is your gift for hijacking every thread allowing it to devolve into a name calling waste of time with omooex. Heru seems pathologically incapable of not engaging in this behavior everytime they both decide to comment and it would be nice if GG gave them a little time out. The level of vitriol is truly weird given the medium, because what it certainly is not, is persuasive or important.

all watched this go on, taking sides would be pointless. Don't allow yourself do be baited. Period. Personally I think Heru has an irrational fixation with the idea you may have voted for PE Obama based "in part" on his skin color. So did a lot of people. There are valid arguments for why at this point in time in human history, skin color isn't necessarily an inappropriate "part" of someone's rationale for voting for PE Obama. Heru wants to believe in the ideal whereby no human being is "evaluated" on the amount of melanin in their skin . . . so do I. But that isn't the world we live in and there is something to be said for the very realworld good that symbolic representations of certain values can yield. If Heru doesn't understand that, he's not being intellectually/emotionally honest and isn't living in the real world.

or who starts "needling" the other first. Having read the entire thread again (I always start at the beginning anyway) I think my point was less to point fingers and more GG's which was "who started it is irrelevant". If it seemed like I was siding with omooex, I apologize. I could easily be mistaken about who lashes out first with "bigot and liar" but that's beside the point. I concede I haven't paid close enough attention to your shared history or the subtlety of your exchanges over time to pick a side. I'm just politely asking you both to stop because you both generally have something to contribute here when you aren't too busy engaging in your online bloodfeud.

You're kidding right? Right? You're solution to preventing more terrorist attacks is rendition and torture at Gitmo? You either have no soul, are incapable of learning from the US of A's mistakes, or think eye for an eye retribution is a sustainable and moral practice. Do I need to actually quote Ghandi on this? Ok I'll give you three (what should be) self-evident truths from one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the earth:

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind. "

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

"Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment."

Einstein said that 50 years after Ghandi's death people would be in awe that such a man ever walked the earth. I for one agree and am in awe. I'm an atheist but I for one pray that the faith based communities (be they Christian, Muslim, whatever . . .) will produce a priest/minister/imam/mullah who has half the capacity for empathy, peace, and understanding of the human condition that Ghandi did. Maybe he or she can lead the small subset of people of doctrinal or moral certainty, who believe violence is a justifiable means to an end, from the darkness of ignorance and moral intolerance into the light of wisdom and forgiveness so we can get on with creating a more just world. I don't have much faith at the moment, but I'm hopeful. My humble opinion is the faith based community will either lead or wither on the vine as morally irrelevant institutions so long as they condone violence of any stripe. I've certainly never needed faith in God to appreciate that violence and killing are wrong and that retribution isn't a solution.

a troll who will quickly become the new frontrunner for the daily/weekly award for most factually uninformed, reason challenged, poster of "teh most teh stoopidist stuff on da toobz". Hey Zoltan--does it "burn" being as dumb as my yellow lab? Difference between you and her is that she's about unconditional love and you, well, . . . at this point hard to say but my initial impression is you're about false equivalency, blinkered doctrinal faith in whatever, bitterness, and reflexive dissemination of rhetorical offal. Defending Paul Wolfowitz on any level is just plain moronic and misinformed. Why don't you go back the the Faux News comment section where you'll have lots of kindred spirits to talk to. If not prepare to get worked because this place does not suffer fools lightly. Maybe Wolfowitz's cronyism and incompetence was what turned all the World Bank employees against him rather than his attempts to "clean up" the institution? Wolfowitz as a paragon of moral virtue and principaled business competence--get serious.

Disclaimer: I'm no fan of the World Bank.