Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[KingOrfeo]

Obama believes his own lies . . .

No, that was W too. Joke they used to tell in the UK during the W years: "George Washington was the President who could not tell a lie, Richard Nixon was the President who could not tell the truth, and George Bush is the President who cannot tell the difference."

 

[KingOrfeo]

DanLongCoooooch mentions all the shit the government shouldn't be involved with in the first place.

Are you suggesting the government should not be involved with the economy, stupid? That would be neither wise nor possible.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're a Canadian, get the fuck out of here, it's none of your fucking business.

America is the world's #1 superpower military and economic, therefore American business is everybody's business because it is everybody's problem.

 

[Que]

America is the world's #1 superpower military and economic, therefore American business is everybody's business because it is everybody's problem.

You are thinking of China. This administration has met the campaign promise of not being the #1 military superpower. As an added bonus we are no longer the economic one either.

 

[Liar]

You are thinking of China. This administration has met the campaign promise of not being the #1 military superpower. As an added bonus we are no longer the economic one either.

Not sure if flippant, or just plain stupid.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You are thinking of China. This administration has met the campaign promise of not being the #1 military superpower. As an added bonus we are no longer the economic one either.

We're still the country with the largest GDP (beaten only by the-EU-as-a-whole) and we still spend more on defense than the next eleven (at least) biggest spenders combined.

 

[Que]

Not sure if flippant, or just plain stupid.

Are you of the opinion that The US could, given it's current commitments and deployments deploy a force anywhere right now to do anything of strategic importance should it need to?

We CAN still nuke people, but short of playing "Thermonuclear Annihilationus"...we are second to China now in readiness...possibly third behind Russia. Our stated levels will soon be permanently below China.. We have the least number of ships since before world war II.

Economically I exaggerate, China isn't projected to pass us till next month.

We're still the country with the largest GDP (beaten only by the-EU-as-a-whole) and we still spend more on defense than the next eleven (at least) biggest spenders combined.

No China this year will have the largest GDP. We do have the nicest (and by FAR the most expensive) military toys. The ones that aren't mothballed. We DO spend prodigiously. I don;t doubt your number on that is in the ballpark historically...we have what halved it and halved it again...I don't dispute that that is probably a good thing. We were making defense contractors very rich from an unholy alliance of (usually Republicans) in bed with the defense contractor of WHAT to build and (usually Democrats) in bed with the defense contractors over WHERE to build it.

PS China's economy is not growing by leaps and bounds because they finally figured out a way to remove that awful income gap through better 'spreading of wealth around...." No they are letting capitalism sneak in.

 

[Adre]

You are thinking of China. This administration has met the campaign promise of not being the #1 military superpower. As an added bonus we are no longer the economic one either.

Which reminds me, you never answered my question the other day. You probably did not see it, but you stated that China had just surpassed us. I asked, in what way seeing that our per capita GDP is 500% of theirs? So, I ask again, how did China surpass us?

 

[Que]

Which reminds me, you never answered my question the other day. You probably did not see it, but you stated that China had just surpassed us. I asked, in what way seeing that our per capita GDP is 500% of theirs? So, I ask again, how did China surpass us?

You just answered it. Per capita means per person. We make more each than they...they make more overall...there are a lot of them.

I digging for a CITE in case I want to bother arguing with Uleven who concedes nothing, ever...I was trying to find the numbers.

It looks like the projection for next month is based on the actual reported current exchange rate for Dollars to Yuan with no adjustments to purchasing power on reported monthly GDP numbers.

In reading up on it just now it appears in real terms it actually happened possibly as early as 2010, but certainly by 2011 if you take the actual purchasing power of each currency in goods available in the other's country.

That gets complicated but think of it this way, a gold doubloon would buy a LOT more of everything in china than in the US. So using your 500% number 5 Chinese persons would have on average the ability to purchase the same amount of goods that 1 American would. I actually read your 500% is low..it may be a factor of 8.

I assume that means the population of China is roughly 8 times US population? I dunno. It may be more complicated than that because that may be measures of productivity that I don't speak the lingo. person-weeks? robo-weeks? No idea.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Adre]

You are thinking of China. This administration has met the campaign promise of not being the #1 military superpower. As an added bonus we are no longer the economic one either.

Well, while we're about the business of defining things, are you saying that China is now the military superpower of the world? Do you have evidence for this, have they proven this on a battlefield somewhere, and was it reported in the news?

 

[Adre]

You just answered it. Per capita means per person. We make more each than they...they make more overall...there are a lot of them.

I digging for a CITE in case I want to bother arguing with Uleven who concedes nothing, ever...I was trying to find the numbers.

It looks like the projection for next month is based on the actual reported current exchange rate for Dollars to Yuan with no adjustments to purchasing power on reported monthly GDP numbers.

In reading up on it just now it appears in real terms it actually happened possibly as early as 2010, but certainly by 2011 if you take the actual purchasing power of each currency in goods available in the other's country.

That gets complicated but think of it this way, a gold doubloon would buy a LOT more of everything in china than in the US. So using your 500% number 5 Chinese persons would have on average the ability to purchase the same amount of goods that 1 American would. I actually read your 500% is low..it may be a factor of 8.

I assume that means the population of China is roughly 8 times US population? I dunno. It may be more complicated than that because that may be measures of productivity that I don't speak the lingo. person-weeks? robo-weeks? No idea.

Thanks for responding, I'll go with per capita as a better gauge for efficiency, productivity and innovation when it comes to economic prowess. I mean, if one football team has 11 players on the field and the other has 50, I think the outcome is pretty easy to predict.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Adre]

If we go down our present path, they will be at some point. They are challenging our navy on the seas as we speak. The CinCPac has testified to this on several occasions. But liberals don't listen because they think our military is the problem. Warnings about Japan in the 30s were poo pooed by liberals as well, we had to learn a terrible lesson, a lesson lost on the weak sisters that run the country now.

Thanks, but that was not my question or his assertion. As I've said before, I'm more interested in today's reality than tomorrow's guess.

 

[garbage can]

Many of your Dem comrades don't think it even rises to scandal level.

Well, of course it doesn't. You don't really think so either, do you?

I think the Benghazi incident was a tragedy, I think the coverup is a scandal.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

Are you of the opinion that The US could, given it's current commitments and deployments deploy a force anywhere right now to do anything of strategic importance should it need to?

The US has more than the capacity to do so. The question is whether it has the will.

 

[Que]

The US has more than the capacity to do so. The question is whether it has the will.

We used to...even is we thought it was a great idea we cannot for example move enough enough stratego pieces to send even one division to the Ukrane without violating current treaties about forces left to protect this or that cold war commitment, Korea, and all the rest.

If we could pull all of our pieces back into the box and start over from scratch we are pretty capable still, but they are pretty far flung....when we scale back we don't close bases and sever commitments like the military would want to. It goes according to political favors.

 

[Que]

Thanks for responding, I'll go with per capita as a better gauge for efficiency, productivity and innovation when it comes to economic prowess. I mean, if one football team has 11 players on the field and the other has 50, I think the outcome is pretty easy to predict.

It's more like 11 to 88...and....

...yeah the 11 get creamed. It happened to us in Korea.

When you have to build an aircraft carrier, it doesnt care if it was paid for by 11 thousand men or 50 thousand men.

And not for nothing they can probably build aircraft carriers planes tanks and missiles for a lot less actual dollars than we can through our military industrial complex procurement processes, and union scale wages...

I think they are enjoying watching us implode and would see no need to waste capital for example attacking us...but they can have and will take back little morsels that they see as theirs and we wont have a thing to say about it.

Which might be just as well. perhaps it isnt out business...but we could not launch the invasion of Iraq today even if there was the will.

and again...maybe that is a good thing.

 

[Que]

PS... MR. Poster(s)! We Need To Get Back TO Benghazi

 

[unregistered]

 

[dan_c00000]

Yes, let's get back to it. I want to see who the special counsel will be. We need a pit bull terrier.

Evidence might help to. Of course you need that first. Why don't you start with the Senate report? It's only a 85 pages. Have someone read it to you.

 

[Que]

Yes, let's get back to it. I want to see who the special counsel will be. We need a pit bull terrier.

I don't think at this point they have or need one...trey gowdy is an actual former prosecutor though se has experience putting together complex cases and organizing exhibits and witnesses to make a cogent case. He also will be ready for all of the irrelevant distractions. He was a good choice.

Evidence might help to. Of course you need that first. Why don't you start with the Senate report? It's only a 85 pages. Have someone read it to you.

Yes that would be pretty thin, since it was only done as cover by a democratic party led senate. Harry Reid isn't exactly known for shining truth and light into the dark corners of DNC misdeeds.

Still waiting for him to back up the "scandal" he claimed about Romney's taxes. If this was Bush, I assure you a senate report would run more than 75 pages. Of opening statement.

 

[RjThoughts]

I don't think at this point they have or need one...trey gowdy is an actual former prosecutor though se has experience putting together complex cases and organizing exhibits and witnesses to make a cogent case. He also will be ready for all of the irrelevant distractions. He was a good choice.

So where's the ones looking into the Iraq bullshit?

 

[Que]

So where's the ones looking into the Iraq bullshit?

Like the Pelosi committees? I believe Obama said it best...elections have consequences.

Nice knuckle-ball, Thanks for playing!