The American Spectator

rssg| 6.13.09 @ 1:07PM

Islamic name. Islamic father. Islamic step-father. Can recite the Call to Prayer in Arabic. Lived in a muslim-majority nation as a child. Pronounces the word Koran as - "Holy Kour-rahn".

Hmmm, seems pretty clear to me we have a moooslim in the White House. Who voted for this no-experience, smooth talking, race baiting, Marxist-leaning laywer?

Gary Ogletree| 6.13.09 @ 1:10PM

Yeah. The guy who has stated he wants to obliterate Israel won. And the guy who has stated he wants to obliterate Israel lost. And similar minded "reformist" candidates didn't run. I am all for engagement. With fast movers, cruise missiles, and the big guns of the US Navy.

bob| 6.13.09 @ 1:54PM

Well, is this the typical American mentality... you can be ruled by Jews, you know it and cant do anything about it.

Roy| 6.13.09 @ 2:06PM

I wish he were a Muslim. That would mean he believed in a God other than himself.

"Marxist-leaning" is the real problem.

This is an interesting moment for the Obama administration. If it was that blatantly rigged, then the One can open up on Iran for that reason alone, just as we do on nations like Kenya when they rig their elections. I believe the original election that brought in Ahmaddamatree was also thought to be rigged, though not this badly.

Granted, Mousavi might not have been much better, but that doesn't matter - what matters is Iranians realizing they don't really control their own country. That's still the best chance to resolve all this without war.

J. Kelley| 6.13.09 @ 2:07PM

The Obama Media reported on this as if it were a real election. This was a show election. The so called Moderate, was not moderate. And the real rulers of Iran do not bother with elections. Our reporters had to know this. The problem is, many folks are busy and only catch the Old Media News. They are not informed with the facts. We should be concerned.

F Secreto| 6.13.09 @ 2:21PM

bob, you and your ilk always reaffirm the notion that the law's of nature are indeed imperfect, and have been for eternity. Your filth has existed since the dawn of the human race, and will continue to plague our species up and until the bitter end.

CC Ryder| 6.13.09 @ 2:55PM

An empty limousine pulled up to the curb and Obama got out.

Red Phillips| 6.13.09 @ 3:42PM

Well the neocons can rest easy now. They still have their bogeyman Ahmadinejad to fear monger over.

"The guy who has stated he wants to obliterate Israel won... I am all for engagement. With fast movers, cruise missiles, and the big guns of the US Navy."

So Gary, the threat to harm Israel in some way means we should involve the AMERICAN military? Hmm... I wasn't aware that Israel had become the 51st State.

If Iran is a threat to Israel, then that is ENTIRELY Israel's problem to deal with.

The interventionist mindset poisons all these discussions. This is a Middle East problem. Let them deal with it.

Henny Youngman| 6.13.09 @ 3:58PM

Mama Imadinnerjacket wins again?!

CH| 6.13.09 @ 4:23PM

What I'm a little suspicious about, frankly, is this whole notion-- embraced by folks on the left AND the right-- that the Iran election was "rigged". I'm not so sure I'm buying that.

One of the worst and most deadly mistakes that Obama and his lib friends are making is this idea that the people in the Middle East are kind, democracy-minded, good-hearted people who previously hated us because of the evil GWB, and now that we've elected Obama, surely it's all ponies and rainbows and electing moderate candidates.

It's not true. Why assume that the election was rigged? These people are not moderate, politically or religiously. They eat, sleep, and breathe extremism. For all we know most of them love Ahmadinejad-- he shares the dominant political and religious manner of thinking in the Middle East.

The more we try and fool ourselves into thinking our troubles lie with one or two despots over there, the more dangerous our predicament becomes. It's the same exact warped thinking that guided people to hopefully vote Obama in in the previous election. "If I just hope and wish realllllllly hard, maybe all of the terrorism will go away!" Obama encouraged this thinking. We can't afford to.

Sean| 6.13.09 @ 4:27PM

Maybe the neocons can put together their own military divisions to fight Iran. They can man and pay for these military units themselves. Me personally I would like to follow George Washington's advice and seek trade with Iran.

Angel| 6.13.09 @ 4:47PM

Sean, I wish we could trade you to Iran. You'd look real cute in a burkha.

Red Phillips| 6.13.09 @ 5:58PM

Sean, I have often said that I would be more than happy to repeal the law against Americans becoming mercenaries. Then all these keyboard warriors drum beating for civilization war with Islam could have at it. If Iran being a potential threat to Israel excites you to action then be my guest. Just leave the American military out of it.

Angel| 6.13.09 @ 7:18PM

Yes, Red; we get your point--we know that you think we're all bloodthirsty militarists just chomping at the bit to see more of our kids blown to bits.

You've only made the same point about a thousand times. Is EVERYTHING black or white to you--do you ever see shades of gray?

I just don't think it's quite as simple as you portray it.

Please don't demonize me; I don't demonize you. It really sucks and you make me so mad.

Red Phillips| 6.13.09 @ 8:07PM

Angel, I don't intent to make you mad. People constantly bringing up Israel as justification for American action just gets on my nerves.

America is surrounded on two sides by huge oceans. We have friendly neighbors to our north and south. We have a massive land area relative to our shoreline. We have a massively armed populace. In short, we are IMMUNE from invasion. Why is this not something to be celebrated? Why isn't this a good fortune we should be on our knees thanking God for every day? Free from the need to expend large portions of our lives, time and treasure on defense we should be free to pursue more productive courses.

But we don't. Instead we take it upon ourselves to intervene. This intervention is a choice. It is a decision. We intervene because we want to, not because we need to. And this stance, this knee-jerk default assumption, reigns on left and "right." The left has liberal, multilateral, interventionist, internationalism. The "right" has unilateral, saber rattling internationalist interventionism. The mind our own business coalition doesn't even get a hearing. It is enough to make a guy testy.

The interventionist right has nothing to fear from Obama, and they don't even realize it. Obama's foreign policy is a slightly different version of interventionist internationalism. Both sides recognize that the real enemy of their policy is non-interventionism, not the other brand of interventionism. That is why they went so ape over Ron Paul.

Angel| 6.13.09 @ 8:51PM

Do you think W would have invaded Afghanistan if 9/11 hadn't happened?

No, I don't think we'll be invaded--who ever said that? It's the suitcase nuke that keeps me awake at night.

Correction: YOU went ape over Ron Paul. But, I don't want to talk about him; I am not in the mood to get carpet bombed by his true believers.

Henry Percy| 6.13.09 @ 10:06PM

The red kommissar is right...

Actually, we are effectively hobbling Israel in its
justifiable aspiration.

Without our constant interventions, all the
arab buffoon regimes
would have collapsed long ago and Israel would be administering ALL the oil fields, or at least
they would be by someone more
competent that these degenerate
and pervert ay-rabs, be they Turkish, Chinese,
Russian, or why not Jewish...

Roy| 6.13.09 @ 10:19PM

CH - First of all I am a little less eager to declare that I know what the average Iranian thinks than that.

Second of all, from everything I understand, Mousavi was "extremist" on that kind of thing himself, so if he won, it was not necessarily on those issues. It could, rather, have been simply a matter of Ahmadamagourd's competence or any number of factors opaque to outsiders.

What matters is that the Iranian people can now see that they don't rule their own country. That is bad for Khamenei and Ahmadamagourd and therefore, good for us.

Red Phillips| 6.13.09 @ 10:27PM

Angel, I was pro-Ron Paul before Ron Paul was cool, but folks like me went ape for Paul. His detractors went ape in opposition. What other candidate's supporters were banned from Red State for example?

Bush wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan had there been no 9/11, but certain people were crying for regime change in Iraq long before 9/11. 9/11 served as a convenient pretext for the invasion. 9/11 did not primarily require a military response. It required a law enforcement, intel, and immigration response.

BTW, suitcase nukes are actually extremely hard to produce and maintain. There will be no suitcase nukes coming from Iran so you may rest easy.

F. Secreto| 6.13.09 @ 10:45PM

Red Phillips said...
"America is surrounded on two sides by huge oceans. ..In short, we are IMMUNE from invasion. "

I have never commented at this site until today, but according to the "dialogue" above, you are a regular around here, right? In light of 9-11, ICBM's, various chemical and biological WMD's, a porous border to our North and South, etc. you actually believe that because a land invasion is not likely, that we should not concern ourselves with islamic based terrorism or any other potential international threats the world over? I mean, its obvious you hate Israel, and probably Jews themselves (Ron Paul!), so I won't use the defend your allies approach with a low-life like yourself (Ron Paul!). But for God-sakes man, where is your sense of self-preservation! I mean, honestly, "oceans" protecting us in todays day and age (Ron Paul...lets go back to the Gold Standard!)?! And stop with the "key board warrior crap". 70+% of the armed forces vote routinely goes for the "interventionist right" (Not Ron Paul!), and many "key board warriors", such as the crew over at "Black Five", where actual warriors themselves. Not to mention the numerous charities and fund raising that the "neo-con interventionist right key board warriors" promote in order to provide money, scholarships, etc. for returning soldiers and/or their families.

Sean| 6.13.09 @ 11:42PM

Oh we have porous borders? I wonder who would support those? Would it be all those neocons that are so concerned with our safety?

Actually who is proposing to attack us across these ocean? Would it be Saudi Arabia? Didn't they have some people that attacked us on 9/11? How many Iraqi's were on that plan? Maybe we invaded the wrong country.

Red Phillips| 6.14.09 @ 12:12AM

So F. Secreto, some of the terrorist or the Muslim nations on your hit list have ICBMs? Really? Which ones?

And I don't hate Israel you knuckle head. I wish them well. I just don't think it is our duty to militarily protect them.

We absolutely agree on the porous borders stuff. As I said, terrorism in America is an immigration, intel, and law enforcement issue. It is not a bombing far off Muslim nations issue.

Paleocons like me were calling for immigration restrictions back when neocons were praising open borders, and getting called racist by a bunch of PC enforcing neocons for our effort.

JP| 6.14.09 @ 12:18AM

The 19 9/11 terrorists came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia; they were funded by a group whose net worth was 1/600 of the CIA, 1/3500 of the DOD. They had no guns, bombs, or missles. They didn't need to cross our pourous borders. They were from a favored minority group (made even more favorbale since 9/11). Their leadership consisted of only a dozen or so men, and their communications consisted of a few cell phones and a couple of sat phones. And on 9/11/2001 they brought down two of tallest buildings in the world, part of the Pentagon, and murdered 3000 civilians.

Despite our $600 billion defence budget, $100 billion spent on the NSA, FBI, and CIA, these 19 "students" found a way to beat the Great Satan.

What could North Korea and Iran accomplish with much more?

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 1:54AM

F. Secreto, Red and I might argue a little heatedly, but he is not a hater. I believe Red is an idealist, a highly principled man who doesn't want to see any more of our kids hurt or killed.

Me, too!

He gets upset because of frustration--not hate.

And, it's true, there have been bloggers here who were hateful and/or closet racists, but Red was never among them. I consider him my friend.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 2:20AM

See, Red; you couldn't answer my question. You really don't know what would have happened if 9/11 hadn't occurred. I don't think W was looking for war--he didn't seem the type: You know--Compassionate Conservative and all. Ugh!

I think 9/11 was a seminal event that changed geopolitical reality forever. I don't know about Iraq--I still think Saddam was involved in more terrorism than we know. It's nebulous to me.

It's precisely the secretive nature of terrorism that worries me. There's no way you can be as sure as you sound regarding suitcase nukes.

You sound naive--and I don't think we can afford to be naive anymore--how many 9/11 events can we survive? A dirty bomb or a suitcase bomb would be catastrophic.

I'm sorry that you and other Ron Paul followers were mistreated by the Right, and it was unfair, but can we find common ground now?

Look what's happening on the Left? Good God--that's really blowing my mind.

You just seem to be so pissed off when you post, and your anger prevents us from exchanging ideas because it puts us on the defensive. Your drive-by posts upset me--then you take off: And I'd like to talk to you because you seem very bright.

I don't want you to think I'm your enemy, Red; because I'm not. Okay?

Warrior| 6.14.09 @ 9:42AM

I voted for Ron Paul. Only candidate that made any sense. We are not immune from invasion, we are invaded pretty much on a daily basis from our southern border. We talk about rigged elections in Iran, yet how far are we away from rigged elections? Black Panthers are given a pass for voter intimidation, ACORN can register thousands illegally. Minnesota has more votes than voters. Illinois/Chicago routinely has dead people voting. Military absentee ballots are routinely thrown out without being counted, etc.

As far as Israel goes, we should stop intervening. Once they are forced to truly defend themselves, we will be talking about fallout and half-life. It should also cure much of the extremist problems.

Roy| 6.14.09 @ 10:09AM

--Once [Israel] are forced to truly defend themselves, we will be talking about fallout and half-life.--

I actually agree with this, and think for most people that would be a reason to stay involved.

Rich| 6.14.09 @ 10:38AM

Is there any chance ACORN could have been registering voters in the weeks leading up to the election in Iran?

Red Phillips| 6.14.09 @ 12:58PM

"What could North Korea and Iran accomplish with much more?"

JP, even if that is true, going to war against them can not possibly be the answer. The threat is not a military one per se, so the response is not military.

Thanks for the defense Angel. I will try to answer your question as best as I can. Bush was always an establishment man. He probably had more genuine conservative instincts than his father, but the conservatism that the movement wanted to see in him was a projection. I lived in Texas during part of his governorship (courtesy of the USAF), and the conservatives I knew knew he wasn't a stalwart.

Prior to his election he said he wanted a "humble foreign policy." He had opposed Kosovo and the Balkans as far as I remember. At the time I suspect he did mean that, in an establishment "foreign policy realism" kind of way.

Had there not been a 9/11 would we have gone to war anywhere? I don't know? Certainly not in Afghanistan. Maybe eventually in Iraq because they weren't following UN mandates or whatever.

But 9/11 changed Bush and his administration. I don't know whether I believe Bush was co-opted or he was a willing participant (I suspect the latter). But he went from humble foreign policy to grandly hubristic. His Second Inaugural was messianic and arguable blasphemous.

I think the rank-and-file never fully bought the spread democracy and creative destruction stuff, but they saw aggression as the best way to secure our safety and security. I think this was a leftover attitude from the Cold War. But the spreading democracy stuff filled their rhetoric especially when challenged.

The grand neocon vision that animated Bush's policy and rhetoric was that the benevolent US was going to bring democracy to the backwards Middle East by sword. That the way to get rid of terrorists was to turn them all into wanna-be Westerners by the sword. This strategy was so foolish and so obviously bound to fail that it is a wonder anyone could fall for it. The neocons were blinded to reality by their ideology.

I don’t think the average conservative is blood-thirsty and itching for war. In fact I have defended them against those who do believe that. But I do think they embrace “American exceptionalism” and America as the “indispensable nation,” which are part of the neocon scheme, even if they don’t entirely buy the democratize the world by force stuff.

In fact, faced with the realities on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and our obvious lack of funds, we are hearing much less of the grander rhetoric and less of the terrorism as existential threat fear stoking. But the default assumptions of most on the right remains bellicose and saber rattling as first resort always with an implied threat as far as the Middle East and terrorism is concerned. (Conservatives generally don't want to intervene in Darfur.) And internationalist and interventionist. It is like it is encoded in their DNA. It is a thoughtless reflex. Obama can’t even make rhetorical gestures toward diplomacy without being called weak. That these reflexes are not conservative in the essential meaning of the term seems to me self-evident. War is disruptive and destructive. The only way war is conservative is if you are actually repelling invasion or protecting a vital interest.

The bellicose stance is actually the one that is naïve. The majority of the electorate has rejected it. (Not that the majority have embraced principled non-intervention.) Conservatives refuse to come to terms with the fact that it was Iraq that cost Bush his popularity and cost the GOP politically, esp. in 2006. There is no popular will for a war with Iran. If we attacked Iran there would be riots in the streets. The military says we don’t have the resources or the manpower. Are we going to revive the draft? We don’t have the money. You can not possibly make the world threat free and you most certainly can not make it threat free by force.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 3:59PM

So, you agree with me that 9/11 changed everything, right? I believe it led to the bellicose stance of many on the Right. Perhaps that's the hysteria that made some Conservatives dislike Ron Paul. I don't know.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, did you?

Like you, I don't believe in nation building--it's hubris on our part, but I don't think you realistically address the threat of a terrorist attack. That's where I think you're naive.

Red, I would like to think you're right--it's just that I have a sinking feeling that you're wrong.

Why did Henry call you Red Kommissar? Is there something you're not telling us? lol

Old Texican| 6.14.09 @ 4:57PM

Hi Red
I am not going to quote you back to yourself, but I hope you will re-read your last post...especially the last sentence.
Personally, I never did dislike Ron Paul. I just considered him a great sunday school teacher like Jimmy Carter..........who should never be President.

Unlike a Sunday school teacher, our President swears before God to defend our Constitution from all threats...foreign and domestic.

Different job descriptions.

I never served in our armed forces. I was a CB.
(Civilian Builder). We ducked bullets and built your USAF runways, bunkers, etc.....before service personell ever showed up in many cases.

OK, I gotta' just say it: Knothead, we can't make the world threat free by force......BUT WE CAN CONTAIN MANY OF THOSE THREATS AND HAVE CONTAINED MANY OF THOSE THREATS...BY FORCE, OR THE THREAT OF FORCE.
Uh...1776...1861...1917...1941...1949...1951...1989...2002...2003...and probably once again when Mr. Obama bares our throats as Mr. Carter did.

I'm sorry, Red. I am just not a good enough Christian to turn the other cheek...when one cheek just got blown off by an AK-47 and my kids are behind me.

Red Phillips| 6.14.09 @ 6:04PM

Old Texican, I know as a good Texan you did not mean to include 1861 as an occasion when the US contained a "threat."

As I have said over and over, the way to contain terrorism in America is through immigration restrictions, intel, and law enforcement and giving them less reason to be upset with us. (Meaning getting the heck out of their land.) Stateless terrorism can not be combated by attacking and bombing far off countries.

To what end? What is the end point? What is the grand strategy? What is the short term strategy? How do we pay for it? Do we re-institute the draft for a three front war including Iran? The military allegedly says we don’t have the resources or the manpower.

How is the threat of terrorism on our shores "contained" by any of this? Are we democratizing them? Are we just bombing them into terror and subservience? What percent of the population do we have to kill to achieve this? Are we just going to kill all the world’s billion plus Muslims? Tell me your strategy? What would Texican do if he were King of America?

This is another characteristic of the pro-war interventionists that frustrates me. It is usually just inchoate belligerence as first resort bluster.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 7:14PM

Red, I think you're wrong about Texican being pro-war; I think he's concerned that we may be repeating our pacifism before WWII.

I don't know why you think so many Conservatives want war; most of them hate it because they've fought in them.

Basil Plumley| 6.14.09 @ 11:34PM

CC Ryder| 6.13.09 @ 2:55PM
An empty limousine pulled up to the curb and Obama got out.

A little historical perspective-In 1946, after Churchill had lost the election to Clement Atlee, Churchill waited for Atlee to arrive at 10 Downing Street. Churchill made the remark concerning Atlee's arrival; "A car pulled and no one got out."

Red-

Darn it all, must you constantly expose your naivete concerning foreign affairs. You want to make terrorism a law enforcement priority?
Isn't that the policies of Clinton and Obama?
Just that thought alone should make us all feel safer.(not)

You said-To what end? What is the end point? What is the grand strategy? What is the short term strategy?
Two words--unconditional surrender.
The difference between us is you want US to do it while I want the bad guys to do it.
I don't want our troops who were put in harm's way to have their sacrifices to be in vain.
Hell, we did that in Vietnam and had to live in disgrace after we let Saigon fall and allow hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be "re-educated" or exterminated.
Is that the result you desire?

Your stance is very similar to Murray Rothbard who once proclaimed that American exceptionalism was the cause of the Cold War and that if we only retreated, Russia would not be as belligerent. Think of the millions who would have been enslaved under Communism if Rothbard had his way.
You blame America for Moslem atrocities.

Yes, you are very good at trying to portray us as "Neo-cons" and other noxious terms. Well, we don't need any "surrender monkeys" telling us that we, who love freedom and liberty, are evil people.
It appears your selfishness had no bounds. We, in America, are to enjoy our freedoms and liberties but to Hell with the rest of the world. By all means let's put our lamp under a basket.

This is the reason why Ron Paul was a deal breaker for me. His economic policies were fine but his foreign policy was very naive. He was a great candidate in 08 ............. 1908.

If you want to disprove your naivete, you can try to respond. This is probably the 3rd time I have brought up your naivete on this board concerning this issue. At no time have you defended yourself to me.

Dang it, much of your screed sounds like someone posting at HuffPost or the Daily Kos. If you really understood how we have fought this war (and yes, some of the rules of engagement tick me off) you would know that we have made every effort to minimize innocent life. You should read Marcus Luttrell's book about the sacrifices his Seal Team made so they wouldn't take innocent life. Those sacrifices cost them their lives.

