Fanta that was a very glib response. You can do better than that.

Corruption is a big issue there. If some special care is not taken the baddest ass in the area will swoop in and take over Iraq's oil revenues and kill off everyone who opposes the action. Most likely it will be Iran or Iranian backed Shiites who would love to cozy up to the ayatollah like a nice security blanked so they could keep as much oil revenue as possible.

Whether you like it or not the US is there. To walk out would be like conquering a country and abandoning the spoils when the whole area is surrounded by thieves and bandits. One difference is that the bandits are regional governments or supported by same. Nobody is going to maintain power there without support in the area. Support in the area is greed driven.

Now maybe the US might be said to have no claim to the resources or revenues of the area, but after the American lives lost I am beginning to feel differently about even that. In any case leaving the resources and revenues for thieves and bandits is simply foolish.

Steady economy depends to some extent on a functional system of trade in the oil industry. Design a car that runs on water if you don't like it, or walk to work. Walk to the fields and pick your own beans for that matter because without oil you are not going to buy groceries at a grocery store.

Sound management of the oil resources and the revenues they generate requires force unfortunately, for the time being. I expect as long as Iran has its present leadership that will not change. Also as long as the hatred between the sects in Iraq remains, one group will try to destroy the other. Working that out requires force, management and fair dealing.

They can attain a peace in Iraq. To say otherwise is a slight at mankind. Somebody has to keep the bullies apart and not give either side the bomb, then teach them to deal fairly with one another and stick around until the model is shown to work for the vast majority.

I think you have to take the opposition down a notch though by managing Iran a little better, more swiftly. When Iran is settled Iran's people will concentrate on rebuilding their own country instead of trying to take over Iraq. Then the Iraqis will only have themselves to sort out.

So you can't paint the dog red? Dang I was hoping for a straight answer for once.

Hello, they are an occupying force!!!

There will be an American Air base there till forever and support troops behind it. Can anyone spell geopolitics? For heaven's sake, just go ahead and tell me how much you want to give away and get it over with.

No I think the best you can hope for Fanta is 50:50

Hillary is considered to be a dictator by a lot of people, and Obama lacks experience. If our only choices are those two on the Dem ticket, things could go bad for the Dems in the election.

Maybe if Bush attacks Iran they might have a better chance. But if He attacks Iran and the Dems line up to fall on their swords with apology, they could lose that way too.

But you're overlooking the economy too. The Republicans are not perfect on the economy, but it is likely the Dems will crush it entirely with their twelfth century economic models. That's just my opinion and I don't want to argue it.

Fanta, can you paint that dog red for me? Cause I already know the dog won't hunt.

Spider, I read the same article and I thought it was a little humorous and just a little sad too. It points to extremely closed minds in the Democrat party.

I get the feeling they are like salesman, when you ask if their product will perform they tell you it has a really fine red paint. It makes the point that the paint is red, but it does not address whether it will actually work. If my only criteria was to have red paint, why would I be asking if the product works?

So anyway, did you have an opinion on the article.

My PoliSci prof would never let me get away with so much info and so little opinion (interpretation).

So cloudy, did you develop an opinion about the original question in the post? Who was the walk away winner?

I really wasn't trying to start any sort of personal argument with this post. I just wanted some other people's opinion on the outcome of the debate.

As I see it the press really didn't do a lot of reporting about public opinion as to who did well.

I keep hearing that McCain did well. Lots of people are saying Thompson was smart to make the choice for the Leno show, which must mean that it was a smart choice, which must mean that he has some intelligence. Logic is so cruel.

Whatever, the war put chemical Ali in prison. That's should stop some chemical weapons right there. That guy was a weapon of mass destruction all by himself. Just ask the thousands of dead Kurds.

I gotta think Thompson looks better than you are allowing Knox.

First of all, his age and the bags under his eyes, that's a hell of a way to judge a man. What happened to the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Your comment was really very shallow. I can assure you a young drug addict might look better but have no other redeeming characteristics.

He speaks very well and has a good understanding of current events. I'm not wearing any glasses here. I'm listening.

I also don't see him harping on Bush. What I see is an independent evaluation of issues and a free ranging manner of thought, bringing the issues together.

McCain is not exactly a pretty boy either and has been just as well on Bush's band wagon, if not more so, and yet I don't hear the same commentary regarding McCain from you here.

Perhaps you would suggest that the only likely Republican in the batch was Romney because he has 'the look'.

Clinton has a country hick sort of look if you ask me. But then he redeems himself somewhat by speaking well. When someone speaks well people listen. If people are not listening but instead they are concentrating on appearance they will be passed over by people with better minds. Ask any girl with big breasts when she gets the promotion you missed.

Now I'm not saying Thompson is my choice of the group. I'm just suggesting you haven't given him a fair shake.

Ha Ha.

I think Thompson sounds good on the issues.

I liked Mitt Romney too but I'm not so sure he's not just a little bit pusillanimous on the Iran issue. He speaks well.

McCain was a little more low key than either Romney or Thompson, which might not be a bad thing. He has clear vision about international relations and I like his hard line against torture.

Huckabee sounds good too, a likable fellow, but I am not so sure he can generate the needed momentum.

Ron Paul, as always, looked like a fruitcake, not to be confused with looking like a fruit, but still he needs to get with the century.

Clearly this is the time to revitalize this post.

Hurray Gypsy!!!

Don't just show your support with typing, get a haircut today!!!

Gypsy, can we still be subjects if we grow great bushy beards? Because I'm thinking, I could go for a break from shaving. Maybe one of the gals could make me some happy trails in the new scruff.

Nobody has a sense of humor anymore. Sigh.

You just like him because he has a smile that looks just like the frog smile in your picture.

Self serving commentary at its finest.

Did anyone else consider him to place at all?

How about the others? Anybody have a favorite among the Republicans at the debate?

What about the Thompson wild card. Will the dark horse win?

Do you want fries with that?

Anoasis, I took some of the liberal list item by item, not because it was fun, but because I considered all the items on the list to be at least a little disingenuous. I took that side to task because of the tone, which was much less humorous than the original post. Maybe I should have taken the other side item by item. Perhaps someone here will read my response and take the original post to task item by item. That would be healthy discourse in my opinion. I'm actually wondering if anyone actually read the stuff I spend 15 minutes typing.

Point taken. I took exception mainly because I thought it didn't belong here.

Nobody ever called me a good ol' boy. I'm much to contentious for that.

I still think it doesn't belong here.

And that has what to do with the post?

Sorry about the typo in my post. I get in a hurry sometimes.

Yes Lakeman I fly. The golf course will make a really nice front yard if I can get the right hill overlooking it. There is a small airport nearby, but it would be so much better to land at home.

I think Garden's post was amusing even if it stretched the party liberal line just a little. It was largely correct.

Kerry's post on the other hand was wrong on many counts and deviated from reality in many respects, in my opinion. So since this is clearly vague I'll take the items to task individually.

1. I don't actually believe that Republicans hate homosexuals, even though Democrats love to say that they do. Even Hillary is not so much hated as her policies are opposed. Not all Republicans are Christians or even believe in God. Probably much like Democrats in that regard.
2. That's just hype. People love to repeat unsubstantiated rumor and exaggerate events to support their position.
3. Cuba stole property belonging to Americans in particular and has been told that resuming relations would depend on restoring that property to their rightful owners.
4. Not all Republicans think we should get out of the UN. Huge numbers in fact support membership. Not all want to enforce the UN sanctions against Iran, some would rather bomb the hell out of them.
5. Some people simply see abortion as something horrible to do to a baby. You can't fault them for their empathy. Multinational companies are always criticized when they do wrong things, both by Republicans and Democrats. Look for instance at the DuPont tragedy in India. Everyone condemned that. Second example, lead in paint on toys from China. Nothing partisan about that uproar.
6. I had been the Democrats that have been slashing military budgets, not the Republicans. I might mention here they also slash national intelligence budgets as well.
7. Keeping Condoms out of schools is not going to prevent sex, but giving them out in school might be seen as promoting sex, so what?
8. Looks like a reference to France. Even France rejected that leader. Clearly he was complicit in some issues regarding Iran anyway.
9. The claim that HMOs and Insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart is not the point made by the Republican support for the current health care system. The accepted line is that the method of payment supports the system in such a way that our health care system profits and research is supported so that advances in health care can continue. The issue is more complicated than a one-line quip in a post.
10. As far as I know no Republicans support the view that Tobacco's link to cancer is junk science. The global warming gets propaganda on both sides, be your own judge. Creationism in school has been advanced as something to be shown as an opinion held by some, not to be taught without the opposing Darwinian perspective. In that form it is probably a nonissue.
11. People love to say Bush lied, when in fact his statements were backed up by intelligence reports. Nobody mentions that The Plane's created several lies in their opposition with the investigative trip to Nigeria, overlooking some facts and stretching others, clearly with a liberal agenda. Say someone lied enough and some people will believe you. I hardly thing Bush was callous to the death of American soldiers, and obviously there were other issues driving the war against Iraq. As for whether Clinton's offense was impeachable, who gives a damn, It seems he should have known better than to lie about it though. At some point you have to own up to such things if you ever want them to go away. His choice there was kind of stupid.
12. I'm getting tired of this. Censuring might be one of those things covered by the constitution. The final choice here will rest with the Supreme Court. Those guys have a history of being somewhat indifferent to politics, even after being supported for political reasons, one of the good things about our constitution.
13. Who cares about either one.
14. Wasn't it largely the liberals who hijacked Imus and his broadcast career for his simple gaff. Hypocrisy crosses the aisles apparently.
15. I don;t know where that came from. Executive privilege has been supported by every president since WW2.
16. See number 13.
17. Someone has a hunting accident and you want to twist it into some sort of movement? I think this one is rather callous.

Finally, Reference to Gypsy. I thought she was being nice, giving Kerry a compliment for his politics while also showing her preference for a different hair style. Get a grip Kerry, Lots of people have different tastes. Personally I think that hair style went out about a hundred years ago but what do I know.