Guess who rearranged the USAF to be dominated by fighter pilots? Gen McPeak, you know the guy that’s an advisor to Obama. He wanted to “change” the USAF cuz fighter pilots where not getting command positions. Google McPeak for the entire story. USAF is still messed up due to McPeak’s change. Do you want this for America?

Military was desegregated under Harry Truman in 1948. so by the time I was in the military, from 1975 to 1980, that had allowed many black officers to reach general officer rank, as I mentioned..I served under and got to meet, a black 3 star general, Julius Becton, VII Corps commander, and a 1 star black general who was assistant division commander for the 1st Armored Division.

Prior to 1948, there had only been one black general, during WWII. Strangely enough, my dad got to meet him while he was still a LTC during the big one.

Hope this wasnt too long an answer for you!!

Or are you of the generation where the sound bite went from 9 to 7 seconds?

I know it is SUCH a drag to read a LOOONG post, even if it is on a complex subject. Got to have your opinion/facts in 3 sentences or less, eh?

Got anything factual to point out, or are you just too far gone?

I tried to point out where I am coming from, and why I have my ideas/opinions, due to challenges from John. If you are too lazy to follow the thread, then perhaps you might want to refrain from commenting.

No, you can have your opinion. for what its worth.

Why do you persist in distorting what I said?

I did not trash Hilary personally, I critizied her campaign. Since she lost, there must be something to what I said.

Its not the “defense of last resort” to invoke experience , after years of internet political discussion, it seems to me that younger posters are usually the most vitrolic about their ideas. They also resort to invective more often…That being said, you may be an crotchty 90 year old. I’ve probably argued with a few of them over the years.

I didnt pump my resume. I did serve in the US Army from 75 to 80 as an infantry officer. I did not claim any combat experience, did not claim to serve in Vietnam. I was trained, in ROTC and in various Army schools, and proudly served, also did reserve time til 88. I stay versed on military subjects because of that background and my college degree, history, where I concentrated on US military, diplomatic and political history in the 20 century. Later took some graduate history classes in these topics at UNC-Chapel Hill. I have been a current events and politics junkie my entire life, since I was old enough to read our local paper ( a pretty good one), and the liberal regional paper, the Charlotte Observer. My dad subscribed to those papers, and was a local democratic chairman. I inherited my politics jag from him. He was a wounded veteran of WWII. My older brother served in Vietnam as an infantry officer for 2 combat tours, and served a 20 year career. He then served 22 years teaching JROTC at an Alabama high school. Along the way he got a masters in international relations from Boston University. My little brother served 4 years active duty as an Army Medic, then another 10 in reserves. My mother served during WWII in the WAC and was trained and served as a physical therapist. She met my dad while he was being treated for his shattered femur. Everyone in my immediate family except my sister served time in the US Army, so maybe thats why I am so interested in military subjects. Thus the comments on McCain and his fighter jock mentality. BTW, I have met a few AF fighter jocks, when they served as close air support liaison officers with our infantry battalion. And as I mentioned before, I was at a post for 4 years with the Army version of fighter pilots, attack helicopter pilots. That’s some of the things that shaped my opinion.

I will be 55 next month, so I was too young to march at Selma, but I sure watched the news coverage. Read more carefully, I said I that MLK , Medgar Evers,the Selma marchers were my heroes, not that I marched with them. Is there something pathological about you that requires you distort the comments of those that disagree with you??

I remember the days of coverage of the Kennedy assassination, and was watching on Saturday morning when Ruby shot Oswald on live TV. I had to read the telegram from the Defense Department to my mother, sister and brother when my older brother was wounded in Vietnam (the first of 7 times). She couldn’t stand to read it, since her first husband was killed in WWII, and my dad was in the hospital. Afterwards, my older brother made sure they didnt send a telegram, since he didnt want to upset Mom. He would just write and say, well I just got to spend a few weeks loafing in the hospital because….

So, the above is where I come from, to some extent. Of course what I post is my opinion, I dont pretend to be perfect I did forget about Kennedy being Catholic. Guess I should amend my remark that all presidents of the USA have been male, white, christians. Does that make you feel better? ‘Course, we could quibble even there, since Jefferson and some of the other “Founding fathers” presidents were probably Deists. And my memory of the Kennedy /Catholic issue is it became an issue, he made the speech, and the topic was pretty much dropped. He sure didnt bring it up, so far as I can tell from a cursery Googgle search, so that’s where the “ran away from it” comment came from.

