K-9

As per your usual insults, you are wrong and have no phucking idea of what you're talking about when it comes to even beginning to understand my thinking on the topic or any other topic for that matter. The only thing you know about me, my political philosophies, and personal motivations is that I'm not voting for the same guy you're voting for. Period. But go right on pretending that you do and continue to make an ass out of yourself in the process.

Totally serious question. There are numerous terrorist groups around the world that label themselves Al Queda that never had anything to do with the organization put together by Osama bin Laden in the 1980s to combat Soviet troops and go on to become the terrorist organization that attacked us. Osama bin Laden's Al Queada were organized, armed (ironically by the US), and well funded. That organization is a shadow of it's former self. Many people use the word "Al Queda" to represent a generic term for a movement of Islamic terrorists that have little to do with each other and nothing in common except for their use of terrorism as a military tactic. While I'm sure Gen. Looney was referring to Osama bin Laden's Al Queda in 2006, I was simply wondering if he also used the term in a more generic sense as well. There are certainly remnants of bin Laden's Al Queda who are and will be seeking to re-organize. But Obama labeled terrorism as the number one security threat to this country and like I said earlier, that hardly qualifies as burying our head in the sand.

Obama labeled terrorism as the number one national security threat this country faces. Given his approval for increased use of special ops, drones, and other tools since he took office, I'd hardly classify that as "burying our head in the sand."

When you refer to "Al Queda" what exactly are you referring to? A unified organization? A 'movement' by extremists? A single military organization? I'd seriously like to know what the context of the word was at the conference you attended.

The key is that he looked presidential while not saying anything. He was smart though. Obama's team fully expected the same Romney from the first two debates but he was no where to be found. It's difficult to debate issues when your opponent all of a sudden agrees with your position. Doesn't matter though. Like TrueBlue said upthread, debates on foreign policy, absent a giant gaffe by either party, just isn't gonna sway people one way or the other.

I'd settle for just not LOWERING them while trying to prosecute TWO wars. Perhaps the DUMBEST fiscal policy decision in the history of the country. But the Iraq war was gonna pay for itself, right? Well, oil companies are in Iraq as we speak making billions of dollars so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start paying back the US taxpayer. Where's Paul Wolfowitz when you need him?

The US is always more than happy to let others fight their own battles. It just depends where they are and how valuable the natural resources that need protecting. When you say Iran would cease to exist are you suggesting that Iran would be nuked to smithereens? That's never gonna happen. Even if they launch a first strike nuke of their own. Iran will be taken out conventionally so in those terms their present government would cease to exist but turning their desert into glass is out of the question.

Definitely playing it safe. And it's never easy debating a sitting president on foreign policy issues simply because you're not privy to so much of the information. From a tactical standpoint it was smart. I also think both campaigns know full well that most voters aren't going to base their decision on a foreign policy debate absent that game changing gaffe. I'm looking at Romney's policy shifts as something that can't please the hard right wing of the party. If elected, he's gonna be held to some of these positions that he's waffled on. "Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea." I would think basic geography is a prerequisite.for a president.

Romney was out of his depth on foreign policy and it showed. But to his credit he stayed away from those areas pretty deftly. He agreed with Obama's policies more than I thought he would so I'm not sure what that says. He once again changed some positions but I don't think it matters at this point. My favorite line was, "Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea."

Stop being so sanctimonious, hypocritical, and condescending.

I fully understand why he left it alone. It prevented Obama from having his 'presidential' moment and avoided a repeat of the embarrassment over the same subject from the previous debate. It was a smart move by Romney not to let him have it.

I'd like to know if that's really true that Romney has investments in a Chinese oil company that's trading with Iran in defiance of the sanctions. It's reminiscent of the mid-90s when it was discovered that certain American companies were profiting form Iraqi oil in the "oil for medicine" program which was in clear violation of US law at the time.

Romney got owned on the issue of the Navy just now. He has to be careful because a sitting president has the benefit of REAL discussions with the Joint Chiefs as well as the individual military branches.

No kidding. Schieffer has gone full tilt Lehrer. Nothing like he used to be in these things.

As predicted, we have officially entered the budget discussion so they can reiterate their points from previous debates and domestic economic issues. Way to stay on point, fellas. I was expecting more from Schieffer.

And good defenses START games. Nobody remembers or cares that your defense gave up 35 points when your offense fails to score 36, I guess. On the bright side, we are STILL undefeated in games where we give up LESS than 35 points, though. GO BILLS!!!

I'd say it's rather obvious who Kelsay was referring to after reading this article. Good to see. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Chris-Kelsay-calls-defense-out-on-the-carpet/d40732e0-291e-44b5-9b31-b3cf1317bc68 GO BILLS!!!

Way to endear yourself to the fine people of North America in general and Nashville in particular Sergei. If I'm the Preds' GM, I cut his ungrateful ass. GO AMERKS!!!

You can say that again. You can say that again.

Thanks, gentlemen. I've never been one to get into polls before the election. No wonder why I missed the relevane. Thanks, gentlemen. I've never been one to get into polls before the election. No wonder why I missed the relevancy.

Gas prices plummeting due to Calilfornia refinery concerns easing, demand falling, supplies still high, and producers switching to the cheaper winter blend. Expected to fall another 30 cents in November. I'm sure that has EVERYTHING to do with the powers and policies of the presidency vs. some of the market dynamics discussed earlier. OK, you lost me. How is that article from 12/2008 relevant? Did I miss something earlier?

John O'Neill is a disgrace. Just look at who he co-authored his book with: Jerome Corsi. The very SAME Jerome Corsi who is now out there accusing Obama of being a homosexual who covered up charges of sexual abuse while at Harvard. The very same Jerome Corsi who was granted full press credentials and traveling privileges by Willard's campaign Does anyone really think that's a coincidence? It's beyond reason to me how anyone can ignore the obvious.

Getting bowled over is the only thing Wilson is good at. He is late in recognizing coverage far more often than not and if he has instincts, I'd like to know when. He's made a living off of a couple nice INTs, a couple decent run stops, and being an eloquent nice guy. But he SUCKS as a SS and NOTHING he does from this point forward will convince me otherwise. I watched every thing he's done since his debut in the Dallas Monday nighter so some year ago. And as nice as his pick 6 was in that game, he made AT LEAST a half dozen bone headed plays that helped Romo pick us apart and win the game. He's never improved in my estimation and he's actually regressed the last two seasons. Again, his one or two nice plays notwithstanding. GO BILLS!!!

Believe what you will. Neither of us will have ANY problems posting dozens of links to support our points of view. So be it. It's water through the damn and whatever other metaphor for old news nobody can do anything about. Kerry lost. Their job was done. But where the phuck were these 250 paragons of truth for the interceding 35 some odd years? As to the bold text, I've had it with your sanctimonious, condescending, and hypocritical admonishments.

It's a perfect combination of both. When you put (mostly) average talent in poor positions to succeed, it's ugly every time. Wanny needs to go. But we still need 3 starting NFL caliber LBs, an NFL starting caliber S, and one more starting caliber CB. None of our guys in those positions, save Gilmore and Byrd, would start for most NFL teams at the moment. Bradham should improve, Shepp just ain't fast or instinctive enough, and Barnett has reached his ceiling. 'Nuff said about A Williams and George Wilson has NEVER been a good SS. GO BILLS!!!