The looming Obama/Paul military massacre (Part 1)
An unholy alliance has been formed in Washington D.C.
Libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats are moving to both destroy the military and cut off at the knees the families who have given the most this past decade. The first person to sound the alram in the mass media was former President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in July of 2011:
Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.
While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.
Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.
He spoke out again making it clear that if (when) the so called Super-Committee failed the DoD and its membership would be left devastated.
In the deal’s second stage, the yet-to-be-named Congressional Joint Commission will have wide discretion on what to agree on, but if no agreement or only partial agreement is reached, the deal’s sequestration mechanism will be triggered. Broadly speaking, if that happens, defense spending will bear fifty percent of the total cuts, with non-defense spending bearing the remaining fifty percent, up to the amount necessary to raise the debt ceiling by the minimum $2.4 trillion required by the deal. This approach risks grave damage to our national security.
There is no strategic rationale whatsoever for cuts of this magnitude. There is, in fact, every strategic rationale to the contrary. While the appropriations process may still be able to decide which specific programs will be cut, this is no consolation. Cuts of this size are effectively indiscriminate.
It’s at this point in which I know I don’t actually need to remind this readership of this blog where the true burden of our tax dollars rest. I’d hope we all know where the rest of this is heading…
I’ll sound the alarm now for the 6.1 million of you whose jobs are tied into defense. Your time is coming in what is referred to by insiders as the coming train wreck. Entire US companies are looking to get out of the business of defending the United States and taking their people elsewhere.
I could point out that for what we spend on Medicare/Medicaid in this country in less than four days we could buy a brand new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. I could point out that once we incorporate the entirety of our tax dollars we spend more than both healthcare and education. I could also say that even with our defense spending covering millions of Americans educations, healthcare and paychecks it’s still approximate to total non-military education spending.
But wait, here’s that slovenly piece of shit from Massachusetts Barney Frank getting all that anger out, from the years in high school he spent getting stuffed into lockers, on the largest group of actual men he can find. Make note of his mention of Ron Paul, nut bag-in-chief.
In part two we’ll get into the human cost of these cuts. The real faces and names of selfless American patriots who are being laid off and, literally, getting kicked to the curb so the welfare pimps and vote buying politicos can stay in office. We’ll start with my beloved sister service, the Navy. Until then please send me your own stories of how these looming cuts are affecting you or your family and links to relevant stories.
Category: 2012 election, Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Defense cuts, Politics, Ron Paul
As much as I would slash and burn entitlement programs, the DoD is not a jobs program. I don’t agree with the level of cuts being proposed, but cuts to defense are as warranted as cuts to every other agency that host horrendous waste, fraud and abuse.
And you’ll excuse me if I don’t let John Bolton get my knickers in a twist
CI: “…but cuts to defense are as warranted as cuts to every other agency”
Where are those cuts to “every other agency”?
Sure, everyone trips over themselves to point out military program waste and fraud without pointing out all the waste and fraud that goes on in all the other gummint programs, as though the DoD has the patent on wasteful spending. You’re right, CI, the DoD isn’t a jobs program, it’s a defense program. One that is enumerated in the responsibilities of the federal government in that animal skinned thingy called the Constitution. I have no qualms with cutting the defense budget as long as the cuts are across the board, to include all the other government spending, but that’s not what happens or is happening. We have to be honest with ourselves that any cuts to the military budget won’t be a “savings”, because they will turn around and spend that money, taken from the defense budget, on……..say it with me; entitlement programs. If the budget proposal comes out that shows a decrease in the overall budget, then we can talk, but I’m willing to bet a Baconator at Wendy’s that the budget will actually increase.
@2 – Nothing there that I disagree with.
That’s a good question. They haven’t appeared yet…will they appear with a GOP Administration next year?
CI: Probably not. Especially while the DoD is so willing to slash itself to pieces so none of the politicians get splashed with political fallout from cutting defense. You don’t see the EPA, Department of Commerce or Ed Department offering up $800 billion budget cuts, do you?
Having survived military cuts of Carter, Bush I, and Clinton, I can testify that they are done with apparently only an eye to crippling the military effectiveness. You know, kinda like every other gubmint “program.”
There is no notion in gubmint that any of it’s programs actually be effective. They are all jobs programs, and little else.
Occasionally the military is allowed to be mission driven. Unfortunately, following cuts, there is a boomerang effect of costing outrageous sums to catch up to once again become effective.
Anyone who was serving when 9-11 happened knows what I mean. We had aircraft all over the fleet grounded for want of a 98 cent whozzitz. Many of us had not weapons qualified in literally years because we were unable to purchase ammo. And on and on.
Don’t even get me started on the fiasco called BRAC.
This seems to go in cycles…as a war (or two in this case) is winding down or ending, some want to cut the military…then they over do it.
When the next “event” happens in 5 to 10 years, the military isn’t ready and has to scramble and do shit like “stop loss” and call up the reserves to have enough troops to do the job. (I was told twice I was stopped lost since 9-11, so I re-enlisted)
Then some think we can rely on the big fancy stuff….until it’s something like Somolia where only troops on the ground will help the problem.
My vote: Only people who’ve served in wars can get elected to Congress, Senate, and President.
@8 – It is an odd paradigm. The sentiment of ‘survival as an agency’ is prevalent in every agency, and I wouldn’t discount the DoD generally.
Does Defense somehow have more reformers and fiscal hawks than the other lettered entities?
Of course, for those of the Gaffney school of thought….it’s an act of Muslim Brotherhood subversion…..
Listen, I would just like to see the civilian part of the military cut, and do something about people retiring one day, going back to work the next day as a civilian. This is rampant in the Technician Program in the National Guard, but I have seen many senior enlisted especially, working with civilian contractors one day, and being a Contractor or DOD, DA employee.
When we cut the numbers in the military, many of them will find work in the private sector; many will not. Some will find themselves at the government teat, (i.e. supporting families with foodstamps and medical benefits). Where is the savings when we cut a man from payroll, and enroll him in a welfare/entitlement program?
It’s really not complicated. Cut FIRST those programs which are not directed by the US Constitution, then trim the fat from the military. Plenty of time to argue over how best to do that AFTER the stuff in which gubmint should not even be involved is eliminated.
The only significant difference between Paul and Obama regarding evisceration of the military, fucking over vets and retirees, and endangering national security, is that Paul is marignally more up front (if not honest) about his intentions.
Some random thoughts:
Which Democratic Senator or Representative will approve cuts to DOD Programs of Record in an election year? Besides those that are retiring?
What capabilities will be lost in this round of cuts? During Bush-41, we lost capabilities that at the time seemed small – aerial intelligence collection, intelligence analysis, and several other capabilities that would have cut our losses to IED in half, if not more. Instead we spent billions recovering that capability.
Now what will it be? Lack of an expeditionary Army? An Air Force with the world’s greatest fighter plane, the Raptor, but they can’t fund the repairs to finally get them in the air?
DOD, the GS side of it, is a two-fold jobs program. Under the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, Civil Service fulfills the role of those that work for the organization: help it grow in power, prestige, and personnel. This means those same civil servants become incompetent to perform the work needed to gain that power, prestige and personnel. So the second fold: contractors are hired to do the work, usually at a higher short term price – but since the GS never regain competency, the contract work force is relatively permanent.
Contractors fulfill the requirements of the organization that contracted them, which is the second part of the Iron Law.
Change THAT law, and you’ll never have to consider cuts to DOD again.
Look, cuts were already occurring to the defense budget under Gramm-Rudman when the 1st Gulf War happened. Clinton continued tight but reasonable controls over the defense budget throughout the 90’s. The Army I joined in the late 70’s was pretty trashed, broke, and did not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of; -that’s the sort of Army to avoid creating through massive budget cuts, and I think the constriction that happened in the 80’s and 90’s managed to keep things sort of level. Still, by the mid-90’s a lot of commanders were complaining about low budgets for this and that, largely because they had experienced the surfeit of the Reagan years, and sorely missed it. But the orgy of spending since 9/11 makes the comparatively modest buildup of the 80’s look like kid stuff. It seems like DOD, the intelligence community, and DHS got whatever they wanted, or could think or dream of, and the money flowed in a streamlined fashion straight into contractor pockets. At least in the 80’s what we got for all that spending was new generation vehicles, radios, aircraft, barracks, housing, and something like a living wage. But now the party is over, and sooner or later you have to chase the drunks, grifters, whores, con-men, profiteers and chiselers the hell off the porch. All of the people in the beltway who managed to reinvent themselves as experts in bio-terror, IED defeat, data mining, network analysis, and all of the other ancillary profitable sectors of the Global War on Terror will just have to reinvent themselves again, into whatever is the Next Big Thing. ………………………….. Before he deployed to Afghanistan last year I went to see my son at FT Carson. Went to the motor pool to see what they had, and was surprised to see it chockablock with Abrams tanks and M113’s (being maintained by contractors from Mantech). He’s back now, and out of the Army, and his BN will probably never deploy again, but all the unit will end up with after this long war and river… Read more »
One of the big problems is that big programs are sexy. FCS, JTR, LandWarrior (now NettWarrior), RAH-66, Crusader, LCS, EFV et al. KBR, Cluster Battls, Blackwater/Xe, Triple Canopy. All big payoffs to contractors, lobbyists and pork for Congress Critters.
The KC-X, MRAP, never got the love they needed since they don’t fire a round. Mental health services, family programs, infrastructure. Not sexy.
The problem the civies have is assuming that the military is like a windup toy, there when you need it, put it away when you don’t.
Maintenance, personnel costs, health care…most young GI’s have families at 19-20. It wasn’t a lack of compassion that caused this, but being caught with the pants down (just like in Vietnam).
It’s true, the money flowed like water. But the puzzle palace put too much focus on the teeth and not the tail.
Why hire contractors? We cut the units that did their job and downsized the military as a whole.
We’ve chased the “grifters, whores, con-men, profiteers and chiselers the hell off the porch” and canceled many duds.
The problem is that the Pentagon and Congress love weapon systems but forget about the Joes who maintain them. Instead we line the pockets of contractors and wonder why we hace to cut defense.
In the 1990’s there was no big threat. The Pentagon did some bold thinking..at first. Then Drank the kool aid that lead to the FCS and other boondoggles. While health and vital programs (i.e. KC-X) dry rotted.
So now we’ll lose skill sets, leaders, and good NCO’s so that the welfare state and the iron triangle can get paid.
Of course the accountants hate service members and veterans. We cost money! How dare we live to collect the bennies we signed up for. Bizmark was no dummy. Pensions at 65 when most Prussians could barely make it to 45.
Expect to see Tricare fees go up. Mental health programs slashed until the bad press bites the DOD. Warrior Transition Units may get shuttered or downsized winding the clock back to the bad old days of 2004 & Walter Reed.
There is talk of a “pick your benefits” plan for new recruits. More like “pick the limited selection of bennies we have chosen” .
I think it’s time to let our voices be heard.
2# “We have to be honest with ourselves that any cuts to the military budget won’t be a “savings”, because they will turn around and spend that money, taken from the defense budget, on……..say it with me; entitlement programs.” This is the key. As much as I think this is completely wrong, if the cuts were across the board or at least the saving used to cut the debt, then that would at least be a philsophically honest position. They’re plaining to pilfer DOD for other pet projects and entitlements and thats wrong. 1# Completely disagree CI. Frankly, there simply isn’t that much waste to cut if you want to credibly project power in the world. Ohh and Bolton is the man. #7 “Then some think we can rely on the big fancy stuff….until it’s something like Somolia where only troops on the ground will help the problem.” Only troops on the ground can control terrain and people. We simply have a tiny ground force at present, going back to my above point, there simply isn’t that much to cut. We simply don’t have that many maneuver battalions to begin with. 10# “Listen, I would just like to see the civilian part of the military cut…” I would add part of the overhead that is the officer Corps of the USA and the redundancy of many HQs personal at the Brigade level and above. No more Strykers. Also unless the USMC can justify MARSOC, what unique capability seperates it from other Operators or the the line battalions of USA/USMC, it too should be disbanded. The Osprey, which is an expansive, dangerous, and less effective aircraft for too many reasons to list here, should also be replaced with a Helicopter(find out what the USA or USN have found effective). 13# That is something I have always given Paul. He states a position and then you can dispute it. That is not true with the Obamicans. 14#What capabilities will be lost in this round of cuts? During Bush-41, we lost capabilities that at the time seemed small – aerial intelligence collection, intelligence… Read more »
I’ve debated putting my $.02 in. I know for a fact that there are no cruisers to replace the Ticonderoga. The Arliegh Burk is being (over)used to fill the gap. There is nothing to replace the Perry class. They aren’t building the Virginia class fast enough to replace the Los Angles class. The Enterprise should have gone out of service long ago. The Big E has done its bit, and deserves a stately rest her predecessor did not get. That’s just the Navy The AF needs more C-17’s and to upgrade the C-130’s. Lets not even talk about all the KC’s. They were old decades ago. For Christ sake they’re still using 707’s! the rest of the world ceased to use them in the 80’s! The fact that they had to ground over a third of the F-15’s a few years ago should tell you how big a problem the Eagles have. Also the Falcons and Warthogs are getting old as well. I agree with replacing the Fighters with something newer and better but the Warthogs need to remain essentially the same. Going low and slow is a GOOD thing for CAS mission. The Army and MC are almost in the exact same boat. All their stuff needs to be replaced. Hands down we need new stuff, because what we have is wearing out fast, and worse, is not as adaptable as it needs to be. We can get into a long discussion about the rotary wing forces, but needless to say they need a serious upgrade. So if there does need to be a budget cut, it needs to come 10 years from now after the Forces have rebuilt from decades of neglect. The DOD is not a place to “save money” ever. Try to save money, and you’ll end up with SNAFUs like the original M-16 (before the a-1 variant) where Soldiers and Marines would have their weapons jam up on them or become useless after a few shots, all because Machnamera wanted to save a few dollars per rifle(did not chrome the Star Chamber, thinned the barrel,… Read more »
18#: The Pentagon got into drones in the 90’s. FCS was *supposed* to be about networking. CCO’s, AEGIS BMD, THAAD, JDAM…newer smarter kit. FCS turned into a costly waste. Many programs justed asked way to much from limited designs or were square pegs in round holes (Stryker). When the career field grades (who’ve mostly commanded offices with a/c) start making decisions, things go down hill. Good to see some of them go.
