Manscape

An old saying, Tumor4u....."pennywise, dollar foolish".......... End the wars we cannot win and cannot afford to continue....."coup-fourré" the lunacy that you and your deadenders preach, Tumor. Rose-colored glasses with polycarbonate lenses, UV coating and titanium chassis beat your smelly plowhorse blinders everytime, mook.

How can you expect credibility in your seething post quoted above, when you leave completely unaddressed YOUR glaring delusion I troubled to red color highlight from your PREVIOUS post? Doncha know that some people do bother to read sequential posts looking for resolution of such things?

Wow.........Tumor4u...... I really didn't know you hated President Obama and his wife so much. Well, I took the highroad on your "HATE" thread......referred to bonifide responsible sources that indicated First Lady Michelle Obama was not beyond the precedent for her staff hiring........and willing I was to let the chips fall where they will....... And now you move to other Obama evilities........wow. No grass grows under Tumor4u!!

What is dismissed? Your reasoning or your English comprehension? If not one or both then surely your honesty? It's laughable that you commit your post to rebuke me with a twisted context and references as highlighted above that are non-existent in what I wrote. Concerning your defense of Stanley, the OO-RAH rhetoric is pure bumpersticker ink. You may be sure Jeff Huber's essay, "Stan McChrystal’s Flying Circus" will count many responsible yays, but you wont know why. What in the world makes you think what I posted.....I thought impartial? Does godshit have something to do with it? I think the pentagon is loaded with dangerous pay and pension sucking buffoons, egos to the stratosphere, whose waste and perversion needs to be cut in half before our nation collapses from the ill-affordability and/or social implosion. The sad symptoms of this insane, monstrous US military spans generations now, with repeatedly the trusting recruits swept up and bled out, abandoned after usefulness like split toothpicks. It's an old story with a new chapter today.......remember remember the 5th of November........and they will in Fort Hood. Sorry for mincing words.

Are you Tumor4u? I don't pretend to defend as warranted an army of valets and secretaries for ANY presidential first lady and the taxpayer cost upon such superfluous overhead. Decent Americans today of all political flavors sicken from Rish Limpo inspired lies and rumors calculated to politically mislead people. This thread's topic was created by a renowned messageboard nincompoop who personifies even in anonymity the term GOP deadender. Now you, another of the endless posting guests, pop in a few numbers that I'm sure you assume will be swallowed without question by any number of readers. That shit works on Fix Noose (fox news) and in Zionistic Israel, but it wont work with Americans looking to heal the nation. Consider how evil and excessive Michelle Obama's White House staffing is after reading the following: First Lady Michelle Obama has a larger staff than previous first ladies-Fiction!. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mic...obama-staff.htm Then peep this: http://www.benzworld.org/forums/off-topic/...elle-obama.html Factcheck Debunks Bruce R's "Michelle Obama had a big bad staff" hoax -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it's time we start fighting back against all the Right Wing Disinformation that's posted around here. These clowns post their email rumors here as fact, and then chortle for a few days. It takes a little time, but Factcheck or Snopes eventually posts the truth. Let's start by debunking the load of crap Bruce R was pushing the other day about Michelle Obama's staff, which, as it turns out, was a pack of lies: Michelle Obama’s Staff August 5, 2009 FactCheck.org Q: Does First Lady Michelle Obama have an "unprecedented" number of staffers? A: A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind. FULL QUESTION: Is this accurate? And how does it compare to prior first ladies’ staffs? First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants ⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ FULL ANSWER: The White House published the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff on its official blog on July 1, listing the title and salary of many White House office employees. A few days later, a fuss began online over the number of people who are assigned to work for the Office of First Lady and how much they earn per year. A blog post from Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet on July 6 put the spotlight on "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." The staff of TheLastCrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order," then took the information and posted a piece claiming that the first lady had hired an "unprecedented number of staffers" to "cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org. That post has become part of a chain e-mail that some of our readers have passed on to us, and the e-mail expands upon Williams’ post, falsely claiming that some recent first ladies have had only one or three staffers. How Many? According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady. The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the first lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant. We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time. First Ladies Past The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House. Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000. Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. "[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong," she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s "personnel records indicate" that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a "first lady" staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of "staff assistant" was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff. The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million. Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that."

Tumor4u, read the text highlight concerning who "hired" Stanley......then you can enjoy the rest of the essay, which speaks to the war without end that's already long lost. No such thing as admitting the bumsteer from the Bush regime, President Obama's unfortunate inheritance of it and the chickenhawk perversion of continuing the lunacy that is A-ghan? No, THAT would be un-American, right Tumor4U? Stan McChrystal’s Flying Circus by Jeff Huber, October 28, 2009 Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander in Afghanistan and Monty Python fan, has put on quite a show of insubordination in the past month or so in an attempt to cram his escalation plan down the world’s throat. He has waged open information warfare in the media, right-wing and otherwise, against President Barack Obama. I wonder how much longer Obama will put up with it. More to the point, I wonder if he can stand up to it. The main thing to remember about McChrystal is that he’s part of the "King David" Petraeus court, and Petraeus is now a de facto Praetorian governor as head of Central Command (CENTCOM) and the most powerful officer in the U.S. military. McChrystal was Petraeus’ handpicked choice to replace Gen. David McKiernan, who apparently didn’t spend enough nights in Petraeus’ tent. About halfway through September, media leaks suggested McChrystal might resign if he didn’t get his way on the Afghanistan escalation. Then he leaked his grim assessment of Afghanistan to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that warned the mission would fail if he didn’t get more troops assigned there. He did his 60 Minutes gig, a puff piece designed to make him look like a thoughtful, sensitive superman (he barely eats or sleeps, he runs six miles every morning, and he’s a great guy). On 60 Minutes he lamented that since he took command in Afghanistan he’s only talked to Obama once. That’s how things are supposed to work, though; Petraeus is in between Obama and McChrystal in the military chain of command, something you need to use in the military to avoid rampant chaos. Petraeus, of course, is used to ignoring the chain of command. It barely existed in the Bush/Cheney regime. As commander in Iraq, Petraeus consistently went behind then-CENTCOM chief Adm. William Fallon’s back to get what he wanted directly from the White House. The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the Middle East commando unit McChrystal ran as a three-star, appears to have been taking orders directly from Dick Cheney, who as vice president had no legal standing in the military chain of command at all. Journalist Seymour Hersh called the JSOC "an executive assassination ring." McChrystal has gotten a total pass on his involvement with the Pat Tillman cover-up, as well as for his involvement in torture. This guy is used to getting away with anything and everything he feels like doing. No wonder he doesn’t care what his boss, the president, thinks about him. At a speech to a war-centric think-tank in London, McChrystal derided Vice President Joe Biden’s proposal to adopt a low footprint counter-terror campaign. Obama apparently took McChrystal to the woodshed in the back of Air Force One over that, but didn’t seem to do much good. A Dexter Filkins’ Oct. 14 New York Times Magazine article, "Stanley McChrystal’s Long War," was an even bigger piece of war pornography than the 60 Minutes infomercial. "Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal stepped off the whirring Black Hawk and headed straight into town. He had come to Garmsir, a dusty outpost along the Helmand River in southern Afghanistan, to size up the war that President Obama has asked him to save. McChrystal pulled off his flak jacket and helmet. His face, skeletal and austere, seemed a piece of the desert itself." Filkins is gargling on McChrystal’s precious bodily fluids. He has turned into a bigger camp follower of McChrystal than Thomas E. Ricks has been of Petraeus. McChrystal flew in unannounced to a NATO summit and sweet-talked Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen into endorsing his cockamamie counterinsurgency plan. The biggest problem with McChrystal’s surge plan is that it won’t work, any more than the surge in Iraq did. As Boston University professor and retired Army officer Andrew Bacevich notes, Iraq "is bizarrely trumpeted in some quarters as a ’success’ and even more bizarrely seen as offering a template for how to turn Afghanistan around." Afghanistan is a far more complex problem than Iraq, and Iraq is plenty complex. Gen. Ray Odierno, now commander in Iraq, says the insurgency there may go on for another 15 years. The insurgency in Afghanistan may go on for another 50 years. As Bacevich says, the war there is one "we can’t win." I couldn’t agree more. That suits the long-war cartel just fine. As tax dollar rip-offs go, it’s as good as the bank bailout. Defense contracts for all my Facebook friends! McChrystal says job one in Afghanistan is to protect civilians, yet we keep killing them, and we’ll continue to kill them. Among the harshest untruths of our counterinsurgency doctrine is the myth that you can separate the civilian population from the insurgents. You can’t. Insurgents live where they fight; they have nowhere else to go. Our war on terror has never had much to do with terror. The neocons, who wrote the template for the foreign policy collision with the brick wall of destiny that we are presently on, merely wanted to turn America into a 21st-century version of ancient Rome. Like Rome, we are about to become captives of our Praetorian Guard, our military elites, the likes of Stan McChrystal and his mentor Petraeus and their puppet boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. As renaissance political scientist Niccolo Machiavelli noted, the ascendance of the Praetorian Guard caused the fall of Rome. As he said in The Art of War, the Praetorian Guard became "insolent and formidable" and "put many emperors to death and then disposed of the empire as it pleased." We’re at a perilous point in the American experiment. Unless Obama can get control of our modern Praetorians, our republic will become, once and for all, a militaristic oligarchy. That would sadden our founders to no end.

I hope you will drop that "guest" shit and take a name and post under it. Your thinking should be made known to more Americans

Pitbull Sarah Palin. http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/77...-mary_large.jpg Typhoid Mary Mallon. http://history1900s.about.com/od/1900s/a/typhoidmary.htm

Tumor4u, look mookus. I know your peanut is hard from the Christie win and certainly I hope he can reduce corruption in New Jersey from frolic rampant down to huge, I really do, but next time you post a hate nugget about the first lady's entourage, how about including a comparison to other first ladies? Wait!! Then that wouldn't BE a hate nugget would it? Sorry......my bad.....

Sorry I missed that vid. The link provided leads to a USA Today blog with no embedded video that I could find.......oh well. In internecine tatters, the GOP is a deadenders adhesive whose most vocal adherents will to this day hiss that greed-is-good Ronnie Raygun is the face of an enduring America. How obsolete is that? Didn't these bellowing jerkoffs get a hint that the Raygun mentality took to disasterous expansion after 9-11-01.......America can do no wrong......might makes right..... Patriotic spewings, bigoted slogans, arrogance, avarice and pride........the presidential demonstration that massive actions in defiance of the law (Iran-Contra) are fine and dandy as long as you rationalize them! Wow......what a lesson for American youth (who grow strong and proud and republican from all those "catsup is a veggie" school lunches!) Maybe it's the godshit. When you got godshit you can DO things like violently claim real estate from the occupants that live on it as the zionistics do....or suicide-bomb market places like the jihaderoos do.....or drop expensive (creates jobs!) bombs from MORE EXPENSIVE (creates MORE jobs) aircraft on thirdworld pitifuls like our christian blessed US military does.........and expect salvation! Holy mackerel! So perhaps god in his (it IS a guy, god?) divine godshit gave the GOP deadenders a flaming bush (BUSH!!) to SEE HIDDEN words that mere renunciates cannot ascertain from the words actually used from the White House!! That's how it is when you got the godshit. Anything you do that's otherwise bad.......is good!!

