Well written but still poorly researched DIE-HARD PARTISAN CRAP. (Nationwide.)
Nicely written but still poorly researched, poorly thought, and dead wrong on most counts. For starters, your 'storming the beach' assessment regarding troop losses in Afghanistan is fatally flawed. In fact, your second line states an absolute indisputable mathematical falsehood.
You said "For someone who considers himself a student of history and facts I find you lack insight, let's begin with troops loses in Afghanistan under Bush vs Obama. Bush began the conflict, soldiers under him were the first responders so to speak and charged the beachheads figuratively speaking so of course his ratio of soldiers deaths were higher than under Obama".
I lack insight huh? Such a claim is laughable coming from someone who made such a dum-fuk assumption with regard to those troop losses and actually had the nerve to state it so authoritatively without checking the numbers first. Especially given the fact that I mentioned the years of 2006, 2007, and 2008 in particular when first making reference to the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan (initial flat-foot entry, read it again).
No you partisan whack-ass, it's not that troop losses in Afghanistan were higher under Bush. THEY WERE LOWER YOU HALF-WIT. But the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan which many a partisan puppet blame Obama for exclusively, began in 2006. OVER FOUR YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL INVASION and three years before Obama took office. The trend continued to grow in 2007 and 2008 and for another two or three years under Obama resulting in higher overall troop losses in Afghanistan under his administration. It was then reversed. Like I said, the initial effort in Afghanistan did produce results (which as an unaffiliated free thinker, I have no problem giving the Bush administration some credit for) but it was crystal clear by 2006 that some of the progress made was being lost. So your 'storming the beach' assessment doesn't work.
Damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. They are among the most active all over the web and talk radio. Die-hard conservatives in particular. In general, they are less informed than centrists, leftists, and oddball free thinkers like myself but they have made their ignorant voices heard and their absurd statements read millions of times resulting in a dumber America. That, I have a HUGE problem with. It is true that many a die-hard liberal have made absurd comments as well but in general, liberals are more rational than conservatives. After all, I'm not aware of a single liberal who fears that assault rifles and grenades will end up in vending machines across America. But I shouldn't have to remind you or anyone else just how many die-hard conservative wackos have been screaming this 'coming to get our guns' CRAP at the top of their lungs and typing their fingers to the bone with this 'disarm America' CRAP. IT IS FXXXXXX ABSURD WACKO PARANOIA. NOTHING BUT DIE-HARD PARTISAN FEAR MONGERING CRAP. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE FEAR MONGERING CRAP. INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SHOT DEAD BECAUSE OF IT.
So yeah, damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. Not necessarily those who lean in one direction or another but certainly those who lean sharply or entirely. In particular, die-hard conservatives. For they are the type most likely to make dum-fuk assumptions, most likely to spread their idiotic CRAP, and most likely to inspire politically motivated killings. If you have the nerve to challenge me on this claim, I will post a long list for you to consider.
By the way, before you make another dum-fuk assumption, of course I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. 9/11 in particular. Also, those which take place in Iraq as we type. Religious extremism is even more illogical than political extremism. But the vast overwhelming majority of religiously motivated killings are inspired almost exclusively by religion with very little regard for liberal or conservative political ideology. The killings of abortion doctors are notable exceptions but I do acknowledge the real world moral dilemma those killers struggle with.
Although I find the very concept of a god illogical, I won't lump those who kill abortion doctors in with wackos who kill hoping to score with a dozen virgins courtesy of Ala. Not that I have anything against Muslims in general. I don't. For the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs. That's a fact. Otherwise, we would all be in deep sxxx. After all, Muslims do represent roughly 1/6 of the world population.
I submitted the above hoping to prevent another dum-fuk assumption on your part. Of course, I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. I've been accused of having no regard for them several times already by die-hard conservatives who take offense when I make reference to the innocent men, women, and children who have been killed because of their outrageous and illogical 'disarm America' 'coming to get our guns' CRAP.
