Originally Posted by playwrite

If 99.8% of my posts on the forum were also snarky one-liners, I'm sure my grammar and spelling would surpass your own; I pretty sure my snark would also be a lot more entertainng.

Emphasis added and quoted for irony.

New poll from Wisconsin with a magnitude that even I can't believe, but it sure doesn't indicate a snowball's chance for Team Romney -

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-co...1_Toplines.pdf

- that has the Big O up by 14!!!


Hey, I though adding Ryan to the ticket was suppose to make cheesehead land a swing state.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Emphasis added and quoted for irony.

And here I was giving you points for publishing.

You and her are like two peas in a pot. Watch out though, KIA is trying to move in on that pot in your absence.

______________________________________
Ain't snark fun. I told you I can be more entertaining with it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And here I was giving you points for publishing.

You and her are like two peas in a pot. Watch out though, KIA is trying to move in on that pot in your absence.

1) We most definitely are not, as I found out the hard way years ago;

2) He's welcome to her as far as I'm concerned (she may have other ideas, though).

You have to admit, the irony of you mangling both the spelling and the grammar in that sentence was just too tempting to pass up.

No polls have yet been released that might show the damage from the Romney tape.

However, we have a poll on how folks actually feel about the tape -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I1E920120919

Romney's "47 percent" remarks damage his image with voters: Reuters/Ipsos poll


Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's dismissal of almost half the U.S. electorate in a secretly recorded video has hurt his image, although it may not determine how people vote on November 6.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed that more than two in five registered voters, or 43 percent, viewed Romney less favorably after an excerpt of the video was shown to them online.

In the video, Romney portrayed Democratic President Barack Obama's supporters - which he said was 47 percent of the electorate - as people who live off government handouts and do not "care for their lives."

Nearly six in ten, or 59 percent, in the poll said they felt Romney unfairly dismissed almost half of Americans as victims in his remarks made to donors in May at a private event at a luxury home in Florida.

"This isn't great for Romney," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, who called the video an image problem for the Republican.

"This type of issue, a gaffe or an indiscreet remark by a candidate, has an effect on a candidate's image, but it is not the kind of thing that decides how people vote on Election Day," she said.

A Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll taken over the previous four days showed Obama ahead of the former private equity executive by 5 points among likely voters on Wednesday, up slightly from a 4-point lead on Tuesday. If elections were held today, Obama would win 48 percent of the vote to Romney's 43 percent, the poll showed.

There was some good news for Romney. Forty-one percent of the respondents to the poll about the video clip felt the former Massachusetts governor was making an important point about the U.S. government.

2 in 5 see him less favorable than before the tape. Depends on who the 2 are - Dem leaning or Rep leaning. Will find out soon. Also, this is just from being shown the tape; wait to see what happens when the ad campaign puts the presentation spin on it.

Romney has a new campaign strategy - he's going to win with 140% of the wingnut vote!

Originally Posted by The Rani

How does "intelligent and well spoken with sound moral virtues" translate into "getting a room" in your perverted and sexist mind?

Well those tend to be the women I'm attracted to. I can't speak for Brian or KIA, but do tell.

______________
Gad, this snark is fun! I can't believe I left the field to you for so long!

"The 1% (or less) are using money vacuumed out of our world to invest in “democratic” politics -- and as with any other investment, they naturally expect a return, whichever party ends up in the White House. Isn’t it time, under the circumstances, to bring back a few of those choice words like “plutocrat” and “monied interests” from the late nineteenth century, that previous moment when a Gilded Age fused with a round of recessions and depressions? Or as Lewis Lapham suggests today, how about “oligarchy” as the new form of American democracy?" ................ TomDispatch

Lewis Lapham, The Rule of Money

Thomas Paine in the opening chapter of Common Sense finds “the strength of government and the happiness of the governed” in the freedom of the common people to “mutually and naturally support each other.” He envisions a bringing together of representatives from every quarter of society -- carpenters and shipwrights as well as lawyers and saloonkeepers -- and his thinking about the mongrel splendors of democracy echoes that of Plato in The Republic: “Like a coat embroidered with every kind of ornament, this city, embroidered with every kind of character, would seem to be the most beautiful.”