No Einstein. The GOP (deadender party) has 20%, just as I indicated when I started this post.

NEW YORK, Oct. 28, 2004 O'Reilly Settles Sex Harass Suit Lawyers For Fox News Announce Settlement With Fox Producer (CBS/AP) Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly said Thursday he and a former producer of his talk show have agreed to settle their legal dispute over her allegations of sexual harassment, and his accusations that she was trying to shake him down. "This brutal ordeal is now officially over, and I will never speak of it again," he said on his talk show, "The O'Reilly Factor." Andrea Mackris, 33, who was a producer on the show, filed a lawsuit against the top-rated TV host Oct. 13, alleging O'Reilly made a series of explicit phone calls to her, advised her to use a vibrator and told her about sexual fantasies involving her. The New York Daily News, citing unidentified sources, reported that O'Reilly had agreed to pay Mackris anywhere from $2 million to $10 million. Separately, the New York Post said it was believed that O'Reilly paid "multimillions of dollars" to settle the suit. Earlier that day, O'Reilly, 55 and married with two children, had filed a lawsuit accusing Mackris and her lawyer of trying to extort $60 million in "hush money" to make the case quietly go away. O'Reilly is host of the top-rated prime-time cable news program -— and he's seen his ratings go up by 30 percent since the case was filed. The out-of-court settlement came on the eve of a courtroom fight over audiotapes, reports CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella. O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green had said he believed there were tapes of conversations between the two and asked a court to compel Mackris to produce them so they could be played publicly. "I know that he does not fear what is on the tapes," Green said at the time. O'Reilly told his viewers Thursday night, "This matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family, and I did. All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read." Shortly before "Factor" aired, O'Reilly's lawyer Green, issued a statement saying the cases and claims had been withdrawn and all parties agreed there was no wrongdoing by O'Reilly, Mackris or Mackris' lawyer Benedict Morelli. Morelli did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Green's statement about the settlement did not mention money, and it could not be learned immediately whether it was a factor. "Out of respect for their families and privacy, all parties and their representatives have agreed that all information relating to the cases shall remain confidential," Green's statement said. When the accusations began, Green refused to confirm or deny specific things that Mackris claimed O'Reilly said to her, but he said at the time that, "Mr. O'Reilly denies that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful sexual harassment." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/...ain650282.shtml

Yeah deadender.....upon your cowardly skull. Now go back to crafting your belligerent hate posts connecting sex-offenders with Democrats, as if Republicans have no sex-offenders!

Tumor4u.........you filthy soomka..........DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!! >>>Conventional wisdom,[3] supported by polls, was almost unanimous that a Dewey presidency was "inevitable", and that the New York governor would win the election handily. The first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".<<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

Before swallowing the fetid assertions of a GOP deadender, consider our media and past presidential administrations: White House is right to push back By MARK PENN | 10/27/09 5:15 AM EDT Republicans suggest that the aggressive move by the Obama White House to take on people and organizations that disagree with it and oppose its policies is an unprecedented abuse of government resources. This is, of course, nonsense. The Obama team is engaged in a series of tough legislative and press battles and is stepping up its game, not stepping over the line. And the actions taken by the White House are mild and pale compared with those of the Gingrich and Bush years. Let’s look at the Republican record on this. This White House may be trying to sideline all lobbyists from K Street, but it was the Republicans who invented the K Street Project — steering contracts and business to the lobbyists from their own party while seeking to cut out the Democrats. This White House has a principle it is applying across the board, agree with it or not. The Republicans were enforcing the principle or rewarding their own. President George W. Bush had plenty of groups he did not meet with or spurned, often changing his mind only after negative public reaction built up. Remember him declining year after year the chance to speak to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — an organization that hosted every president since Herbert Hoover? Only in 2006 did he reverse course. Activist Cindy Sheehan became famous for following Bush to his ranch, asking for a meeting and a hearing. Bush also declined to meet with a bipartisan committee working to rewrite the education bill and, despite repeated requests, refused all but once to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus. Bush even declined to meet with Nelson Mandela in 2003 because the former South African political prisoner opposed the Iraq war. As House speaker, Newt Gingrich would not meet with the National Endowment for the Arts, calling it a group based on patronage and elitism. So when it comes to declining meetings with groups you disagree with, Bush and Gingrich set the standard — not this White House. Second, the administration’s back and forth about Fox News is nothing new. Now I don’t think that getting into the tussle with Fox News makes great strategic sense, but it certainly isn’t original — the Republicans have been blasting the “liberal” media for decades. Even former President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco called out “sensation-seeking columnists and commentators,” and the crowd burst into jeers and catcalls at the reporters there. The sentiment was immortalized by Richard Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew, who memorably charged that many in the press corps were mere “nattering nabobs of negativism” — and for good measure — “an effete corps of impudent snobs.” And Republicans have certainly taken on specific media, as well. Newt Gingrich, in one of his radio addresses as speaker, said it was time to zero out the funding for public broadcasting, which he saw as carrying a liberal agenda. Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Bush all at one point blamed the “liberal, elite media” as at the root of their problems, with famous battles against Connie Chung, Dan Rather and others. At the time, the Republicans called CNN the Clinton News Network. If a Democratic administration ostracized Fox News, it was mild compared with the Republican attempt headed by New York Rep. Peter King to institute a criminal investigation by the attorney general into The New York Times for its coverage of the Iraq war — a charge he made on “The O’Reilly Factor,” of course. And Ed Gillespie, working for the Bush White House, essentially made the same charge against MSNBC that David Axelrod and Anita Dunn made about Fox News. Gillespie said in essence that the reporters and hosts of MSNBC have a point of view that comes through in what they do. Even the John McCain presidential campaign tried to get NBC off of presidential debate panels and would not allow columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein on its planes. McCain strategist Steve Schmidt also called MSNBC “a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain.” Newsweek found its access threatened after one of its cover stories. So regarding the idea that the White House is going over the top — well, the crocodile tears from the Republicans on this issue are just too much. I always say there is a campaign that is about the real issues and a campaign about the campaign — the discussion of the polls, who is positive and who has been negative. This debate during the last week has fallen into the latter — it has not been about health care, the stimulus or the deficit. The debate has been about whether the White House has lashed out at its critics and the Republican talkers have appeared earnest in making their case, counting on a rather short public memory for their actions. But in this case, you have to separate the spin from the reality. The Republicans dithered on meeting and including Democratic-leaning groups and made it a big part of their agenda to attack the “liberal” media. Giving everyone a seat at the table doesn’t mean giving everyone a seat to sit there and attack the White House. And if anyone should and can appreciate that point, it is those very Republicans on television now complaining about it. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28739.html

