K-9

My question is when Mexico invades Texas to reclaim their lost land, do we have to send in federal troops to help, or can Rick Perry and the rest of his merry band of secessionists (thanks BuffaninATL) hold their own? I'm hoping it's the latter.

Interesting read so far but laborious. Thanks for posting. How long before GoDD attempts to figure out what team this exec. works for? GO SABRES!!!

Yes, thanks for the heads up.

Why waste your good time defending your qualifications as a proud American to the likes of someone who has no basis for questioning them in the first place OTHER THAN the fact that he perceives you have a different political viewpoint?

Unbelievable, even for you. I wonder where freeman is to admonish you to "do better." There's a war among the states right now. Perhaps you should get back to Texas in time for its secession. After all, that great American patriot and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry, has already endorsed the idea. I'm sure they need more comrades for the job.

Well, considering that the Texas GOP platform for 2012 calls for the repeal of the Voter Rights Act of 1965, is there really any wonder what they are afraid of?

I see. I thought that you were suggesting that the Arabic name derivatives were or could be made to be derogatory when translated to Arabic. Absent that, I doubt the right can make any more of an issue out of his name. Like I've said numerous times it's an appeal to base human emotions and it's effective because it resonates with a certain portion of the far right. Has been since 2004.

No need to pretend, I seriously don't know what you are driving at here. SFiNS suggested his name had negative connotations in Arabic. I was wondering what they are. The right has, since 2004, been making it a point to use his middle name for no other reason than to create a connection to Saddam Hussein, Muslims, 9/11, terrorists, Arabs, etc etc. And you know damn well why, too. Or are you pretending not know this?

I'd be interested to know what those negative connotations of his name are. In the very little amount of cursory research I've been able to do, both the names Barack and Hussein carry strong, positive meanings.

So, what do you have in mind? Is it one test for all the people or is it adjusted for certain social strata? How about differences in geographic location? Should it focus on civics or current events? Who determines what current events are included?

Pointing out Romney's first name has nothing to do with pointing out he's white. Just like pointing out Obama's middle name has nothing to do with him being black. The pejorative use of Obama's middle name is to create the connection to Saddam Hussein, Islam, the MIddle East, terrorists, 9/11, etc. solely to appeal to our base emotions. Another Roger Ailes strategy. And it seems to work on the simpler minds out there in the electorate.

I can't speak for anyone else but I use Romney's first name to clarify that he bears a resemblance to the actor who starred in a movie of the same name. I'll let you decide which one he looks like.

Mathematically you're completely right of course. And I'll be cheering come hell or high water. But it's the way we've screwed the pooch that has me concerned. We just don't pass the eye test as a competitive team. And it seems like the edges are fraying if Kelsay's words are indicative of anything. GO BILLS!!!

Speaking of the Rangers, how do the fan loyalties get divided in Brooklyn? I gotta believe it's mostly Rangers with a smattering of Devils. But there's gotta be a fair amount of Brooklynites that came of age during the Islander glory years, too. \ GO SABRES!!!

Yeah, he got the limp removed. GO BILLS!!!

Appeals to our base passions has long been a Republican strategy. Particularly prejudices and fear. What Karl Rove orchestrated against McCain in South Carolina is a good example. Bush's entire 2004 re-election campaign was an appeal to our fears. And today we hear news that Romney's campaign is sending direct mail DVDs which claim Obama is the love child between his mother and a black communist activist in Chicago. They hit the trifecta with that one. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?_r=0

What was so curious about it? Romney said it in an interview on CNN in March. Of course Fox and the Republican blogosphere are busy trying to parse the language in determining the difference between the words "foe" and "threat." In fairness to Romney, he said that our biggest national security threat was a nuclear-armed Iran.

Everybody in the free world knows this was a terrorist attack. The rest of your post is nonsensical in every aspect.

They even posted their responsibility for the attacks on facebook and twitter. That's all I need for confirmation.

Proof? From Egypt to Libya to India to Indonesia, Muslims hit the streets in DIRECT response to the youtube video. This is undeniable. I'm not going to waste any time linking the media reports, etc. that bare this out. For the record, I am NOT confusing the terrorists with the protesters.

Regarding the video and the ensuing protests throughout the Muslim world in the Middle East. Is it possible that a terrorist organization exploited that opportunity? Would they have attacked the consulate on their own without the support and confusion of the protesters who were there? There is no doubt that the protests were directly related to the video so I think it's a fair question to ask.

Hollow or not, it means that the Romney campaign failed in trying to suggest that the President shirked his responsibilities and that led to what happened in Benghazi. But nobody could speak more hollow words than Romney in the hours after the attack occurred.

I posted my theory as to why during the debate. I guess I was hoping for a little more detail than "it was a strategic decision." Why the strategic decision not to engage on the question of Benghazi?

What was more sickening was trying to score political points by exploiting the death of four Americans. In the midst of confusing reports from the CIA and others, when details were still coming in, what Team Romney offered within hours of the attack was planned, measured, and deliberate and for no other reason than to further his campaign. Like bad economic news, it was seen as a great opportunity by his campaign. The immediate aftermaths of national tragedies have always been rallying points for us and times when politicians put down their swords and come together in a show of strength to the world. I can find nothing honorable in how Romney acted. And his shameful attempt to link himself with Glen Doherty while stumping further underscores that. And he'd STILL be doing it if Doherty's own mother hadn't demanded that he stop. The President has said point blank that the buck stops with him on the question of Libya and every other US diplomatic outpost. I'd like to see just an ounce of contrition out of Romney for how he acted. I guess all he can do is simply agree with Obama's foreign policy instead.

Thanks. Just as all the bloggers out there. Just as all the op-ed writers out there. Why do you suppose Romney didn't make hay out of the Benghazi attack when he had a wide open opportunity in the last debate?