Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012

[bigrebnc1775]

"He was a political radical" "He was left wing" "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal" Loughner's leftwing high school friend Caitie Parker ("I went to high school, college, & was in a band with him")

Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner Targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Back in 2007 - Atlas Shrugs

And **** you Oswald was a left wing communist.

LOL, Atlas Shrugs. There's a reliable source of information. The YouTube thing seems a bit bullshitty to me. Why exactly would she subscribe to his channel? And there are plenty of quotes from his other friends that say he hated Giffords.

And again, you dullard, you're missing my point. Crazy is crazy. This guy didn't go off half-cocked to fight a revolution. He lost his shit. Wen to KooKooTown and bought himself a nice apartment there.

As for Oswald, again for the last time: I AM NOT ARGUING YOUR POINT ON OSWALD. Because I just don't give a ****. Jesus Christ.

I assume that you hasve a source stating differently? One of those sources such as ABC CBS NBC MSNBC during the time of the shooting that tried to peg Loughner as a right winger. Loughner was a left wing liberal and his friends said he was.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Officially ignoring Stephanie now. Sycophants are lame.

That's a load of grade A horseshit, James...and I think deep down...you know it. You talk about "draconian cuts"? What cuts would you be referring to?

Any budget that touches a dime for education, housing, welfare, unemployment, Social Security or Medicare that doesn't take an equal broad stroke of the eraser to the Defense budget, for starters. It's completely baffling that you wouldn't see the same thing. Why is it okay to remove programs that help people, that may have some waste that should be cleaned up, by all means, in favor of a huge war chest. That's Draconian to me. Expecting the masses to do without or with much less in favor of plumping up the war-making budget.

That's what the Paul Ryan budget does. And considering he's a darling of the Tea Party...

We've got government that's so incredibly bloated and inefficient that it's almost laughable and yet every time that someone says "this is crazy" and tries to fix things...people like you start screaming about "draconian cuts" and "pushing grandma off a cliff".

First, your characterization of the government not working is laughable. How many planes take off and land every single day in this country? How many pieces of mail are delivered every day, cheaply? (the war on the post office is the silliest crusade I've seen from Conservatives in a long time). There are countless other examples of the Government working just fine.

Why do Conservatives assume that just because the Federal government touches it, it turns to shit? It's just not true at all, and Social Security is the biggest example of that lie. It's not a broken system, and in fact it is not going bankrupt. It's actually the most successful government program ever. But the Right NEEDS it to be utter shit, so they just say it is.

That's the Right's biggest tool now, is just saying what they THINK is right. How many outright lies has Romney told about Obama's spending record? Exactly.

You want to cut defense spending? Fine...I don't have a problem with that because I KNOW that every single part of our Federal Government is rife with waste...including the Defense Department. My solution would be to enforce across the board cuts to ALL government agencies. 10% the first year and then 5% the next year and a further 5% the following year.

Look, that's all well and good, but cutting 5% out of Defense is far less damaging than cutting 5% from HUD or Medicaid or anything else, and you know it. All cuts are not equal, and you also know that. However, I am going to give you massive props for being one of the few Conservatives out there who even puts Defense cuts on the board...the problem is you're asking to take a sliver from their slice, but a chunk from the others.

 

[Stephanie]

Poor James, not everyone on this site give him adoring praise and tell him he so right like some of his "admirers" do..

No skin off my but with you ignoring me..because I will not waste my time reading bullshit from someone who thinks they know everything and tells people to, shut the **** up..

You're not very engaging whatsoever, in fact you are just a long winded, BORE

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

I assume that you hasve a source stating differently? One of those sources such as ABC CBS NBC MSNBC during the time of the shooting that tried to peg Loughner as a right winger. Loughner was a left wing liberal and his friends said he was.

I hate to do it, but I will cite his Wikipedia entry, which has annotations for the sources of their quotes.
Jared Lee Loughner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Couple of interesting notations, they mention bogus YouTube accounts, so now I'm going to go back to YOUR link and see if it's one of those bogus accounts or not. But there's this:

Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."

