K-9

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.

Diplomacy is a nuanced science. There is no need for any two world leaders to be buddies. But Obama and Netanyahu are FAR from not getting along. Things have been far more heated at times in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/15/us-palestinians-israel-usa-timeline-idUSTRE62E45Z20100315

There is no big problem with US/Israeli relations. And if you want a time when things were just as "strained" do some research on our relations with Israel during Reagan's 2nd term and Bush 1's term. Like I said, James Baker himself barred Netanyahu from the State Department during that period. The Johnson and Nixon administrations had big issues with Israel as well. The US has historically played a delicate balancing act in the Middle East vis a vis our key diplomatic relationships with other players in the region. Especially those that hold sizable, long-time US investments. And that is absolutely essential. You seem to have little appreciation for that very important element of our foreign policy in the region. Do you dismiss Netanyahu's and Romney's long friendship entirely here? Nothing wrong in wanting to your friend and former work colleague elected president but to think that Bibi's rhetoric during the campaign wasn't geared to his support for Romney is naive.

The Romney campaign's suggestion that US/Israeli relations were strained and that Obama was not a friend to Israel's cause in the Middle East was for nothing more than an attempt to scare Jewish voters in the US, particularly in Florida. I find that shameless indeed because nothing can be further from the truth. And yes, the Jewish voting block in this country usually leans towards the Democratic candidate. I find nothing wrong with trying to court and convince ANY voting block to your side but I disagree when that is done through lies and manipulation. And Netanyahu, Romney's good friend and former work colleague in Boston, was more than willing to go along with it.

I think you have that backwards but that's been the case with most US Presidents since Israel became a state. And it doesn't help that Netanyahu is a world class prick, especially to his political adversaries in Israel. World leaders don't have to get along, they seldom do actually. But they do have to co-exist peacefully.

Like I said, I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post at this time. I was merely pointing out that the assertion that Israel is on their own or that US/Israeli relations are strained is unfounded and based largely on campaign rhetoric and the fact that Netanyahu backed his old Boston friend and colleague. Bibi wasted no time in backtracking as soon as the election results were in, by the way. Just full of congratulations for Obama. Like any diplomat would. It's too bad for him that he backed the wrong horse and that the shameless attempt to garner a larger percentage of the US Jewish vote didn't come to fruition for Romney. As to the press conference, was Obama asked a question about Israel and the mid-East situation? Did he deflect or avoid a question about it? I honestly don't know as I didn't watch it.

I won't comment on the rest of your post but as to this part, nothing could be farther from the truth. US/Israeli ties are as strong as ever. This idea that he doesn't get along with Obama was trumped up during the campaign season to prop up Romney. That's no coincidence given that Netanyahu and Romney have known each other since they were colleagues at Boston Consulting Group in the 70s. They are old buddies. But if you really want to know when Netanyahu and the US weren't on the same page, go back to when he was Israeli Ambassador to the UN during the Reagan years. Hell, James Baker had him banned from the State Department at one time when he was Secretary of State for Bush 1.

I'm mainly talking about scholars at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who have only been studying the issue for 54 years now. 54 years. It's known as The Bible Project. And I understand why you needed to fix my text.

Which version? Scholars know the Bible has indeed changed over the millennia both in translation and context.

His bigger job is to get everyone in his caucus that signed the Norquist pledge to renege. Including him. I seriously doubt he has the nads to get that done. Nobody has had the nads since Tip O'Neil. Which brings to mind one of my favorite Reagan quotes: "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy."

One of my favorite and timeless quotes from him:

Can't believe students in Philly would choose Obama over Chuck Bednarik.

Thanks, Blue. Rasmussen and Gallup have some explaining to do. Might help all pollsters to consider mobile phones and the large numbers of young voters that use them.

Crezdon? Are we signing Eastern European mystics now? Buddy is combing the earth for talent. Maybe The Amazing Crezdon can divine what play the opponents will run and relay that to Wanny in the booth.

You make a good point and I understand where you're coming from. Imagine if the estimated 50-80 percent of all zygotes didn't spontaneously abort and be expelled naturally by the mother?

Interesting question. I suspect it correlates to the red and blue of those individual states. Those senators were largely elected via the very same large population centers that voted democrat in those states. I'd be interested in knowing if the House representatives elected were voted for in those same urban areas. I suspect not. But then again, why do so many of these states have Republican governors? Is it because the electorate just isn't as participatory in those elections vs. national elections? Hmm.

While I'm flattered, please know that I'm hardly enlightened. I honestly think this stuff is self-evident with just a cursory look at our history and what we've overcome during the course of it.

I don't think the definition of "threat" has changed over the years so much as the nature of the threat (military, economic, cyber, etc.) and what the appropriate response should be. I don't think we trust Russia, China, or anyone else for that matter (OK, I'll give you Canada but they are a sneaky bunch). We are all trying to rob the same train and there is no honor amongst thieves as they say. The Apocalypse has been predicted since the beginning. Life altering events, both natural and man made have destroyed entire societies. But we have always evolved and will continue to do so until the sun goes super nova. But even then, life will find a way. The societal evolution currently underway in our country is inevitable. But not without precedent. And each time there has been a large faction of people frightened by the prospects of that change. Most importantly, our laws as a nation have withstood these shifts. Every time. Changing demographics won't do anything to change that. Indeed, like every other time, it only expands and strengthens them.That was the genius of the Founders. But it takes time and there is always a gnashing of teeth at the disruption this inevitable change brings about. That's just human nature. And the Founders accounted for that, too.

You know where I stand on the idea of oil, dollar valuation, and China. That said, we've been attacked by foreign enemies several times on US soil and we've never responded like the Sabres did to Lucic. Quite the opposite in fact. It's that whole "awakening the sleeping giant" thing. There is no doubt there will be another terrorist attack on our soil. Terrorists have been blowing things up in our country since it started. Like you said, that's a "when" not if proposition. But I can't agree with your idea that our military is suddenly weakened or that our ability to respond to threats is lessened somehow. The last thing I want to sound like is a jingoistic ideologue, but when it comes to military superiority in this world, America, even if she stands without her allies, is far and away the most advanced. And even if we end up spending 5x more than anyone else vs. 10x more, that's just not gonna change. When some other team goes Lucic on us, it's my bet we respond like Dave Schultz and the Broad Street Bullies. But it has to be a Lucic doing it, not a Marchand. We can send out Gerbe for that. What I don't want to see is this continuation of a doctrine of nation building abroad. That more than anything has drained our resources, caused our dept to soar, and our dollar to decline in value as a result.

For all the months of the incessant "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio" rhetoric it's ironic that, as it turned out, Ohio wasn't gonna win it for Romney in the end; he ended up winning only 1 of the battlegrounds after all. But from a campaign strategy standpoint, I can't believe he ran that Jeep ad the way he did. Ohio media outlets made it their headline story for a week straight and both GM and Chrysler publicly rebuked him for doing it. And it registered with some voters in Romney's core constituency. I have a hunch they saw a dip in their numbers as a result and decided on their Hail Mary in PA in the final week.

I agree with everything stated here. Especially with regard to independents. They are just as partisan as those who identify their party affiliation. I found this idea of them and the undecideds suddenly breaking one way or the other hard to believe. I think it will be borne out that Sandy had virtually NO impact on the race other than perhaps lowering turnout in NY and NJ. What won this election for Obama was his ground game that mobilized his core constituencies.

Excellent point.