Reality is not predicated on your perception of it. It exists independent of your being aware of it, or even remotely in agreement with it.
I live in the real world, not a delusional world where your reality is derivative from the what you write in your signature is indisputable fact.
I've lived in several different real worlds and I've already initiated your educated on one of the elements of a world in which you knew little to nothing about. CAS, was significant part of one of the worlds in which I lived. If you care to engage in either of the worlds in which I live, or have lived, you can certainly attempt to test YOUR knowledge of either. But, to do so, you will need to know something about the reality of that world. Else, you end up making an even bigger fool of yourself and in a world of trouble.
Since I'm talking about the worlds in which I am very familiar, of course I know how things work. The question is, do know anything about them. Clearly, you know nothing about CIA or CAS, other than what you are told, or what you glean from the "Internet." When I write about CAS (if, I write about CAS), it comes from my own direct experience with the subject matter. The fact that you did not detect the singularly most glaring contradiction made by Fake News related to one of the real world in which I have both training and expertise, is proof positive that you don't know what you pretend to know on the "Internet."
We can skip all this and go straight to the beginning with queries that you will not find easy answers to on the UPT Dash-1 and then work our way up to Advanced FTS, and eventually into some TPS Manuals to round out your education on these subjects, if you like. That way, you will know what you are dealing with.
Your Google Search Engine will be of no use to you, I assure you. So, when you are ready to jump head first into that real world, let me know. I'll expedite your education.
I used fact, let's see how you did with it.
Stop pretending. Nobody has asked you to "use" fact.
You've been asked to post links to that which you insinuate I don't know anything about, so that we can examine what your level of expertise looks like on the issues for which you have asserted the claim that I've issued pseudo intellectual details on.
So, since you claim to have seen pseudo intellectual information, post a link to it, so that your claim can examined and proven, or dis-proven. If you make the claim that contains an intimation that someone else is fluffing knowledge behind a veil of pseudo intellectualism, then you should have the ability to draw a sharp distinction upon what you detect as fluff.
Example:
I detected that you had no clue about CAS protocols. Since that's one of the worlds that I am indeed familiar with, I highlighted why your failure to detect the lie in the Phoocks Newz Benghazi CIA Lies "Exclusive Report," was central to your lack of understanding about HOW you were lied to. I then providing you and the forum with verifiable official information that demonstrates both why Phoocks Newz lied, and why your failure to detect their lie was central to your feigned attack on the handling of the matter by the Administration.
Doing that - I demonstrated that you are somewhat full of crap in the things that you pretend to know something about. That's also called exposing a Troll for what they are - a simple minded Troll.
Sophomore in college, and you did all that.
Why not? I went on to accomplish a bit more in the years ahead, so starting off with a bang seems pretty much in-line with expectations - at least it was in the family in which I grew-up.
Sure thing.
...why should I believe that the USAF would allow a first year officer cadet who is still in college, and hasn't gone through flight school, to fly one of their transports? Do you think I believe the world is like the movies?
The Galaxy was just the tip of the iceberg, but I did not want to go through the entire story of that year. However, since you ask - I will tell. (The Sophomore Year in College is called the 2nd year, btw. Just between you and me.)
Because I later respectfully declined an appointment to the USAF Academy (after seeking and receiving sponsorship from my local Congressman back in High School), in favor of a more well rounded education on a civilian College campus, I ended up becoming an ROTC Cadet at the University I attended. Our Commandant of Cadets was himself a former B-52 driver having flown many sorties in Vietnam, so we were very fortunate. Each year, the top four (4) Cadets were selected for what were known as Incentive Programs. Those programs were designed to give civilian Cadets, a mirror onto same Experiential Programs that were offered in Colorado, to the Academy Cadets.
I was selected along with four (4) other Cadets in my second year for the Columbus Program. It was and Incentive Program that included "instruction" in the C-5B both en route to and from Columbus. In Columbus, we were "instructive" in the T-37's and T-38's as well, including both actual aircraft and ground based flight simulators. My "instructive" stick time in the T-37 and T-38 was about 2.5 hours divide across both aircraft over a period of one (5) week in Columbus. We each received the same amount of Tweet and Talon exposure. At the end of the week, we boarded the Galaxy, and resumed "instructive" incentive from the left seat on the way back to Travis.
I was among one of the top (4) Cadets in each of my Junior and Senior years as well, and was selected each year for the same program. In the Senior Incentive, the Program was held at Castle, which has since been decom (now a museum). Back then however, it was a small B-52 base with F-15s providing some West Coast an Central California intercept. Our COC, wanted the Senior Incentive to be remembered as "special" (his words). So, he arranged for another "instructive" in the F-15. We spent one week learning about how the 318th FIS operated and what they were responsible for protecting, as well as spending some time with the B-52 crew members. By mid-week, we took turns from the front seat and proceeded to undergo incentive training in the F-15 Eagle. I believe we racked up about 3 hours total time time each that week.
We simply had the greatest Commandant of Cadets that any ROTC program could ever have. He retired 4 years later and many of us, who then had assignments throughout the Air Force, got the chance to go back to the Detachment on campus and present him with one of many achievement and appreciation awards that he received that day. He was a great man and I learned a lot from him.
In the family I come from, education was taken very seriously. I had three (3) older siblings and they were all finished with college and working in industry by the time I graduated High School one year early. All of them were EECS majors and ended up (one way or another) contributing to the growth of Silicon Valley in the 80's. They worked at little outfits in the North like Sun Microsystems (now Sun Oracle), Lockheed Martin (now Missiles & Space), and a tiny little semiconductor company in the South called Intel. We did not grow up rich, and just barely paid for college on academic scholarships and grants. Our family believed in education, service to community and service to country.
Bush was a pilot. You might not like his politics, but it is absurd to say he was not qualified to wear a flight suit. That by the way, is a fact, in case you aren't familiar with them.
Bush was AWOL at the TANG. His Commander can't account for his whereabouts just before Bush left. He drank to much, was dishonorable on and off duty, did not follow orders, broke the chain of command multiple times and failed his Flight Readiness Physical, so that means he was NO longer on flight status at the TANG. Was that the reason why he skipped town?
Nobody knows where his DD-214 is located. I know precisely where my DD-214 is located and I've never been removed from active flight status. So, when I say he did not deserve to wear that flight suit as he strutted across the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, after exiting and S-3B Viking that he used to delay the homecoming of our Troops for four(4), just so he could engage in a Flight Suit photo op, I mean exactly what I said. He did not deserve to wear that suit.
A conspiracy nut, now you make sense, facts are things that only matter if you agree with them.
Any slightly awake tuna fish at this point, knows that Neconservatives have used the Republican Party, and the ignorance of its membership to slither its way into the Executive Branch of our Government. Only somebody who wishes to remain blind, deaf and dumb on purpose, is unaware of that fact.
You clearly have not read Wolfowitz, DPG. You probably never knew it existed until I told you about it today. You'd be wise to drop the pretense and go truly educate yourself.
I have seen it before. To be frank, the New World Order conspiracy is more interesting, and the Illuminati are a better evil cabal. You should check them out, you might get more mileage.
Your willful strong delusion is yet another stepping stone for those who would weaken this country and make it more susceptible to blow-back aggression from both abroad and right hear at home. Rather than do the insane and attempt to argue that which is inarguable, you should take an opportunity to learn about what you still don't understand about the world you live in, before it is too late.
Again, have you read the DPG? Do you know what it contains? Which version did you read - there were two (2) version?
Why am I the one responsible for doing your homework for you? If you don't even know what the DPG contains and you did not even know who wrote it before I told you about its existence, how can you possible declare anyone other than yourself, a nut?
Really? Let's put that statement to the test.
a) Describe page eight (8) of the DPG, what is the Title and Subtitle?
b) What is the similarity on page eight (8) of the DPG, to page fifty-five (55) in PNAC?
c) How does the DPG describe the "role and responsibility" of the United States in the 21st century?
d) What is the "method" and "means" mentioned on DPG page fifteen (15)?
Failure to answer these questions will mean that that you just lied about having read both the DPG and PNAC.
Are you starting to see how this exercise works?
There is no state in this country that requires you to register with a prty to vote. That would violate federal law.