 

[Stephanie]

Poor James, not everyone on this site give him adoring praise and tell him he so right like some of his "admirers" do..

No skin off my butt with you ignoring me..because I will not waste my time reading bullshit from someone who thinks they know everything about people who in HIS OPONION, are right wing Extremist.

You're not very engaging whatsoever, in fact you are just a long winded, BORE

 

[grunt11b]

It's funny that when people want to go back to the constitution and retain the liberty and freedoms that was bestowed upon us by the constitution that that is seen as extremism, but other people who wish to ignore the constitution and the laws of this great country are not seen as extremists.
Something is wrong with this picture. And it's called ignorance and indoctrination.

 

[Contumacious]

Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012

DIAGRAM OF US POLITICAL PARTIES

I​

WELFARE/WARFARE PARTY​

(A) The Libruls (B) The "conservatives"​

II​

THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY​

CAPITALISM
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
FREE MARKETS​

The libruls/conservatives dichotomy is a scam in order to perpetrate a fraud - they are NOT two political parties - they are the SAME PARTY advocating government supremacy

.

 

[Oldstyle]

Officially ignoring Stephanie now. Sycophants are lame.

That's a load of grade A horseshit, James...and I think deep down...you know it. You talk about "draconian cuts"? What cuts would you be referring to?

Any budget that touches a dime for education, housing, welfare, unemployment, Social Security or Medicare that doesn't take an equal broad stroke of the eraser to the Defense budget, for starters. It's completely baffling that you wouldn't see the same thing. Why is it okay to remove programs that help people, that may have some waste that should be cleaned up, by all means, in favor of a huge war chest. That's Draconian to me. Expecting the masses to do without or with much less in favor of plumping up the war-making budget.

That's what the Paul Ryan budget does. And considering he's a darling of the Tea Party...

We've got government that's so incredibly bloated and inefficient that it's almost laughable and yet every time that someone says "this is crazy" and tries to fix things...people like you start screaming about "draconian cuts" and "pushing grandma off a cliff".

First, your characterization of the government not working is laughable. How many planes take off and land every single day in this country? How many pieces of mail are delivered every day, cheaply? (the war on the post office is the silliest crusade I've seen from Conservatives in a long time). There are countless other examples of the Government working just fine.

Why do Conservatives assume that just because the Federal government touches it, it turns to shit? It's just not true at all, and Social Security is the biggest example of that lie. It's not a broken system, and in fact it is not going bankrupt. It's actually the most successful government program ever. But the Right NEEDS it to be utter shit, so they just say it is.

That's the Right's biggest tool now, is just saying what they THINK is right. How many outright lies has Romney told about Obama's spending record? Exactly.

You want to cut defense spending? Fine...I don't have a problem with that because I KNOW that every single part of our Federal Government is rife with waste...including the Defense Department. My solution would be to enforce across the board cuts to ALL government agencies. 10% the first year and then 5% the next year and a further 5% the following year.

Look, that's all well and good, but cutting 5% out of Defense is far less damaging than cutting 5% from HUD or Medicaid or anything else, and you know it. All cuts are not equal, and you also know that. However, I am going to give you massive props for being one of the few Conservatives out there who even puts Defense cuts on the board...the problem is you're asking to take a sliver from their slice, but a chunk from the others.

Be honest with me, James. How much of the Defense Department budget would you like to see eliminated before we cut the first dime out of the REST of the government? I'm guessing that you're not going to be happy unless the Defense Department is absolutely gutted. Am I wrong?

Here's the problem we face...we live in a world where some very bad people want us wiped off the planet. That isn't speculation on my part. It's the reality with which we have to deal. As I said before...I'm all for across the board cuts because I think ALL of the Federal Government is inherently wasteful and the only way to get them to become less wasteful is to hold their feet to a VERY hot fire.

I know that as a card carrying progressive that you have a knee jerk reaction to ANY money being spent on Defense but I'd like to remind you that the Taliban and Al Queda is the REAL lunatic fringe and their brand of conservatism ends up with people like you getting put up against a wall.

We have tough choices to make. We can pretend that being nice to the bad people will make them leave us alone but I think even you can see that is a strategy that isn't going to work. Bullies and tyrants respond to "niceness" by becoming more aggressive. Would it be great if we didn't have to spend billions on defense? Oh, yeah! Does it look like that's going to happen anytime soon? Sorry, but I don't see it.

 

[Contumacious]

Here's the problem we face...we live in a world where some very bad people want us wiped off the planet. .

No , the problem is that we have warmongers and meddlers living in our midst.



What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't"

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I assume that you hasve a source stating differently? One of those sources such as ABC CBS NBC MSNBC during the time of the shooting that tried to peg Loughner as a right winger. Loughner was a left wing liberal and his friends said he was.

I hate to do it, but I will cite his Wikipedia entry, which has annotations for the sources of their quotes.
Jared Lee Loughner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Couple of interesting notations, they mention bogus YouTube accounts, so now I'm going to go back to YOUR link and see if it's one of those bogus accounts or not. But there's this:

Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."

Dude listen up before his you account was scrapped and when it first was reported Gifford was a friend on his you tube account I went too his you tube account and yes she was there.
Lougnher did work on her campaign twice You cannot use the mainstream media as support because of one reason from the first day they were trying the best they could too pin this on the right wing.

AND WIKI? If I have the time and really cared I will go and edit the source for you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Poor James, not everyone on this site give him adoring praise and tell him he so right like some of his "admirers" do..

No skin off my but with you ignoring me..because I will not waste my time reading bullshit from someone who thinks they know everything and tells people to, shut the **** up..

You're not very engaging whatsoever, in fact you are just a long winded, BORE

Why should we?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Be honest with me, James. How much of the Defense Department budget would you like to see eliminated before we cut the first dime out of the REST of the government? I'm guessing that you're not going to be happy unless the Defense Department is absolutely gutted. Am I wrong?[/quotes]

You are wrong. Because I'm not naive enough to think that every nation needs a way to defend its sovereignty from outside attack. But since I do not believe in either nation building or empirical growth of a nation, I do not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores, and if we need to send some troops overseas to help allies in a joint effort that has a reasonable objective and stopping point, I'm for that too.

I'm not a budget analysis expert, so any percentage I give you wouldn't feel right for me to just toss out there. I would say that enough of a cut should be made to defense to enable us to not have to drastically cut important programs that people of both parties use. Like the Post Office, like educational grants, like medicare, like Social Security, etc. There is ZERO reason in this world to have such a massive Defense budget. Wanna know why?

Because if we ever did find ourselves back in a World War situation, know what we could do to cover shortages? Raise taxes and sell bonds...like has always been done, to great effect.

Here's the problem we face...we live in a world where some very bad people want us wiped off the planet. That isn't speculation on my part. It's the reality with which we have to deal. As I said before...I'm all for across the board cuts because I think ALL of the Federal Government is inherently wasteful and the only way to get them to become less wasteful is to hold their feet to a VERY hot fire.

I saw "A Few Good Men" too. I know about guns and walls and people wanting to kill us, blah blah blah. Again, see my above comments on this whole issue though.

I know that as a card carrying progressive that you have a knee jerk reaction to ANY money being spent on Defense but I'd like to remind you that the Taliban and Al Queda is the REAL lunatic fringe and their brand of conservatism ends up with people like you getting put up against a wall.

They're the lunatic fringe of the Islamic faith, yes. However, again, see above. I'm not, nor are many, many progressives, in favor of eliminating our Army altogether. That's absolute rhetoric and whoever has been pumping that shit into your brains is a ******* troglodyte.

