TakeYouToTasker

I'd also add that it's important to be discerning when deciding which opposing views want debate and discussion, and which aren't worth the time.

LMAO... Do you understand the meaning of the words you chose to type? I didn't misrepresent anything. You said you think he'll win the majority of the vote today. I said he'd have overcome polling data by a full 9%, with is well outside the traditional margins of error, which makes your feelings, which is all they are, because they aren't supported by data, unlikely to manifest themselves. You said you think, failing his ability to win against an entire field, that he'll win in June. Again, this is unsupported. This is a district that has gone heavily for traditional Republicans, and any left leaning opponent will have to battle a united Republican opposition in June. If you take this as condescension, you're dangerously fragile.

Awfully sensitive today, aren't we? Responses like this to a reasonable opposing position are what's wrong with this place. IE. Your reply, quoted above, is the problem with the discourse. That said, the guy, despite raising $8m, is only polling at 42%. Those numbers would have to be off by a full 9% in order to achieve what you feel will happen. There's a reason serious people don't try to feel there way through difficult problems. The likelihood, given historical norms in a largely Republican district, is that Ossoff won't reach a majority, and will lose by 10-15% in June. I'm sorry that's so hard for you.

A "slight chance" he gets 50% isn't a good reason to disagree. A "good chance" would be. Trump was not a traditional Republican, so it's not surprising that he performed worse than traditional Republicans in a traditionally Republican district. Get ready to be disappointed.

Not going to happen. Ossoff will lose the runoff by a wide margin.

I would let my 2.5 mules graze on it.

Oh no... This is absolutely tragic. Prayers for Todd and his family.

It's mostly estimates based on pre-strike recon and intel. Consider: there's a reason they chose this particular target at this particular time.

What's that dope saying now? I have him on ignore, and only occasionally manually open his posts when people quote parts of an argument he's making often enough in a thread, and I want to participate in a conversation with them. When he staked out the hill he wanted to die on when he first began posting here I took him aside in PMs to tell him that his posting style was going to get him first crucified, and then disregarded; but since he looked like he genuinely wanted to participate, he should consider conversing rather than demagoging, and offering evidence rather than fiat declarations. He declined, so I have no use for him.

We are not in Iraq as we needed to be because of domestic politics and a hostile media, and had we seen our efforts through, not only would Iraq be grinding it's way along towards being a quasi-western Muslim democracy, but more importantly it would have been the foundation upon which a reformation of Islam could have been built. The primary reason it is not, is because we did not stay the course. Our presence there is diminished to the point of ISIS emerging as a freaking nation state.

Of course it hasn't been the same. That's the whole point. The reason it hasn't been the same is because we saw the end through in regards to Germany and Japan, and did not with Iraq. That's absolutely fascinating.

Germany and Japan are more than suitable examples. The fact that the actual toppling of their respective governments had a higher blood cost has nothing to do with it. Iraq, because of the massive technological divide, cost far fewer lives and was accomplished with great speed, but the end result was the same: we conquered them.

Sorry I missed this. There were multiple winners to WWII and the United States was certainly amongst them. But regardless, what does that have to do with post-war nation building efforts?

We'll, no. Not entirely, so perhaps I should have been more clear. I meant efforts on this scale; and I suppose I should exempt Vietnam from my blanket statement. I'm not including places like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti because those attempts were pre-WW2, and I find that a reasonable place to draw the line.

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. Though at the time we did not have the benefit of hindsight, and all of our prior attempts at nation building had been successful. And I still believe that the argument that doing what we did in Iraq was in our best interests as a nation, and in the best interests of western democracy to be very persuasive.

Which is well and good, but as I said, had the Obama Administration not done what it did, Iraq and all of the ME and Northern Africa would be far more stable, with the strong possibility of actually reforming Islam in the process. I'm not speaking to political viability domestically. I'm talking about the results of occupation divorced from domestic politics.

It would certainly be far more stable. There would have been no power vacuum for ISIS to flow into. And over several generations of peace and the prosperity it brings, you would likely have seen a flourishing Muslim democracy which may have led directly to a reformation. A foundation on which a stable ME/Northern Africa may have had a chance to have taken root.

On a serious note, I've been very impressed with the maturation process Suarez has undergone over the past 3 years, eliminating not just the over-the-top major stuff, but also even the minor infractions from his game. He's even almost completely eliminating diving from his game, preferring to stay on his feet and take his chances when possible.

We have this in common. Depends on the details of the situation. There are certainly situations in which it is reasonable to shoot anyone, man or woman, given a reasonable person could believe the shooters life was in danger. Like, say in a road rage incident where the other driver stalked you, exited their vehicle, ran up to yours and threatened your life while exhibiting menacing anti-social behavior. This doesn't seem to be such a case on the surface though. Do you believe it is? Given your clear intentions, I think this thread should be moved to PPP where we can discuss the laws and politics you're alluding to if you wish to continue along these lines.

They are so well organized at the back.

They had match bans on two central players, plus injury woes. Their midfield was abysmal, and couldn't impose itself on the game, while Enrique's tactics allowed Sandro and Alves to run unimpeded down the wings. Barca was always going to lose this game. What they needed was an away goal, and then to impose themselves in the Nou Camp with their full contingent available. They also need to sacrifice Jeremy Mathieu to some dark god.

I've seen "math" here demonstrating that the answer is 48, so there's really no way to be sure.

It's hard to tell how good Spicer would be at his job in a normal political climate. He's essentially working with an hyper adversarial press core who are reporting dishonestly, and looking to trip him up with gotcha questions non-stop. He's clearly not doing well in the current environment, but I don't think many people would. That said, he probably needs to go.

We get it. You're a classic beta white knight. That's fine. It still doesn't change the fact that it's OK to push away, or physically restrain, a woman who is assaulting you.

There is nothing wrong with either pushing away, or physically restraining, a woman who is attacking you.