Aurielius

Yeah and 99.9% of that in Obama's watch...what a candy ass. You make this entirely too easy....chuckles.

At first I thought..satire? Nope ...he is actually serious. Intriguing logic: The absence of denial equates to innocence. I didn't know that guilty villains were inherently loquacious, is this from the Snidley Whiplash School of Criminology? Now we enter the Twilight Zone...que Rod Sterling Yup... the US / Israeli security forces infiltrated the Syrian Air Force, borrowed a jet, then bombed the rebels we support to pin the crime on Assad. Now I've got it, not satire...comedic farce. :facepalm:

Wild guess...you have never been involved in any form of operational planning. What you are advocating would take weeks / months to set up meanwhile Assad would deploy more chemical weapons attacks, aside from the fact it would lead to a wider war. The Syrians reportedly lost approx 13 fixed wing assets, if true that is a sizable loss for them. A surgical response is still better than the prior approach of delivering a lecture that the 'tide of history is against you'. Just curious, if Obama's deal to remove Syria's chem-warfare assets was the great success that it was claimed to be, where did the Syrians get the ordinance? July 2014 NBC-Meet the Press “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” -Sec State Kerry. January 2017 NPR “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”- Susan Rice.

Question: What is the difference between Obama's and Trump's Red Line? Answer: 59 Tomahawks within two days of crossing it. If this and more had been done five years ago, Assad would be on trial in the Hague instead of Damascus. That being said there is always a tendency for 'mission euphoria' after a successful operation which should be tamped down on because it's never the first strike but the subsequent operations that decide the issue. I am of the impression that this is basically a warning shot across Assad's bow.

Wry humour, but still quite droll if you have ever had a cat.. [\youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvJg4gOGCnc[\youtube]]

Though in the main I concur with your thesis excepting the Battle of Kadesh. The Canaanites contributed no troops to the battle. Neither Ramses or Muwatallii's account of the battle ever mentioned a Canaanite contingent. The Hittites used their own chariot arm almost exclusively which lead to the subsequent draw instead of the crushing Hittite victory it could have been. It should be acknowledged that Ramses's account of a decisive victory was mostly fiction and the Hittite records were circumspect to say the least. As for the context of Eleanor's actual input in the second crusade I would recommend a Biography of Henry II by W.L. Warren. You will enjoy the read...I did.

Civil War? Tend to doubt it, besides most liberals are against guns and conservatives tend to be proficient with a variety of weapons. Even liberals aren't that stupid. i suggest you look to the evening news to get a rather small sample of what the Left is able to through at the right in a war of ideology that even now takes few prisoners. Guns can kill those who physically come at you. Those in real power need not even be in your area. They just send hack into your personal records and wipe any knowledge of you off the map. Try living without a bank account. You have a very dark perspective in contrast I have faith in the American system in the long run. My crazy ass neighbors with their "resist' signs do not bother me, those in the political wilderness usually howl at the moon...it's just noise. As for being wiped off the info verse..their reach better be world wide to be effective.

Civil War? Tend to doubt it, besides most liberals are against guns and conservatives tend to be proficient with a variety of weapons. Even liberals aren't that stupid.

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1702/lived-years-politics-1488295274.jpg

Ah yes, the single payer model..such as Canada or the UK? I've seen the NHS in action, I wouldn't let them take care of my dog. Everyone that can afford private insurance has it in addition to NHS in the UK. When in serious health risk they go to that instead of what the government offers if they are interested in surviving the exceedingly long NHS wait times.

Just curious what is wrong with just using Asimov's Three laws?

Trouble is, the constitutional convention is only for adding/changing/removing amendments to the constitution. Do you think it likely that a term limit amendment for congress would actually pass muster? Any proposed amendments would also need to be ratified by two thirds of the states....... To my knowledge five states have rescinded their call for a Constitutional Convention, whether they have the authority to rescind a request is still an unresolved constitutional legal question.

A three days after the NYTimes article, the WSJ wrote this...easily found, seems that prospecting is not your forte. https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-he-wouldnt-seek-to-renegotiate-u-s-debt-1462828948 Though you imply that you are leaving the discussion I won't declare victory, because there is no such thing on these forums. There is only whom you have amused / bemused in the process... and trust me you have been very droll reading for several of us. Edit: @Harbringe..don't you think it's time to stick a fork in this thread?

