". . . and you two got scared away. . . ."

If it floats (bloats) your little ego to think that, GfS, then go right ahead. I'm nothing if not generous to those who need to go to ridiculous lengths to prop up their crumbling self-esteem.

I find it a complete waste of time to try to discuss or debate with someone who isn't interested in even considering other viewpoints and responds with nothing more substantial than trying to shove those with whom they disagree into shallow pigeon holes with pseudo-political labels, uses degrading insults, and generally treats people with utter contempt.

And as to the degrading insults. Obviously you are unaware that the insults don't degrade the person you're trying to insult, they degrade YOU.

I can have that sort of friendly, intellectual discussion with my neighbor's yappy Yorkshire terrier. When I turn around and walk away, he undoubtedly thinks like he's faced me down—when, in reality, I could squash him under my foot. But—I'm kind to dumb animals. . . .

GfS—and Sawzaw—your questions have been answered many times over. It's just that the two of you would not be happy with ANY answer, you want to just keep the argument going.

I am just as unhappy about the way this country is being run as you are. But as is illustrated by the way you talk to and about people here on these threads, you tend to attribute what people do, in general and in politics in particular, to sheer stupidity and/or corruption and deceitfulness. In some cases, particularly in politics, this is, indeed, true. But I know, FOR A FACT that there are some truly honest politicians out there. I know a few personally. This is because I don't just talk about it. I am politically active. And the fact that I AM politically active gives me a great opportunity to observe things from close up, and it also gives me a pretty good education on how things work. Or DON'T work, as the case may be.

As to Obama not being qualified to be President, his education (Law) and prior political experience actually makes him more qualified than most candidates. And that's a fact. And his heart's in the right place. Both of these things were evident during the campaign, AND after. And still. His mistake, as I have stated a number of times, is in trying to build consensus and get cooperation and compromise with people who have a vested interest in making sure he fails, and would just as soon impeach him or disqualify him if they thought they could find a viable reason. God knows, they've tried, what with their "birther" B.S., and now attacking him on allegedly "going to war without the approval of Congress" and all that.

And you two guys, with your attitudes, would play right into their hands. Boy, is THAT politically savvy!!

I never said that the Tea Party is a "terrorist organization," but it's beginning to look more and more as if they are. They're a bunch of really pissed-off people. But in case anybody missed it, what they have gone on record about is that they are pissed off, not at the fact that the top five percent of the wealthy in this country have—individually—more wealth than the rest of the population (95%) combined! And that they share almost NONE of the tax burden, if any at all, while the rest of us are paying a much higher percentage of our incomes than they are. That doesn't seem to bother the Tea Party one bit.

No. Instead, they're pissed off at people who receive Social Security checks (from a system they've paid into all of their work lives) when they've grown too old to work or have become disabled. They're pissed off at Obama wanting to institute a national health plan when we are the only civilized (?), industrialized country in the world that doesn't have one and has the costliest health care in the world—but far from the best, as some like to claim.

They're pissed off at the government's attempts to regulate Wall Street and the banks, which, due to the fact that Ronald Reagan managed to gut the Securities and Exchange Commission and a number of other regulatory agencies, regulations instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to put a leash on the people who caused the Great Depression, resulted in the ongoing Wall Street Ponzi Scheme plunging us into the current economic mess we are in.

These people think they're freeing the country from the excesses of "Big Government" when, in actuality, they want to turn the whole country over to the very crooks that are the cause of all their woes.

But they're too bloody ignorant to understand this, having received their political education and their understanding of economics from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and the other charlatans of the Right Wing (so called) "news" media.

As to pulling the troops out of Afghanistan, to do that now would be disastrous, when the pressure the U. S. presence has put on the situation there has led to overtures that look like they could result in a peaceable coalition between the Karzai government and a chastened Taliban. NOT a good time for us to leave, and Obama knows that, so he IS doing the right thing. It's a matter of smart timing.

I (and others) have already pointed out that the U. S. involvement in Libya is NOT the U. S. "invading Libya," it is a joint operation between NATO and the UN. And the U. S. is a member of, and has obligations to, both organizations. The British launched the Tomahawk missiles from British ships, and the U. S. provides air cover and was given the assignment (by the way, the French are spearheading the operation) of taking out Qaddafi's air defenses. No U. S. "boots on the ground." Why did the UN and NATO want to do this? Libyan's, following the lead of the Egyptians, were demonstrating for regime change when Qaddafi started murdering his own people

Fasten your seat belt, GfS:   It's a Human Rights thing!

And we know from threads on other subjects just how concerned you are with human rights.

Don Firth