2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Buzz Dixon]

These are for you, Samurai:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Wilkerson080618.pdf
http://current.com/items/89033258_general_accuses_wh_of_war_crimes
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/sweeping-and-wr.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-witnessing.html
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/05/is_this_the_american_way_induc.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/us_asks_to_rewrite_detainee_ev.php
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/21/gitmo-report-scalia/
http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2367
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003099
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702862.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/if-the-detainee-dies
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/12/11/ag21.jpg

[the4thpip]

One of the signs of true evil: Putting quotation marks around the word torture.

[the4thpip]

He says he'll investigate and prosecute Bush officials.



Actual justice? Not pardoning crooks?
ZOMG! How dare he??

[Typo Lad]

Tortuing one person is too damn many.

[KevinTBrown]

Thank you, Buzz.

I know that took a lot of time and effort on your part. And while this is what you posted:

These are for you, Samurai:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Wilkerson080618.pdf
http://current.com/items/89033258_general_accuses_wh_of_war_crimes
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/sweeping-and-wr.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-witnessing.html
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/05/is_this_the_american_way_induc.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/us_asks_to_rewrite_detainee_ev.php
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/21/gitmo-report-scalia/
http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2367
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003099
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702862.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/if-the-detainee-dies
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/12/11/ag21.jpg

This is what Samurai sees:

These are for you, Samurai:

[the4thpip]

Is it me or is, once again, the Republican candidate getting a bit of a "free ride" while the democrat has to deflect idiotic questions regarding his patriotism, religion, place of birth?

Why so little interest in his flip-flop on torture? His cheating on a handicapped wife and leaving her for a woman barely out of her teens? His corrupt past as one of the Keating Five? Where did the Vicki Iseman story disappear to?

[KevinTBrown]

Is it me or is, once again, the Republican candidate getting a bit of a "free ride" while the democrat has to deflect idiotic questions regarding his patriotism, religion, place of birth?

Why so little interest in his flip-flop on torture? His cheating on a handicapped wife and leaving her for a woman barely out of her teens? His corrupt past as one of the Keating Five? Where did the Vicki Iseman story disappear to?
In VERY slight defense of the Keating Five situation, McCain was still a newbie in congress when it all came about... And he was "cleared". That does not make him without guilt, but I don't think he had a fucking clue.

[Typo Lad]

Is it me or is, once again, the Republican candidate getting a bit of a "free ride" while the democrat has to deflect idiotic questions regarding his patriotism, religion, place of birth?

Actually, from where I'm sitting, McCain's actually getting a bit more focus than Bush the Lesser did. I think the reason the Obama questions are getting more attention is that they hit the Democrat "hot buttons".

Why so little interest in his flip-flop on torture? His cheating on a handicapped wife and leaving her for a woman barely out of her teens? His corrupt past as one of the Keating Five? Where did the Vicki Iseman story disappear to?

It's out there. Heck, you're even hearing people on Fox News say things they like about Obama. That's huge.

[KevinTBrown]

News Item (2004): John McCain calls the TV ads from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."

News Item (2008): John McCain accepts major donations from Swift Boat leaders and names one as an adviser.

McCain was probably being victimized in 2004 with a statement quoted out of context.

He obviously meant "dishonest" and "dishonorable" in the best senses of the words.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/quicktakes/1034947,CST-NWS-qt02.article

[FalconX2000]

Is it me or is, once again, the Republican candidate getting a bit of a "free ride" while the democrat has to deflect idiotic questions regarding his patriotism, religion, place of birth?

Why so little interest in his flip-flop on torture? His cheating on a handicapped wife and leaving her for a woman barely out of her teens? His corrupt past as one of the Keating Five? Where did the Vicki Iseman story disappear to?

Luckily Obama has been doing a good job of generating his own news lately.

[the4thpip]

In VERY slight defense of the Keating Five situation, McCain was still a newbie in congress when it all came about... And he was "cleared". That does not make him without guilt, but I don't think he had a fucking clue.

He was cleared?

During Mr. McCain’s four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips).

The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for “poor judgment” and was re-elected the next year.

He was reprimanded for poor judgment. Not the same as being cleared.

[KevinTBrown]

He was cleared?





He was reprimanded for poor judgment. Not the same as being cleared.
Missed the quotation marks? :smile:

Personally, I think he got damn lucky just to get the "slap on the wrist".

[the4thpip]

Hm yeah. Still, not even in quotation marks for me...

Some people involved think Mr. McCain got off too lightly. William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain’s investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple’s assets.) He should not be able to “put this behind him,” Mr. Black said. “It sullied his integrity.”

Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. “If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important,” he wrote in his memoir. “I still wince thinking about it.”

The Democrats should have Ronan Keating sing at their convention. :tongue:

[Grazzt]

A new contender for the presidency. (http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2008/06/tenzil-kem-for-president.html)

[the4thpip]

This is kinda cute:

http://sendbarackyourbaby.com/

[the4thpip]

A new contender for the presidency. (http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2008/06/tenzil-kem-for-president.html)

That's even better than this:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7016/cthulhuelectionsfo4.gif

[the4thpip]

Black Guy Asks Nation For Change (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

[Infra-Man]

Haha. Nice, pip.

Actually, on the note of The Onion, here's a great video bit they did:

How To Pretend You Give A Shit About The Election (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/today_now_how_to_pretend_you_give)

It's funny because it's true... and sadly, a few of my friends have used some of the techniques discussed.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.spokesman-recorder.com/news/article/article.asp?NewsID=89597&sID=4&ItemSource=L

Not that we don't know already, but this article did a nice job of summarising the worst biases of Fox in this election so far.

[Buzz Dixon]

More on torture, Samurai:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Let's let Andrew Sullivan have the closing word:

Is it not a rather fantastic historical irony that the torture techniques that the North Vietnamese used against McCain that forced him to offer a videotaped false confession ... are now the techniques the Bush administration is using to gain "intelligence" about terror networks.

How is it possible to know that everything John McCain once said on videotape for the enemy was false, because it was coerced, and yet assert that everything we torture out of terror suspects using exactly the same techniques, is true? In fact, McCain at least knew somewhere that his own government knew he existed, that there were procedures to eventually release him, that he was on someone's radar. The average prisoner at Gitmo or in the other parts of the detention program believes that no one will ever save him, that he could be disappeared for ever, that there are no procedures for his eventual release and no government to remember him. If McCain uttered lies on tape to stop the torture, why would an Islamist tell the truth?

Nothing more accurately exposes the classic moral error of the Bush administration and its enablers in war crimes. If the enemy tortures, it defines their moral evil and all intelligence gleaned from such coercion is self-evidently false propaganda. If we do it, it isn't wrong, and it leads to good intelligence.

Got that? And these people have the gall to describe their ideological opponents as moral relativists.

[Adam C]

All other prisoners were coerced with less onerous means...

Since Buzz has addressed your dishonesty, I have to say that I find it interesting that as a defense you say that some of the other prisoners were still coerced, even though by definition proper, ethical interrogation does not involve coercion.

[Paul McEnery]

In VERY slight defense of the Keating Five situation, McCain was still a newbie in congress when it all came about... And he was "cleared". That does not make him without guilt, but I don't think he had a fucking clue.

Unfortunately, little seems to have changed.

[Samurai]

Since Buzz has addressed your dishonesty, I have to say that I find it interesting that as a defense you say that some of the other prisoners were still coerced, even though by definition proper, ethical interrogation does not involve coercion.

All interrogation includes coercion of some type, whether it's a promise of reward or leniency, a threat of punishment or extended confinement, long hours badgering someone with the same questions over and over, hot lights, etc. "Pretty please with sugar on top? No? Ok, you're free to go then" isn't going to get you squat.

[Samurai]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll.matchup/?iref=mpstoryview

CNN poll: Obama, McCain in a statistical dead heat

[the4thpip]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll.matchup/?iref=mpstoryview

CNN poll: Obama, McCain in a statistical dead heat

Barack Obama 304 John McCain 234

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

[Typo Lad]

Eh. Polls are bunk anyway.

[LtMarvel]

I mean naive is the sense that he is lacking real experience, and often makes silly comments that show he doesn't know much about what he's talking about.

And insincere in the sense that he is pandering to various groups, that he doesn't honestly believe much of what he is saying, he (or his handlers) just think it will play well in Peoria, and that he has very few real morals or core beliefs or values other than "change is good." And if he does have some, he's keeping them well hidden because he doesn't think it'll jell with the pre-packaged image he's trying to market.
Doesn't he represent Peoria?

[the4thpip]

Eh. Polls are bunk anyway.

But the Electoral College ones are certainly of bigger value than the national polls.

[KevinTBrown]

But the Electoral College ones are certainly of bigger value than the national polls.
Agreed.

Even at this point in '04, Kerry held something like a 6 point lead over Bush, but Bush held the lead in key states that gave him the victory.

[Major Comma]

so, which key states will decide the election?
is it a different combination of states for both men?
and who is leading in those states right now?

[the4thpip]

so, which key states will decide the election?
is it a different combination of states for both men?
and who is leading in those states right now?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

[KevinTBrown]

so, which key states will decide the election?
is it a different combination of states for both men?
and who is leading in those states right now?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

This is a tad more "accurate": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5

It should be noted that the "toss-up" states show either candidate will less than a 5 point lead. But as Pip's map shows, just looking at it as whomever has the current lead in the polls, Obama wins handily.


Oh, and the key states right now are OH (Obama has a 4.5 point lead there), MI (Obama has a 2 point lead) and VA (McCain has a .7 point lead there). If Obama wins 2 of those 3, he'll win the election easily.

[the4thpip]

Rasmussenreports have one based only on their own polls:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (see methodology below) shows Barack Obama leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while John McCain leads in states with 171 votes. When leaners are included, Obama leads 293-240. On Thursday, July 3, Montana moved from “Likely Republican” to “Leans Republican.”

Hm. Montana is only 3 Electoral Votes, but it would still be quite telling if even THAT state become competitive!

Rasmussen 04/06 - 04/06 500 LV 48 43 McCain +5.0

[Samurai]

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0629df.html

Obama’s Boys of Summer
A Who’s Who of 1968 radicals supports the candidate.

Backing a major-party candidate for president would have been anathema to Michael Klonsky 40 summers ago, when the organization he led, Students for a Democratic Society, urged young people to spurn elections. “By ’68, our line was ‘Vote in the Streets,’” Klonsky told me last spring. “We thought we had to fight with Eugene McCarthy and those people.” In August 1968, protesters clashed with police outside the Democratic Party’s national convention in Chicago—but far from being political innocents who took to the streets to protest Vietnam War hawks’ capture of the Democratic presidential nomination, many of them never supported antiwar candidates McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. “Those of us who have been in the streets for the past five days didn’t give a flying fuck whether McCarthy would win or lose,” SDS declared in posters around Chicago, “and now that he’s lost, still don’t.” On the eve of the general election of that year—in which less than 1 percentage point would separate the popular-vote totals of Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey—Klonsky’s SDS bluntly proclaimed: “The elections don’t mean shit.”

Klonsky, whose disgust for mainstream politics led him to launch a new, Maoist Communist Party in the 1970s, today supports Barack Obama so enthusiastically that until recently he was blogging on the Illinois senator’s campaign website. And boycotting this November’s election, Klonsky maintains, would be a “tragic mistake.” He notes that Barack Obama isn’t Hubert Humphrey, 2008 isn’t 1968, and the strong movement he served back then is “relatively weak” now. “My own support for Obama is not a reflection of a radically changed attitude toward the Democratic Party,” Klonsky recently explained to me. “Rather, it’s a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”

Michael Klonsky is hardly the only ’68 radical supporting Obama this year. In 1968, when Mark Rudd organized the student strike that shut down Columbia University, the SDS chapter that he chaired ridiculed Kennedy and McCarthy as “McKennedy,” claimed that “neither peace candidate offers an alternative to the war policies of Lyndon Johnson,” and suggested “sabotage” as an alternative to voting. Rudd succeeded Klonsky as national SDS leader, presiding over the organization’s metamorphosis into Weatherman and performing “a liaison function” for the plot to bomb a Fort Dix soldiers’ dance that instead killed three Weathermen, including two of Rudd’s Columbia SDS colleagues. Today, Rudd renounces bombs, embraces ballots—and supports Obama. “Probably the biggest difference between Columbia SDS people in 1968 and in 2008 is forty years,” Rudd explained in an e-mail. “Most of us have lived with compromise our whole lives. As kids we were raving idealists who thought that ‘The elections don’t mean shit’ was a slogan that meant something to somebody. It didn’t.”

Then there’s Carl Davidson, who was one of SDS’s three elected national officers in 1968, when the organization first urged young people to refrain from voting. His disillusionment with traditional politics became so pronounced that, in the post-sixties hangover that followed, Davidson joined Klonsky in rejecting traditional politics for fringe Marxist movements. More recently, he helped organize the 2002 rally in which Obama first spoke out against the Iraq War and now serves as the webmaster of Progressives for Obama. “The last thing we need is a simple repeat of 1968, which saw Nixon and the new Right as an outcome, as well as the defeat of [Humphrey],” Davidson contends. “One thing I’ve learned. Social change is not made by elections, but it certainly proceeds through them, not by ignoring them or chasing the illusion of end runs around them.”

Former SDS president Tom Hayden is also in the Obama camp. Hayden organized the made-for-TV protest outside the 1968 Chicago convention. But the catharsis of throwing debris at the Chicago police, the purer-than-thou sanctimony that tolerated no distinction between Lyndon Johnson and Eugene McCarthy, and the exhilaration of “voting in the streets” instead of in election booths combined to ensure liberal defeats. Hayden’s orchestrated anarchy proved more damaging to Humphrey’s presidential aspirations than any dirty trick Nixon’s henchmen could have dreamed up. Klonsky remembers Hayden plotting to spread nails on a highway; another SDS leader recalls Hayden encouraging activists to firebomb police cars. If the Democrats couldn’t run a convention, many Americans wondered, how could they run the country? “Did the radicalism of Chicago elect Richard Nixon?” Hayden asked, clearly pained, in his 1988 memoir. “Having struggled with that question for twenty years, I find there is no ‘neat’ answer.”

Now Hayden is one of the organizers of Progressives for Obama. “The difference is that back then the Democratic Party was directly carrying out the Vietnam War, which meant there was no anti-war critic to vote for after Kennedy was assassinated and McCarthy defeated by the establishment,” he offered in an e-mail last month. “Today the Republican Party is directly carrying out the war, which obviously will make a lot of people favor changing the presidency despite the uncertainty of what the Democratic candidate will do when in office.”

