I agree 100% about not arming any of those idiots.

I do not equate a person belonging to a group that wants to secede from the US with terrorism. I draw the line at bombing places and physically hurting others.

I would wish to have PA secede from the US if this country does not change its course. I would not bomb anyone to achieve that goal.

As our federal government grows and becomes more corrupt, I wonder if we wouldn't be a bit better off splitting off into more "like minded" countries. Our government wastes so much money and is so very corrupt, perhaps starting over is a good thing.

The demoncrats already tried that war back in the 1800's.

Well, that's what we have a State Department for.

Having the President of the United States sit down with tin-pot dictators and avowed enemies of country... THAT is foolish. That's what you have diplomats for. When they promise to abide by the rules of the civilized world, and establish a little bit of a track record in doing so... THEN the President can meet with them.

Let me ask you this... when you go to buy a car... do you sit down and talk to the owner of the dealership directly? Do you negotiate the price of the car with the owner, or with the general manager?

NO - you talk to a salesman. The salesman goes back with your offer and talks with the general manager, then comes back with a counter-offer. Once you have it negotiated down, he goes back to the general manager for final approval. But at any time, he could come back and say the GM won't go for that. He can come back with a counter-offer.

You know the salesman really wants to put you in that car, and he's really fighting hard to get you the best price. It's just that the manager won't approve it. But the salesman fought hard and how about this compromise price? It's pretty close to what you wanted.

Do you think they are really haggling over the price in there? No - they're sharing a cup of coffee and just hanging out long enough so that it looks like they are discussing something. But the salesman can give the impression he is on your side, and the manager, who ultimately approves or denies the price, is someone you don't see directly.

The exact same principle applies in international relations. If you meet the president, you can make a demand and put him on the spot. That can be embarrassing. That's what we have diplomats for, to negotiate the details.

Obama doesn't know enough about international relations to have realized how foolish he sounded when he made that statement.

CC,

The "I need to talk to the boss" tactic is just that...a tactic.

The salesmen tries to make the buyer feel as if he is on their side. "It's us against HIM."

They TEACH that tactic.

The idea is to make the customer think that the salesman is actually going out on a limb for his benefit. The really successful ones will make a great show of it by going into the boss' office and having the boss jump up, shout, slam his fist on the desk and then the salesman comes scurrying out looking like the dog that just got kicked and says "I might get fired over this yet, but let me show you what I told the boss..."

Just thought people should know that it really is something that car dealers teach their employees.

If the salesman says "I can't make that kind of deal. I need to talk to the boss." Just say "OH. I'm sorry. I thought you were authorized to make a deal and negotiate with me in good faith. I guess I'll have to call sometime tomorrow and make an appointment to talk to the boss, since he's the one who has to make the deal and I know he must be too busy right now." Then walk...

Bet you don't get to your car before they hunt you down.

I does tend to weed out the riff-raff...

BTW, the same tactic by you usually gets you the best price on almost anything. But you have to be willing to walk away from it and not buy it. Can't be married to it if you want the best deal...


As for the election...

Can we get a box that says "None of the above?"


Mark

Exactly! But it's a tactic that works... which is why they all do it.

Same principle in International Relations. If the president personally met with every tin-pot dictator, without preconditions, we'd be giving up a HUGE amount of leverage over their behavior. They'd have no incentive to conform to standards of decent behavior.

Remember... a visit from the President of the United States is a big deal. A lot of prestige is on the line. A dictator who meets with the President will use that to bolster his own legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects. It will help bolster his legitimacy in the eyes of his neighbors, too.

And they can use the meeting to make demands... and in these kind of summit meetings, the President can be put on the spot, and into an awkward situation. He cannot play for time, or promise to see what the boss says. He'll be pressured to give a yes or no answer right then and there.

Even under the best of circumstances such a summit meeting or head of state meeting with a friendly nation, there is plenty of opportunity for diplomatic incidents and inadvertant insults.

Works the other way, too. If the President of the United States meets with a foreign leader and makes demands, he can end up putting the other leader on the spot, in an awkward situation, pressured to say yes or no. That can end up restricting the range of options available to the president.

In any situation we want the widest range of options available. We don't just want "peace" and "war". We want to be able to apply sanctions, to restrict trade, to loosen trade, to encourage or discourage investments or cultural exchanges, to lodge formal protests, to granting or withholding foreign aid. Not every difference of opinion between nations merits going to war.

Summit meetings, though, can push the other side to respond in ways that they would not have through careful and patient negotiation, and we could end up having no other option than to go to war.


As tempting as it would be... (I, too, don't like either one) no, we can't... We get the choice we get...

Okay, you offer up as "proof" of evolution the stratigraphic record, also known as the "geologic column."

No time right now, but thank you for listing what you call a "very small but significant part of it (facts upon which the THEORY of evolution are supposedly based).

And yes, you and I have "been here before," too, 2long.

And I also vividly remember you stating uncategorically that no person who believes in creation can BE a scientist, regardless of any degrees that they might hold.

I also acknowledge that you are a Ph.D in Geology and I am a lowly Biology graduate. There is, though, it would seem, a marked difference between inorganic rocks and living organisms, especially with respect to what it TAKES to actually have a living organism. So from that perspective, I will "bow" to your expertise in inorganic matters, but will reserve the right to not always accept your interpretions of rocks and/or geologic formations as "unquestionable gospel." I hope that doesn't offend you, because it's not meant to offend, just to continue the "age old tradition" of scientific inquiry and examination.

I will come back to the "column" issue when I have some more time, because, obviously, I do NOT consider it to be any sort of "proof" for evolution, and I think I can show that fairly easily, at least for those who are not dogmatic believers in evolution.

MEDC, you may need to "get real" here.

Liberals DO NOT think, they emote. They do not look at things logically, they think with their emotions and ACT on their emotions, just like another "crowd" of folks we are very familiar with on MB.

There is not one "logical" reason to vote for Obama, and even he knows it. That is why he is following the "personality" over substance and experience route.

So let's "get real" here. All liberals can do is the equivalent of the "falling on the floor laughing my butt off" EMOTICONS.

EMOTIONS, not truth and logic prevail. AND THAT, sadly, is also easily seen by what Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of the liberals in Congress did with Fannie and Freddie just to make votes for themselves by making a bunch of "unqualified" loans that now, the responsible people of America are going to have to PAY FOR, not those who don't pay anyway.

Liberals, especially in this election, are following the 60's mantra if "if it feels good, do it!" and that's how they are approaching the vote for President. There has never been a more UNQUALIFIED candidate for President than Barak Obama.

And he supports Sharia Law in Kenya, by the way. Just look at Odinga and Barak's HUGE support for him as Barak tried to interfere in Kenyan politics. (Stand by for more news on that shortly).

Change?

That has been Barak's answer to everything, but NO specifics. When he DOES touch on anything close to specifics, it's always Socialistic and anti-American freedom and against this nation being anything other than subservient to the rest of the world.

He IS reckless and so far left he has EARNED that position and should NEVER be anywhere close to being responsible for the Constitutional defense of this country.

This man is the closest thing I've seen to an "anti-Christ" personality wherein he is able to get people to think that HE is the answer to all of their problems and he is their "Savior" while hiding his true positions. Yet his positions DO peek through, and his RECORD shows exactly what Barak actually BELIEVES and how he WILL ACT once he HAS the actual power, especially if he gets a "veto proof" Congress to follow in jack-boot lock-step with him.

Barak Obama WILL usher in "change," and it will destroy our freedoms and may destroy the nation as the "Home OF the free and the home of the BRAVE." Barak IS, as he has said, a "Citizen of the World," not a citizen of the USA, except in so far as he can make the USA subservient to the "World."

But as bad as that is, consider what will happen if Barak is the President AND the Congress is "filibuster proof" and firmly in the grasp of Harry and Nancy? "The war is lost" WILL "come home to roost" and America will be lost.

Freedom is not Free. They've never learned that primary lesson.

hmmmm...you know what Krazy?

I might just move to Alaska if Barak gets in and join such a movement, if one exists, or start one if one really doesn't exist.

Think of it. The nation of Alaska, exporting oil and gas to a liberal Obama who doesn't think we need to do anything but "inflate our car tires and that will offset the oil need."

Instead of sand and camels, Alaska could have cold and moose and caribou. Tourism could be another big draw. Heck, let the price of oil skyrocket, it would just increase the value in the new Eskimo dollar.

And THAT should be enough for anyone who loves this country to NEVER let Barak anywhere near the Oval Office.

Big BAD USA. They SHOULD be just as poverty stricken as the rest of the world and they should have to do what the rest of the world wants them to do. Freedom? That's just for fools and idealists. The REAL WORLD is "do what I want you to do, believe what I want you believe, or I WILL kill you and intimidate the rest of the fools that think freedom IS free."

Just about as likely as we can get a box that says; "The Affair didn't happen and we can just NOT have to do any hard work to fix our problems."

By the way, just how successful IS negotiating with someone who IS out to destroy your marriage despite their claims that it "just feels right to take what is yours" Besides, the kids will never be affected anyway, right?" How about with someone who is out to destroy the "American way of life?"

But then, "exposing" Obama for who he really is and what he really thinks is "just not fair!" One would think that the liberals on MB would be just as much in favor of the OM or OW getting their way because no one "should" be allowed to judge their beliefs and actions. After all, THEY are "happy" with what they want for YOUR marriage.

Time for a little emotion....

That's about as unpatriotic as it gets. The leader of Todd Palin's favorite movement has openly advocated violence in order to successfully secede.


Talk about needing to educate yourself...did you watch either debate? Have you ever actually heard Obama speak?

During the debate Tuesday, he avocated more drilling for oil, as well as more nuclear power, wind, solar, and biofuels. Both candidates stated repeatedly the need to achieve energy independence a.s.a.p.

Maybe if you stopped getting all of your information from Fox News, you would be a little more educated on the issue.

Xenophobic much?

You really DO like ad homimen attacks don't you, Krazy?

What an ignorant, sweeping generalization of about half of all Americans.

Yeah, and conservatives are a bunch of racist rednecks who, even when they do try to think logically, do so on a 2nd grade level. They'd rather vote for someone they can have a beer with than someone who is actually able to be a decent president. That's why Bush was elected TWICE.


McCain is an even more erratic version of George W. Bush. He knows little about the economy. Even in the area of foreign policy, which is supposed to be McCain's strong suit, it is not apparent that he has any more experience than Obama, other than his age.

His running mate, the Barratuna, has not made a single substantive statement since she was picked by McCain's handlers.


I use those because you can't hear me laughing through a computer screen at some of your ridiculous assertions.


Maybe if Republicans weren't so anti-regulation, the problem could've been fixed during the many years they controlled Congress...6 years of which they even had a Republican President who was signing everything they put on his desk.


Nobody is "qualified" to be President, except for ex-Presidents. There is no position that can adequately prepare you for the job before you get there. It's a one-of-a-kind gig.

If qualifications are a big deal, then why did McCryptkeeper pick Palin as his running mate?


Swiftboat 2, only even more pathetic. Any new "facts" that come out about Obama this close to the election should be viewed in the most cynical light. The GOP has been digging for dirt on Obama since he announced his candidacy, and 3 weeks before the election they finally found it! What a coincidence!


You are either lying through your teeth, or you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. The McCain campaign completely lacks substance...they are too busy slinging mud to bother with foolishness like real issues.


Can I use my laughing emoticon now?


Antichrist? Savior?

You'd better get back in touch with your logic...sounds like your emotions are taking over!

As far as a veto-proof Congress...Dubya had that for 6 years. We've seen how that worked out.


There isn't a single shred of credible evidence to back that up.


You talk of liberals using emotions to make important decisions, yet your post is brimming over with FEAR. FEAR without just cause. FEAR of someone who isn't like you occupying the White House. America will be lost?? Stop being such a drama queen. America isn't going anywhere, so long as we can keep incompetent, backwards conservatives out of power.


The military hasn't directly defended our freedom since 1945.

Everyone knows freedom isn't free. Claiming otherwise is compltetely assinine.

Oh, do you really want to talk about being "unpatriotic?"

Where, oh where, should we start to talk about this sort of nonsense?

Maybe we should begin with Biden's telling everyone that they are "unpatriotic" if they don't pay more and more taxes?

Maybe we should begin with Barak's position of negotiating on behalf of the USA without any preconditions prior to his meeting with anyone regardless of THEIR stated positions about the world in general and the USA in particular?

