DJ V Lawrence

Can you explain what earmarks you're referring to? Because as a veteran, the only part of the new GI Bill I read was "College $$$$$$$$ starting in Fall 2009"

I don't know all the numbers or my stance just yet, and when. That "Socialist Civilian Army" thing sounds off though. From what I understand, Obama was looking to spend on both the civilian defense sector AND the into military defense. I also believe he would get that to pass in Congress too, since there's a Democratic majority. He also seemed to support the recent new GI Bill when from what I also understand, McCain voted against (please correct me there if I'm wrong there). What I'm not aware of is how he plans to fund his plans. Though I hear that those plans are in detail on his website, I'll just wait until the debates to hear them break it down live. At that time, I think I'll decide if I like the overall plan or not.

Is that good or bad? (I don't have an opinion yet. That's why I ask)

It was unplanned, but after talking to my neighbors, I realize that EVERYONE on my block has stocked up on Bud Light. Various sodas, Kool-Aid, etc., but no one forgot to buy stocks of water and Bud Light

Oh, that's Ike The Careless Bear; the leader of surge scrutiny....

I'm glad you've asked this question I'm an independent, and I like and respect both candidates more than any other in their parties. My decision will not be made set-in-stone until all the major debates are over. Obama's WAY better than McCain when it comes to breaking down his policies and telling people what he wants to do and how. McCain is WAY better than Obama when it comes to his military experience. The fact though is that neither of those things matter to me. My choice is based off of five things: 1) Who made the better choice as a Vice President. Not who's more charismatic or more experienced, but who'd be the better advisor to the President, and who'd be a better replacement President should something unfortunate happen. So far, Obama's beating McCain in that regard, but that could change. If Palin's able to prove via interviews that her policies would make America safer and stronger than a Biden-America, then McCain would get that point. 2) Who has the better policy ideas, and who is more realistic. That's where the debates come in. Both said they want alternative energy. Neither has broken that down to my satisfaction yet 3) Who's more straight-forward to the American people. That's also where the debates come in, but so far, Obama's leading McCain in that regard. That's also why I was asking that question on McCain's stance on Bush. I don't think that's been clear yet. I think the debates may help answer that. 4) Who will have the strongest economic plan. And by that, I mean who will create more jobs, and who will create more revenue for lower, middle, AND upper-class Americans. Republicans have had a rich-get-richer stance on the issue, while Democrats have had a middle-class-get stronger attitude. I think you need both. Who will make the rich get richer, the middle-class get richer, and help the lower-class work to become middle or more? I need the debates for that, because I want the candidates to scrutinize each other face-to-face, and want to hear some projections from them as to what their economic plans will do, and who will pay for what. 5) Who has a better plan for how to handle the situation in Iraq. McCain's plan (that I've heard so far) sounds more like the play-it-safe approach. Obama's plan (that I've heard so far), is exactly what the government would need to do to withdraw if that's what we wanted to do, as in direct-talks will neighboring nations no matter the prior relationship and open up diplomacy. Though it could work, it sounds risky, and only a president with diplomatic capabilities could pull that off. I need the debates to hear them say face-to-face why their plans will or will not work, and who's more capable of making America safe in the future. ------------------------------------------------------- That's why you'll hear me ask the questions I do on HAIF; if there's something I don't know, I want it to be clarified honestly without spin. I have no political stance other than "who's best for the next 4-8 years". Both candidates have good ideas. The question is who has BETTER ideas, and BETTER judgement in my opinion.

I remember you said your stance on Sarah Palin from the moment she was announced. To clarify though, my comments or query to you isn't on her being picked for nomination by John McCain. My comments are based on the fact that SINCE being picked by McCain, she's yet to be drilled on the issues by the media, yet you're claiming it's the opposing party that has "lack of substance". I may or may not agree with Obama/Biden/McCain's views, but I know their views because they themselves clarified them. Palin since the RNC hasn't stepped up yet because it sounds like she isn't ready to be interviewed yet, or answer the tough, important questions. I'm not talking about the policies themselves; I'm referring to the fact that she's yet to clarify herself. ------------------------------------------------------ Would you be willing to answer my previous question? There's been a President for the past eight years who represents the Republican Party and conservative ideas in policy. Why would the McCain/Palin ticket want to "Change" that? What's the shame in using the fact that McCain voted 90-95% of the time for the President that represents his own party and using that as an example of the "experience" factor that so many people in both parties are talking about? ANY devoted member of a political party would more than likely also vote for their party's policies more than against it. If anything, why not say "I'm going to keep the same policies as Bush, my fellow Republican, only I'm going to do it better and make them work. At the same time, I'm going to reform the Republican Party after getting voted in by trying to get people to vote out Congress, because the President's done a great job, and THEY'RE the ones that failed"? I mean, how are you going to support the President, then try to alienate any association with him, then try to improve his strategies after getting elected? There's another question as well (for clarification purposes). When McCain/Palin say they want to "change Washington," what exactly are they referring to? Change from Bush's policies to something else, or change in how Washington is run while keeping Bush's policies on Iraq, the economy, etc.?

I don't know. I don't know how McCain will either. I assume both candidates have put their plans on their websites. If neither candidate's plans are broken down during the debates, then I'll actually go onto their websites to find out. That's why until those debates happen, I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. The grilling on the issues has only begun. My point to you is that you said this: Obama, as well as McCain, have said what their plans are in Washington on multiple news interviews the past few months. BOTH candidates have substance leading to this point because we know their overall views. Each interview for both candidates breaks down that person's plans. I don't understand how you could say Obama hasn't said anything less than McCain has, especially after the O' Reilly Factor. Absolutely. If there's anyone of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that hasn't said anything about "how they were going to change Washington" at this point, it's Sarah Palin. I wanna hear her take on the issues. So far, there's been nothing. I wanna hear reporters cut the bull on her daughter and that stupid super-trooper story, and drill her on questions on her stance on health care, what she can offer with foreign policies, what kinds of roles she would play with Iraq, etc. like the other candidates have. Until she does that, all we have on her is a ???. Why wouldn't you as a conservative be pissed off that she hasn't represented herself yet on the Sunday media circuit with less than 60 days left in the election on the issues that matter?

This is exactly the campaign strategy I don't understand, and I'd really like you to answer this question. There's been a President for the past eight years who represents the Republican Party and conservative ideas in policy. Why would the McCain/Palin ticket want to "Change" that? What's the shame in using the fact that McCain voted 90-95% of the time for the President that represents his own party and using that as an example of the "experience" factor that so many people in both parties are talking about? ANY devoted member of a political party would more than likely also vote for their party's policies more than against it. If anything, why not say "I'm going to keep the same policies as Bush, my fellow Republican, only I'm going to do it better and make them work. At the same time, I'm going to reform the Republican Party after getting voted in by trying to get people to vote out Congress, because the President's done a great job, and THEY'RE the ones that failed"? I mean, how are you going to support the President, then try to alienate any association with him, then try to improve his strategies after getting elected? ----------------------------------------------- Also, how are you going to claim that Obama hasn't told "anyone how you are gonna change things in Washington and hope you get elected," when he, Biden, AND John McCain were ALL getting interviewed on the issues this past weekend. Hell, Obama was on the O Reilly Factor for four nights including tonight, and on ABC's This Week, and neither let ANY issue slide. Reilly for example made Obama tell everyone exactly where he stood on the issues, and how he planned to fix it, and he blatantly told everyone his plans. Biden was on Meet The Press, and got drilled hardcore by Tom Brokaw on issues like the surge, discrepancy on policy, etc. And McCain was on Fox News Sunday. Regardless of if you agree with either Obama, Biden, or McCain's policies, you KNOW where they stand, and everyone now has a semi-idea as to how they plan to implement. Sarah Pain however has not had a drilling interview on the policies since join the general election. That's an absolute lack of substance until that happens. Right now, all we have to rely on her is her rhetoric on the campaign trail, and some false liberal lies on the internet. NEITHER have substance. Her first interview is going to be on September 11th on the day her son's being sent to Iraq? WTF? How are you suppose to drill a parent on the day their child's getting sent to war on the real issues? That sounds like more of a sympathy-move than a get-to-know-the-candidate move. Why aren't you slamming Palen for not giving people insight on her stance on issues via tough interviews like the other three?

Question: Obama specifically said in his DNC speech that he "would cut taxes for 95% of working Americans", yet McCain in his RNC speech said "Obama plans to raise your taxes." Which statement is more accurate?

Oliver Luck's DynamoPlanet interview

Have no fear. The Independent DJ's here I think Palin was a great choice when it came to taking the spotlight off of Obama's DNC speech into the weekend. I also feel sorry for Republicans and Conservatives going for the McCain ticket right now because of the circumstances created by Hurricane Gustav, and the fact that we will not get to see a four-day RNC appeal the way we did with the DNC. A lot of independents like myself were looking forward to the RNC to hear what Palin had to say, but the attention will be in Louisiana this week. Hopefully, the Biden-Palin debate will make up for that. Here's Sarah Palin pros IMO: 1) She's brought new buzz to the Republican party, and I think did so more than any of the other talked about candidates would have. McCain flat-out needed some kind of buzz after Obama's DNC speech, and Palin's out-of-nowhere announcement worked. 2) She has a really high approval rating in Alaska as governor. I think I heard 70-80%. Having a majority of the home-state backing a candidate is a good thing. That wasn't the case for Gore in 2000, where Tennessee was split (I can't remember, but I think Bush may have actually won that state then. Please feel free to correct me there.) 3) McCain's announcement of Palin all of a sudden will make Palin the most talked about woman in American politics; something that Democrat Hilary Clinton could claim until this past Friday. The fact that she's a mother of five will give her that All-American image, and will win votes of people who were only looking to vote for a woman regardless of where they stood on the issue. Here's Sarah Palin cons IMO: 1) People are not aware of her or what she would be able to do with so little knowledge in foreign policy, especially compared to Joe Biden. 2) McCain no longer can legitimately claim that Obama's inexperience is a factor, because McCain decided that the person that would be best to replace him if something happened is someone with far less experience than Obama. (Being Governor of a rural state is not equal in experience to working in Congress and at least understanding how Washington works with different issues and agendas) 3) She's not considered a moderate. In fact, she seems to appease conservatives much more than moderates, and moderates are the ones that will decide the next Prez. It's going to be hard to promote conservative ideals to a nation who has a >30% approval rating for the current conservative President. Not saying it can't be done, but Palin will have to do a lot to prove that her ideas are ones that most Americans want, and that she will be able to give McCain, a 26-year Senator, advice if both are in office.

Well, that's easy. Biden. He sounds just as ready to lead as Obama, has the strong foreign policy standings that a Vice-President would need in case something happened, and his agenda on issues was known prior to his announcement. Palin, we just don't know her yet. For her to win America's trust, she'd have to prove that her experience can help McCain as much as Biden can help Obama. And she'll have to give America a crash course on what she would do that would make her a better President than Obama or Biden. Right now, the only people that would vote Palin over the Dems are conservatives looking for someone more conservative than the other, or women that are looking to vote for whoever is a female candidate. Issue-wise, there's a ??? for now. Palin could change that though after the debates. Should she beat Biden there and also have a better agenda than Biden in the RNC, then she could be a person we'd rather see in office. But for now (like today, prior to the RNC), Biden has the advantage.

I doubt that will happen, but that does lead me to another question. Should Palin become popular win or lose (seeing that most of America never heard of her prior to today), could you see Palin running for President in the future?

I actually see her as one with far less experience than Obama. At least Obama made a name for himself in 2004 and has been active since with Congress and civil issues. I honestly never heard of this Palin person before. McCain did drop the ball because you'd want a Vice-President that would both be strong in foreign policy, and one that the people believe would be a good president. If this person's only governed Alaska, how's that experience supposed to resolute into going straight into the White House? That will in itself be a tall task for the next 40 days. But I'm willing to give the McCain/Palin ticket a shot. The Republicans thought this was the best ticket for their party. I'm open-minded. Let's hear where they stand on the issues like we all have Obama/Biden this past week. Also, there are a lot of shallow voters in America to go along with the thinking ones. And by that, I mean people that will only vote or not vote for Obama because he's black, and those who would vote against Obama and vote for Palin only because she's a woman that old people consider to be a hottie, all without hearing the issues. A great example would be if you see how many Hilary supporters announce they'll support McCain without hearing him or her speak. I'll be looking forward to the debates instead. I know Obama/McCain will be a great debate to watch (the first one is September 26th). But McCain's choice now means other independents as well as myself will have to use the VP debate to learn who Palin is, as well as see if she can beat Biden in debate. It will be an interesting election; that I'll concede.

I dare a journalist to go into China, find out, and run before the government catches 'em. That alone would probably require a number of Olympic events just to escape alive. Hurdles, long-jump, 10,000m dash, decathlon, swimming, diving, archery, judo, fencing...

Dynamo Stadium Update: Mayor White like to request Harris County to invest $10 Million for the new stadium Also, expect to see a report on KHOU tonight. It looks like the $10 Million could be the final deal needed to be made for the Dynamo to get their new home downtown. Hopefully, by the end of next month we'll hear an announcement and see renderings.

An announcement is expected by the end of September (the end of summer), and according to the news, there's only one or two major issue left on the table until the deal is finalized. Though that hasn't been made public yet, more than likely the hold-up is deciding who will finance what for the stadium and how much. Both sides sound dedicated to trying to get the deal done though. My suggestion is to not expect any announcements this month. Expect it to happen in September.

Who do you blame for the middle class gap?

I enjoy political discussions Yo TJones, I'm not sure I understand your first two sentences. If someone were considered far too radical to be accepted by the general public, how would they be a better candidate than the two that won their parties? The primaries seem to do a good job of weeding out the far-left and far-right out of the presidential race. How much would it suck if we ended up seeing something stupid like Howard Dean vs. Mitt Romney for America's choices? We'd be screwed like a Swisha House mix-tape. Who are the radicals that you are referring to? Also, I'm not buying the Obama thing where he's not accepting the "McCain debate" challenge. The debates will come when they normally come (September/October), and that's all I need. Besides, if Obama were to have taken McCain's challenge, that would have meant that the debates would have started already, also meaning that there would have been very little chance for Obama to go to the Middle East and Europe after his primary the way McCain had the luxury of going on his trips after his primary. I feel that McCain's idea to have any of the debates within a couple weeks after Obama's nomination was actually a political trap that Obama didn't take. No biggie; all I care about from both sides are the issue. As for the VP, it does make sense as you put it (a game of chicken).

I agree with Lockmat on this one. It's a chance to see world competition where each country's athletic pride is the motivation for winning in front of the world, instead of just winning a domestic league title.

The events I'm most looking forward to are: 5) The field events. Particularly, any event where it involves throwing something. I don't care who wins the gold. All I care about is who screams the loudest, and who makes the funniest face as they get ready to throw the object. 4) Tennis. I really wanna see Nadal vs. Federer for the gold. The Wimbleton Final this year was the best tennis match ever. 3) Men's Basketball. US international basketball games in the Olympics will be far more passionate and intense than the NBA, which is in itself fun to watch. I also look forward to watching Yao Ming and his teammates represent their home country. Even if they make the quarter-finals, it will take basketball in China to another level. 2) Men's and women's soccer. Two Dynamo players on the US team, and they'll be going up against players like Ronaldinho from Brazil and Messi from Argentina for the gold?! Hells yeah. Then the US women will be going up against Marta from Brazil again. That goal she scored against the US in last year's World Cup was my favorite play of that year. I wanna see if the women can get back to their glory years again even if Wambach's injured 1) USA vs. Jamaica in the track and field relay. I gotta agree; that's going to be exciting to watch. I gotta go for the native country Jamaica for this one Back in Jam-Rock, track is the biggest event to watch for any Summer Olympics. I think the black, green, and gold's gonna take it this year. The best part of the Olympics though will be checking out all their new stadiums and architecture during the events.

I'm not going to bother deciding who's the better candidate until after I watch the conventions and at least two debates. That being said, I think this election is much more productive and more on topic than the last two. Bush vs. Kerry was especially ugly, and it was hard to pick out the mud-slinging from the actual issues. Quick question to everyone: Do you think whoever Obama and McCain choose as vice-presidential candidates will have any effect on the outcome of the election, or do you all just consider it just something to keep the media hyped up?

Here's a copy of the press release that DynamoPlanet.com received: