[tvtimeout]

(1) I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

(2) Let me know once you get a high level position in the Dept. of Defense.

(3) This is part of what you don't seem to get. We don't have the luxury of picking only one of the two to concentrate our efforts on. But, here is the logical order of priorities; first- we protect our country, our own sovereignty is first order of business, we have to make sure we have a nation to worry about right? second- live within a managable deficit, it's okay to borrow [B]some money as long as we can justify doing so when projected budgets demonstrate national liquidity to that end. [/B]Your charge that there are no differences in the two parties is rediculous. Name one republican congress that has failed to present a yearly federal budget as law requires, much less four in a row. To date, only the Democrats have shown the nerve to run roughshod over federal law. Democrats are purposely avoiding a federal budget because the know they can't come close to justifying doing so either by accounting terms or ethical terms. On a side note, you haven't come close to justifying your contempt for the conservative principles Ron Paul has spent a notable political career espousing.

Why do you say that I don't get this... I just contend that 600+ bases is over kill. I feel that the military industrial complex that General Eisnhower warned about has taken over and I think it is over kill.

Nationalizing banks, bailouts of auto industry, bailout of wall street, all on the people's dime, not a private solution.

Which party does this sound like?

Which party did this? Which party had control of the house, senate, and Presidency when this took place?

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck. It must be a duck.