John Durham - Making a killing and finding nothing since 2018.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Not that I approve of excessive spending, but Reagan was forced to rebuild the country that Carter had worked so hard to destroy. I personally saw the damage Carter did to the military since I went on active duty in 1981.  By 1989 Reagan had defeated the USSR without firing a shot.  HW was no conservative but that's easy. Both houses were democrat majorities during that time.

I wasn't aware democrats cared anything about ethics, so why you even bring it up? The truth is Gingrich pushed Clinton to sign balanced budgets. It is just a fact. Nothing else needs to be said about his character or Hastert. I wish we had continued with balanced budgets. It is important to operate within your means at all levels. It can be done but no one has the will to do it.

how wonderful of you to give a thief and a ped a pass. and that is just Hastert. and all the crap newt did like messing around on his wife while she lay dying? and your nothing else needs to be said? if dennis and newt were dems you would be on them constantly and you know this. hell everyone in this thread knows it. have fun with that.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Carter cut training and logistics in the military. Flying wings and ground forces failed numerous operational readiness inspections due to his neglect.  Our armed forces were not combat ready. I was there. It took a a while but we got back to combat readiness under Reagan. Yes the rescue mission was tragic but a reflection on the readiness I spoke of earlier. 
 

It’s laughable that you think Carter did not damage the economy. Inflation gas

prices and shortages, interest rates outrageous, economic malaise. Nice try painting Carter as anything but a failure.  PHD in nuclear engineering but raising peanuts.  
 

Reagan armed contras against Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. It’s all dirty but we were on the right side. 
 

More ethical. LOL  You are right though democrats do talk about social programs. They just lie about their goals. Keep them dependent on the government and remind them who pays for their continuous poverty. Republican want to lift people out of poverty and make successes of them. Democrats don’t. They just want voters. 

I knew the man who planned the air operations for the hostage rescue.  He was not hindered by Carter.  He was hindered by the Air Force command.

Carter did not create the situation.  The economy was weak since Nixon's last two years in office.  The Arab oil embargo had nothing to do with Carter's policies or, abilities.

The Iran/Contra affair was purely corrupt and, purely illegal.  We were NOT on the right side.  One man decided we would participate regardless of what democracy clearly wanted.  It led to more human suffering.  It damaged our country and our military.

Sure, helping poor people hurts them.  That is honest and logical?  NO

[AU9377 4,960]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

How does Bill wonder in during a discussion of HRC? No, you are just HRC MAGA. Why did she get to testify to the FBI NOT UNDER OATH? Were Manafort, Flynn et al allowed to do that? Why not? Would you or I get to do that? How many people in the last 20 years got to testify NOT under oath to the FBI?

PLEASE FOCUS AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS....

That is a big red herring used by right wing media.  It is totally irrelevant, but I can answer the question.  The FBI doesn't place someone under oath when they are being questioned.  You don't need to be under oath to have a duty to provide accurate information to the FBI.  You can be charged with giving false information.

Once the FBI determines that there is enough evidence to bring Federal charges against someone, the matter is forwarded to the Attorney General for prosecution.  At that point, the individual to be charged and/or indicted will be required to appear for a deposition.  At that deposition, they will be represented by counsel and be under oath.  Being under oath only subjects them to being charged with pergury.  Simply put, Hillary wasn't testifying when she was questioned by the FBI, she was being interviewed.

As a practical matter, what Paul Manafort was accused of and pleaded guilty to is on a level of criminal behavior well beyond anything associated with Hillary's emails.

Edited March 17, 2022 by AU9377

[aubiefifty 16,803]

carter was the first prez to not get us caught up in a war in years. part of the stigma on carter was nothing more than he being from the south. and he was also one of the few honest pols we have ever had and that seems to mean so little to anyone anymore. and of course ronnie and the repukes closed the mental health facilities to save a buck and all that did was increase the homeless and keeping folks that need medical care in jail. our local sheriff even came out  a year or so ago and said it was a shame he had to keep those needing help in jails or even prison. and this includes vets. the hard proof of the failure of mental health help for our troops alone is our vets are killing themselves between 22 and 25 a month which is not acceptable. it is a damn shame.

[jj3jordan 2,054]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

how wonderful of you to give a thief and a ped a pass. and that is just Hastert. and all the crap newt did like messing around on his wife while she lay dying? and your nothing else needs to be said? if dennis and newt were dems you would be on them constantly and you know this. hell everyone in this thread knows it. have fun with that.

The comments were about budgets and surpluses. Newt and Denny directly influenced those. I did not introduce either ones fidelity or lack thereof. If that is an issue there are democrats who are guilty of this also. I was trying to discuss issues only without morality failings due to all involved from both parties being partakers. I understand that you are unable to discuss the budget issue because it doesn’t fit your position. It is a fact so you have to go after newt on something else. No worries it doesn’t change anything. Just normal ops for you when you have no answer.

[jj3jordan 2,054]

35 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I knew the man who planned the air operations for the hostage rescue.  He was not hindered by Carter.  He was hindered by the Air Force command.

Carter did not create the situation.  The economy was weak since Nixon's last two years in office.  The Arab oil embargo had nothing to do with Carter's policies or, abilities.

The Iran/Contra affair was purely corrupt and, purely illegal.  We were NOT on the right side.  One man decided we would participate regardless of what democracy clearly wanted.  It led to more human suffering.  It damaged our country and our military.

Sure, helping poor people hurts them.  That is honest and logical?  NO

You missed the point as usual. The overall training and proficiency was below standards during his entire presidency.  It is not a surprise something went wrong. I don’t know your friend but upon retrospect it doesn’t look like a very good plan.  Not sure what hundred by Air Force command means but don’t throw it out there without explaining what you mean.  It sounded like a cluster from beginning to end. 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

The comments were about budgets and surpluses. Newt and Denny directly influenced those. I did not introduce either ones fidelity or lack thereof. If that is an issue there are democrats who are guilty of this also. I was trying to discuss issues only without morality failings due to all involved from both parties being partakers. I understand that you are unable to discuss the budget issue because it doesn’t fit your position. It is a fact so you have to go after newt on something else. No worries it doesn’t change anything. Just normal ops for you when you have no answer.

There is a distinction though.  Only one party claims to push the idea of "family values".  Therefore, only one is hypocritical.  Only one holds a gun in one hand and, the Bible in the other.  Clearly hypocritical beyond the point of irony.

 

[aubiefifty 16,803]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

The comments were about budgets and surpluses. Newt and Denny directly influenced those. I did not introduce either ones fidelity or lack thereof. If that is an issue there are democrats who are guilty of this also. I was trying to discuss issues only without morality failings due to all involved from both parties being partakers. I understand that you are unable to discuss the budget issue because it doesn’t fit your position. It is a fact so you have to go after newt on something else. No worries it doesn’t change anything. Just normal ops for you when you have no answer.

not sorry because i will not give a ped credit for anything. they lose that when they molest kids.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

24 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

carter was the first prez to not get us caught up in a war in years. part of the stigma on carter was nothing more than he being from the south. and he was also one of the few honest pols we have ever had and that seems to mean so little to anyone anymore. and of course ronnie and the repukes closed the mental health facilities to save a buck and all that did was increase the homeless and keeping folks that need medical care in jail. our local sheriff even came out  a year or so ago and said it was a shame he had to keep those needing help in jails or even prison. and this includes vets. the hard proof of the failure of mental health help for our troops alone is our vets are killing themselves between 22 and 25 a month which is not acceptable. it is a damn shame.

I agree.  One of the worst political narratives ever pushed was the idea that Carter was a southern boob, too naive, too dumb to be an effective president.  Worse, that his character made him weak.

That narrative paved the way for those who believe "might makes right" and, ended this country believing in "right makes might".  It hurts our collective character.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You missed the point as usual. The overall training and proficiency was below standards during his entire presidency.  It is not a surprise something went wrong. I don’t know your friend but upon retrospect it doesn’t look like a very good plan.  Not sure what hundred by Air Force command means but don’t throw it out there without explaining what you mean.  It sounded like a cluster from beginning to end. 

 

Sure, that just magically happened when Carter took office and, just magically disappeared when he left.

The entire country was demoralized after Watergate.  That would be a more plausible reason.  Don't you agree.

 

I always understand your point.  Your point is beyond simplistic.  Republicans are good, Democrats are evil.

Your point is meaningless.  Your point is the problem.  Your point reflects common ignorance.  Your point has nothing to do with being informed or, patriotic.  Your point means nothing other than the fact that you have been influenced by propaganda and, you no longer think.  Free your mind, free yourself.  Nothing can change as long as peoples' minds are not their own.

 

[aubiefifty 16,803]

i blame the christian right for helping to bring down the numbers of membership in the christian faith. i wonder how jesus felt when they said trump was his second coming. and before anyone accuses me of making it up i watched some friends and people i know sell their christian soul to trump and that is fact. and people are not stupid. they see this and they turn away or they stay home and worship. peds have hurt religion as well and as much covering up they did or moving priests to another church to keep it quiet only for them to start up again is sickening. and then they come at you with faith. i applaud the ones that have finally seen through trump. grumps is one and i admire him so much for it. some folks on here give the peds a pass because they cam up with a budget they liked so they do not talk about the molester of children. hell they praise them and give them a pass. it is not unreasonable to say so and so came up with a great budget but the hell with him for hurting our children. we have them right here and right now on this board. you have seen me call them out and yet the peds get a pass. so they end up hurting parts of the platform their side claims are family values. and i will not apologize for these statements because to be honest they make me sick.

[DKW 86 7,426]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

That is a big red herring used by right wing media.  It is totally irrelevant, but I can answer the question.  The FBI doesn't place someone under oath when they are being questioned.  You don't need to be under oath to have a duty to provide accurate information to the FBI.  You can be charged with giving false information.

Once the FBI determines that there is enough evidence to bring Federal charges against someone, the matter is forwarded to the Attorney General for prosecution.  At that point, the individual to be charged and/or indicted will be required to appear for a deposition.  At that deposition, they will be represented by counsel and be under oath.  Being under oath only subjects them to being charged with pergury.  Simply put, Hillary wasn't testifying when she was questioned by the FBI, she was being interviewed.

As a practical matter, what Paul Manafort was accused of and pleaded guilty to is on a level of criminal behavior well beyond anything associated with Hillary's emails.

You mean those 30,000 missing emails? You read them all huh? 

[jj3jordan 2,054]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Sure, that just magically happened when Carter took office and, just magically disappeared when he left.

The entire country was demoralized after Watergate.  That would be a more plausible reason.  Don't you agree.

 

I always understand your point.  Your point is beyond simplistic.  Republicans are good, Democrats are evil.

Your point is meaningless.  Your point is the problem.  Your point reflects common ignorance.  Your point has nothing to do with being informed or, patriotic.  Your point means nothing other than the fact that you have been influenced by propaganda and, you no longer think.  Free your mind, free yourself.  Nothing can change as long as peoples' minds are not their own.

 

No it wasn't magic. It was a purposeful reduction of the military power of our country. After Vietnam when the troops came home, insulted and spit on by democrats, not republicans, Carter minimized our military and yes it did happen quickly. I don't know what mythical stories you have read that in some way claim that Carter did not seriously reduce the combat readiness of our military.  It did not magically disappear when Carter left. It took years to recover but the build up restored what Carter let dwindle.  I am informed. I lived it. 

[jj3jordan 2,054]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i blame the christian right for helping to bring down the numbers of membership in the christian faith. i wonder how jesus felt when they said trump was his second coming. and before anyone accuses me of making it up i watched some friends and people i know sell their christian soul to trump and that is fact. and people are not stupid. they see this and they turn away or they stay home and worship. peds have hurt religion as well and as much covering up they did or moving priests to another church to keep it quiet only for them to start up again is sickening. and then they come at you with faith. i applaud the ones that have finally seen through trump. grumps is one and i admire him so much for it. some folks on here give the peds a pass because they cam up with a budget they liked so they do not talk about the molester of children. hell they praise them and give them a pass. it is not unreasonable to say so and so came up with a great budget but the hell with him for hurting our children. we have them right here and right now on this board. you have seen me call them out and yet the peds get a pass. so they end up hurting parts of the platform their side claims are family values. and i will not apologize for these statements because to be honest they make me sick.

You need better friends. Nobody thought Trump was the second coming of Jesus. You are not alone with your disgust over pedophile priests being shielded and moved around. Unfortunately that is up to the catholic church to purge itself of. None of that changes the faith in Jesus that I have or any other Christian.  Peds who find themselves in the judgement seat will have to account for themselves. They won't get a pass. Your rants about peds and budgets and passes is not relevant to this conversation. You are out of your mind if you think ANYONE on the republican side approves of this. Maybe you should dig a little into the democrat position on sexuality with all the 27 sexes and the move to normalize peds. See NAMBLA. That is democrat stuff not republican. Your ire is misaimed.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

35 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

No it wasn't magic. It was a purposeful reduction of the military power of our country. After Vietnam when the troops came home, insulted and spit on by democrats, not republicans, Carter minimized our military and yes it did happen quickly. I don't know what mythical stories you have read that in some way claim that Carter did not seriously reduce the combat readiness of our military.  It did not magically disappear when Carter left. It took years to recover but the build up restored what Carter let dwindle.  I am informed. I lived it. 

Your narrative is a lie.  It always has been.  It is nothing more than political rhetoric.  You may want to read the book:

"Hollow Army" Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2012/ssi_jones.pdf|||A 'Hollow Army' Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness

Here is a summary:

The term “hollow army” or the broader expression, “hollow force,” has as much currency today as it did when an Army Chief of Staff first uttered the phrase 3 decades ago. In this period of declining defense budgets, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have articulated how the newly released strategic guidance and budget priorities represent a concerted effort not to “hollow out” U.S. forces. They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the re-creation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Jimmy Carter administration allowed to occur. Thus, more than 30 years later, the expression continues to be as politically potent as it was when first spoken. However, it is also time to reexamine the term “hollow army” and its meaning as the inevitable tug of war over defense spending gets underway.

This paper places the “hollow army” metaphor within its historical context: barely 5 years after the United States finally disengaged from a major war (Vietnam), a struggling economy, and an election year in which a President was only tenuously leading in the polls and also confronting substantial opposition from elements of his own political party. In conducting such an assessment, the paper argues that over the years a specific political reading of these events has taken hold. It is the purpose of this paper to re-read the historical events and in doing so, come to a better understanding of the domestic political and geostrategic environment during Carter’s presidency, the U.S. Cold War strategy, and the soundness of the assertions that military leaders made concerning the readiness of U.S. forces to perform their missions.

In undertaking this reappraisal, the paper explains how the term “hollow army” came into use. It contends that the Carter administration left the defense strategy of his predecessors, Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, intact, a strategy that the Army supported, but it also points out that the Ford administration increased the Army’s force structure without a commensurate increase in personnel or funding, a situation that Congress abetted. Second, it argues that the defense budgets of the Carter presidency honored the American commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as making a sizable down payment on the Army’s modernization and readiness. What hampered the meeting of personnel requirements was the end of the draft. Young men were not inclined to enlist in the new all-volunteer force. Further, there were a number of problems within the Army regarding its ability to measure readiness as well as missteps in the development and production of new weapon systems. To its credit, the Carter administration worked with the Army to improve its recruiting program and funded new systems consistent with production capabilities.

