quote:

Neither of these clowns ever came close to Obama's oratory.

I'm not speaking of style, I'm speaking of substance. Substance is what matters at the end of the day.

If only everyone voted on substance alone...

quote:

He doesn't want to dismantle it, just seriously weaken it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

Okay, I just watch it a couple of times, listening for any proposal he made that would "seriously weaken" the military. In my view, that video offered a common-sense approach to making the military more efficient while getting rid of wasteful spending. You guys that are in favor of continuing the war in Iraq can certainly criticize him for wanting to end it, but you can't seriously believe Barack Obama plans to seriously weaken the military.

Here's what Sen. Obama wrote in an essay titled Renewing American Leadership for Foreign Affairs last summer:

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.

Enhancing our military will not be enough. As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."

Does this really sound like a candidate who wants to seriously weaken our military?

-----------------------------------------------------

The quote that struck me the most was "I will slow our development of future combat systems..."

The reason our military is so strong is because our technology is light years ahead of the rest of the world. Why would he want to compromise that?

quote:

The quote that struck me the most was "I will slow our development of future combat systems..."

Yeah, I caught that, too. Based on what else he's put on the record, though, my assumption is that by "slow down", he intends to vet new programs more carefully before going ahead with them ... weight the benefits and whether they fill an actual need, ascertain the associated costs are accurate and not blue-sky, determine that whatever new technology is involved is proven and won't soon become obsolete, etc.

I think he wants to avoid programs (like the Comanche helicopter) that cost billions but don't work out as touted.

quote:

The reason our military is so strong is because our technology is light years ahead of the rest of the world. Why would he want to compromise that?

I would imagine for the same reason he Obama, and i quote."Intends to visit all 57 states"

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace . . . ."

He said basically the same thing in his speech last night, and I would agree that does not sound like someone who wants to destroy the military.

The Hillary issue is very hard to digest: if he picks her, it goes against the Change message; if he doesn't, he risks losing the Hillary supporters, who are most assuredly moderate. At the end of it, I believe he should go with her. Since McCain is moderate from the outset, and the US is a nation of moderates, to ignore a moderate would be detrimental, in my opinion.

On the other hand, if Hillary could get a prime spot in the cabinet - Secretary of State (where she would be most effective) or Att. Gen., and could also continue to stump for Obama, she could possibly soothe the rift and be convincing to her supporters to lean toward Obama.

As has been said many times by many journalists, people vote for president and not vice-president. However, people will still consider the choice as indicative of the regime to come. Having said that, Obama needs a centrist that can deliver moderates - Edwards, maybe; possibly Jim Webb; Bill Richardson (helps with the experience questions); at the end of it, Hillary still comes up as the strongest choice, however.

On the McCain front, his meager crowd and grandfather to child oratory style could should give that campaign pause - especially after such tremendous talents that spoke later that night. Compare the ebullient crowd in St. Paul to the geriatrics in New Orleans who missed the late re-run of "Murder She Wrote" on Lifetime - there is NO contest. McCain needs someone energetic and more conservative to rally the troops - Mitt Romney seems the only viable choice as v.p.: economic experience, gubernatorial experience, more conservative, and he doesn't look geriatric. I believe whoever he chooses is doomed to lose in November, however.

About this whole Michelle Obama tape situation - anyone that believes that exists has fallen victim to a tremendously old trick in politics. If you say something sensational, whether it exists or not, after a few people talk about it and the message spreads, all of a sudden it becomes a fact. There are zealots who refuse to research anything, the same people that falsely believe that Obama is a Muslim, and their only source of news is water-cooler talk and rumor from other zealots. To give that dirt merchant that stated a tape exists on Geraldo any creedence is to become a media victim. Do just a little research on that purported tape and you will come up empty - at this stage in the game, if something like that exists, it is too juicy to not have been blown sky-high during the nomination process. It would have been much easier to kick Obama while he was slipping and keep him out of the race than to let his money machine crank up in earnest and compete with him in the fall. There is no tape, no story, nothing to see here folks, move along.

quote:

Originally posted by MeanWillieGreen:
if Hillary could get a prime spot in the cabinet - Secretary of State (where she would be most effective)

Huh? What makes her qualified for this cabinet position. Statements like "He (Putin) doesn't have a soul". I think Obama would be wise to let her go back to being Senator from NY.

quote:

There is no tape, no story, nothing to see here folks, move along.

You may be right, but we shall see. If there is a tape, it won't change the minds of Obama supporters anyway. It would only change the opinions of the independents and undecided voters.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
The quote that struck me the most was "I will slow our development of future combat systems..."

The reason our military is so strong is because our technology is light years ahead of the rest of the world. Why would he want to compromise that?

Jack, allow me to clue you in a little, since I do have some ten years in the military.
We have multiple combat systems that keep us on the cutting edge of technology, militarily. Many that I don't even have the clearance to be near, basically because they are "need to know" type systems. Those systems are part of what keeps us at the forefront of the worlds military powers.
Trust me here, we cannot afford a liberal approach to national defense. We are number one right now due to people like Ronald Reagan. "Slowing our development of future combat systems" will not only weaken our national defense but also eliminate jobs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Presley,

quote:

Originally posted by MeanWillieGreen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack White:
"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace . . . ."

quote:

It would have been much easier to kick Obama while he was slipping and keep him out of the race than to let his money machine crank up in earnest and compete with him in the fall. There is no tape, no story, nothing to see here folks, move along.

No it wouldn't have. Obama is the much weaker candidate. If the tape exists and Karl Rove does have it, it would be much better to have Obama get the nod and use it in the fall, than to mortally wound Hillary and allow her to go on to win in the fall.
It's pretty much common sense. Hillary is the stronger candidate and a fighter. Obama is not.

Who votes? Historically, White males and senior citizens, the two voting blocks Obama has failed to get since Iowa and the two that would be most offended at the tape.
If the tape exists, releasing it in the fall will be a brilliant move.

quote:

Trust me here, we cannot afford a liberal approach to national defense.

Trust me, here -- vetting new military programs that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars to determine their viability, whether they'll fill a real or perceived need, whether the technology is well-developed and reliable, whether the program cost estimates are realistic, whether the vendors can deliver on time and on budget, and most of all, whether they'll actually work as intended is neither a liberal nor a conservative approach. It's just common sense and good governance.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Trust me here, we cannot afford a liberal approach to national defense.

Trust me, here -- vetting new military programs that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars to determine their viability, whether they'll fill a real or perceived need, whether the technology is well-developed and reliable, whether the program cost estimates are realistic, whether the vendors can deliver on time and on budget, and most of all, whether they'll actually work as intended is neither a liberal nor a conservative approach. It's just common sense and good governance.

The common liberal stance in the military world is to curtail innovation. Liberals were wrong on SDI back in the 80's and after quite a few recent tests in Vandenburg, we see that indeed Reagan was correct.
The $2 Billion dollar stealth bomber is a tool that can be used to strike a target without being detected. Given what Obama is saying, he would have been against that as well. The Stealth Bomber has been invaluable in every conflict it has been used in.
The F-22 Raptor, the worlds first fifth generation fighter was developed during the late 80's and early 90's. Liberals tried to kill that program too. That plane can destoy other planes from miles away without being detected.
Being the best takes continued work, Jack. Continued innovation and yes, experimentation. Liberals have always been on the wrong side when it comes to military development. Perhaps they should stick to making coffee at Starbucks or the arts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Presley,

quote:

Trust me, here -- vetting new military programs that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars to determine their viability, whether they'll fill a real or perceived need, whether the technology is well-developed and reliable, whether the program cost estimates are realistic, whether the vendors can deliver on time and on budget, and most of all, whether they'll actually work as intended is neither a liberal nor a conservative approach. It's just common sense and good governance.

Boy that is the most ignorant response i think i have ever heard you make. Your stance is to stop research and development to save the tax payer money.I would be equally as critical of someone who wanted to stop Drug or Cancer research.You want to save taxpayers money stop giving the old Liberal minded handouts to the lazy who are born into there 5 th generation of welfare.

quote:

Boy that is the most ignorant response i think i have ever heard you make. Your stance is to stop research and development to save the tax payer money.I would be equally as critical of someone who wanted to stop Drug or Cancer research.You want to save taxpayers money stop giving the old Liberal minded handouts to the lazy who are born into there 5 th generation of welfare.

+1. Perhaps we should stop stem cell research,
after all, there is nothing proven and it costs taxpayers a lot of money. After all, that would be common sense and good governance.

quote:

Your stance is to stop research and development to save the tax payer money.I would be equally as critical of someone who wanted to stop Drug or Cancer research.

WTF? Where did I write anything -- anything -- about "stopping research"??

I wrote about vetting new spending programs to make sure they were viable, needed and would do what they're designed to do before committing billions of dollars to them. That's "stopping research??"

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Your stance is to stop research and development to save the tax payer money.I would be equally as critical of someone who wanted to stop Drug or Cancer research.

WTF? Where did I write anything -- anything -- about "stopping research"??

I wrote about vetting new spending programs to make sure they were viable, needed and would do what they're designed to do before committing billions of dollars to them. That's "stopping research??"

Jack, why do you always insist on playing dumb when you are wrong? How do you think the following is determined?

quote:

vetting new military programs that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars to determine their viability, whether they'll fill a real or perceived need, whether the technology is well-developed and reliable, whether the program cost estimates are realistic, whether the vendors can deliver on time and on budget, and most of all, whether they'll actually work as intended

Gee, I'd say that we do all these things through research. Which costs...money. WTF, indeed.

Vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Another yet in a long list of red tape.Constrictions do not aid research and development. But rather Freedoms do and who exactly would decide what is fit and what is not some pencil pushers.I tell you Jack for a Liberal you sure sound restricting to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Your stance is to stop research and development to save the tax payer money.I would be equally as critical of someone who wanted to stop Drug or Cancer research.

WTF? Where did I write anything -- anything -- about "stopping research"??

I wrote about vetting new spending programs to make sure they were viable, needed and would do what they're designed to do before committing billions of dollars to them. That's "stopping research??"

No, you said this...

quote:

vetting new military programs

not spending programs. Nice try </