K-9

I'd be interested in more specifics here. How does the use of "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamic extremists" etc., fundamentally change things on the ground, strategically and tactically? Here's an uncomfortable truth: in addition to swaying peaceful people in cultures we don't understand, we, as a nation, will have to forge relationships with many who would wish to do us harm as well, some that could be considered terrorists themselves, if not for the common enemy we share. It's ugly, but it's a reality. Not using inflammatory rhetoric helps in that endeavor. Nothing has changed since George W advised the exact same thing.

Please enlighten. I understand how one can confuse simple use of language with "name calling" because that's what getting ultra defensive does to people. But please point to my straw man arguments and I'll be happy to explain. I'm fascinated by how one can ascribe levels of "dishonesty" to any straw man arguments. From where I'm sitting, it must be because some of us simply piss you off more than others. The onus isn't on me or the president to address the "core reasons" why people might be "troubled" by his refusal to "name the enemy." The onus is on you and the detractors to explain how it makes any bit of difference AT ALL to the prosecution of the war against an enemy that couldn't be more blatantly obvious if he called you up and announced it himself. Do you honestly feel people are that ignorant? Or are you and everyone else just so much smarter?

Look it up, Thurman.

Why would the NRA be willing to give such an important concession to Trump and not the current legislators trying to actually do their jobs? Important legislation is important legislation, after all.

Well, that counts out the Donald. He has NEVER shown an ability to stay above the fray, going back to when he first rose to prominence in the early 80s. Indeed, he loves the fray, lives for it; and if there isn't a fray to muck around it at the time, he will create one. Megalomaniacs like him need to be kept as far away from nuclear codes as possible.

Regulation is going to impede the ISPs' advances in technology as much as it did to the phone companies when they were first regulated. Regulation is going to promote the continued boom in the myriad of content that numerous providers have been steadily innovating all along. And it will insure a level playing field vs. ISPs who will seek to provide their own content. When it comes to what made the internet great, the ISP pipelines were great. But it's what ran through them that made it.

That was you sitting behind me?

Ted Nolan is all about applied analytics.

Conversely, do boys like the term "turgid?" (that is an actual sabre sentence no one has ever spoken)

Sobering indeed. Thanks for sharing this link. I don't know how anyone could possibly disagree that guns are an exacerbating element when it comes to our propensity for violence to ourselves or others.

I wasn't including TASER. Presto makes ammo. Olin manufactures both guns and ammo, and their website sure touts the Winchester lines of guns and ammo. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Arms stocks going up after mass shootings is an interesting phenomenon. And there are pension funds being invested in those stocks. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying there are anti-gun proponents who would be surprised.

That was kind of what I was trying to say originally, that most people who invest in certain hedge funds wouldn't be aware that OLIN Corp owns Winchester, for example. Or that National Presto makes ammo.

I counted five on the invsestnips link alone. Which three are no longer producing guns or ammo or both? http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/10/22/why-gun-sales-are-powering-investors-portfolios

I see more than two publicly traded companies.

Nobody is being fooled by any of the rhetoric in this country or any other civilized country in the world for that matter. Do you really need certain words to be said to know exactly who the enemy is when the enemy has been well known by words and action for so long now? There is absolutely no upside to using the precise language the right insists upon in their efforts to score political points. Indeed, something tells me that if Obama did exactly that, the rhetoric from the right would morph to, "See, he's painting all of Islam with one broad brush." It's political bullschit, nothing more. We can pooh-pooh the language all you want, but it matters in other cultures and the cultures within those other cultures. Cultures we have to curry favor with if we are EVER going to achieve the political solution to the problem. And like Patraeus said, a political solution is the only way to solve it. It is prudent to be discreet when dealing with Middle Eastern countries because the majority of their populations aren't privy to the nuances of certain words. And words matter, especially in cultures where words, syntax, and context have COMPLETELY different meanings and applications and clarity of translation is difficult if it translates at all. I used the example of the word "jihad" in an earlier post. That is just one example of many.

http://investsnips.com/list-of-publicly-traded-firearm-companies/ Nearly all of the major manufacturers have been sold several times and are owned by large conglomerates that, on the service don't have anything to do with firearms.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/12/10/investors-firearms-guns-profit-holdings/77062356/ Something to get you started.

Yeah, a fiction writer could have a field day. For me, it just underscores how much market mood or speculation moves the needle. Supply and demand can remain stagnant for long stretches so the market enjoys other impetuses. Hmm. More material for the conspiracy oriented.

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.