thinks being free means the government has to control everything.
It is extremely sad (not funny at all) that you pretend to understand the issues, while doing nothing more than spouting inaccurate rhetoric, without actually doing the homework.
I'm in the financial global markets each day of the week. I read the economic reports of not just the U.S., but China, Japan, Germany and the U.K. as a matter of business, not a mere hobby during an election season. I know where this county is relative to our trading partners and the other developed nations in the world and I know what our Debt to GDP status looked like before and after Bush 43. I know what spending was already authorized and put into place by Congress, before Bush 43 left office and I know what caused Obama 44, to have to engage in even more spending that was not part of his original economic agenda.
So, you can go sell stupid and ignorant somewhere else, I'm all stocked-up for the winter.
Let me know when you want to go over those CBO numbers, after you've actually done your homework.
Class dismissed.
You see, if I truly wanted to major in sarcasm, I'd bury you in it. But, I'd rather discuss the substantive issues.
