OCinBuffalo

By definition, murder is intentional, and manslaughter is not. Thus, there is nothing wrong with his analogy. Because they are too intellectually weak to study either testament. Very few atheists have. The rest rely on what these very few say. This is prime trolling territory. I have no idea why Christians don't troll more often, and expose this ignorance. Spelled out: make up a Psalm, reel them in, and then expose them. It can't be that hard. It's the Bible, a very large work done by lots of different authors speaking in lots of different contexts. But, we have idiots trying to define the whole thing...by citing single passages. Use it against them. They will never see it coming. ... Answer: they are insecure, partially because anyone who has to demand that you recognize what they don't believe, is by definition insecure. And, partially because of this: The above is what makes atheists insecure. "A paranoid can still have enemies". .... And yet, you get all pissed off when people say that Islam is essentially nothing more than plagiarized Christianity, with handy modifications like: "it's Ok for us to go conquering other people, and taking their stuff(which real Christianity says is not OK). In fact, it is the duty of the little people to support said conquering campaigns" and "I'm allow to forego any and all tenets of Islam, whenever I feel like, and gain personally from that, provided I can prove that I am furthering Islam in some way, however tangential." A religion you can make up as you go along, and ignore as a matter of convenience, WITHOUT breaking faith with it. The same cannot be said about any other religion. No, nothing suspicious here. When Romney and Congress remove funding for planned parenthood...because they are removing funding for everything, including Big Bird? I will remember to remind you that "having debt we can't sustain, and is in danger of destroying the country permanently" is simply "the America we already lived in". When they destroy ALL these new HHS rules, including the ones about religious employers, because they are destroying Obamacare in general and replacing it with something that can actually work...I will remind you that "hey, 65% of the American people want Obamacare gone"...so...this is the America you already lived in. It's going to be fun. No. Human life is subject to the law of supply and demand, no different than everything else. How valuable is another male, Chinese farmer to the world right now? How valuable is yet another baby born with AIDS in Africa? If we truly were "moral", and truly held ourselves to the "every single life is precious" rule, then we'd be up in arms about the plight of Chinese farmer dude as much as we are about "3 weeks old, group of cells, not a dude". The only real difference? We know the value of Chinese farmer guy(next to 0). Do not lie to yourselves or us: if every life is valuable, and we never made arguments of convenience about this, we would have gone to war with China, or at least put as much effort into removing that regime, as removing abortion on demand, years ago. Also: The more supply, the lower the price. Hence, if you want people to place a higher price on life, stop demanding that we over-supply the earth. For the record: no, I don't think a group of cells is a person. But, I also think intentionally ice-picking a half-born baby, that could live on its own(or else explain premature babies) is disgusting, because it is murder. Again, these truths are self-evident, if we don't cloud our thinking with emoting. With all of this: you may not like what I'm saying, but you cannot find logical fault with it. I tell the truth, though schit if you don't like it.

This is just hysterical. Fox Butterfield has nothing on these guys. http://www.washingto...c6a24_blog.html Did you completely forget about the "Beer Summit" fiasco? It's not that he hasn't spoken about this. It's that the first time he did, he failed miserably. Then, it continued with "Republicans can get on the bus but they have to sit in the back". Yeah...no racial overtones there at all. All the class warfare, etc. and these guys are shocked that Obama hasn't been able to deliver on post-racial unity. Hint: you have to be post-racial...to speak, and more importantly, act post-racially. Amazing. The most likely explanation for an increase in racial tension: We have at best a race-benefiter, and at worst a race-baiter, and in all cases a non-leader, in the WH. This explanation has eluded these guys, who get paid to do nothing other than study this stuff. ........ How about they take on real social studies questions: what happens when an African American becomes a darling of white liberals, from college freshman to today, and they keep preparing the path for him? When has he had his thinking challenged? When has he had to think objectively? Why should we expect anything other than a "the police acted stupidly" immediate response, from a guy who can say something like that around every single person in his existence, and never even have to explain it, never mind be challenged about it? Why would anyone from any background, expect a guy who has been coddled like that, to be a post-racial unifier? This guy(and feckless Biden) got blown out by Paul Ryan in 6 minutes. (EDIT: watch the 2 guys behind Ryan. They go from bored to "sit up straight, you have my full attention" in the first 2 minutes ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk Just look at Obama's face, and how often he blinks ...and you expect him to be great, as in MLK great, at anything? Amazing.

I don't care if you name me...I am naming me. So...WTF? The fundamental difference is: if I'm wrong, I will go looking for the answer as to why. If you/Nate Silver is wrong...it will be everybody else's fault, and you will just move on. (Moveon.org is good. NoIntrospection.com is better) If Obama wins, it will be because the story he and his team have been pushing about D turnout being so high, that it overcomes both energized R and I +7-10 turnout for Romney, is accurate. It's possible, but not probable. EDIT: So far? Obama is short 250k votes in Ohio from this point in time in 2008. F'ing about with poll weighting...does little against that. Like I said: not probable. But really? The difference between my "sources" and yours? I don't have any. 3 months ago, when we were seeing polls of Obama leading by 7-10, I looked at the "internals", and what I now know are called "crosstabs" and said: Horsecrap. I said that, because BI is part of what I do for a living, and these polls are clear examples of what I have learned to avoid, and trained people not to do. Clients often fail, because they go looking to prove a pattern, rather than letting the patterns come to them. I am speaking from wisdom - the result of experience and knowledge over time - here, not partisan buffoonery. Nate Silver smells, and most certainly writes, like a client VP trying to get over on another client VP. I've seen this before. I've seen them spend, literally, $3 million on their own private "I'm Right" system, and have had to decommission those systems more than once. It's not about "what I want to hear". It's about "I've seen people like Nate Silver before. I've seen them do this before. They are rarely right, and they almost always have an ulterior motive. It doesn't mean they are never right. It does mean that their system has little to do with it." Example: How do you explain Silver giving more weight to a poll from 4 weeks ago, rather than one from yesterday, because the older poll is in line with an unsupported belief, while there is a lot of data that contradicts that belief? Obama may win the election...but what about that excuses this bizarre approach to poll weighting?

See? They are trying to make Latino = Black...when there's no way they have the same history, motivations, or values. Economic status is the only thing the latino community has in common...and not for long if they can get legal. If we can get comprehensive immigration policy done, then, that removes a massive assimilation hindrance from Latinos. There's no reason to believe that they won't follow the path of the Irish, Italians, Polish, Germans, etc. In 2 generations they will have their Ryans, Gulianis....and...oh wait: don't they already have Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez? It's hysterical that this occupant of the office tries to lump these 2 groups together...it basically tells you all you need to know.

No, you aren't mistaken. No, this is not the first time the media has purposely skewed polls in favor of the D incumbent. Ben Bradlee, Washington Post editor, when told that his dishonest polls made Nancy Reagan so nervous about losing California that she demanded money, that would have gone to winning MN(and getting all 50), go to California instead: "Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign." Feel free to google that. So, let's not lie to ourselves about the MSM/Democrats purposely F'ing with polls. It's not new, it's not even that uncommon. In the face of 2010, the obvious mood of the country, 100 other factors, and Holy God himself...today's dishonest/delusional keep using a D+7-8 turnout model, and weighting their samples by that. This is the only thing keeping these polls close. A few months ago, it was used to make the right/independents worried about losing....as it was intended to. The only chance Obama ever had? Making Rs stay home. Now? It's merely making people like Nate Silver embarrass themselves. (See M.D. I'm merely getting warmed up) Nate Silver got credit last time for correctly picking 49 of 50 states. If we think about it....it's not that amazing of a feat, without any #s at all. I bet that most of the people on this board could have picked 47-49 states last time, with minimal analysis. But really? The worst kept secret is that the Obama campaign was feeding Silver their data. So, he took the answer, and worked backwards to create models. Viola...his model works. Any # of models could have been produced, and as long as they came out with the same trends/data, they are "right". The raw data for 2012, the makeup of the electorate, is not going to be what it was in 2008. However, OFA is feeding Nate Silver the idiocy that it will be, and demanding that he, and others(Gallup) agree with them...about things like "whites will make up 68%, not 74%, of the overall electorate". Obama himself recently said: "Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community." This ALL goes back to a single, poorly researched book, that claims that the Republican party is going to die...because latinos/blacks/asians will not only overpopulate whites, but that all will vote 80%+ for Democrats. Events have overtaken this book. See here: http://www.realclear...rticles/2012/10/29/changing_demographics_wont_mean_the_end_of_republican_party_115941.html Perhaps we should ask: Chris Christie what he thinks about Asian voters Ds why they think treating Latinos...like they have treated blacks...will work Ds why they think selling unfettered abortion to Latinos will work Ds why, when many Latinos have risked life and limb to come here to work and become successful, they think those same people are going to want to pay more taxes and/or become dependent on the government. IF they wanted that...they would have stayed home. What we have here is wishful thinking supporting a nonsensical theory. Everything is based on starting with this Latinos Rising theory, and searching for facts to support it. It's the worst sort of selective fact gathering, and this directly informs Nate Silver's poll weighting "methodology". Any poll that shows whites below 70 gets weighted higher than a poll that shows them above 70, because it reflects the "accurate" electorate. Yeah that's circular reasoning, and confirmation bias. Nothing has changed from 2008....for Silver. He is still using what OFA is feeding him. Too bad for him, this time, it's not even close to being right. It's a delusion. It's a delusion that says Democrats don't have to be accountable for their awful policies, because they can keep marketing themselves to 1st time voters. This is folly, but why should we stop them? Let them ignore the plumbers...and focus on college kids, professors, lawyers and latinos, none of which have the consistent, election after election, voting record of plumbers. Like I said: folly.

Oh...and how could I be so careless? Of course...the white people who voted for Obama in VA and FL last time...aren't voting for Romney this time because of the awful policies...they are doing so, because they've all turned racist. Either that, or they want to return to their Southern, Confederate, heritage. (The fact that a zillion yankees have moved from the NE to VA and FL in the last 10-20 years....is...ignored. Nah, let's just call them all racists...we'd much rather do that than actually use our brains) http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-gops-geography-and-the-confederacy.html So again, it's not the awful policies, it's the newly developed awful racism of white people. "Yeah, that's the ticket!".

They are doing this at their peril. It's not as if FOX is short of massive egos who will remind their viewers that "they had it right" for the next 6-12 months, and grab even more market share. Also, it must be said by somebody, and the rest of the major networks are FOOLISH for not working this angle: this story is being bread-crumbed out, day by day. I cannot say if it's intentional, but it sure looks that way. Does FOX have the whole story, and are they responsible for the format? Or, are the sources using FOX by only giving them one piece at a time? Is this the career CIA people's punishment for Obama/Clinton/Biden throwing them under the bus? John Bolton literally said "the intelligence community will get revenge". If I was working at CBS, and a liberal, that's a story I'd want to report on. Who is leaking the info and why? Why is it coming out in pieces? However, by the MSM ignoring it all together, there's no counter to this. The worst part is: this is a scandal, it won't go away, and the Eric Holder/Fast and Furious approach simply will not work here. EDIT: Bret Baier literally just said "we are getting little pieces of this every day". Now, tell me I'm wrong. But, the MSM is too dumb to realize that they are being set up for a massive fall here.