Crap which many of you die-hard conservatives and your sold-out pundits continue to spew all over the web and talk radio. This puts our leaders at the Federal level in a very difficult position. For they are unable to take ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER ON THE ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL without driving even more die-hard conservative wacko gun freaks right over the edge resulting in more politically motivated killings.
Did I mention my disdain for die-hard partisans? Die-hard conservatives in particular? Damn right.
Obama isn't doing anything whatsoever to address the issue of immoral and illogical wealth concentration. Not when it's all said and done. For every time he takes action to support the low end of the American populous, he turns right around and does a favor for the rich to make damn sure they star far, far, FAR AHEAD. The favors for Wal-Mart and the banking industry come to mind immediately. Not to mention those done for filthy disgusting rich PIG individuals like Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, Tiger Woods, Beyonce, and Brad Pitt. He has done favors for all of the above who continue to concentrate wealth with no regard whatsoever for the distribution. When it's all said and done, the overall concentration is ongoing but not accelerating under Obama. It certainly would be if it weren't for those actions taken to support the low end.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is that Democrats are better at pretending as if they care about the poor. They act in the interests of the lower majority more often than Republicans because they are pressured to do so by their voters.
Again, your response on the issue of wealth distribution, like those of virtually all of my die-hard partisan critics was utterly predictable. In fact, I addressed your latest dum-fuk assumption regarding the issue even before you stated it yourself. That's right puppet. I specifically addressed your dum-fuk assumption regarding static wealth (the pie of predetermined size) in my previous entry. AGAIN, I have never implied that wealth is necessarily static. I've debated the issue of distribution many times and I've never implied that even once. Not even with the multiple references to the game of Monopoly. For anyone familiar with the game should know that wealth is 'created' with every improvement to properties held. Also, that more and more currency comes into play with each round.
However, anyone familiar with the game should also know that as more and more wealth is concentrated, the system begins to stall resulting in slower growth, less 'creation', reversed growth, and finally a dead stop.
Fortunately, the world's wealth will never be held entirely by one player or the richest 1%. Otherwise, it would result in the violent collapse of society itself. Blood would be spilled on a scale never seen before. However, because of greed, corruption, and the very concept of extreme personal wealth, most Americans and certainly most people worldwide are living as if they are the losing players in a game of Monopoly struggling to survive as the final few rounds are played.
You see, the 'creation' of net wealth isn't anywhere near as simple as the masses are led to believe by virtually every public figure. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as de-industrialization or the resulting red tape, neglected infrastructure, gang activity, ect. The ugly fact is that when new wealth is 'created' there is usually a lagging downside. A newly developed community here. A neglected community there. A new shopping center here. An abandoned shopping center there. A new mansion here. A dozen boarded up houses there. It's all related.
When it's all said and done, distribution matters. For you can not stabilize any economy of any size and concentrate it's wealth at the same time. It is mathematically impossible. For this reason, the majority of stimulus and 'welfare spending' dollars that so many of you die-hard partisans throw a bloody fit over are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, we would be in the midst of a severe depression already. One which would remain severe until significant measures were taken by government, the masses, or both to redistribute a portion of existing wealth and/or create 'net' wealth (again very tricky) to benefit the lower majority EXCLUSIVELY.
There is no other way to recover from an economic depression. There never has been and there never will be. Unless of course, a double digit portion of the lower majority is simply put to death. Even that would be a temporary measure. For the existing wealth would continue to concentrate.
Damn right I'm angry with my fellow citizens. The 'everyday people' you refer to. I care about the vast overwhelming majority but if it were within my power, I would wring their miserable necks for voluntarily giving so much of their money to the rich. If they hadn't done so, then we would not be in this mess. Our sold-out representatives and their lying pig pundits never would have become so corrupt. Our entire society would be much more stable and peaceful. Instead, those very few of us who truly understand socioeconomics have no choice but to watch society degrade as our efforts to inform the masses are met with colossal counter-efforts to make them even dumber than they already are.
Steve Jobs was not part of the solution. He was part of the problem. It didn't have to be that way. His field at one time, had the potential to work wonders. It had the potential to do far more good than harm. Instead, in large part because of him, we have a society truly obsessed not with the good that could have been achieved through technology, but with the gadgets themselves. It's gone way too far. If you don't see the problem I'm referring to, then like many others, you are blind.
I'm aware of the criticism of Greenspan. I'm also aware that he has been made a scapegoat by people like you. For the interest rates you refer to didn't cause the problem. Not even early on when Greenspan worked for your favorite President. Those rates have always been adjusted in response to carefully calculated trends and projections. Always with 'growth' in mind. The problem is that economic 'growth' doesn't necessarily benefit the masses. For the most part, it hasn't in nearly 40 years. In fact, the middle and lower classes were much better off when we had a much smaller but also more just economy. I do however, give Greenspan credit for finally addressing the issue of distribution in the spring of '05'.
The era following WWII is a different story entirely. There was unprecedented 'growth'. But again, the masses benefited from a significant redistribution of wealth. I can not emphasize this enough.
Still, you people seem hell-bent on dumbing America down even further with your repeated calls for 'growth'. Newsflash: We already have, BY FAR, the largest economy in the world. It is the largest by every relevant measure including per capita. So tell me, how much more must it 'grow' before the lower majority finally benefit?
That's a serious question. Answer it.
There you go again. Assuming that I'm a fan of Al Gore. Of course, I believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but not because of Al Gore. Because of the science involved. In particular because of two facts. The two which I find the most compelling as a free thinker. My guess is that you can't guess either one of them. Go ahead and try. Make two more dum-fuk assumptions. I'll be happy to call them out or give you an ounce of credit in the unlikely event that you guess either one of them. I'll even drop two clues which I will follow up on with my next reply:
#1. Rate.
#2. Altitude.
Those clues are damn near dead giveaways. Again, they represent the two facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming which I find the most compelling. I have yet to hear or read a decent attempt to refute them.
Damn right Al Gore is a hypocrite. Damn right he is a profiteer. Damn right he is a pig. If you were anything but a partisan puppet, you would have expected me to acknowledge this. Instead, you made yet another dum-fuk assumption.
Unfortunately, the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
I'm aware of the Einstein quote regarding insanity. It's been thrown in my face many times. I'm also aware that it doesn't apply to me. For I'm not posting all over the web hoping to resolve a single issue effecting the masses. I'm posting all over the web fully expecting to help offset the relentless efforts of others to dumb down my fellow citizens with more DIE-HARD PARTISAN CRAP. That, I've done well. That, I will continue to do until the day I die.
If any of you partisan pigs hope to break my will, then you will have to break my neck first. You sure as hell can't intimidate me, confuse me, or overwhelm me. Not a chance.
That doesn't make me a narcissist. My focus is on the issues. My contempt for people like you and the arrogant tone I often use with people like you have nothing to do with a desire to feel important. They have everything to do with a desire to expose you people for what you truly are. PARTISAN PUPPETS. This, to help offset your relentless efforts to dumb down my fellow citizens.
You want me to consider the possibility that you are anything but an utterly predictable partisan puppet? Fine. Name one significant campaign issue on which you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans. Then explain why. Make it sincere. No tricks or word games. Just name the issue and then explain why you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans on that particular issue. Do that, and I will gladly acknowledge the possibility that you have the capability of free thought.
By the way, I agree with Republicans almost entirely on the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, voter registration, and the mandates of Obamacare.
I've already proven myself to be an unaffiliated free thinker. I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to indicate anything but die-hard partisanship on your part.
You should have known better than to expect I would give a damn about spelling errors. I didn't check, I didn't notice, and I almost never make reference to them.
Next.
No comments:
Post a Comment