My guess is that if the Republicans ever fulfill your twisted fantasies, they will do so in a way that it is targeted and deadly effective against the people they want to remove.

You mean like the Oklahoma City bombing?

Thus, I would think that such tasteless baiting will go no farther, because it really makes you look like you crave that kind of violence.

What a childish assertion! Because I predict something it means I want it to happen? What nonsense! For the record, I do truly hope you republicans prove me wrong, become civil members of our society, and rely strictly on the political process for resolving your grievances. If so, my joy would be unbridled as I shouted "I was wrong, I was wrong" from mountaintops.

Your claim that predicting something means you want it to occur is really absurd. If you don't want it to rain, but believe that it will, what do you do? Don't saying about it at all? Don't take an umbrella with you, don't dress for wet weather? I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is what you do, but am just looking for confirmation.

My guess is that if the Republicans ever fulfill your twisted fantasies, they will do so in a way that it is targeted and deadly effective against the people they want to remove.

You mean like the Oklahoma City bombing?

Thus, I would think that such tasteless baiting will go no farther, because it really makes you look like you crave that kind of violence.

What a childish assertion! Because I predict something it means I want it to happen? What nonsense! For the record, I do truly hope you republicans prove me wrong, become civil members of our society, and rely strictly on the political process for resolving your grievances. If so, my joy would be unbridled as I shouted "I was wrong, I was wrong" from mountaintops.

Your claim that predicting something means you want it to occur is really absurd. If you don't want it to rain, but believe that it will, what do you do? Don't saying about it at all? Don't take an umbrella with you, don't dress for wet weather? I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is what you do, but am just looking for confirmation.

You have poisoned your own argument.

I apologize for that. I rejected your notion that any of this has to do with conservatives or liberals. It doesn't. The republicans are not conservative by any definition, they are more properly termed radicals. (Read up on political science which defines these terms outside of any specific ideology.) Meanwhile, those opposed to that radicalism are not all liberals. In fact, most of America's remaining conservatives oppose the republicans.

However, again, I apologize for putting all that in such blunt, harsh terms.

This being your habit, I don't think I even need to respond to the rest of your missive.

Right! I'm sure it had nothing to do with you finding my argument difficult to refute.

What they need is a piss test to determine if someone is a psycho. Then one to detect assholes. Then one to detect people who talk during movies. Then one to show someone who secretly likes watching The View.

I think this is the answer. They should shorten that thing on the statue of liberty that says "Give me your cold, your tired, etc" to read "Please piss in this cup."

An insurance company has no ideology apart from return on investment, and will do anything to maximize that. If they had to provide coverage against these kinds of attacks, and were looking at ways to minimize them, here's what they'd do.

First, they would research and see if religion was a powerful influence for violence within the military or among vets. Given that pretty much all the perpetrators have prescribed to one religion or another, I'm guessing they would decide that yes, religion is a powerful influence.

Next, they would study the stats on how many people from which religion resorted to violent attacks, and what were the death tolls of those attacks. They would then focus their screening first on where there was the highest incidence, and work their way down the list.

Approached this way, without any sort of ideological bias, they would undoubtedly start screening Christians before Muslims. Yes, there have been (AFAIK) 2 examples of Muslims in the military attacking other troops. OTOH, how many examples of fratricide (fragging) can we find, and what religion did those people prescribe to?

For Fox to say "2 Muslims in the history of the military have killed other troops, let's screen all Muslims" demonstrates their cultural bigotry.

I am positive that most of the liberals who are regular contributors to this website spent yesterday celebrating, even partying late into the night. You liberals hate the military, you hate freedom, you hate the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, you hate Capitalism, and of course, all of you liberals hate America.

You guys won one yesterday, you must be proud.

I frequently predict that it won't be long before republicans are resorting to violence en masse, in sudden attacks similar to the Fort Hood attack. Rocky Balboa's comment above shows precisely how this will occur.

Notice that without any prompting, evidence or anything, he immediately clings to the notion that the Fort Hood shooter and "liberals" are brothers in arms, hating everything America stands for and cheering when Americans die. They need to cast liberals, against whom republicans have lost the battle of ideas, as an implacable enemy for whom death is the only solution.

This is undoubtedly a precursor to violence. Whether Rocky does it himself, or others of like mind, their self-justification for killing fellow Americans will be voiced precisely as Rocky does it above. And ironically, they will still blame it on liberals.