Here's one lining up to blame the Democratic voter who stayed home. (It has the added benefit of being a "Hey liberals, want to lose every election for the rest of your lives? Do this!" manual. Yeah, keep pushing for pre-Reagan tax rates, moron. I'd like to see a 538-0 blowout. Hey, can you run Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and this plan? That would be the best. Thanks, bro!) http://www.huffingto..._b_2017866.html Here's one blaming...you guessed it! "The Messaging" http://www.tnr.com/b...e-right-message Now, this one is just awesome: "It's Bill Clinton's fault" :lol: http://thecaucus.blo...obama-campaign/ There's only one article that both acknowledges that there are serious problems that Obama may not recover from, and that they are largely of his own making. It also says that its on Obama, and no one else, to try and win. http://www.thedailyb...ection-day.html I credit this guy for, somewhat laying the blame where it belongs, even if he remains too affected to understand that it is the POLICY, not the man, that is the problem. The man has been able to say "I got this" and pull it off. What has killed him is that neither he, nor Mr. Tomansky seems aware that nobody would have "had this" using these policies. However arrogant Obama has been, he was massively appealing to voters, and he/that hasn't changed. What has changed? We have seen the policies for 4 years. The fact that Mr. Tomansky thinks these problems can be erased in 9 days? "Well, there is the messaging to fix..." Had they fixed that pesky messaging, everybody would be loving Obamacare today. The funniest part: Obama doesn't know that today's Democrats(EDIT: minus Paul Begala and James Carville) refuse to examine their beliefs for error. He doesn't know because: he doesn't either. That means, when this is over...Obama is going to wake up one day and realize that HE, not the awful policies, will be blamed. HE is the one who won't be invited to parties in DC. HE is the reason why Romney won, not the awful policies. HE's the loser, who couldn't get the otherwise perfectly functional policies to work. At least Gore had an election fiasco to blame. Boy, that's going to be one hell of a wake-up call for Mr. "prepared the path for the child". It ain't going to be pretty.

Can you believe that at one point, this was a talking point for these people? How embarrassing for them. You are right to remind them of that embarrassment. Today we find out that there was a briefing 48 hours after the attack, which clearly indicated what we now know, but 3 days after that Susan Rice is out selling the video? POTUS and SOSUS are telling families at the funeral "they will get the video's producer"? Yeah, this is sickening, and well beyond embarrassing. This is flat out dishonorable. The man has brought shame to an office he clearly doesn't belong in. It's time for these people to leave, and do it quietly, if they want to retain a shred of self-respect. In time, they can be forgiven, but not if they keep lying. But, then again, I imagine the self-respect thing was replaced by self-congratulation long ago.

http://www.redstate....obama-is-toast/ This is interesting....as "smaller" samples implies meddling, to me This is fact-based, and extensive analysis. If you want to be critical of it, point out where it goes wrong with your own fact-based, extensive analysis. Go ahead and say Nate Silver...and see what I post. Otherwise, accept that I have been right about the oversampling of the polls/idiocy of using 2008 as a model. (Suggestion: you might want to get that out of the way now, rather than waiting for Nov. 7th) The question of turnout reality vs. fantasy is now resolved. (With the caveat that Nevada...is Nevada...so who the F knows?) Next question: what is the O/U on days until Nate Silver's 538 prediction models move away from this D+7 fantasy? Or, when he stops over-weighting polls from 4 weeks ago, and under-weighting polls from yesterday? And, yes, I know that 538 is the only thing keeping you Ds from a meltdown...but...you might as well disabuse yourselves from Nate now, rather than later, as well. Just sayin'

First of all: I have largely kept my mouth shut about the attack itself, because I know how fast things can turn into ClusterFart. The fog of war is real. But, this is limited to the events in Libya during the attack. Also: 7 hours or real time intel...stretches the definition of "fog of war". There is no excuse for what happened after, and no excuse for not increasing security after the prior attacks. However, if Obama, Panetta, and Patreus were serving officers in the Army? There would be an inquiry, at least. More than likely courts martial would be convened. "Misbehavior in the face of enemy" is not a good thing: http://usmilitary.ab...fo/mcm/bl99.htm I honestly don't know if the UCMJ applies to civilians in the chain of command. But, it seems like it should. Otherwise, where is their justification for being in that chain, and where do they derive the power to hold those below them to the UCMJ? But really? He's not defending him at all. He's merely trying to distract. No. The truth, and objectivity is the victim. And, since the MSM has done this too many times, things like FOX News appears, and beats them all in the ratings, even the big 3(check the debate ratings). Now the MSM is a victim, of itself. The NYT is rapidly on its way to losing it "paper of record" status. Libya may just be what finally breaks them.

