I was comparing McCain against his political colleagues, however that shakes, he comes off in the middle.

illegal immigration is a huge problem in arizona and McCain says all the right things and talks about it a lot, but he doesn't support any meaningful change.

Well, he's floated a bill that has sparked debate. Its a variation of Bush's guest worker deal, with a bit more incentive to register through eventual citzenship, if so desired. The talk is moving and that might bring change. Just maybe not the change you find meaningful.

I dont know about airframes. I would be more moved if it was armored vehicles needed on the ground in Iraq.

Land deals...? They're all about making your own money. Thats no real surprise.
As for the leaner, smaller military...isnt that Rumsfeldian?

whether we are at war or not, we always have planes in the air. the only thing that varies is the number of hours/missions. that requires aerial refueling. the refueling fleet is in serious trouble due to age. we just phased out an airframe that was in excess of 40 years old in favor of one that came off the line the same year. the only difference was the engine model. the replaced version was obsolete two generations ago, the new one was obsolete one generation ago.

because of the maintenance issues that go along with age, the birds spend a lot of time on the ground and cost a lot of money in hours/missions lost, as well as materials. the new airframe's weren't just new, they had a design that allowed for virtually a complete overhaul in less than 1/3 the time.

armor on the ground is something you hear a lot about in the news, but it is misleading. even if they don't have enough - they do have the newest and best available. aerial refueling is an absolute necessity and it is being done with inferior equipment and not enough of it, at that.

this was nothing than a political play between bush/rumsfeld (who aren't spotless on the issue) and McCain (who thought ego was more important than the mission)

land is about making money. BUT the public purpose that they are raising funds for is the protection of a military base. they have signs posted everyone to show everyone how supportive they are of the base. they will vote and jockey for upgrades to the base. then they will stand by and pretend they are surprised when the base goes on the BRAC. all the while knowing that they can now flip the land to new investors when they jockey to have the old military base turned into a civilian airport. they did it before...

I'm not in AZ, in the heat of the action, so its interesting to get your perspective.

First, I admit my immense ignorance of Pentagon spending history and military stuffs. Still, it seems to me that there is so much going on with these big contract deals, that to have some essential equiptment blocked just because of ego, seems oversimple. If McCain is checking the power of Rumsfeld/Bush, I wonder what the rest of the story is...

What should happen to old military bases? You support innovation on one hand, preservation on the other? I'm just saying its not a simple thing of supporting the military or not, its which military.
The weasley thing is if he can be pegged for the bait and swich maneuver.

I dont love McCain, he's anti choice, throws bones to the religious right, he didnt question strongly enough the Iraq war, although seems to be pounding the intelligence gaffs after the fact. His economic, corporate, gun, healthcare, education votes are pretty split. He did vote against media conglomeration/monopolies, supports the illusion of govt reform, supports stem cell research,...so he seems willing to disagree with the party, and question when it isnt necessarily the easiest move. I guess that impresses me most. Maybe its a case of Bush's crew making Reganesque republicans look moderate and likeable!

Let's try to understand them once their in prison.

Hey I'm a hyphented-American. I'm many: real-American, actual-American, American-American.

And here's an entertaining bit: not all black-skinned people hail from Africa. Is it still politically correct to refer to those as African-Americans?

Liberalists don't think out positions... they feel them. That's why it'll take them quite a while to get out of their deep, dark hole.

Careful.. soon as an employeer I might be sued for my hiring practices of discriminating against unqualified-Americans.

you know, BLB - i don't know what your real, well-thought-out responses would be...but i hope different. responses like your don't do much but stir up the pot and give a face to the fears that many americans have of the conservative, anti-illegal immigration contingent.

i am a political conservative, i am vociferousely anti-illegal immigration, hyphenations annoy me, but i reject your kneejerk, backslapping, redneckish response to these issues.

Just another smug Bush-baby college kid that thinks he's better and smarter than the masses.
Doesn't want to waste his precious time educating the unwashed so just drops by to stir shit.
Engaging is a debate would reveal how hollow his values are.
Probably heading for an MBA. :rolleyes: