True, the situation in their own states does affect their decision, and that decision in a state like Florida means something different. They have luxuries the others don't have, and I am glad you mentioned this. It's a good thing for non-voters to keep in mind.

Yet, we don't vote in a vacuum. Their decision makes sense for them in their states, and I can dig that, as I've been an abstainer for many years...though with the situation kinda flipped, as I leaned red but didn't worry about my state going blue.

You condone vitrol? I'm not a fan, myself.

Visible mojo for scaeagles, since I can't mojo you. I'm surprised that tapping Al Gore was the last straw....but I admit my inability to understand your politics. :) I agree, your decision not to vote is a decision, as is iSm's.

To anyone who is feeling down about the future...I suggest you read the book I'm reading, about the next generation of politics. Hmm, actually, probably not good for scaeagles. But in the perspective of history, maybe it will make you feel better anyway.

It may be a good read but be wary of books that find patterns in history and then project them into the future. That is a very popular type of book/research, but the success rate at successful prediction is low.

I am fully aware I sound pretty gullible, but the book talks about prior generational predictions and shows how they have borne out. This concept has been popular for study from the "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment onward, and analyzes why people felt they didn't work....but yeah, I'll stop now.

This was actually rather thought provoking for me (not the usual just skip over want Strangler has to say :) ). You are indeed correct. I do have a possible worse outcome, but I think the victory of Obama is better in the long run for the conservative movement. I believe McCain will clearly be better in one area than Obama, being national defense, and that is the only reason I am not voting for Obama. I see Obama right out of the Jimmy Carter book of destroying the military, and in these times, that cannot be allowed to take place.

Convince me that Obama won't destroy our military capability, cut vital weapons programs, cut the size of our forces, or capitulate in the name of getting along.....and perhaps I'd vote for him. This is how far McCain has fallen in my view.

By the way, hell is still a very hot place, from what I understand, regardless of my last few posts, this one in particular.

The case has been made, you choose not to believe the case. Biden made the case in the debate. Obama and the people who advise him have demonstrated time and again over the past decade that they understand the concept of consequences. They accurately predicted the result of the war in Iraq (sectarian violence, significant commitment and sacrifice on our part, and a bolstering of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan due to our resources being tied up elsewhere). Wheras McCain and those that advise him said it would be easy, that we could just ignore Afghanistan since we've already clearly won there, and that it would be a war against Al Quaeda.

So who's ideas have done more to weaken our military? The camp that seems to have a pretty good handle on where we should be fighting and what those fights might look like, or the camp that thinks war is a game that's won by running in as fast as you can and blowing sh*t up, who cares if you're actually fighting the right enemy, or if you're adequately prepared, or have any idea of what might be involved in running that war.

Biden lied a few times regarding that as well (I can list them specifically if I need to). Obama was against the surge, poor judgement indeed. Biden was adament that Obama was not prepared to be commander in chief prior to joining the ticket. Politics then? Perhaps. But true nonetheless.

Weakening the military also includes cancelling weapons programs, which I don't believe McCain would do.

Choose not to believe them? Well, considering they are poorly presented arguments, yeah, I don't believe them.

I'll let GD defend his arguments.

I suppose you wouldn't be one to listen to the idea that we should spend less on the military than we do now. The comparisons in how much we spend in Iraq and how much we spend building infrastructure in Afghanistan are ridiculous. Biden alluded to this, not sure if you'd call them lies.

According to Bob Woodward's new book The War Within, so was the president's advisory committee, which included James Bakker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, some retired generals.

I saw a bumper sticker today that said:



Yep, Palin was bigger and on the top...:rolleyes: :confused: