Andy9o8

"Don't be a slave to fashion."

And the best thing there is the food.

Thanks, my point was made, and your only helping. As are you: simple-level analysis.

I don't know whose post you think you're quoting there.

Cant surround yourself with anyone closer than your wife, and it took up until 2008 for obamas wife to be proud of her country. What does that say about him. Wait, you forgot to mention his pastor. What it says, as I said in the other thread, is that your analysis is as simple as your needs.

Ooh! No, wait, you're misrepresenting me! What I mean is..... I see what you did there. (Do you know how long I've been married? Would you like to see the t-shirt?)

Next of kin, significant others and close friends do that to/for each other all the time. What world are you living in? People often don't know what they don't know. Your weak trolling aside, I don't think you realize just how far out on the marginal fringes of American society you exist compared to Obama. The fact that you surround yourself with like-minded mutual enablers is immaterial to the truth of that point.

Your needs are as simple as your analysis. The answer is it depends. Oh, you want more? As I said, I took the time to write you an essay. Now it's your turn.

Another data point. Data show that gun ownership does confer greater safety. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5c_1424394365 The plural of anecdote is NOT data. Funny reply. I copied your own words from your earlier post. So you're just criticizing yourself. Ha! No. Poor comprehension on your part. Data from the FBI show conclusively that gun ownership increases the likelihood that you will be shot. Your anecdote was another datum but didn't change the result. Gun ownership does NOT confer greater safety. Yes it does! Like that guy in Vegas who used his gun to protect... or was it avenge?... his mom after the road rage incident.

And I think that that undercurrent is reflected in several posts in here. Anyhow, as I said above, I think many people, by virtue of their personal life's vantage point (which is why it is relevant) are being short-sighted, and they'd do well to recognize that it cuts both ways. One of our friends here considers children to be "parasites dropped from a vagina". Of course, a prime attribute of being a parasite is taking, while giving little or nothing back. Well, as others above have suggested, he'd do well to bear in mind that the "parasites" that parents raised during the employable (and skydivable, and travelable) years of his life will, as adults, be giving back by running the infrastructure upon which he'll depend - and by changing his Depends - when he's an elderly "parasite". That's the social compact: each in his/her own way, everyone gives so that everyone may take.

Depends on a case by case basis. I'm not gonna write you another essay. ETA: not without a retainer.

Respect, independence, tools and skills that allow her to not depend on the government for survive, critical thinking, and most important, how to surround herself with the right people with like ambitions. Sounds to me like you'd support AP History. Seems like a pretty good start.

I'm saying, first, that one must look at all US projection of global military power from an historical context, beginning certainly no later than the deliberate lies leading to, and all throughout, the tragic debacle in Vietnam (though you could take it all the way back to the Mexican War and Spanish-American War), and including our steps, and particularly missteps, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Next, always be mindful of (Republican) President Theodore Roosevelt's warning to us to be ever vigilant of and restraining on the influence of corporate greed on American politics and policy. Next, always bear in mind (Republican) President Eisenhower's astute warning to us to be ever vigilant of and restraining upon the military-industrial complex (that was Ike's phrase, not mine), for it will use - indeed, create - any excuse possible to keep itself fed and fat. Next, just as Americans get tired of all the non-American America-bashers (even citizens of our industialized allies), I'm tired of the unholy alliance of American politics, corporate interest (read: money) and the military-industrial complex propelling America into being The Permanent World's Policeman, at the expense of the American Taxpayer (and the resulting subsidy of the citizens of all of our allied countries). I'm also tired of the United States' over 100-year history of fomenting coups and propping up petty, dictators who brutally repress their own people so we would have friendly bases and/or commercial markets around the world through which to keep the military-industrial complex and corporate interests (like the Halliburtons of the world; also see the history of the United Fruit Company) fed and fat, at the expense of American warriors' blood and American taxpayers' treasure. With all this in mind: I want the US to be discerning as to which conflicts it enters, and with what proportion of participation (relative to other allies' participation). We need to address which existing evils - and they will always be there - pose a direct and palpable threat to American security. There are a lot of really, really evil motherfuckers that, emotionally, I'd just love to nape off the Earth - not just terrorists, like Boko Haram, but "state" actors, like Bashar al-Assad. But you have to stop somewhere. Remember Idi Amin? How about the Khmer Rouge? Each, in their time, about as evil and brutal as they come, yet the US didn't go after them. If we're to be fighting terrorism all over the world, or brutal dictators all over the world, we will be in a state of constant hot war. That is unacceptable for so, so many reasons. Ideally I'm willing to betcha the US could trim about 30% off its military budget (I resist using the intellectually dishonest euphemism "defense") and still keep American childen safe in their beds and at the malls, and invest the lion's share of those savings into health, education and infrastructure. There's your serious answer.

Hmm, depends. I'd have to do the research, of course. It would involve interviewing people on their first-hand experiences raising their own children. Let's start with you. What did you teach your own children, and how?

Here's your expert.

Hm. I never thought of myself as a line joining a vertex of a triangle to the midpoint of the opposite side; but what the hell, I'll take what I can get.

I couldn't agree more. I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem. For a reasonable fee, I will draft you a statute on requirements for the proper ingredients and preparation technique of s'mores.

Giuliani did this for the same reason people like, for example, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore do it: deliberately, for they know that it will put them semi-virally in the news for about 24 hours, in a sub-world in which publicity is the stock in trade, and any publicity is good publicity. He's trying to re-establish his bona fides of relevancy, probably because he wants to make some money. Maybe he wants to re-enter politics, or maybe he's about to write a book, or maybe he wants to make himself attractive for a TV pundit gig, or maybe he needs to increase his fee-value on the speaker's circuit. Or maybe, like any self-respecting bunny-boiler, he's tired of being ignored.

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes the best way to disengage from an abuser is to cease all contact and communication. It's not uncommon for the abuser to then try to conjure up ways to pull the victim back into direct communication of any kind. That's the wedge. Between my 50+ yrs life experience and a legal career handling my own share of family law cases, I've seen this in action many times. That's what these parents seem to be doing - using this an an opportunistic way to wedge their way back into direct communication with her. This is her way of telling them to back the hell off without giving them the wedge of direct conversation that they crave and she has the right to avoid. On the one hand, it may have been immature for her to do make the "fuck off" public, rather than keeping it private. On the other hand, note how the parents were using other mutual cohorts to communicate with her. So, going public like this might well be her way of communicating to friends and relatives to not allow themselves to be used as her parents' enablers like that. ETA: As an aside, the girl's method may very well have been a form of cathartic self-therapy. It kind of smells like something a therapist might suggest. In any event, may she find some healing from this.

Yeah, this. Jihad went on for hundreds of years, taking over territory and enslaving inhabitants of those countries. Finally the Christians had enough and pushed back. Fuck Jihad. Let me put this politely. You both need to do your historical research.

Something you are very familiar with "I know you are but what am I"? Really? You're on a roll today.* *ETA: Just to clarify, I'm not referring to a sandwich.

The incident actually happened; look it up. Or are you making a different point? WHOOOSH! I apologize for testing the limits of your vocabulary.

Exactly! You realize, of course, that it's all part of the War On Christmas, don't you? Squint, and you'll see it.

The incident actually happened; look it up. Or are you making a different point?

In my lifetime? I'd say Ford & Mondale were pretty normal, with a maybe for Humphrey and GHW Bush.