First, there can be no doubt about the uniqueness of the financial crisis. And, with it came a unique political trap: do you let the housing market bottom out, because that's what a market has to do, or, do you keep people in their homes? There is no good answer there. We chose the first one, and it has kept housing, a key factor in recovery, from recovering. OTOH, politically, at the time, Obama had to know that opting to throw people out of their homes for cold market calculation, would have lost him both houses in 2010. Not to mention the very real social costs of losing homes. I'm not blaming Obama for this. There was no good answer. It turns out he lost one house anyway, but that was due to stupidity in other areas(Obamacare). Second, the current status of the banks is completely unacceptable. We cannot have "too big to fail" banks, period. Also, we MUST stop Bernanke form lending banks $ for 0% interest. These banks are not lending. This is not working. Instead of lending money to businesses, homeowners and car owners, they are making money off taking that free money and doing deals(trades, etc.) with it. Now, I don't blame them in a sense: they aren't going to make reasonable profit, that their shareholders demand, off of .5% interest loans, and certainly not as much as they can with the deals they are doing.

Paul Krugman: King of "Moving the Goalposts". If Romney wins, and succeeds, I can't wait for Krugman to find fault with that by citing some small demographic doing worse than under Obama. "But...but...but...the Peurto Rican Lesbians in Tampa are suffering terrible ignominy under Romney. Yes, there are in fact macro multipliers that can be activated for the Peurto Rican Lesbians of Pinellas County." Alternate/Additional Future prediction: IF Romney is elected, and the economy improves, Paul Krugman will credit Obama. He will try to explain away massive investment moving in from the sidelines by saying it was all due to Obama stabilizing the economy through government spending, Obamacare freeing small businesses of having to pay for health care, and claim that this investment would not have been possible without these "achievements:. He will suffer his usual Fox Butterfield obtuseness: why was capital sitting on the sidelines in the first place vs. why isn't it now? What has changed? Hint for the Butterfield/Krugmans: Obama was in office, and now, he's not. Yes, the most likely explanation will "elude" Fox Krugman again. Yes, and this is such big issue....that Obama For America hasn't mentioned it once. In fact, Obama has been trying to claim credit for increased oil drilling. Come on, your argument is laughable. How do you explain boasting about increased drilling from Mr. "Today will remembered as the day the oceans stopped rising", and his campaign...if you are right? They are wrong, or, you are wrong. Pick one. See? I have been right all along. This stuff = Gay Marriage. Democrats sucked in the buffoons and got them all fired up, because they needed distraction/wedge issues after being being beaten, soundly, in 2002 and 2004. In 2006-08 they had the anti-Iraq war sentiment, but they needed to look like they stood FOR something, and these things were it. I am sorry, but now? There's no place left for the Ds to go. That's why we are hearing about Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets and Booklets. They have nothing left to talk about, and a whole lot they don't want to talk about(ahem, Libya). Meanwhile, Romney/Ryan's "national debt" argument is very real, affects all of us, and is an infinitely more compelling argument, when we start "thinking of children". Romney's economic approach is also superior, when we "think about children" in the short run.

This entire analysis is based on a false premise...both ways, and is ridiculous. We cannot KNOW which loopholes will be closed, or to what degree they will be closed, or, if there is some sort of max deduction cap, applied to a series of loopholes...that allows people to close their own loopholes however they want. Until we KNOW which loopholes will be closed, and how, anybody who says they KNOW the Romney plan won't work is full of schit. Also, anybody who says they KNOW the Romney plan will work, is = full of schit. And finally, as with all things government, we may THINK we KNOW how a particular change to a loophole will act, and may find out that we DON'T KNOW. This is why we'd have to be very precise in how the loophole gets closed. And that....is why it's probably better to just go with removing the easy loopholes, and, for the rest, using a deduction cap, and let each taxpayer decide for themselves how they want to apply it.

