Originally Posted by playwrite

Gad, it would be fun to accompany you to a bar outside of Quantico or Ft. Bragg and have you explain that to the other patrons.

It's been a while since I've seen a good stompin.

Ah yes. "My dad can beat up your dad."

The clear sign of the superior argument.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes. "My dad can beat up your dad."

The clear sign of the superior argument.

I'm not arguing; just wishing for some cool entertainment.

Hey, you're not too far from Jacksonville. Why not cruise up there and visit a bar near Blount Is. to try your analysis out.

Be sure to have someone come along with a video camera and post the result on Youtube.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...out/Exclusive/

Marc Leder, who hosted the now-infamous fundraiser in Boca Raton (and also hosts parties in the Hamptons where people get to do the 1% wild thing in the pool -- not that there's anything wrong with that) releases this statement to Fortune ...

In a statement first given to Fortune, Leder says: "I hosted a fundraiser for an old friend in May. I believe all Americans should have the opportunity to succeed, to improve their lives, and to build even better lives for their children. I have supported people from both political parties who share this view and make it a priority, even though their ideas on how to achieve it may differ."

Romney still clueless

Rmoney will likely get 95 electorial votes from the "moocher states". Obama will likely get five.

Originally Posted by Wonkblog

Mitt Romney's comments on the 47 percent of Americans who make too little to pay income tax and “will vote for this president no matter what” are causing him some political problems this morning. But could they cause him any electoral problems? Is he really insulting anyone who would already be willing to vote for him?

Actually, yes. The Tax Foundation put out this helpful map of the states with the highest and lowest percentage of people who don’t file income tax returns. The biggest non-filing states are — except Florida and New Mexico — solid red states:

To put it another way. Even if enough rich old people in Floridavote for Rmoney to give him the state the "moocher state" EV count would still be 66-34.

Also, if you look at the map the top ten tax producing states break 47 to 9 for Obama with two states Virginia and New Hampshire being currently too close to call. Even if R money gets both of those the top producer states would till break 47 to 27 for Obama.

And, oh yeah. Thee'sa lot of military families and retired/disables veterans that have to be counted as "moochers' to get up to anywhere near 47 percent.
Maybe president superman expects our service people to purchase their on gear in his would be plutocratic Disneyland.

this really makes Romney's road very tough - without VA, he's GOT to win BOTH Fl and OH

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y-swing-state/

Poll: Obama up 52%-44% in key swing state

Posted by
CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser
Washington (CNN) - A new poll indicates President Obama with an eight point lead over Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the crucial battleground state of Virginia.

According to a Washington Post survey released Tuesday, 52% of likely voters in Virginia say they support the president, with 44% backing Romney. Among the wider pool of registered voters, the poll indicates Obama with a 50-43% advantage over the former Massachusetts governor.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

http://www.politicususa.com/built-th...ama-47-39.html

"More evidence that the roof is caving in on Mitt Romney came today from a poll of small business owners conducted by George Washington University School of Political Management, which found Obama leading Romney, 47%-39%."

Small-business owners used to be a reliable bloc of R voters -- up in the 80% range, exceeded only by tycoons and executives.

It could be that the "small-business owner" is more likely than in the past non-white, non-Anglo, and non-Christian, but nothing like half.

Small business used to be in solidarity with Big Business out of shared concern for taxes and labor policy. But that may be past. Maybe it is looking more at the income side than the cost side of business. A prosperous clientele is good for any business; poor people are unreliable unless they are using food stamps or Medicaid. Maybe Mitt seems part of a culture of executives and tycoons who have been squeezing out small-business competitors.

Political collapses ordinarily demonstrate the movement of one sort of once-reliable constituencies to the other side.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

We're the biggest target, the world champions and we're in the position to draw the most attention as far as their attacks. We kill those who are active in the game of killing and/or destroying us.

As the gangland-style hit on Osama bin Laden demonstrates, it is a bad idea to spur the ire of the American political system.

That's the rolling thunder you released. It's gonna get louder -

Dear Mr. Romney,

I want to introduce you to my father.

He is a proud man. He is also one of the hardest working people I know.

He is also a veteran.

