rhaig

it would be foolish to think that it didn't play a part in his win. Impossible to really say how large, but I'm sure the next 14 pages of posts will try to prove that and argue about one way or another. -- Rob

ok -- Rob

I'm done. you win. happy now? -- Rob

did i say youj attacked him? and you're right. what else should i have expected from you. as i said im pm, if your gramdma had done some things you werent proud of, would you like to be reminded of the good or bad so soon after her death? dont answer. you didnt im pm. just as you never answer direct in-thread questions. -- Rob

All I did was ask for it to not turn into an attack thread. You could have shown a touch of class and backed off. but no. fine. have at it then. -- Rob

I still contend that one should have to answer a quiz about the candidates you're voting for to prove that you know the candidate's platform, and not just their name, gender or color. -- Rob

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations. when I think of "what is terrorism" I lean towards 'an act creating terror'. Clearly the book definition includes that, but also extends it. My first thought was that neither OKC or the Cherokee into the IRS building here, were terrorism. However the "for political purposes" in the first definition and the third definition clearly would include those two acts. If I were to have answered that poll, I would have been with those 65%. I can only assume that some (not all, and not even a large portion) of them were using an incomplete definition as I was. -- Rob

mods, if this is going to turn into one of lucky's attack threads, I request that it be shut down. Or I'll wait for one of Lucky's extended family members to die and start an attack thread of my own. -- Rob

there's a whole bunch of that going around. Now I suggest you guys stop wagging your dicks at each other and go jump out of a plane or something. Have a nice weekend. -- Rob

look... i was trying to help you improve your argument. if you're going to fall back on your old style of crying "wah!! PA!!" then I'll just sit back, snicker quietly, and eat my popcorn. -- Rob

Oh, did MLK promote any violence? Please show us where via quotes. you'd come across as much less of a loony if you would at least reference something backing up your side of the argument before you demand proof (in this and other threads). Maybe doing something like http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mlk+peace+quote would at least make you seem like less of a knee-jerker just trying to help. sure you'll find some negative way to respond. You're very good at that. -- Rob

I thought it was lying politicians == the norm. non lying politicians are on a holiday with santa and the tooth fairy. -- Rob

and it's just an office building with a couple hundred IRS employees in it. The processing facility is on the other end of town. -- Rob

I used to work for a company with offices in that building. (still live in the general area) from reports I've seen, plane was straight/level, full throttle (report from a former flight instructor) at time of impact. Hadn't heard about anyone setting their house on fire. Just glad I didn't go to work. Traffic will be screwed in that whole end of town. -- Rob

but then the streets would be a broom slinging mess. Do you really want to go back to the old west where you'd just hit someone with a broom when you disagree with them? -- Rob

I was corrected in an english class some number of years ago on a sentence much like that. My prof explained that while it was admirable to us a gender neutral pronoun, it was plural and referring to a singular. At the time (english is a living language and I don't know the standard now) the male pronoun was the accepted default gender. Or one could refer to "himself or herself". Or in your sentence, pluralize the subject. I'm not a grammar nazi. Far from it. I just hate when we modify our speech patterns from the norm so that we don't offend someone's sensibilities. -- Rob

maybe that it doesn't take guns to make a bad-guy? Even if you were to successfully take away all guns, and criminals could get any, they'd still have brooms. (and knives, and baseball bats, and shovels...) -- Rob

if the difference isn't the gun laws, how is making more gun laws going to help? Replacing toothless laws with effective ones would be a good start. that not "more". harsher penalties for violations and better enforcement of existing laws, I can get on board with. -- Rob

if the difference isn't the gun laws, how is making more gun laws going to help? -- Rob

oh... well... a 4th set of sanctions. That should do it. Clearly the first 3 just weren't worded harshly enough. Good thing we have such an effective group as the UN to keep an eye on things. -- Rob

It would be hard to find something more irrelevant than that. your opinion on constitutional issues? -- Rob

Reuters. It's a reputable and unbiased news organization. what do you want? -- Rob

3min of googling found me this http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1743414020070417 a Reuters factbox posted around the time of the VA Tech shooting. -- Rob

Oh, I don't doubt that possibility. But Lucky continues to be confused by progressive tax brackets- there's no net savings that results from making donations to drop down to the next bracket. Even if one's marginal tax rate is at 50%, the cost of the donation is still the other 50%. Apparently you feel it's best to address me thru other parties. I explained that the donation gets the corps a big tax benefit while creating the PR neccessary to attempt to offset the bad press tehy get for hooking up the top execs with massive bonuses, even as the corporation is tanking. You do recall the thread title, right? Is it dollar for dollar? No, but it allows them to offload cash to charities as if it's out of the goodness of the heart they want to pretend they have. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? the way I've been reading this, you've been making it sound like you could donate money (enough to keep you from a higher tax bracket) and it would reduce your total (post donation, post tax paid) outflow of cash. Now you're backpedaling a bit to include PR benefits in the return from the donation. That never came through in earlier posts. The only way (that I can think of) donating money can be of a direct financial gain is if the charity employs someone who pays you or pays for something of yours. (or otherwise funnels that money back to you) -- Rob

In my home? Someone threatening my family? A credible threat? Shots will be fired. I will do my best to protect my family. If I succeed and spend the rest of my life in jail, so be it. If I succeed and am no-billed (arrest and grand jury will be required in my state) I will be glad that I defended my family, yet certain that ending a life will follow me the rest of my days. So in my state, option 3 isn't an option. Arrest is certain. -- Rob