mousecrazy

I think also, there is confusion here between Dan Savage and Michael Savage.

I consider PATIENCE just another gift that the lapband has given me...and one I certainly did not expect. I learned to live with food, instead of constantly battling with it. Can you even imagine? The journey is very important...if you learn as you go, you will be a healthy and happy bandster! Good luck to you!

What relevance does the USA Today survey have to the issues being discussed? It is interesting, but survey's don't really mean anything; certainly not something to base policy on.

Mouse = as in Mickey Mouse And, I'm CRAZY about The Mouse!!! I love going to Disneyworld! Some call me "Mouse" for short...I like that, because "me" and "mousey" are rarely found in the same sentence!

Hi, Lisa...glad you are back. I want to add some more "good stuff" to help encourage you. I got some blood test results back yesterday. My cholesterol is 178; it used to be 240. My triglycerides are 128; they used to OVER 500!!!! All the other levels were better than normal or optimal. I've lost about 85 pounds in a 1 1/2 years...I'm still losing! I can jog (if I want!), I can climb, dance, and basically keep up with my 9 1/2 year old DD. I know it is a little nervy thinking about having the surgery...but I think it's downright frightening to imagine my prospects without having lapband surgery. Good luck, Lisa!

You know, I must disagree with the characterization of the military that appears to be popular with some: unthinking robots who are following orders. I believe that to be simplistic at best, and most likely insulting to about 98% of the troops. The troops I have some acquaintance with made a choice to serve their country, believe they live in the greatest country in the world, and respect this President far more than they did the previous one. They are brilliant and capable men and women who could be out in the "real" world making great money, but want their lives to be meaningful, and want to serve their county. Just because it is not something you can imagine, doesn't mean it isn't true. Supporting the troops in the way described...taking them out of harm's way...is just like supporting your football team (to use a recent analogy) by taking them off the field so they A.) won't have to compete against a team they might not win against, or B.) tell their opponents you are going to take them off the field during the middle of the 4th quarter. Either way, it's stupid, stupid strategy in football, and critically misguided in matters of war. Soldiers are warriors. They do not WANT to be saved from their missions.

Let's pray for a victorious return for our soldiers...I am praying for that. Faithmd, while it might be pointless getting into these discussions, it also might now. I still participate; you never know who you might be encouraging. Too many people out there think they are "alone." I think most Americans, contrary to the talking points being heard from the majority party (a thin majority at that), do not want America to be a loser. Rational people exist; I must believe that. Thanks for jumping in. I enjoyed your response.

No, ya'll aren't the only ones. The President, regardless of WHICH President, is the Commander in Chief. Thank goodness it isn't Congress. I feel the same way about them trying to micromanage education or just about anything else. (I do not have control over all the conservatives in all time and space over the past decade, or in the future.) Supporting the troops, in an all-volunteer military, does not mean we "save" them from their mission. Does that strike anyone else as slightly ridiculous? Supporting the troops means that Congress approves the new general, then supports his plan for taking control of the situation in Iraq. It means Congress does not play political games with pork-infested funding bills and timelines, forcing the president to veto to set up a blame game for later in the 2008 election series. These men and women do not volunteer to serve in the military to stay home with their families. It is not a welfare job. Ask them.

When has it been a good idea to show your hand, then make your bet? Besides, more Americans are killed by ILLEGAL aliens (before I am accused of being anti-immigrant) than have been killed in Iraq. Maybe we should get some of our ire up on that one. I believe the figure is 12 per day/360 a month. Bonus: an issue exists where I am in disagreement with President Bush.

Thanks Pat and Mary for the reassuring words! I know you are right...it's just such a shock, and then knowing the depositions are ahead, and how much time it takes, etc...what a hassle. Today, the scales snuck down under 202, just barely...but I'm sure it's just a blip! I know how these plateau's get so tiring, but I also know we all get through them. A few of us are hovering right above that onederland point... No news really...hope everyone's hanging in there and we're almost to Friday! Mary, add some carbs to balance the added fat for your kiddoes...my DD has the other problem. She's trying to lose weight...poor kid. 9 and 1/2 and watching her weight. I'm just trying to keep her on a balanced sensible program; I think we are doing great so far. Hugs, to all, Cindy