We all at the beginning simply reference our claims but when being called out on it usually back our assertions with an exact quote, a link, or in the extremely rare cases simply admit we were wrong. I am in accord with the Regan-ism "Trust but Verify'. Yes Trump has been in office for two weeks and has moved to fulfill his campaign promises asap, though strange for a politician not so strange in the real world. As for what seems to be Corporate Phobia, best I can say is I'm not similarly afflicted. There are good and bad CEO's but by and large only the highly competent ones rise to the very top of multi nationals. There is something inherently wrong with a competent manager as Sec State? This is where your post goes off the rails: "watch what happens when Trump starts talking about "renegotiating" our national debt". To my knowledge Trump has talked about NAFTA, balance of trade, import tariffs, Chinese currency manipulation but never about renegotiating the national debt. This is simply unfounded partisan speculation. I realize that impeachment is the last refuge for "He's not my president " crowd, since the Recounts and Hamilton Electors didn't work out as hoped. If that last ditch hope keeps you warm and fuzzy at night then be my guest. His cabinet nominees will all be approved despite the committee walkouts. Gorsach will sit on the Court..the thought of a strict constructionist on the SCOTUS bench for another 20-30 years will keep me warm and fuzzy at night for a lot longer I imagine...chuckles.

Yours was a rational response that deserved a fair read. I tend to agree that the rules have kept my keyboard in check many times when I wanted to go in for the kill but decided that editing or silence was more prudent..that is probably a good thing. :tongue:

I am more than willing to concede that there are extreme zealots on either side that say cringe worthy things to those of us in the middle. I find little difference between the taking heads such as Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow.. ..except political allegiance, both make me mentally cringe. Though I would point out that there are some longstanding intelligent, erudite, rational and respected Liberals on this forum that know how to substantiate their contentions with actual verifiable proof, not one has come to the defense of his assertions...rather telling IMO.

Ah..even though you are adverse to facts that do not fit your narrative.... In 2013 Harry Reid changed the rules for cloture though it had been in place since the first congress to push Obama's appointments through by use of the 'nuclear option'. Now that abrogation of process is coming back to bite the Democrats and they cry foul. It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not supposed to be sauce for the gander. Liberals always whinge about disenfranchisement when they don't get their way..what else is new? Perpetual? Evidently hyperbole is your métier...chuckles

You appear to have an infinitely selective memory. We just got through with the Republicans refusing to do their constitutional duty (to confirm Supreme Court justices), until a president they like won. My hypocrisy meter is pegged again. Between this and his media fiascos so far, one journalist in the UK said it best imo: "It's clear this administration will be in constant bunker mode." 1992. We had no Supreme Court vacancy. 'It is my view,'" Biden argued, "'that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks... President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the November election is completed. ... Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'" Selective memory Hubris as well? When that fails resort to a complete non sequitur by not so artfully snipping off the determining clause of the quote and replying to the truncated version? Chuckles..I don't need a meter to tell how droll that is.

Harry Reid's chickens have come home to roost, short memory relating to whom created the Nuclear Option? Personally..don't let the door hit you on the way out. It seems Democrats seem to have forgotten the last time they tried succession when we elected a president that they didn't like, after four bloody years that question was conclusively settled in 1865. "Elections have consequences"-Obama 2008......when asked to co operate or concede a point to the republican minority. Snowflakes have a very selective memory.

double post- deleted

So your distinction between seeing the evidence and the evidence being a factual are different? If seeing something makes it an objective fact how could that be possible if the actual (yet to be provided) evidence is not fact? I presumed your versatility on the existence of said 'evidence', was that where I went amiss?

Your exceptional contribution toward this goal has been noted and we award you another 'victory' . I'm willing to bet that you really cannot see the intellectual Hubris in a statement such as quoted above. As Hey You has tried to tell you..there is no winning, only more back and forth until one or more participants get bored. I assumed that someone graced with such incisive intellect and powers of analysis would work that out....there is a 'ton of evidence'.

Seriously folks, this discussion if one can call it that has been all over the map. So the if this is a case of 'participation trophy' winning then I guess a win could be claimed...well done, an epic victory. As for the meme...it was non specific as to target but if one feels that it is particularly appropriate to them, that in itself is revealing. Ad Hominem by definition is a personal attack, one may infer what they like but no one was singled out. However if someone sees them self in the meme, well that's droll considering the aphorism of 'if the shoe fits'. When a thread devolves to to the point of argumentum ad absurdum then I feel humor is an appropriate response.

http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201411_1159_eibdg.jpg To paraphrase Johnny Cochrane: If the foil fits.....you must admit. :laugh: