Juror#8

I want to make sure I have this correct - you think that a state, which is supported by taxpayer revenue, should be able to selectively discriminate against certain taxpayers - and along lines that are arbitrary and phenotypic? I won't get into a pro forma 14th Amendment argument because I understand that you're essentially saying that you disagree with it as a matter of philosophy - but how compelled are you by arguments of economic fairness? I'll also stay away from the Article I Section 8 Clause 3 arguments with respect to your second point as I understand that you're just opining. The 'state being able to discrimate' argument is a little more interesting though. Do you also think that a state should be able to discrimate against citizens from different states? Do you think states should be able to discriminate against other states? This is not a "gotcha" question; I'm genuinely interested in knowing - because to me it implicates an economic fairness concern. I could give two ____ what you're thoughts are on the racial equality component.

LMAO!!! I'm gonna post another riddle if it's not deleted by tomorrow!!! I can't delete the whole thread, just individual posts.

No, I think that you're conflating two points. There are two separate and distinct matters: 1. Does the President deserve some level of credit for the obl get? Most say yes. 2. Was his decision unique in that other president's, under similar circumstances, would have made a different call? 1 is established. We can move on from that. 2 gives breadth and depth to 1. My point is that we can't know what was known, the intelliegence that was available, etc. beyond that which Leon Pannetta and others see fit to divulge in news articles and interviews. Based on that, and the extent to which the layperson can understand the logistics of such a mission, we're left with the knowledge that obl was accessible (within a 40%-70% certainty) a handful of times. 1. Tora Bora: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14190032 Bush didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have...." crowd). 2. Afghanistan (2000): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6283580/ns/nbcnightlynews-nbc_news_investigates/t/spy-plane-captured-video-bin-laden/ Clinton didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have..." crowd) 3. Pakistan (2005): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?pagewanted=all "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials." Though it was not definite in 2005 that he was there, there was still top leadership and their decision for innaction was in order to continue playing nice with Pakistan. Fu((k Pakistan and these punk-ass politicians who can't make a call and stand by it. Try, and try, and try as you might to make Obama's call a pedestrian one, it wasn't. All the points and literature and evidence is circumstantial but the inference is strong. He was the only one who made the call when faced with similar circumstances. Others didn't. I respect Bush for going right into Afghanistan in '01 but he was blah with obl. Clinton was too. Obama showed leadership and strength on that issue. Now please, challenge the supporting documentation and not just the inferences drawn from them. My contention is that not just any one else would have made that call, right then, under those circumstances, only knowing to a 50-70% certainty that obl was there. Apparently that percentage (and greater) was present in other circumstances with resulting innaction. I firmly believe that Bush would have been too concerned about relations with Pakistan. H. Clinton too. McCain as well. Diplomatic relations, sovereignty, international discord, etc. is a very compelling for some. I'm glad that the current WH looked beyond that schit to effectuate a good.

Good call man! I did it again (the first time I did it with a chart on a Wendy's napkin). This time, sadly, I used a colored pencils and a piece of notebook paper. The result was... The !@#$ing Norwegian.

There are topics devoted to the economy to discuss his handling of the economy. That is not the purpose of this thread. This is not about obl as subterfuge. It's about the decision-making behind that effort. I don't agree with how he is using it politically but at this moment when my finger is tapping this "K"ey, I don't give a ****. And as I mentioned to Dante, chill with the "anyone would have done..." bs. No, they wouldn't have. You're wrong. Obama did the right thing and it took courage. Other idiots, democrats and republicans, !@#$ed schit up. And what of the McCain comments that suggest that such a course of action wouldn't have transpired during a McCain presidency? Let me guess, you're going to provide an interpretation better than his exact words. I'm sure he appreciates that. It's slightly revisionist and ahistorical but it goes down easier than cooked carrots and moonshine. But those who are not hanging on the nuts of irrationality understand that right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter how much you detest the current economic condition. And in the event that you missed my response to Dante: I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next.

I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next.

After on and off for over an hour I came up with Norwegian too. I think that's right. (Haven't looked at the answer yet). I have a box matrix and everything. Edit: Dammit! It is not the Norwegian. Maybe I'm not in the 2% of the population that Einstein claimed could get this riddle correct. Did you really get this or did you google?

Well they're a cantankerous bunch and somewhat effeminate as a group but they have demonstrably had our backs except for some hiccups during the W years.

That's for sure. One reason that he didn't get my vote was because of the neo-Wilsonian liberalist view of foreign policy and international relations that he espoused during the campaign. I don't really care about working with other nations (but realize that is absolutely necessary). In fact, I think we should be inherently skeptical of other nations except for the UK, Canada, France and Israel. If we help nations financially, it gets corrupted. If we help nations by investing in grassroots movements to coup d' etat, we ended up creating the monster that we originally sought to defeat. If we end up protecting their people from that new menace, we're now subsidizing the opposite ideological group - incidentally, the same one that we toppled the first time around. If we don't help, they think we're flaunting and hate us for being rich. If we do help, we're trying to take the spotlight and favoring nations. If we're silent, we're indifferent. If we speak, we're meddling in international affairs and favoring. If we don't trade, we're being punitive. If we do trade, we're subsidizing a burgeoning nuclear weapons program.... We need to take care of business at home and stop looking at every decision in the prizm of its ultimate impact on international relations. Frankly, I don't give a !@#$ what some Dutchman thinks about our policy on trade with _______.

Obama using it politically is classless and weaksauce. I agree. An objective was accomplished, that should be its own reward. To include that on a resume for re-election is to profoundly trivialize a momentous occassion. And I know that one can't prove a negative. Who knows what Hillary or Romney or McCain would have done in that moment. One would hope that they would have acted similarly. I'm picking out statements in a vaccuum and that is not necessarily fair to them but I don't have anything else to go on to make a determination. More than anything, this is an indictment of politicians who put international politics and allyism ahead of our national agenda and priorities. It has been happening too often lately. It seems like every other country has their domestic best interest as a priority except for us (look at Asian and Western European nations). Fu(((k "kumbaya." "Kumbaya" is not going to keep us safe or stop the inequity in the global trade economy. I don't understand why.

Agreed - 99.9999% of the credit goes to the troops. With respect to foreign policy: My concern is that puss ass, over-thinking, beholden to international ally, politicians would have taken away the opportunity for the best military in the world to conduct its business. That's why the McCains and Dodds and Clintons of the world would have put us at a competitive disadvantage.

For that one day in time, I'm glad that we had a commander-in-chief who was willing to take decisive action and not be swayed by every permutation and geo-political calculation. And we can't say that ANY president would have acted similarly and not weighed all the different cost benefit calculations...Clinton !@#$ed it up, Bush !@#$ed it up when there was actionable intelligence of OBL in Tora Bora. It could have been another "what if" scenario that everyone postulates for years afterwards. We could have had to endure more talking heads and "in-the-know" reporters on the Sunday talk shows discussing the intelligence source that claims that Bin Laden was there in the compound but the executive decision was made to wait and see. If McCain were in office, he would have played the coordination game with the Pakistanis. He would have showed his hand and the Pakistani government would have shuttled OBL off to some cave somewhere. The only one gettng played would have been him. Fu((k that.

Slightly to the right of that, assuming that you're talking from the perspective of the Brit.

I'm gonna stand by my points on this one. Whatever you think of the edited youtube clip, there is also documented history of their statements - in context - in articles, newspapers, and other print media. Obama said: "They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain said: “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” You'll be hard-pressed to find any context that diminishes those sentiments as expressed during the 2008 campaign. At the end of the day, McCain suggested that we coordinate with allies first and avoid the surgical strike/unilateral approach to going into Pakistan for terrorist targets. Obama said, "I presume that you knew he was there and you didn't do schit about it so fu((k it, let's roll!" I prefer the latter approach. It aligns more closely with my view of foreign policy. Obama deserves A LOT of credit for taking it on the chin when it was hypothetical, but still doing exactly what he said he was going to do 2 years later - though the stakes and ramifications would have been considerably higher than on the debate circuit.

Isn't "Blue Master" what Frank Lucas peddled? Anyone know from experience whether or not that is smokable? Or maybe "hypothetically" from the perspective of "friend's" testimonials...

B-Man, DC, and 3rd, this is why I'm making that points that I'm making - Here is the rub...Obama took so much heat for saying in 2008 that he would strike Al Queda in Pakistan. Clinton, Biden, and McCain pilloried his statements. In fact he was just about the lone voice saying "this is what would be done in this instance..." The rest of them equivocated...and postured...and spoke in platitudes.... And Obama did what he said he'd do. The decision was even more laudable when you consider the political calculation and what the various criticisms during the campaign. Remember this gem from McCain: "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator. Even after the Wisconsin speech, McCain reiterated his criticism. The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” “You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/obama-pakistan-policy_n_856321.html According to all indications post-mission, though, coordinating with Pakistan would have been a nightmare: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/ So based on his own articulated sentiments, I feel that McCain would have botched it. Clinton too. Biden too. They were all equivocating 'do nothings' who were too afraid to take a position and stand on it. Bush wasn't; Obama wasn't. I respect them both for that constitution.