How do I know that? I was in my teens for most of this, but, I was paying attention, so, I will just tell you: Bill Clinton was the king daddy flip-flopper of all time in 1992. Then, he tacked left for the first 2 years(Hillary-driven), and failed miserably. Then, the 1994 R wave happened, and Ds lost control of both houses. Clinton, unlike the moronic occupant of the office today, hired Dick Morris and began the famous "triangulation" strategy. This led to Bill Clinton, more often than not, proposing R legislation before the R could even finish it. Rs were driven crazy by this, because Clinton would not only get the credit for their work, but, also be able to modify it, both to suit his needs, and, to mollify his base for dong R things. This is what created the massive success of the 90s, because it was always a race to the news conference podium, for who was going to cut spending/taxes/remove regulation/fix a good government program first. Morris had too many friends on the R side, who were willing to feed him what their bosses were thinking. And, they didn't care if their bosses got the credit, as long as the Republican will was largely done. All of a sudden, everybody on the R side, rightly, wanted to be standing behind Clinton for the picture, because then the credit would rub off on them. John McCain basically made his bones by standing behind Clinton at the news conference. But, make no mistake, these were mostly R ideas...not liberal ideas. This got to the point that the Rs were even willing to along with a tax increase for the wealthy, because, the upside of doing so = easy re-election. It still fascinates me that Ds love Clinton so much...when he essentially spent 6 years walking back/reforming/destroying their sacred cows...and he got a 3% increase in taxes in return. Bill Clinton reamins the most successful Republican legislator off all time. So...if Romney snags some liberal ideas, if they make sense, and some Republican ideas, if they make sense, even though he said he wouldn't do this or that 14 months ago, blah, blah....all he would be doing, is using the Bill Clinton pragmatic approach. I don't think very many people will have a problem with that. I am asking: would you have a problem with that?

http://battlegroundw...n-early-voting/ And, no, this is not where I got my #s from 2 months ago, when I started bitching about polls. I got tired of doing all this crap myself, and I went looking for somebody who was willing to put in the effort. I first went to unskewedpolls.com and quickly realized that the guy is just as batshit crazy as the NBC/Marist polls. Anyone can F with a sample, and get whatever they want, as the MSM has been doing; I am now convinced. Too bad they keep forgetting to fix the internals: http://battlegroundw...-obama-leading/ Romney down by 5...yet miraculously up by 13 with INDs, and, up by 11 in enthusiasm, and once again, a D+9 turnout? GTFO of here. So, luckily I found this guy. There is no doubt he's a Republican, and so are most of his posters. So, let's get that out of the way. However, his math and analysis seems to be sound. He doesn't monkey with the data, instead, he criticizes it in a reasonable way: he finds his own data to back up his criticism, rather than just messing with other people's data. From the comments: http://battlegroundw...ent-15871 this Washoe county thing seems to be a consistent bell weather of the rest of Nevada, and the whole country. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Also, he agrees with me that D+2 is the best the Ds can hope for, and arrived at that the same way I did.

Oh, the melodrama. Wrong thread. You want the "victim mentality" thread in Aisle 3. The fact is no amount of tired old rhetoric from the 80s, that ended up being dead wrong, is going to win this war either. We have to stop pretending that anyone its out to get us...other than those who actually are out to get us. First it was "radical Christians are just as bad", then.... Who is politicizing war? Your phony shadow cabal, or you, right here, in this thread? What's next, "there is no terrorist threat"? Do you really think anybody subscribes to this Michael Moore nonsense any more? The terrorists are still there, and they will remain there, training, and trying to find ways to kill us. 5 years from now, even if we do nothing, get extremely lucky, and they keep stepping on their cranks, they will still be there. The will still be there, or here, until we go and get all of them. So, let's make a deal: tell us when you are going to be done with this...so we will know when to start taking you seriously on this issue.

"Ewing...Yes!...and the foul"

Hey, it is my thread! All: Feel free to post Archer, provided it is funny. Johnny Bench...is one of my favorites. I have been patiently waiting to use that in real life since the first time I saw it. I used it on this board once...I think it was something to do with Hillary. Or, Levi used it, I forget.

No...we are talking about a war here, the battlefield is everywhere, and if you don't want to win it, then WTF is the point? You can't fight this war as a law enforcement activity, that's how Clinton Fed up getting Bin Laden. It's a war. When you get done talking, it will still be a war. "War is upon you, whether you would have it or not". War time is not peace time. Our job is to get back to peace time as fast as possible, so that war time measures are no longer necessary. I know that isn't going to happen this year, or next, and our war-time rights are by definition going to be trampled upon now and then. War-time...is war-time. We need to focus on not being in the same place we are 10 years from now. Reagan didn't win the cold war in a year. And, he didn't win it by military spending alone. He used a strategy that included every tactic, and everything we had: economic, military, cultural, intellectual, scientific, athletic, etc. The dumbest thing W did was not immediately get Hollywood involved, and collaborate with them. Reagan would have. After all, this war is everybody's war, because we all live on the battlefield, and any of us can be suddenly in combat at any time, so, all of us need to fight. Might as well fight using what we are good at. This is a war of ideas, and we need to be finding ways to constantly expose theirs as stupid. In a sense, it's a political campaign as well. We have to stop treating these people like criminals, and treat them as the political adversaries they are. The only way we are going to stop lil' Achmed from going down the wrong road, is by making sure he can see how dumb the other side is. What we really need? Comedy. Nothing in this world is more powerful than ridicule. If we are psyoping lil'Achmed by making fun of terrorists for as long as he can remember, there's a good chance he will think twice. Who wants to pledge the dork fraternity? If we do all of these things, and win, then, I don't think it will very difficult to get things like the Patriot act curtailed. Put it this way, if we were to truly unite behind winning this war, by first agreeing that it is a war, and then win it, it will very easy to stay united right after, and demand our peace time rights back. In fact I think that would be done in 30 days(bleh...lawyers). Who the hell would dare stand in the way?

This...is also a reply

You think I'm F'ing around? Seriously, you will smash that phone. Especially after the 8th time you hear "how many years of working with X do you have?"...when X came out <1 year ago and nobody really knows WTF they are doing with it yet. Yes...and the Microsoft VS. Apple VS. Google tablet war that is literally starting TODAY...is not happening? Um...3 American companies, right? This war has all the makings of being epic for the rest of us, and never ending. Some parts of it may be fought in China...but really? This is going to be a global war, fought all over the place, and the "soldiers" are going to be from all over the world, but mostly Americans. That's the world we live in now. It's going to be awesome.

I care. I'm right here, sitting next to you. The very last thing I want is for the military to be treated like a cure-all. We are talking about killing here. Killing is permanent, just ask anyone who has. It shouldn't ever become easy, and these drones make it awfully easy. There's some validity to the "killing terror begets more terror" point. Some. But, there's more validity to not letting this drag on for decades, because we want to pretend like the enemy will just go away if we are nice to them. Bill Clinton was arguably second to none in terms of good will with the rest of the world, and that had 0 effect on Bin Laden, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. The only moral choice is to win a war as fast as possible. The real evil, is to let a war drag on because we are too weak to do the things that will win it. The Civil War is a great example of this. Grant finally did the things that won the war. And, while we hear about Sherman's evils, what we don't hear about: the ~500k men on both sides that wouldn't have died had Grant been in charge in 1861. If we think that peace = the absence of war...then we have bigger problems than military ecess, or militarism in general. IF that's what we think, then getting rid of that stupidity is job #1. Throughout history, all history, the only time war occurs...is when one or both sides think they can get away with it, that it won't cost them that much, and the benefit surpasses that cost. Weakness breeds militarism. A general, or today, a commander-in-chief, who actually has to fight a war, has failed in his primary task.

Dude.. .<facepalm> </facepalm> Really. You think our tech sectors are in trouble? How about I create some fake resumes for you, and post them on Monster? I will buy you a throw away cell phone, and make a fake Gmail and use them for your contact info. I'll make you a below-average programmer, an average electrical engineer, and an above average pre-sales engineer. Hell, I'll even make you into an industry-standard, nerdy but hot, training chick. You will truly "enjoy" the rest of your day. The O/U on you smashing that phone: 45 minutes, and that's only because it takes ~15 mins for the resumes to fully propagate.

Hey, given the way this thing has been going....it's hard to see the forest, or the trees, and you may be right. I mean the polls are giving me a F'ing headache. The internals don't make any F'ing sense at all. Therefore, we can't know just how soft the electorate really is, so we can't know how much effect something like this Trump stuff will have. One thing I am certain of? Nate Silver is a moron.