Maybe we should begin with Barak (and Harry Reid's) idea that the "war is lost" and we should simply pull all of our troops out of Iraq, to say nothing of Barak's steadfast refusal to ADMIT that the surge worked (as championed by McCain) and that the Iraqi government has made HUGE strides in accomplishing the "political" benchmarks that the LIBERALS established as one of their "measuring sticks" of "success" in Iraq?

Maybe we should talk about Barak's nauseating talks about wanting to help "education" and the "children" and that our educational system is broken, all the while doing NOTHING to fix or address the problem he COULD HAVE addressed in Chicago schools?




Talk about needing to educate yourself...did you watch either debate? Have you ever actually heard Obama speak?

During the debate Tuesday, he avocated more drilling for oil, as well as more nuclear power, wind, solar, and biofuels. Both candidates stated repeatedly the need to achieve energy independence a.s.a.p.

Maybe if you stopped getting all of your information from Fox News, you would be a little more educated on the issue. [/quote]

Gee, what would be better, the New York Times? CBS, NBC, ABC? How about Move On.org?

But, to your point...I HAVE educated myself about Obama's positions and have seen his "flip" in rhetoric to "make it seem like" he is favor of energy independence. His RECORD, as thin as it is, shows a decidely different REAL Obama. Just like his claim to be "pro-life" while decidely actually being "pro-infanticide" and NO restrictions of any kind on anything related to abortion.

Now, I wonder if those "Lone Stars" might want to consider joining and forming up a new nation of "Texalaska?" Think of the oil and gas they would control in the world!!!!

How do you recommend the country pay for little things like defense, education, infrastructure, and law enforcement, to name a few, without tax revenue?

When our troops are fighting a war using bolt-action rifles, remember your stance that paying taxes is not patriotic. :RollieEyes:

No. You displayed xenophobic characteristics, and I called you on it.

Hey, when the shoe fits you don't seem to like it very much.

Now tell me, Krazy, just ONE thing that Barak Obama has ACCOMPLISHED?





Right. Thank the Lord for non-elistist rednecks, clinging to their guns and religion!




Yep, all very logical and well thought out. What, exactly, does BarakO know about the ecomomy? We've certainly SEEN what the liberal Democrats, of which he is #1, THINK about economics and NOT having oversight on Fannie and Freddie, all the while they were raking in huge political contributions from Fannie and Freddie. And did I mention the Chicago Teachers Union and THEIR endorsement of Barak? Have you ever wondered WHY the CTU supports him and WHY Barak is beholden to them and WILL NOT DO anything to fix one of the most basic problems with the Chicago school system?



Laugh all you want. That's about the only argument you have in defense of Barak, because there is nothing of substance to him. Now THAT IS a joke.



Don't be ridiculous or disengenuous, Krazy. McCain tried years ago to head off this looming disaster and GUESS WHO opposed his efforts and REFUSED to have any oversight? Try getting your facts straight and not from MoveOn.org.




You are consistent, I give you that Krazy. You don't really want to consider qualifications and experience, do you?

I know, I know the liberal mantra, "asking about qualifications is just a 'smear tactic'." Obama IS the most UNVETTED candidate ever. Charm, personality, etc. etc. etc. But not ONE ounce of qualification for the Presidency beyond being a citizen.

Shoot, given your predeliction for experience, why don't we just give the Presidency to ANYONE who meets the age and citizenship minimum qualifications?




LOL!

Here comes the "swift boat" argument! Don't you dare consider the FACTS! Don't you DARE consider what the TRUTH is! Don't you DARE question anything about Barak Obama!

Just like Barney Frank was telling everyone just a month or so before the big Fannie and Freddie "meltdown" that everything was fine and no one needed to "look too closely" at what reality really was.



Think so? I'll be happy to go "toe to toe" with you on REAL issues and the lack of Barak in those areas.




Sure, go right ahead, you don't believe in God anyway, unless it's the "god" Barak. There are a lot Germans who were "enraptured" by another man of "substance" as you like to think Barak has. That man DID have his own "unspoken vision" of what he thought his country and the rest of the world should be like, just like Barak does. And the willing sheep who won't bother to look at just what the substance is, will likely follow him right over the cliff too.