shooter

IMHO, this should have played out like replay in the NFL. Once a "play" has been run you can't go back and change (correct?) the situation. Once the basket had been made they shouldn't have been allowed to change the clock.

IMHO, safety is his best position. While he has excellent "playing speed" I don't think he has enough raw speed to play WR or CB at the highest levels of college football. Also, given the list of schools in the mix, I believe the best fit for him is Harvard. If he goes to an SEC, PAC-10, or Big East school he may or may not see significant playing time. If he goes to Harvard I think he'll play a lot and he'll get that Harvard education. Given who his dad is, the cost of Harvard is not an obstacle.

This is what I have heard: The 40,000 troop number was not the number of troops preferred by General McCrystal. The 40,000 number was the official request that came in after the general was told there was no way he was going to get what the general had unofficially been circulating as the number of troops he really needed. IMHO, most of the UN troops aren't very useful since most countries won't let their troops perform front line duty. IMHO, OBama is sending about half of the troops that the commanders in charge in Afghanistan think they really need. Also, the decision making process has been going on for much longer than 3 months. It's really been going on for almost 9 months and it's only been made public for 3 months.

I should add that I believe Rush Limbaugh is more controversial than Chris Matthews. Also, I believe many of Limbaugh's comments that are perceived as being "hateful" are largely based on the perceptions and biases of those who categorize them as hateful and not an accurate characterization of Limbaugh's thoughts. IMHO, the Donovan McNabb comments are a good example of this phenomenom.

I don't think you would imply that a college graduate and former Governor of a state is someone who is incapable of writing a book unless your distaste for that individual extremely deep and calling it a hateful comment seems accurate to me. Sarah Palin - now don't laugh - is writing a book. Not just reading a book, writing a book. Actually, in the word of the publisher, she's 'collaborating' on a book. What an embarrassment! Chris Mattews

Hacking into email accounts is certainly wrong. But so is manipulating scientific research to further a political ideology. Which do you believe to be the more agregious act?

And yet you grouped the charge that Obama is a socialist with the charge that he is a Marxist together with the obvious implication that both charges are absurd. My response dealt strictly with the implication that calling Obama a socialist is absurd. If Obama starts talking about revolution and the abolition of private property then I'll call you on the Marxist charge as well. Since Obama is only working diligently on wealth redistribution (Cap and Trade, additional taxes in the healthcare bill, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire) and an dramatic increase in government control over industry (ownership of GM, ownership of financial institutions, the health care bill, determining salaries for financial executives) I'll only call you on the charge that labeling Obama a socialist is absurd. IMHO, that is the goal for Obama, Pelosi and other far left Democrats. If they could do it in one fell swoop they would. Since they can't they're pushing to go as far as they possibly can. Once they get their foot in the door they will diligently seek to further push open that door.

There isn't any basis for the expectation that, once getting elected, Obama would immediately pull out of the war in Afghanistan. Numerous times during the campaign Obama emphasized that he would "get us out of Iraq and on the right battle field in Afghanistan and Pakistan". He even promised an extra billion or two in aid to Afghanistan. Therefore, any expectation that would pull out of Afghanistan in his first 10 months is extremely ill founded. Your expectations are unrealistic and so your disappointment predictable. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf

Apparently advocating government control of one sixth of the economy is not sufficient to label one a socialist. It must even fall so short of being sufficient that it warrants mocking those who venture to make such a claim. It therefore begs the question: how much of the economy must one wish to be under government control before one can accurately be deemed to be a socialist?

That is simultaneously his best and worst character trait.

I don't expect Obama supporters to admit that Obama has that goal.

It seems to me that a plant manager would typically hold a higher status than a salesman so it seems normal to me for the salesman to bow to the plant manager. Therefore, using a situation where status would dictate a bow to refute my comments concerning bowing after committing a transgression is less than convincing. It also seems to me that if you had just been of great help to your plant manger in an emergency situation that you had at that instant an elevated status. Therefore, for him to bow to you would also seem appropriate. (I am assuming that you work for the plant manager and not that he works for you.) It also seems to me that you probably already knew this but chose not to expose that knowledge in your post. Finally, saying that if this wasn't Obama this wouldn't be news misses the point. The point is that no US president except Obama would have made such a gesture. No president previous to Obama has made the conscious effort to produce images showing the President in a position of weakness relative to other world leaders. The plain simple fact is that Obama has made it an objective of his to reduce the power and prestige of the United States.