Do you mean prty, or party? And, exactly which Federal Law would that violate? BTW - Is there a Federal Law that guarantees your right to vote? In other words, does the United States Constitution guarantee your right to vote?
I see you didn't answer the question, so let me rephrase it, what the **** does Unregistered Free Agent mean?
You are the smart one here, what does it sound like it means to you? Is it not obvious - or does it have to be a lecture incompressible aerodynamics before you understand it?
My freedom is not delusional, it is a choice.
If you are opting out your responsibility as a Citizen of this country to place a meaningful vote that has at least a probabilistic chance of resulting in placing someone in the White House, then you are most definitely suffering a very strong delusion, as protest votes don't pay the bills.
Or, just a thought, I voted my principles.
The language "voting my principles" is just as lame as opting out. You are deluding yourself into somehow thinking that your vote matters, even for the purpose of upholding your principles. This is a fallacy within a fallacy.
a) Your principles are never registered, if the candidate you voted for has no power to implement any of your principles by definition. Common sense should have told you that.
b) Your vote is never truly counted in the larger scheme of things, which by logical extension means that you are essentially throwing away a valuable tool, or allowing it to go unused.
Voting isn't about choosing the winner, it is about making a statement. If more people actually voted their beliefs the world would be a lot better.
Huge fallacy - massive. This demonstrates your youthful predilection for the pie in the sky - wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with being bright eyed and optimistic. However, there is something wrong with being blinded by ungrounded optimism.
Logically and rationally, we have a winner take all system of elections. Now, if you want to change that system, that's find, that's another thread. But, if you are going to have your principles placed into effect, then your guys must win the election, plain and simple. Your guy can't mail in his/her Presidency, he/she has to take oath of office and begin working with Congress to implement the principles that you support, else his/her Presidency is meaningless.
You make a "statement" with the car you drive, the aircraft you own and operate, the house you live in, the property you own, the yacht you design and build and the revenue you generate with the company you own. But your vote makes a
difference - not a "statement." If your vote is not making a difference, then your principles literally do not amount to a hill of bean, because they are never instantiated as policy that affects the change you seek.
Wisdom, is knowing the difference between what needs to get done, and how to actually do it.
Better question, how has the world been served by the people who routinely run from the two major parties?
The always present two party invective statement. I knew that was coming, sooner or later - so I already preempted that question by answering it before you asked it.
It is not the President's task to serve the world, just the United States of America and its Citizens. You will never find the perfect Candidate - stop searching - it is a youthful waste of time. There's a good reason why no singular piece of legislation is perfect. It is because there is no singular legislator, or group of legislators that are perfect.
We live in a Representative form of Government, but not even our Constitution is perfect, far from it. Our Declaration of Independence was extremely eloquent, yet extremely flawed and our Bill of Rights, is still inadequate, yet very relevant and useful to the function of our Republic.
No one you have ever supported for President, has ever been the perfect candidate, no matter how much you might like the person and/or what they stand for (your principles). So, the only thing you can possibly hope for, is some kind of compromise. And, it is compromise, that is required in massive republic such as ours. Else, you are by definition seeking a Dictator, not a President. And, we've already had one of those in office between 2000 and 2008, which did not work out to well according to the actual historical record. We even have a broken economy to prove what happens when you put a dictator into the White House. A "decider."
Everyone knows who I support.
I don't.
So, who do you support? What are these "principle" that you speak of?
I argue with idiots like you all the time. It doesn't convince the idiots, but I have swayed a few intelligent people.
Your basic and most fundamental problem is that you have willfully confused the difference between being Smart, and being a Smart Ass. And, you aren't even doing a very good job of either at this point.
Your prose are that of a 20 something, who's still wet behind the ears, arrogant beyond belief, blinded by pretense and unable to recognize when he's locked inside a dark room, with no windows, in search of a light switch that does not exist.
Link? That way, I can read your composition and take a close look at your declaratives in light of those "principles" you find more important than a vote that actually counts.
I don't like crowds, I would never go to an inauguration.
I enjoy them and the people that make them possible. But, that's just my nature.
I don't think you care. If you cared you wouldn't be an ignorant hack.