We have tough choices to make. We can pretend that being nice to the bad people will make them leave us alone but I think even you can see that is a strategy that isn't going to work. Bullies and tyrants respond to "niceness" by becoming more aggressive. Would it be great if we didn't have to spend billions on defense? Oh, yeah! Does it look like that's going to happen anytime soon? Sorry, but I don't see it.

Look at what happened in the Arab countries last spring. Democracy, real Democracy, sprang up there with no help from us. In Libya we did the bare ******* minimum. And Democracy still won-out. Don't you think the modern era will move us further towards cyber-based attacks and intelligence wars? Yes, people will still want to go and kill each other, sadly, but there is truly no need for an army like what we have now. There are ways to fund more wars if we need to (see above, again). So no, you won't convince me that the boogeymen being out there means we have to spend the most amount of our money on Defense. That's old school mentality gone awry.

 

[Oldstyle]

Be honest with me, James. How much of the Defense Department budget would you like to see eliminated before we cut the first dime out of the REST of the government? I'm guessing that you're not going to be happy unless the Defense Department is absolutely gutted. Am I wrong?[/quotes]

You are wrong. Because I'm not naive enough to think that every nation needs a way to defend its sovereignty from outside attack. But since I do not believe in either nation building or empirical growth of a nation, I do not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores, and if we need to send some troops overseas to help allies in a joint effort that has a reasonable objective and stopping point, I'm for that too.

I'm not a budget analysis expert, so any percentage I give you wouldn't feel right for me to just toss out there. I would say that enough of a cut should be made to defense to enable us to not have to drastically cut important programs that people of both parties use. Like the Post Office, like educational grants, like medicare, like Social Security, etc. There is ZERO reason in this world to have such a massive Defense budget. Wanna know why?

Because if we ever did find ourselves back in a World War situation, know what we could do to cover shortages? Raise taxes and sell bonds...like has always been done, to great effect.

Here's the problem we face...we live in a world where some very bad people want us wiped off the planet. That isn't speculation on my part. It's the reality with which we have to deal. As I said before...I'm all for across the board cuts because I think ALL of the Federal Government is inherently wasteful and the only way to get them to become less wasteful is to hold their feet to a VERY hot fire.

I saw "A Few Good Men" too. I know about guns and walls and people wanting to kill us, blah blah blah. Again, see my above comments on this whole issue though.



They're the lunatic fringe of the Islamic faith, yes. However, again, see above. I'm not, nor are many, many progressives, in favor of eliminating our Army altogether. That's absolute rhetoric and whoever has been pumping that shit into your brains is a ******* troglodyte.

We have tough choices to make. We can pretend that being nice to the bad people will make them leave us alone but I think even you can see that is a strategy that isn't going to work. Bullies and tyrants respond to "niceness" by becoming more aggressive. Would it be great if we didn't have to spend billions on defense? Oh, yeah! Does it look like that's going to happen anytime soon? Sorry, but I don't see it.

Look at what happened in the Arab countries last spring. Democracy, real Democracy, sprang up there with no help from us. In Libya we did the bare ******* minimum. And Democracy still won-out. Don't you think the modern era will move us further towards cyber-based attacks and intelligence wars? Yes, people will still want to go and kill each other, sadly, but there is truly no need for an army like what we have now. There are ways to fund more wars if we need to (see above, again). So no, you won't convince me that the boogeymen being out there means we have to spend the most amount of our money on Defense. That's old school mentality gone awry.

Ah yes...the old 'we should only defend our own shores' mantra! Pardon me for smiling and shaking my head, James but as a student of history I'm well aware of the track record of isolationism. You know what the best thing (if there is any such thing in war...) about the US's involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War and the Second Gulf War? The fighting for the most part took place on non American soil. Now, I suppose we could have dug trenches and waited for the fight to come to us but do we REALLY want to be fighting Al Queda here if we can fight them in Iraq or Afghanistan instead?

