There's a difference from having contempt for the leader,
and acknowledging his power.

Know it or not
believe it or not
like it or not
admit it or not
President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama sits at the head table at such summit meetings.

It is not the negro that clawed his way to the top.
It is the centuries of devotion that elected him there.

He represents U.S.

We (re)elected him.
Disparage him all you like.
Who would have done better?
McCain? Romney? The U.S. electorate didn't think so.

Thanks kf.

It's contextual.

My comment about our Northern border was in context about our Southern border.

a) We STILL have illegal immigrants streaming across our Southern border.

b) Our Southern border may have ten times the security assets on it that our Northern border does.

It's relative, contextual.

You're a brave soul mm.

I gather you're a mobile guy.

I'm not techno-averse.

I'm just isolated; living in a tower in the forest.

I'm delighted to have a telephone.

Mine's a cell phone just because they're cheaper.
But my cell stays on my desk.
I've only taken mine with me once, when I took a 500 mile automobile ride.
Even then I left it in the car.

I'm resolutely determined to not have a smart phone. I bought the stupidest phone I could find.

If I want a computer, I'll use one of desktop / laptop models.

PS
The only app I can think of I might like is a scanner for shopping, so if I want the info on a product, I can just scan the code, and then read the information.
That could be convenient. But not enough to to suffer the humiliation of smart phone ownership.

c1
If you want to try 10, you may be able to get a free beta.

SJ
Welcome to mingle2.
What I do when I faddiddle with OS upgrades;

I just take the boot drive out of the computer, and replace it with a new one.
That way, if the "upgrade" is a nightmare, un-ringing the bell is as easy as swapping back in the previous boot drive.

AND !!

SSD are so cheap these days, you may want to upgrade your hardware with your software (if you don't already have a boot SSD).

My newest computer (Toshiba) has a boot drive SSD from the factory, with Win7 on it.
It seems to boot in about one fifth the time of my similar Win7 computer w/ boot HDD.

HDD = Hard Disc Drive = electric motor, magnetic platters, read/write heads & voice coil

SSD = Solid State Drive (no motor, no twirling platters, etc.)

Thanks much Cm.

- uh oh -

I clicked on her avatar to get her profile.
Is there a safer way to view a profile?

Engineers ROCK !!

Seems like a genuine horror to me.
I'm all for the latest and greatest, if it really is.

But if it's Microsoft, it really isn't.

I've encountered a whole lot of loyal XP users.

I've tried Linux. I've tried Unix (Apple).

The best OS I've found is MS Win7.

And when it went off the market, displaced by Win8, it was as traumatic as a death in the family.

By stroke of sheer genius, after Win7 was gone; I found a source that had refurbished computers.
They were so new, I could compare then to the non-refurbished price of the same computer, new.
It's a $1,600.oo computer I got for less than a $1k.

AND !!!

And this was the deal-clincher. It has the old superseded Win7 on it.

FANTASTIC !!!
& btw, the computer arrived in like new condition. I've gotten refurbished computers before. One had been used by a heavy smoker. The techs wiped it off. But the interstices between the keys and everywhere else was caked with malodorous tobacco tar. DISGUSTING!
This new one is like brand new. An Asus i7. I like it.

Win7 has lots of flaws. I know MS will never fix them. But the flaws are familiar, and most of them have work-arounds.

And now I see, the e-tailer Newegg is selling Win7 OS for $70.oo each.
If you want the DVR software (which I use daily), you must get the media center edition, or higher.

Win8 was an abortion.
But I rather doubt Win10 will be as good as Win8.

I'll be a Win7 user until Homeland Security and Seal Team 6 haul me off to Gitmo in a straight-jacket and diapers.

The New York State Police commander in charge of the investigation wants to know where they got the power tools from.

I'm no criminologist. But, wild guess: Home Depot?

With all the worms they can eat?

There are heavy rains forecast to begin in an hour or so.
Sleeping on wet leaves in wet clothing all night, with tree bark on your breath; not fun.

BUT !!

This seems to be a well planned, well coordinated escape, I'm guessing with help on the outside, and quite likely on the inside too as S2 suggests.

If they were going to go to this much trouble; would having an automobile, and perhaps also an aircraft on standby for them?

What I want to know is, what's in it for the outside help? ISIL is recruiting sociopaths from our prisons now?

If they were able to get power tools, they may also have gotten guns, or lord knows what else.
The fact is; they're already both convicted murderers. What do they have to lose by killing a few more people?

I'm a malware averse computer user.
But I don't know the science.

a) Am I vulnerable to infecting my computer with malware simply by clicking on a Mail message to read it?
Or must an attachment be opened to open that vector?

b) Atop my screen it says I have a "Match" indicator.
I've clicked on it. But there seems to be only one person.
That's fine.
But if there's more than one, is there a way to find out who they are? To toggle between their profiles, etc.?

c) Is there malware risk in reading a profile?

J1,
As the post time-stamps show, I was composing while you were posting.

If I may:

If what the Palestinians are doing is not an insurgency; the same kind of thing we'd do in the U.S. if a wealthy, powerful China came to Des Moines and and started building settlements there; you think I wouldn't throw rocks, and fire home-made missiles at them to get them out of there?

Is it, or is it not an insurgency?

It's a very good example of him clutching to power at any cost.

PS
I did not make a previous point clear.

It's not about me passing moral judgement.

It's simply pragmatism. It's the one that wields overwhelming power that bears the responsibility.
In this case, it is Israel that wields the power.

And Israel already has air supremacy with our F-16s.
And now it wants even more advanced fighter jets.
Why?

So it might seem, to the casual observer.

Not true.
But in a mismatch so severe that IDF (Israeli troops) fire at Palestinians with the most modern American arms, and Palestinians return fire throwing rocks; that should give you an idea of the mismatch.

Would you blame the Jews for the Holocaust?
Would you blame the aboriginal Americans for confining themselves to a tiny fraction of their former lands, called "reservations" where they live lives of poverty and deprivation?

It is the opposite.
I've made my disgust and contempt for the atrocities being perpetrated by Muslims explicitly clear in this forum.
I favor Israel over Palestine.

But in that current clash, it is clear:
- It is Israel, not Palestine that the U.S. shovels $Billions to.
- Our favorite is beyond doubt.

And this keeps us stuck in a rut a child could find our way out of.

It is literally this simple.
We can NOT bring peace to Israel without also bringing peace to Palestine.

Anyone that wants peace for Israel as I do, MUST also want peace for Palestine.

It's that simple.

And Netanyahu is clearly opposed to it.
Before the New Year, Secretary of State Kerry spent quite a bit of time and what President Bush (younger) called "political capital" in an effort to make progress at that peace table.
Netanyahu did just barely enough to deny his critics the opportunity to say Netanyahu wasn't serious, did not make an effort comparable to that made by the Palestinians, or the U.S.

What Arafat did or didn't in Y2K has no veto over what Netanyahu does in June 2015.

Netanyahu has no little incentive for peace, and perceives his options more powerful to avoid serious efforts to find peace.

Why?

- The human misery Israel inflicts on Palestinians is oppressive.

- Israel is gobbling up Palestinian territory as fast at they can build their illegal settlements on it. Compliance with a comprehensive peace treaty with Palestine would put that to an end.
But Netanyahu wants Israel's territory to continue to expand; thus, no serious effort toward peace; Arafat notwithstanding.

- I think you realize Netanyahu was chomping at the bit to go to war against Iran. Obama has done peace in the Middle East a gargantuan favor to prevent that war.

- Netanyahu is a loose cannon. And his over hostility against the U.S. president only confirms this. Netanyahu is not working in the best interests of Israel.

President Obama is scheduled to give a G-7 summit related news conference in the 10 o'clock hour.

Any thoughts, before, during, or after?

Well done Vs.

I've only cyber-known you for less than a day.

But you seem to be a sincere and committed churchwoman.

Thank you for your constructive contributions @mingle2.

Netanyahu is a dangerous madman.

U.S. Founder Thomas Paine said:

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

This seems to have inspired Barry Goldwater to say:

But in Netanyahu's case, his ultra-radicalism seems to be at least a potential net detriment to Israel.

Earlier this AM I got news that a newly released study indicates a formal peace between Israelis and Palestinians would result in $Billions in increase revenues to both sides.

Netanyahu is preventing that.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

Some laymen may think of the Holy Bible as a book.
It is more formally a volume of many books, an aggregation of a variety of texts, or "books", from a variety of sources.

Even if the text hadn't changed it would hardly matter.
What was Reformed was not the holy scripture, but how it was interpreted, and how the religion is practiced.

The following often quoted letter written to moralist Laura Schlessinger demonstrates that point.

Some may quote this for mockery, or ridicule.
My intent here is rather more clarification. As psychologist Joy Browne says: "Subtlety is an oversold virtue."
The quotation may not be polite. But it is at least, not subtle.

An ENORMOUS amount has changed, as the Laura letter demonstrates.
It's not scriptural change.
But what has changed is far from "nothing".

Thanks Vs.

Yes.
It was a bumpy road to get here.
The Crusades, and the Inquisition are often cited.

But Christianity (unlike Islam) has undergone The Reformation.

I'm not aware of any wholesale human slaughter being perpetrated today in the name of Christ.

If you ask any U.S. citizen:
"If there would be a religious meeting place built in your community, which would you want it to be?
- A church?
- A temple? Or
- a Mosque?
I suspect the Mosque would be the least selected choice.

Again, I'm certain there are good, decent Muslims.
But sadly; they do not seem to wield much sway over the radicals that tarnish their brand.

I never asserted otherwise, though there are accessories laws, etc.

Perhaps you meant "must" instead of "cant".

But this is wrong; again.

a) There's top-down:
Catholicism has in common with Islam, supernaturalism. Catholicism speaks, through its priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the Pope.
Islam has imams and ayatollahs.
What's the difference?

b) There's bottom-up (aka "grass roots")
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have a tradition of sending pairs of their members door to door, to proselytize.
And what of this bottom-up ISIL non-silence.
I'd say, rather less that peaceful proselytizing, and rather more mass-murder, terrorism, and destruction of irreplaceable antiquities and the history they betoken.

Abraham Lincoln, the U.S. president often credited with freeing the slaves said:

ISIL's horrific destruction and atrocities have been front page news for months.
In all this time, after all this senseless terrorist ISIL carnage; can you name one Muslim protest with a magnitude half that of the protests over the Danish cartoon?
I can't.*

Bingo!
And just as honest Abe suggested, such silence can speak eloquently, particularly in context of when that same party was NOT silent.

You have a standing invitation to cite an example. But I think you won't, because I think you can't, because I believe there isn't any such anti-ISIL protest in Islam, of a proportion worth reporting on.
If there were, it would be front-page news.

If I confined my news feed to a single blog, I'd be vulnerable to confirmation bias on this.
But I live on a hilltop. I get over 18 digital TV channels, and countless radio stations. I have access to the major networks:
- ABC
- CBS
- FOX
- NBC
- PBS, and on radio access to
- BBC.
And as you can see, I also have Internet access



https://news.google.com/news?vanilla=1

Think objectively mh.
Why would the press cover the Muslim protests over the Danish cartoon, but refuse to cover Muslim protests over ISIL carnage?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." SETI slogan

I agree. A complete and conspicuous absence of even a single report from any source whether in text, audio, or video; of any significant Muslim backlash against ISIL's thugs is not proof there isn't any.
But after this much time, with so many news feeds from so many different networks / nations / continents; it raises serious questions.

