Monthly Archives: October 2014

Do Republicans benefit from defense spending? If so, how?

the Pigs of War.

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Cheney
Halliburton
++$39 Billion (that we know about… shhh…)

‚Äč
http://leaksource.info/2013/04/08/contractors-reap-138-billion-from-iraq-war-cheneys-halliburton-1-with-39-5-billion/

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

Halliburton/Kellog, Brown and Root (KBR) ++$17 Billion in Fraud in just a few years…
This is just one company out of dozens… do I really need to say more?
Yes?
Ok, here:
http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

http://itzyourzradio.com/group/knowledge-talk/page/war-profiteering-

If you're not completely outraged, you are required not paying attention!

Do Republicans benefit from defense spending? If so, how?

What causes a person to shift political party alignment?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Here's my story of how I became a DINO.

The year was 1981 and I'd been registered Republican since I went into the Navy at 17, two years prior.

The party brass came up with this economic "theory" (yes, I'm being very generous here) called Trickle Down Econimics. This sounded really reasonable on its face until I took a hard look at what policies would be required under this "theory" in our Consumer Driven Society.

It was a blatant con game. So… being a caring and fairly smart Citizen who saw My representatives going down the wrong path, I assembled the evidence and ran the math on what those policies would result in.

Boy, was I ever wrong! I was far too conservative (by almost two orders of magnitude) in the estimates I used to dispute this policy.

I took this 30 pages of evidence to the party brass, presented everything, and completely, logically, shredded the "theory" (with numbers and charts to support). I got a call about a week later asking me to.present it again for some higher ups in the party.  I did and after I was done there were drawn, weary, annoyed (and some scared ones too) faces throughout the room.  The Grand Pobahs pulled me into a back room and basically told me to shut up about this, using numerous appeals to authority, I declined and was told (point blank) to "Either toe the Party Line or get out." Needless to say I became a bit impolite at this point. I think the mildest term I used was "liars and theives."

Two days later I got called into my C.O.s office (whom I hadn't spoken to about this) and got dressed down for "causing trouble for the folks who support Us."

I walked out of his office, finished my shift, and registered as a Democrat the next day.

*Fast forward to 1985*
I'd been out of the Navy for almost two years now…
The Democratic party brass started talking about an amnesty for illegal aliens being "necessary as a matter of fairness."

I got to thinking about this, and while I agreed on one level , I had major reservations because it didn't address the obvious issue of rewarding folks who had actively and intentionally bid defiance to our laws.
It also completely ignored the issues of these claim jumpers lowering pay rates for those in the construction industry by being willing to take work "under the table" at substantially lower pay rates (often 1/3 lower), and by glutting the labor pool.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

So… same process, different people. I ultimately left in complete and utter disgust.

Today I'm what would be called a DINO. I'm registered Democrat, but often vote against them, especially on financial matters like bond issues.
I've also voted against some State democratic representatives for their policy of "offering" tax breaks to multinational corporations instead of supporting small businesses (which provide +85% of all US jobs).

If it weren't for a closed (and intentionally rigged) primary process I would be registered Independent.

The only Democrat I've actually supported (voted for without holding my nose tightly) is Jeff Merkley.
The Democratic party keeps begging me for donations and I've given not in dime to them, nor shall I.  I do give to support individual campaigns and issues (like GMO labling) but, so far as I'm concerned I'd be just as happy to see both sets of  party brass starve to death!

In other races I've consistently voted Alternate party (neither Democrat nor Republican candidates).

The simple Fact is that the brass of both major parties have been actively working against the interests of Citizens and Our Constitution for well over 50 years now, and it's long past time for a Citizens uprising to make progressive applications of tar and feathers to Our so-called  "representatives" in Congress.

What causes a person to shift political party alignment?

Why does the United States need a military navy?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Yes, we need a standing Navy for a number of reasons:

1) It is Our First Line of defense for any attempt any invasion.

2) It secures our shipping lanes.

3) It provides a "well" of military experience which can be drawn upon.

 What we don't need is a standing Army which is why the founding fathers limited authorizations for the US Army to two years at a time.

The following is an addition (slightly off topic but applicable) resulting from a discussion in comments:

Here's why I make these assertions: Johnson handed Nixon had a perfectly good plan to end the Vietnam War. Nixon scuttled it until the whole nation rose up and demanded an end to the war.

Cui Bono? (Who profited from this):
It wasn't the Citizens who got stuck with the bills for the war.

It wasn't the nation which took a huge hit in perception because of the war.

It wasn't the Constitution.
so who profited?
Arms manufacturers.

http://m.bbc.com/news/magazine-2…

We've been in a nearly continuious state of "police actions" (Aka war, under a new less henious, Orwellian name) ever since.

Now, since we've never been invaded, and the Army is specifically prohibited by Our Constitution from operating within the nation, except under vertical limited circumstances; where is the valid logical argument for a large military?  Especially considering the words of Hirohito, when he was asked why they (one of the most warlike, effective, nations we had ever faced in theatre) didn't invade the US… "There is a gun behind every blade of grass."

This takes us right back to the same old Question: Cui Bono?!

Bottom line: There is zero Constitutionally, nationally, or logically, valid reason for maintaining a massive Army (which causes us to spend more than the next 14 "big spenders combined when 1/5 that cost would protect us very nicely) unless you take a long hard look at who profits from this standing Army (which was strictly limited by the Constitution to two years and then everyone but a few officers goes home).

So… Cui Bono?
Halliburton (Cheney and Bush owned) … +$39 Billion that we know about of which hundreds of millions *Poof* *vanished* due to "accounting errors."

G.E.

Electric Boat

Dow Chemical

Xe. (Or whatever they're calling themselves now in order to evade legitimate prosecution for their war crimes and murders)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…

http://politicalblindspot.com/ye…

Other Mercenaries (conveniently called "security forces" by our Orwellian government)

Wall Street (Despite their very loud assertions they absolutely adore "uncertainty"… so long as they can plan for it)

K Street (funneling "contributions" to politicians for over 50 years)

And these guys… some of the most "generous" bribers of Our Congress:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014…

http://www.businesspundit.com/th…

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OGP…

These are the only folks who profit from wars. 

Everyone else… US Citizens, the Nation, Our Constitution, the so called "enemy"(entirely created by US Top Secret meddling), gets completely and utterly screwed (without the benefits of a kiss or butter).

I see good valid reasons for keeping a few thousand officers trained and ready, I don't see any legal, or valid reason for hundreds of thousands of soldiers to be "Standing by" "just in case" for an event which has never happened, and is extremely unlikely to happen for several reasons.

1) There really is a gun behind every blade of grass from any invaders' perspective.

2) Whatever our differences Americans pull together when attacked… that's a truly frightening prospect to anyone considering such a foolish action, and everyone knows it.

3) Supply line logistics are completely horrendous.

4) Consider what would happen were an army actually to attempt to land on our shores! Let's say 10,000 or so… Every single "gun nut" in the nation (hundreds of thousands easily) would be on site in days. Many, many of those folks have military experience.

5) The only practical way would be N.B.C. weapons which would trigger mutually assured destruction… Game Over.

So where is the logical justification for a large standing Army if we remove corporate profits of Congressional Bribers from the equation?

There isn't one.

Why does the United States need a military navy?

Why is it offensive to claim that those who don’t follow Jesus are going to hell?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Nope, I don't find it offensive to assert that I'm going to a mythical place when I die, for hurting the feelers of some poor little omnipresent, pedantic, psychopathic, capricious "god".

What I  absolutely do find deeply offensive is the implied (and sometimes outright) assertion behind that statement, which says:

"You must live Our way because you aren't competent to determine your own morals."

I've got a Major Problem with that bit of flagrant bull crap and, by extension, anyone who makes such an assertion.

Why is it offensive to claim that those who don't follow Jesus are going to hell?

“Only God can be a true atheist because there is actually no one superior to Him. All other self-proclaimed atheists are pseudo-atheists….

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Mmmm… wow.
Ok… now that I'm done laughing and spraying a mouthfull of coffee all over everything, at the sheer silliness and gross intentional logical errors in the question; let's back up and take a nice logical look at it with a brief application of Occam's Razor.

I think you've just proven my atheism to be entirely valid and correct.

Here's why:
So far in this universe, with the rules and natural laws it now operates under… we know that God only exists by belief.  We can prove this by a very simple, brief, application of Occam's Razor:

There have been some ++2500 "Gods" over the course of history that we know of (including the omnipotent one of Christianity, and Judaism).

These gods no longer (apparently) exist… except by belief in them.

So, we can pretty reasonably assert that all "gods" only manifest their existence through belief in them.

This totally explains the theists assertion that "We must have faith in order to be able to see the works of God in action"!!
It also (inconveniently for theists) confirms my theory by their own beliefs and words! (Oops!)

Thus (and I see this as an entirely possible, if equally unprovable, event)
Were God to be an atheist by disbelieving in its existence then *POOF! gone* it, logically, no longer exists.

I would also note that were I in its shoes (or whatever gods wear) and had such an option as a valid alternative to watching My followers rape, pillage, assault, molest, and torture others "in My Name" for millenia; I would take it quickly.

This leads us to a reasonable supposition which explains so many things about God which at first blush appear nonsensical at first look.

That's precisely what happened:
God did exist, and accurate records were written about that time.  These records survived, but God after some thousands (I'm gonna say 6,000 years) of years of watching its' followers act completely and utterly insane towards anyone who had even slightly different beliefs (over and over and over…) held its breath, decided to not believe in itself, and *POOFED* OUT OF EXISTENCE, leaving behind those records. (Oops!)

Using Occam's Razor this explains perfectly why:

The US Congress of 2001 wasn't buried in a perfect storm of tar and feathers when the violated their sacred Oath to protect the Constitution by passing the USA "PATRIOT" Act.

Why child molester priests, and their protectors weren't stricken with some incredibly painful dreaded wasting disease.

Why Westborough Baptist Church followers weren't repeatedly struck by lightning each time they violated the teachings of Christ (specifically the parable of the log and the dust mote and Johns' specific injunction against judgement) by protesting at a Veterans' funeral.

Why charlatan "faith healers" working for "donations" in Gods Name, aren't stricken with the very afflictions they claim to cure, and don't.

Why these same charlatans aren't stricken with abject, unrelenting, poverty and starvation when they leave a garbage can of $1 and $5 donation checks in the dumpster because "They're too much trouble to cash." (Yes… I've seen them do this last one repeatedly).

Edit after OP edit of details:
Nice attempt at front-loading the question to force the "Answer" you want.

"Only God can be a true atheist because there is actually no one superior to Him. All other self-proclaimed atheists are pseudo-atheists….

Why are people so subtly mean on Quora?

Answer by Karen Tiede:

Maybe they simply see themselves as blunt, or honest, or straightforward.

Someone–you?–challenged one of my answers recently.  "Do you really think that's an appropriate thing to say?" 

"Yes, I do," I replied, and left it at that.

I am not one to coddle.  I am not "mean," at least in my own mind, and at the same time, I am not one to coddle, to swaddle, to wrap up in cotton.

Dump the deadbeat, get rid of the GF whose causing problems, quit drinking, get a better job.  Why beat around the bush?

One Quoran's "kind" is another Quoran's "obfuscation."

Why are people so subtly mean on Quora?

How did you become a neo-Jeffersonian?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

I grew up reading Jefferson, and found his writings and ideas simply made sense to me.

I'm also partial to the writings of Thomas Payne.

I've always leaned this way since my first readings of the Virginia Constitution and the US Constitution. This latest resurgence of the ideas of Jefferson is the first time I've had a handy name to apply to that set of ideas.

For me the US Constitution is (when read and considered as a whole… including the preamble, and amendments, excepting the 16th and 27th) an assertion, a demand, a set of Principals, and an attempt to insure that the government works only for the Citizens, or not at all.

It's something I got to see the tail end of as a young man in the activism of the 1970s', and haven't seen since.

With just a very few exceptions, Our Constitution is about binding Our government in the chains of Law so that it has no choice but to work for the good of the Citizens, the Nation and Our Constitution.

Those chains of Law have been corroded and intentionally broken by the acid of greedy men seeking power over their fellows.  If this nation is to continue we must drag Our Congress (kicking and screaming bloody murder as they will) back to the bounds of power and the Principals of Our Constitution.

That process is now begining with the Move to Amend actions going on across the nation in response to Citizens United.

How did you become a neo-Jeffersonian?