The paper underscores that Carter grappled with these issues in a highly politically charged atmosphere. Existing U.S. Government documents, some declassified at the author’s request, confirm the Congressional Budget Office’s 1994 conclusion that the “hollow force” argument was more the result of anecdote and press sensationalism. Further, the paper maintains that the normative assumption that defense policymaking is above politics, free from political contamination, is idle fancy. Defense policy is an arena of public policy with its own cultures, routines, and constituencies. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was no stranger to military culture, pointed out, every service chief wants additional resources and always will. This was certainly the case with respect to the “hollow army” debate.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

52 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

No it wasn't magic. It was a purposeful reduction of the military power of our country. After Vietnam when the troops came home, insulted and spit on by democrats, not republicans, Carter minimized our military and yes it did happen quickly. I don't know what mythical stories you have read that in some way claim that Carter did not seriously reduce the combat readiness of our military.  It did not magically disappear when Carter left. It took years to recover but the build up restored what Carter let dwindle.  I am informed. I lived it. 

Lotsa lies. Lotsa delusion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/myth-spitting-vietnam-protester.html?smid=url-share

[icanthearyou 4,463]

32 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You need better friends. Nobody thought Trump was the second coming of Jesus. You are not alone with your disgust over pedophile priests being shielded and moved around. Unfortunately that is up to the catholic church to purge itself of. None of that changes the faith in Jesus that I have or any other Christian.  Peds who find themselves in the judgement seat will have to account for themselves. They won't get a pass. Your rants about peds and budgets and passes is not relevant to this conversation. You are out of your mind if you think ANYONE on the republican side approves of this. Maybe you should dig a little into the democrat position on sexuality with all the 27 sexes and the move to normalize peds. See NAMBLA. That is democrat stuff not republican. Your ire is misaimed.

And more lies.  There is no Democratic push to normalize pedophilia.  STOP LYING. 

Equating pedophiles with adult consensual sexual choices is wrong.  The government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

[jj3jordan 2,054]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Lotsa lies. Lotsa delusion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/myth-spitting-vietnam-protester.html?smid=url-share

Dude I know people it happened to.  Don’t call me a liar.

You are a POS and exactly the type of person who would participate if you had the balls.

NYTimes opinion. Seriously you post that crap?  Get

out of my face.

 

[jj3jordan 2,054]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Your narrative is a lie.  It always has been.  It is nothing more than political rhetoric.  You may want to read the book:

"Hollow Army" Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2012/ssi_jones.pdf|||A 'Hollow Army' Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness

Here is a summary:

The term “hollow army” or the broader expression, “hollow force,” has as much currency today as it did when an Army Chief of Staff first uttered the phrase 3 decades ago. In this period of declining defense budgets, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have articulated how the newly released strategic guidance and budget priorities represent a concerted effort not to “hollow out” U.S. forces. They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the re-creation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Jimmy Carter administration allowed to occur. Thus, more than 30 years later, the expression continues to be as politically potent as it was when first spoken. However, it is also time to reexamine the term “hollow army” and its meaning as the inevitable tug of war over defense spending gets underway.

This paper places the “hollow army” metaphor within its historical context: barely 5 years after the United States finally disengaged from a major war (Vietnam), a struggling economy, and an election year in which a President was only tenuously leading in the polls and also confronting substantial opposition from elements of his own political party. In conducting such an assessment, the paper argues that over the years a specific political reading of these events has taken hold. It is the purpose of this paper to re-read the historical events and in doing so, come to a better understanding of the domestic political and geostrategic environment during Carter’s presidency, the U.S. Cold War strategy, and the soundness of the assertions that military leaders made concerning the readiness of U.S. forces to perform their missions.

In undertaking this reappraisal, the paper explains how the term “hollow army” came into use. It contends that the Carter administration left the defense strategy of his predecessors, Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, intact, a strategy that the Army supported, but it also points out that the Ford administration increased the Army’s force structure without a commensurate increase in personnel or funding, a situation that Congress abetted. Second, it argues that the defense budgets of the Carter presidency honored the American commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as making a sizable down payment on the Army’s modernization and readiness. What hampered the meeting of personnel requirements was the end of the draft. Young men were not inclined to enlist in the new all-volunteer force. Further, there were a number of problems within the Army regarding its ability to measure readiness as well as missteps in the development and production of new weapon systems. To its credit, the Carter administration worked with the Army to improve its recruiting program and funded new systems consistent with production capabilities.