And if you were a member of a wholesome religion, and thugs started perpetrating atrocities in the name of your beloved religion, wouldn't you want the public to know the atrocities were not in conformance to that religion, but exploiting it?

And sincere, pious believers take steps to keep fidelity to the faith they claim.
The proof Muslims will protest insult to their religion has already been cited.
They rioted over the cartoon, and more recently perpetrated mass murder at Charley Hebdo in France.
But slaughter innocence by the thousands, and pan-Islam's formerly vehement protestors fall mysteriously silent.

For sake of argument, let's pretend this is true. On that premise:

It wouldn't matter.
- The radicals could lead their own protests.
- Muslims, grass-roots Islam could do as they've done before, and protested.
THEY DON'T!

* mh:
Newspapers do not exist to inform the public.
Newspapers exist to bring revenue to publishers.
It is a journalistic axiom:
Dog bites man? Not a story.
Man bites dog? THAT's the story!
If there were anti-ISIL protests in Islam it would be front page news.
It would sell newspapers. And that is the purpose of commercial journalism.
The silence we agree exists may not be as inarticulate as you wish to believe.

Neither.

That's not an adequate analogy to my position.
It's not to me a question of whether the Americans object to what ISIL is doing in the name of "The Islamic State".
It's how ISLAM is reacting (or in this case, NOT reacting).

No. I am not.

a) The ancient Latin legal maxim, and the standard our culture, and other cultures apply is:


b) If Islam were at all times silent, then your counterpoint would be valid.
But my contrast is the silent reaction to the 09/11/01 mass-murder; compared to the reaction to the cartoon.
The violent reaction was to a cartoon.
The silent reaction (if it can even be called a "reaction") was to mass-murder.

So you tell me mh.
Which of those two do YOU think is more worthy of protest?

Correct.
But I did not make that assertion.
It's widely reported that "Japan" attacked Pearl Harbor.
But that doesn't mean every single living Japanese subject angrily brandished their agriculture implements and stormed our naval inventory.

100.0000 ...% is not required here to make the distinction.

It's that the OVERWHELMING DIFFERENCE between the two public reactions;
not simply by sampling an unrepresentative group; but by the broad character of the reactions.

You see mh, when sampling human populations this size ("billions" by your account) on matters of judgement and preference, those assessments should:
a) be based not on word, but on deed, and

b) should represent what statisticians call the "central tendency", and not the rare or freakish exceptions.

I never said it was 100% unanimous among every single individual among all the "billions" (your word).
To the contrary.
My exact words were:

There is simply no comparison to the two reactions.
The mass murder spree barely raised a metaphorical eyebrow.
The cartoon literally sparked riots. Not just one or two, and not just one or two drunks blowing off steam in a bad part of town.
These were numerous protests that were exceedingly well attended.

And what this demonstrates is that THEIR religion is the higher priority over human life; by a substantial margin.

And that is a very revealing insight not only into Islam, but also into Muslims.

The sanity check of this assessment:
- Narco-terrorists are wreaking havoc in Northern Mexico
- The Israelis are running roughshod over the Palestinians
- The U.S. has devastated the Peoples and cultures of the aboriginal Americans
- The Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland use walls to keep the groups separate
- Boko Haram
- U.S. federal government wages Drug War against its own People
- etc.
But are any of these as manifest in May, 2015 as bad, as deliberately horrific as what ISIL is doing?
Beheadings? Tossing innocent victims off the roof of tall buildings. etc.

There's an awful lot of ghastly stuff happening, on this precious blue marble we infest.
But I can't name anyone, not the Mafia, not the Baltimore police force, not anyone, that is as deliberately horrific as ISIL, conducting its unfolding atrocity in the name of Islam.
And if I were a Muslim, I'd be rioting about that!

So where the %$#@ are they?