(V): My point is if freedom of expression is something we both agree about, then why do liberals applaud that freedom when Christians are criticised and defamed, but deplore it when Islam is treated with the same lack of respect?

I don't disagree with you in principle, I'm only pointing out how liberals don't seem to believe freedom of expression applies to everyone. In principle, yes. In practice, no. They choose who deserves that freedom and who doesn't according to their own beliefs, and demonstrate it by their actions. If you don't think this is what has been happening then you haven't been paying attention, or you agree with the nonuniform application of freedom as practiced by liberal politicians and pundits.

Who was arrested and hauled off to jail in the middle of the night for placing a crucifix in a jar of urine and displaying it at an art gallery? No one. But someone who disrespected Islam in a stupid video was arrested and hauled off in the middle of the night and is currently sitting in jail. Why? Because the president didn't want to take responsibility for ignoring a request for more security for an upcoming attack that had nothing to do with that video.

It wasn't just a stupid maneuver, it was a lazy quick fix that will probably do more to inflame Islamic hatred for us than to sooth them. They are not idiots, even they know the video had nothing to do with an attack they had been planning for months to be carried out on or near September 11th. Honestly, how hard would it be for someone to find a youtube video that could insult anyone?

Artful Dodger: I know, and it's not unlikely Obama paid more in taxes this year because he had more taxable income than Romney. Being wealthy doesn't mean you should have to pay taxes on the same income you've already paid taxes on. You are not taxed on the income you made and paid 10 years ago, or 9 years ago, or 8... you are taxed according to how much you made this year. Obama is not some poor struggling middle class worker, he's a wealthy man. It continues to amaze me who Obama is trying to impress with dumb statements like that.

Artful Dodger: I'm not sure because I was in another room when I heard it, but I think I heard Obama say he paid more in taxes than Romney. If that is what he said, was he complaining or bragging?

Artful Dodger: I started watching it on tv, then switched to listening to it on the radio. Obama was more aggressive this time. I knew he would be, he had to after learning he did not win the first debate... that still cracks me up, someone had to tell him he did not win the first one. After the debate all I heard from the commentators is that he won this debate. Except for Ann Compton, she said she would reserve judgement until after the next debate.

One other interesting thing happened... when the moderator brought up Hillary saying it was her responsibility and not Obamas (for not providing proper security when it was asked for) Obama said no... she works for me, so it's my responsibility. I think Hillary is already trying to look presidential, because it's likely she will want to run for president in 2016. Obama taking that hot potato back and saying it belongs to him was I think a knee jerk reaction, even though everyone knows the blame will inevitably fall into someone elses lap.

I listened to most of the debate. So now I've learned Obama believes the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack... period. No spontaneous eruption of violence during a protest over a video no one knew about until he, the president, told us about it. No, the day after the attack he said it was a terrorist attack and has always maintained it was a terrorist attack. So after two weeks of suffering through listening to him talk about how the violence and killings were because of a video... well, apparently that never happened. I've been asleep for two weeks dreaming about some stupid video, but today I woke and am now getting the straight scoop. Right.

And it's also apparent the president hasn't yet figured out that big bird is not really a bird. Or maybe he doesn't want to break the hearts of all those five year olds listening to the debate by telling them big bird is only an actor in a bird costume. But it does beg the question, Mr President... how many five year olds do you believe listening to the debate can be persuaded to vote for you in a few weeks, seeing as how they are only five years old?

(V): You had a point?

AD was right, it is easier to be a liberal. I've been working too hard at this, when all I really need to do is to randomly type words onto a page. And they will with no effort from me or anyone else randomly self organize into the same brilliant analysis you are able to achieve with eyes closed and mind preoccupied by thoughts of splendicious grandeur. That's my theory about house work, but it hadn't occurred to me until you hadn't mentioned it that this is actually a universal truth. It's how we evolved from lower forms of life and then de-evolved into liberals... not all of us, but some of us have. I did too until I didn't.

The perfect example of this principle in action is house work. I don't need to do anything, because aside from the fact that any work is offensive and no should have to listen to anyone tell them they need to work at anything, including making sense at a game site message board, everything will eventually self organize... the clutter will disappear and everthing will become clean, and every item I have will eventually through nothing more than the random forces of nature be located precisely where it should be. In fact, I could speed up the process by merely wanting everything to be as and where it already is.

What could be easier than that?

(V): Compared to what? Making it illegal for girls to get an education? You have a little girl in your country right now, to protect her from further harm by people who tried to kill her as she was walking to school. How does that compare to the freedom to express yourself... which by the way happens to be a freedom you've already made it clear you support. Are you suggesting such freedom should be limited to only you and the people you agree with?

How are able to take a position one day, and the next day you are against that same position?

If making offensive remarks against religion is such a bad thing, then why do liberals go out of their way to lie about and make offensive remarks and materials against Christians?

(V): [ Because some events keep happening, it's not new. Will it really infringe on your liberties.. no. ]

But if we sit back and do nothing about it.. yes.

Liberties are not determined by random events. They don't just pop into existence for no apparent reason and for our convenience. It takes effort to get liberty if you don't have it, and effort to keep it once you do have it.

(V): I didn't say it wasn't or couldn't be used. I said it's usefulness is limited.

By the way, Hillary did an interview in Peru (why there?) and took "responsibility" for the failure to respond to the potential threat of violence against the emabassy in Libya. But then she cleverly buried that same "responsibility" into the thousands of people who work for her, suggesting it was a screw up by someone in that big pile of thousands of people who answer to her. I didn't hear the whole interview, but I'm pretty sure she didn't say "And by golly, I'll get to the bottom of this and find out who screwed up if it's the last thing I do!"

Apparently it's in her job description to deflect criticism of the president whenever she's asked to, this time by absorbing that criticism and then passing it along down the chain of command until it can made to stick to one of her underlings. The Clintons, both of them, used tactics like this during Bill Clintons tenure as president. They didn't just fire someone in the White House travel agency, they intentionally lied about him and tarnished his reputation, and for no other reason than to give themselves a reason for firing him.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ It is not the first time that Western intelligence agencies completely fail in using this style of foreign policy. ]

I believe you already know that the purpose of intelligence agencies are to gather information, and it's the politicians responsibility to make decisions and formulate policy based on that information. The Benghazi disaster was not an intelligence failure, it was a failure to respond to that intelligence and take measures to insure the safety of our people in Libya. No one needs a comprehensive history lesson to understand that if you get information about an attack being planned on your people in a country like Libya, where simply being an American means you are at risk, then it would be wise to take that information seriously. The diplomat was advised to NOT make that request, because it was known beforehand that it would be turned down, but he did it anyway. And it's a good thing he did. Because even though he is now dead, the request is a part of the record and everyone knows that the request was made and what happened as a result of the request being ignored.


"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is more of a rule of thumb if you will than any kind of useful proverb. IMO it's a machiavellian principle that has very limited usefulness. If the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy, then that would be like saying the mountain lion fighting the bear that was trying to eat me is my friend. The mountain lion is only your friend because he has engaged the bear and given you an opportunity to escape. It doesn't mean the mountain lion is your friend, and wouldn't harm you if he manages to defeat the bear. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has an extremely limited shelf life, and doesn't always work even when those limited circumstances are well understood.

There is absolutely no intel to confirm the Benghazi attack was a peaceful protest (inspired by a video) that somehow erupted into violence. The Libyan leaders knew it was a planned attack and our state department knew it was a planned attack.

And it happens on the anniversy of 9/ll shortly after we took out their most beloved poster boy for inspiring new recruits to commit acts of terrorism.
Knock knock, Hello? Anyone there? Who's minding the store?

The state department and the Libyan leadership and our ambassador to Libya knew it was coming, that is why there was a request for more security. A request that was turned down because apparently no one knew about the request...?? That doesn't make any sense, was it turned down or ignored or no one got the memo? Which was it?

The state department refuses to back up Obamas purely fictional (fic-tion-al) claims because they do not want to commit perjury when called to testify about it. This story about a video and a protest about the video was concocted by Obama and his closest advisors, and Hillary and Rice and others were compelled by Obama and his closest advisors to lie about it.

Artful Dodger: The Benghazi attack cover up is bizarre. I'm not saying the entire past four years has not been bizarre, but Obama has amped up and lent new meaning to word "bizarre" with this latest bonehead maneuver. I've never seen something like this happen so close to an election, so I'm not sure what could happen after the election.

If Obama is re-elected this will follow him into the next four year cycle, and the duration of that cycle will depend on whether the media continues to try supporting him or not. Hillarys best move would be to resign and try recovering some credibility before the 2016 election. There is talk of her resigning now less than one month before the election, but I don't see how that could help her.

But if Romney is elected, then the spin masters might try pinning the inevitable investigation of the lies and cover up on him, and claim Romney is behind a politcally movitivated witch hunt.

My own analysis of what could happen sounds bizarre to me, but after watching politics for as long as I have... I've likely underestimated the bizarre factor.

Did I miss something, or was the number of new messages sitting next to my politics link wrong? It said 16 new messages, but I only see two new messages here since last night. Half the time the number is wrong, and I can believe a handful of messages being deleted, but not 14.

...continuing "due" dilligence... where'd the 'nc' come from? I didn't type that. Bush is up to his old tricks again, I see.

By the way, a carbon credit debt can include CO2 emissions from your chain saw, if you own one. Also, we've received reports of heavy breathing coming from Bill Clintons home so anyone with information about this is encouraged to spy on him and report any information they find to a local or national Carbon Credit Authority Board of Inquiry representative.


Thank you for you continuing dunce diligence.

For those irresponsible planet killers among you who have put off paying their carbon offset bills, it's not too late to start flushing some of your hard earned money down the toilet.

Artful Dodger: Check out this global warming clip. You won't be disappointed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Artful Dodger: Seriously? He wants to toss Hillary under the bus now? I can't keep up with all of these new developments... and it keeps getting weirder as it goes along.

Artful Dodger: [ the cheerleaders are transvestites ]

What about those other ones? Are those bananas or are they just happy to see me?

Artful Dodger: Libyas leader apologized and said the attack was planned. He even contradicted Obama (well shame on him) by saying it had nothing to do with the video. It's interesting that Libyas leader knew why it happened to OUR ambassador while OUR president apparently doesn't have a clue, and thinks it happened because of some youtube video.

A request for extra security was turned down shortly before it happened, but apparently no one in Obamas administration knew about that. Not even Hiliary, and it's her job to deal with things like that. With this president it's not "What did he know and when did he know it?", but if you can believe the narrative coming from Obama's own mouth then apparently it's "What did he not know and when did he not know it?"

Who in their right mind was expecting nothing to happen on the anniversary of 9/11? It means more to the terrorists than it does for many of us, so of course they were planning to do something. Even if Osama had not been taken out, expecting nothing to happen is insane.

Seriously, was the timing of the attack just a coincidence?

Artful Dodger: I don't know if my eyes have gone bad, or maybe something is wrong with my screen, but those little round cheerleaders look like they all have five o'clock shadows. It's kind of a turn off, if you know what I mean.

Artful Dodger: Oh good, something to look at that hasn't anything to do with me... me me me me me me me me me me... ack, I'm started to sound like a narcissist, and it's making me sick. Ack, ack, patuey... it's like eating nothing but sugar... ack...

An excuse or a strawman... still trying to figure out what that means.

What could my being a former liberal Democrat be used as an excuse for? And in what universe can building a false persona (a strawman of myself, really?) help anyone's argument? Does it really matter to anyone here who I am or what I was?

I was a liberal Democrat for a relatively short time, considering how old I am now. I married a liberal Democrat, and she came a family of like minded thinkers, so you can imagine how they all felt about an acceptable atheist/liberal/Democrat inlaw becoming a Christian/conservative/Republican inlaw.

It didn't just happen over night, my views gradually changed over a 30 to 40 year period of time. And it's not an excuse for anything, or a straw man argument for persuading anyone, it's just a fact. Granted, it has nothing to do with anything I might say about abortion or politics, or the politics of abortion... I'm just letting ya'll know where I came from and where I am now.

No one is born a Democrat or a Republican, just like no is born an atheist or a believer in God simply because of genetics or family connections. Some people make life decisions based on what their family and friends believe, and I did as well, but I changed my mind.

I am only me. Remove the spaces and it reads Iamonlyme. Then add a space and you have Iamon lyme. See? That's who I am.

(V): Very well, you did not answer so I will ask again...

Do you approve of chain saws?


[ Mote comes to mind ]

Very good, that's an improvement. Anything else getting in up there?

mckinley: [ It's ok to kill criminals when you aren't to judge? I'm against all killing. ]

Why do you assume I'm okay with any killing? If I'm against the killing of innocents, then you assume I'm okay with war or any other thing poeple do that causes death and destruction. It's a phony argument where you pretend to speak for both sides. It's called a straw man argument, but I suspect you already know that. I don't assume any of you who do this are stupid or ill informed simply because you attempt to cheat in arguments on a message board.

But if you insist on making this kind of assumption then fine, I can do the same about any of you. I could make the same assumption about anyone who thinks abortion is okay, and if I did my assumption would have more merit... Because if you don't have a problem with killing the weakest and most innocent of humans, then why should I assume you wouldn't have a problem with anyone else being killed? If you are unfaithful in a small matter (small to you perhaps) then you will be unfaithful in larger matters. Jesus said that in a different way, but you are free to ignore him whenever it doesn't suit you.

Artful Dodger: If abortion had already been legal long before the effort was made to make it legal, I wonder how many pro-abortion advocates would not exist because someone decided it would be more convenient to not let them live beyond the womb? I've posed that question before, and was somewhat surprised by the response.

The response is almost always the same: It didn't matter to them if they were born or not, they still believed it was okay to arbitrarily end the life of a child, just so long as that child was too young to know anything.

Yeah, right... more like as long as that child was too young to defend itself or complain about it. Their response was meaningless, because the people to whom I posed the question already knew their existence was safe and always had been.

Liberals lack all of the virtues they want us to believe they extol, and chief among those virtues is empathy. They feel nothing for the people they victimize, and expect nothing but praise for their efforts.

Artful Dodger: There are survivors of botched abortions. The first one I heard about lost one of his arms because it was the first body part to be pulled out. When the abortionist saw it he panicked because he realised the baby was fully formed and ready to be born. Back when that happened only babies in the first term (the first three months of development) could be legally killed. The mother had lied about how far along she was, so the attending doctor had no other choice than to safely remove the baby and let him live. Or let her live, I don't recall the gender of the child... as though that should make any difference to liberals, they are equal opportunity baby killers in this country. Not so much in other countries, where gender does make a difference in determining whether the childs life should be terminated or not.

Artful Dodger: She survived her abortion, and has been on the run ever since. If you see this illegal child do not approach her, but instead call your local authorities.

(V): Do you approve of chain saws?

(V): [ Literal cluster bombs... it has relevance. ]

Relevance to what? I have no problem with you using cluster bombs in your video games if they are available to you. IMO the only possible victim in such a game is the player. It's up to you how you want to spend your time, that's not my call, so your question in regard to video war games is with all due respect irrelevant.

If you are asking if I personally approve of cluster bombs, I can't help you out with that either because implements of war isn't a specialty of mine. I take it you do not approve of them, but in the interest of schlepping this line of thought flowing onward and keeping you otherwise occupied as theives break into your place and tippy toe out the door with some things in your fridge you would not want to part with how do you feel about guns or knives? How about protective shielding, or is that cheating?

(V): [ Do you approve of cluster bombs? ]

Are you talking about literal bombs used in actual wars, or are you refering to what it is you do when you are losing ground in a debate and so begin "lobbing bombs"? I have to assume it's the second meaning because I either missed the discussion on the use of (literal) cluster bombs, or you are wanting to change the subject and talk about the use of (literal) cluster bombs. So before I can answer your question it is necessary that I must ask which is it?

Are you asking about literal or figurative cluster bombs?

(V): [ Does your DNA approve of cluster bombs? ]

Is telegraphing your moves after the fact encoded in yours?

(V): That makes as much sense as anything else you've said, but why anyone would think a one day reinvention of himself that ends the same day could carry any weight is beyond my ability to fathom... and the inability to fathom this was one of my limitations that made being a liberal difficult if not impossible. Apparently my DNA was coded for me to become a conservative instead of a liberal. But I did try, you have to at least give me credit for that... or not. Maybe tomorrow you can.

The Col: "It really is a shame you have turned what could be a respectful forum for political discussion into a spam filled propaganda board"


[]_ [[]] []_

It is really a shame you can't remember what you say from one day to the next.

rod03801: "...coddle Biden."

That's hilarious. Okay, so maybe her maternal instincts kicked in, we can't fault her for that. It can happen to the most hardened feminist whether they want it to happen or not. Genetic programing can be ignored only up to a point. and guys have the same problem, no matter how sensitive and caring we try to be the beast manages to surface at some point. And no one can be blamed for this, because it's not anyone's fault... it's evolutions fault. Or maybe the aliens who seeded this planet with the DNA that made it all possible... its their fault too. And I'm sure Bush had something to do with it.

Okay, I take back what I said about being a liberal... it really is as easy as it seems to be.

rod03801: That's odd (not really) because the first debate appeared to be Obama/Biden/Blitzer

the link didn't work, so I'll try it again..

the result of Biden preparing himself

Artful Dodger: On the other hand, I'll probably not be any better informed than I am now by reading the entire transcript. This is the result of Biden preparing himself for a debate?

Obama should have been prepared and Biden phone it in... they both would have done better.

Artful Dodger: Why do I get the feeling this debate will be downplayed if not ignored? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, it's just that I have this gut feeling I won't be hearing much about it in the news.

Artful Dodger: I managed to see a brief clip from the debate on a local news program, and I couldn't help feeling sorry for Bidden because of how foolish he looked. Ryan is so much younger but you wouldn't know it if just listening to them talk. Ryan wasn't disrespectful, but he did come across as being more mature. But like I said, it was just a brief clip, so I'll have to find a transcript of the debate and read it... I'd rather do it that way than see it, so I didn't really miss anything important. Playing with the grandkids tonight was important, didn't want to miss out on that.

Artful Dodger: I don't know about you, but I was a liberal during the early 70's and it's not as easy as you might think. Thinking for yourself is better and much more satisfying, I'll grant you that, but I need to take a break from it now and then.

I took a break tonight. Visited one of my daughters and played with the grandkids, and made it a point to forget all about politics for at least a few hours. I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything by not seeing the debate tonight, because of what I already know about VP debates: It was probably a dog fight compared to the Romney/Obama debate. I know that Bidden prepared for it, as did Ryan. And over the next 5 days depending on how it went, the media will either spin what happened or declare victory for Bidden. I'm hoping I'm wrong, because it's the predictable nature of politics that make it so mind numbingly boring to watch.

Iamon lyme: [...every war we've entered into over the past 100 years... ]

Oh yeah? Well what about Iraq? What about those wars, huh? Well? If we Dems hadn't been working so hard to strangle oil exploration and drilling and refusing to upgrade and build new refineries you Repugs wouldn't have been so thirsty for oil that you would actually, uh, you know, because we've been wanting to explore new alternatives to oil because, well oil is dirty, you know, like coal, not as dirty but you know what I mean... uh, um.. okay never mind... as you were... carry on.

Artful Dodger: Oh good grief, I just now found out what the big deal was. Your point was to show that every war we've entered into over the past 100 years has been when a Democrat president has been in office.

Since going to war is always intitiated by an executive order given by the President of The United States of America, and every president over the past 100 years who has initiated such an order has been a Democrat, then that should settle the question of which party is the party of war.

Singling out Republicans as the party of war is a ridiculous enough lie to begin with, but it's even more ridiculous because wars don't just wait around for a particular party to be in power before they decide to happen. So essentially what we've been hearing from Democrats about how they are the party of peace is not just a crock of you know what, it's a double crock. But hey, if they don't want credit for helping to defeat Hitler or for bringing the war with Japan to an early end, then I'm all for giving the Republicans credit for that. Now watch as they get defensive and say, "Hell no, we did that!"

[]_ [[]] []_ to the tenth power... can you hear me laughing now?

Artful Dodger: The caffeine helps me to relax so that I can go to sleep. It's true, I'm not kidding. And increased relaxation helps me to fart more, although I'm not sure that has anything to do with sleeping better unless.... aromatherapy?

Iamon lyme: "acamedia"? What is acamedia? Did I mean to say academia? Is acamedia even a word? It kind of looks like a word, like maybe it has something to do with media based knowledge... ? I don't know.

Why am I asking so many questions if I'm only talking to myself? Will I answer myself, or will I ignore my own question? If I don't answer myself by tomorrow morning I'll pester myself until I get a response, and I can keep it up all week if I have to so please, SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

(V): [ Ok.. I'll see if I can get this answered .. one more time... Like the source that says WWII was started by the Democrats? Please.. Please explain how your scholarly sources explain that shift in written history... Art. ]

Where is it? I can't find it. What source makes that claim?

And if Art doesn't answer you, so what? You were the one who said...

[ Because no-one on this board is obliged to answer any question if they choose not to. The moderators say that is everyone's right... something like freedom or some weird concept like it!! ]

Nevertheless, if Art said Democrats started WWII, or quoted a source that makes that claim, then I would like to see some proof of that.

By the way, if he is saying a Democrat president made the decision to enter the war, that's not the same as saying the Democrats started the war. I'm assuming you know the difference.

Artful Dodger: [ AD - 1 (V) - 0 ]

I suspected wiki was something of a sacred cow for left leaning lazy liberal just add water and presto you are all now all ersatz cut and paste scholars, but I wasn't expecting the kind of reaction you got. Now I'll be going to wiki to confirm my understanding of the word 'ersatz', just to make sure of what I just said...

And sure enough, I enter the word 'ersatz' and Wikipedia shows up at the top of my google list. I have nothing against easy sleazy acamedia bottom feeding pursuits, but sometimes I want to make sure I'm not being fed bias tainted info.

Artful Dodger: [ The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" ]

Well, no wonder liberals don't agree with you, you keep breaking their cardinal rules!

2 Kennedy 4: 9-11 "But to thou it shall be as sacrilege, the questioning of reason or motive; let there be questioning upon those whom we do not agree, even to not listening; but nevertheless disagreement must follow them all the days of their lives."

"Happy is he who questioneth not himself; and be not sorely vexed laying in wait to crack open coconut heads of vain knowledge, that sayeth nothing yet spilleth the milk thereof upon the ground."

Artful Dodger: [ Unhinged, violent, immature, and disgusting. All rolled up into Obama supporters. ]

This has been true in my state for a long time. It's just as liberal as the state you live in, so you know what I'm talking about. In the city where I live, anyone with a bumper sticker or yard sign showing support for a Republican candidate can expect to have his privacy or property rights violated. I'm not kidding or complaining, it's just a fact of life. And the fact is you don't have to live on the wrong side of town to be a target.

I've never put up a yard sign or put a bumper sticker on my car, and for good reason. I knew someone whose car windows were broken out. It was the only car hit by vandalism on a street full of parked cars, and the only car with a bumper sticker in favor of a Republican candidate. I happened the same year Gore was running against Bush. I also don't get into political debates with anyone who knows where I live, I just explain to them why in this country we support the idea of a secret ballot. Most of the time they don't know what I mean, or why there should be any reason for a secret ballot. They would if they were Republicans.