He served in Korea in the 1950s.

He is still married to the same woman he fell in love with (and still dearly loves) some 58 years ago.

He started his own business.

He raised three kids, all of whom are decent, hard working citizens.

He is a happy grandfather.

He loves America with all of his heart and soul.

But none of that seems to matter to you, Mr. Romney. Your video tells us that you think of my father. My father, in your view, is a government leech. He's a lazy man that pays no taxes and thinks he deserves health care and to be taken care of and be provided housing and food.

My father does indeed think that he deserves health care and to be taken care of by the government and be provided food and housing, because that is exactly what the government promised him!

The government told my father that if he put his life on the line in the military, he would be rewarded with veteran's benefits. The government told my father that if he dutifully paid his FICA taxes, he would receive monthly check to sustain him in his retirement years. The government told my father that if he paid his Medicare taxes like a good little citizen, he would be given health care for the rest of his life when he hit the Golden Age.

He did all of that, Mr. Romney, and now you have the nerve to think he is some sort of drain on American society.

He is one of the 47% you talked about, Mr. Romney. When the economy collapsed in 2008 and 2009, my father and my mother saw their 401(k)s depleted by nearly 60%. They had to take out a reverse mortgage in order to make ends meet. So, because of that and their Social Security plus their deductions, they don't make enough gross income to have to pay federal taxes.

But I am willing to bet that my father would be more than happy to pay federal taxes if he could get all the money he lost from his 401(k) back. I am sure that he would be happy to pay federal taxes if he didn't have to rely on his reverse mortgage.

You have disrespected my father, Mr. Romney. My father deserves all of his benefits because he worked hard for them. Tell me how tough your life was, Mr. Romney, bicycling around Paris and the French countryside trying to gain converts to the LDS Church. I am sure it must have been significantly more dangerous than going to face the North Koreans and their Chinese allies near the 38th parallel.

I will state again, Mr. Romney, that I am very proud of my father. He is a veteran and a patriot and an American and he does, indeed, get government benefits and pays no federal taxes.

And he is 10 times the man you will ever be.

Bingo!


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...vernment-leech

Here's some possible fallout from Mitten's gaff that I hadn't thought about -

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/09...d-sons-of.html

Farmers, Medicare Recipients, and Sons of Multimillionaires, Some of Whom Won’t Take Responsibility for Their Own Lives - [UPDATED]

This summer’s widespread drought has been extremely hard on Midwestern and plains-states crop farmers, and many of them are chafing at the thought of having to take responsibility for their own lives if the Farm Bill doesn’t make it through Congress before the upcoming recess.


They had panicked earlier in the summer when Congress was dallying in passing an emergency relief bill, but were rescued from having to take responsibility for their own lives when the Republican-controlled House agreed at the last minute before Congress’s August recess to allow the farmers—including some who won’t be paying income tax for this year unless those federal subsidies increase their incomes enough—to mooch off the likes of Mitt Romney and his son Tagg, whom Romney convinced to take responsibility for himself.


Which Tagg did, by borrowing a reported (if I recall correctly) $10 million from his parents to start a (very) private equity firm whose investors apparently all, or almost all, were people who’d made their fortunes through investments with Bain Capital.


Tagg is a role model for young people just starting out today who want to take responsibility for themselves. His father suggested last winter that other young people should emulate the son: “Start a business. Borrow money from your parents, if you have to,” Romney told a group of them. Or something like that.


In that same speech, he advised young people to “get that education.” Presumably, by having their parents pay their tuition and expenses. Like Mitt Romney himself did. And like all his kids did.


No silver spoon for the Romneys, though. No sir. Just personal responsibility. Unlike all those farmers in Kansas, Nebraska and Indiana who are part of Obama’s base.


Then, of course, there the Medicare recipients who refuse to take responsibility for their lives by paying their healthcare costs, or at least the part of their healthcare costs that exceed the amounts they’d paid into the fund over the years. People who think they’re entitled to healthcare. And, probably, to you-name-it.

Maybe part of the fallout is sealing the deal for Obama in Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin?

It would be really cool if this took Indiana back to swing state status.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm not arguing...

Clearly.

