We are known by our associates. It speaks to our judgment.

3.

I was mocking your assertion that NGOLSBCLs (non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals) would actually join the military.

[quote]your comment about Hindus in the military didn’t really work for me either[/quote]

It’s not a judgment against Hindus, but just an observation based upon the Hindus which I know.

[quote]Where do you think all those advanced weapons systems are developed? MIT.[/quote]

MIT is a big place. Do you really think that everyone who goes there is a NGOLSBCL who works in defense research?

Of course not.

[quote]And where do you think the next commander in chief– Obama– was trained in the law[/quote]

Since Obama is a NGOLSBCL and he did not join the military, thanks for bolstering my point.

1.

Liddy paid his debt to society, fine. But Ayers was never convicted of anything. So what’s your point about that? And Keating may have been a big fish in a small pond, but his pond was big enough to ensnare five U.S. senators in a major national scandal. So what’s your point about that?

These are rhetorical questions, really. I don’t care about Liddy or Keating, I was just making a point about the pointlessness of the guilt by association game.

2.

It’s possible that Obama will overreach just like Clinton. But I’m glad we both agree he’ll be the next president.

3.

As Barack would say, I’ll take you at your word that your intention was not to diminish the sacrifice of our troops. Though I’m not sure how else “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!” can be interpreted.

As for your “only 4 from Boston” remark, I’d just say be careful when using the word “only” to describe the sacrifice of any city, community, family, religious group (your comment about Hindus in the military didn’t really work for me either) or otherwise.

Even Cambridge– the other Massachusetts city you scoffed at– is doing its part in the war effort. Where do you think all those advanced weapons systems are developed? MIT. And where do you think the next commander in chief– Obama– was trained in the law (which will come in handy with issues like Guantanamo, rendition, wiretapping, etc.)? Harvard. So be careful with all that.

I do appreciate you posting here, and I don’t want you or anyone else to feel persecuted for offering a dissenting view around here. I don’t delete or censor comments (except for extreme vulgarity), so you have the right to say whatever you want in TWPland. But just to be fair, so do I.

Liddy paid his debt to society.

Keating was a big economic fish in the relatively small pond named Arizona. Do more research and see that McCain did no wrong.

2.

The first thing that Clinton did in 1992 was try to nationalize health care. It’s one of the reasons the Republicans won both houses of Congress and were able to moderate his left wing desires.

Obama will also over-reach, just like Clinton.

3.

[quote]And I won’t grant you your despicable use of numbers to dimish the sacrifice of the “only” four fallen[/quote]

Carefully re-read what I wrote, because it does NOT say what you accuse me of saying.

And I’ll grant you “terrorists,” plural, referring to Ayers and his wife. As long as you grant that John McCain has had a much closer relationship to a man who was involved in the most damaging subversion of democracy in American history: Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. A man who McCain said, “I’m proud of you, I’m proud of your family.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column

And of course, there’s Charles Keating. Two can play the guilt by association game, but Obama largely chooses to focus on actual issues instead.

I won’t grant you that “spread the wealth”– referring to our progressive tax system that’s been in place for nearly a century– is socialism. Every American president since, I believe, FDR has taxed people at the top differently (and more) than people at the bottom. So because Obama wants to restore the tax rates to what they were in the prosperous Clinton years, he’s a socialist? It’s a phony charge.

And I won’t grant you your despicable use of numbers to dimish the sacrifice of the “only” four fallen American soldiers from Boston, MA. My point was that we need to remember and respect that there are men and women of all races, religions, and political persuasions serving and dying in American uniforms. And there are. Your numbers game doesn’t change that.

You’re reading too much into what I write.

Maybe it’s happening, but *I* have not seen it.

[quote]you’re parroting Republican talking points[/quote]

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Like “spread the wealth” being an updated version of chicken-in-every-pot populist socialism, and Bill Ayers actually being an unrepentant terrorist, no matter how often you deny it.

[quote]“good friends with unrepentant terrorists” (plural?)[/quote]

Bill Ayers and his wife.

[quote]I’m sure the 84 young men and women from Massachusetts who’ve given their lives[/quote]

You are thus explicitly stating that all 84 of those fallen service members were “non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals”, and that’s just *wrong*, proven by the very web site that you use as proof.

If you don’t believe me, zoom in and see that ZERO are from Cambridge, and only 4 from Boston (which, being a big city, has more than just latte-sipping liberals.

I’m sure the 84 young men and women from Massachusetts who’ve given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan would be interested to hear why you find that so funny:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ma/

Haven’t seen that.

“and might have an association with terrorists”.

Sure. He’s good friends with unrepentant terrorists.

“showed that he died in Iraq”

He probably, like the WW2-interred Nikkei, wanted to prove his loyalty.

“Hindus”

If there are, it’s a pretty darned small number, compared to the number of Hindus in this country.

“non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals– who are dying in American uniforms.”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!