Progressives for Obama resembles a Who’s Who of SDS luminaries. In addition to Hayden, Rudd, and Davidson, the group includes Bob Pardun, SDS’s education secretary during the 1966–67 school year; Paul Buhle, a radical professor who has recently attempted to revive SDS; Mickey and Dick Flacks, red-diaper babies who helped craft 1962’s Port Huron Statement, a seminal New Left document; and SDS’s third president, Todd Gitlin. Age and experience have mellowed some of the SDSers in Obama’s camp. Gitlin, for instance, has evolved into a respected Ivy League professor and milquetoast liberal. But others still glory in a past that can only damage Obama’s future. The aging New Left still practices a therapeutic politics that places a higher value on feelings of personal liberation than on restrained pursuit of political aims.

Obama has already taken political hits for his connection to Weathermen Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. In the sixties, Ayers advocated that young people kill their parents, and Dohrn praised the Charles Manson murders. Alongside their Weather Underground cohorts, the pair declared war on the United States and participated in a bombing campaign that hit the Capitol, the Pentagon, and numerous law enforcement agencies. The couple eventually reinvented themselves—first as academics, then as players in Chicago-area Democratic politics. Obama praised Ayers’s book in the Chicago Tribune, sat with him on a foundation’s board, and benefited from a fundraiser held at the couple’s home. Ayers spoke at events organized by Michelle Obama; Barack Obama spoke at events organized by Ayers.

With the public revelation of this unseemly relationship—between unrepentant terrorists and the man who now seeks to oversee America’s war on terror—and the impact it’s already had on voter attitudes, one would think that other sixties extremists might be more reserved in proclaiming their support for Obama, knowing the damage such associations can do to his candidacy. As for Obama, he’ll need to do some distancing of his own. He protested that he was only eight when Ayers, Dohrn, Rudd, and company embarked on their bombing campaign, and that’s reasonable enough. But he’ll need to go further.

Fortunately for him, the Left has a long history of cold-shouldering predecessors to perpetuate its ideology, cleanse it from past failures, and make it appear fresh. The New Left dissociated itself from the Old Left’s Russophilic dogmatism through the Port Huron Statement and other declarations of independence. Even the phrase “New Left” was adopted to divorce the Left from its history.

SDS’s history offers a template for eliminating the embarrassing past. Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and others founded the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) during the Progressive era, but by World War I the word “socialist” had fallen from favor. So, with the Left seeing labor unions as the agent of societal change, the ISS became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). Then, by the end of the 1950s, theorists Herbert Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, and Norman O. Brown scoffed at the idea of blue-collar workers—often violently hostile to the Left’s aims—as transformative agents, and the LID’s student arm, the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), rechristened itself Students for a Democratic Society. Just as SDS killed SLID as the fifties became the sixties, Weatherman killed SDS as the sixties became the seventies: SDS’s spirit of “participatory democracy” could not peacefully coexist with the vanguardism of Weatherman. And now, completing the circle, the SDS alumni of “progressives” for Obama resurrect a term that would have been more familiar to their distant forebears in the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. On the Left, everything old is eventually new again.

In 1968, the Left served as unwitting allies of Republicans, costing the Democrats the White House by rioting at their convention and withholding votes from Hubert Humphrey. In 2008, it is their vocal support that may cost Barack Obama the presidency. Obama can take a page from the early days of the New Left, which—initially, at least—refused to allow discredited radicals to discredit it. Either Obama publicly divorces himself from radical supporters whose association does more for them than it does for him, or he faces the prospect of Bill Ayers as his Willie Horton.

[KevinTBrown]

Ooooo,1968 radicals!!! OMFG!!!!

:rolleyes:



Give me a break.

It was 40 years ago and people change. Plus they deserve a second chance if they've served their time.

Much ado about nothing.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Cool, Sam! You mean, he's got the anti-authoritarian, ex-Beatnik, Antiwar, Pinko vote? We'll be in good company--maybe they'll get us out of another shit war. I think most of the country will be joining them, the way The Manchurian Candidate and his ilk have been selling our children into slavery to the Red Chinese.

Ironic, Tom Hayden, in his latest book credits the Antiwar Movement of the sixties as started in church groups, huh?

You fascists are so sunk. God Bless America!
Even people who don't think exactly like you can still live here!

[Buzz Dixon]

Samurai, I'd rather deal with the burned out Baby Boomer radicals of the 1960s than the torturers of today.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/144518

A common misrepresentation of Obama from the right is that he voted 94 times for increasing taxes. This can be misleading as this includes budget votes that have nothing directly to do with taxes, votes against further tax cuts which the RNC counts as 'increasing' taxes, multiple votes that were cast on the same bill and not to mention the tax increases Obama did vote for pertain to corporations and the rich.

[Royal]

Can't you come up with fresh material, Sam?

Admit it, if Obama's camp was run by the FSM believers you'd be going out of you way in calling Obama a cult leader.

Hell. If he ate pork in Detroit, you'd call him anti-muslem. If he eats seafood in Fort Laudy, he's anti-semite. Drink's beer, he's a lush. Eats a doughnut, he's in Frido Lay's pocket. Like the color red, He's a Commie!!

I find it funny that you're concintrating on this and not on the non existant platform your canidate runs on and how you can change it.

[Samurai]

Can't you come up with fresh material, Sam?

Admit it, if Obama's camp was run by the FSM believers you'd be going out of you way in calling Obama a cult leader.

Hell. If he ate pork in Detroit, you'd call him anti-muslem. If he eats seafood in Fort Laudy, he's anti-semite. Drink's beer, he's a lush. Eats a doughnut, he's in Frido Lay's pocket. Like the color red, He's a Commie!!

I find it funny that you're concintrating on this and not on the non existant platform your canidate runs on and how you can change it.

I think loads of former radicals and terrorists coming out of the woodwork to support Obama says a lot. Something about him appeals to these kinds of folks. I'm not entirely sure what it is... are they simply flocking to him because he's black? Do they think he believes as they do and will implement policies they'll like? I don't know, but there's certainly something in the Obama kool-aid that's drawing these guys like bees to honey.

As for McCain, I haven't seen anyone here really criticizing McCain's policies, for several reasons: 1) Like Obama, he's clearly pandering at this stage and doesn't mean half of what he says. 2) Half of what he DOES say are things the Left and Obama agree with, such as amnesty, higher gas taxes to fight global warming, and so on.

About the only McCain "policy" I've seen criticized is the out of context Iraq quote, in which he actually was talking about peaceful troops stationed there like in Germany, Japan, and other places, not fighting a war for 100 years. So if you want to discuss any McCain policy, bring it up... chances are I disagree with almost half of them...

[KevinTBrown]

I think loads of former radicals and terrorists coming out of the woodwork to support Obama says a lot. Something about him appeals to these kinds of folks. I'm not entirely sure what it is... are they simply flocking to him because he's black? Do they think he believes as they do and will implement policies they'll like? I don't know, but there's certainly something in the Obama kool-aid that's drawing these guys like bees to honey.

As for McCain, I haven't seen anyone here really criticizing McCain's policies, for several reasons: 1) Like Obama, he's clearly pandering at this stage and doesn't mean half of what he says. 2) Half of what he DOES say are things the Left and Obama agree with, such as amnesty, higher gas taxes to fight global warming, and so on.

About the only McCain "policy" I've seen criticized is the out of context Iraq quote, in which he actually was talking about peaceful troops stationed there like in Germany, Japan, and other places, not fighting a war for 100 years. So if you want to discuss any McCain policy, bring it up... chances are I disagree with almost half of them...

Only because he flip-flops all the time, so odds are good for that happening for you.

[Samurai]

Only because he flip-flops all the time, so odds are good for that happening for you.

Like I said, he's pandering right now, so like Obama, I don't believe half of what he's saying. For instance, McCain backed off his amnesty plan in order to appeal to conservatives, but I know that if elected, he'd go right back to it.

[FalconX2000]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5giojIhr1t6DX6K27JDnIVDciQDTgD91MLKF00

Finally found something about the common but strange accusation that Obama advocated 'aborting babies born alive'. As the article shows, the then Illinois State Senator voted against the bill because there already was a similar law in effect and the bill would do other things he objected to.

Excerpt:
In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions.

"There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster."

[Sabrinaset]

As for McCain, I haven't seen anyone here really criticizing McCain's policies,

Paging Crowley ...!

[FalconX2000]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary

Obama responded in his blog to talk about the FISA vote. I wonder if there have been other major candidates in the past who were better writers than anyone in their staff...

[KevinTBrown]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary

Obama responded in his blog to talk about the FISA vote. I wonder if there have been other major candidates in the past who were better writers than anyone in their staff...

Obama helps to write a LOT of his own stuff.

[Royal]

I think loads of former radicals and terrorists coming out of the woodwork to support Obama says a lot. Something about him appeals to these kinds of folks. I'm not entirely sure what it is...


Wow. You can't recognize nostalgia?

[Samurai]

Wow. You can't recognize nostalgia?

Nostalgia? As in, he reminds them of their old radical socialist days?

[Buzz Dixon]

I think loads of former radicals and terrorists coming out of the woodwork to support Obama says a lot.Not nearly as much as current political hacks defending torture.

Give it up, Samurai. that was then, this is now. The radical liberals of the 1960s lost, they are not going to come back in power no matter what; the Millennials won't let them.

The torturers are here and now. They need to be stopped, their damage needs to be repaired.

[Royal]

Nostalgia? As in, he reminds them of their old radical socialist days?

I think it more about the fight for them these days. Don't you watch the viagra ads?

BTW, when do I get to call McCain a misogynist?

[Samurai]

Not nearly as much as current political hacks defending torture.

Give it up, Samurai. that was then, this is now. The radical liberals of the 1960s lost, they are not going to come back in power no matter what; the Millennials won't let them.

The torturers are here and now. They need to be stopped, their damage needs to be repaired.

They never truly gained power, and they still crave it. And who are "the Millennials"?

Besides, whoever is elected, I'm sure one of the first things they'll do is clamp down on abuses. It's not like McCain is a fan of torture.

[Samurai]

I think it more about the fight for them these days. Don't you watch the viagra ads?

BTW, when do I get to call McCain a misogynist?

Why didn't they come out in support of Kerry, Clinton, or the rest in such large numbers then? Do you really think it has more to do with their age than who is running? Would they have supported Hillary as strongly, had she won the nomination?

There's no evidence McCain hates women in general.

[rick]

Nostalgia? As in, he reminds them of their old radical socialist days?


Sam, Obama's my age, which means that most likely the person in the 1960’s or early 70’s who had the biggest influence on him was either Johnny Quest or Mr. Spock, not Jerry Rubin or Cinque.

By the way, really got a kick out of this video of the Obama’s being casual.

Obviously they know they are on camera, but they still are a good looking, natural acting family.

Daddy Obama (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/07/02/moos.daddy.o.soccer.cnn?iref=videosearch)

[Michael P]

Sam, Obama's my age, which means that most likely the person in the 1960’s or early 70’s who had the biggest influence on him was either Johnny Quest or Mr. Spock

One could have worse role models.

[rick]

One could have worse role models.


Hey, they worked for me. :smile:

[Sabrinaset]

And who are "the Millennials"?

That would be me, among others. Generation Y, or those born between 1980 to 1994, more or less.

[Adam C]

Hey, they worked for me. :smile:

Really? Johnny Quest leads to cocaine, infidelity, and toking up with Kirk Hammet?

Damn, I wish I watched more Johnny Quest when I was young. :frown:

[rick]

Really? Johnny Quest leads to cocaine, infidelity, and toking up with Kirk Hammet?

Damn, I wish I watched more Johnny Quest when I was young. :frown:


It's what one does with the lessons that matters.

[Buzz Dixon]

Seriously, this election is a choice between a pre-boomer and the first Millennial candidate (granted, Obama's technically a boomer since he was born at the tail end of that generation, but he's clearly not one of that age group's mindset).

Baby Boomers, with Clinton and Bush W., have pretty thoroughly disgraced themselves and should never be allowed back in the White House except as part of a well supervised tour group.

And for the record, I was born in 1953.

[Royal]

That would be me, among others. Generation Y, or those born between 1980 to 1994, more or less.

ooohhh missed by a year.

'81 to '95.

Thanks for playing though ;)

I still think it more of a G13 (Gen X for the laymen) sway. Y is sort of the revenge of the Boomer for X calling them out on their BS (not all, it just the cultural concensus). Because the Boomer made Y, they're going to be more open to stuff that can be total BS before they they can really get down to the facts.

[Sabrinaset]

ooohhh missed by a year.

'81 to '95.

Thanks for playing though ;)

I got it off Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials)...

Generation Y (sometimes referred to as "the Millennials") refers to a specific cohort of individuals born, roughly, between 1980-94...A central characteristic of what defines Generation Y is that they have no memory of the Cold War, just as Generation Z has no memory before the War on Terror.

...but note that I did add the qualifier "more or less" there.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Seriously, this election is a choice between a pre-boomer and the first Millennial candidate (granted, Obama's technically a boomer since he was born at the tail end of that generation, but he's clearly not one of that age group's mindset).

Baby Boomers, with Clinton and Bush W., have pretty thoroughly disgraced themselves and should never be allowed back in the White House except as part of a well supervised tour group.

And for the record, I was born in 1953.

Actually, The Guy Who Wrote The Book, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Coupland) Douglas Coupland (b. 1961--same as me and Obama) classed himself among the unfortunate (setting the first year as 1958), and they've (some guy on the internet--ultimate source of all wisdom) gradually inched the year later, since. I've never identified myself with the boomers--so-called 'late' boomers have virtually no similarity to someone born post-WWII-era, as 'Baby-Boomer' implies originally--husbands came back from WWII and Korea, and got BUSY. The 'Jet-Setters '--I believed it's what Coupland called them--those the next generation down, like his brother have little in common with us, and are more 'hivish''.. People a decade younger behave as differently from me as those a decade older. As my signature line intimates, we grew up with a complete and utter lack of reverence, that is most often lacking in younger, and many older--albeit more in common with Beat Generation and much-earlier 'Lost' Generation. They have stolen my Generational Designation!!! I'll not stand for it! :biggrin:

Not to mention the rock band Billy Idol was in--who were all older than me.

The first coined use of Generation X was written about current teen youth culture in England, circa 1964.

I was three.

Old Punk Rockers never die--they just smash your face when you call them a 'Boomer'!!!:biggrin:

EDIT: Forgive punctuation--I need glasses--SOON.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually, The Guy Who Wrote The Book, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Coupland) Douglas Coupland (b. 1961--same as me and Obama) classed himself among the unfortunate (setting the first year as 1958), and they've (some guy on the internet--ultimate source of all wisdom) gradually inched the year later, since. I've never identified myself with the boomers--so-called 'late' boomers have virtually no similarity to someone born post-WWII-era, as 'Baby-Boomer' implies originally--husbands came back from WWII and Korea, and got BUSY. The 'Jet-Setters '--I believed it's what Coupland called them--those the next generation down, like his brother have little in common with us, and are more 'hivish''.. People a decade younger behave as differently from me as those a decade older. As my signature line intimates, we grew up with a complete and utter lack of reverence, that is most often lacking in younger, and many older--albeit more in common with Beat Generation and much-earlier 'Lost' Generation. They have stolen my Generational Designation!!! I'll not stand for it! :biggrin:

Not to mention the rock band Billy Idol was in--who were all older than me.

The first coined use of Generation X was written about current teen youth culture in England, circa 1964.

I was three.

Old Punk Rockers never die--they just smash your face when you call them a 'Boomer'!!!:biggrin:

EDIT: Forgive punctuation--I need glasses--SOON.

That's right.

Obama is my age. I will indeed smash anyone's face for this boomer crap because I'm the age for punk rock. Anyone older than me is a filthy hippie and past caring about. :evilsmile:




Sorry Buzz

[the4thpip]

I find it interesting that there are polls out there showing Obama win Florida. If that gains momentum, we could be looking at a much bluer map in November than I dared to dream a few months ago.

Really can't wait for the Veep-candidates to be named.

[FalconX2000]

Obama helps to write a LOT of his own stuff.

I know there are speeches he writes entirely himself, but for the average campaign speech?

[Corrina]

Really? Johnny Quest leads to cocaine, infidelity, and toking up with Kirk Hammet?

Damn, I wish I watched more Johnny Quest when I was young. :frown:

And here I thought it just left people with a fetish for white-haired fictional spies.

Or that could be just me.

[Gilda Dent]

I find it interesting that there are polls out there showing Obama win Florida. If that gains momentum, we could be looking at a much bluer map in November than I dared to dream a few months ago.

Really can't wait for the Veep-candidates to be named.

While I'm not expecting it, it wouldn't surprise me at this point to see an electoral map similar to '96. It amazes me that, given the approval ratings of the current administration we're not looking at something like '84 (Mondale won a single state), but I guess the division over things like the non-existent "culture war" have driven a big enough wedge to prevent any kind of similar landslide.

Not that I'm voting for either, but it'll be interesting to watch.

I'm wondering about coattails, or more accurately, fallout. That we'll see Democratic gains in both houses is almost assured; how much is the question. The Senate by design changes more slowly, but even a few seats there could make a big difference, and the house might show a significant shift.

[KevinTBrown]

I know there are speeches he writes entirely himself, but for the average campaign speech?
He writes far more than you realize. It was something he took great pride in when running for Senator. Yes, he's got speech writers, but most of what's being written are his ideas that he's given them. They're not PR talk points culled together by his team in order to make a good news item.

[the4thpip]

While I'm not expecting it, it wouldn't surprise me at this point to see an electoral map similar to '96. It amazes me that, given the approval ratings of the current administration we're not looking at something like '84 (Mondale won a single state), but I guess the division over things like the non-existent "culture war" have driven a big enough wedge to prevent any kind of similar landslide.

Not that I'm voting for either, but it'll be interesting to watch.

I'm wondering about coattails, or more accurately, fallout. That we'll see Democratic gains in both houses is almost assured; how much is the question. The Senate by design changes more slowly, but even a few seats there could make a big difference, and the house might show a significant shift.

I wonder if anger at the damage Bush and Cheney have done to the Republican party has something to do with how many GOP Congressmen are not running for re-election.

[FalconX2000]

He writes far more than you realize. It was something he took great pride in when running for Senator. Yes, he's got speech writers, but most of what's being written are his ideas that he's given them. They're not PR talk points culled together by his team in order to make a good news item.

Good for him then. I assumed that for all the average speeches he'd let the speechwriter do it then edit it to his liking.

[Paul McEnery]

Good for him then. I assumed that for all the average speeches he'd let the speechwriter do it then edit it to his liking.

I imagine he at least outlines the speech, hands it over to the writers for editing and punching it up, and then does the final rewrite.

If you're actually a writer, that's the fastest and most efficient way to go.

I also he imagine he leads a script conference round table once in a while.

[FalconX2000]

Obama Mythbuster Episode 1


Campaign Finance Reversal

Charge: Obama promised to accept public financing if he became the nominee by checking a box on a questionaire several months ago.

Finding: Half true. Obama did check that box, but left himself some wiggle room by writing down in the comments section of that same question that he would sit down with the Republican nominee and hammer out the details to make sure that both parties would, for example, keep their 527s in check.

He has emphasised this repeatedly on the campaign trail, talking about his concerns on how there are so many ways to bypass public financing. Obama never ended up sitting down with John McCain, there was a single meeting between their lawyers that came away with no solutions or prospect for them.

While Obama has broken his word, the word he broke was to meet with John McCain to hammer out a solution, not to accept public financing. It should be noted that public financing does have consierable problems and Obama's use of the internet has mitigated to a large extent any concerns of big donors controlling his presidency, which was the purpose of public financing in the first place. It should also be noted that common opinion holds that John McCain and a majority of the country would likely have done the same with access to the fundraising capability Obama has.

[Samurai]

Obama Mythbuster Episode 1


Campaign Finance Reversal

Charge: Obama promised to accept public financing if he became the nominee by checking a box on a questionaire several months ago.

Finding: Half true. Obama did check that box, but left himself some wiggle room by writing down in the comments section of that same question that he would sit down with the Republican nominee and hammer out the details to make sure that both parties would, for example, keep their 527s in check.

He has emphasised this repeatedly on the campaign trail, talking about his concerns on how there are so many ways to bypass public financing. Obama never ended up sitting down with John McCain, there was a single meeting between their lawyers that came away with no solutions or prospect for them.

While Obama has broken his word, the word he broke was to meet with John McCain to hammer out a solution, not to accept public financing. It should be noted that public financing does have consierable problems and Obama's use of the internet has mitigated to a large extent any concerns of big donors controlling his presidency, which was the purpose of public financing in the first place. It should also be noted that common opinion holds that John McCain and a majority of the country would likely have done the same with access to the fundraising capability Obama has.
The 527s was a smokescreen, because the Democrats have FAR more 527s, and much better funded 527s, than the Republicans do. He wasn't worried about Republican 527s all that much, and he sure wouldn't have given up his much bigger, wealthier 527s if McCain had given up his. What Obama really wanted was wiggle room in case it turned out that he felt he could make more money on his own with donations than with public financing. He figured he could, so he made no effort to reach any kind of deal on the 527s (which would have disadvantaged him anyway, giving up all those Soros groups and attack dogs like Move On.org).

[kingdom2000]

The 527s was a smokescreen, because the Democrats have FAR more 527s, and much better funded 527s, than the Republicans do. He wasn't worried about Republican 527s all that much, and he sure wouldn't have given up his much bigger, wealthier 527s if McCain had given up his. What Obama really wanted was wiggle room in case it turned out that he felt he could make more money on his own with donations than with public financing. He figured he could, so he made no effort to reach any kind of deal on the 527s (which would have disadvantaged him anyway, giving up all those Soros groups and attack dogs like Move On.org).

Isn't the Swift Boats among others a 527 group? They pretty much managed all by themselves to scuttle Kerry...but the democrats are more effective? They created a brand new term...but Dems are more effective? What are you smoking? And sorry but no one really pays much attention to Move On.org. That is just another boogeyman thing that the Repubs do oh so well.

It does amuse me though just how much the Repubs hates Soros (whoever he is). He is up there with Clinton on pratically being a cuss word for yall. Its both hilarious and sad (because of the repub ability to believe their own lies). I bet Soros is absolutely tickled pink by the fear he has apparently created.

[FalconX2000]

The 527s was a smokescreen, because the Democrats have FAR more 527s, and much better funded 527s, than the Republicans do. He wasn't worried about Republican 527s all that much, and he sure wouldn't have given up his much bigger, wealthier 527s if McCain had given up his. What Obama really wanted was wiggle room in case it turned out that he felt he could make more money on his own with donations than with public financing. He figured he could, so he made no effort to reach any kind of deal on the 527s (which would have disadvantaged him anyway, giving up all those Soros groups and attack dogs like Move On.org).

The problem is that Republican 527s are better than their democrat counterparts. They're willing to plumb deeper depths, hit lower blows and can rely on the simpler republican message.

Also, I realise I didn't make it clear in the specific post, but I do know Obama didn't take the money because of high minded ideals. I said so when I agreed with you a dozen pages or so ago. That said, the earlier point still stands.

[Samurai]

The problem is that Republican 527s are better than their democrat counterparts. They're willing to plumb deeper depths, hit lower blows and can rely on the simpler republican message.

Also, I realise I didn't make it clear in the specific post, but I do know Obama didn't take the money because of high minded ideals. I said so when I agreed with you a dozen pages or so ago. That said, the earlier point still stands.

Actually, the Swiftboat Vets were successful because they were telling the truth, and they were all real swift boat veterans who served just like Kerry. The MoveOns and others were more organzed, better funded, and much larger organizations, but they were just spouting lies and nasty attacks (like an ad comparing Bush to Hitler), which is going to have a harder time winning over the American people.

[FalconX2000]

Actually, the Swiftboat Vets were successful because they were telling the truth, and they were all real swift boat veterans who served just like Kerry. The MoveOns and others were more organzed, better funded, and much larger organizations, but they were just spouting lies and nasty attacks (like an ad comparing Bush to Hitler), which is going to have a harder time winning over the American people.

To non-bolded part: The only appropriate response to this would get me banned by moderators.

To bolded part: As i said, the Republican 527s are better and can hit lower. I don't really like Moveon either, but if they represent the extreme left that's way better than the nut jobs on the extreme right.

[Tetsuo_man]

Actually, the Swiftboat Vets were successful because they were telling the truth, and they were all real swift boat veterans who served just like Kerry. The MoveOns and others were more organzed, better funded, and much larger organizations, but they were just spouting lies and nasty attacks (like an ad comparing Bush to Hitler), which is going to have a harder time winning over the American people.

The swift vets did one thing they created a false assumption that they had worked with john kerry in veitnam while they only served in other places than kerry but during the same period of time that he did. It was a backstab. Not to mention some of those same guys back stabbed mccain in 2000 yet suport him now. Hypocrisy at it's best.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://blog.mlive.com/capitolchronicles/2008/07/puerile_patriot_games.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121503532000824249.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Samurai]

The swift vets did one thing they created a false assumption that they had worked with john kerry in veitnam while they only served in other places than kerry but during the same period of time that he did. It was a backstab. Not to mention some of those same guys back stabbed mccain in 2000 yet suport him now. Hypocrisy at it's best.

Not true. Many of the SBVfT served with Kerry, and met and knew him in Vietnam. Kerry's entire chain of command, all the officers that gave him his orders on a daily basis, were members. 19 of the 23 fellow OICs in Coastal Division 11 that served with Kerry, patrolled with him, were members. Only 13 Swift Boat vets supported Kerry, and only 8 of them actually served with Kerry. Yes, many (though not all) of the people who served under Kerry supported him (one of his gunner's mates was in Swift Boat Vets though), as opposed to the officers Kerry served under, who did not support him. The doctor who treated Kerry's wounds was a member as well.

So it's wrong to say none of the Swift Boat vets knew or worked with Kerry in Vietnam. Many of them did know him and serve with him. And for hundreds of vets to come out against him, and only 13 to support him (and only 8 of them actually served with him), should tell you something about just how hated he is in military circles.

[the4thpip]

Actually, the Swiftboat Vets were successful because they were telling the truth, and they were all real swift boat veterans who served just like Kerry.

Just not, you know, with Kerry. The ones who actually were right beside him did NOT tell those lies you call the truth.

[Samurai]

Just not, you know, with Kerry. The ones who actually were right beside him did NOT tell those lies you call the truth.

Read the above post. You're wrong. 1 served under him, many served above him, many others were his equal in rank and served alongside him in OIC 11, and 1 was the doctor that treated his wounds.

[Tetsuo_man]

Read the above post. You're wrong. 1 served under him, many served above him, many others were his equal in rank and served alongside him in OIC 11, and 1 was the doctor that treated his wounds.

Whocares what you say it's all brainwashed crap. I feel so violated but. Who cares it's my fault for going up against someon specifically. Anyway i'll just add link and what not without commentary. The thing is though i'm curious, do you live in springfiel, Missouri because you sound allot like a friend of mine whom a keep my mouth shut politically but whom i disagree with (with the exception of how the church of scientoloty shoudl be delt with and then again i made him feel bad when he lusted for Laura Prepon and revealed that she was a scientologist). Anyway if you are not him i'll just not comment on the links i post.

[the4thpip]

Read the above post. You're wrong. 1 served under him, many served above him, many others were his equal in rank and served alongside him in OIC 11, and 1 was the doctor that treated his wounds.

Please give us names and sources.

And also, how do you explain the voices that strongly oppose the claims by the Swifters? The closer you get to Kerry, the bigger his group of supporters gets.

[Samurai]

Please give us names and sources.

And also, how do you explain the voices that strongly oppose the claims by the Swifters? The closer you get to Kerry, the bigger his group of supporters gets.

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads

His group of supporters was 13 swift boat vets... that's it. And not all of them served with him. As for why the 8 that did serve under him supported him, it was probably just personal friendship, I'd guess. His commanding officers were not as close friends with him, and so gave a more objective account.

[Samurai]

Whocares what you say it's all brainwashed crap. I feel so violated but. Who cares it's my fault for going up against someon specifically. Anyway i'll just add link and what not without commentary. The thing is though i'm curious, do you live in springfiel, Missouri because you sound allot like a friend of mine whom a keep my mouth shut politically but whom i disagree with (with the exception of how the church of scientoloty shoudl be delt with and then again i made him feel bad when he lusted for Laura Prepon and revealed that she was a scientologist). Anyway if you are not him i'll just not comment on the links i post.

No, I'm not from Springfield.

[Tetsuo_man]

Well than that's ok. I'll just let others argue with you because i'd just go crazy trying to argue against you. But i'd be lying if i said it wasn't fun. I mean you an intresting guy.

[the4thpip]

From last week's news:

A Vegas gambling expert who says it is "sacrilegious" not to make good on a bet, is offering to mediate a $1 million disagreement between Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens' and Swift boat veterans who claim they won Pickens' challenge to disprove political claims he made in 2004.

"I'm thinking about recruiting a star-studded panel from the gambling world to judge this affair, or maybe just do it myself," said oddsmaker Ben Eckstein, who added that he was planning to contact both parties and propose the idea.

Eckstein offered his expertise after former crew mates of Sen. John Kerry claimed they proved that Kerry hadn't lied about his three purple hearts and other medals he won during the Vietnam War.

Pickens, who financed an anti-Kerry ad campaign during the last presidential election, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove the attacks on Kerry's history were inaccurate. He claims, however, that the Swift boat vets have misread his challenge.

"It could be a ton of fun," said Eckstein. "The panel would decide if [Pickens] actually welched on the bet and, if so, award appropriate damages aside from money – like making [Pickens] turn one of his wind turbines by hand."

Eckstein says there is are ethics involved in issuing challenges and that failing to deliver on a bet is "sacrilegious." "In the world of betting and gambling, your word is your bond," said Eckstein, president of America's Line, a sports and entertainment oddsmaking business. "Whether it's a $7 bet or a $500,000 bet, once it's made and once you shake on it, it should be done."

Neither Pickens nor the Swift boat veterans have responded yet to Eckstein's offer.

Del Sandusky, a Swift boat veteran who served alongside Kerry in Vietnam, is the latest to claim he's been stiffed by Pickens' $1 million challenge to disprove allegations that Kerry lied about his wartime experiences.

"I really hoped we could've taken him at his word, but now he's become 'T. Boone Chicken' and he's running away from his own bet," Sandusky told ABCNews.com.

Pickens' wager originated when he offered $1 million to anyone who could find falsities in the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group he had financially supported during the 2004 presidential election. He issued the challenge during a November 2007 dinner for the American Spectator magazine.

The group had organized a media campaign -- books, television ads and speaking engagements -- to refute presidential hopeful John Kerry's claims about his service in the Vietnam War. Having claimed that Kerry lied about his service in exchange for medals of honor, the group's message has since been considered by some observers a contributing factor to the Democratic nominee's lost bid for the White House.

But whether Pickens had offered the monetary reward for falsities found in the campaign as a whole or just in the televised ads came into question when Kerry himself answered the call, offering to meet Pickens and provide him with information that Kerry said would debunk the allegations.

Pickens refused to meet with the Massachusetts senator because, as his spokesperson Jay Rosser told ABCNews.com, "none of the material Kerry or the crewmen provided was germane to the ads."

In his response to Kerry, Pickens requested a copy of the senator's Vietnam journal and military records.

"Boone can't be accountable for everything the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] say," Rosser said. "[He can only be responsible] for the ads that he helped fund."

Rosser added that while Boone did contribute money toward the 527 ads that ran during the campaign, he did not have anything to do with the book tour and media appearances.

"Nobody has stepped forward with any factual mistakes in those ads," Rosser added.

But when Pickens was sent a letter and photocopies of evidence supporting Kerry's military record by veterans last week, it was yet again not enough to seal the deal.

"[Pickens] sent us a brief letter back saying the same thing [that he said to Kerry]," Sanudsky told ABCNews.com.

In the June 25 letter sent from Pickens to Sanudsky, Pickens thanks the veterans for their research but still denies any obligation to pay them the $1 million.

"Unfortunately, key aspects of my offer of $1 million have not been accurately reported," Pickens wrote in the letter obtained by ABCNews.com. "In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads, and, as a result, does not qualify for the $1 million."

Pickens' spokesman Rosser said, "He's not going back on the bet."

But the veterans seem to think he is -- and told ABCNews.com that Pickens just doesn't want to live up to his end of the bargain.

"We're disappointed because he's ducking out," Sanudsky said. "He's dodging the bullet because we've got the ammunition."

"I guess now we know the T in T. Boone doesn't stand for 'truth,'" added Sanudsky. "His response is slicker than an oil spill."

"We have 11 different falsehoods that the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] came out with in 2004. We have documents, videos, editorials and depositions not just by my boat crew but other eyewitnesses who were involved in the operations."

Sanudsky added that while his group has come up with "everything Pickens asked Kerry for in November," it has all been for nothing.

Betting expert Eckstein told ABCNews.com that if Pickens is found to be going back on his word, he would be guilty of committing "the lowest act on the gambling totem pole."




http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5255356&page=1

[the4thpip]

More proof the swiftboaters were lying liars who lied:

Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.

But that did not blunt the political impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/us/politics/22kerry.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1215245185-QwQwsqL3ehil0wkUGZ8tTQ&oref=slogin

[Samurai]

From last week's news:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5255356&page=1

It seems pretty clear that the offer pertained to the official TV ads, not anything anyone somehow connected to the Swift Boat Vets ever said in public somewhere...

[Samurai]

More proof the swiftboaters were lying liars who lied:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/us/politics/22kerry.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1215245185-QwQwsqL3ehil0wkUGZ8tTQ&oref=slogin

Also, these are all real military vets, many of whom won a lot of medals. You say it's ok to call these guys "lying liars who lied" yet it's not ok for them to say the same exact thing about Kerry? Double standard much?

[Crowley]

Also, these are all real military vets, many of whom won a lot of medals. You say it's ok to call these guys "lying liars who lied" yet it's not ok for them to say the same exact thing about Kerry? Double standard much?

So Mr. Kerry’s veteran allies took up the cause. In a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — they rebut not one but several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.

The veterans offer to go through Mr. Kerry’s record and the video with Mr. Pickens “page by page, frame by frame.” And they demand an apology, to them “and to the American people.”

Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.

Because evidence shows that they Swift Boat vets who put that ad together are goddamn liars.

[kingdom2000]

Also, these are all real military vets, many of whom won a lot of medals. You say it's ok to call these guys "lying liars who lied" yet it's not ok for them to say the same exact thing about Kerry? Double standard much?

The difference is they had no evidence to support their claims. They had an agenda, support Bush and the war effort most where directly benefiting from financially.

Basically you know how I was against the whole "slavery" thing as a trump card a few days ago.

Same goes here when it comes to how you defend "soldiers". I get a little sick and tired of you bringing out their medals and their vet status as some fucking trump card. Past actions is not proof of current actions nor does it absolve them of current actions. Asshole behavior is still asshole behavior, I don't care what medal, uniform, or wars they fought in.

Quit being lazy and bring out your idiotic trump card. If you can't come up with a better defense then irrelevant bullshit about medals and vet status then don't post anything at all.

[Joe Rice]

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads

His group of supporters was 13 swift boat vets... that's it. And not all of them served with him. As for why the 8 that did serve under him supported him, it was probably just personal friendship, I'd guess. His commanding officers were not as close friends with him, and so gave a more objective account.

Like you, the Swift Boaters seem to find "honesty" a foreign concept.

As noted, it's one thing to call someone you can prove a liar a liar. It's very different to call someone telling the truth a liar. Swift Boaters lied. It is proven. You lie. It is proven.

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting, stop spreading bigoted filth.

[KevinTBrown]

To non-bolded part: The only appropriate response to this would get me banned by moderators.

To bolded part: As i said, the Republican 527s are better and can hit lower. I don't really like Moveon either, but if they represent the extreme left that's way better than the nut jobs on the extreme right.
No it wouldn't. Have at it in here. I requested that this thread be un-moderated and Gail allowed it. So as long as you confine those comments within this thread (or the other political thread), you're good as gold.

[TCJohnson]

The difference is they had no evidence to support their claims. They had an agenda, support Bush and the war effort most where directly benefiting from financially.

I don't think it was even support Bush.

When Kerry got out of Viet Nam, he went before congress and public stated some of the more terrible things that were going on in Nam. He wanted to let the public know exactly how terrible this war was, but in doing so he made a lot of his fellow soldiers look bad. A lot of Viet Nam vets hated him for that. They considered him a traitor.

I think that is more behind them going after Kerry.

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually, the Swiftboat Vets were successful because they were telling the truth, and they were all real swift boat veterans who served just like Kerry. The MoveOns and others were more organzed, better funded, and much larger organizations, but they were just spouting lies and nasty attacks (like an ad comparing Bush to Hitler), which is going to have a harder time winning over the American people.This is one where I agree with you, Samurai. The Swift Boat vets were making legitimate heartfelt objections to Kerry.

Kerry had begun his political career by accusing his fellow soldiers and sailors of being murderers and rapists, then never publicly atoned for it. For him and the Democrats to assume he would have gotten a free pass on this in the 2004 election was uttery stupidity on their parts.

That being said, MoveOn.org apparently has been proven correct re Bush being like Hitler insofar as he ordered torture then lied about it.

