Give to the Red Cross, unless your name is Romney

[336thF15E]

The reason I use the "Brief Profile" in my post, has absolutely nothing to do with bragging and everything to do with demonstrating one of the abhorrent false assumptions that many Mitt Romney, supporters have claimed - not just on this board, but on several other boards as well.

My signature is all about Romney's delusional 47% comment - but in reverse.

My signature is that of a rather successful individual who is NOT supporting Mitt Romney. There are many Romney Supporters on-line who have assumed that, if you are successful, which they define as being as wealthy, or more wealthy than Romney, then you can't possibly be in support of Obama, because that would mean that you get taxed into oblivion. That is the ridiculous false assumption that all too many Romney Supporters, have been making for two (2) now.

My signature was used to prove that such a false claim that wealthy and successful people are not in support of Obama, is nothing more than a stale stereotypical lie that has been told far too often, and assumed even more frequently than that.

Bragging, had nothing to do with it. It is a proof for the fact that you can be successful and wealthy, while NOT compromising common sense and better judgment by supporting a candidate for the Presidency, who talks to you like you have no common sense at all, by lying to you almost at every turn.

I run my business in accordance with common sense and better judgment and I vote that same way as well. That is the reason for my signature.

I worked 10 years doing the R&D and Engineering necessary to build the technology that I use in my business today. I did not grow-up with a silver spoon in my mouth, nor was there any silver lined coat tail that I could ride on, to get me to where I am today. Stop the hate. Stop the jealousy. You will never make progress carrying that kind of attitude as baggage in your life that way.

Develop an idea. Create a vision of the future for yourself. Work hard to make the concept of your idea a reality. Develop a plan of execution. Remain focused on your goals and never forget where you come from in life. That is the key to success.

I'm simply here to say that there are a lot of highly successful, well educated, talented, generous and well adjusted people out there in support of this President. Not because we believe the 47% to be the problem with American Society, but because we don't believe that going back to the policies that gave us such a mess and created so many problems, is the smartest thing to do.

This election is an I.Q. Test. Score high!

 

[Conservative]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your inbred, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!

A... wow, you really have a very high opinion of yourself, don't you (rhetorical, no need to respond).

B... (bolded words) how long did it take you to Google those so you knew what they meant and then how long to figure out how to string them all together like that?

C... (underlined words) If it was long before you got here, how could you have seen it, dumb ass?

Your false intellectual superiority is a little boring, actually.

 

[Conservative]

The reason I use the "Brief Profile" in my post, has absolutely nothing to do with bragging and everything to do with demonstrating one of the abhorrent false assumptions that many Mitt Romney, supporters have claimed - not just on this board, but on several other boards as well.

My signature is all about Romney's delusional 47% comment - but in reverse.

My signature is that of a rather successful individual who is NOT supporting Mitt Romney. There are many Romney Supporters on-line who have assumed that, if you are successful, which they define as being as wealthy, or more wealthy than Romney, then you can't possibly be in support of Obama, because that would mean that you get taxed into oblivion. That is the ridiculous false assumption that all too many Romney Supporters, have been making for two (2) now.

My signature was used to prove that such a false claim that wealthy and successful people are not in support of Obama, is nothing more than a stale stereotypical lie that has been told far too often, and assumed even more frequently than that.

Bragging, had nothing to do with it. It is a proof for the fact that you can be successful and wealthy, while NOT compromising common sense and better judgment by supporting a candidate for the Presidency, who talks to you like you have no common sense at all, by lying to you almost at every turn.

I run my business in accordance with common sense and better judgment and I vote that same way as well. That is the reason for my signature.

I worked 10 years doing the R&D and Engineering necessary to build the technology that I use in my business today. I did not grow-up with a silver spoon in my mouth, nor was there any silver lined coat tail that I could ride on, to get me to where I am today. Stop the hate. Stop the jealousy. You will never make progress carrying that kind of attitude as baggage in your life that way.

Develop an idea. Create a vision of the future for yourself. Work hard to make the concept of your idea a reality. Develop a plan of execution. Remain focused on your goals and never forget where you come from in life. That is the key to success.

I'm simply here to say that there are a lot of highly successful, well educated, talented, generous and well adjusted people out there in support of this President. Not because we believe the 47% to be the problem with American Society, but because we don't believe that going back to the policies that gave us such a mess and created so many problems, is the smartest thing to do.

This election is an I.Q. Test. Score high!

Bragging is all you're doing, and it is boring.

 

[Conservative]

The question is not... (ridiculously long and boring post edited for brevity)

There are a lot of long words in there. We're naught but humble posters.

 

[Conservative]

This hack 336thF15E reminds me of the fake Indiana Jones wann-be, NASA artist, international spy jackass that got banned for copyright theft and general douche-baggery a while back.

 

[Annie]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your inbred, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!

So you are claiming to have posted in poor grammar for a reason? Your explanation seems to be that you think you'd catch idiots in your net. You didn't. Indeed, it seems you hypothesis was incorrect.

 

[Conservative]

Unreal is you coming here parroting every left wing talking point out there.. Just go vote for Obama and don't worry about who others might vote for

Let me make sure I understand this correctly.

1) This is a non-linear dialectic medium for Political Discussion AND Debate
2) Facts about the 2012 Presidential Campaign are submitted to the Forum
3) You disagree with the facts as submitted
4) Because you disagree with the facts submitted, the submitter is by definition a Liberal
5) Talking Points are the same things as Facts and therefore carry the same weight

Could you possibly be more confused about where you are, what you are doing and WHY you are doing it?

Here's how incredibly circular you are:

According to your twisted logic, if I were here submitting facts that looked good for Romney/Ryan, I would be doing nothing more than spewing Right Wing talking points and should therefore, go away, the leave the forum and simply vote for Romney/Ryan on November 6th.

Do you realize what you just said? You just said that there is absolutely no reason and/or justification for the existence of this site, whatsoever. Ergo, this site cannot possibly exist as a forum for discussion and/or debate, because anyone who posts facts related to such discussions and/or debate, would not be here - according to your rules.

Extending your logic to its fullest conclusion this site cannot possibly exist, which is physically impossible because both of us are here, and therefore your logic (by definition) must be circular.

Do you enjoy being irrational? It is some kind of hobby? Or, do you make it a full-time job?

DAMN, you are long winded nuts

you left out the word AND, between 'winded' & 'nuts'.

 

[Annie]

What was the amount of Barack's and Michelle's check to the Red Cross?

1.2 million dollars.

Link, sorry so late.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Be

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.

Your reality?

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.

Are you starting to see how this works?

Are you?

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.

I used fact, let's see how you did with it.

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.

Sophomore in college, and you did all that. Tell me something, 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?

I registered on campus in Donahue Hall and the rest is now history.

What were you doing in your Sophomore Year in College?

My Sophomore year? I went to Hawaii, The Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Diego Garcia, and Nairobi, and never got a single grade below a 3.8.

Why?

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.

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.

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.

A conspiracy nut, now you make sense, facts are things that only matter if you agree with them.

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.

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.

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.

I have, you are a nut.

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.

Sub-sequent? Do you mean subsequent?

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.

Wow.

Just wow.

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?

There is no state in this country that requires you to register with a prty to vote. That would violate federal law.

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 fuck 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 see you didn't answer the question, so let me rephrase it, what the fuck does Unregistered Free Agent mean?

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:

My freedom is not delusional, it is a choice.

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

Or, just a thought, I voted my principles.

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.

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?

Better question, how has the world been served by the people who routinely run from the two major parties?

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?

Everyone knows who I support.

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?

I argue with idiots like you all the time. It doesn't convince the idiots, but I have swayed a few intelligent people.

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?

Last week.

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?

I don't like crowds, I would never go to an inauguration.

Either you are attempting to convince yourself of something for which there is no evidence, or you are stupid enough to think I care.

I don't think you care. If you cared you wouldn't be an ignorant hack.

- 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?

I don't support Obama, so the answer to the first question is yes, and the second doesn't apply at all.

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.

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.

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.

The ignorance comes when you think that is the only point.

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.

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.

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.

Yet you support the man who expanded it, and the man who signed the NDAA.

Strange.

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.

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.

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.

That is because you have no idea what Obama supports.

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.

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.

You make the same false assumption that many Republicans make.

Oh boy, this is going to be stupid.

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.

I can show you the math, if I thought you understood math.

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.

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. Since Obama, Romney, and everyone in Congress who is not named Paul have said that will not happen, only idiots actually believe that projection.

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.

Thanks for the laugh though.

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.

The problem with that scenario is I don't believe it is what would have happened, and you can't prove it.

Suppose, just as an intellectual exercise, that he had not spent all that money, and the economy had bounced back like it has done after every recession since WWII. Imagine what a lock Obama would have on the election then.

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.

Like I said, they are assuming the cuts to defense spending that Obama has declared will not happen. You should look at what they call the alternative fiscal scenario, even the CBO considers that one a better prediction. The problem is they are required, by law, to use the law, not common sense, as their baseline.

If you were actually educated you would know that.

No. I just think that YOU are as ignorant as you appear to be.

Is that more comfortable than educating yourself?

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.

I didn't say he did, I said he created over $5 trillion in debt.

Nice strawman though, it shows your hackiness quite well.

Now, do you understand how to READ a CBO report? If so, I just gave you the link.

BO Monthly Budget Review 2012.

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 know what, you obviously care no more about truth that rdean. If you did you would know how stupid it is to post debunked shit in the name of education.

Why don't you try arguing that up is down?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The word is dire. Iy you were ⅛ as smart as you think you are you wouldn't look so stupid.

So, u idyots are doun to tipos know? That's pretty much a clear sign that you've got nothing more erudite or substantive to offer. Keep feigning it.

I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history, [incorrect use of comma here. use period here next time] How do you justify your support of Obama's [place comma here next time] redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps and defense of other Bush [place comma here next time] 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?

We can play your silly typo games until the cows come home, if you so desire. The forum has its own search engine and you have plenty more posts here than I do. So, you set yourself up into a very target rich environment for such games.

In addition, you might want to take an English refresher on sentence structure and punctuation. Your ineptitude and failure to place an appropriate comma, especially after proper names, is staggering.

Do you have anything else to offer, Einstein?

Dire

Dyer

That isn't a typo, that is the wrong word.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your inbred, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!

You want to trade barbs with Cecilie? Can I sell tickets to your spanking?

 

[syrenn]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your inbred, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!

She will wipe the floor with you bud.

 

[syrenn]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

 

[336thF15E]

So you are claiming to have posted in poor grammar for a reason? Your explanation seems to be that you think you'd catch idiots in your net. You didn't. Indeed, it seems you hypothesis was incorrect.

Based on that reply, it is clear that you either did not read the post, or you read it and did not understand what you just read.

Either way, you miss the point. Re-read and try again.

 

[336thF15E]

You want to trade barbs with Cecilie? Can I sell tickets to your spanking?

Let's trade rebuttal on the merits, real world experience and debatable positions on the issues, because it is painfully obvious around here, that "barbs" are most likely all you are capable of producing.

Now, get your little selves over to the Benghazi Lies thread and respond to the spanking given to Phoocks News and those who rely upon it as a source of "information." Else, you are a waste of time.

 

[tinydancer]

So you are claiming to have posted in poor grammar for a reason? Your explanation seems to be that you think you'd catch idiots in your net. You didn't. Indeed, it seems you hypothesis was incorrect.

Based on that reply, it is clear that you either did not read the post, or you read it and did not understand what you just read.

Either way, you miss the point. Re-read and try again.

I know who you are.

Damn you are just as boring here as you are on other boards. I know your game.

"I'm a genius" and "you are idiots" because I can open browsers and type till I have blisters on my fingers till I can post again.

I know who you are.

By the way. I am always tinydancer. I am always just an asshole.

 

[tinydancer]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your inbred, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!

She will wipe the floor with you bud.

She's the grammar queen. No guff. Ok put abba in the background. This is the grammar queen.

OMG I'm dying laughing because now that's all that's going thru my head.

 

[336thF15E]

Your reality?

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.

Are you?

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.

Tell me something,...

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?

I have, you are 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 fuck 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.

Last week.

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.

 

[336thF15E]

Dire

Dyer

That isn't a typo, that is the wrong word.

Which is proof positive that you did not know that when typos occur while typing, they come in multiple forms: a) Spelling, b) Phonetic, c) Keyboard, and d) Ergonomic.

"Dyer/Dire" is clearly a phonetic typo, but you can keep pretending that its important and I'll educating you.