K-9

After Sandy Hook, I was shown a graph of the stock prices of companies in the arms and munitions sector before and after the event. It was interesting to see the spike up after it happened. I was then informed that this phenomenon holds true after every mass shooting that is followed by the usual rhetoric about gun control, which is all them in recent memory. It's an interesting study. I think it may shock the anti-gun crowd to find out how much of their pension hedge fund investments, are in these very companies, too.

At the risk of being accused of name calling again, I found your previous answers to the question lacking. Especially with regard to how it would help people to understand who the enemy is. Unless someone has been under a rock since 9/11, it is as plain as day. I don't believe for a second that you or any other conservative doesn't know who our enemy is, so why the need for clarification on the matter? I can only deduce that the reason for saying something like that, is to somehow convince people that Obama and the democrats are clueless on that score in order to score political points. If you get a chance, would you be willing to speak to your friend about it? I am curious if, as an expert on the Middle East, he sees the same concerns given the immense language and cultural barriers where language isn't parsed the same way in terms of syntax, context, translation, etc.

There is no shortage of liberals looking to shout down anyone who doesn't adhere to their version of free speech and who lack any respect for opposing viewpoints. As for me, I am a reformed republican who considers himself an aggressive progressive. Not that labels mean anything. It speaks well of you that you wouldn't want to spend time on the PPP board. It's a cess pool. As to providing examples of conservative media making hay out of the Orlando tragedy, is that really necessary? Did you honestly miss the onslaught of comments from Trump or any political pundit on FOX after the event? I think it's more likely that you simply don't consider their comments the same way I do. Stands to reason. For future reference, I will continue to call them out on it, so feel free to avoid my posts, if necessary. Perhaps you would be willing to share some of your friend's suggestions on how the use of the term "Islamic terrorists" would aid in the prosecution of the war against them? So far, I've just seen the usual banalities about how it will help us to know who the enemy is, etc. Forgive me, but we do as it's rather obvious, and that particular rhetoric is just aimed at attacking Obama and by extension, Clinton in an election year. Does your friend have insights into how the tactics currently used would be used more effectively if different terminology were used? Would using different labels have helped Obama to get more boots on the ground earlier perhaps? Does your friend have insights into the vast cultural differences not only between us and the Middle East, but among the many countries in the Middle East itself? Seriously, if there is any constructive argument for it, I could be swayed. I've explained why it's better not to, so c'mon, sway me to change my stance.

My observations and commentary on conservative media outlets is taking away from the discourse here? Really? That is nothing more than striking a defensive chord in you. Not my intention. But baseless? Not even close. I wish they didn't provide so much material to criticize. But they can't help themselves, it seems. Please spare me the hypocritical sophistry of "left-leaning politicization" of tragic events. From Benghazi to Orlando, conservatives couldn't wait to score political points out of the events. Perhaps you should spend some time on the PPP forum over at TwoBillsDrive. It is an ###### of far right group think and they routinely enjoy throwing liberals and progressives to the lions and enjoy making sport out of it.

To her credit, she is cooperating. I'd bet her lawyers understand the scope of it. Pardon the expression, but frying her would be overkill and not accomplish anything at this point. I'd bet she serves time though, with a probationary period afterward. And there is her child to consider as well.

Earlier on.

No worries.

BJ tables. Nice. GO BILLS!!!

It would be an interesting court case as there is no precedent for denying entry based on religious beliefs. Regardless, doing so violates the very spirit that America was founded on. Thank goodness the Pilgrims weren't subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.

Well, I want a litmus test for all future presidential candidates. Stupid voters or not, the onus is on the candidate to have a grasp of the Constitution he is expected to protect.

Bush himself was careful not to cross lines and warned us all, publicly, that we needed to be careful in how we framed the narrative against terrorists of the Muslim persuasion. I mean if G Dub can understand that...

How is it that the presumptive Republican candidate can propose a religious litmus test to those seeking to enter this country? It is baffling to me that anyone with such a light grasp of our 1st amendment is allowed to run for an office requiring him to swear an oath to protect it. Amazing.

This point is not lost on me. I appreciate the comparison. And it's an interesting study to be sure.

Good response, Mr. President. Ironically, he had to actually say the words, "radical Islam" in his denouncement of Trump. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/obama-says-u-s-doing-everything-in-our-power-to-stop-attacks

The passage of time is an interesting and important aspect to it all, I think. Islam is in its infancy compared to the other Abrahamic religions that have had so much more time to assimilate modernity and its advances in science, etc. over the millennia. It really wasn't that long ago, comparatively speaking, that Jews were stoning people to death for eating pork or Christians were burning people at the stake for being heretics. Although we never should have done away with tossing women into bodies of water to see if they floated to determine whether they were witches or not. I've heard from both Arab and Iranian friends that it's prevalent in the entire region. Why wouldn't it be? Humans gonna human, regardless.

Oh, but we have to say Islam, Islam, Islam, because, you know, then we would know who the enemy is. Because we are all stupid. He'd fit in well with the Christian idiots in Uganda.

When I think of millionaire terrorists, I think Bin Laden. But he had a lot of trouble selling his ideas to other millionaires. Then again, Saudi Arabia is home to BILLIONAIRE terrorists. The fertile ground for recruitment is the poor and disaffected. Always will be. I find using exceptions to point to the rule is intellectually dishonest. Is that a yes or no?

Do you appreciate the difference between people who are Muslim and the Muslim people

It wasn't me. I was quoting another contributor in this thread who said that.

I was being rhetorical, but I'm glad you made this point. It's ironic that the Middle East, much if it made rich by its resources, is such a fertile ground for the recruitment of young people to follow these mad sects. It's no coincidence that countries like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't share the wealth, has so many more young men joining terrorist groups vs. say, Kuwait, which invests it's wealth in its people and their young men are far less apt to join an ISIS of al Qaeda. I haven't checked in a few years, but at one point the unemployment rate for men 18-24 in Saudi Arabia was nearly 50%. That is inexcusable in such a rich land.

I am concerned about the rise of Christian fundamentalism in Africa. These zealots are just as cruel in the name of religion as anybody else. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about the sheer numbers or who is worse, the point is that people continue to be persecuted in the name of religion, regardless of which one. The more pertinent question is why and what gives rise to it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/christian-fundamentalism-africa_b_935268.html

Leave the coddled American brain out of it. That is its own sad commentary on our culture, sadly. It isn't as simple as asking leaders in Muslim countries to grasp the nuance as most do and have for a long time. It is their constituencies and the sheer difference in cultures where words, syntax, and context have COMPLETELY different meanings and applications and clarity of translation is difficult if it translates at all. A simple example is the word "jihad" for example. We accept is as "holy war". But in many Muslim cultures, "jihad" is the only context for war, holy or not. In those cultures one might wage "jihad" against a neighbor who stole a goat in the same way he would wage "jihad" against an infidel. I get that we all want our leaders to exhibit the same level of outrage by using preferred language that better illustrates that. But it just isn't that simple when the language is more important in areas of the world we need to curry favor with. Strategically and tactically not using certain words and combinations is the better play. And as I've said repeatedly, we all know who the enemy is by their words and actions and the semantics don't change that or the way in which we combat him. Not in the least. This isn't directed at you, but for anyone to assert that our president and military leadership doesn't understand EXACTLY who we are fighting and why and where, is complete folly and those that do assert that do so only to score political points.

Agree entirely. It's a sad commentary that the great comedians and satirists of the day no longer wish to perform at college venues.

Do we need allies in the predominantly Muslim Middle East now and in the foreseeable future? This has never been about offending politically correct Americans who are over-sensitive to and always on the lookout for the micro-aggressions you cite. It's about something far more strategic.

Can you appreciate the difference between: People who are Muslim. and The Muslim people Or between: Islamist and Islam