Then again, I wouldn't have called Saddam Hussein a murder to his face, either (while he was in power, anyway). Doesn't change what he was, or what those other guys are. But your using it as a dodge says volumes about the utter absence of factual support for the claims you made that I -- among others -- challenged.

I'm pretty satisfied with that, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And where are they killing us again?

Does it matter where they're killing Americans? Radical Muslims/Muslim tyrants have been killing Americans for decades. What's the moral problem with Americans killing them?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Clearly.

Then again, I wouldn't have called Saddam Hussein a murder to his face, either (while he was in power, anyway). Doesn't change what he was, or what those other guys are. But your using it as a dodge says volumes about the utter absence of factual support for the claims you made that I -- among others -- challenged.

I'm pretty satisfied with that, to be honest.

And what "claims" are those?

This should be fun.

____________________________

waiting, waiting,...

Shall we cue the crickets?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As the gangland-style hit on Osama bin Laden demonstrates, it is a bad idea to spur the ire of the American political system.

The attack on Osama's compound and his elimination demonstrates that one shouldn't do anything major/drastic which upsets the vast majority of Americans.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

HAR!!

1) That's not "us" they're killing. That's mercenaries-for-hire. At best, "our" mercenaries, but still... mercenaries get paid to get killed. That's part of the job they sought out.

2) Oh yeah, and those mercenaries they're killing are also the same people (and exclusively the people) who... busted into their houses and hurt and killed their friends and families. So it's not so much like these Bad Guys are out there searching for Us to kill; rather those Bad Guys are killing the people who are in their home against their desires, plausibly there to kill them.

The only 'protection' that's ever necessary against the sort of killing you described is.. not to go around hurting people or busting into their homes. Of course, there's already some water under the bridge there, but at least a good move actually in the direction of helping protect us would be to at least stop engaging in that sort of thing from now on. Whatever grudges and debts have been earned are going to need to be dealt with, but step one is to stop making more of them.

At least, if the job we want done is the protection of us-the-people, not us-the-empire.

How are you going to stop them from breeding and raising murderers? I hope that you're not so liberal niave as to actually believe that a withdraw would reduce their numbers and make more of them love us?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Does it matter where they're killing Americans? Radical Muslims/Muslim tyrants have been killing Americans for decades. What's the moral problem with Americans killing them?

Actually, yes. Yes it most certainly does matter. I think you will find that if you go to someone elses home when you aren't invited and start breaking stuff then sooner or later you are guaranteed to get a negative reaction.

Oh this is nice -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...877476102.html

Obama Extends Lead In New Poll

Buoyed by an upswing in economic optimism, President Barack Obama has strengthened his support among voters and is now rated as equal to Mitt Romney on which candidate can best improve the economy, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

The survey gives the president his highest job approval since March, at 50%, and shows him leading Mr. Romney among likely voters, 50% to 45%, with two weeks before the campaign hits a major landmark with the first candidates' debate.

A little critical thinking and process of elimination is in order here.

Muslims are very angry with Americans.

Hypothesis #1: They are angry because we are infidels.

Clarification: Anyone who does not believe in Islam is an infidel, especially if they also don't believe in Christianity or Judaism (Christians and Jews being something on the order of "Infidels-lite" in Muslim thinking). (Now I'm a real full-bore infidel, on the other hand.)

Observation: Most of the world is full of infidels. This includes all of Asia outside the Middle East except Pakistan and Indonesia, about half of Africa, all of North and South America, and all of Europe including Russia.

Observation: Muslims do not hate and attack most of these places or these peoples.

Conclusion: Muslims are not angry with us because we are infidels.

You may now feel free to seek another explanation, if for some reason it isn't obvious.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And what "claims" are those?

Getting bad with the memory in your twilight years, eh? I suppose it's something we've all got to look forward to. Lemme see if I can help. I'll limit myself to only going back to yesterday, since even that little bit yields a wealth of answer to your question. I've paraphrased where the structure of your sentence didn't grammatically lend itself to directly-answering-by-quote, but you'll find each of your posts is linked to my quote or paraphrase, so you can verify for yourself that I haven't misrepresented what you said:

link

Originally Posted by playwrite

["they" are killing "us" in Afghanistan]

link

Originally Posted by playwrite

we ... have enemies more than willing to kill [Copperhead], me or [Justin] regardless...
... others are protecting [forum participants'] right to free speech with their lives.

link

Originally Posted by playwrite

[stopping EvilDoers from harming forum participants] takes people willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

link

Originally Posted by playwrite

[the people and actions engaged in under the auspices of the United States'] diplomatic corps [are the sole / a major means of] making US citizens safer in the world

link

Originally Posted by playwrite

[the United States'] diplomatic corp works every day with other government and non-government entities to protect [forum members'] interests - including our lives

Perhaps your memory is jogged now? These are claims you have made in the last 48 hours which you have not only utterly failed to even make an attempt to rationally support -- you have artfully dodged and weaved past every single attempt made to even try to question you on them. I'm not even the only one trying to get you to pin yourself down a bit here. Maybe now that I've laid it out all in one place, you want to do something better than just plugging your ears and singing at the top of your lungs?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Clarification: Anyone who does not believe in Islam is an infidel, especially if they also don't believe in Christianity or Judaism (Christians and Jews being something on the order of "Infidels-lite" in Muslim thinking). (Now I'm a real full-bore infidel, on the other hand.)

As I understand it (plus, etymologically it works this way), that's not completely the case. An "infidel" is one who has broken faith. So I'm pretty sure the only 'infidels' from the PoV of a muslim would be other muslims who converted, or muslims of factions other than their own (like "those Salafi call themselves followers of Islam, but they fail to wear the magic underpants!" or whatever...). Everyone else would be a "heathen"?

In any case, I know that Islam is very tolerant of other religions, provided they don't try to convert muslims, or to keep their followers from being exposed to the teachings of the Prophet (that is, so long as they don't go around making infidels out of people). It's breakers-of-the-faith that the wrath seems to be reserved for.

In any case, the point Brian made is good.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As I understand it (plus, etymologically it works this way), that's not completely the case. An "infidel" is one who has broken faith. So I'm pretty sure the only 'infidels' from the PoV of a muslim would be other muslims who converted, or muslims of factions other than their own (like "those Salafi call themselves followers of Islam, but they fail to wear the magic underpants!" or whatever...). Everyone else would be a "heathen"?

In any case, I know that Islam is very tolerant of other religions, provided they don't try to convert muslims, or to keep their followers from being exposed to the teachings of the Prophet (that is, so long as they don't go around making infidels out of people). It's breakers-of-the-faith that the wrath seems to be reserved for.

In any case, the point Brian made is good.

A quick appeal to my dictionary says otherwise...

a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own: (as plural noun the infidel) : they wanted to secure the Holy Places from the infidel.

adjective
adhering to a religion other than one's own: the infidel foe.

ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French infidèle or Latininfidelis, from in- ‘not’ + fidelis ‘faithful’ (from fides ‘faith,’ related to fidere ‘to trust’). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one's own, specifically a Muslim (to a Christian), a Christian (to a Muslim), or a Gentile (to a Jew).

Originally Posted by playwrite

this really makes Romney's road very tough - without VA, he's GOT to win BOTH Fl and OH

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y-swing-state/

I live in VA. If Obama is up 8 points in VA, I'm Santa Claus. He won it by 2 points in 2008. Since then, the state has elected a Republican governor (more conservative than Romney) with over 60% of the vote, and the Democrats have generally been wiped out up and down the ballot throughout the state.

What's more, the likely voters in this poll are more favorable to Obama than the registered voters. That never happens. Simply put, the poll is less valuable than toilet paper. At least toilet paper has a use.

The relevant conclusion of the poll is that the Washington Post has completely lost its mind.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh my goodness ... THIS is a reason for pelvic thrusting?

I'm not sure you really want to go there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A little critical thinking and process of elimination is in order here.

Muslims are very angry with Americans.

Hypothesis #1: They are angry because we are infidels.

Clarification: Anyone who does not believe in Islam is an infidel, especially if they also don't believe in Christianity or Judaism (Christians and Jews being something on the order of "Infidels-lite" in Muslim thinking). (Now I'm a real full-bore infidel, on the other hand.)

Observation: Most of the world is full of infidels. This includes all of Asia outside the Middle East except Pakistan and Indonesia, about half of Africa, all of North and South America, and all of Europe including Russia.

Observation: Muslims do not hate and attack most of these places or these peoples.

Conclusion: Muslims are not angry with us because we are infidels.

You may now feel free to seek another explanation, if for some reason it isn't obvious.

Muslims are angry at us (the US) because their leaders are either angry at us or hate us because we're NO. 1 and we represent the greatest threat to them. Show me some critical thinking. All I see is more liberal la la.

There are now 4 recent polls in the RCP Average. This is where the race stands, for those interested in reality:

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.8

Margin: Obama +1.7
Undecided: 6.75

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A little critical thinking and process of elimination is in order here.

Muslims are very angry with Americans.

Hypothesis #1: They are angry because we are infidels.

Clarification: Anyone who does not believe in Islam is an infidel, especially if they also don't believe in Christianity or Judaism (Christians and Jews being something on the order of "Infidels-lite" in Muslim thinking). (Now I'm a real full-bore infidel, on the other hand.)

Observation: Most of the world is full of infidels. This includes all of Asia outside the Middle East except Pakistan and Indonesia, about half of Africa, all of North and South America, and all of Europe including Russia.

Observation: Muslims do not hate and attack most of these places or these peoples.

Conclusion: Muslims are not angry with us because we are infidels.

You may now feel free to seek another explanation, if for some reason it isn't obvious.

It appears that Andrew Bacevich has an educated explanation. As many here know, he is the former professor of international relations at Boston University, a retired career officer in the United States Army, former director of Boston University's Center for International Relations and current fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Bacevich: What the Arab Movie Riots Mean for U.S. Foreign Policy

by Andrew J. Bacevich Sep 17, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
The death of a U.S. ambassador raises questions about America’s foreign-policy assumptions.

The notion that American power can be counted on to deliver American-style freedom is particularly wrongheaded when applied to the Muslim world. The problem is not that Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, or Pakistanis have an aversion to freedom. On the contrary, they’ve provided abundant evidence that they hunger for it. Rather, the problem is that 21st-century Muslims don’t necessarily buy America’s 21st-century definition of the term—a definition increasingly devoid of moral content. Instead, the varied inhabitants of a dauntingly complex Islamic world want to decide for themselves what the exercise of freedom should entail. Many of them believe it should consist of something more than individual autonomy and conspicuous consumption.

What they are demanding, in short, is their collective right to self-determination. That desire has made them seem stubbornly unreceptive to outside tutelage, and painfully sensitive to perceived expressions of disrespect, no matter how insignificant the source—even in the form of a preposterously bad film made by some demented jackass. Insults directed at the Prophet Mohammad are going to provoke a hostile response among the world’s Muslims, much as Christians once reacted to the heresies propounded by those who dared to question the doctrines and prerogatives of the Holy Roman Church. Back then, defying the pope could land you in serious trouble.

The problem with the foreign-policy tradition to which Secretary Clinton adheres (and to which any secretary of state appointed by a President Romney undoubtedly would also subscribe) is that it refuses to allow Muslims to set their own course. In fact, U.S. foreign policy is fundamentally incapable of permitting it. For Washington simply to step aside, letting Libyans and Egyptians work out their own problems in their own way, would imperil certain moderately important American interests. More important, it would imply giving up the illusion that the United States models freedom in its truest form and that it can identify and direct history’s course. In effect, it would concede the limitations of American power and American perspicacity.

This country’s political class is unwilling to make any such concessions. That much is obvious to anyone who bothered to watch the twin celebrations of American exceptionalism that constituted the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Several commentators noted the paucity of attention given by either party to the war in Afghanistan, now approaching its 11th anniversary with victory nowhere in sight. With even greater justification they might have noted the two parties’ reticence regarding the even more disastrous and utterly unnecessary Iraq War. Seldom has the American propensity for turning away from unpleasant facts been more vividly and irresponsibly displayed. This avoidance testifies to a refusal to learn.

MORE:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...gn-policy.html