Missle defense is a good idea, especially with russia getting ready to make their own. And the idea of isolationism is a bad idea. Its part of the reason Hitler had a good chance of winning WWII. The fact is, yes we need to decrease our military use abroad, but we still need to be a world leader. This means using our influence in a good way, leading by example, being in worthy conflicts. If we stay out, then russia has green light to do what it wants with georgia, chavez can move as he pleases, and so can iran. Limiting military use is all good, but we can't just close down all our options, especially with how threatining the world is becoming.

Second, we keep some troops and bases in those countries. They are not doing anything significant atm, and it gives us options if there is a significant threat from nations in that area. Haveing no bases there would be a bad idea.

Seconded.  Sorry about not reading the other small biz part but I could not locate it and I had work to do so I put it off.  Anyway, I am for a strong military.  We need more troops and I would even vouch for a national implementation of mandatory service for a short time like Israel or China.  What is to say we get attacked by a nation with an opportunity to call up over 10 million while we would have to draft untrained people and put them on the front after 2 weeks.  People need training and discipline today due to the corrosion of ethics and personal responsibilty.

A strong military is important. I dont think we need mandatory service, and if there was a war where the draft was needed, I doubt that the American people would object. This type of war would be like a world war 3, which imo will not happen because it would escalate to a nuclear holocaust. And no one wants that.

Getting attacked by a military of 10 million (n korea or china only one i can think of atm) would be very, very odd. First, they have to get the troops here. Not gonna happen with any ease.

So what branch of the military did you join, HG1989?

Halogamer, Aeimond's provides that code, I provided the Hawaiian code on reprints.  I can find more that say, it doesn't matter where a person is born, if the U.S. Government says he was born in the U.S. than he was born in the U.S.

The point of me bringing up McCain's birth, was not to show his ineligibility.  He is eligible because his parents were.

He was not born on a military base.  He was born in a military hospital, in a place that late became a military base.  But as I showed above, that has NOTHING to do with citizenship.

I don't see how his father being an Admiral or any other profession has to do with citizenship.  Does it make his father a better person than an 18 year old girl living in Hawaii?

As for racism, I didn't try to label you as a racist.

Since your position has no validity and Obama's is actually very similar to the other candidate's situation, I wanted to know which one.  If there is another motive, tell me what it is.

Since you used diminuitive language to compare Obama's parents to McCain's parents, I realized: I left out elitism. I'm an elitist, so don't be offended by that.

I think your reasoning is very flawed, as is McCain's.

You think there should be less government, but want more regulation on Wall Street, government military training for all, more complicated tax codes, more use of the military.

Report me all day long, they can ban me if I over step the rules.  Honestly, I didn't need to say it and you didn't need to answer because it is clear to each individual person what you are to them.  Your comments as observed by me are one thing, to you they have another meaning, and to someone else another.

These made up issues aren't going to convince an undecided voter, you'd be better off explaining why McCain's plan's are better.  Don't stoop to the level of a politician.

(BTW, I know I do it to, but I don't say I work for a campaign. Plus my candidate is going to win.)

Hell no, stay where you are :O you're boosting the local economy wherever you build your bases. (at least over here :P )

But you are correct,  the US goverment lost a lot of it's credibility in the last years, but I wouldn't mind if they'd use their still existing influence for the betther.

Palins May Owe Tens of Thousands of Dollars in Back Taxes
( http://www.electoral-vote.com/ )

When Sarah Palin accepted John McCain's offer to be his running mate, she probably didn't fully realize what being in the national spotlight meant. For example, your tax returns get to be analyzed in public (for free) by miscellaneous tax experts. Gov. Palin actually lives in Wasilla, a suburb of Anchorage, but the state capital is in Juneau, 500 miles away as the crow flies (assuming they have crows in Alaska). On the many nights she stayed at home, she claimed to have been away from the capital on business and was reimbursed $17,000 by the state for this "travel." Being paid a per diem for staying in your own home is ethically dicey but probably legal since "away on business" is probably defined as "not near your office." However, Palin was also paid $25,000 to reimburse her husband and children for being away from "home" (Juneau) which she did not list as income. A D.C. tax lawyer and two law school professors specializing in tax law have concluded that if the State of Alaska wants to pay the governor to take her family on "business trips" that is its good right, but the money received is taxable income under the internal revenue code and the Palins should have declared it and paid tax on it, which they did not.

None so far but likely Army or AF after college for CO rank.  My uncle was a Marine and my sister's dad was on Seal Team 6 with covert operations in Grenada, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Panama, and other spec ops that are still classified Level 5, I think.

edit: My great-grandfather was a CB in the European theater of WWII; my grandfather fought in Korea (that is why I take these jests at me seriously); my father was in the Army Reserve and almost given the green light for Iranian invasion which he said he had about 30 seconds to live upon drop.

Not much of a family history in the military then, eh?

You're not really that serious about it if you aren't already in ROTC. Get with the program!

1) Hell yeah!

2) Hell yeah!

3) Hell yeah!

4) This is the only one I partially disagree on.  I think the military is bloated, and am all for say private firms evaluating the efficiency of governments, but state governments have actually become way more bloated than the federal government. 

(I really want to show you some figures on this, but I can't find any off hand.  One of my government textbooks had a really interesting analysis of the growth of federal vs. state governments.  The growth of state governments particularly after Reagan has far outpaced the federal government, which when measured against the total US population growth has shrunk to some degree since a few decades earlier).