I would disagree with Obama, violence is not a dead end, it's an unending treadmill.

Be it a local blood feud or International policy, violence makes partisans of victims.

Help me out here.

I certainly don’t want to belong to a party that wants to control people's lives and force others to their will and beliefs, so I thought I would make a list of those things the two parties want to control in order to make a rational decision on which party to align with.

You have mentioned a few items to start with:

Abortion – There is an element of the GOP that wants abortion outlawed. Although the GOP had full control for a number of years, no legislation was put forward to achieve that goal, but it’s a big deal for approximately 22% of registered Republicans.

Gay Marriage – George Bush advocated civil unions instead of marriage. Dick Cheney was OK with marriage. Most Republican (as do most of the public) oppose gay marriage.

Religion – The GOP is pro-religion. There has never been any legislation proposed to inflict this tendency towards religion on anyone else (to my knowledge), but I do find some talk of god aggravating.

So, right now my list shows two things that the GOP wants to deny to the public – unfettered, no restriction abortions and gay marriage.

Now, just to be fair, can you think of anything that liberals or the Democrat party want to deny the public? Anyone? Jump in on either list and let’s see if we can figure this out together.

By clicking on the link in the update, you'll see Goldfarb changed his post specifically in response to this very post of Kathy's.

He specifically says, “My apologies to anyone who quite reasonably assumed otherwise.”

Even he thinks the original quote went too far.

If you read the link, it looks like the passage in question has been edited since Kathy quoted it. Part of it has been struck out, and the word “best” has been replaced by “only”. Goldfarb added the explanation “This was very poorly phrased and not what I intended to say. Of course dialogue is wonderful and indeed preferable to the use of coercion or force. It is Obama's certainty that “violence is a dead end” that I object to.”

But even without his clarification it was obvious Kathy and others had taken the quote out of the context of the rest of the post. If you read the entire article Goldfarb talks about the necessity of using force in the past and the likelihood that success will involve more than just talk in the future. He ends with the sentence ” Sometimes that will take more than just talk.”.

I don't understand what Goldfarb and the Republicans are trying to suggest when they criticize using diplomacy where it's possible. Shouldn't a nation that sees itself as “Christian” and morally superior try to defuse volatile situations when possible instead of inciting them to become worse? What is their idea, honestly? Are we supposed to force other countries into our submission just to prove America has the biggest, bravest cojones of the whole world? Isn't that what terrorists are trying to do: force others to submit to their will through fear, threats and violence? For a country that promotes democracy and freedom and thinks itself the moral compass of the world, becoming the arm-twisting and oppressive boot on the neck of other countries is really not the image one would want to project. Especially all the outrage this country had on the torture issue – the majority of the American people appear to believe torturous coercion and force is not the way this country does things. Trying to solve things peacefully where possible helps soothe some of the dangerous anger and frustration towards us in the world. Does the right wing honestly not see that trying to fix some of the issues between us and those that want to destroy us actually keeps us SAFER than just bombing the hell out of everyone that challenges us? Sometimes there is more strength shown through restraint and discretion than active force. And a lot of the time, it's harder to bomb and demonize the people who are being nice to you.

The GOP sees the world in terms of black and white, us. v. them. In everyone different the GOP sees a threat that they must conquer.

I sometimes think many Republicans (certainly the leaders) are stuck in pre-adolescence, like a spoiled schoolyard bully who wants everything his way and when he doesn't get it he kicks, screams and picks fights with others because he feels he can get away with it.

It is one thing to use force expeditiously to protect one's home, family, community and country. It is another thing to use force just because you can especially when you know no one will challenge you and your ends is not to protect, but rather to dominate.

That's what the GOP wants to do: dominate and if they believe they have the power to do so, they will use it. When others want consensus, the GOP will call them weak because for the GOP power means physical might, not the strength of one's mind and the power of thought.