Jihadists believe that the people they are killing are in some way interfering with their goals. They generally believe that the land they are fighting in is rightfully theirs, so they see the killing of "infidels" as a righteous cause. It just so happens that the people they are killing are better skilled at selling their own cause to the media that reports the killings.

As I've said before, when I get to vote, I have to choose between a candidate who doesn't really fit my beliefs and one who wants to destroy my ability to make a living. Voting for a nonviable candidate in a close race is effectively giving a vote to the candidate who wants me unemployed.

But I've told you that before. So go ahead, tell me how it means something completely different from what I have told you it to mean.

And when was the last time that there was a president who wasn't from one of the two parties we have today? When was the last time that either house of congress had a significant number of members who were not from either of the two parties?

And the game is rigged within the two parties, as well. We have seen before that most of the candidates - specifically any that vary from the party platform - are systematically eliminated from contention well before most voters have a chance to make their interests known in the primaries and caucuses.

We've also already seen that Bernie has committed to only running as a Democrat. Once he is eliminated - which will probably happen at most two weeks after Iowa - we won't see him again as a presidential candidate.

So no, the voters do not select their candidates. At least, not for president. We've seen that some people are interested in re-separating the voters from the senators as well, which is a related matter.

I've decided that since hardly anyone reads - and basically nobody wants to discuss - my JEs anymore, I might as well leave them up in the original slashdot crapified appearance. This site will still mangle text like that when it shuts down for good, why bother adjusting for it?

Obviously, the email that the Benghazi conspiracy nuts are looking for - the one where Obama tells Hillary to launch their secret Islamist army against the Americans so he can bring about his New World Order - is in there somewhere.

No. That is not how it works. But keep telling me what you think I stand for, rather than what I actually stand for. I can't force you to do otherwise.

Being as it is the continent that encompasses the south pole, how do you define what is southern?

That is the only feasible explanation for it being down right now. We know this site doesn't direct enough traffic to take down any website that is more robust than that.

I suspect that statement may have actually trapped smitty in an infinite loop. He has stated before that he reads my comments assuming that I mean the opposite of what I say. Hence in the case of sarcasm the loop might never exit.

I use Putty plenty, but I haven't had a time yet where I have needed to use it on a new system and needed root access on the system I am logging in to. If I'm using it on a new box, I am logging in with my usual non-root account on my remote system. How exactly would they use that to gain root access?

What they advocated for, and what they actually did, were two very different things. I'm talking about the budget proposals that they actually signed into law (in the case of Obama) or voted for (in the case of Pelosi). These were really not even close to reflections of what they said they were campaigning for. Even more so, they resulted in higher government handouts to wall street and the military-industrial complex than the GOP presidents had ever dared dream for, and larger tax cuts to the wealthy as well. The cherry on the sundae comes in the continued dismantling of workers' rights.

Another way to put it in perspective is to look for any bill that Obama signed that Reagan, Bush, or Bush Jr. would not have signed. I can't find a single one.

Really? Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of. Under Obama - regardless of who controlled either chamber of congress - we saw huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and continued marginalization of the middle and lower classes.

Essentially, while the GOP was marching further to the right, the democrats decided it would be a good idea to follow.

... you buy a gun, and you become a republican. That's been the cycle for a long time. Yeah, lots of republicans have croaked lately but they're being replaced by democrats shifting over.

Besides, as we've seen the last 6 years there isn't much difference between the two. One party is right-wing, and the other is 1 order of magnitude further to the right. Either way the republicans and their supporters win.

Not a surprise that I raise an actual concern and you reply with a conspiracy. Obviously the constant flow of time in this corner of the universe is not important in the context of trying to banish people with the wrong consonant after their name from Washington.