1- Loki you wrote this: "Lying doesn't suit you, but I expect little else." THANK YOU! I appreciate that you recognize this one ultimate standard! 2- I've seen that poll. How does it connect to the Rish-Limpie-running-with-a-bogus-story-to-smear-the-President topic I started? Perhaps the irony that the conservative ideology leads in a poll while its famous mouthpiece passes bold-faced fraud to his dittoheads?

Well Tumor4u......you nuzzle up to your "Fix Noose" crystal ball and your flaccid political party of fear and war and hate. Meanwhile, the new progressive leadership of America will see that President Obama has the support he needs to repair the epic damage you and your goombas wrought upon the nation and the world. Start googling bloodpressure meds, deadender.......your hate-parade will be expensive. "DON'T" SUBSTANTIALLY ENGAGE THE THEME OF THE NEWS REPORT POSTED HERE THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY RUN FROM INSTEAD HISSING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH LIES SUGGESTING HE'S LAZY LIKE BUSH. I know a little pip of a swiftboater must post with the "whack-a-mole" style, last word oneupmanship, going off topic be damned.......... For the rest of you deadenders that think Obama's inherited, wildly BUSH miss-managed mess in Afghanistan is ice cream easy to fix.......here's a hint: (apologies for the change of topic within one thread, but you know how Tumor4u operates) AP IMPACT: Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1 By SLOBODAN LEKIC (AP) – 20 hours ago BRUSSELS — There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory. Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed. The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow. The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops. With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops. "The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam. "But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths." The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive. "It's impossible to regain the initiative by introducing more foreign forces, which will only breed more resentment and more recruits for the enemy," he said. "The Soviets tried the exact same thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s with disastrous results." McChrystal's defenders say the U.S. has learned from Soviets' mistakes. At his instruction, NATO troops are increasingly abandoning heavy-handed tactics. "In the end this (conflict) cannot be solved by military means alone, and in that sense a precise figure of Taliban fighters is not the point," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai. The U.S. says it's already adjusting its strategy to shift the focus from hunting down and killing Taliban fighters to protecting civilians — in some cases allowing insurgent units to remain untouched if they are not deemed an imminent threat. McChrystal has also insisted that ground commanders use airpower only as a last resort and when they are absolutely sure civilians are not at risk. As a career Special Forces officer, McChrystal is likely to use small maneuverable units rather than large, heavily armed formations. Also, experts say guerrilla numbers are not the most important factor in a counterinsurgency campaign. Instead, the number of U.S. troops depends on more complex calculations, including the size and location of the population, and the extent of the training effort for the Afghan security forces. Appathurai said the goals of the Afghanistan strategy are key to determining how many forces are required. The goal is to have enough troops in populated areas to protect the citizenry and to provide the forces needed to train the Afghans. In addition, while there may be as many as 25,000 Taliban, it is not a monolithic group like an army, with a clear chain of command that has to be confronted soldier for soldier. Instead, it is a scattered and diverse mix of insurgents, some more ideologically motivated than others. There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans. Afghan security forces consist of 94,000 troops supported by a similar number of police, bringing the total Allied force to close to 300,000 members. The 12-1 ratio may be misleading because two-thirds of the Allied force is made up of Afghans, who lack the training and experience. The Taliban usually fight in small, cohesive units made up of friends and fellow clansmen. A more meaningful ratio, then, might be 4-1 or 5-1. Historically in guerrilla wars, security forces have usually had at least a 3-1 advantage. At the height of the U.S. ground involvement in South Vietnam in 1968, the 1.2 million American troops and their allies outnumbered the Communist guerrillas by about 4-1. French forces in the 1945-54 Indochina war numbered about 400,000 men, only a slight numerical advantage against the rebels. In a more recent campaign, Russia's Chechen war in 1999-2000, Russian troops held a 4-1 advantage over the insurgents. Publicly, NATO and U.S. officials have been tightlipped about Taliban strength, arguing the guerrillas, split into a number of semiautonomous factions, regularly slip in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan — making numbers a matter of guesswork. But several officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels say the alliance does have reasonably accurate estimates of the number of enemy combatants its troops are facing in Afghanistan. "The internal figure used for planning purposes is 20,000 fighters, with several more thousand auxiliaries — mainly members of tribal militias, clans, and semi-criminal gangs," said a senior officer based at NATO headquarters in Brussels. He asked not to be identified under standing regulations. Another senior official — a representative of a non-NATO nation based at alliance headquarters — gave a similar number. This official added that enemy numbers varied widely over time, depending on the season and other factors. "When the poppy is good, they stay home. When the poppy is bad, they take up guns," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000. Sometimes remaining small gives guerrillas certain advantages. British forces in Northern Ireland found it relatively easy to monitor and penetrate the Irish Republican Army when its ranks were swollen in the 1970s, but had a tougher time once the IRA slashed staff and regrouped into secretive four-person units. Some analysts suggest that a NATO force much larger than the one under consideration would be needed to subdue the Taliban. "The ratio of friendly to enemy forces would be a crucial aspect only if you could actually get at the enemy. But with an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and hides among the population, that's very hard to do," said retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007-2008. "The crucial aspect in this case is the ratio of security force to population — this is much more relevant," he said. "This would require one security person to every 50 people. In a country of about 32 million, this means about 600,000 security personnel would be needed to clamp it down." Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin, Ireland, contributed to this report. Guess what? Afghanistan is lost. It always WAS lost. We've learned NYEMA NYITZ from Vietnam or from the Soviet Union's folly in A-ghan. We haven't the additional troops nor the money to pour into A-ghan but because of dangerous buffoons in the pentagon and the deadenders that cheer them, it remains a lunatic's option......... The one difference between A-ghanistan and Vietnam is that the mighty USA today is a listing ship in heavy seas. Rambo nitwits would have us with a sparking, short-circuited powergrid at home, all the other American infrastructure delinquencies, people losing their homes from healthcare bills and job losses AND ALL THE OTHER DOMESTIC FESTERINGS.......yet ramp up the mess in A-ghan!! Think slowly you televison driven nudniks when you hiss the President about his decision in Afghanistan (and the only decision these jerkoffs would approve is more US lives to be sent to the hopeless grind in A-ghan!)........ No matter how many U.S. troops get sent to A-ghan......no matter how many bombs dropped.....no matter how long we stay.......it will end a disaster for the USA........ How smug and obsolete to think otherwise!

