P.S. Hey, what if Obomba is the Anti-Christ? But, then, what would that make McCain?

His half-brother

Would you talk to the cockroaches in your kitchen or (maybe a better analogy) a pack of feral dogs in your neighborhood to try to get them to leave? I think not.

It depends. Figure if yelling at them, throwing stuff at them and calling the pound on them hasn't worked, I might well talk to them. Maybe I'd put some food out for them so they'd be less feral and thus less likely to attack me. I'd also be inclined to talk to my neighbors, get to know them better and work with them to come up with a way to either tame, kill or drive away the feral dogs. Maybe I'd work to set up an animal shelter to allow people to give away pets they no longer want instead of simply abandoning them on the street to become feral dogs. And perhaps I'd work to educate people on spaying and neutering their pets so there wouldn't be as many unwanted animals. And as a "military" option, I'd get some of my neighbors together to round up what strays we could.

So, I'd use diplomacy (talking to neighbors), economics (setting up a shelter), education (teaching folks about spaying and neutering) and military (rounding up the dogs) to deal with the problem. I'd use a multidisciplinary approach, just like Obama would.

It depends. Figure if yelling at them, throwing stuff at them and calling the pound on them hasn't worked, I might well talk to them. Maybe I'd put some food out for them so they'd be less feral and thus less likely to attack me. I'd also be inclined to talk to my neighbors, get to know them better and work with them to come up with a way to either tame, kill or drive away the feral dogs. Maybe I'd work to set up an animal shelter to allow people to give away pets they no longer want instead of simply abandoning them on the street to become feral dogs. And perhaps I'd work to educate people on spaying and neutering their pets so there wouldn't be as many unwanted animals. And as a "military" option, I'd get some of my neighbors together to round up what strays we could.

So, I'd use diplomacy (talking to neighbors), economics (setting up a shelter), education (teaching folks about spaying and neutering) and military (rounding up the dogs) to deal with the problem. I'd use a multidisciplinary approach, just like Obama would.

You're still not addressing the problem directly, though...which, of course, is the Democratic Party in action...never take any action directly, when you can use subterfuge and misinformation.

You're still not addressing the problem directly, though...which, of course, is the Democratic Party in action...never take any action directly, when you can use subterfuge and misinformation.

Okay, let's look at a possible direct action (which is, incidentally, the term radical groups use as a euphemism for terrorism). "I'm gonna grab my gun, go outside, an' shoot the hell outta them dogs!"

So, you start shooting at the dogs, which scatter and run. You pursue some of them, shooting all the way. And I'm assuming we're in a nice suburban neighborhood here, so there's inhabited houses all around. And it's probably dark since predators (like a pack of feral dogs) mostly operate at night. So, you're shooting off your gun trying to hit fast-moving targets in the dark. You're probably missing. And quite possibly some of those misses are hitting your neighbors' homes. In which case your neighbors may well start shooting back at you. Bottom lining it, your directly-acting ass gets turned into a bullet-ridden corpse that the feral dogs then eat. Winner: Pack of feral dogs.

First rule of terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters and the like, they don't have addresses. If Canada declares war on the USA and sends in troops, we can blow the snot out of Canada. We know where they live. We have coordinates and everything. We don't have that for terrorists. They hide. They sneak. They exist in mobs of innocent people that look and talk like they do. Which gives us only two options for dealing with them. The "direct action" is extermination.

We kill the terrorists. And anyone near the terrorists. And anyone near them. And anyone worshipping the same God as them. And anyone sympathetic toward them. We say that since the terrorists follow on off-shoot of Islam, we kill everyone we thinks follows Islam. We nuke their countries, follow up with germ warfare and then we send in troops to dig out and butcher any survivors. And we don't stop until we find the last pregnant Muslim woman, slit her throat and stab her swollen belly with bayonets just to be double-damn sure.

That's option A.

Option B is harder, or at least more complex. Yes, we kill terrorists when we can find them. But we also reach out to our allies and even current enemies to slowly erase their hidey-holes. We work to give people in nations containing terrorists some better job and educational opportunities so that dying (and killing) for Allah doesn't seem like such a sweet deal. We treat native populations in areas where we do use military force with restraint and compassion so that those populations become more likely to point out the terrorists trying to hide within them. We treat terrorism like previous generations treated Communism. We contain and shrink its areas of operation until it finally chokes on its own waste and we win. Option B will require years if not decades of slow, patient, expensive work, but it's a proven method. And it allows the USA to be a country worthy of survival, unlike Option A.

So, you're shooting off your gun trying to hit fast-moving targets in the dark. You're probably missing. And quite possibly some of those misses are hitting your neighbors' homes.

No, because unlike Democrats, I've had firearms training and KNOW how to use my weapons. I don't shoot until I have a target in my sights.

Of course, the Democrats would try to deprive me of my weapons...after all, an intelligent armed man is anathema to them. They don't believe in the motto "An armed society is a polite society"...unless they have all the guns locked up under their supervision.

