My decades of being a staunch Independent are history
-
He doesn't have to say shit till 2024..
So for now, he's a puppy on a leash.
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
That's complete bullshit for a lot of folks who happen to think Trump is a lousy president, as big a slimeball as Clinton, and his vindictiveness is showing right on through...
Glad your 401 is doing great, I am too.
don't be like woody, give us one example of how he is not being a Real American promise keeping president.
(and look at the tens of thousands who go to his rallies....)
don't be like woody, give us one example of how he is not being a Real American promise keeping president.
(and look at the tens of thousands who go to his rallies....)
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
-
don't be like woody, give us one example of how he is not being a Real American promise keeping president.
(and look at the tens of thousands who go to his rallies....)
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion+/year to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
-
He doesn't have to say shit till 2024..
So for now, he's a puppy on a leash.
The locals will forget all this when he mentions the coal fairy in 2024.
-
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion+/year to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
-
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion+/year to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
Romney is a Mormon, hardly a christian.
-
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
Romney is a Mormon, hardly a christian.
Romney is a Mormon, hardly a christian.
Well then he has something in common with the anti-Christ in charge.??
EDIT: Hmmm, I wonder why this is here then.
Moroni 10:32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."
-
-
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
-
LOL! I bet you bought his car too snce you are buying his BS.?
-
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You are the one putting Romney on a moral character pedestal. I have never done that with Trump. My support for Trump has always been for his policies such as pro life and religious freedoms. His economic policies have been good and our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.He has been good on veterans issues and made our country energy independent. Under his watch all the territory ISIS had taken over was taken back. He has an amazing list of achievements in a little over 3 years.
The same hypocritical lefties who are praising Romney today for his "moral courage" are the ones who called him a racist, tax cheater, woman hater and animal abuser when he ran for president.
Mitt Romney is not ‘principled’ — and he never has been
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mitt-romney-is-not-principled-and-he-never-has-been
-
Romney is a Mormon, hardly a christian.
Well then he has something in common with the anti-Christ in charge.??
EDIT: Hmmm, I wonder why this is here then.
Moroni 10:32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."
Well then he has something in common with the anti-Christ in charge.??
EDIT: Hmmm, I wonder why this is here then.
Moroni 10:32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."
Who is Moroni?
-
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You are the one putting Romney on a moral character pedestal. I have never done that with Trump. My support for Trump has always been for his policies such as pro life and religious freedoms. His economic policies have been good and our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.He has been good on veterans issues and made our country energy independent. Under his watch all the territory ISIS had taken over was taken back. He has an amazing list of achievements in a little over 3 years.
The same hypocritical lefties who are praising Romney today for his "moral courage" are the ones who called him a racist, tax cheater, woman hater and animal abuser when he ran for president.
Mitt Romney is not ‘principled’ — and he never has been
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mitt-romney-is-not-principled-and-he-never-has-been
our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
edit: Be willing to bet that I could find thousands of "we have the greatest military evvvaaaa" posts on this board if I went back through the last decade of history as well.
-
our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
edit: Be willing to bet that I could find thousands of "we have the greatest military evvvaaaa" posts on this board if I went back through the last decade of history as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
-
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
edit: Worth noting, the budget was still high despite the bi-partisan Congressional support for Military Pension cuts that began to be outlined in 2013.Patriots all around, indeed.
-
don't be like woody, give us one example of how he is not being a Real American promise keeping president.
(and look at the tens of thousands who go to his rallies....)
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion ... “Sending the world's leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash or Tumps wall?
-
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
edit: Worth noting, the budget was still high despite the bi-partisan Congressional support for Military Pension cuts that began to be outlined in 2013.Patriots all around, indeed.
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
-
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
-
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
-
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login