Obama's pick to Pentagon leader sides with Romney about Russia

[lowell]

Marine Corps General Joseph Dumford was asked about which country is the greatest threat to U.S. Security.
His answer was Russia. Same answer Romney gave in 2012 debate.
Romney was laughed at by the left for not knowing much about world politics.
Now Obama who called ISIS a JV team appoints a general who also believes what Romney stated 3 years ago.
486 Is the number of days until he is gone.

 

[Skulnik]

:0074

 

[fatdaddycool]

The greatest threat to the United States is hands down the Republican party

 

[Dead Money]

Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World

Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World

The Pentagon has released its ?National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015,? June 2015.

The document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to ?state actors? that ?are challenging international norms.? It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington?s policies. These ?revisionist states? are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington.

Be sure to grasp the point: The threat is the existence of sovereign states, whose independence of action makes them ?revisionist states.? In other words, their independence is out of step with the neoconservative Uni-power doctrine that declares independence to be the right of Washington alone. Washington?s History-given hegemony precludes any other country being independent in its actions.

rest here...http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...e-unless-conquers-world-paul-craig-roberts-3/

and here http://news.usni.org/2015/07/02/document-2015-u-s-national-military-strategy

 

[Dead Money]

The greatest threat to the United States is hands down the Republican party

Yes, I for one, sense the giddy glee of people with intelligence just cringing with happiness at the thought of a Hillary led nation.

Her myopic world view will have future generations wandering vast nuclear wastelands looking for any edible protein source.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Yes, I for one, sense the giddy glee of people with intelligence just cringing with happiness at the thought of a Hillary led nation.

Her myopic world view will have future generations wandering vast nuclear wastelands looking for any edible protein source.

Is there no way to communicate your opinion without making ridiculously inane assertions without any clear basis or history to support them? Just curious.

One can clearly point to all the recent failures of Republican policy, whether it be destructive foreign policy or gutting the middle class economic policies. Republican leadership leads to recession and war.

 

[Dead Money]

Is there no way to communicate your opinion without making ridiculously inane assertions without any clear basis or history to support them? Just curious.

One can clearly point to all the recent failures of Republican policy, whether it be destructive foreign policy or gutting the middle class economic policies. Republican leadership leads to recession and war.

Call it a particular disdain for the
Clinton machine and politics in America as they exist in their current form.
Republicans had a lot of help getting the country to the point were at now, Democrats get no free pass as you wish to freely hand out.

My assertion in this case is simple.....we as a people are unwillingly being led into a war time confrontation with Russia; its a great deflection of the recent accumulative economic failures.

We have been sucked into the middle east, with no exit.

The banksters, lobbyists, and their political cronies (Dems and Repubs alike) get rich, the middle class is in hock up to their eyeballs, and the poor will always be poor.

I see (God forgive) an ego driven, foreign owned Hillary in the White House, and its 4 more years of the same aimless strategies that have failed badly.

That is my personal take, period...:0008

 

[fatdaddycool]

Call it a particular disdain for the
Clinton machine and politics in America as they exist in their current form.
Republicans had a lot of help getting the country to the point were at now, Democrats get no free pass as you wish to freely hand out.

My assertion in this case is simple.....we as a people are unwillingly being led into a war time confrontation with Russia; its a great deflection of the recent accumulative economic failures.

We have been sucked into the middle east, with no exit.

The banksters, lobbyists, and their political cronies (Dems and Repubs alike) get rich, the middle class is in hock up to their eyeballs, and the poor will always be poor.

I see (God forgive) an ego driven, foreign owned Hillary in the White House, and its 4 more years of the same aimless strategies that have failed badly.

That is my personal take, period...:0008

This sounds different than "vast nuclear wastelands propagated by Hillary Clinton. How you choose Clinton as the president to disdain when he clearly was or most successful president in the last 40 years or so is beyond me but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. When opinion is bolstered by outrageous prediction, I generally don't regard it seriously. That's just me though. Hedge likes to do that as well. It hasn't worked out well for him.

 

[Dead Money]

This sounds different than "vast nuclear wastelands propagated by Hillary Clinton. How you choose Clinton as the president to disdain when he clearly was or most successful president in the last 40 years or so is beyond me but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. When opinion is bolstered by outrageous prediction, I generally don't regard it seriously. That's just me though. Hedge likes to do that as well. It hasn't worked out well for him.

Tough to debate an issue with a staunch Democrat looking thru rose colored glasses, so I won't.

Here is one of several responses to the Clinton Legacy it appears to me, he was the beneficiary of a perfect "storm" of good things happening during his tenure.



"A friend recently wrote to suggest that Bill Clinton has gotten far too much credit for his budget surpluses. All he did, my friend told me, was to cut Reagan?s defense spending. Reagan?s massive expansion of the Department of Defense, he suggested, had succeeded in destroying the Soviet Union. By the time Clinton was elected, the need for such massive spending was no longer necessary.

In fact, Clinton benefited immensely from cutting Reagan?s massive expenditures, as did his predecessor, George H.W. Bush. But there is very little evidence to suggest that U.S. defense spending hastened the collapse of the USSR. Furthermore, Clinton benefited mostly from the economic boom during his presidency"

rest here, http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/04/should-reagan-get-credit-for-bill-clintons-budget-surplus/


You only singled out one of my comments to key on,I really would like your take on the others.

I see today Mrs Clinton is going to be talking about a "shared economy" vision.
Codeword for..... "Who is going to pay for all this free stuff?"

 

[fatdaddycool]

Tough to debate an issue with a staunch Democrat looking thru rose colored glasses, so I won't.

Here is one of several responses to the Clinton Legacy it appears to me, he was the beneficiary of a perfect "storm" of good things happening during his tenure.



"A friend recently wrote to suggest that Bill Clinton has gotten far too much credit for his budget surpluses. All he did, my friend told me, was to cut Reagan?s defense spending. Reagan?s massive expansion of the Department of Defense, he suggested, had succeeded in destroying the Soviet Union. By the time Clinton was elected, the need for such massive spending was no longer necessary.

In fact, Clinton benefited immensely from cutting Reagan?s massive expenditures, as did his predecessor, George H.W. Bush. But there is very little evidence to suggest that U.S. defense spending hastened the collapse of the USSR. Furthermore, Clinton benefited mostly from the economic boom during his presidency"

rest here, http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/04/should-reagan-get-credit-for-bill-clintons-budget-surplus/


You only singled out one of my comments to key on,I really would like your take on the others.

I see today Mrs Clinton is going to be talking about a "shared economy" vision.
Codeword for..... "Who is going to pay for all this free stuff?"

I don't see how cutting defense spending and reducing federal outlays, which Reagan vastly increased, is the result of a "natural catastrophe"? That makes no sense as there is absolutely no way to reasonably assume that the economic boom was going to happen regardless. I do appreciate the author's research and accounting skills but that doesn't mean his editorial is fact, simply because he chooses to ignore Clinton's contributions to the great economic growth we enjoyed during his tenure.

As to your second point, it is also steeped in conjecture. I have neither heard nor seen all her policies or plans on "shared economy" so to assume that they will drive debt and deficit is not reasonable.

Here's what I have a problem with when it comes to these discussions. Those that look only to denigrate one ideology when their own party is equally if not more culpable in the practice they're attempting to propagate continuously use supposition and conjecture as structured support for their argument. The FACT is that Clinton reduced spending and increased revenue. That's what happened, there was no predicted and unchangeable anomaly that did that, just like there was no tidal wave that couldn't be avoided that caused Bush jr to drive us straight into a recession. He spent more money and started wars that cost money. That's it, that shit happened. I'm always curious as to why in the hell someone that has no problem with their tax dollars funding 70 some investigations into Benghazi, 40 or 50 attempts to repeal the ACA, emails, and all the other crap the GOP has spent billions in public funds on would ever argue economic policy. It literally astounds me how willing they are to simply ignore fact in favor of fiction.

While you may think that Hillary is going to install socialism and you're suddenly going to see immense tax increases, I do not see any logical support for it. Her husband had great policy and a surplus, I can't foresee her wanting anything less than the same.

Hope this helps,
FDC

 

[StevieD]

I wouldn't belive any general about anything these days. Didn't they all say Iraq woulod be a cake walk? Arent they the brains behind a couple of non winable wears? Stupid bunch of pricks if you ask me.

 

[hedgehog]

The greatest threat to the United States is hands down the Republican party

you are a special kind of idiot :facepalm:

 

[fatdaddycool]

you are a special kind of idiot :facepalm:

High praise indeed coming from you.

You are a threat to our nation hedge. You're the low guy who's score gets dropped when calculating the curve. You're the one that teachers always had to say"we need to move on, if you need more help stay after class" to.
You're the bad cholesterol. Everything about you is well below average. People like you are a drain on society and we'd all benefit if you left.

Hope this helps,
FDC