(01-06-2020 05:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 02:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 11:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have seen zero evidence that Talib, Omar, or AOC would even think of doing anything close to supporting terrorists. They might have a different view of what makes America great than you, but so do I. If you think they are supporting terrorists, then I guess I am as well. Call DOJ and let them know I should be fired or investigated. Guess I was able to sneak through the 3 FBI background checks I have gone though. When I chant U-S-A and you chant U-S-A, I understand that we might be cheering for slightly different ideals. But I never doubt that you love our country, and it saddens me that some of you think that numerous fellow country-persons hate our country.

But I simply cannot fathom your bolded statement. I think they have gone beyond any reasonable bounds to express opinions that suggest very strongly, to me at least, that they would in fact support terrorism and terrorists, if they are not already in fact doing so, in order to achieve their goals. Whether their goals explicitly call for death to America may be debatable, but I see no basis for any doubt that achieving their goals would effect a de facto death to USA. I could see a statement that you don't find the evidence compelling, but I simply cannot comprehend how you can say that you see nothing.

I guess a better way to approach the Reps. Tlaib & Omar "controversies" is to note that I know one (or both, I can't remember) said some pretty borderline things about Israel in particular. But neither is my congressperson so I did not follow the details very closely.

I did just google both and try to do some quick research to refresh my memory, but I stand by my comments based on what I read. At least at my glance, neither said anything that I view as supporting terrorists. Rep. Tlaib probably could have found a better work than "calming" during her discussion of the Holocaust, but she was speaking about the issue in a reverent way, which is how I took her discussion. Rep. Omar attacked AIPAC's influence in US politics. Not sure how that supports terrorists either. Even if you want to call them anti-Israel (and I think a better characterization would be to say they are anti-Isreal's government over the last decade), that is still a far cry from supporting terrorists. I mean, it isn't like either of them called terrorists very fine people.

Quote:

Quote:You are wrong about that and I hope you some day realize it, even if it comes with higher taxes on the wealthy and big business, more regulations on big business, a cleaner environment, and a more peaceful world.

I am fully supportive of a cleaner environment and a more peaceful world, although we probably differ on how to get there. But no matter how much you want to push the class warfare against those evil rich people and corporations, it's a fact of life that they have options to go elsewhere in the world, and if we treat them worse than those other places they will move there (have been to some extent for decades) and the effect will be to hurt us more than them. Most of Europe deals with them with carrots, not sticks. If we want to remain competitive, we need to do the same.

Evil rich people? My wife and I are in the top 2-3%. I can afford to pay a little higher taxes (though my wife and I don't have much wealth, we have high income). Certainly Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg can pay higher taxes as well. So can Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and the Clintons. And so can Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and the Kochs. I asked my magic 8-ball and it says Amazon, FedEx, and many others can also afford to pay some federal taxes as well. It isn't class warfare to think taxes should be increased on the wealthy & corporations and I didn't call anyone or anything evil.

Funny, my magic eight ball says some things as well ---

One of which is the basic difference in the economics and mathematics of risk capital (and associated capital gains rates) and that of normal income.

But 'left math' says you should ignore that distinction in the cases of either: a) x total income > some 'enough' income (regardless of source); or b) any income if total wealth is greater than 'enough' wealth.

But astute mathematicians have simplified that binary logical function with the greater truth: left tax rate == class driven and class envy

I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Here is a philosophical dilemna I was handed today --- kind of in the 'unrelenting object meets immovable object.'

If the Iranian government owned an NFL team, and they decided *not* to sign Colin Kapernick.....

Well, the Iranian Govt. flew the recently departed back to Iran in coach..... seriously.

On person noted that is one way to make sure of plenty of legroom flying coach....

(01-07-2020 12:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Bin Laden is sure to agree.

(01-06-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.

Therefore I support leaving the agreement.

Honest question, what did the USA give up that upsets you?

We all seem to have established that the BBC is about as good of a source as any of us can agree on. So here's the BBC's explanation of the Iran Deal. The west (including the USA) unfroze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets. So the USA didn't give Iran any money, just unfroze Iranian money that Iran did not have access to. This wasn't USA taxpayer money going to Iran. The lifting of sanctions appears to have opened oil markets to Iran that will increase Iran's revenue by $4-$8 billion per month. That is a lot of money, but it isn't the USA's money.

It was frozen for a reason.

Irrelevant the nominal owner of the cash. Money is money, and it made life easier for Iran. They got relief, we got an empty promise.

But the really stupid thing was that Obama effectively told them, you can have nukes, just not during my administration.

(01-07-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Bin Laden is sure to agree.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, and Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would probably disagree.

