Azalin

It sounds more to me that what you're describing is "authoritarian vs libertarian".

Not if you held a gun to my head.

They wear white, hooded robes and help to sell out Enya concerts.

It's cool - we obviously want a new model with regard to colleges and universities, anyway. Best to let these obsolete indoctrination farms die quietly. The world will ultimately be the better for it.

Wow - definitely surprised, and impressed,to be honest. I never thought they'd do it. Bloody good for them - if any Kingdom deserves to remain stolidly British, it's the British. Cheers, mates!

Sometimes I'm guilty of simplifying things too much in an effort to strip away secondary and tertiary BS and get to the heart of an issue. Therefore, nuance isn't always a part of my reasoning process. I'd be interested to see what you come up with, but for now, I consider pretty much any semi-sane individual who plots and executes a plan to murder any plurality of people to be an act of terrorism (ala Dylann Root, Timothy VcVeigh, the 911 hijackers, etc). Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I am, I'm having difficulty seeing the distinction. Besides, isn't Venus De Milo the one without arms?

Yeah, that makes sense. Perhaps I'm making it too easy, because I don't see much of anything vague about it.

You mean Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel is running again?

You beat me to the question: why does it have to be in coordination with, and not simply "inspired by"?

http://youtu.be/VWzw-bYa3lw

I do consider Roof to be a terrorist, but Lanza was insane. The difference in my mind being that I would have Lanza treated and medicated like he should have been in the first place, then locked away until he died. Roof on the other hand, I'd have put to death if convicted.

Why does a person need the backing or blessings of an "official" terror group for their acts of violence to legitimately classified as terror? Why does the act have to involve targeting people in general, instead of targeting a single group, to be considered terrorism? Does the act have to be inspired by extreme religious doctrine or belief? Can't a person live a perfectly normal life, and one day decide to kill people in the name of a deity and/or terror group, and have it be called exactly what it is - terror? I don't get why this is even an argument. Do you bomb abortion clinics? You're a terrorist. Do you blow yourself up at an airport? You're a terrorist. Do you fly hijacked planes into buildings, set off pressure cooker - shrapnel bombs at marathons, blow up federal buildings, or spray enough hot lead to slay 49 people in a dance club? Well then, you're a terrorist. How is this even being debated?

Did I give you the impression that I'm projecting my hopes on Trump? Is that what this comes down to - wanting anyone but Hillary is a qualifier for putting faith in her opponent, whoever that might be? Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that I don't like him as a presidential candidate. I don't see how my "anyone but Hillary or that crazy socialist Bernie" stance is in any way projecting my hopes onto Trump. The apparent difference between you and me is that I'm willing to vote against the individual I think will do the most damage, and in my view, Hillary is more of a threat than Trump. Then again, I live in Texas - here, you always win the state if you have an "R" following your name, so my presidential vote doesn't count for a whole lot anyway.

And that pretty much sums up how Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960.

I've apparently given you the impression that I like Ted Cruz despite that I began my first paragraph with "And with regard to Cruz - he's smarmy. He's self-righteous. He's annoying." I don't like him, but I view Cruz as being preferential to many others in the party. Like Trump, for example. We're just going to disagree with regard to "media hucksters" being responsible for Trump's ascendancy, except for the major news networks. They latched onto Trump and gave him lots of exposure because of his celebrity, not because they actually supported him. Conservative talk radio is a completely different critter though - they don't ever have to convince their listeners of anything. Listeners already agree with them, and they listen in order to have their beliefs reenforced. The only thing most of those listeners learn is talking point details that they can repeat later in conversation. People like you, LA, GG, Tom, etc are way smarter than that, and I know none of you have formed your beliefs from that segment of the media. Trump's ascendancy is a result of the popular culture - a wealthy, powerful businessman whose name was already a household word before he became a reality television star. I believe that like so many others before him, his desire to seek high office is ego-driven, but I also believe that if he has the right cabinet and advisors - and he actually listens to them - that he'd be a lot better a president than Hillary Clinton would be.

Suck my pyramids, white man. Hey Rhino - I got to use it!

Ever heard of Mark Levin or Dana Lash? Go ahead and tell me how they're Trump supporters. Please - I'd be fascinated to hear it. And with regard to Cruz - he's smarmy. He's self-righteous. He's annoying. He's also very solidly TEA party conservative. I was pleased to see that he at least managed to come in 2nd to Trump. BUT - he came in 2nd. Don't like it? Blame republicans, not Trump. The majority of the people who have always sided with you, think that the people you support are bullsh!t. They are correct. They suck, and they have a record that proves it. "We can't pass anything unless we have the house" - well, we gave them the house. "Oh, we can't do anything unless we gain the senate" - we give them the senate, and only ONE republican tries to stop Obamacare via a filibuster - Cruz. How does the party react? They do everything they can to marginalize him. That was enough for me - screw the republicans, and screw everyone who sympathizes with them. I'll say it again - you're a republican and you don't like Trump? Well, you're not alone. The fact of the matter is that if you're one of those that's been supporting the republican establishment for the last 8 to 16 years, and want more of the same.....thank you very much for what you've done to the party, because there's a hell of a lot of folks out there that think you're as much a part of the problem as Hillary Clinton is. I agree with them. I don't like Trump, but people like me aren't the ones that handed him the nomination. You are.

The Conservative talk radio/media hucksters have been pretty damned consistent over the years, and have - until Trump came along - backed traditional republican candidates solidly. They play to their audience, who until this election cycle, have largely agreed with you, me, and most other right-leaning people here. Trump is the manifestation of the rank and file's frustration with the party. He bested 16 other candidates, some of them good ones, and he did so fair & square. I don't like it, and neither do you, but to place the blame on right wing media is, in my opinion, wrong. You're likely right - he probably is a decent human being, His intentions are likely genuine. He's a socialist. Being a leftist is one thing - the left used to be champions of constitutional liberties and free speech. Socialism is anathema to democratic republicanism, and I will always have disdain for it. Completely agree. All I would add is that Ted Cruz and anyone like him are both marginalized and despised by the party establishment, which is a major part of my point that they've turned their backs on their constituents and are now reaping the effect of their behavior.

I've always called it "reacting to how you feel about something rather than taking the time to actually think about it". Same difference, I suppose.

I agree with your first sentence completely. The rest, you're just being a partisan d#$k. The GOP leadership has been making promises to their base for years that they have no intention of following up on. Yes, you disagree with most of them - that's fine. What you (and in my opinion, lots of other people) are apparently missing is that the Trump movement is one of populism/nationalism, not of straight political ideology like we've been used to for the last umpteen decades. He's not a Trojan horse or a Manchurian candidate, he's not a democrat in republican clothing. He's a populist that's pushing an agenda of contradictions (improving jobs and the economy by imposing tariffs on imports? How the #$@& does that work?), while waving the flag and pointing out everything that everyone already knows is wrong in the country, and tossing in a few things that aren't wrong, but saying that they are because it's populist. The GOP is 100% to blame for Trump's ascendancy, such as it is, but it isn't difficult to grasp why - it's just the flip side of the coin that has Bernie's face on it: total dissatisfaction with the status quo. If the American public at large had any clue how government works, then things might be different. But the absolutely retarded adherence to party leaders that promise one thing and do another is finally having tangible results - and now we have Bernie and the Donald. Thank you partisan boneheads.

So not only is he made to look foolish, we all now know that he's been charged with domestic abuse.

I've heard (but have no idea if it's accurate) that that's not an accurate translation, that it supposedly translates to "72 raisins" and not 72 virgins. If that's true, then there's going to be a hell of a lot of pissed-off martyrs. 72 raisins isn't even 2 scoops.

I can't agree with that. While the definition of "good businessman" is somewhat subjective, had Romney used more of his own money during his run for office, I suspect that he'd have received less grief for doing so than Trump has. Personally, I would prefer to see more candidates funding themselves.