That’s when you commit a cheap shot on a player, and on the very next play from the line of scrimmage, he comes back over the top, hitting you so hard that your mouthpiece is on the 20 yard line, your helmet is on the 30 yard line, your cleats are on the 40 yard line, and your jockstrap in on the 50 yard line.

Allow me to replay your infraction:

You made the assertion that American troops love Barack Obama.

I countered with polls from Military Times that merely called this assertion into question.

Then you immediately retaliated with a personal attack.

Then I pointed out that the Canadian Navy hasn’t been in an engagement since the Battle of Lake Erie in 1813 (in which my Woodstock, Oxford, Ontario ancestors fought for the Crown, oddly enough).

And you started whining and crying like a little baby.

Here are two TYT Forum rules for you to commit to memory:

Welcome to the NFL.

So, you said:

"Liberal political philosophy simply can't compete with conservative political philosophy when the two are compared side by side, so they try to diminish dialo gue by urging other forum parti cipants to not communicate with the "enemy". They do it in the forum. They do it in the chat rooms. They do it via PMs.

But it never works. That's the beautiful thing. It's like waving a piece of bacon in front of a dog. The dog can't resist."

In actuality, the problem with trying to compare liberal and conservative philopsopy side by side, is you can't; that is because you conservatives either ignore "facts" staring you in the face, or simply just start making things up.

By way of example, I was just reading a book by Benjamin Friedman, a Senior Professor at the Harvard School of economics called "Day of Recokoning" which examined the failure of Regan's economic policies. He penned it in 1988. You can almost take what he worte word for word and apply it to the American Economy under bush; bust did the same thing, and made the same mess. Conservatives say, things similar to this "oh no, it is not true, here are the real facts", when they don't like what they have heard. The problem with conservatives and you in particular, is you "don't want to be confused by the facts". Just as was said by Friedman 20 years ago, Liberals are forced to make the same argument a second time, and you conservatives, still "don't want to be confused by the facts".

So, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by your reaction to my post. Nope, don't confuse me with demonstrable fact, "look over there, Barrack is smoking Crack!" My mistaked was not mustering a better counter comment to your silly and assinigne post then asking if you had served? I mean after all, how can we have facts based discussion if I resort to emotionalism.

Well, fortunately for me you were able to keep emotion out of our "dialogue" and commmented:

"Heneceforth, whenever you post in this forum, I will be there to make you look like the nitwit that you are.

Facts are stubborn things.

It's not my fault that the military voted overwhelmingly against Barack Obama."

Before I go on, just let me thank. It is great to know you are going to be there to set me straight from now on; how could I have ever gone on into my waning years without your sage counsel to guide me. I am so lucky to have such a wonderful life guide.

I don't think it would have made any difference regarding the vitriolic commentary that you have since have unleashed whether or not I had responded differently to you. Sooner or later you you would have started with the sacarstic patronization anyway; that is the kind of guy you are. And, even as I am writing this it occurs to me that you may simply be posting simply "for sport", and really aren't interested in anything but trying you prove your intellectual manhood.

So what does any of this have to do with Benjamin Friedman? This. You guys use what you want and ignore the rest. You ignored most of what Friedman except for those things he said you thought could be used to make your case. And in exactly the same way, you basically ignored the point of my post, and interpreted it to mean that I had said the military supported Obama. See? You are a tTypical Conservative.

Actaully, what I said was firstly:

"I think he (Obama) gets it, and I think the reaction of the troops to him is real and I think they have picked that up as well. There is a great picture of Barrack which was associated with that Huffingtion Post story (see I told you we call him Barrack), showing him shaking the hand of a young service man. If you look at the young man's face, I am sure you will see the same thing I did; there is a look on that young person's face of joy, respect and enthusiasim that I don't think was ever captured in pictures of the other guy and "the troops". It wasn't captured with Bush, becuase IT WAS NEVER THERE. Seeing this for the first time that I can recall, simply makes me feel hopefull

And a little later I said this:

That is what gives me hope, because it confirms something I have felt about Barrack from early on. I truly think he is the real thing; he will dissapoint us for sure, and make decisons we won't understand at the time, but when it comes down to it, he will almost always call it right, with us at the center of the decision. He will do that because I believe he has an exceptional capacitiy and willingness to meaninfully listen.

I am convinced he will think and act, with reason, measure, concern and respect for those whose lives will be so mostly affect. That is what a true leader is, and, does. And, I think that is why those pictures reflected what you saw in the face of that brave and deidcated young man I know he is not a kid, but given my age, it is hard for me not to feel that, and to wish there was some way for me to protect and spare him from the potential peril associated with his selfless and obvious committment to the national welfare."

I don't know how you get that I am claiming all of the military supports Obama out of that, but you are welcome to reach whatever conlusion you want.

That leads me to my response to you first post. Obviously you weren't interested in dealing with the content of what I posted and resorted to the plan of attack other diarists above have outlined. I fell for it hook, line and sinker, and off you went. You are so smart!

However, I think you missed the point. I had made it throughout my post; you either missed it ignored it, or are just simply unable to understand it. The point is that real young men and women are getting killed and maimed, for absolutley nothing. And what is worse, guys like you support it. So, to have a guy like you come back feeling that gives you rightous license to spew the vitriol you did was just too much. My question acutally was the right response.

So again I say, "why haven't you served?" Guys like you are really good at letting others haul the tough stuff, you won't do it, you don't want to get your hands dirty. And besides, why should you when others are so willing? That was why I challenged you. I say it again, you can have an opionion, but you better know what you are talking about, and when it comes to the military and understanding what it really means to serve, you know absolutely nothing; you will never understand the sacrifice these kids made for you, and that is sad for you.

Well, I may have only been in the CANADIAN NAVY, but I served, and I know what I am talking about. Guess what? We have things on our ships that go boom and bang-bang, just like your ships. But, unlike the government led by boobs such as Bush, et al, you know, the guy you think is a genius, my government doesn't go looking for fights where there are none. But being the bully that you are, it must make you feel good to pick fights with we "peace loving fools from the North".

When it all comes down to it, you are a loud-mouthed fool and a coward. I agree it is easy to post things like this on the net, but I wouldn't shy away from saying this to your face if we had met.

So, ruminate on this for a while, but be carefull, if you actually start thinking your head may explode.