Might write off that dude who made the video about Muhammad and went to prison after the weight of the US government blamed his video to salvage an election.

It would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue.

I was especially impressed with his adroit complete reversal to put ground troops *back* into Iraq in 2016; it would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue. See the above point about the jailing of the 'producer' of the Muhammad video into the pokey to deflect from Ambassador Stevens and the utter non-response of his administration to help anyone on the ground there.

(01-07-2020 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Bin Laden is sure to agree.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, and Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would probably disagree.
Might write off that dude who made the video about Muhammad and went to prison after the weight of the US government blamed his video to salvage an election.
It would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue.
I was especially impressed with his adroit complete reversal to put ground troops *back* into Iraq in 2016; it would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue. See the above point about the jailing of the 'producer' of the Muhammad video into the pokey to deflect from Ambassador Stevens and the utter non-response of his administration to help anyone on the ground there.

Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

(01-06-2020 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have made some attempts at humor but they seem to have gone over your head. (Not literally).

If this was an intentional Guardians of the Galaxy (Drax) reference, then it is fantastic. I didn't even catch it at first. If it was unintentional, go watch Guardians of the Galaxy to appreciate your own accidental reference!

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.

Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.

I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.

This post is astonishing. In one part, you tell me that my statement means either you are stupid or a terrorist. No other explanations apply. Then, in the next breath, you tell me I am too black and white. Ever seen a mirror? On top of that, all the stuff about Siths, when you are saying there are absolutely only two, extreme, interpretations.

I would attribute it to being a lawyer, but we have two other lawyers here, and they generally make sense,

I think you are just so determined to be offended, you have to take these little detours.

Well, I must go, perhaps for the day.

Have a good one.

The GotG was inadvertent, but I have seen the movie (loved it).

(01-07-2020 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Bin Laden is sure to agree.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, and Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would probably disagree.
Might write off that dude who made the video about Muhammad and went to prison after the weight of the US government blamed his video to salvage an election.
It would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue.
I was especially impressed with his adroit complete reversal to put ground troops *back* into Iraq in 2016; it would have been easier — and would have cost far fewer lives — if we had just stayed. But Obama had to have a campaign issue. See the above point about the jailing of the 'producer' of the Muhammad video into the pokey to deflect from Ambassador Stevens and the utter non-response of his administration to help anyone on the ground there.

Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

Quote:Still, it was no secret that Benghazi was dangerous. In retrospect, it's clear that the US mission there was too lightly guarded and fortified, and Stevens himself had requested more security. How did this happen?

The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.

The mission also had a confusing legal status. It wasn't an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/b...-explained

This morning I heard an interview with Peter Mansoor, a professor at Ohio State and retired US Army Colonel (and one-time aide to Petreaus), talking about the strike in Iran.

A point he made was that Soleimani definitely had the record to justify the strike, and that the US needed to act somehow, but that the strike itself was likely not a good idea and "a step too far."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/07/794163542...d-them-out

OO, are you suggesting he is supporting chants of death to america?

(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

Quote:Still, it was no secret that Benghazi was dangerous. In retrospect, it's clear that the US mission there was too lightly guarded and fortified, and Stevens himself had requested more security. How did this happen?
The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.
The mission also had a confusing legal status. It wasn't an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/b...-explained

That's now why, that's what. That's what the situation was. My question is why. Why was that allowed to happen? Why was that tolerated? What was important enough to take that stupid risk?

(01-07-2020 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

Quote:Still, it was no secret that Benghazi was dangerous. In retrospect, it's clear that the US mission there was too lightly guarded and fortified, and Stevens himself had requested more security. How did this happen?
The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.
The mission also had a confusing legal status. It wasn't an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/b...-explained

That's now why, that's what. That's what the situation was. My question is why. Why was that allowed to happen? Why was that tolerated? What was important enough to take that stupid risk?

I feel like that lays out the why pretty well - it was allowed to happen because of too much bureaucracy.

From what I pasted above:

Quote:The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.

(01-07-2020 03:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.

Therefore I support leaving the agreement.

Honest question, what did the USA give up that upsets you?

We all seem to have established that the BBC is about as good of a source as any of us can agree on. So here's the BBC's explanation of the Iran Deal. The west (including the USA) unfroze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets. So the USA didn't give Iran any money, just unfroze Iranian money that Iran did not have access to. This wasn't USA taxpayer money going to Iran. The lifting of sanctions appears to have opened oil markets to Iran that will increase Iran's revenue by $4-$8 billion per month. That is a lot of money, but it isn't the USA's money.

