Obama wil win easilly.

[bleeding heart]

"Targeted" sounds conspiratorial. Who is targeting who?

When a country attacks another country, for any reason, it is "targeting."

I'm not sure what the controversy is here. It's not even in and of itself a criticism, nor is it condoning anything.

Edited June 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Pliny]

When a country attacks another country, for any reason, it is "targeting."

I'm not sure what the controversy is here. It's not even in and of itself a criticism, nor is it condoning anything.

Well...a country attacking another country may be referred to as targeting, I suppose, usually you say they are at war and things like the capital city or the munitions stores are "targeted" or Pearl Harbor is targeted. But you originally said "Specific regions are targeted" which, because you did not say "who" was doing the targeting, made it sound somewhat conspiratorial.

You seem annoyed that I inferred your statement was conspiratorial.

[bush_cheney2004]

When a country attacks another country, for any reason, it is "targeting."

Sidebar: Technically, and particularly for modern weapons systems, "targeting" is not always synonymous with "attack". Targeting is usually a precursor to engagement and attack, from area search and fire control radar to digital target attributes prepared months or years in advance.

... now back to your regular channel.

[bleeding heart]

You seem annoyed that I inferred your statement was conspiratorial.

If I gave that impression, I was incautious with my tone.

I put it that way to sound generous.

But no, not annoyed, no worries.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

Semantics. Targeting is a good word choice in many instances. Targeting the party, targeting the Israelis, targeting the terrorists. I don't think it's particularly conspiratorial.

[bleeding heart]

Semantics. Targeting is a good word choice in many instances. Targeting the party, targeting the Israelis, targeting the terrorists. I don't think it's particularly conspiratorial.

I agree. It was (mis)read, I think, as a pointed criticism, when at bottom it's nothing of the kind.

[bud]

what if obama wins and with no worries about the funding for another election run, he goes all out and makes real and radical changes to the system? what if he doesn't feel any more pressure from lobby groups and his plan all along was to get to the second term? what does he have to lose? he could go down as the president who saved america before it collapsed under the weight of the unsustainable system and the influence by, dare i say it, the 1% and the zealots.

or maybe not.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bud

[dre]

what if obama wins and with no worries about the funding for another election run, he goes all out and makes real and radical changes to the system? what if he doesn't feel any more pressure from lobby groups and his plan all along was to get to the second term? what does he have to do lose? he could go down as the president who saved america.

or maybe not.

He couldnt make radical changes to the system even if he wanted to. And I dont think the political class really wants radical changes. Obama and his pals are making out just fine the way that things are now.