I cut and pasted. On physicsforums we do stupid riddles timed so I had cut it to send to myself via email anyway. Anyway, the riddle of the deleted thread has been solved... I've forwarded this thread to the IRS so I hope you plan on reporting that fish as taxable income.

Lol!!! Bump btw! Einstein's riddle while we wait.... There are no tricks, just pure logic, so good luck... 1. In a street there are five houses, painted five different colours. 2. In each house lives a person of different nationality 3. These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke different brand of cigar and keep a different pet. THE QUESTION: WHO OWNS THE FISH? HINTS 1. The Brit lives in a red house. 2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets. 3. The Dane drinks tea. 4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house. 5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee. 6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds. 7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill. 8. The man living in the centre house drinks milk. 9. The Norwegian lives in the first house. 10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats. 11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill. 12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer. 13. The German smokes Prince. 14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house. 15. The man who smokes Blends has a neighbour who drinks water.

Slightly more than that, the decision suggests a keen discernment and strong personal constitution that unfortunately few other politicians have/had. That doesn't supplement for lacking policy skills though. I just think that McCain would have botched it.

I'm trying, silly lady. I'm traveling and looking at this on a truncated screen.

Some other forums that I frequent don't feel he deserves credit (some feel that he deserves all the credit) but he seems to have been the only one (amongst the '08 options) with the fortitude, willingness, and focus to do it realistically (well...besides maybe Duncan Hunter). Kudos to him.

I need to learn to search. Please delete.

Just finished a very developed conversation with a colleague about this. I know that this topic was discussed last year but I want to introduce a new spin on it... Does he deserve political credit and/or did he demonstrate political courage? Short answer: Yes.

O.k., so Movie weekend wasn't an entire weekend after all. It was more like a day and a half. Tranisitioning to private sector and opening a business 70 miles from my house took it's toll with respect to available time for movie-watching. That.....and Hatfields and McCoys debuted last night so that was how Monday evening was spent. That said though, here is how the day and a half (nee weekend) went down: The food: PB Captain Crunch, Twizzlers, Curry Chicken and brown rice that my mother graciously made for the occassion, Orange Crush, Biscoff Spread, Biscoff Cookies, Boars Head Turkey and sub rolls from Giant, Oatmeal, muffins from Wegmans, leftover PF Changs. This post can go on for days so I'll just mention the movies that I watched: Your recommendations - Thin Red Line (loved it - awesome movie) Moon (the whole time I was thinking that it would be 2001 Space Odyssey Redux - it wasn't. Sam Rockwell plays a great role!) True Romance (enjoyed the movie - surprised that Tarantino was involved - didn;t seem like a Tarantino flick) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Ok, I can't believe that I'd never heard of this movie. IMO, Downey Jr's best performance. Period. No hyperbole.) Movies that I had purchased but was waiting to watch - Primer (WOW! WOW! See it! Made on a $7000 budget. VERY dialog heavy! Fantastic Movie! Mind !@#$!) Tree of Life (You'll either love it or hate it. Top 25 movies of all time IMO) Seconds (oldie but goodie - kind of a mind !@#$) Lost Highway (had seen half of it before - wierd as **** - ok movie) Primer (just wanted to mention it again - fantastic movie) Caveman's Valentine (eh, whatever) Red Violin (pretty good - want to see it again though - watched it after Seconds so for the first 45 minutes of the movie I was still thinking about Seconds). Pootie Tang (Wadatay!) (ok...don't !@#$ing hate) All recommendations were VERY much appreciated. I'll be watching all of the other movies over the coming months and years as my work schedule permits. P.S. - Tree of Life and Primer. Awesome movies! Sleepers. Would be interested in hearing thoughts from those who have seen them already.

This is so sadly hypocritical of the WH. Progressives and Libs can't really reconcile this crap. It's pretty pathetic actually: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/25/bain-employees-may-have-paid-for-tv-ads-bashing-the-company/ This may have already been mentioned in the consolidated Bain thread. I looked cursorily but didn't see it referenced. I hope not and feel it deserves separate mention. Cliff Note's: 3 current Bain execs are actively contributing to WH re-election efforts. One is a bundler and has contributed $135,000 to campaign. WH won't return contribution even though Bain is the centerpiece of their attacks on Romney. You would almost think that there is some kind of ancillary fiduciary problem with that - which, though confronted with 1st Amendment considerations, is pretty compelling given the corporate and non-public context. Anyway, it's !@#$ed up either way.