>>>Don't get to giddy, consider the following. Fox News Poll, Oct 22: 43 % of voters would vote to re-elect Obama if the 2012 election was held today, that's down from 52% in a poll taken 6 months ago on Apr. 22. Want to venture a guess what it will be in another 6 months? Your boy is a one-hit wonder.<<< Well, Guesty.......you nuzzle up to your "Fix Noose" crystal ball and your flaccid political party of fear and war and hate. Meanwhile, the new progressive leadership of America will see that President Obama has the support he needs to repair the epic damage you and your goombas wrought upon the nation and the world. Start googling bloodpressure meds, deadender.......your hate-parade will be expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003 I remember that major power outage swept across the northeast Thursday, August 14, 2003 when one major voice referred to our national power grid as "third world" condition. I wondered why American leadership had all this money to coddle Israel's apartheid, corrupt any number of foreign sovereignties and build the U.S. military into a ridiculous monstrosity.........while ignoring the civil infrastructure of the nation......... President Obama campaigned on creating "green" jobs and dealing with the dilapidated U.S. power grid........ It's still early and the president is still new, and despite the bellowings of a dishonest and increasingly unstable GOP opposition who would have us all believe that matters of RE-BUILDING ROME would take a mere month or two (unless a repub was in the White House!)........the President's progress according to Politifact is rather steady. Imagine if these deadender jerkoffs were replaced by decent people who, though their candidate lost, would not act to sabotage in financed lies and childish media spectacle the President's effort to stop the bleeding of our nation! Repair and remediation may go a little further, a little faster......... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ Obama putting $3.4B toward a 'smart' power grid By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago ARCADIA, Fla. – President Barack Obama made a pitch for renewable energy Tuesday, announcing $3.4 billion in government support for 100 projects aimed at modernizing the nation's power grid. Touring a field of solar energy panels in west-central Florida, the president urged greater use of several technologies to make America's power transmission system more efficient and better suited to the digital age. The projects include installing "smart" electric meters in homes, automating utility substations, and installing thousands of new digital transformers and grid sensors. "There's something big happening in America in terms of creating a clean-energy economy," Obama said, although he added there is much more to be done. He likened the effort to the ambitious development of the national highway system 50 years ago. He said modernization would lead to a "smarter, stronger and more secure electric grid." Under muggy skies, Obama toured the DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, which is designed to generate enough energy for about 3,000 residential customers of the utility FPL. It is the nation's largest photovoltaic electricity facility. Obama said a modern grid could give consumers better control over their electricity usage and costs, and spur development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The $3.4 billion in grants from the government's January economic stimulus program will be matched by $4.7 billion in private investments. The smallest grant will be $400,000 and the largest $200 million. "We have a very antiquated (electric grid) system in our country," Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, told reporters. "The current system is outdated, it's dilapidated." Matt Rogers, the Energy Department official involved in the program, said the 100 projects were selected from 400 proposed. The money will be distributed over the next two months and the work is expected to be done over the next one to three years, he said. Even as Obama pitched more efficient and renewable energy use, his trip to Arcadia made it clear that old habits and dependencies die hard. He arrived in a motorcade of gas-guzzling SUVs. While waiting for the motorcade to get started, several vans kept their engines running to provide air conditioning for occupants escaping a hot Florida sun. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been at odds with Obama over health care, energy and other matters, praised the clean-energy initiative. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_...bama_smart_grid Endnote: I appreciate the author's point of irony concerning gas guzzling SUVs and idling vans for air-conditioning purposes and warn against jerkoffs that would discount/ignore the central news of this report and hiss about Obama using his motor convoy as such, vehicles ANYONE leading a nation would properly require for such a field trip. When jingoistic wars for profit are banned and with no work for making cluster-bombs and depleted uranium WMD, etc, maybe weapons makers will begin to concentrate their talents on clean energy solutions to keeping people in transit cool and warm as needed. The men and women in our trucking industry, and everyone else, would celebrate that endeavor.

