I look at Hillary and attempting to be objective, I discover she does not have the capacity to perform in the office of the president. I ill point out a few of her deficits:

1. Lack of Good Leadership: She is a very poor leader and manager evidenced by her lack of any positive results of any project she has had the senior responsibility to manage. For instance her attempt in the health care initiative she initiative way back when in her spouse's administration. And the most recent failure as Secretary of State with the Libyan fiasco and the "Reset Initiative. Then her being ousted from the Whitewater deal. Should I go on?

2. Lack of Good Judgement: Her judgement is a liability to all those whom she was suppose to serve. The recent email investigation by the FBI is pretty clear about her inability to use good judgement. And again, her judgement in the Reset Initiative and the Libyan o*******w are just two more examples of her significant deficit when it comes to good judgement.

3. Ethics: Any person who has been in the public sector as long as she has should have the very basic understanding that you don't mix politics and personal gain nor do you allow any activity or action to question your ethics. Her dealings with the uranium and Russia deal as well as the alleged improprieties with donations from nations to the Clinton Foundation and favorable arms deals to the donating nations is a clear indication of either her low ethical standards or her complete stupidity. In either case it is another significant negative for me.

4. Poor Self Opinion: Her self esteem must be in the toilet in that she has accepted all of Bill's trysts and adulterous activities over the years. She is a disgrace to women by allowing her husband to disrespect and dishonor her, in public, all of these years. I consider her lack of self respect to be a major character deficit which may (probably has) create a sociopath.

5. Lack of Effective Communication: Her action(s) and lack of action in the B******i situation is a significant example of her inability or unwillingness to communicate with her superiors, her subordinates and the citizens of the United States. Her story to the families of the fallen is the best example of her inability to communicate what really happened. As a senior leader and manager, effective communication is only one basic sk**l that must be mastered to lead any organization to success. In my book she fails at this in almost every situation.

6. Morality: There are so many examples I could cite, but I only need the one that she is a supporter of a******n. My personal morality tells me that a******n is the murdering of another human being. (Please don't give me the "woman's right" argument. It doesn't work for me.)

So you are free to respond, but I am pretty sure your response will be worthless in convincing me that Hillary should be our next president.

I'll respond to your "5,000 year view" on the Middle East later.

What will happen when an armed civilian defends themself and a protestor returns fire? S**t will fly....

As a young officer in the Army in the early 1970's one of my assignments was on the German/East German-Czechoslovakia border. There were countless times when we, the German Army and Joint Forces (NATO) would conduct military exercises along and sometimes within 50 meters of the border. Things like having three M106 tracks (4.2" motor carriers) set up with the FDC and break out ammo just to see what kind of reaction we would receive from the other side. Or maybe bringing a troop of M551s (Sheridan, Mobile Assault Vehicle with a 153 mm main gun) into hull defilade within 500 meters of the border, or the flyover of F4's at 500 AGL right on the border, and on and on. Each action was intended to gauge the reaction of the Soviet-Sino Forces. Interesting times for sure for a 1LT in charge of a border camp! In many cases we were operating at a DEFCON 2 although that was not necessarily the official defense posture. Guess what? The balloon never went up. But who's to say what would happen in today's world? I do not know the climate in today's Russian Forces. It could be better or it could be worse. In any case, military exercise and reaction "events" have been a tactic used by NATO for many many years. It's a lot like filling your car up with a lit cigarette h*****g out of your mount!

I guess this situation may be like having cancer. Your doctor says that you have a 25% chance of survival if you have the operation and endure radiation and chemotherapy. But there is a trial that has produced results that have a 75% survival rate, but you can't get treatment here in the United States you have to go to Germany and pay for it yourself. If Hillary is elected she is the 25% potential. But if Trump gets elected he is the 75% chance. What are you going to do?

I think the point of the post was to point out if you're not doing something, other than complaining and arm-chair-quarterbacking, your voice carries no weight and you are not a patriot. I agree with this sentiment and was attempting to point out that there are other ways to make a difference as a patriot other than demonstrating. Actually demonstrating is probably the least effort required to resolving any issue. As Chief Brown (Dallas Chief of Police) said very well today in his press conference (paraphrasing): "If you want to make it better, get involved. We have openings here in our police force. Join up we'll put you in your community so that you can be part of the solution."

Looking at the Middle East through a straw is a useless endeavor. A broader view is needed to attempt to arrive at a position that will support a more peaceful solution. Finger pointing is a wasted effort and does nothing positive. So stop looking at the past to place blame, but look forward to resolve.

What about those that serve and have served in the military? It's one thing to spent an afternoon or evening in protest then go home and maybe have a nice meal with the family, a dry warm bed and the assurance of seeing tomorrow. The military serve for years. They don't always have that warm dry bed when they are tired. Supper may be some processed meal served out of a bag. And too many times tomorrow morning may be a perilous time. Just sayin'........

Yeah. I hit that range at least twice a month. Proficiency and learned response saves lives.

I got mine out and made sure they were easily accessible, had full magazines and clips, were clean and oiled, zeroed and ready to go. My guns haven't done anything bad since I've owned them.

Looks like the "Reset" strategy really is working! Yeah, to reset relations back to the 1950's! Good job Hillary and Barrack!

We are in many ways at a crossroad, or perhaps have already passed it by. From my little corner of the world I believe that president should never be the "president of his/her party" but the president of the nation. His/her role is to be the LEADER and understand how opposing factions can actually result in worthwhile actions. The president, as all senior leaders do, sets the tone. From this supporters parrot and amplify "the tone" and the non-supporters embrace the tone for their points. When "the tone" is demonstrated to be objective and fair and establishes the standard of performance of the LEADER, things tend to progress. When "the tone" is unfair and significantly biased (as in this administration) the actions are observed as only representing the very narrow perspective. The "other side" can rarely be given a fair hearing in almost any matter before the administration.

The Bill Clinton and Reagan administrations demonstrated how effective leaders are capable of bringing divergent forces together to enact positive results. As much discussion there is about Bill and Ronald and their particular character issues, it should be clear they were effective in bringing both parties together into discussion and action that resulted in some rally amazingly positive things. To me results count. Good and bad results need to be recognized and the "how and why" studied by astute people.

Wild ass claims based on any incident only add fuel to a fire. In this particular case the statement was so outrageous and defying common sense it puts the supporters of the statement at risk as being seen as not having enough common sense to understand how really stupid the statement was in fact. It is another example of how attempts at ridicule and embarrassment of the opposing party does not further the purpose of the initiating party. It mostly demonstrates how disingenuous they can be and how embarrassing it must be for others in their party to observe such childish and stupid actions.

LOL!

Give me a break! Let me ask you this: if you were an open carrying individual during the Dallas tragedy would you be concerned to draw your weapon with about 100 police officers all around obviously in a very high defensive state? If you did draw your weapon do you think you might be a good target by those 100 or so police all around? (You might have just proved the point that people that carry weapons are smart enough to know when to use them based on the circumstances of the situation.)

If you believe what you posted, you certainly are too ignorant and too stupid to really have any further discussion. If you have a little bit of common sense which would preclude you from really believing this BS, then you are nothing more than s**t stirring assholes. In any case further discussion with you i***ts is worthless.

I think you hit the nail on the head! Too many people b***h and point fingers, yet they fail to recognize "issues" have been created by their team as well as the other guy's (sorry ladies!) team. Seems they live in a cloistered world because of their inability to confront issues honestly. It isn't always the other guy's fault! We have seen this in the relationship between Congress and Administration since 2009.