tar

iNow, Your sentence has a contradiction in it. Wrongdoing is when something done is morally or legally wrong. If she is not pure as the driven snow, then she has done something which is morally or legally wrong. So cleared of any wrongdoing would make her pure as the driven snow, which you suggest she might not be. Bill was impeached, but cleared of the charges. Depends on what the definition of is is. He didn't lie because nothing was going on between him and Monica, when he said there's nothing going on. No Democrat voted him guilty of perjury, so he was not found guilty of that charge. Technically correct to say he was cleared of THAT wrongdoing, but to suggest that cleared him of all wrongdoing, would be inappropriate a leap. Do you think Hilary thinks he did nothing wrong? Getting off does not mean you are innocent of all wrongdoing. Regards, TAR Means there was not enough evidence to prove you guilty of what you were suspected of doing wrong. Or in the case of Bill, doing a wrong thing with a cigar in the Oval office that did not legally mean he should be removed from office, for doing it. If Hilary admits, she made a mistake, she is admditting she did something wrong. So how can you say it is a fact that she is innocent of any wrongdoing. Oh, you just said she was "cleared" of any wrongdoing, which might be true in a technical sense, that she was not charged and prosecuted, but do you really believe everything she did, regarding Benghazi and her e-mail servers and White Water, and the futures trades and the other situations you listed as Republican failed witch hunt items was morally and legally right? Do you think Trump winning a court case filed against him, clears him of any wrongdoing regarding the case?

certainly not a simple thing to solve though, I agree...just read about Jabhat Fateh al-Sham which is also fighting the Assad regime and has the liberation of Palestine on their radar It is not all our fault, but we do have to decide who and when and how to support.

Beware then StringJunky, you use another lame excuse and I shall taunt thee cathartically for yet another time. ('course you will survive my taunts, I couldn't come close to being as effective a taunter as Phi) Tell everyone you are too mad for trousers though, next time, don't smoke.

dimreepr, Perhaps you could frame it that way. I do tend to consider the answer a movable target. If it was stationary everybody would already know the answer. The thread question is how to defeat political Islam, and as I have pointed out, we have not even parsed the question yet. Is it ISIS we are talking about, or do we want a second crusade? What exactly is it that we are trying to defeat? If we are trying to defeat U.S. imperialism, then we could just stay home. If we are trying to defeat Assad, we could destroy his airforce, start a third world war and destroy Russia's airforce to boot, go in with ground troops, take Assad out of his office and install the leader of our choice. If we are trying to defeat Iran's influence in the area we can declare war on her and fight her on land sea and in the air, until she yields and we can install the leader of our choice in that country. If we are trying to defeat ISIS we can go into Raqqa, with Assad's blessing and take the whole bunch out. So let's set the goal posts, so I know which direction to kick in. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, Perhaps I overthink things, but you said we should forget our petty disagreements with Iran and call a regional conference there, and hash everything out. Iran is already funding terrorists groups that have the goal of getting Israel off the map and the U.S. out of the area. So I assumed by forgetting our petty differences with Iran you meant forsaking our interests in the area and yielding to their regional desires. Regards, TAR dimreeper, I have a tendency to think a couple moves ahead. Sorry if you take it as me not hearing you. I hear you, think through the implications, and respond. Regards, TAR

and where does the west then get their energy if not from Russia or the Middle East?

SwansonT, But the republican elite are embodied by the Bushes and the Democratic elite are embodied by the Clintons, and the Billionaire elite are embodied by Bloomberg and the oracle of Omaha, who have all disavowed Trump. Most of the Hollywood elite are against him as well. He is basically against the elite and for the population. You say he is pretending, but he is about as populist as you can get. Regardless of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Can we trust him? Probably not. He is a salesman and a negotiator, and lies through his teeth. But, my comment was not so much about him but about Hilary calling a huge portion of our country ignorant and hateful. Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong. Regards, TAR

but what do we do about regime change? It is our half support of the rebels that made the mess in the first place. Sure we can let Iran take the region over...but we do not want that either, and neither do the Saudis want that. One of the issues here, and in the Middle East for many score of years now, is control of the oil. We, the British, the French, the U.S. have been acting like daddies of children toward the middle Eastern countries. Like we are going to tell them, how its going to be. I think the adults in those countries take offense at this type of help. Now of course Russia and Iran and the Saudis are also trying to be the parents, and have control of the oil. So we have a regional conflict with everybody fighting a proxy war. The Turks against the Kurds, and everything else. For there to be peace, we have to let go, and ask Russia and Iran and Turkey and the Saudis, and the British and the French and the Germans to let go, as well. Go in as a group in a UN type of way with actual assistance, but let Assad control it. It is his country. And under this kind of umbrella pledge our (the world's) full support to Assad, to get the Caliph out of Raqqa. One way to help stabilize an area in disarray is to stop destabilizing it. Support the governments of the countries, whether we like them or not. (which does not include support of the Islamic state, since it is unrecognized by the international community.)

Nice Phi. You should write for Python

Ten Oz, Granted, we the none of us, can stomach seeing a countryman bound on his knees, about to die by having his head cut off. Question is, how bad do you want to stop it? What blood and treasure are you willing to lose to stop it? If you are a pacifist you are not willing to put any blood toward it. You can manage some treasure, some humanitarian aid, but you will not send a drone. You will not send special forces. You will not send a bomber or a cruise missile. You will not send an army. All you are willing to send is DVDs and to spend some money on a counter terrorist web site. When the guy is walking down the street, shooting people randomly the situation is black and white. You ask him forcefully to stop, and when he does not, you shoot him dead. o It becomes not black and white, when you draw a line in the sand, and then let the guy step over it. I have suggested, on an other thread a while back, what we need to do. We have to establish diplomatic ties with Assad, and help him regain control of his country. We have to make a deal with him, that there will be no reprisals against the rebels we have backed. In exchange we will stop pushing regime change, and help the country, under Assad's leadership get back on its feet. Send doctors and engineers and food and equipment and materials. Meanwhile, tell the Caliph his State is not welcome within the borders of Syria nor the borders of Iraq. Help Assad, with our air power and special forces, and troops if required, go into Raqqa and find the leaders of ISIS and kill them dead. Being sure to find their tunnels with the best sensing equipment we have, and destroying them with them in there. Or finding the air vents and sending down some disabling materials or whatever it takes. If done, with Assad's backing we could do it in a month or a week or a couple of days. We just need the will. The thing that makes it complicated, is we want regime change and Assad does not, and the Russians do not. First things first. Respect the sovereign rights of Syria and stop supporting the rebels. Protect them, and find a peaceful path to reintegration into Syrian government, but don't support them as rebels with regime change the goal. That is up to an election. If we can't do that, and we must have regime change, then declare war on Assad, and go in there and remove him. Nothing complicated about it. It is black and white. Only if you want regime change but don't want to pay for it, does it become complicated as the last 5 and a half years has shown us. So anyway, Ten Oz, what is your plan? Regards, TAR

I think life is a victory over the universe's tendency toward entropy. Ok you own yourself. So do I. But life is your ONLY possession. You lose it, you have nothing. Unless you leave something of yourself for somebody else. then you don't have it, but somebody else does Jeremy Glick was from my town. I never knew him but I know he died to save the lives of people in Washington, maybe the capital or the white house, or whatever the target was. A really powerful sacrifice on his part. Makes me cry on occasion to think about it.

I saw a book at my dad's authored by James Joyce. He is a smart and level headed guy, but his picture on the cover looked really really sad. What is the point, of being overly pessimistic about life? Even if you are right, you are sad. I like feeling good about being alive. StringJunky, Wait. One does not choose to be alive in the first place so one has the choice to undo the thing? Don't completely follow. Regards, TAR If you die to save others you are doing a good thing. Like Jeremy Glick.

StringJunky, Well I suppose you can say the whole thing is fruitless, because you die in the end anyway, but that is fatalistic thinking which might be level headed, but which denies the possibility for the life and enjoyment in between birth and death. Level headed thinking wise, what would you suggest the purpose of life is, if not to be alive? Regards, TAR and I think the suicidal person did, in the case of my girlfriends sister, care what I thought I get your point that level headed people can rationalize their own death, and be in complete control of the decision, but they are making the decision because they are hopelessly and critically ill which they have no way of correcting. As in they have no control.

StringJunky, You are still OK, you have not failed. Your body demanded the nicotine and you yielded. It is OK you have not disappointed me, or probably anybody else. You still want to stop, which is the most important thing. You had to know that you could smoke if you wanted to. Which you can. You still have control of the situation. Just choose next time you have that powerful craving, to ignore it, and say no to your body's demand. And make yielding "not an option". Regards, TAR

Hilary said tonight that half of Trump supporters are in the bucket of deplorables and listed all the derogatory labels by which progressives label conservatives. Figuratively is how she meant it, perhaps, but figuring about 130 million voters, and putting Trump supporters currently at 38 percent of voters, that is about 50 million US citizens she just called stupid or racist or hateful or deplorable (well 25 million, but how do you know, if you are a trump supporter whether you are the deplorable half or the non-deplorable half). Interesting stance for someone who wants to be seen as the candidate that is not divisive. By my 90 10 rule, she is speaking to the 10 percent against the 90 percent. She should lose in a landslide. by logic and the numbers populists should defeat elitists

Elite Engineer, Interesting point. The posthumous ego. I agree that you can not enjoy the situation after you die, but there is a concern we have, none-the-less with the world after we die. We buy life insurance, and protect the planet for future generations. Ego might indeed be considered, after death. Regards, TAR

Thorham, I am sure there are situations where one has very little to no control over their lives. Hence there are many suicides. But, if you have any control what-so-ever it is worth working at increasing your control, even at the risk of death. The trial, like the escape attempt from prison camp, is better than just giving up and hanging yourself. What is the downside on trying to escape? Worst that can happen is you are killed in the attempt, which is what you were going to elect in the case of suicide. Those girls escaped from their captor out in Minnesota or where ever that was a few years ago, where the guy kept them as sex slaves. Escape is better than suicide. Regards, TAR

An article suggests that people tend to vote for the taller candidate, when two are placed side by side. I can't paste the link at the moment, but it also suggests that either Hilary is getting taller or the internet is getting dumber. When she ran for president against the 6' 1" Obama she was listed at 5' 5". She lost in the primaries. Now the internet lists her at 5' 7". However Trump is listed at 6' 3". Obama beat the shorter John McCain, but he also beat the taller Mitt Romney so it is not and iron clad rule. Coincidently Putin is 5' 7". Clinton did however beat the 6' 0" Sanders in the primary, so obviously height is not the only criteria.

But NBC came out with a piece about that photo and Obama says Hilary covered her mouth at a point where a delta force helicopter was "having a problem". Hilary explained herself by saying that is how she looks when her husband drags her to an action movie.​ I tried to link it, but my paste was not pasting. So NOT concentration.This is how Hillary described it: "That's how I usually look when my husband drags me to an action movie." She also said it was "just an extraordinary experience and a great privilege to be part of.”

swansont, Well you are right, she can look the part. If this is the Hilary you have faith in, then I can go along with this Hilary being the leader of the free world. Phi for All, I remember seeing the moving pictures of the scene in the situation room and made my assessment of her being the most uncomfortable in the room, based on that, not on this picture alone. I posted it, because it looks exactly like she looked in the motion pictures. Yes, I do not know what was being shown, but I understand it was helmet cam pictures from the team that did the deed. Obama is leaning forward others have their arms folded their jaws set. She was the most uncomfortable in the room. I did not dream it up. I saw it happen. Regards, TAR

good night pleasant dreams

OK, she is the only one in the room concentrating intensely, everybody else is daydreaming.

right, you can not have fun, because then you would not be content in having no pleasure

a picture is worth a thousand words Delta1212, I saw the same hearing, but it did not give me a good feeling about her. She did not take responsibility for lying to the families about the cause of the attacks. She said it was a confusing time and things and information kept changing. I did not believe her recharacterization. Regards, TAR

Swansont, I don't get the same feeling looking at Angela Merkel as I get looking at Hilary. I still have the image of her as first lady. Capable, but not imposing. Perhaps I missed her imposing appearance as Secretary of State. Do you have any I could take a peek at? Regards, TAR