Like the Fix Noose freak show you adore, Tumor4u, a cheap guile is your choice of communication. While you chortle over the ratings of a dishonest media spectacle......people with brains AND priority pause upon this: >>>Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.<<< Find the above quote on page #2 of the following link....and much more that endorse our NEW (yes, he's still new) president. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews Then those in denial can go take a peep at this.....and deny: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/gop-loss...hic-groups.aspx http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...ep_trouble.html <~ less than perfect annunciation, devastating analysis........"if you're a republican, those numbers are HIDIOUS........."Now.......run along and put the little flight suit on your Bill-O action figure, Tumor!!!

The Obama ‘Thesis’ Hoax By David Weigel 10/23/09 4:03 PM If you didn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, you missed the news that an obscure blogger had gotten his hands on ten pages of Barack Obama’s college thesis, thanks to Joe Klein of Time magazine. Michael Ledeen had jumped on the news, publishing an excerpt that revealed how the president had “doubts” about the “so-called founders.” And Limbaugh ran with it. The problem: It was a hoax, actually marked as a satire, as Klein blogged earlier today. Ledeen apologized. UPDATE: Via Media Matters, I see that Limbaugh discovered the hoax midway through the show, and used what used to be known as the “fake but accurate” defense. http://washingtonindependent.com/65015/the-obama-thesis-hoax So desperate they'll believe anything -- the fake Obama thesis debunked October 23, 2009 2:43 pm ET by Simon Maloy It really gets to be pretty pathetic sometimes, watching the conservatives grasp at every straw they can in order to attack and discredit a president they don't like. If you listened to Rush Limbaugh today or visited Fox Nation, then you might have heard about President Obama's supposed college thesis in which the college-aged commander in chief allegedly wrote: "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." Now, you might be thinking: "Wait a minute, I thought conservatives didn't like Obama's elusive thesis because it was on nuclear disarmament." Well, this is a different thesis, it would seem, and blogger Michael Ledeen wrote about it two days ago: I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama's college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein -- who wrote about it for Time -- was permitted to see). So Ledeen sources this bombshell to another, more obscure conservative blogger, who wrote -- back on August 25, mind you -- that Time's Joe Klein had seen Obama's damning thesis and was going to report on it for "an upcoming special edition about the President." No indication was given as to how this obscure blogger came to know that one of America's premiere journalists had obtained this information. There was no indication as to how this blogger was able to quote material only Klein had had access to. Oh, and let's not forget that this very same blogger was busted by PolitiFact.com for fabricating stories about President Obama. But hey, why speculate on whether it's true or not? Let's go to the source. Mr. Klein? "A report is circulating among the wingnuts that I had a peek at Barack Obama's senior thesis. It is completely false. I've never seen Obama's thesis. I have no idea where this report comes from -- but I can assure you that it's complete nonsense." This story is fake and falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. Corrections and apologies are due from Ledeen, Limbaugh, and Fox Nation, but if you believe you'll get an apology from pathological liars of that sort, then you're more gullible than they are. UPDATE: Very well-hidden at the bottom of the Jumping in Pools blog post that started all this stupidity is a "satire" tag: LATER UPDATE: It gets even better -- according to the PolitiFact article that called out the Jumping in Pools blogger, Matthew Avitabile, for making up outlandish Obama stories: Avitabile, a Republican who had previously poked fun at Obama with a tongue-in-cheek article that said scientists had determined that he was "genetically superior," is thankful for all the traffic it generated for his blog Jumping in Pools. In the past he was lucky to get 1,000 hits on a story, but this one got more than 50,000. Yet he's disappointed that so many people published his work without verifying it. "Out of the 50,000 who looked at it, only three had the good sense to contact me and see if it was true," he told us (PolitiFact was one of the three). Avitabile described himself as a moderate Republican - "I'm pro-gay rights, pro-wind energy" - but said he was surprised that so many in his party had such negative feelings about Obama. "People wanted to believe this about the president so bad, that he would really go toward a dictatorship so much that they would go with it without checking it," he said. http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910230018 Obama's Columbia 'thesis' is all fiction, dreamed up by blogger Bookmark this story: Buzz up!ShareThisWhen we last spoke with Matthew Avitabile, a grad student in upstate New York who writes a blog called Jumping in Pools, he had stirred up a hornet's nest with a satirical posting that claimed President Barack Obama wanted soldiers to stop taking an oath to the Constitution and instead pledge their loyalty to the president himself. That put some conservative bloggers into a tizzy. "Good g*d -- Obama is an egomaniac like we've never seen before. Another Hitler on the rise. This guy is just trashing everything the Consitution stands for," wrote someone named Kitty on the blog Tree of Liberty. The report kept spreading, getting picked up by other bloggers and circulating as a chain e-mail. It earned a Pants on Fire from our Truth-O-Meter. Avitabile, a 22-year-old State University of New York at Albany grad student and self-described moderate Republican, told us back in February that he was surprised the posting -- which was labeled satire -- could spread so quickly without people verifying the facts. "People wanted to believe this about the president so bad, that he would really go toward a dictatorship so much that they would go with it without checking it," he said. Now comes another satirical claim from Avitabile's blog that made it all the way to Rush Limbaugh's show before being debunked. It says that Obama criticized "plutocratic thugs" in his thesis at Columbia University: "Obama was required to write a 'senior seminar' paper in order to graduate from Columbia. The subject of this paper, which totaled 44 pages, was American government. Entitled Aristocracy Reborn, this paper chronicled the long struggle of the working class against, as Obama put it, 'plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government.' "In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: 'I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.' "In part, the future President blames this on the current economic system: 'There are many who will defend the 'free market.' But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny.' "However, the President also singled out the American Constitution: '... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.' "It is yet unknown if more of this thesis will be released. It was also noted that the President received an A- for the paper, which later led to his graduation." The blog posting gained credibility because the "satire" label was small and easy to miss, and it falsely claimed that Time magazine columnist Joe Klein uncovered the thesis. "With all of the secrecy regarding the President's academic record," the blogger wrote, "famed Time reporter Joe Klein looked into the records for an upcoming special edition about the President. Klein included several key points in the piece, including his grades and stellar letters of recommendation. However, what has leaked along with this information was the subject of a thesis written by the young Obama while still an undergraduate at Columbia." Avitabile said he intended the item to be satire, but not over-the-top-obvious satire. "If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny," he said. "I kind of get inspiration from Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. You want people to be let in and then at the end, they realize it, and either find it funny on its own terms or find their reaction to be funny." The satire was too subtle for many people, though. The item appeared to go unnoticed for weeks. Then, on Oct. 21, 2009, Michael Ledeen of Pajamas Media, a political blog, wrote about Obama's alleged thesis: "That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof – and I’d like to know who the prof was – made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any 'shackles' as difficult as possible." Just two days later, on Oct. 23, Rush Limbaugh cited it it in a sharp attack on Obama. "The Constitution is the most liberty-promoting and freedom-acknowledging document in the history of the world, and this little boy in college is writing about it with utter disdain, and he still shares those feelings," Limbaugh told listeners. He added, "So Joe Klein at Time magazine has known for a long time about Obama's college thesis when he was at Columbia. Why didn't this come out a year ago at this time? Why didn't this come out before the election in November?" Within minutes, though, the story began falling apart. While he was still on air, Limbaugh received notice from a listener who was skeptical of the thesis story and found nothing to back it up. So the host began to backtrack. "I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog...," he said later in the same show. "So I shout from the mountaintops, 'It was satire!' But we know [Obama] thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today." Klein later confirmed on Time's Swampland blog that he had "never seen Obama's thesis," and other bloggers followed with contrite apologies. "I should have picked up some hint, but I didn’t," Ledeen posted on Oct. 23. "Shame on me." Meredith Jessup of TownHall.com followed suit the same day, but she added, "it's important to note that none of this nonsense would be running wild around the internet if the campaign had just released Obama's thesis in the first place." Which might be a fair question – if there had been a thesis at all. But there wasn't. A Columbia University spokesman told PolitiFact that "an undergraduate thesis requirement for those in political science did not even exist at Columbia in 1983." In other words, Obama couldn't have written a thesis because no Columbia political science student in his era did. Yet the conviction that a thesis is out there has driven critics to search everywhere for it. The elusive Obama "thesis," it seems, stems from in an inadvertent slip of the tongue by one of Obama's former professors. In 2007, when Obama was serving in the Senate and gearing up for the first presidential primaries and caucuses, New York Times reporter Janny Scott assembled a story about Obama's years in New York, including his time as an undergraduate at Columbia. She managed to track down Michael Baron, who had taught a senior seminar on international politics and American policy for eight students, including Obama, in 1983. Baron, now a digital media executive for a Sarasota, Fla.-based company, mistakenly used the term "thesis" when he spoke with the Times reporter, which sent reporters scurrying to find it. "Journalists began hounding Columbia University for copies of the musty document," wrote Jim Popkin, an NBC News senior investigative producer in a July 2008 blog posting. "Conservative bloggers began wondering if the young Obama had written a no-nukes screed that he might come to regret. And David Bossie, the former congressional investigator and 'right-wing hit man,' as one newspaper described him, took out classified newspaper ads in Columbia University’s newspaper and the Chicago Tribune in March searching for the term paper." But Obama's paper was nowhere to be found. While the paper was the fruit of a year-long course, it's not something the university would have saved. "It was not like a master's or doctoral thesis that gets collected and put on microfiche," Baron told PolitiFact. Baron, who donated to Obama's campaign, ultimately received about two-dozen calls from journalists, some from as far away as Japan and Europe, about the missing "thesis." The former professor insists that there was nothing damaging in the 25- to 40-page paper on nuclear disarmament, which earned Obama an A, and certainly nothing about shortcomings of the Constitution or the distribution of wealth, as the blog post indicated. "The students did not write papers about a policy being good or bad," Baron said. "It was about decisionmaking -- who should be listened to and how to avoid narrow thinking." Avitabile, asked whether he would continue to publish satire on his site, gave an unequivocal yes. And he urged readers of all blogs to be vigilant. "I encourage anyone who's on the Internet, make sure it's linked to an accredited news source," he said. "If you do pass it along, you should say, 'This is probably fake, but this says the president is a lizard...." So once again, satire from Jumping in Pools has triggered an avalanche of unwarranted outrage. And so for the many bloggers who spread the incorrect information, we set the meter ablaze – Pants on Fire. And check your facts next time, okay? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...reamed-blogger/ What's next from the buffoon party, Palin pole dancing at Sunday services?

