I disagree with your thoughts that republicans now are just as likely to minimize the military as a whole as the democrats are if I understand you right. Not challenging the facts, just thoughts. Democrats since I can remember and as late as their last attempts...and continuing through house and senate support are talking about cutting back on military as a whole. Not just Iraq. I think we do need a plan for withdrawal. Not a time table, but a bench mark table that says when this and this are accomplished we can let x % go home as an example.

Clinton tried to shut down tons of the military as a whole, but then on some he couldn't do it so they had to revamp those locations because what was happening there was not able to be done anywhere else and had to be done. This would be Dugway Proving Grounds for one. As long as people look at all the facts that's one thing, but when they just do something because it's what they want to accomplish something then I disagree with that mentality. I could be wrong and will likely get to find out as Obama has a good chance of winning, but we shall see.

LOL.. I missed this yesterday!

Thank you, Kris! :)... Umm.. I think :)

LOL.. :)

Love you guys!

D.

LOL..Okay,thank you for clarifying.. I was afraid we were beginning to cross over into different areas, and I wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at.. again, text is sometimes a very hard medium, as it strips us of inflection or the expressions that make understanding so much easier.. thank you for your patience, and taking the time to explain! :) Didn't want to presume or misunderstand.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the Republican party being better for the military, however.. as I mentioned, the statistics and information that I've brought forth has indicated that even some of the closings you're talking about , such as the closing of Dugway proving grounds, were initiated by the Bush , Sr. administration's initial efforts...and let's not forget the BRAC under Bush, force shaping...

Once upon a time, I do think that there was perhaps a significant difference along party lines, but I just don't see that anymore, when viewing statistics.

By the way, an interesting little note....and quite coincidental in timing given that we were just discussing this..

Did you happen to see the latest negative ad from the McCain campaign? The one with the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton commentary?

It's pretty bad when the party's own pundits come out against their candidates ads...The Washington Post quotes one Republican strategist as calling the ad "a wild swing" that reflects "a lack of any coherent strategy to elect McCain"... and one of McCain's own former campaign strategists, John Weaver has been quoted, in TheAtlantic.com as saying that the ad is "childish", and "diminishes John McCain".

Oh,and in another recent example of negative campaigning, another one of the infamous chain emails is getting forwarded around, supposedly from a soldier in Afghanistan who says Obama blew off the troops during a visit there. This was so erroneous that the Army issued a press release themselves speaking of the issue..

http://cjtf-a.com/index.php/Press-Re...ama-visit.html

McCain's campaign isn't going to be able to draw the vote simply on negativity alone..the strategy of "discrediting" Obama just isn't working,and is coming across as petty and negative.. his campaign advisers would do well to start actually putting out something substantive instead.


Dee :)

Anyone who has successfully been able to research anything about Obama and his past can only come to one conclusion, Obama is a far, far left liberal. His history suggests he is so far left that he could even be considered a marxist. Now, he certainly doesn't represent that on the campaign trail but, as we all know, politicians will say and do anything to get elected. McCain has always been a Goldwater conservative, which is a far cry from this last 8 year so - called conservative crowd who has been running the country. McCain has sense about the direction the country needs to go. An Obama presidency will destroy the country, IMHO. Cheers.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

IMHO there's only one option after reading this morning who McCain chose as his VP candidate.

And what would that choice be? She's very republican and APPEARS very real and honest, but they all try to appear that way.

I think it's a wise choice for the party as there's a lot of angry women out there that wanted a woman to vote for. So possibly a lot of free votes. She does seem like a solid pick as an individual also. It's all a game though. Obama picked Biden for his experience to make up for his lack of and McCain picked Palin for her gender. It doesn't mean either isn't a good choice just on their merits, but it's all a game to get the most votes.

Obama did give an amazing speach, but it's so full of lies and impossible situations that it's hilarious. He basically made it sound like no matter which party you are with your vote is best with him...unless you are one of the 5% of extremely rich people. Very good speach though. Too bad it can't actually hapen like that. I love how it's all about the poor folk that can't pay for their mortgage and cars. Who got themselves into a house they can't afford or a car they can't afford? I'd say a HUGE percentage are not in that situation because of the economy or loosing jobs. They got there because they bought more than they could afford wanting to keep up with the Jones'. Let's not forget the real problem. Fixing ignorance and greed is where we have to start. People want what their parents have or more without the sacrifice to get it.

Did anyone see the comments from Obama when he wsa first told about Palin? He seems very sad and dismayed at the choice. He's probably been digging up dirt on many people and not on her. He tries to say she's just more of the same Bush and she seems vary far from the same. My views on her are the change that the republican party have been needing. Core beliefs in the basic conservative views. A mother of 5. Prolife. NRA. Seems like a true republican to me.

McCain's choice of a running mate is definitely an interesting one.. and quite the gamble, one that may very well backfire for him.

The choice of Sarah Palin was undoubtedly influenced by the campaign's attempt to capture some of the former Hillary voters, however, given her very public and very outspoken positions on women's issues, such as abortion, etc. , she may well make diehard Obama supporters out of the Hillary refugees.

Given her ultra-conservative views, she stands to no doubt garner a certain level of support from the ultra right wing, the James Dobson circuit.. however, it's entirely possible that those same right-wing, religious right voters might be put off because she's a woman. How sad is it, really, though that in this day and age, however, that we're still having folks that are either voting -for- or -against- someone based on their race or gender?

She is young, which could counter the issue of McCain's age, and also add some of the same youth-oriented energy that the Obama campaign is generating..

-However- the woman has very little experience to prep her for a VP run.. serving as a mayor of a less than 8,000 person city, one term as a governor, and being a "soccer mom" to 5 children hardly seems like qualification to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency, and given McCain's attack on Obama's experience.. it could end up being an achilles heel for the new Republican ticket. She has absolutely -no- experience in foreign policy, and again, given the McCain camp's harsh attacks on Obama for *his* supposed inexperience, that could also be a sore spot for voters.. after all, while she's only in the 2nd spot on the ticket..she -is- just one heartbeat away from the presidency.

The fact that she is also currently involved in a very high-profile investigation for corruption in office in her home state of Alaska may well come back to bite McCain in his choice. Hardly a clean bill to start with.
Her connection to Karl Rove, who by all accounts was instrumental in her selection, also adds an inference of "air of corruption".

Much ado has been made of her son's service in the military in Iraq, however, that can easily be countered by the fact that Joe Biden's son is not only serving his country in Iraq, but also a well-respected public servant in his own right in his home state of Delaware.

It will be interesting to see how someone with so little experience in the national political arena will stand under the pressure that comes with a presidential campaign. She doesn't have the hardened "battle experience" that Hillary had from Bill's campaigns... and we all know that these next 67 days are going to be very stressful. Sarah Palin's life will be examined, her family stressed.. and she really has never encountered anything like the scrutiny she'll come under now. Politics really isn't a game for everyone.. this will definitely be a "trial by fire" for her and her family , both in politics and as individuals. And let's not forget, there *is* a scheduled vice-presidential debate between Ms. Palin, and Joe Biden, the democratic VP candidate. Biden has -extensive- experience in debate,and speaking in a national forum. How will Ms. Palin, who has never had any experience in a high-powered debate at all stand under pressure?

It will also be interesting to see how the Republican party plays this, as early reports in the news (accurate as they may or may not be) have indicated that many in the Party's hierarchy are *not* pleased with McCain's choice.

No matter how this election ends , however, one thing is now for certain.. the next Presidency will definitely be one to note historically. For the first time in our country's history, we will have either an African-American president or a female vice-president.

frostbyte: I do have to ask however.. is the basis of your statement that Obama's speech was "full of lies" once more founded in the commentary of the Republican replies to that speech? If so , you might want to do a little research on your own, instead of taking their word for it, because according to Politifact.com ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ) a non-partisan site that equally skewers the fibs and untruths that have been coming out of both campaigns, Barack's statements were pretty truthful.

His allegations about the amount of oil being imported now being three times what it was when John McCain took office, his assertions that John McCain has voted 90% of the time with Bush, as well as Joe Biden's allegations that John McCain has voted against a minimum wage raise, and the reminder of John McCain's quote about Afghanistan - "Afghanistan — we don't read about it anymore in papers because it succeeded." are all verifiable and true.

Only Barack's statement that McCain "said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars" was iffy, and that was because in truth, John McCain has a mixed voting record on fuel economy standards".

You may disagree with his vision of the future, but.. whether you agree with what he hopes to happen or wants to bring to pass, the fact is, his *facts* were pretty straight on.. and the last I checked, the future hasn't happened yet, so his intentions are just that..intentions.. which don't qualify as lies.

Ironically, just today, I heard a newscaster make the comment that Sarah Palin's positions on issues (what we know of them anyhow) confirmed a great deal of what Barack asserted about McCain's intent.

All in all as an Obama supporter (and to add variety to the board) I think the speeches of the Democratic Convention, Hillary and Bill's included, served to unify and heal wounds a great deal, and energize the campaign. Judging from the fact that the estimated viewing of the speech was higher than the number of viewers for the opening of the Olympic opening ceremony, I'd say there was definitely interest, and early polls are showing that not only did the speech sway independent voters, and even some republicans, but it's also, by reports, generated a lot of donations and income for the campaign.
If McCain doesn't come up with something equally vibrant, which might be difficult to do, hands down , I think, convention wise, the Democrats won this round. :)

Dee :)

I saw Obama's comments, and truthfully, I didn't see them as "sad or dismayed" at all. I saw both he and Joe Biden reacting as graciously as McCain had with his ad last night congratulating Barack on his historic nomination.

In that area, I thought there was a great deal of classiness all around, on all sides and given how negative campaigning can, and has been.. I thought it was a breath of fresh air to see both campaigns halting the biting for a bit to actually congratulate one another.

I have to say though.. big surprise.. I think she and McCain promise little change from the current Bush administration...

and while in your eyes, she may be the "change that the republican party has been needing".. is she the change that our *country* needs? No, I don't think she is..

Dee :)

P.S. As far as digging up dirt on Sarah Palin... -if- the Obama campaign wanted to dig up dirt on her.. they wouldn't have to work hard, the press has already done it for them, reporting on her high profile corruption case in Alaska, using her influence to try to have folks fired. Hmm..sounds like maybe she should have run for the justice department instead? :_

Well put Dee! To Frostbyte: Conservative, Mother of 5, Prolife, NRA, etc. can describe a lot of Democrats. I'm somewhat conservative, prolife, and a lifetime member of the NRA, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote the party line and watch our country sink deeper into a hole. I think McCain made a serious tactical error in his pick. Why not someone with some real, national/international experience v. a jr. Governor. McCain was on Obama about his experience and there he goes picking an unheard of name with a chump resume. We'll see what happens in November.

Happy voting everyone!