I think your penchant for a lack of discernment is epic, which speaks volumes about your educational level. Exactly what is your formal education by the way? Do you have a degree? If so, in what discipline? What have you done to apply your degree in society?
I don't support Obama, so the answer to the first question is yes, and the second doesn't apply at all.
You don't have to support Obama, I do. Second, if you are supporting someone that does not stand on a platform, or at least have a set of policies that they believe in - then you are most definitely supporting someone with zero change of ever seeing the inside of the Oval Office.
So, the questions are valid, especially for someone who thinks they are smarter than me about my own worlds.
Funny, I don't remember saying that. Maybe you should stick to debating the voices in your head instead of trying to discuss things with real people.
You may not be supporting Romney, either. However, you do suffer from Romnesia. I'm sure you don't remember saying the things you can't respond to or don't want to respond to.
The ignorance comes when you think that is the only point.
The ignorance come in not realizing that for the Presidency, failure to compromise means failure to succeed. So, unless you are supporting a Ross Parot, type of candidate - then you had better be certain that they are flexible in those "principles" you deem so important. Else, he/she will get absolutely nothing done.
You support the president who is redefining the 5th and 14th Amendments. You might think you can do that and still support hose Amendments, but the real word doesn't work that way.
Son, I doubt seriously that you have the life experience to educate and/or inform me on how the world works. What I would suggest to you is that you drop the ego hero that you clearly are not, develop a fundamental understanding of how President of any party must deal with the Congress, and hope and pray that you are supporting someone who has at least an outside chance of being taken seriously by either side of the House or Senate, such that anything they propose has an outside of every getting out of committee and beyond mark-up.
You are supporting someone who can't even open the front door, and you have the temerity to call me ignorant? If that is not the ultra height of clueless, than I don't know what qualifies. Your 5th and 14th Amendment rights have not and will not be infringed upon by this President, that much is certain. However, the Patriot Act does need to go.
Yet you support the man who expanded it, and the man who signed the NDAA.
I think you are intentional tone deaf, or just deaf. Re-read the stipulation on "single issue" voters. It might help you. Else, produce the name of the individual you support, so we can arrange the same litmus test for them. At the end of the day, the Constitution is Law, and I can think of a whole lot of other disqualifying factors for someone seeking the White House, that have nothing to do with their "re-writing of the constitution."
So, pretending that your candidate is going to be perfect, or that their faults are somehow tolerable for everyone, or even good for the country is a bit naive and foolish to say the least.
Civil rights is not the only issue I have, it just happens to be the one that I am using to prove how stupid you are. Pick another one and I can use it to tear down Obama just as easily.
That comment is just as dumb as it sounds. "Pick another one," has no basis for the subject matter being discussed. I'm not picking issues, you are. You are the one who listed a single issue. If you actually have another issue that defines the reason why you are not supporting Obama, then YOU need to be the one to list it. I am in support of Obama, therefore, I don't have a laundry list of issues that I'm concerned about. So, it is completely irrational for you to ask me to pick an issue the that you disagree with.
Second, anytime I hear someone say "pick any issue," I know right there, that I'm dealing with a hyper-partisan hack. You just played your hand right there, by essentially saying that you cant find a single issue that Obama, stands for and that you can agree with. That by definition is Hyper-Partisan Hackery.
Thanks for offering that slip-up. Now, we know without question that you are a hyper-hack. Even I, can find things that I agree with relative to Romney. My problem with Romney, is not that I can't find something in common, but that I can't trust that he will maintain that position long enough to actually make policy with it.
So, your abject hate for this President, is apparently obvious - as no rational minded person can go through Obama's entire policy position list and not find least a few things that they can get behind and support.
So, you are a total hyper-hack and anti-Obama hater. That's fine, but you should have said that from the start and I would not have wasted this much time on you. Hyper-hacks such as yourself, don't have the capacity for reason. By definition, you are unreasonable.
If you want to see other issues that I have in common with Obama (to answer your question), then read the OP here and post a rebuttal, if you can:
Why I Support Obama |
That is because you have no idea what Obama supports.
Clearly, you jest. Else, you must have been living in a dark cave for the past six (6) years. Try the link above. Maybe that will shock you back to reality.
