K-9

The phony war on women? Perhaps, but wasn't it the Republican party's adopted platform to call for a Constitutional ban on abortion even in the case of rape or i.ncest. What about that whole "life begins at conception" bill drawn up by Akins and Ryan? If anyone created a phony war on women, it was the Republican party's own adopted policies. And two of their soldiers in that war, Akin and Mourdock certainly stuck to their narrative. Are you suggesting the opposing party shouldn't have sought a political advantage as a result? And Obama campaigned incessantly on lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the top two percent. That was the main focus of his economic policy throughout. A stark contrast to Romney. I don't understand how you can just ignore that. So blame the Republican party for creating a phony war on women and an economic message that didn't resonate with the majority of the electorate. EDIT: I just noticed your sentence that insulted voters that disagreed with you. Right. Everybody is idiotic, lazy, and stupid except you and everyone else who voted for Romney. Nice.

Which makes your point even stronger. Never have so few been willing to sacrifice so much on behalf of so many. Or something like that. Fricken Churchill. GO SABRES!!!

Personally, I think active military, at least those in theater, should be exempt from income taxes.

I'm pretty sure chz knows I'm just busting her balls here. Good point about credibility. It's in the eye of the beholder and only goes as far as our bias filter. GO SABRES!!! Absolutely. Her contributions over the years have been invaluable. My habit is to comb threads for her posts first and foremost to get news fast. GO SABRES!!!

My instinct says this is most likely true, but I'd like a link to a credible source to confirm it. GO SABRES!!!

I'd rather have Crosby and Malkin. GO SABRES!!!

Good points. Perhaps 'reality' set in a bit since he made those remarks at that opening press conference. He sure made it sound like drilling wells was like that printing press though. I guess that shale is more stubborn than he thought. GO SABRES!!! Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree with this. TP just isn't in the club yet more than anything else. And he is a fanboy as you suggest. GO SABRES!!! I think gas passes more than it flows. At least around here it does. GO SABRES!!!

Good question. My feeling is that Pegula worries other owners because he can buy the Sabres 20x over and still not bat an eye. Like he said, he didn't buy the team to make money and if he needs more money, he'll just go dig another well. The Jeremy Jacobses of the league can't just go build another concession stand. Pegula may be perceived as not caring about giving away the farm if he has to in order to get the players back on the ice. Just my 2c. GO SABRES!!!

Yo brah! Don't feed the trolls.

That's a question you should ask the esteemed Republican leaders in the Senate. Why aren't McCain et al demanding that Clinton be held to the fire? Gee, I wonder why. Conspiracy theory or not, why is it MORE politically expedient for the focus to be on Susan Rice? Do the Republicans think that Clinton would be a favorable candidate to face in '16 and so they don't want to hinder her chances? I don't buy it. I like my conspiracy theory a lot better. It makes more sense for them short term.

Was Susan Rice supposed to reveal classified information in order to satisfy this grand quest for the truth? Like it or not, the public is seldom entitled to, much less apprised of, the entire truth for that reason. She could have been prosecuted had she revealed information of a classified nature. The Benghazi affair will come back to bite the party in the ass. No matter how hard they try, they can't make what happened there any worse than it is and they can't assign blame to anybody else. The only reason the Republicans in the Senate won't let this go is because they want John Kerry named Secretary of State just so Massachusetts will have a special election and Scott Brown can get another shot at a much-needed seat for the Republicans. I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link. I never realized how many private security contractors have been killed in Iraq.

Reports are that most of their weapons have come in through Egypt via eastern Libya. Huge stores of weapons from the Gaddafi regime have been missing since he was overthrown. After the embargo was lifted back in 2004, most of his arms came from EU countries, including Italy, Great Britain and France. Their Qassam rockets were most likely homemade. Very easy and very cheap to produce with common materials.

Well, if Hamas had the balls to put on a uniform, attack another uniformed army, remove their uniforms and then hide among the civilian population, I might be persuaded. That and if they'd move their rocket launchers to a non-populated area. Still, I'd be interested in learning more about it.

I suggest there's a difference between guerrilla warfare waged against a uniformed army vs. lobbing bombs into civilian populations and then hiding among the populace to avoid retaliation. Now I don't proclaim to be any Revolutionary War expert and I could be persuaded if you could suggest where to look for additional information. Somehow, George Washington as a terrorist general was never taught. Unless I missed that class.

No worries here, SFiNS. Never crossed my mind to take your comment personally. I think I know where you're coming from most of the time. Peace. Very well stated, eleven. That really capsulizes the argument for me. And while we're on the subject, terrorism just isn't a very smart military tactic. In as much as I think these leaders are not stupid people, I seriously have to question their motives in this regard.

Why don't they launch their rockets from remote areas? Why don't they fight in the open? Yeah, I know. They're SMART brave men. I'm sorry but anyone who hides behind the cover of innocent woman and children to avoid retaliatory counter-attack is a coward in my mind. Feel free to parse the language any way you like.

I rest my case. Look at the areas in the Mid East that don't have this kind of strife and you'll see similarly favorable economic indicators. In areas with strife, very bad economic indicators. Here's a snippet from an article about the jobless rate in Gaza. Vast amounts of people cannot be dismissed from the economic equation without serious repercussions. That is as old as time itself. Here's the rest of the article. I think it really underscores the issues in Gaza. Shame on Hamas for exploiting their suffering. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/03/palestinian-man-dies-setting-himself-alight

You've just described the major underlying issue for the entire region: an inordinate amount of unemployed and disaffected people, most of them males between the ages of 20-30, with little hope that things will get better in their lifetimes. And for good reason. There have been generations of such people who never saw their situations improve. Age old religious conflicts are a symptom, nothing more. It comes down to economic opportunity and a chance to improve the lives of your children. In that regard, these people are no different than anyone else in the world.

Nobody has the right to kill any innocent civilians in any conflict. It's not a question of rights though. If only it were that simple.

Those warnings by the Israelis to stay away from Hamas militants have saved many lives over the years. The problem is, the cowards from Hamas won't stay away from non-militant Palestinian population. Israel is ramping up their ground game and will invade Gaza to take out launch sites and stabilize the area. This will be a big test for Egyptian leadership. And there is something we all have to remember about the their rhetoric: what they say publicly to mollify their people vs. what they say and do privately are two entirely different things much of the time. They have to play to their electorate while at the same time being politically expedient with the rest of the world. It's always been a fascinating lesson in Middle Eastern politics.

Hypocritical much? We are so lucky to have you here to teach us that elections have consequences. Given my leanings. LOL! Get over yourself.

Sounds to me like you're involved in hating just about everything from reading your posts celebrating all the bad news in any given day. Every other post has been an "LoL" of some sort or another. And given that sorry display, I don't think I'd be very interested in what you're involved in anyway.

You make too many assumptions in your post. Not worth responding to given your intractability. You may want to look that word up. It too, can be an important thing to consider when deciding who to vote for. Oh, and there are other elections than just presidential campaigns. You should probably get involved on more local levels while you're at it.

Oh, so your snark was meant for me I see. You have embarrassed yourself once again. I've voted for a Republican candidate in one race of another in nearly every election, including this one, for as long as I've been of voting age. Over 30 years now. It matters greatly what the candidate has to say or what his "message" is as you put it. The rest of your post just confirms what all your other post-election posts says about you.

Can't speak for anyone else but it all depends on what I "learn" about him. I'd have no problem at all in voting for Jindal if he speaks what I need to hear concerning the issues I find important. The media will have little to do with it. I'll watch the debates during the primaries, etc. and form my own opinions based on what he says directly and not through the media at all.