Basil Plumley| 6.14.09 @ 11:41PM

Oh, and don't think I am "pro-war". That term is a pejorative and not accurate.
I have no problem using American Power to ensure freedom from tyranny. Perhaps, you were heartbroken that Saddam was taken out.

Nation building is another story. Know our friends and let them rebuild their country. It's rather simple and it keeps Lord Bremer out of everyone's way.

Red Phillips| 6.15.09 @ 12:07AM

Basil, it is all bluster. It is belligerence as default. Who exactly do you want unconditional surrender from? Are you talking about Iraq? I thought we were trying to get them self sufficient. Do you want the unconditional surrender of every potential terrorist? Every Muslim?

Help me out. What is the Basil plan? Who would you threaten or attack? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? No rest until we have Western friendly regime change in every country on our bad boy list?

How you going to pay for these grand crusades? If you haven't noticed we are broke. Ready for a new draft? No deferments this time either.

Do you really think there is popular will for this? Guys like you are the last of the yahoo chorus, the bitter enders. You are totally disconnected from reality.

But of course I'm the naive one.

Read this. I don't agree with all of it. At the end he takes swipes at paleocons. But the beginning is brilliant.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/nov/20/00008/

So let's hear it. How would King Basil make us safe?

Basil Plumley| 6.15.09 @ 1:29AM

Absolute nonsense.
Tell us Red, why were our embassies bombed? How about the Cole? The 1993 WTC bombing? Does Riyadh ring a bell?

All of these acts took place before 9/11 when we had the Red Phillips Law Enforcement Plan in place. Of course, you blame it on some sort of American occupation or some American policy (very much like your hero Murray Rothbard).

We have to be nice to these terrorists and they will in return honor and respect us. Good grief, you may be beyond naivete. By the way, what part of unconditional surrender did you NOT understand?

Now, your plan is to do nothing, return all troops and materials to this country and tell the world they are on their own. Wait a moment; that is the Obama Plan.
We have turned our nose at the Brits, the Aussies, the Canadians, the Poles, the ROK, as well as Israel. In return, we ask our enemies forgiveness in hopes that the Iranians leave us alone when they get the bomb.

Tell me Red, when do bad actors commit crimes? When their victim is strong or when the victim is perceived to be weak?

You would like to believe that I and other hawks want war or desire war. That is not true at all. However, when this country commits troops to a war, we must fight to win. Or would you have us lose for some atonement?

Yeah, you come off as the bitter ender, ashamed of our American exceptionalism and our goodness.
Tell us King Red Phillips, how do make peace with a culture that puts a higher premium on death than life? By retreating?

Do you know or care how many of our troops were killed or maimed by IEDs that were made and sent from Iran? Do you know or care how many "insurgents" came to Iraq through Syria?

I doubt you know or care. Why, because in some warped way, you believe they died for a cause that is unjust and unconstitutional. Memo to King Red, it was Constitutional.

I do realize that you have no plan but an agenda. You have lost all sense of reason and your arguments hinge on raw emotion. You want to show dhimmitude to the enemy. Not me Red, you have no concept who or what we are fighting. This started a long time ago. You cite "popular will". What about being a statesman? Do you want to paralyze yourself with polls?
You need to read more about guys like Yevgeny Primakov and their influence in this part of the world.

No Red, you think being nice will end the problem. Perhaps, you can share with us your thoughts concerning that glorious success known as the Children's Crusade.

Oh btw, have you found where Jefferson received his Constitutional authority to make the Louisianna Purchase. As long as you want to be a strict constitutionalist, would you be in favor of undoing the deal for Constitutional reasons?

Like the horse and buggy, most of your ideas have no place in reality or the real world. You are way in over your head. You have my condolences.

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 5:12AM

If you guys sat down and had a couple (or more) of beers together, do you think you could come to something resembling a meeting of the minds?

I've always believed that reasonable people can find commonality, but not here--and I don't know why.

I understand my inability to find agreement with liberals--the way we look at life is poles apart; but I don't understand why I can't find that mid-point with you, Red.

Usually I'm pretty good at reading people--but not you, Red. Try as I might, I can't draw a bead on you. I think we're both people of good will, but possess little understanding of WHY each of us holds our particular point of view.

I'll keep trying though, and I'll never demonize you like I demonize Bob. Ha ha!

Red, did you say you're a Doctor?