What,m exactly, is the problem with the feds not taking money from the states, spending it on useless stuff, and then giving it back to the states with conditions attached? Tell me exactly why you think the federal government is making education better. Keep in mind while you are trying to do that that I can demonstrate a correlation between federal spending on education and a decrease in math and science scores across the board in every state.
Please, keep demonstrating my ignorance.
The statement I made was that the Fed should be abolished, not that I wish the Fed could take money from the States. I wrote that fairly clearly, so I'm not quite sure how that was missed. We don't need the Fed. The Fed causes bubbles by tweaking the money supply and the fractional reserve banking system ensures that we never get out of debt as nation. The Fed killed the USD in 2000/2001 against all major currencies across the board, by slamming interest rates too low and too fast. That gave the Fed no where to go, to inject some incentive buying of the USD at a time when we needed it most. So, by the time the 2008 economic implosion hit, rates were in the coffin-corner with no place to go and the Fed lost the ability to help in the early stages of the crash.
Exactly why I think the Federal Government is making education better? Smart student loans that adjusts and caps the interest rate and payment to the students ability to pay - their actual income after graduation. Pell Grants, assisting students with College costs. Federal Student Loan Guarantees, making College available to those students that don't qualify for pure scholastic scholarships.
Look, the government is not going to make your kid smarter, or raise his SAT, LSAT or MCAT scores. The government can however, fund things such as early childhood education, to help get very young people oriented and situated with a disposition that learning is an important part of their life. Actually funding NCLB and Federal Charter Schools, making the hiring and retaining of quality teachers a priority and finding ways to get parents much more involved in the process of the education of their children.
Can government do everything with just money? Of course, not - and I don't know of any serious minded person who suggests that as a solution. But, the Federal government can play a role in making sure the infrastructure is intact and that adequate funding is available for supplies, especially in lower income communities around the country - why should students in lower-income communities, be forced to attend inferior school systems, merely because their parents aren't wealthy. There are things the Federal government can do, but it needs to work closely with local school boards and school districts.
I can show you the math, if I thought you understood math.
Yes, indeed please. Show me the math.
I hold degrees in Applied Mathematics, Physics and Aerodynamics. Please, show me both the data and the math whenever you think you are ready.
I guess you just walked right into that one.
No they don't, they show that the deficit will go down if the deal reached by Obama and the Republicans in the house is actually followed.
You just re-stated exactly what I said. Adding "if the deal reached.... is actually followed" is like the artificial food coloring added to the junk food you eat too much of already - completely unnecessary. The point - the policies arranged under this President, will see the deficit going down, not up. Why could you not simply accept that fact - instead of beating around the bush with meaningless prose added to a re-statement of what was already said to you?
Since Obama, Romney, and everyone in Congress who is not named Paul have said that will not happen, only idiots actually believe that projection.
Only idiots take what's on the table and alter it before it even has a chance to take hold. But, this is what Republicans did to Clinton's Actual and Projected Surplus, too. They flushed that right down the toilet on off the books wars that cost us over $3 trillion long-term. So, I can see why you might be so eager to avoid accepting the fact that the deficit will be set for reduction under this President. That makes a lot of sense.
For the record, CBO projections have nothing to do with the fact that the debt under Obama has surpassed $16 trillion, they are just projections about the future.
You seem to enjoy living in a world delusion and make-it-what-you-want-it-to-be. You spew the Republican lie that about the debt, you get summarily corrected and then you re-state the correction that makes your original statement a lie, by adding colorful blither about how its only a projection.
LOL! Sure, kid. You are welcome to laugh at yourself all day long, if you prefer.
The problem with that scenario is I don't believe it is what would have happened, and you can't prove it.
Hello? Anybody home? It matters not what you believe. The spending that Obama, was forced to do as a direct result of what I have already stipulated is a fact. That fact is not up for debate.
So, whatever fuzzy math you want to use to fake yourself out just so that you can believe that the debt would have increased to near $16 trillion, if Obama, did not have to do the spending that he did as a direct result of either Bush 43 policies, Omnibus, TARP, Auto Loans, Bank Loans and Stimulus, is your business. I don't have to smoke the drugs that you are smoking.
