SarasotaSabre

Does this mean TMGM has something in play to pull off a trade for a LHD?

thinking about something which I haven't seen posted here yet: does GMTM make a sweet coup to get Fowler by not giving up #8, and in the process providing more rationale for Vesey to sign here? i.e., Vesey and his camp sees & buys into GMTM making the necessary moves to get us off the scheid ? schneid .... fixed

Duff's ?

sorry, your justification is weak sauce. She violated the agreement she signed, skirted the established protocol for SoS communication, abused the authority given her by unilaterally deciding to set up her own outsourced IT shop w/ her own email domain, and showed incredibly crass lack of judgement all the while. "If I had to do it over again, I would not have done it" is about as close to an admission as one will hear from a Clinton. Why do you think Pagliano pleaded the 5th a total of 125 times during his deposition? Nothing to see here, move along.....)) But it must be a conspiracy theory ..... :doh:

In theory the 3rd party idea would be a great thing but history has shown, esp. recently, that big money, big influence, big lobbyists, and big access create the reality of the 2 party system. It's shame b/c the way I see it, we are one party away from a dictatorship, or put differently, a single ruling party.

think of him as the Barry Melrose of ESPN w/out the mullet and pimp suits

don't feel too bad; he torched my St. Lawrence University squad on a number of occasions in that video, including the sick opening backhander

My opinion of him as thin-skinned stems from his apparent behavior and reactions to certain criticisms - I definitely would hope whatever President in office would be able to stay above the fray and show exceptional leadership by doing so. Again, it's just an opinion and I realize he's human.

I would prefer to ignore the overarching, nonspecific post of yours but I feel compelled to respond to something so emotionally irrational. I stated opinions with examples and instead of rebutting my post with an intelligent response, you take any differing view of Obama as me "hating" him. Hate is a very strong word and I DO NOT hate him. I am simply questioning actions and decisions of his which I happen to disagree with. Isn't that supposed be the purpose of this Board, to promote debate? Liberals have no problem with dissent and tolerance as long as you agree with them. Your accusation of me "hating" Obama is exhibit A of that. I also don't criticize him for idiotic minutiae like the color or his tie or his golf game, so that was out of left field as well, as was your suggestion about my hypothetical reaction if Obama cured cancer. That is just asinine. If any disagreement with Obama provokes a reaction like yours, it shows a similarity in that you seem to be as thin-skinned as he is.

before you suggest I am "mad at Obama", you might want to check my earlier post where I said I had soberly reflected on the semantics and that I understand there may be arguments raised for and against his choice of verbiage, and that I was OK with him acknowledging it was a "terrorist attack" What I think you are missing is your use of selective interpretation to challenge me in attempt to defend Obama. As I stated above, I think it is erroneous and borderline irresponsible for the President to state that the threats of terrorist attacks have been "contained", when they have not. I have also elsewhere commented my disagreement with the strategy of containment being executed through law enforcement as opposed to a matter of national security/military interdiction. Case in point was Mateen: he was flagged 2 years ago by the FBI but for some unknown reason his file was closed. My point about publicly announcing the disposal of HVT's is that it might temporarily raise public awareness & confidence, but could have the unintended effect of inspiring more jihadi recruits to spawn like cockroaches.

i am asking an honest question - is this partisanship, a lack of empathy, or a lack of leadership? I cannot fathom why the President has not called the governor of FL http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-scott-obama-orlando-attack-2016-6 "It's typically commonplace for the president to call the governor of a state after such catastrophic events." well then it looks like we have 2 candidates unfit for office; one could easily be wearing a pair of orange overalls.

Neo, amazingly well written post and I could not have come close to the depth & detail you provided. When I read it I felt like I wish it was me writing it. The President's thin-skinned response yesterday was embarrassingly non-Presidential in its content & tone, and was deliberately misleading to boot. He clearly seems to be more angry at Trump than at the horror in Orlando. While he wallows about telling Americans how "extremist terrorism" has been contained, we are now facing domestic attacks. Every boast of killing a HVT (high value target) with a drone strike spawns countless new jihadi recruits signing up to die for their 72 virgins. No, Mr. President, Trump did not call for a ban on all Muslim emigrants to the US; he called for a TEMPORARY ban on such a measure in order for us to figure out what out immigration policy could & should evolve to. I understand the Orlando shooter was a US citizen but Obama's distortion of Trump's suggestion is clearly and duly noted.