And he's giving them to me. The bow isn't as important as the attidtude the leads to the bow.

Other possible explanations for Obama's exaggerated bow: Someone dropped a silver dollar on the floor He was looking for his contacts an old basketball injury he thought he was meeting Terence Stamp

Your in denial. This went far beyond a simple show of respect.

A bow like Nixon's would have been fine.

Then you should also know that social status plays an important part in how much one bows and how long one bows. The person of lower status is expected to bow lower and longer. You probably also know that bows which approach 90 degrees (like Obama's) are rare and are often done to show extreme humility after committing some transgression.

I challenge you to provide a better explanation.

Only when they make exaggerated gestures designed to show subservience to other leaders to whom they should be at least equals.

They didn't drop a third bomb 3 days later because they didn't have a third bomb to drop. The third bomb wouldn't have been ready for at least three or four more weeks. Also, it wasn't a given that once the third bomb was ready that the US would have dropped it immediately. There was an internal debate within the Army on the best use of additional bombs. Some generals wanted to continue to drop them on industrial population centers like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Others wanted to drop them on Japanese defensive positions when the US invaded in November. The dropping of the second bomb was a calculated bluff. It took weeks to produce the material necessary for each atomic bomb. However, the US wanted to give the illusion that they had the capability to drop them in relatively rapid succession. The US feared that if they only dropped one bomb the Japanese might conclude that the US did not have the ability to repeat Hiroshima. The US fears proved well founded when between the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and the bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese Imperial commanders argued that exact point to the Emperor, that Hiroshima was an anomaly and the US would not be able to repeat it anytime soon. Dropping the second bomb proved otherwise.

It wasn't their decision.

I agree that based on what was shown on TV there wasn't enough to overturn the call. However, the one angle that you would really want to see would be the angle directly down the goal line and that wasn't shown on TV. The angle they showed wasn't quite directly down the line. I am surprised at the number of times that angle is needed and isn't available on TV. You would think that for a nationally televised game they would permanently place a goal line camera at each end. Maybe even two at each end to cover both sides of the field.

I find the rhetoric of the Obama defender's more than just a little bit ironic. It wasn't that long ago one could hear those on the left saying that Iraq was a war of choice but Afghanistan was a war of necessity. They said that Iraq had drained away resources that should have been going toward Afghanistan. They said that the proper course of action was to get out of Iraq as fast as possible so we could put our attention where it really needed to be - Afghanistan. They promised that if they won the election no longer would Afghanistan be neglected. They promised swift action to ensure that the necessary men, material, and other resources would be available to win the one war we ought to be fighting. They promised that they would listen to the commanders on the ground, something they accused the Bush administration of not doing when Bush and Rumsfeld failed to blindly accept proposals laid before them by the military. They also assured skeptics that they could win the war, some even boasted that had they been in charge they would have been able to catch or kill Bin Laden. In summary, they promised to do what it takes to win the war that they agreed was vital to the security interests of the United States My how things have changed! While before they advocated swift action, they now counsel studied reflection. While before they promised a flood of resources, they now withhold them. Actions that had been proof of presidential arrogance are now characterized as the prerogative of the President as commander-in-chief. While before they promised to make Afghanistan the top priority, they now concentrate on Healthcare. While before they were confident of victory, they are not so self-assured. Some even claim that the war is unwinnable. While Afghanistan had been vital to US interests, they now dismiss its importance. Yes, things have definitely changed.

If you are entitled to recieve those treatments then you can sue the insurance company for denial of service. You'll definitely be a sympathetic plaintiff so if you have any case at all you stand a good chance of winning. Perhaps you'll win big. However, you can only sue the government if they let you sue them. Good luck with that under Pelosi's health care system!

I believe I did address it. The government will get to deny certain treatments for rich and poor. The government will force rich and poor to wait longer particularly for specialty services. The overall quality of health care will decline for rich and poor. Things will change for rich and poor!