We are a far cry from that embroidered coat that Paine writes about.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney hold each other responsible for stirring up class warfare between the 1% and the 99%; each of them can be counted upon to mourn the passing of America’s once-upon-a-time egalitarian state of grace. They deliver the message to fund-raising dinners that charge up to $40,000 for the poached salmon, but the only thing worth noting in the ballroom or the hospitality tent is the absence among the invited bank accounts (prospective donor, showcase celebrity, attending journalist) of anybody intimately acquainted with -- seriously angry about, other than rhetorically interested in -- the fact of being poor.

When intended to draw blood instead of laughs, speaking truth to power doesn’t lead to a secure retirement on the beach at Martha’s Vineyard. Paine was the most famous political thinker of his day, his books in the late eighteenth century selling more copies than the Bible, but after the Americans had won their War of Independence, his notions of democracy were deemed unsuitable to the work of dividing up the spoils. The proprietors of their newfound estate claimed the privilege of apportioning its freedoms, and they remembered that Paine opposed the holding of slaves and the denial to women of the same sort of rights awarded to men. A man too much given to plain speaking, on too familiar terms with the lower orders of society, and therefore not to be trusted.

His opinions having become both suspect and irrelevant in Philadelphia, Paine sailed in 1787 for Europe, where he was soon charged with seditious treason in Britain (for publishing part two of The Rights of Man), imprisoned and sentenced to death in France (for his opposition to the execution of Louis XVI on the ground that it was an unprincipled act of murder). In 1794, Paine fell from grace as an American patriot as a consequence of his publishing The Age of Reason, the pamphlet in which he ridiculed the authority of an established church and remarked on “the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled.” The American congregation found him guilty of the crime of blasphemy, and on his return to America in 1802, he was met at the dock in Baltimore with newspaper headlines damning him as a “loathsome reptile,” a “lying, drunken, brutal infidel.”When he died in poverty in 1809, he was buried, as unceremoniously as a dog in a ditch, in unhallowed ground on his farm in New Rochelle.

Paine’s misfortunes speak to the difference between politics as a passing around of handsome platitudes and politics as a sowing of the bitter seeds of social change. The speaking of truth to power when the doing so threatens to lend to words the force of deeds is as rare as it is brave. The signers of the Declaration of Independence accepted the prospect of being hanged in the event that America lost the war.

Our own contemporary political discourse lacks force and meaning because it is a commodity engineered, like baby formula and Broadway musicals, to dispose of any and all unwonted risk. The forces of property occupying both the government and the news media don’t rate politics as a serious enterprise, certainly not as one worth the trouble to suppress.

It is the wisdom of the age -- shared by Democrat and Republican, by forlorn idealist and anxious realist -- that money rules the world, transcends the boundaries of sovereign states, serves as the light unto the nations, and waters the tree of liberty. What need of statesmen, much less politicians, when it isn’t really necessary to know their names or remember what they say? The future is a product to be bought, not a fortune to be told.

Happily, at least for the moment, the society is rich enough to afford the staging of the fiction of democracy as a means of quieting the suspicions of a potentially riotous mob with the telling of a fairy tale. The rising cost of the production -- the pointless nominating conventions decorated with 15,000 journalists as backdrop for the 150,000 balloons -- reflects the ever-increasing rarity of the demonstrable fact. The country is being asked to vote in November for television commercials because only in the fanciful time zone of a television commercial can the American democracy still be said to exist.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1755...of_money/#more

Originally Posted by B Butler

I wouldn't mind if you tried to answer the above question. I gave you a laundry list of possible missions. What capability do we actually need?

I'd be tempted to pull out pretty much entirely from Europe and South Korea. The only reason to keep a few European bases would be to support possible actions in the Middle East and North Africa.

Can we afford to drop the capability of fighting one medium small war anywhere in the world? I'm not sure. Still, we shouldn't have a doctrine of being continuously engaged in one medium small war at all times. For quite a while any infantry unit, regular or reserve, was in one of three states: deployed, recovering from deployment, or working up towards deployment.

As to failed states, I would revert to the Powell Doctrine. If one is going to go in, bring enough force to do the job cleanly and have an exit strategy. Yet, how does one really heal a failed state?

Anyone else want to take a shot at it?

The Powell Doctrine is to clean and simple to actually be applied and work with a complete messes like Somalia and Afganistan or invasions which involve removal of regimes, installation of new governments and heavy doses of nation building like Iraq. The Powell Doctrine works fine and should only be applied to situations like the war we fought with Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

Playwrite, I believe the point was that one can admire a woman for those particular attributes without at the same time having any sexual inclinations. The assumption that KIA wants to hump any woman he admires is --

(Well, wait. We're talking about KIA. Never mind.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

1) We most definitely are not, as I found out the hard way years ago;

2) He's welcome to her as far as I'm concerned (she may have other ideas, though).

You have to admit, the irony of you mangling both the spelling and the grammar in that sentence was just too tempting to pass up.

Tell I it ain't so!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite, I believe the point was that one can admire a woman for those particular attributes without at the same time having any sexual inclinations. The assumption that KIA wants to hump any woman he admires is --

(Well, wait. We're talking about KIA. Never mind.)

OMG, that was good!

Best snark I've seen in some time!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The Powell Doctrine is to clean and simple to actually be applied and work with a complete messes like Somalia and Afganistan or invasions which involve removal of regimes, installation of new governments and heavy doses of nation building like Iraq. The Powell Doctrine works fine and should only be applied to situations like the war we fought with Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

I think one should work through the exercise, though.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

If one can't get clean answers to all of the above, one at least knows what sort of headache one is inviting.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think one should work through the exercise, though.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

If one can't get clean answers to all of the above, one at least knows what sort of headache one is inviting.

Let's take Iraq, for example: do folks think that Obama and Bush would arrrive at the same answers?

If not, it sort of makes mute a lot of points being made from the ends of various spectrums represented on this forum that there are no differences in our leadership options.

________________________________
For crapsakes, I had to edit this post umpteenth times. To hell with you grammer police. Me no give a poo!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Have you asked her about getting a room?

If she says no but with a , keep at it. If, however, she gives you a , fergitaboutit.

Nope. I don't ask women about getting rooms because for me it naturally happens or it doesn't happen at all.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Nope. I don't ask women about getting rooms because for me it naturally happens or it doesn't happen at all.

Here in NYC, you do those things outside you can get arrested.

That certainly doesn't stop a lot of people, however.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I knew it was about you, which is why I mentioned your perverted and sexist mind.
What snark are you talking about?

Go to any post that indicates "the Rani" and click on that name in the upper left hand corner. This gives you a drop down menu where you will next click on "view forum posts."

With that you will get a list of pages and pages of snark.

But why relive the past when there's so much more snark to be provided?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I didn't ask you for mine either but that didn't stop you from misinterpreting it and applying a wrong meaning and using it in a negative way.




American planes didn't fly over Libya until Kadafi started supporting the murder of US citizens traveling abroad and later started killing his own citizens in large numbers to preserve his power. If you make war on others, you should expect them to make war on you sounds right to me. If you make war on the US, you should expect the US to make war on you sounds right to me as well. Does that sound right to you as well?



The US military doesn't need me to kill foriegn rag heads, it's quite capable of killing them on their own. As far as the home front, the local rag heads haven't done anything that's worth or has required me to get my hands bloody. Rag head rhetoric doesn't offend me anymore than your rhetoric.

You do realize that you are using a racist slur akin to the N-word, right?

Originally Posted by playwrite

No polls have yet been released that might show the damage from the Romney tape.

However, we have a poll on how folks actually feel about the tape -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I1E920120919



2 in 5 see him less favorable than before the tape. Depends on who the 2 are - Dem leaning or Rep leaning. Will find out soon. Also, this is just from being shown the tape; wait to see what happens when the ad campaign puts the presentation spin on it.

Romney has a new campaign strategy - he's going to win with 140% of the wingnut vote!

From the Washington Post of all places: Romney Comment -- Nobody Cares

Mitt Romney’s comment suggesting that the 47 percent of Americans who support President Obama are dependent upon government has consumed the political media over the past couple days.Among the people who matter, though (hint: actual voters), the response has been more of a collective shoulder shrug.

A new Gallup poll shows that 36 percent of registered voters say the comment makes them less likely to support Romney, while 20 percent say it makes them more likely to back him. Forty-three percent, meanwhile, say it makes no difference.
But even that 36 percent number is a little misleading. The number is driven up considerably by the more than two-thirds of Democrats (almost all who weren’t going to vote for Romney anyway) who say it makes them less likely to support him.
Among independents — the group Romney needs to be concerned with turning off — 29 percent say the comment makes them less likely to back him, compared to 15 percent who say it makes them more likely.
Meanwhile, more than half of independents — and this is the kicker — say the flap makesno difference to their vote.

Gallup






Make it stop! LOL.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Go to any post that indicates "the Rani" and click on that name in the upper left hand corner. This gives you a drop down menu where you will next click on "view forum posts."

With that you will get a list of pages and pages of snark.

But why relive the past when there's so much more snark to be provided?

Um, Playwright? Have you actually looked up any of the official definitions of 'snark'? No definition of 'snark' applies to The Rani unless that definition is made by Brian. (I'm not quite sure how to resolve conflicts between the Definition King and the Snark Queen.) It's sort of like JPT being infallible on matters of the Bible, or Eric in matters of spiritualism. Lots of us are genuine exalted experts in various fields. You have to concede The Rani hers. The Snark Queen never uses snark. Simple fact.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Um, Playwright? Have you actually looked up any of the official definitions of 'snark'? No definition of 'snark' applies to The Rani unless that definition is made by Brian. (I'm not quite sure how to resolve conflicts between the Definition King and the Snark Queen.) It's sort of like JPT being infallible on matters of the Bible, or Eric in matters of spiritualism. Lots of us are genuine exalted experts in various fields. You have to concede The Rani hers. The Snark Queen never uses snark. Simple fact.

Well, we certainly can't say that about YOUR posts, can we? Here, you've managed to be snarky to Playwrite, me, the Rani, Eric, and JPT all in one short, terse paragraph. I think the alleged Snark Queen maybe should be worried about retaining her crown.

Originally Posted by Odin

You do realize that you are using a racist slur akin to the N-word, right?

Sand N'ers is the racist slur akin to the N-word. Rag head is a cultural slur akin to cultural slurs like redcoats, blue bellies, yellow hairs and white-eyes. Oh, Copperfield decided to use that slur instead of staying with Arabs. You should've scolded him for adding it into our on going discussion.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, we certainly can't say that about YOUR posts, can we? Here, you've managed to be snarky to Playwrite, me, the Rani, Eric, and JPT all in one short, terse paragraph. I think the alleged Snark Queen maybe should be worried about retaining her crown.

Yeah, I have definitely claimed infallibility! After all, I used the handle "The Pope" on Ronn Owens Rock Trivia radio show back in the late 70s. Maybe there's a king and queen of snark now! Maybe we should have an "election" (keep to the theme of the thread after all )

Speaking of elections, time for me to enter the snark race. It looks like the Republican Rasmussen poll just ruined JPT's plans; up to +2 points Obama today!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Obama fails the respect test, because he's aloof and diffident. He can either roll up his sleaves and get in the game, or contunue being a rug. Assuming he wins, it's his choice.

Right; but he does have a winning smile!

If it was me in his stead, I would be seling the party as a vehicle of change. "I can't do it alone; elect more Democrats.", may be a risky pitch, but that's why he should make it ... every day ... in every venue. He needs to set the narrative, rather than being a 2-dimensional character in the GOP's tale-of-the-day. Here's a simple miss: Eric Cantor made a speech on Labor Day, and praised the hard working enterpeneurs and job creators without even mentioning the workng stiffs the day is intended to honor. He should have been chopped-off ta the knees by a verbal barrage from the White House, followed by more from every self respecting Democrat. Instead: silence.

Absolutely.

Looks to me like this thread has jumped the snark.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here in NYC, you do those things outside you can get arrested.

That certainly doesn't stop a lot of people, however.

Have you ever been bitten in the ass by misquitoes while you're having sex outside or got a cramp in your leg while you're having sex in a car? I have, both sucked, no thanks.