Why the bio info above? Well, let’s see. I foolishy thought that discussion threads were for just that, discussion. Not just venting spleen about how much you hate Obama, or what a liar he is. Yes, we all have opinions. But it seems to me that you want the liberty to attack others opinions, yet your opinion that you are voting for McCain no matter what, should not be subject to debate. Your opinion is just as good as anyone elses. Or as we said in the Army, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I thought the idea is to debate the issues, not personally attack the debaters. If we are to debate the issues, then it might be nice to go into WHY we have the opinions we have; what facts are they based on and then how are our opinions formed thru the posters experiences? How do we understand where we come from on the facts and the opinions expressed based on those facts? If your facts are flawed, or have been incorrectly interpreted, then perhaps the others interested in the thread might like to understand where you are coming from. Or point out what they think are the mistakes in your arguement. And point out the facts/ experiences that have driven them to come to different opinions. After a thorough discussion, then the thread followers can come to an informed decision on the question debated.

Back to your last post, no where did I say or imply that “B) Anything Obama does is “differnent” because he’s BLACK. “

Lets deconstruct that first. I said Obama would be an historic president, due to his race. Also said Hilary would be historic if elected president due to her sex. Both are true statements.

Next, your comment: “A) it was, in your opinion, perfectly ok for Obama to LIE about the way he planned to finance his campaign because “all politicians do it”

No, John, I said that all politicians flip flop. Obama is a politician, ergo, he is going to flip flop. You can call it a lie, or be a little more charitable and call it a flip flop. Others might call it changing your mind, based on changing circumstances.

Take an extreme example. FDR said he would remain neutral on the war in Europe. Yet, he later requested that Congress declare war on Germany. So, should we say FDR was a liar? Or could we note that first Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and at almost the same time declared war on the US. Then on December 9th , 1941, Germany, following their interests,and their ally’s actions, declared war on the US. I think we could say that FDR had legitimately changed his mind when he requested Congress declare war on Germany. The Situation had changed. Radically. But even in this, you can delve deeper. Many historians have documented that the US under FDR tilted towards England, used Lend Lease to shove as much support as possible to the British, and that the US Navy was fighting an undeclared war on German submarines in the Atlantic prior to December 9th 1941. In the east, the US under FDR’s leadership covertly funded the Flying Tigers of China against Japan and allowed USAAC pilots to fly for the Chinese as mercenaries. After Pearl Harbor, those Pilots came back into the US forces.

Most things that politicians flip flop on are not that history shaking, but events change, and politicians are and have changed their minds on a whole lot of things as the situations change. And will do so for in the future.

That’s not being cynical, that is just being truthful, based on history.

Now, getting back to the debate,

Your position is, Obama lies (flip flops) so I am voting for McCain.

My response is to direct you to this interesting post on Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

“ McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks”
by Jon Perr on Monday, June 16th 2008….

The 10 flip flops are on:

1.Social Security Privitization.
2.Raising- and Slashing Defense Spending
3.First Term balanced Budget Pledge.
4.The Media’s Treatment of Hilary
5.The Estate Tax
6.FISA, Domestic Survillence and Telecom Immunity
7.Restoring the Everglades
8.Divestment from South Africa
9.Fighting Job losses in Michigan
10.Opposing hurricane Katrina Investigations.

My, even more recent flip flops than I thought. So, if your opposition to Obama is on his lies/flip flops, how does this make you feel about McCain?? What is your opinion of McCain now??

Balls in your court, John.

While McCain tries to “make political hay” of Obama’s decision to opt out of the presidential public financing system, David Donnelly, director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Money, reminds us that “we shouldn’t forget that McCain himself has already opted in, and then opted out, of the presidential system this election cycle. The only reason he’s gone unchecked is the lack of a quorum at the dormant Federal Election Commission.”

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/293155

When Obama opted out of the presidential public financing system, it was merely disappointing. But McCain opting out–after securing a $4 million line of campaign credit from Fidelity & Trust Bank, using the public money he’d officially opted for as surety–may have actually have been illegal.

A campaign finance watchdog group announced that it is filing a pair of complaints against the McCain campaign with the Federal Elections Commission for possible violations of federal law. According to The Baltimore Sun, Campaign Money Watch will ask the FEC to investigate “payments made by a lobbying firm, the Loeffler Group LLP, to McCain’s national finance director, Susan Nelson, who used to work for the firm.” The other complaint “suggests that there was something improper about a business slashing an invoice sent to the campaign by more than $100,000 when the business is partly owned by campaign manager Rick Davis.”

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/watchdog-group-files