When "Fix Noose" gets cornered with its bold or subtle lies, the jester defense begins with references to "entertainment" or "opinion" and turning-the-table accusations.........the jerkoffs that are its fans hiss with indignation and defiance like a drug dealer denying two kilos of coke in his car are his! Always and as if decent people are stupid and oblivious to the cheat.

Are you REALLY ignorant to some well warranted BALL BUSTING upon "FIX NOOSE" by an American presidential administration that has an epic mess to throttle and solve, inherited from the Bush trainwreck that was in LOCKSTEP with "FIX NOOSE" (Fox News for you rubes)......a hostile political bias machine that has run a formidable and utterly dishonest hate campaign against GOP political opposition. "Fix Noose" IS the vulgar voice of PNAC, the Bushwreck, AIPAC and collectively the GOP deadenders...add a stream of hyper-patriotic slogans and some porn looking news tootsies delivering the hate-sludge and you got a killer formula for mob delivery of distorted and dangerous political ambitions. No intelligent president would long let this chronic journalistic fraud go un-addressed that comes zombie knocking at the White House door. Bravo President Obama! May we all see the dittoheads gather on the so many little plastic screens found in the nation's urinals, for exactly what they merit. Naturally the "Fix Noose" cult stammers, "FIRST AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED!!" like a stuck pig as if the Obama team hasn't a clue about freedom of speech ..........this is America dumbed down defending the NEWSCASTING perversion of American society.......a god creeching, fear-mongering, hate advocacy/propaganda media force veiled ostensibly as legitimate journalism. When "Fix Noose" gets cornered with its bold or subtle lies, the jester defense begins with references to "entertainment" or "opinion" and turning-the-table accusations.........the jerkoffs that are its fans hiss with indignation and defiance like a drug dealer denying two kilos of coke in his car are his! Always and as if decent people are stupid and oblivious to the cheat. Log onto "Fix Noose" dot com, get past the conventional home page and dig into the posted commentaries in Politics. There you will find a vast collection of bigoted nincompoops in various forms of hate and majestic ignorance like none other.........I invite you to do just that. See the froth of foxhate so proud in demanding the failure of a new American president!......Observe the mob thinking and the violent references between and UPON the written lines....STOO-NOD references to birth certificates and religious affiliations sworn by one fraud and pledged by countless others in the FIX conga-line of hate...ad naseum the patriotic slogans as if incessant repetition of these trite bleatings will assure immortality and obscene material wealth and a golf twosome with god....fools and hypocrites that cut the throat of more than only America in their entertainment saturated ill-cognizance.....jerks that would orgasm to entire nations getting nuked to the tune of AC/DC (often citing god's approval!). That's the shank of "Fix Noose" supporters.........and I WISH it was only my opinion! If we sat today under the modern stewardship of the GOP in the American sunshine, peace and prosperity, trust and confidence, reason and compassion, hope, health and wisdom and not just for a few............WELL WE FRIGGIN DON'T. Decent people wonder why these GOP deadenders, in the 28 years since grade b actor Ronnie Raygun first soiled the president's office, don't sit the fck down and keep their gluttonous pieholes shut.......just so a ravaged America can catch its collective breath without their overbearing, shameless and destructive bellowing or the grind of their national sabotage machine, their media meddlers, "Fix Noose" that greatly enabled the state of our woes.

Why not welcome national, international and even cosmic or any OTHER non-local issues and thoughts for discussion in this forum? It's not like postings about Afghanistan or Iraqnam or anything else consume space that precludes content about the local scene. Review the menu and select your fare. Tumor4u does repeat-post his hate-spit in incessant staccato while saying essentially nothing, but that's the element any valuable messageboard will unfortunately experience.......think of it like barnacles on the hull of a Boston Whaler.......you take them along until you can scrape them away!

A bad word choice on my part......"profit"....... My intention was to "salute" the soccer legacy in Harrison with the new professional soccer-dedicated stadium about to open in town......a long time and many dreams from the days of lime and grassless dust in Kennedy (Rodgers) Stadium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Arena_(MLS)