Please provide examples today of how an outlet like Fox tried to score political points today in its coverage. I'm not being defensive, I'm calling a spade a spade. I call your suggestions just more cannon fodder to blatantly attempt to politicize a terrible event. And I politely decline your suggestion for me to go elsewhere. I thought liberals were all about tolerance, free speech, and respect for opposing points of view? I have no desire to be part of a board that bashes one side incessantly.

I have to call BS on your baseless inferences toward "conservative news networks" - I have been watching multiple outlets across the spectrum and have seen no evidence of scoring with an agenda/political points. This is an immense human tragedy and your rhetorical questions add zero value to the conversation; they actually underscore why some of us who try to contribute here are so frustrated by the blatantly left-leaning politicization of even the worst events surrounding us.

Sorry for my mistake

thanks, I was not aware of Cohen's historical bent in his writing style. regarding the bolded, since it was you who used the term "Muslim acts of bloodthirsty mass murder", was that just an attempt to suggest others are prone to use such highly prejudicial language?

ah - hah, the familiar anti-Christian retort; last time I checked, Christians were not throwing homosexuals off buildings or stoning them to death.

a bit over the top, no? everyone here seems capable of acknowledging the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people.

again, another opinion - this time by the New York Times: "The favored phrase of the Obama administration in addressing this scourge — “violent extremism” — is vague to the point of evasive meaninglessness. Yes, jihadi terrorists are “violent extremists” but calling them that is like calling Nazism a reaction to German humiliation in World War I: true but wholly inadequate." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/opinion/orlando-omar-mateen-pulse-florida-donald-trumps-america.html?action=click&module=MostEmailed&region=Lists&pgtype=collection As I have pointed out upthread, there seem to be several reasons, for and against, why the Obama Administration uses certain verbiage in attempt to paint the picture. The most logical action to me seems to be if Obama assesses and positions these attacks as matters of national security (enforced by military) and not as matters of local law enforcement, our response could be broader with more discretion. Adding to this violent stew, a professed jihadi is now reported to have been a frequent visitor to Pulse, a closeted Muslin gay, and seems to have been very conflicted & twisted. I'd have to agree with your assessment as a causal factor for him to act out in a targeted rage; but no one other than him will know the absolute trigger.

IMHO, the rest of your post was very cogent but the bolded text is part of the problem on this Board: over the top name calling, ad hominem attacks on people (either other right-leaning posters here or the general population) with different opinions. There are reasons I believe, both for and against why Obama should invoke the name of radical Islam as the basis for terrorist activity, which have merit and I can see both sides. Calling people morons just lowers the discourse to the lowest common denominator, and we are all better than that here.

+1.....)) +1.....))

I have simmered down after the emotion of yesterday's onslaught and thought, carefully and objectively, if it matters that the President does or does not say "radical Islam." To the masses it might be important for those seeking confirmation on the optics and that the President "gets it". There are also those who believe his controlled and precise avoidance of the term only reinforce certain beliefs that would imply a predilection toward Islam. N.B.: I AM NOT SAYING I BELIEVE THIS - for anyone on this board who might infer that I do. I have been attacked here for far less, so I need to make this caveat. To those who believe Obama's verbiage in identifying the root cause may only embolden the attacks and recruitment, I get it - but I think that ship has sailed. It matters not who the U.S. president is - they hate our way of life esp. now with specific targeting of gays. IMHO, Obama has evolved from the days of "workplace violence" and "senseless tragedies" and other laughable euphemisms. Am I satisfied he called Orlando a "terror attack"? YES I am not OK with continued emphasis on terror attacks as matters of law enforcement instead of national security. I am not OK with using the pulpit to call for gun control when it's obvious ISIS has every means at their disposal to obtain weapons/build homemade pipe bombs through whatever back channels the possess - and they do from the oil they have seized. The reference to Trump is not entirely valid - a holy war has already been declared on us for all to plainly see.

I'm cooking out with my family but you can be sure I'll be responding to your last post in due time, a response full of generalizations and stereotypes . Have a nice evening. You've got that right referencing my name. I rarely come here because it is so blatantly left wing, but even worse, any difference of opinion to the groupthink is met with generalizations, stereotypes, and ad hominem attacks. I owe you a response and I will certainly provide one I unintentionally used the worst massacre instead of what it has been identified as the worst mass shooting in American history....mea culpa

Where did I ever say I am convinced Obama doesn't know who our enemy is? I never wrote that anywhere. If I did, maybe I'd be more inclined to hear you out.