I would make the point that since the 1940's we have in fact become the ipso facto "police" for the rest of the world. We're the guys that countries without strong armies call upon to protect them when they are threatened by the inevitable neighborhood dictator with dreams of being the next Napoleon. Do you think the world becomes a better place or a worse place is the US military only patrols OUR coastline and homeland? Do you think the Somali pirates will increase or decrease their attacks on shipping if the US Navy no longer has warships off the African coast? Do you think that Taiwan stays independent from China if we no longer have a presence in that part of the world? Do you think that North Korea would have anything stopping it from invading South Korea?

So you can "say" that if we ever find ourselves in a war situation that we can just raise taxes and magically make a strong defense appear but the truth is not having that strong military invites aggression from the idiots of the world.

You think wars will be fought on line, James? Really? You might want to run that past the Iranians because they seem quite determined to fight them the "old fashioned" way...with a thermo-nuclear device or two.

As for what the "Arab Spring" has brought? I'm going to wait for a bit before I declare "democracy" to have sprung up in that part of the world. Yes, we've gotten rid of some despotic tyrants but if we've replaced them with equally despotic fundamentalist replacements then is that REALLY an improvement?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The real referendum: O and the economy. Its really that simple.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Ah yes...the old 'we should only defend our own shores' mantra! Pardon me for smiling and shaking my head, James but as a student of history I'm well aware of the track record of isolationism. You know what the best thing (if there is any such thing in war...) about the US's involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War and the Second Gulf War? The fighting for the most part took place on non American soil. Now, I suppose we could have dug trenches and waited for the fight to come to us but do we REALLY want to be fighting Al Queda here if we can fight them in Iraq or Afghanistan instead?

History is big in my world too. Yes, you're right that isolationism is bad. But I didn't really say I wanted that, or at least that's not what I'm after. I want a smaller, more nimble, intelligence-oriented defense budget. We really do not need what we have now. It's too much. Too much to fund, too much to maintain. It's just crazy big. It's the industrial military complex that Eisenhower talked about and then some.

We're very unique in that we're a HUGE island nation. So to get to us has been (thankfully) very difficult, and will continue to do so. I'm not saying we should never defend our sovereignty. I'm saying we don't need to have the biggest dicks in the pissing contest.

I would make the point that since the 1940's we have in fact become the ipso facto "police" for the rest of the world. We're the guys that countries without strong armies call upon to protect them when they are threatened by the inevitable neighborhood dictator with dreams of being the next Napoleon. Do you think the world becomes a better place or a worse place is the US military only patrols OUR coastline and homeland? Do you think the Somali pirates will increase or decrease their attacks on shipping if the US Navy no longer has warships off the African coast? Do you think that Taiwan stays independent from China if we no longer have a presence in that part of the world? Do you think that North Korea would have anything stopping it from invading South Korea?

I would completely agree that we have become the world police. That's one aspect that "Team America" got incredibly right. My argument is that the Arab spring has shown us that there is a safer, more covert means to topple regimes, yeah? Why do with a smart-bomb what you can do with a smartphone?

So you can "say" that if we ever find ourselves in a war situation that we can just raise taxes and magically make a strong defense appear but the truth is not having that strong military invites aggression from the idiots of the world.

All I know is that every other war in history has been financed through taxes and bonds. And it's worked, brilliantly so. These last two wars' most tragic consequence (besides the thousands of young lives lost for nothing), is that they were wholly unfunded. Massive debt creating juggernauts. Surely you can agree with that?

You think wars will be fought on line, James? Really? You might want to run that past the Iranians because they seem quite determined to fight them the "old fashioned" way...with a thermo-nuclear device or two.

This may be true. But I just saw a TED talk on how they suspect we've been sabotaging their efforts via computer viruses. If I can remember who gave it and what it was called, I'll send it your way, to be sure. So yes, I believe that we can do a great many things using cyber-based attacks, absolutely.

