Benghazi

[Woodruff]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

Reverse discrimination is almost never called for what it is...

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". That's a retarded term used by ignorant people. Discrimination is discrimination.

[loutil]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

Let me try and respond like you do: You do not count as you are just an idiot.

[loutil]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

As usual, you fail at reading comprehension. Please point out where I said Christians are "so damned persecuted in this country". For the record, I am NOT Christian.

[loutil]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

Reverse discrimination is almost never called for what it is...

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". That's a retarded term used by ignorant people. Discrimination is discrimination.

Wow, I am glad you have decided what words are appropriate and which are not. I guess you are now the dictionary police?

re·verse dis·crim·i·na·tion
noun 

(in the context of the allocation of resources or employment) The practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously


Web definitions

Reverse discrimination, also known as positive discrimination, is a controversial specific form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

The policy or practice of discriminating against members of a designated group which has in the past unfairly received preferential treatment in social, legal, educational, or employment situations, with the intention of benefiting one or more other groups (such as racial, disabled, or gender ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reverse_discrimination

A charge made by critics of affirmative action to argue such programs discriminate against white males by favoring less qualified women or minorities.
www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrigh ... ssary.html

A term, not defined by law, used to describe alleged discrimination to a white male that results from a female or a minority male obtaining advancement. ...
www.mc.cc.md.us/Departments/OED/glossarycontent.htm

Preferential treatment of minorities, usually through affirmative-action programs, in a way that adversely affects members of a majority group.
www.miamidade.gov/ofep/glossary.asp

(p. 352) Discrimina-tion against whites or males in hiring or promoting.
www.mhhe.com/business/busadmin/nickels_ ... ent/olc/gl…

Occurs when a more qualified candidate from the majority group is denied an opportunity in preference to a less qualified candidate from a minority group.
www.johnwiley.com.au/highered/hrm4e/stu ... lossary.ht…

A term used to describe affirmative action; it communicates the controversial assumption that affirmative action programs involve unfair discrimination.
wps.ablongman.com/long_waller_ce_1/24/6336/1622214.cw/in


Here is what the retarded people at Merriam-Webster have to say: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverse%20discrimination

[Woodruff]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

Let me try and respond like you do: You do not count as you are just an idiot.

What is it you keep whining about my ad hominems and not staying on topic? You're nothing but a fucking hypocrite.

[Woodruff]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

As usual, you fail at reading comprehension. Please point out where I said Christians are "so damned persecuted in this country".

I'm sorry that you're only able to read literally, and are unable to see past the plain black and white. You should work on that.

For the record, I am NOT Christian.

Yeah, and Phatscotty's not a died-in-the-wool Republican either.

[Woodruff]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

Reverse discrimination is almost never called for what it is...

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". That's a retarded term used by ignorant people. Discrimination is discrimination.

Wow, I am glad you have decided what words are appropriate and which are not. I guess you are now the dictionary police?

Perhaps you can explain how this bullshit "reverse discrimination" is meaningfully different than good old white-boy discrimination? Because if the most meaningful difference you can point to is "well, they used to get discriminated against", that's not very much to hang your hat on. Then again, you're enough of a pin-head, that the hat problem doesn't probably apply to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha wow. Why does Woodruff act so aggressively on the internet?

What's the point?
(other than to profit by trolling).

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

I;m surprised that no one except oVo even made an aside to this comment here, seeing as no matter how one reasons with J_B he won't listen anyways.

I thought about replying, but I figure the inclusion of JB's post in the "out of context quotes" thread would be sufficient. I got my jab in; JB responded, confirming my suspicions that he also doesn't really know what he's talking about. We're good.

That doesn't make sense.
You "jab" at me, refuse to discuss the topic at hand, and so I respond with a "f*ck off then."
And that's proof that I don't know what I'm talking about? What are you, like one of them Jersey Shore wives or something?


Motherf*cker, I've been writing about Syria for over ten months now. I've got three thank-you letters from Syrian Americans that I'm pretty proud of. I don't have my website or my facebook usergroup anymore, as you know, but I still work there. Journalism is how I supplement my income. It's why I'm not on these debate fora anymorah. How do you make your money? Oh yeah. Corporate Tax-Dodger-lawyer, strengthening America, one less dollar at a time.
My f*ckin' hero.
You may once have had the intelligence to do whatever you wanted in life, but you sold out for money; and now you spend your free time on CC personally attacking people who support freedom around the globe. My f*ckin' hero. Not having enough information at hand to take part in a debate is no excuse for you to enter the debate with only personal attacks on the participants. That's just pathetic behavior. Where is your honor? And actually I take that back because you didn't even "jab" at anyone else, only at me. You've got some serious bug up your ass. And I keep giving you these opportunities to get over it, but you never take them. If you won't, then just f*ck off and leave me be. This forum wasn't created for you to stalk people waiting to get some "jab" in.

Also;

Yes, because unlike you I try to limit my discussions to things I know about or can point to reliable sources. Which again is why I found your statement re: ignorance so ironic.
To also be fair and provide a caveat, I didn't read your posts on this subject because I really don't care because,
generally agree wit oVo

This is hypocritical, because OVO was speaking in generalities essentially saying the same as what I've been saying. I've explained the detail behind why decision were made; he's explained what the decisions meant. You're calling me ignorant when you don't even know what I've said. You're ignorant. I hope you dodge taxes better than you distance yourself from my opinions.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm writing a new book called 1984 Forgotten. I think one of the most devout Party members should be named Juan Bottom . I've gotta say; there's some great 'duckspeak' in this thread.

I don't understand this either. I'm a Democratic Socialist. Like, why wouldn't a Democratic Socialist support Democracy over totalitarianism?

Why is it that everyone in the United States likes to think that enlightenment means going against the government? Enlightenment means doing whats right, f*ck all what side the government is on. The Bush II Administration was wrong to attack Iraq, because that was a fight to secure Iraqi Oil Fields after the California blackouts. We know this, because of Congressional subpenas on Cheny's notes. Oil Lobbyists from everyone but BP met behind closed doors with Cheny and other policy makers to discuss new ownership of Iraqi oil fields before the decision to invade was even announced. That's why it was wrong.
But the Obama Administration's decision to aid pro-democratic, non-sectarian Syrian Rebels is the right one. They're the same people that we were in 1770, they just need some aid to overthrow a tyrannical king just like us. Any American who says that we should not help them denies their own heritage and loses the right to appeal to our founding fathers in our fora discussions. You cannot say "Oh I like Thomas Jefferson's ideas" while also saying that you disagree with the biggest cause of his life, independence. Not a single American is going into Syria to fight, and not a single American Oil company is trying to cut out of piece of Syrian Oil.

Also, if you really want a badass politician to base a party loyalist off of, do some research on young Teddy Roosevelt. He had many opportunities to leave the Republican Party because of incidents like national corruption scandals, but he never did until the very end. He was hugely loyal to his party, and he was intelligent about it. Even when he lost all of his personal friends, his letters to them explaining his decisions were quite eloquent and,... well... intelligent. No other politician in American history has done such a good job of defending or explaining why party loyalty can be important if you are a real reformer.

And also, what you just said was also stupid. You probably remember Mitt Romney trying a similar line against Obama during the presidential election debates, and the moderator had to correct Romney.

And not only was she roundly chastised for being out of line, what she said was also shown to be false by fact checkers.

I believe that was Romney who was chastised, because he kept speaking over the moderators. Also, it was not false. He called it an act of terror like 7 times.

Essentially your posts were just four or so pages arguing around this point. But saying someone is young and black and therefore fits the profile of a criminal from a month prior is racial profiling.

It seems to me that you are twisting his words to fit your definition. It was not that Trayvon was young and black, although that is certainly relevant when there is a history of repeated robberies by young black males, it was that he was young and black AND exhibiting behavior associated with criminal intent. That is not racial profiling, that is COMMON SENSE. The fact that we now know that Trayvon had a history of burglary/stealing it would seem Zimmerman was correct in his assessment. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

I guess you would have had to have been there, because this is why I said "essentially your posts were just arguing this point (about skin color)." Over the phone, Zimmerman never said that Trayvon left the sidewalk or mentioned that Trayvon was talking on his phone. It's hard to believe that someone walking on the sidewalk while talking on the phone is deserving of having the police called on them. His "suspicious behavior" as Rishaed and Zimmerman both described it, was "looking around." While staying on the sidewalk. But also, as Rish pointed out, the criminals that Zimmerman were after were all supposed to be black, thus walking on the sidewalk and being black becomes suspicious. Racial profiling.

[rishaed]

Wrong thread J_B. And if you would stop twisting the words I write, and stop ignoring the other inconvenient parts of my posts that you wish to ignore instead of just taking the parts you want and twisting them out of context then we might be able to have an actual conversation/debate. But once again wrong thread. And Loutil is correct in his assessment of what I meant and wrote. Which if you read everything, instead of skimming for parts to twist you might understand.

[loutil]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

It is sort of like Christianity...abuse it all you like as nobody considers it a protected class.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, Christians are so damn persecuted in this country. Damn you guys are funny.

As usual, you fail at reading comprehension. Please point out where I said Christians are "so damned persecuted in this country".

I'm sorry that you're only able to read literally, and are unable to see past the plain black and white. You should work on that.

For the record, I am NOT Christian.

Yeah, and Phatscotty's not a died-in-the-wool Republican either.

If it pleases you, and even if it does not, I am 100% Jewish.

[loutil]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should only be allowed to pursue suspicious white males so as not to racial profile???

Except that would be racial profiling.

It is doubtful that anyone would call it that.

I just did.

Let me try and respond like you do: You do not count as you are just an idiot.

What is it you keep whining about my ad hominems and not staying on topic? You're nothing but a fucking hypocrite.

This is exhibit 1 of why you should never argue with an idiot...they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Well done .

[Juan_Bottom]

Wrong thread J_B. And if you would stop twisting the words I write, and stop ignoring the other inconvenient parts of my posts that you wish to ignore instead of just taking the parts you want and twisting them out of context then we might be able to have an actual conversation/debate. But once again wrong thread. And Loutil is correct in his assessment of what I meant and wrote. Which if you read everything, instead of skimming for parts to twist you might understand.

Whoa Whoa Whoa dude

I did answer every single point that you raised in the Zimmerman thread, in fact I quoted every doubt that you raised and responded under it, to make it easy to read & respond. However, we still feel that your point hinges on skin color, as "walking" on the sidewalk and "looking around" alone wouldn't warrant a phone call to the police under any circumstances. And I agree that this isn't the right thread. My point was just that I see no reason for you to bandy on-top of Juan with the others, except for that thread, because I don't even know who you are.



Also, guys, for the record I don't think Phats is a Republican at all, whatever that has to do with this thread. He's a special kind of Conservative Libertarian who votes Republican occasionally to get the most out of each election. He's compromising to get the best results. Nothing wrong with that. My only quibble would be with his choices for candidate.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong thread J_B. And if you would stop twisting the words I write, and stop ignoring the other inconvenient parts of my posts that you wish to ignore instead of just taking the parts you want and twisting them out of context then we might be able to have an actual conversation/debate. But once again wrong thread. And Loutil is correct in his assessment of what I meant and wrote. Which if you read everything, instead of skimming for parts to twist you might understand.

Rishaed, JB is a self-proclaimed journalist. What don't you understand about him weaving opponent's views into strawmen?

[Juan_Bottom]

This is exhibit 1 of why you should never argue with an idiot...they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Well done .

This is how every thread on CC ends nowadays.

Back in the day it used to be "well lets agree to disagree old chap!"

Then it was "lets start a special forum that Atheists and Liberals aren't allowed into!"

Now it's "I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A COUNTER-POINT BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT"

[BigBallinStalin]

This is exhibit 1 of why you should never argue with an idiot...they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Well done .

This is how every thread on CC ends nowadays.

Back in the day it used to be "well lets agree to disagree old chap!"

Then it was "lets start a special forum that Atheists and Liberals aren't allowed into!"

Now it's "I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A COUNTER-POINT BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT"

Nicely weaved, JB!

When will you craft us the next strawman? We eagerly anticipate it!

[rishaed]

Wrong thread J_B. And if you would stop twisting the words I write, and stop ignoring the other inconvenient parts of my posts that you wish to ignore instead of just taking the parts you want and twisting them out of context then we might be able to have an actual conversation/debate. But once again wrong thread. And Loutil is correct in his assessment of what I meant and wrote. Which if you read everything, instead of skimming for parts to twist you might understand.

Whoa Whoa Whoa dude
I did answer every single point that you raised in the Zimmerman thread, in fact I quoted every doubt that you raised and responded under it, to make it easy to read & respond. However, we I still feel that your point hinges on skin color, as "walking" on the sidewalk and "looking around" alone wouldn't warrant a phone call to the police under any circumstances. And I agree that this isn't the right thread. My point was just that I see no reason for you to bandy on-top of Juan with the others, except for that thread, because I don't even know who you are.



Also, guys, for the record I don't think Phats is a Republican at all, whatever that has to do with this thread. He's a special kind of Conservative Libertarian who votes Republican occasionally to get the most out of each election. He's compromising to get the best results. Nothing wrong with that. My only quibble would be with his choices for candidate.

A. (Red font) Have issues with this statement, but wrong thread.
B. (strike) unless said We players step up this is an I statement.
C. Did I ever say that I was ganging up on you? I was just finding it interesting considering just how much the people on this forum enjoy making sexual/dirty jokes, innuendos, remarks, that for some reason no one bit on that statement. Its like they suddenly became mature for an instant.
FP'd
Edit: Ah... I see what you meant. Your reputation preceded itself there, that and the experience of lengthy well thought out long posts with backing evidence to opinions behind it. At which point you took my intro/conclusions, skipped the evidence and reasoning/logic and then twisted them to make a strawman argument.
Strawman:

noun
1.
a mass of straw formed to resemble a man, as for a doll or scarecrow.
2.
a person whose importance or function is only nominal, as to cover another's activities; front.
3.
a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man. Which I would consider some of your recent arguments fall under this one.

[Juan_Bottom]

You actually don't know what a straw man is, and I don't think most people on CC care what it is. A strawman is when you ignore someone's actual position and instead attacks an exaggerated version of their position that actually has nothing to do with their position. Above you can see that I told Rishaed that I believe his position rests almost entirely on Trayvon's skin color in order to paint Trayvon as suspicious. Even though rishaed does not see it that way, that is still not a distortion that has nothing to do with his original point. ie Take away the skin color and Zimmerman would not see Trayvon's behavior as being suspicious.

In regards to your last post, that is not a strawman because I'm not attacking anyone's position at all. I simply made an observation.

In conclusion, lol bbs. Nobody ever calls you out on these things, and I think it's because nobody really cares what strawman means. Not even you, I guess.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh and Rish, when I said "we" I was speaking of TGD and myself. TGD wasn't responding to you, but he was making the same point that I was. I can see why that sounded confusing.

[BigBallinStalin]

You actually don't know what a straw man is, and I don't think most people on CC care what it is. A strawman is when you ignore someone's actual position and instead attacks an exaggerated version of their position that actually has nothing to do with their position. Above you can see that I told Rishaed that I believe his position rests almost entirely on Trayvon's skin color in order to paint Trayvon as suspicious. Even though rishaed does not see it that way, that is still not a distortion that has nothing to do with his original point. ie Take away the skin color and Zimmerman would not see Trayvon's behavior as being suspicious.

In regards to your last post, that is not a strawman because I'm not attacking anyone's position at all. I simply made an observation.

In conclusion, lol bbs. Nobody ever calls you out on these things, and I think it's because nobody really cares what strawman means. Not even you, I guess.


[img]http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp89/Juan_Bottom/UNTITTLEES_zps10e2241e.png[g]

I'll ignore the above until you address your mistakes, which I've corrected here. It's up to you to become an ethical journalist by dealing with the problems mentioned in my post.

[Juan_Bottom]

As you know I have you on ignore, but sometimes people give me a little tip-off that you're still attacking me by punching yourself in the face. Like you did by not-understanding when to apply the term "strawman."

Furthermore nothing said there was accurate, and I did address that. I did not pick the post apart because it was very wrong, and that's not a sign of weakness or a lack of knowledge on my part. That's not to say anything bad about the post either, as this place teaches people all the wrong "facts." But anyway, all that sh*t has been addressed in this thread already anyway.

The attack did not occur with American weapons, it was an attack possibly on a CIA secret weapon shipment. The weapons used were mostly Russian. And they were Libya's weapons, not the United State's weapons. But again, this is the rumor.

The American weapons now being sent to Syria via Libya are not going to any extremists or terrorists. They are going to the pro-democracy, non-sectarian army. We are only going to arm a couple hundred fighters in all, with the aid of Saudi Arabia. These fighters do not want Sharia Law, they want a Social-Democracy. The weapons are not the kind that can hurt America's forces. We're not giving them grade A weaponry.

The reason, as I already said, that the administration thought that the attack was about the movie is because the terrorists put a mob of young men chanting and shouting about the film in front of the embassy before the attack. At this same time, demonstrations over this film happened around the Middle East. Other American facilities suffered violent attacks because of the film. A Libyan doctor or guard was the one who phoned in about the mob, it was confirmed, and only later we weren't sure that exactly happened. It was a confusion tactic that worked, because of how the attack on the embassy happened. You guys are still confused about it.
Probably Obama was suspicious that the attack was designed to get the weapons shipment, but that's only if the weapons shipment was an actual thing and not a rumor. Even so, the other side lost approximately 100 attackers, while ours lost 4. So if it was designed to get weapons, it wasn't a very smart attack. If it was designed to hurt our embassy, it was also a poor attack. Our staff had plenty of time to get to the safe room, and it was something as simple as smoke that did them in there. So there's a lot to be confused about.

ALSO, after the attack the Libyan populace stepped up and helped America punish the people responsible for this. They broke militias and hunted down terrorists. It's important to remember that Libya isn't all bad.

[warmonger1981]

Do you have any article or evidence to prove this.

Juan_Bottom wrote : The American weapons now being sent to Syria via Libya are not going to any extremists or terrorists. They are going to the pro-democracy, non-sectarian army. We are only going to arm a couple hundred fighters in all, with the aid of Saudi Arabia. These fighters do not want Sharia Law, they want a Social-Democracy. The weapons are not the kind that can hurt America's forces. We're not giving them grade A weaponry.

Question. Who has the authority to give stand down orders when an embassy is being attacked? Doesn't the US have a special team specificly to respond to these type of situations ?

[thegreekdog]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh that's rich. Do go on.

The Republican leadership has almost explicitly stated that hindering President Obama was their first priority. It wasn't exactly kept a secret.

Unless you're referring to the eight years of unaccountability (because yeah...that was a bit far-fetched).

I'm referring to two things:

(1) The idea of transparency in government is laughable (no matter what Repocrat is in power).
(2) The idea that our current president is transparent (after promising transparency) is also laughable.

I think it's pretty transparent that Republican leadership wishes to hinder the president, but that's ultimately irrelevant.

And as oVo explained, he needed a sarcasm button so I retract my critiques.

[thegreekdog]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

I;m surprised that no one except oVo even made an aside to this comment here, seeing as no matter how one reasons with J_B he won't listen anyways.

I thought about replying, but I figure the inclusion of JB's post in the "out of context quotes" thread would be sufficient. I got my jab in; JB responded, confirming my suspicions that he also doesn't really know what he's talking about. We're good.

That doesn't make sense.
You "jab" at me, refuse to discuss the topic at hand, and so I respond with a "f*ck off then."
And that's proof that I don't know what I'm talking about? What are you, like one of them Jersey Shore wives or something?


Motherf*cker, I've been writing about Syria for over ten months now. I've got three thank-you letters from Syrian Americans that I'm pretty proud of. I don't have my website or my facebook usergroup anymore, as you know, but I still work there. Journalism is how I supplement my income. It's why I'm not on these debate fora anymorah. How do you make your money? Oh yeah. Corporate Tax-Dodger-lawyer, strengthening America, one less dollar at a time.
My f*ckin' hero.
You may once have had the intelligence to do whatever you wanted in life, but you sold out for money; and now you spend your free time on CC personally attacking people who support freedom around the globe. My f*ckin' hero. Not having enough information at hand to take part in a debate is no excuse for you to enter the debate with only personal attacks on the participants. That's just pathetic behavior. Where is your honor? And actually I take that back because you didn't even "jab" at anyone else, only at me. You've got some serious bug up your ass. And I keep giving you these opportunities to get over it, but you never take them. If you won't, then just f*ck off and leave me be. This forum wasn't created for you to stalk people waiting to get some "jab" in.

Also;

Yes, because unlike you I try to limit my discussions to things I know about or can point to reliable sources. Which again is why I found your statement re: ignorance so ironic.
To also be fair and provide a caveat, I didn't read your posts on this subject because I really don't care because,
generally agree wit oVo

This is hypocritical, because OVO was speaking in generalities essentially saying the same as what I've been saying. I've explained the detail behind why decision were made; he's explained what the decisions meant. You're calling me ignorant when you don't even know what I've said. You're ignorant. I hope you dodge taxes better than you distance yourself from my opinions.

Oh yeah? I got 24 letters from Syrian-Americans thanking me for my kind service. I also got a letter from the Israeli embassy thanking me for training their operatives. I received three letters from President Obama wishing me well in my endeavors to rewrite the tax code and I have 15 or so published articles on various middle east conflicts.

In any event, I jab at everyone - you, Phatscotty, BBS, Woodruff, Mets... I think the only regular I haven't jabbed at is Andy, but I'm sure that will come eventually. Here are my final thoughts and then I'll put you on foe:

- You clearly can't handle any criticism, whether a jab or a tightly written treatise (which I've provided you before on other issues)
- You almost never provide data or statistics for any conclusions you make or thoughts you have which is why I rarely take anything you say seriously. You provide no evidence so you're not really a journalist, you're an editorialist.
- I don't feel the need to defend my honor, especially to someone like you. I also do not feel the need to defend my career choices, especially to someone like you. The regulars here know that I'm intelligent and thoughtful, I try to be funny, and I give back to my local community in a number of ways.
- You seem very angry all the time.
- You have to ask yourself, I think, why no one else in these fora have a problem with me, but you do. Perhaps the problem is not me, but you.