The paper underscores that Carter grappled with these issues in a highly politically charged atmosphere. Existing U.S. Government documents, some declassified at the author’s request, confirm the Congressional Budget Office’s 1994 conclusion that the “hollow force” argument was more the result of anecdote and press sensationalism. Further, the paper maintains that the normative assumption that defense policymaking is above politics, free from political contamination, is idle fancy. Defense policy is an arena of public policy with its own cultures, routines, and constituencies. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was no stranger to military culture, pointed out, every service chief wants additional resources and always will. This was certainly the case with respect to the “hollow army” debate.

Did you miss this in your article?

They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the re-creation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Jimmy Carter administration allowed to occur.
 

Seems like this supports my position not yours.

Or did I misunderstand this line. Politics aside bases we’re failing ORIs. Planes couldn’t fly. Army couldn’t perform their mission. Lots of squadrons not C-1 status. 
 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 3/16/2022 at 4:31 PM, jj3jordan said:

The downward trend of the deficits and momentum that carried further into surpluses was clearly associated with Newts time as speaker.  The last two before he resigned 98-99 were his and the following two hasterts. 

For some reason you feel that sleeping around is bad but the president at the time is the master of sleeping around. You really want to go there?

Yes, imagine a president doing something by way of compromise. Both Bush's did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. Seems the first guy to say no compromise we won elections have consequences was lord Obama.  Trump gladly would compromise, its all he ever did as a businessman. He was willing to do so against the wishes of his own party. So don't trumpet clintons compromise as a banner deal without looking at the others.

Not sure why you bring up Breitbart. What is being rewritten?

You have actually said something I agree with.

I think one of the stupidest mistakes of Obama's presidency was the day he betrayed his budget deal with Boehner and uttered the words, "elections have consequences".  It was petty.  It was destructive. 

The rest of your post, nonsense.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Did you miss this in your article?

They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the re-creation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Jimmy Carter administration allowed to occur.
 

Seems like this supports my position not yours.

Or did I misunderstand this line. Politics aside bases we’re failing ORIs. Planes couldn’t fly. Army couldn’t perform their mission. Lots of squadrons not C-1 status. 
 

You will really have to work hard to become more disingenuous.  Pulling selections without context is lying.

[jj3jordan 2,054]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

You will really have to work hard to become more disingenuous.  Pulling selections without context is lying.

It is literally in the summary of your post above. And it is not out of context.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

It is literally in the summary of your post above. And it is not out of context.

You are only hurting your own credibility.  If you care about that?

[aubiefifty 16,803]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You mean those 30,000 missing emails? You read them all huh? 

why are you not alarmed about trumps emails he deleted just like hillary? or cheney? hell trump was flushing sensitive docs down the toilet according to folks on his own staff? you understand if you or i had done this we would be in jail and probably for life. you were a bubblehead and you know the deal.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Did you miss this in your article?

They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the re-creation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Jimmy Carter administration allowed to occur.
 

Seems like this supports my position not yours.

Or did I misunderstand this line. Politics aside bases we’re failing ORIs. Planes couldn’t fly. Army couldn’t perform their mission. Lots of squadrons not C-1 status. 
 

i am pretty sure anything that was depleted was done so by the viet nam war and not jimmy carter. if you were in the service as you claim you would understand this. the difference in you and i is that i argue for the truth and you just argue to win. and like many of trumps followers you either believe his bullsh^t or tell some whoppers on here. hell all you do is lie and i am not even attacking you and i am serious here.you were always" trump did not mean it that way" or no trump did not make fun of a handicapped man on national television. people like you enabled trump. no need to denie it as most folks saw it on here. i even pretended to be trump on here and gave you righties complete hell just like trump did the left. just like trump did. most on the right wanted me banned. but my point is you guys did not like the treatment you received but you absolutely loved it when he was going after the left.and you claim to be christian on top of that. you are so dishonest i automatically believe anything you say was a lie. even other people are calling you on it.