Finally, trying to discuss reason and logic with a Democrat is like trying to clean up diarrhea with a pitchfork.

So I'm out of this string for good. There's nothing but foot scrapings here anyhow.

That doesn't mean that it's understandable to others. I too have written things that I believed were easily understandable . . . only to find that some others didn't understand what I was saying.

Okay.Ah! Now I get it. This is nothing more than a political endorsement for a candidate who -- in reality -- knows absolutely nothing about how the real works, and therefore will only make the situation worse.

NEWS FLASH! Obama thinks that Washington D.C. is the real world.Perhaps you had better read the Repairman Jack novels again. Everything Obama stands for is the precise opposite of what RJ stands for, and Obama would be one of the great allies of the Otherness.

Ken V.

WOW Ken... For once you and I agree 110%!

And yes, this does seem to be a simple-minded excuse for a candidate endorsement.

No, because unlike Democrats, I've had firearms training and KNOW how to use my weapons. I don't shoot until I have a target in my sights.

Of course, the Democrats would try to deprive me of my weapons...after all, an intelligent armed man is anathema to them. They don't believe in the motto "An armed society is a polite society"...unless they have all the guns locked up under their supervision.

Finally, trying to discuss reason and logic with a Democrat is like trying to clean up diarrhea with a pitchfork.

So I'm out of this string for good. There's nothing but foot scrapings here anyhow.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I'm gonna have to use that pitchfork line.

BTW, can we PLEASE either move this thread to the political board or just plain delete it?

Okay, let's look at a possible direct action (which is, incidentally, the term radical groups use as a euphemism for terrorism). "I'm gonna grab my gun, go outside, an' shoot the hell outta them dogs!"

So, you start shooting at the dogs, which scatter and run. You pursue some of them, shooting all the way. And I'm assuming we're in a nice suburban neighborhood here, so there's inhabited houses all around. And it's probably dark since predators (like a pack of feral dogs) mostly operate at night. So, you're shooting off your gun trying to hit fast-moving targets in the dark. You're probably missing. And quite possibly some of those misses are hitting your neighbors' homes. In which case your neighbors may well start shooting back at you. Bottom lining it, your directly-acting ass gets turned into a bullet-ridden corpse that the feral dogs then eat. Winner: Pack of feral dogs.

First rule of terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters and the like, they don't have addresses. If Canada declares war on the USA and sends in troops, we can blow the snot out of Canada. We know where they live. We have coordinates and everything. We don't have that for terrorists. They hide. They sneak. They exist in mobs of innocent people that look and talk like they do. Which gives us only two options for dealing with them. The "direct action" is extermination.

We kill the terrorists. And anyone near the terrorists. And anyone near them. And anyone worshipping the same God as them. And anyone sympathetic toward them. We say that since the terrorists follow on off-shoot of Islam, we kill everyone we thinks follows Islam. We nuke their countries, follow up with germ warfare and then we send in troops to dig out and butcher any survivors. And we don't stop until we find the last pregnant Muslim woman, slit her throat and stab her swollen belly with bayonets just to be double-damn sure.

That's option A.

Option B is harder, or at least more complex. Yes, we kill terrorists when we can find them. But we also reach out to our allies and even current enemies to slowly erase their hidey-holes. We work to give people in nations containing terrorists some better job and educational opportunities so that dying (and killing) for Allah doesn't seem like such a sweet deal. We treat native populations in areas where we do use military force with restraint and compassion so that those populations become more likely to point out the terrorists trying to hide within them. We treat terrorism like previous generations treated Communism. We contain and shrink its areas of operation until it finally chokes on its own waste and we win. Option B will require years if not decades of slow, patient, expensive work, but it's a proven method. And it allows the USA to be a country worthy of survival, unlike Option A.

A question for you, Johntfs. Have you ever served in the armed forces? Are you a poli sci major? I would really love to know where all of your information is coming from. That way I know to never send my kid to that school.

Of course, the Democrats would try to deprive me of my weapons...after all, an intelligent armed man is anathema to them. They don't believe in the motto "An armed society is a polite society"...unless they have all the guns locked up under their supervision.

Republicans do their share of it as well.

To mention just one example; that ban on "ugly" guns and adequate magazine capacity which congress passed in 1995, passed by only one vote. If the republicans had voted against it, it would have gone down in flames.

I think the best statement on this subject was written by L. Neil Smith:

"The only reason anyone has for denying you ownership of weapons is to make you weaker than they are, so that they can do things to you ,which you wouldn't let them do, if you were equipped to prevent it. This is every bit as true of rapists, robbers, and murderers, as it is of policemen, politicians, and bureaucrats."

Ken V.

WOW Ken... For once you and I agree 110%!

It was bound to happen.

And yes, this does seem to be a simple-minded excuse for a candidate endorsement.

I wouldn't say that it was a "simple-minded excuse for" as much as a "sneaky attempt to."

But it didn't work. People on this board are a lot smarter than he seems to have thought.

Ken V.