As for what the "Arab Spring" has brought? I'm going to wait for a bit before I declare "democracy" to have sprung up in that part of the world. Yes, we've gotten rid of some despotic tyrants but if we've replaced them with equally despotic fundamentalist replacements then is that REALLY an improvement?

If they are elected by the people, yes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah yes...the old 'we should only defend our own shores' mantra! Pardon me for smiling and shaking my head, James but as a student of history I'm well aware of the track record of isolationism. You know what the best thing (if there is any such thing in war...) about the US's involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War and the Second Gulf War? The fighting for the most part took place on non American soil. Now, I suppose we could have dug trenches and waited for the fight to come to us but do we REALLY want to be fighting Al Queda here if we can fight them in Iraq or Afghanistan instead?

History is big in my world too. Yes, you're right that isolationism is bad. But I didn't really say I wanted that, or at least that's not what I'm after. I want a smaller, more nimble, intelligence-oriented defense budget. We really do not need what we have now. It's too much. Too much to fund, too much to maintain. It's just crazy big. It's the industrial military complex that Eisenhower talked about and then some.

We're very unique in that we're a HUGE island nation. So to get to us has been (thankfully) very difficult, and will continue to do so. I'm not saying we should never defend our sovereignty. I'm saying we don't need to have the biggest dicks in the pissing contest.

I would make the point that since the 1940's we have in fact become the ipso facto "police" for the rest of the world. We're the guys that countries without strong armies call upon to protect them when they are threatened by the inevitable neighborhood dictator with dreams of being the next Napoleon. Do you think the world becomes a better place or a worse place is the US military only patrols OUR coastline and homeland? Do you think the Somali pirates will increase or decrease their attacks on shipping if the US Navy no longer has warships off the African coast? Do you think that Taiwan stays independent from China if we no longer have a presence in that part of the world? Do you think that North Korea would have anything stopping it from invading South Korea?

I would completely agree that we have become the world police. That's one aspect that "Team America" got incredibly right. My argument is that the Arab spring has shown us that there is a safer, more covert means to topple regimes, yeah? Why do with a smart-bomb what you can do with a smartphone?



All I know is that every other war in history has been financed through taxes and bonds. And it's worked, brilliantly so. These last two wars' most tragic consequence (besides the thousands of young lives lost for nothing), is that they were wholly unfunded. Massive debt creating juggernauts. Surely you can agree with that?

You think wars will be fought on line, James? Really? You might want to run that past the Iranians because they seem quite determined to fight them the "old fashioned" way...with a thermo-nuclear device or two.

This may be true. But I just saw a TED talk on how they suspect we've been sabotaging their efforts via computer viruses. If I can remember who gave it and what it was called, I'll send it your way, to be sure. So yes, I believe that we can do a great many things using cyber-based attacks, absolutely.

As for what the "Arab Spring" has brought? I'm going to wait for a bit before I declare "democracy" to have sprung up in that part of the world. Yes, we've gotten rid of some despotic tyrants but if we've replaced them with equally despotic fundamentalist replacements then is that REALLY an improvement?

If they are elected by the people, yes.

Not for nothing, James...but you seem a little "confused" by what you do want. You say that you understand that isolationism is a bad thing and that wasn't what you were asking for...but that was after you'd stated that we should only have a military large enough to protect our own shores. So which is it? Should we only be concerned with what's happening in the US?

What exactly is an "intelligence orientated" defense budget? I'm afraid you've lost me with that notion. The gathering of intelligence is a wonderful thing but if you don't have a military to utilize that intelligence then what good is it? You ramble on about our using a cyber attack to put a crimp in the Iranian weapons development program? Do you seriously think THAT is going to stop the Iranians from developing a bomb? I mean it's a nice fantasy but I don't think anyone really thinks that's going to work long term. The fact is...if we want to stop Iran then we're most likely going to have to launch a military strike against their weapons development infrastructure. Either us or the Israelis. Your cyber attack simply delayed...it didn't prevent.