Any rational and clear thinking human being knows that when you don't spend money, you don't spend money. So, if there was no need to spend all that money, then by definition, the debt would not be where it is.
The fact that you even dare attempt to wiggle your way out of that one, is very telling about just how "Third Party" genuine you probably are at the end of the day. I don't buy it one bit. That's twice now where you have not even bothered to give the benefit of the doubt. If the man did not have to spend all that money for good cause and good reasons (which I notice you have not challenged at all - very telling), then there is no way that you can simply sprinkle pixie dust on the debt and force it to display as $16 trillion.
This is exactly like the same lie that Romney, is now out on the Desperate Campaign Trail telling people, only in the inverse of the lie you just told. Romney, is out there today, telling people that a vote for Obama, means the national debt reaches $20 trillion by default. That's just cockroach bull. The debt goes DOWN by 2017, as a direct result of policies put into place under this President.
Run and hide, duck and dodge the facts all you want - you can't change them to be what YOU want them to be. In fact, if Obama's gets a Congress that allows the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, and he gets the tax plan he campaigned on, and he gets the spending cuts he campaigned on, then the deficit reduction is actually accelerated.
This is a prime example of the total lack of intellectual honesty in politics today.
Geepers - get real.
... like it has done after every recession since WWII.
This statement of yours right here, truly underscores your failure to understand what actually happened to our economy.
This Recession-Depression we were in for nearly two years, was nothing like anything we have experienced before. During the industrial revolution we had tremendous economic drivers that had yet to be unleashed within our economy and we had plenty of infrastructure to build-out to support our economy over the long-term. We were a grand project in the making at that time, so there was plenty of internal market absorption just waiting to be created in various industries that had not been created, circa 1932/33 through 1945/48. We were just beginning to really grow back then.
So, that economic model, looked nothing like the current economic model.
By 2008, we had gone from being the largest lender nation to the largest debtor nation. We had no more infrastructure to build-out (no more grand scale logistical projects), we long since lost our manufacturing edge in a number of different key and strategic industries, we had lost the automobile advantage, we had depleted our Middle Income layers by exporting their jobs over seas for the past 20+ years, our debt and deficits had soared to the highest levels in our nations history and we lost more than 6 million jobs. All of that - plus the fact that we had long since reverted to a liquidity based economy, with no economic drivers anywhere in sight to pull us out.
That combination of factors means that you can only grow through normalized real GDP, and just before Obama, took office, real normalized GDP had slipped to below -8.0%[/b] Let, me repeat that - because most neophytes such as yourself really don't understand what that means. I said, just before Obama, took office, our national real (normalized) GDP had slipped to below -8.0%. That is just how bad things got before Obama, was able to lower his right hand after taking the oath of office. Negative Economic Momentum came crashing through the Oval Office windows and landed squarely on Obama's lap, and sat there for the first two (2) years, as he did everything he could to stimulate the economy and prevent massive financial infrastructural failure from happening.
This Recession-Depression was nothing like anything since WWII, because we are now a Liquidity based economy that had lost the Middle Incomes necessary to mount a normal, historically accurate recovery. This is the other part of the lie that Mitt Romney, is not telling his supporters. He's not telling them that the reason why the recovery is so slow, has to do with the fact that we are now a Liquidity based economy with a massively reduced Middle Income layer generating an insufficient number of daily transactions and approximately $5 trillion being hoarded by American businesses of various types and kinds, in accounts both here in the United States and overseas.
That is the reason for the sluggish recovery and very sluggish job gains. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's so-called job killing policies. That is a political line of horse manure used by Republicans to score points in an economy where they know there is infrastructural problems.
Our entire economy has to be rebuilt, so that we make the shift from Liquidity based to Manufacturing based again, because as we have learned, Liquidity won't pay the bills when faith in the economy is low. When faith in the financial system is low, you MUST have a strong Manufacturing base to lean on, until the faith comes back into markets.
So, to sit here and conclude that this recovery is anything like we've ever seen in the past, is a complete misunderstanding of economic history, and our current economic model.
Class dismissed.
I am always just an asshole.
