I'm completely confused as to why one would draw the conclusion that to open up talks between the US and what I guess one could term enemy states, would mean we were sympathizing or negotiating with them. A line of communication doesn't mean that we compromise our position, IMO. To me, it's a step in resolving differences through communication, a means to come to some sort of understanding. I'm enough of an optimist to believe that there's a huge chasm of misunderstanding in the relations between the US and Iran, for instance. I honestly think the dictatorial, emperical way the US has chosen to include some, exclude others has led us to this point. We, IMO, have to be less exclusionary in our foreign policy.

Opening talks without preconditions is the problem, RM. Crock said he would do just that.

McCain.

Opening talks without preconditions is the problem, RM. Crock said he would do just that.

 

 

So...if we can impose preconditions, I assume you're not opposed to them doing the same?

This is the greatest area of concern for me. Given Obama's inexperience I have to say McCain on this one. Since I think either one has the judgement and temperment to accept counsel the people they surround themselves with is critical.

I'm completely confused as to why one would draw the conclusion that to open up talks between the US and what I guess one could term enemy states, would mean we were sympathizing or negotiating with them. A line of communication doesn't mean that we compromise our position, IMO. To me, it's a step in resolving differences through communication, a means to come to some sort of understanding. I'm enough of an optimist to believe that there's a huge chasm of misunderstanding in the relations between the US and Iran, for instance. I honestly think the dictatorial, emperical way the US has chosen to include some, exclude others has led us to this point. We, IMO, have to be less exclusionary in our foreign policy.

 

It's what we have become...and too many people are accepting of it. We now have the "it's my way or the highway"/"you're either with us or against us" mindset. This is not just with terrorist states. It's a sad commentary on our times that we automatically refuse to have basic discussions with those that we don't agree with.

I used to be a very big fan of McCain but he has really started to scare me in the last few years. The guy seems to have one heck of a chip on his shoulder and generally seems to have turned into an angry person. Going by my feelings on him in that regard and by the way he talks about Iran I really don't want to see any military decisions be left up to him.

I guess you're now willing to overlook McCain's class rank at Annapolis, huh?

Given the choice between a dim witted capitalist who understands the danger of skyrocketing gasoline prices and who has a general idea of what can be done about the problem and the smartest socialist in the world who took 20 years to decide to part ways with some racist holy men, I will take the former any day.

 

I never thought that McCain's embarrassingly low class rank had much to do with his intellect. As the son and grandson of high ranking Admirals, my guess is that McCain did not have to work very hard to get into the Naval Academy or to remain there.

 

However, I have never had anything but respect and gratitude for McCain's service to his country and if he was ever a spoiled brat son of an admiral as a midshipman, he seems to have developed a healthy work ethic and he has survived more hard knock lessons that most of us will ever be asked to endure.

So...if we can impose preconditions, I assume you're not opposed to them doing the same?

No, you can't assume that.

Given the choice between a dim witted capitalist who understands the danger of skyrocketing gasoline prices and who has a general idea of what can be done about the problem and the smartest socialist in the world who took 20 years to decide to part ways with some racist holy men, I will take the former any day.

 

I never thought that McCain's embarrassingly low class rank had much to do with his intellect. As the son and grandson of high ranking Admirals, my guess is that McCain did not have to work very hard to get into the Naval Academy or to remain there.

 

However, I have never had anything but respect and gratitude for McCain's service to his country and if he was ever a spoiled brat son of an admiral as a midshipman, he seems to have developed a healthy work ethic and he has survived more hard knock lessons that most of us will ever be asked to endure.

 

Aces, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I have never equated the phrase "dim-witted" with respect.

Aces, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I have never equated the phrase "dim-witted" with respect.

You missed my sarcasm. If you believe that I think McCain is dim-witted, then you also must believe that I think Obama is the world's smartest socialist. I don't. There are much smarter socialists than Obama in this world. :lol:

You missed my sarcasm. If you believe that I think McCain is dim-witted, then you also must believe that I think Obama is the world's smartest socialist. I don't. There are much smarter socialists than Obama in this world. :lol:

 

It's sometimes hard to distinguish between sarcasm and caustic remarks.

It's sometimes hard to distinguish between sarcasm and caustic remarks.

Merriam Webster's definistions of "caustic" as: "marked by incisive sarcasm."

 

You probably find it hard to distiguish between the two because they are the same.

Merriam Webster's definistions of "caustic" as: "marked by incisive sarcasm."

 

You probably find it hard to distiguish between the two because they are the same.

 

My dictionary has more than one definition for it..."marked by harsh and bitter commentary; cutting" is one.

 

I will, however, restate my point. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a sarcastic putdown and someone's fortright blunt opinion.

My dictionary has more than one definition for it..."marked by harsh and bitter commentary; cutting" is one.

 

I will, however, restate my point. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a sarcastic putdown and someone's fortright blunt opinion.

Sarcasm has been a key ingredient to politics as long as politics have existed. I prefer it to the euphemisms, obfuscation, and "nuanced" positions that are usually emerge from the mouths of today's candidates. (Such as Obama's unconvincing rationalization of his decision not to limit campaign spending by rejecting federal matching funds.)

What does the nation need in the wake of a terrorist attack? They need someone to look to for hope. I think Obama would approach it with a level head. McCain is known for his temper and jumping to conclusions which seems like the same attitude that got us in the mess we're in now.

 

I completely disagree. We would need someone who has faced adversity before, and would be quick to act. Not someone who would sit there and try to talk with the terrorists.