19#: “If the Dems are all about social issues, what other organization will take poor people from broken homes give them job training in whatever job they desire then pays for college?”
Dems hate the military. Ever since the Marxist “New-Left” took over. Homeless “vets” and phony “vets” with “horror” stories are their favs. Vets who just need job training need not apply. Ironic considering the meme they pushed that the military was “overwhelmingly poor and minority”. Yet they gut it.
Oh yea, almost forgot, the lack of C-17s? There goes that focus of teeth over tail. US military cargo should /never/ fly on foreign aircraft. The USAF leadership should be ashamed.
Save more money? Cancel the manned military astronaut program. Military pilots should stick to military missions. If they wanna be astronauts so bad they should join NASA.
@18 – ” Frankly, there simply isn’t that much waste to cut if you want to credibly project power in the world.”
I completely disagree that there isn’t waste to be cut…and I would argue that power projection is both not always synonymous with national defense and can be counter-productive.
“Ohh and Bolton is the man.”
Well continue your man-crush, I certainly won’t cut in!
I found a publication that speaks more to our previous discussion than this, but I thought you might find it interesting. I’ve found elements that support both of our points of view on our fight against terrorism.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Self-Inflicted-Wounds.pdf
“The Osprey, which is an expansive, dangerous, and less effective aircraft for too many reasons to list here, should also be replaced with a Helicopter(find out what the USA or USN have found effective).”
As a former USMC aviation type, I have to throw a BS flag on this.
The Osprey is no more dangerous (actually, it’s a good deal safer) than any other helicopter in service at a comparable point in its development/deployment. (I can tell you all manner of horror stories about the Huey, Sea Knight, and the Sea Stallion/Super Stallion airframes; I was there for some of it, and those who were there in Vietnam told me the rest.) It’s also a necessity when you consider the risk posed by operating an amphibious force off of a hostile coast; you need the range and speed of the Osprey to conduct Operational Maneuver From The Sea in any but the most permissive environments.
There’s no medium lift airframe available except the Osprey. Starting over from scratch, you’ll waste at least two decades going through the acquisition process, you’ll spend more per unit on your new helicopter than you’re spending now on the Osprey, and you’ll have a very high mishap rate early on in the program due to the hidden “gotchas” that are in EVERY military aircraft RDT&E program.
At the end of the process, you will be back to driving the ‘phibs practically up to the enemy beach a la “The Longest Day,” which neatly solves the enemy’s scouting problem–and the scouting problem is THE problem in naval warfare. Forcing your fleet to be visible to Private al-Snuffy on the beach so that he can call it in to HQ is a very bad move.
Two decades without a viable amphibious assault capability, followed by a horribly vulnerable one, means the end of the Marine Corps. If you really want to kill the Marine Corps, just say so. If you don’t want to kill the Marine Corps (and I don’t think you do), you’re going to need to rethink that premise.
I know this is an old entry, but I pulled it up because of the story attached to this link, about defense contractors like Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies selling software for US military equipment to the Chinese government:
https://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/united-technologies-acknowledges-coverup-of-sale-of-military-software-to-china/
This absolutely pisses me off. These contractors are paying fines up to $75 million, but how is that going to protect OUR military from the opposition?
@23 Poobah…Remember when the Corps had problems with the CH-46 breaking up in flight shortly after it was put into service?
http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?2221-CH-46As-Breaking-up-in-Flight!!!
No. 12:
You are absolutely correct and right.
Next, persuade and convince Congress (and all their voters first, of course) — to go along with the Constitution .
Let’s review the history. Thie whole thing started because the Republicans decided it would be a good idea to play chicken with the full faith and credity of the U.S. Government. The took what has been a routine vote ever since Reagan first started running up these deficits and turned it into a “thing”. Now that the supposed “incopetant and chief” played the GOP they all want to cry to the Principal like school-yard sissies.
If you want this to end the Republicans and everyone else knows what they have to do: raise taxes on those making over 250K. If they don’t want to do that, then they can’t whine about getting beat at a game which they insisted on playing.
Secondly, to quote the tea party faithful. Get your hands off my medicare. Medicare is an entitlement. Meaning we’re entitled to it because we PAID for it.
One of the GOP’s favorite talking points is that “the poor don’t pay taxes” and the reason why they say that is because they leave out fica taxes under the rationale that those go to entitlement spending. The logic being that entitlements only go to pay for those programs. But if you insist on stealing money from medicare and social security to pay for aircraft carriers then stop with the idioitic “the poor don’t pay taxes” talking points. Or better yet, stop pitting spending for the military against spending on entitltements.
I’m not sure why you’re so desperate to shove the poor and the elderly into coffins to pay for a nice shiny new aircraft carrier, but forgive them for not wanting to go gently into that good night.
If you want to make the case that we should spend more on the military make that case. But if you’re going to pit spending on the military against entitlements then you’re going to lose, and lose badly.
That’s got to be the dumbest thing i’ve ever read. Not surprising it came from you , instupid. Learn to spell, btw, that’s a start.
I know how to spell, redickhead35IQ, (two can play at the re-naming for hilarious effect, game!) . I’m having computer issues.
By the way, it’s quite appropriate that 1775 is in your name because GOP policies seem to want to bring us back to a monarchy.
Sure you do, instupid, sure you do. Pretty lame attempt at re-naming.
Yeah, cause instupid is fucking brilliant.
If you’ll actually look most of the spelling issues were from adding of letters such as competenty and transposing of letters such as “thie” for this completely consistent with computer issues. My issues are 1. the cursor keeps dancing around and 2. It sometimes transposes letters. The first part is the biggest and most annoying problem though. Pisses me off because the thing is less than 3 months old.
Though i do admit that Ros corrected my spelling of perjorative earlier. I’m actually kind of grateful.
I meant she corrected it from perjorative to pejorative.
Man it’s easy to get you riled up isn’t it?
Insipid: Taxing people above $250k will do absolutely fuck all. We need to cut entitlements.
Pretty amazing how you’re able to somehow discern my state of mind through the Internet. The truth is I can’t recall anything you’ve ever said getting me “riled” but if it makes you feel good thinking that you’ve revved up the liberal to distraction, I’m glad i could help.
Oh, my god what a HUGE liar that guy is. I mean, i’m actually amazed at the sheer depth of propagandizing lies the guy put out. I guess i should of known when i saw the two minutes of that other video that i could stomach when he stated that President Obama was the most liberal Senator on his Fast and Furious hit-piece. When he stated that entitlements are a redistribution of wealth from people who “mostly don’t pay taxes” I almost threw my busted computer across the room. The entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes and they’ve been RUNNING AT A SURPLUS for almost their entire time. It’s the Republicans that ran up this debt with unnecessary wars and bad economic policies and now they want the poor to pay for it. And on top of that they want to insult the poor by calling them deadbeats and calliong insolvent social programs THEY’VE BEEN STEALING FROM! I mean, that guy really gives a whole new meaning to the word chutzpa. He counts the revenue from those taxes as part of our income when he talks about the “bloated” government but then pretends that the poor and middle class haven’t been paying for them by ONLY counting income tax as “taxes”. The fact is that if Al Gore had used got to use his “lock box” that you all insulted him for, this would not be an issue. But now that the GOP has created the problem, they can’t solve it off the backs of the poor and elderly. The solution with you guys is ALWAYS to make the poor and middle class suffer. When times were good and we had a surplus the solution was to “give back” to the rich in tax cuts because according to Bush we’re paying “too much” in taxes. NOw that times are hard because we implimented his idiotic policies the solution AGAIN is to give to the wealthy and take from the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class PAID for these programs. The question is this, why is… Read more »
Inspid, what makes all these government social programs an ‘entitlement’? Why are people ‘entitled’ to something they haven’t earned? Why are people ‘entitled’ to subsidized housing? Why are they ‘entitled’ to food stamps? Why are they ‘entitled’ to free health care? Some things I can begrudgingly agree with. The children of stupid parents, who can’t afford to support their families, shouldn’t be penalized because of their heritage. Free breakfasts and free lunches for those children I can see. Other than that, as I said, no one is entitled to anything they haven’t EARNED.
My father ‘earned’ the GI Bill by landing on Utah Beach on D-Day. He used it to go to ‘night school’ to provide for his children. I ‘earned’ the GI Bill by serving in the Marine Corps. I used it to advance my children. My children have used their ‘advantage’ to further advance my grandchildren. All my grandchildren are now in private school. Why? Because too much funding is lost in public schools by paying for your ‘entitlement’ programs.
The multitude and length of your posts tell me everything I need to know about your mindset (May I suggest some anti psychotic medication? you’re clearly in need.), and the position of your head within your fourth point of contact. It’s amazing you reached the age of 47 with your head that far up your ass.
Social security and Medicare they most certainly HAVE earned. Every week it’s taken out of my check. I’ve earned it. You can’t 1. say we pay “no taxes” and then take our entitlement money. That’s trying to have it both ways.
Food stamps is a very small part of our budget, Medicaid is a much larger part of our budget but the VAST majority of that is going to very poor children since you’re usually not even elligible unless you have kids. But as far as medicare and Social Security goes, it’s paid for. You don’t get to steal the money just cause you’d rather have a warship.
The redistribution of wealth that guy seems to want is to take the hard earned Social security money and steal it. Plus he just flat-out lied when he said SS is going bankrupt. It isn’t and it can’t. It works as an insurance system, not an investment account.
I was responding to a 7 minute video, redacted. My length was appropriate. And if it bothers you, don’t read my posts. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop commenting too because you have nothing to offer but single paragraph insults about my age or what you imagine my occupation to be.
I’m surprised you haven’t bored yourself to tears by now.
I didn’t read your post. It’s obviously too retarded.
You NEVER read my posts. Or so you say. You call me a troll. Fine, stop “feeding” me.
Because you are a troll, nothing you post is actually worth reading. Barely even worth glancing at. And if you don’t want me to respond to any of your pointless, long winded diatribes, don’t bother posting here.
By the way I “earned” the GI bill too. I also earned SS and Medicare. I’ve been working and paying into it since 17, despite what that fucker says.
Besides, I doubt anyone else here needs me to point out how blatantly fucking ignorant you are.
The one who is actually exhibiting “trollish” behavior here is you. All my posts were at least tangentially on point and thus far I’ve simply been enduring insults from you. The fact that anyone disagreeing with your point of view is threatenining to you indicates that you really can’t defend it. If my posts are so “retarted” then they should be easy for someone of your supposedly superior intellect to take apart. And you don’t have to come here either if you don’t want to read any of my “pointless diatribes”.
One of the very few points i agreed with him in that video is that it is wrong for folks to “shout down” those they disagree with.
So what did i say that was “ignorant”? Was I wrong about Social Security and Medicare coming out of fica tax? Was i wrong about them operating at a surplus? Was i wrong about them being taken from? Pray tell what specific fact did i get wrong? Please, enlighten the “fucking ignorant”.
Pretty much everything you post is ignorant. I don’t think you’ve ever actually won a single arguement here.
You think Nobama is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history based solely on his skin color. THAT alone makes you ignorant. (AND racist, FWIW.)
In other words, you don’t have shit. Your refusal to counter even one of my assertions means i certainly “won” this argument (notice how i give you the benefit of the doubt that your mispelling of “arguement” was a typo- it’s called being an adult- try it!). Plus someone declaring themselves a winner is not the same as actually winning. Yes, you’re right many people here are much better at self-declarations of awesomeness then i’ll ever be.
See? Pure ignorance. Bye bye now. 😉
No, i think he’s a great President because he rescued us from a second great depression, i think he’s great because he’s provided health care to tens of millions of people, i think he’s great because he ended discrimination in the military, because he’s helped people go to school, because he reformed debit card fees, i can go on and on and on as to why i think he’s great and NONE of it has to do with his skin color.
And WIW is nothing.