You really see democracy springing up in the Middle East? I'm sorry but I don't. I think we're about to see the formation a solid block of nations run by religious fundamentalists that will totally subvert the democratic process. You can already see it happening in Egypt.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Not for nothing, James...but you seem a little "confused" by what you do want. You say that you understand that isolationism is a bad thing and that wasn't what you were asking for...but that was after you'd stated that we should only have a military large enough to protect our own shores. So which is it? Should we only be concerned with what's happening in the US?

What exactly is an "intelligence orientated" defense budget? I'm afraid you've lost me with that notion. The gathering of intelligence is a wonderful thing but if you don't have a military to utilize that intelligence then what good is it? You ramble on about our using a cyber attack to put a crimp in the Iranian weapons development program? Do you seriously think THAT is going to stop the Iranians from developing a bomb? I mean it's a nice fantasy but I don't think anyone really thinks that's going to work long term. The fact is...if we want to stop Iran then we're most likely going to have to launch a military strike against their weapons development infrastructure. Either us or the Israelis. Your cyber attack simply delayed...it didn't prevent.

You really see democracy springing up in the Middle East? I'm sorry but I don't. I think we're about to see the formation a solid block of nations run by religious fundamentalists that will totally subvert the democratic process. You can already see it happening in Egypt.

I'm not confused at all, friend. I think you can have a smaller military force and still not be isolationist. We can put a larger emphasis on intelligence. You are right that we still need boots on the ground, but I'm really less concerned about the size of the military's operational units than I am about all the money we send shipping them overseas and constantly having to resupply overseas and the cost of constantly having a ton of weapons development programs like we're still in an arms race with someone.

Cyber operations are definitely real. I'm sure there are a lot of sneaky nerd-related missions that mean a lot towards the objective, absolutely. Why wouldn't that be really important? Like I said, I'll find the TED talk. I think you'll find it fascinating.

It is DEFINITELY Democracy that sprang up in the Middle East. You may see some growth pangs, but we had our own stutter-start before the Constitution, and we had slavery still and counted black people as 60% of a white person. So they'll figure it out too.

 

[California Girl]

If you belong to the "other" party why don't you write about the Democrats taking back their party from the nutjobs, Progressives?
instead you worry about the Republicans..
like you really care

Well, for starters, the extremists in the Republican party are the Tea Party. Not all Progressives are nutty. YOU may think that, but you are extremely biased. I don't deny that there are certainly some extremists in the Democratic party, but I'd like you name some of the ones you think are just crazy, or nutjobs as you put it.

I do care Stephanie. Because there was a time in this country, not that long ago, when both sides could disagree vehemently but compromises were made. One side would step aside to let the majority rule make the call. If it was wrong, the other side would know they'd get their day at the ballot box, and things could be reversed or reformed. Now, it's just "**** YOU, YOU LIBTARD COMMIE *** FACE SHIT EATING **** HOLE!" That's not discourse.

I care because I used to be a Republican, and I left because I hated where the party was going on social issues, and the fiscal policies came quickly next when I realized I don't want a government who reinforces the "life isn't fair" axiom. I would like to see the Republican party taken back from the Tea Party because I believe that the Tea Party has been poison to dialogue and discourse and compromise. It's all or nothing with the Tea Party, and frankly, that never works.

I would think that you, as a 'journalist' lol, would appreciate that words have meaning. Calling the TEA Party 'extremist' is absolutely ******* ludicrous. (You might want to google the words 'absolutely' and 'ludicrous' to ensure you get my drift.)

Only a left wing hack would label other Americans 'extremist' - unless those 'extremists' have perpetrated acts of violence. Have the TEA Partiers committed any such acts? No. Therefore, your words are hysterical hyperbole.... not good for a 'journalist' lol

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clue: Disagreeing with your political views is not 'extremism'. You do yourself no favors by labeling everyone who disagrees with Obama as 'extremist'. It makes y'all look ******* stupid.

Yeah, but so did voting for Obama in the first place.

 

[koshergrl]

Life isn't fair.