News from me. This afternoon, a guy came to my door and gave me some "legal papers". I am BEING SUED. I cannot believe I am now a defendant in a civil suit for personal injury damages. This has to do with a car accident I was in two year's ago. I was rear-ended by this guy, let's call him CB. I mean, he plowed into me. I was stopped, in very congested stop and go traffic on a major interstate. He knocked me into a Chevy Avalanche in front of me, and knocked that vehicle into a semi in front of her. SHE, let's call her KJ, is suing both me and CB. The police report clearly indicates that CB was at fault. She did not make a claim against my insurance, ever. So, now, she's suing me? Anyone know anything about civil suits like this? My insurance company is on it already, and I am sure it will be handled, but I want to counterclaim on her if it is possible. OH...and she drove her truck from the scene herself...my poor car was towed and totalled. She and the semi driver were the ones who came to my car to see if I was okay...and now her suit claims she has physical and mental damages that impact her wages now and into the future? Give me a break. So, ladies, tell me what you know. I'm passing on personals tonight...I'm just wallowing in worry right now. I mean, I know there's no way I was responsible for her alleged damages, but what a hassle, you know? Hugs, Cindy

Mark, what part of your post did I not address? I do enjoy the discussion; otherwise I would not participate. Even when I enjoy it, I sometimes do not participate, because I do need to do housekeeping things from time to time, and run the family's errands. I brought up Jack's stuff again, because I thought it was good stuff. Worthy of discussion...it was getting buried in all these other posts and I didn't want it to be overlooked.

Anti-war discussion do not make me uncomfortable or unhappy; interesting that you were able to read that into my suggestions. I take notice of the fact that those venues express those views. Newsflash: Bill O'Reilly on Fox News has the #1 most watched news show. Following your reasoning, then...why do you think that is?

How is being in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, to be considered "arrogance and brute force"? In order to establish security in Baghdad, some force is realistically necessary. I reject your assertion that our soldiers are busting in the doors of "innocent citizens"...I believe these "citizens" are either part of militias or are harboring them...or stashes of weapons or ingredients for weapons. Have a few soldiers made some mistakes? Undoubtedly. There are over a million men and women in uniform. To characterize our efforts to help the Iraqis establish a democracy in the Middle East as "arrogance and brute force" is disingenuous. Also, we ARE putting millions of dollars toward activites that improve the infrastructure of Iraq. We are providing the security for protecting the oil industry, which is what will provide the country with their economy (no, we are not stealing their oil). We are building schools, hospitals, government buildings...look at some military websites and see the pictures for yourself. You will not see them very often on the media. I know some guys who are serving in Iraq who we send school supplies to, so the Iraqi kids can have pencils and paper and stuff for their schools. Girls can GO TO SCHOOL. That wasn't happening before. In many parts of Iraq, away from Baghdad, especially in parts that are predominantly Kurd controlled, they are able to conduct business again, and are thankful for the intercession of the coalition and the fall of the Hussein regime. Of course, they are...they are not being gassed down and killed by flyovers of the old Iraqi Air Force dropping chemical weapons of them. This belief that all was hunky dorey in Iraq before we busted in and pillaged the place is poppycock. I cannot imagine why thinking people believe such nonsense. I thought my gang violence comparision was illustrative...exaggerated maybe, but illustrative of the idea that there is not a link between the two. One exists with or without the other. At least, that was the comparison I was attempting. If the United States did not exist whatsoever, radical Islamic jihadist terrorism would still exist. It would be directed at whoever or whatever was not bending to their will. Your last paragraph: If I was living in a country ruled by Hussein, where several of my family had already been pulled out of my home and killed, usually in front of my eyes...or had gone to work and never come home...where hundreds of thousands of my countrymen were killed and buried in mass graves...where my daughers and sisters were taken to his son's and guard's rape and torture rooms...I would see American Marines and soldiers as the heroes they are. Those prisoners who were in Abu Ghraib had most likely done those things and much worse to their own countrymen under Saddam (not that I approve of it). What do you think the war crimes were that these men were tried for? The cognitive dissonance seems to be that you see Iraq as a peaceful place with Saddam...I see it as hell. If I had lived there, I would pray for a Marine to come save me. It is irrational to believe that 99.9% of our best and bravest, selfless servicemen and women are rapists and plunderers. What nonsense.

Still, I am wondering...do any of the liberal side wish to discuss the points specifically raised in Jack's posts? He did some worthy research on radical Islamic jihadists...any response besides "be more kind to them"? Or, if that is the response...could some elaborate on that? What does that look like? How would we do it? If our ship is blown up and our soldiers are killed (U.S.S. Cole), we should say, "Excuse me"? Or, you can choose from anythinig in the list in Jack's post, and explain a different response that would A.) have prevented that attack, or B.) our response would have prevented future attacks.

In personal relationships, I agree that kindness begets kindness. Most of the time. Yet, to be realistic, I have been very kind to individuals who have turned out to be users. Maybe that's only happened to me, but I doubt it. If there are people who will sock a ninety year old woman in the face to steal her purse, then the theory that kindness begets kindness just starts to fall apart. Still, I choose to demonstrate kind behavior. If someone steals my purse, though, I'm gonna smack them if I get the chance. If it seems that I am in a dangerous situation, I'm not going to stick out my hand, and hold my purse out; I'll adopt a more defensive posture, and be ready to defend myself. If that is considered "unkind", well, okay. Sunta, you're in luck! There ARE plenty of left-wing websites the equivalent of Savage's (and even more extreme!)...all you have to do is scratch the surface of Google (which is slanted a little to the left in their search engine...not that many people would notice). Try searching "liberal blogs" or "left-wing blogs" or "radical left", etc. More than enough reading...and it should reassure you that plenty of counterpoint exists. Also, there was (is?) a station called Air America, that features only liberal talk show hosts. There are other liberal talk show hosts on cable radio like Lynn Samuels, or Ed Schulz (pardon the spelling if it is wrong). The liberal radio shows do not do well commerically, so Air America went under, but I heard it was bought recently...? If that is not enough, just watching The Today Show or The View ought to help you out with finding a liberal point of view.

Missy4Gordon...you are perhaps correct. On the other hand, I watched that, and the response to it. What if you are too afraid of changing your mind to read or listen to other information? What if you want to get your information from Sean Penn?

I already addressed the fallacy in logic that Americans are creating terrorists; please comment. (Remember, the comparison I made between that and how you and your neighbors were creating gang violence?). To call American policy "Neanderthal" when you are comparing our military actions to groups of militias who snatch contractors and journalists off the street and saw their heads off with knives...well, there are no words. How can anyone make a comparison like that? They are justified, and we are Neanderthals? Furthermore, we are CREATING more the them?! Get real. BJean, the term ("swill-swallowing democrat") used by Jack that you interpreted to mean he was a drinking Democrat...well, I think he meant he "drank the Koolaid" or bought the party line of the Democrats...thus the term, Koolaid drinkers, which you might have heard before...as in, "Enjoy your Koolaid." RE: diversion in Iraq. NO, I do not think it was a diversion, any more than any front in any war is a diversion. Iraq is one front in a war. There will be more. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were places to start...although the argument could easily be made that Syria and Iran need some attention. Now, if the UN had any teeth whatsoever, and would actually act on the resolutions it passes...if it wasn't corrupt through and through, and would hold the line on consequences...perhaps there would be a chance to work together to control these rogue factions without military force. Sadly, this is no longer the situation at the UN. Or do you not acknowledge this?

If academic research is too dry...and yours is impeccable, Jack...those who are interested can also access several documentary films on Radical Islam as well. Once you've heard their videos and hear the mullahs preach the message of hate and world dominion; exhorting their followers to jihad, promising to kill all infidels, and so on...you cannot believe any longer that it doesn't exist. These films were taken in the supposedly "moderate" mosques around the world, notably in the US and in England. There are few very brave spokespeople who left their mosques and are willing to speak the truth. There is nothing to lose but your illusions...check this information out for yourself.

Hey, I think there is a pattern. When nothing else seems available, a personal attack will distract the debator from the topic! I thought the alcoholism comment was out of line, unless there was some direct knowledge of such fact. I see now that was not the case. It is necessarily frustrating to spar with the other side. It would be less so if the participants would focus more on topics and less on "certain-people" hatred. Oh, and perhaps less Christian-hatred would be nice, too. I'd hate to see what would happen if atheist-hatred was as openly discussed. Not to say that problems with religion are off base as a discussion...but some posts are definitely slanted toward hatred.

Thanks, Mark, for pointing out my ignorance. There's plenty to go around, it seems to me. I'll use Sunta's excuse: I'm exaggerating to make a point. Does it change the point I am making about RADICAL ISLAM?

Here's the thing. I believe there are Middle Eastern Islamic people who, of course, would enjoy the kind of life we have here in America. They have never had it, though, so don't really know if it's possible. The women, if given a choice, would rather blow themselves up as suicide bombers than die in disgrace as "fallen" women. The culture and laws are just not comparable. We do not accept honor killings; they are common over there. But this is probably boring...and I am probably crossing all kinds of tolerance and diversity lines... If you are of the mind that WE AMERICANS are creating jihadists...or more of them...I respectfully and firmly must disagree. America did not and does not create radical Islamic behavior anymore than you and your neighbor create gang crime. Many other factors go into the development and rise of radical Islam; using American values and culture as a focal point for hate, as well as the Christian and Jewish religions, is based in the Koran, and not merely political. Thank you, Jack, for making more specific arguments. You've taken much time and it is appreciated.

This is strange logic. Does gossip or jealousy have the same consequences as does terror? Does it have the same purpose? In fact, it does not. Terror is used to control people, or cause chaos which will control people. It is meant to cause a destruction of society or fear that will break down culture to allow another culture to replace it. The consequence of "losing" the war on terror is that radical Islamists or jihadists or whatever term you want to use, will control more of the world. It is the stated goal. There are already judges in England who have ruled that it is legal for a Muslim man to beat his wife, because the Koran allows it. Now, we are that much closer to having two rules of law. Where will the future of gay rights and abortion rights be, if Muslim rule of law is accepted? A further example: some Muslim cab drivers believe they should not have to drive fares who are carrying alcohol, or dogs...continue that logic to more extreme "rights" that Americans want to be accepted. The consequeces of not winning the war on terror are much more dire than not being able to take a cab, or knowing that your neighbor can be beaten, because she is a Muslim. I cannot understand that these are things you are willing to accept, and at the same time, rail against the Patriot Act, for goodness sake. The comparisons made are false comparisons indeed. At any rate, most of America has never been known for throwing up their hands and saying...oops, can't be done. We're in the fight of our lives, for our lives and way of life. If we can't win the war on gossip, does that mean we should never confront it, or even encourage it? You can tell a person that gossip is wrong...does that make them stop? Maybe, sometimes. I've never seen that tactic work with a terrorist. "Hey, buddy...blowing people up is wrong, okay? So, stop it already." When there is a war against your country, and your country is being attacked physically and philosophically, I think you have to try to win. Giving up certainly will hasten the consequences.

Jack asked for examples. I asked for examples. No response. Just more despair and vows to never give up the despair. If people want to achieve something worthwhile, dig deeper...take a look at the reality that is the world today. Jack's post is right on target, and I predict, will be ignored or someone will pretend to take it apart by saying something equivalent to "Bush lied, people died". That's helpful. Not. Sure, Canada has not been in a war. I wonder why? Let's think.... Earlier in this thread, I asked about a handful of incidents and wondered if you all had heard about them or seen them. No one responded. I asked for examples of how/when diplomacy had worked. I asked if we needed to define "worked." As was mentioned...resolutions are passed by the UN...let's pile them to the sky! What does it achieve? More jobs for diplobureaucrats with an equal stack of parking tickets and diplomatic immunity. Truly one of the great scams of the modern world. One of the reasons our US military budget is large is that, like it or not, we are the police force for the world. We are also the humanitarian aid delivery system for the world. Who else does what the US does? Let's focus here on the benefits we provide to the world. Yes, we do provide an awful lot of benefits. If radicals were not busy burning American soldiers in effigy in the streets, or cheering on those who do (or have you seen or heard about that demonstration in Portland, OR?), they might stop to think about who would have the sheer guts and ability to land cargo planes full of equipment to help tsunami relief efforts, or earthquake relief efforts...or any of several dozen world disasters that everyone expects the US to show up for...and we do. Every time.

No. I asked two questions, looking for an explanation as to why there is the hope that diplomacy would actually lead to a peaceful solution. If I was saying anything at all, I might have been using a Socratic questioning technique encouraging us to examine what we hold as a "truth"...i.e., diplomacy is preferable and would indeed be effective. Is it? When has it worked? What other countries are engaged in bringing about peace in the world? How are they doing so?