It was frozen for a reason.

Irrelevant the nominal owner of the cash. Money is money, and it made life easier for Iran. They got relief, we got an empty promise.

But the really stupid thing was that Obama effectively told them, you can have nukes, just not during my administration.

What is the empty promise? That is what I don't understand about your argument. Is there evidence that Iran did not destroy centrifuges and reduce its uranium stockpile?

Obama told them that we will unfreeze your money and give you sanctions relief it you take actions that effectively cripple your ability to make a nuke for the next 10-15 years. Then after that there would still be a rebuild/restart time that would add additional delay to Iran's capability. And that is assuming that further deals would not be worked out during the 10-15 years. How is Trump's approach, which is now allowing Iran to go back to full-scale nuke research and development, better?

(01-06-2020 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can tell you what I would have done differently:
1) The money gets released in tranches--10% a year for 10 years, contingent upon continued good behavior by Iran.
2) A totally different inspection protocol--anytime, anywhere inspections with minimal notice and no places red-lined.

Do those things and it might be a viable agreement. And it should have been to the senate for ratification, which would probably have been agreed with those changes.

Those would all be improvements, but as you often point out when mentioning Rice in conference realignment talks, it takes two to tango. I'm sure the Obama administration asked for these kinds of things, but neither side gets everything it wants. The final deal was certainly a lot better than nothing and things have been steadily going to hell since Trump pulled out.

(01-07-2020 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have always though this statement appropriate: Obama’s legacy was self-inflicted defeat everywhere we faced Islamist terror.

Bin Laden is sure to agree.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, and Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would probably disagree.

I don't think its really productive to get into the nitty gritty and as I have acknowledged in other posts, foreign policy isn't something I paid a lot of attention to until recently. Suffice to say that I disagree with you on some of these points. But it bears pointing out that the situations in these countries are hard and no presidential administration has been perfect. Also, the US doesn't act alone and there are a lot of moving pieces. Was George W. Bush's administration better in dealing with terrorists from the middle east? Do we have evidence that Trump has been better? I would say a hard no on Bush (9/11, Iraq war, and not great job in Afghanistan) and a probably not on Trump (though it is difficult to judge after just 3 years).

(01-07-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.

Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.

I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.

This post is astonishing. In one part, you tell me that my statement means either you are stupid or a terrorist. No other explanations apply. Then, in the next breath, you tell me I am too black and white. Ever seen a mirror? On top of that, all the stuff about Siths, when you are saying there are absolutely only two, extreme, interpretations.

I would attribute it to being a lawyer, but we have two other lawyers here, and they generally make sense,

I think you are just so determined to be offended, you have to take these little detours.

Well, I must go, perhaps for the day.

Have a good one.

If you provide me an explanation for you calling me an inadvertent terrorist sympathizer that I should not be offended by, I am happy to hear it. I could only come up with a couple explanations and I found them all equally offensive, just for different reasons. It wasn't a situation of black/white sith thinking (by the way I didn't make any sith references, that was Lad). I brainstormed and provided the only options that made sense. I'm happy to listen to other explanations. Stupid and traitor aren't opposite sides of a spectrum with a lot in between, so your sith comment doesn't really make sense. If anything, they are two bad but different things on the same end of the spectrum.

I'm not determined to be offended. I have a 14-year-old son who has called me almost everything in the book, although he hasn't called me a terrorist sympathizer (yet). I have thick skin. I do counsel against being intentionally offensive and I believe calling someone a terrorist sympathizer was intentionally offensive and factually incorrect.

Thanks, I do plan to have a good one. The plumber fixed my downstairs toilet this morning, the kids were on time to school, work is a little slow today, the sun is shining brightly, and my wife is cooking steak tonight!

I hope you have a great day as well!

(01-07-2020 12:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can tell you what I would have done differently:
1) The money gets released in tranches--10% a year for 10 years, contingent upon continued good behavior by Iran.
2) A totally different inspection protocol--anytime, anywhere inspections with minimal notice and no places red-lined.
Do those things and it might be a viable agreement. And it should have been to the senate for ratification, which would probably have been agreed with those changes.

Those would all be improvements, but as you often point out when mentioning Rice in conference realignment talks, it takes two to tango. I'm sure the Obama administration asked for these kinds of things, but neither side gets everything it wants. The final deal was certainly a lot better than nothing and things have been steadily going to hell since Trump pulled out.

So don't sign an agreement without those things. It probably also should have addressed their missile program as well as their nuke weapons program. It does take two to tango, and make absolutely certain that Iran fully understands that we won't be doing any tango without them. If they balk, walk out. If you don't walk out at least once during the course of negotiations, you probably aren't negotiating hard enough.

I'm not at all certain that the Obama administration asked for anything, or pushed hard to get anything. At the end of the day, we certainly didn't get anything.

As far as this deal being better than nothing, I'm not at all convinced of that. What was our best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)? What was Iran's? I think our BATNA was a lot better than theirs.

This still has all the appearances to me of Iran wanted a lot of money and the ability to continue to hide its nuclear weapon and missile development programs from inspectors, and we wanted a piece of paper. And on that basis, both sides got what they wanted.

(01-07-2020 12:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.

Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.

I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.

This post is astonishing. In one part, you tell me that my statement means either you are stupid or a terrorist. No other explanations apply. Then, in the next breath, you tell me I am too black and white. Ever seen a mirror? On top of that, all the stuff about Siths, when you are saying there are absolutely only two, extreme, interpretations.

I would attribute it to being a lawyer, but we have two other lawyers here, and they generally make sense,

I think you are just so determined to be offended, you have to take these little detours.

Well, I must go, perhaps for the day.

Have a good one.

If you provide me an explanation for you calling me an inadvertent terrorist sympathizer that I should not be offended by, I am happy to hear it. I could only come up with a couple explanations and I found them all equally offensive, just for different reasons. It wasn't a situation of black/white sith thinking (by the way I didn't make any sith references, that was Lad). I brainstormed and provided the only options that made sense. I'm happy to listen to other explanations. Stupid and traitor aren't opposite sides of a spectrum with a lot in between, so your sith comment doesn't really make sense. If anything, they are two bad but different things on the same end of the spectrum.

I'm not determined to be offended. I have a 14-year-old son who has called me almost everything in the book, although he hasn't called me a terrorist sympathizer (yet). I have thick skin. I do counsel against being intentionally offensive and I believe calling someone a terrorist sympathizer was intentionally offensive and factually incorrect.

Thanks, I do plan to have a good one. The plumber fixed my downstairs toilet this morning, the kids were on time to school, work is a little slow today, the sun is shining brightly, and my wife is cooking steak tonight!

I hope you have a great day as well!

Maybe you are just determined to misinterpret what I said. I have explained it several times and see no use in doing it again. Tired of repeating myself to deaf ears. It’s all there in the record. Go back and read it again.

(01-07-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This morning I heard an interview with Peter Mansoor, a professor at Ohio State and retired US Army Colonel (and one-time aide to Petreaus), talking about the strike in Iran.

A point he made was that Soleimani definitely had the record to justify the strike, and that the US needed to act somehow, but that the strike itself was likely not a good idea and "a step too far."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/07/794163542...d-them-out

OO, are you suggesting he is supporting chants of death to america?

Bump.

(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.

Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.

(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.

I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.

This post is astonishing. In one part, you tell me that my statement means either you are stupid or a terrorist. No other explanations apply. Then, in the next breath, you tell me I am too black and white. Ever seen a mirror? On top of that, all the stuff about Siths, when you are saying there are absolutely only two, extreme, interpretations.

I would attribute it to being a lawyer, but we have two other lawyers here, and they generally make sense,

I think you are just so determined to be offended, you have to take these little detours.

Well, I must go, perhaps for the day.

Have a good one.

If you provide me an explanation for you calling me an inadvertent terrorist sympathizer that I should not be offended by, I am happy to hear it. I could only come up with a couple explanations and I found them all equally offensive, just for different reasons. It wasn't a situation of black/white sith thinking (by the way I didn't make any sith references, that was Lad). I brainstormed and provided the only options that made sense. I'm happy to listen to other explanations. Stupid and traitor aren't opposite sides of a spectrum with a lot in between, so your sith comment doesn't really make sense. If anything, they are two bad but different things on the same end of the spectrum.

I'm not determined to be offended. I have a 14-year-old son who has called me almost everything in the book, although he hasn't called me a terrorist sympathizer (yet). I have thick skin. I do counsel against being intentionally offensive and I believe calling someone a terrorist sympathizer was intentionally offensive and factually incorrect.

Thanks, I do plan to have a good one. The plumber fixed my downstairs toilet this morning, the kids were on time to school, work is a little slow today, the sun is shining brightly, and my wife is cooking steak tonight!

I hope you have a great day as well!

Maybe you are just determined to misinterpret what I said. I have explained it several times and see no use in doing it again. Tired of repeating myself to deaf ears. It’s all there in the record. Go back and read it again.

What if, hear me out, you're not explaining yourself as well as you think?

It seems like you think I'm misinterpreting you in another thread as well.