[Nick Soapdish]

Read the above post. You're wrong. 1 served under him, many served above him, many others were his equal in rank and served alongside him in OIC 11, and 1 was the doctor that treated his wounds.

Sure, the doctor that claims that he treated Kerry's wounds had a co-worker sign for treating him.

The one that served under him lied about how long he served under Kerry (claiming that he'd served the longest onKerry's boat which is untrue if you go by Army records and he wasn't actually around for any of the disputed incidents).

At least one other has admitted that he wasn't present for the incidents that he swore that he saw and was just going by other accounts.

But sure, we'll believe them and the rest. After all, it's not like the people actually on Kerry's boat would have a better idea of what's going on and whether they were under fire than people on other boats hundreds of yards away.

[Nick Soapdish]

It seems pretty clear that the offer pertained to the official TV ads, not anything anyone somehow connected to the Swift Boat Vets ever said in public somewhere...

Yeah, it's not like he hasn't had 7 months since his wager was publicized for him to correct those reports that he claims were inaccurate.

Maybe it didn't occur to him that anyone could ever possibly misreport anything. Or maybe he just didn't think that it was important.

It is cute that he doesn't want to stand behind the book.

[Cam63]

Also, these are all real military vets, many of whom won a lot of medals. You say it's ok to call these guys "lying liars who lied" yet it's not ok for them to say the same exact thing about Kerry? Double standard much?

You don't " win " bravery medals. I thought a true patriot like you knew that.

...and where's the double standard of calling a liar a liar ?

[FalconX2000]

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2162/hotdoghs1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Curiously, I find this picture hilarious.

[Cam63]

Is his wife about to applaud him for eating a hotdog ?

Politics = weird shit.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2252578/US-election-Poker-player-Barack-Obama-has-better-odds-than-dice-man-John-McCain.html

A rather amusing article about Obama's and McCain's gambling habits and policies and how its affecting the "professional gambler" vote.:biggrin:

I especially like the last third:

But others see Obama's poker skills rather than his gaming policies as the better qualification for the presidency. Andy Bloch, one of the world's leading players who has accumulated $715,000 so far at this year's World Series, told The Sunday Telegraph: "There are a lot of skills playing poker that would help the chief executive.

"In poker you have to put yourself in the shoes of your opponents, get inside their heads and figure out what they're thinking; what their actions mean; what they would think your actions mean; and reading people's bluffs.

"One thing that got us into the Iraq War was that George Bush didn't realise that Saddam Hussein was basically bluffing, trying to look like a big man, when he really had no weapons of mass destruction."

Anthony Holden, the British poker player and writer, whose book Big Deal did much to popularise the game in the UK, said Obama is following in a long tradition of poker playing presidents, from Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Harding to Harry Truman.

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "Eisenhower was a good player who did not like winning money from fellow officers, let alone other ranks, and he was a nice guy. Nixon had no such scruples at all and funded his first political campaign from his wartime winnings. He turned out to be just as unprincipled in power.

"Barack Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, used poker to make political connections. He seems not to be much of a bluffer. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a giant bluff by JFK, which was not called by Khruschev. I don't think we'll get those kind of geopolitical gambles from Obama."

Both men are concerned by the details of Mr McCain's Craps habit. "You're always at a disadvantage at craps," said Mr Bloch. "It's a problem, if you have a leader who believes they can beat the odds. You don't want him shooting dice with the economy." Mr Holden added: "We poker players don't call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps."

Both candidates need to work on their poker faces, according to another poker player who analysed their "tells", those physical mannerisms they use when they are lying.

The blogger, cthulhuology, said of Mr McCain: "Every time he bends the truth, dissembles, or just outright lies, his left eye starts twitching more than his normal excessive blinking. McCain then looks down, in a rather sheepish fashion, and looks away from the interviewer breaking eye contact."

He added: "Obama has several mannerisms which give away when he's stalling for time, trying to parse a statement, or just crafting a half truth. Watch how he touches his face on occasion, when a statement or comment disturbs him."

[DungeonmasterJim]

I was stunned to see on a network nightly news broadcast that Obama's patriotism was questioned by some because he didn't have his hand over his heart during the National Anthem and for not wearing flag pin on his lapel. The report didn't mention who these people were but damn is that a really weak argument to crit a guy for.

DM Jim

[Nick Soapdish]

I was stunned to see on a network nightly news broadcast that Obama's patriotism was questioned by some because he didn't have his hand over his heart during the National Anthem and for not wearing flag pin on his lapel. The report didn't mention who these people were but damn is that a really weak argument to crit a guy for.

DM Jim

It started with the rumor that he didn't have his hand over his heart during the pledge with a picture of him beside Hillary (and somebody else, I think) who did have her hand over her heart.

However, the picture was taken after the pledge and during the anthem. So it's morphed.

While I sometimes do put my hand over my heart during the anthem, I don't really see the point. You aren't pledging allegiance to anything during the song. The song is just about how awesome our country is.

And I haven't worn a flag on me since I was a Cub Scout. (I'm pretty sure I remember one of the patches being a flag.)

[LtMarvel]

The Swift Boat group wasn't telling the truth with any degree of accuracy. The veterans who were physically closest to the events backed Kerry.

[section 8]

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2162/hotdoghs1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
*Clap Clap Clap*
"Good for you honey i knew you could overcome your fear of pork bi-products."

[Samurai]

*Clap Clap Clap*
"Good for you honey i knew you could overcome your fear of pork bi-products."

"Wow, he's taking it deep throat, but is he going to spit or swallow this time...?"

[Nick Soapdish]

The Swift Boat group wasn't telling the truth with any degree of accuracy. The veterans who were physically closest to the events backed Kerry.

I'd quibble on the phrasing.

Some of the Swiftboaters have obviously lied at some point because their current account contradicts their previous accounts. And almost all of the people that were most likely to know the truth have backed Kerry's version of events.

However, it is possible that they are all lying and that the Swiftboaters are telling the truth (except for the liars and they were only lying when they testified about the events immediately after they occurred). So I'd only say that it's most likely that the Swiftboaters weren't telling the truth with any degree of accuracy.

[CutterMike]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u224/CutterMike/mccain-eating-hot-dog.jpg"Wow, he's taking it deep throat, but is he going to spit or swallow this time...?"

[Samurai]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u224/CutterMike/mccain-eating-hot-dog.jpg

LOL, good one!

Looks like both candidates are working hard for the gay vote! :)

(and the hot dog manufacturer's assoc. vote)

[section 8]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u224/CutterMike/mccain-eating-hot-dog.jpg
"Damnit!! Bob Dole Just Spotted me! but he's not getting any of my hotdog *Scarf Scarf Chomp*"

[Gilda Dent]

It started with the rumor that he didn't have his hand over his heart during the pledge with a picture of him beside Hillary (and somebody else, I think) who did have her hand over her heart.

However, the picture was taken after the pledge and during the anthem. So it's morphed.

While I sometimes do put my hand over my heart during the anthem, I don't really see the point. You aren't pledging allegiance to anything during the song. The song is just about how awesome our country is.

And I haven't worn a flag on me since I was a Cub Scout. (I'm pretty sure I remember one of the patches being a flag.)

Well, also, there's that whether or not you put your hand over your heart during the Pledge or anthem or wear a flag pin has exactly jack shit to do with how much of a patriot you are.

[section 8]

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america
I received this link via E-mail from a friend a little over an hour ago.

[Tages]

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america
I received this link via E-mail from a friend a little over an hour ago.

So, Obama wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which includes taking the missiles the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other off hair-trigger alert.

Why is this a bad thing?

[Crowley]

So, Obama wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which includes taking the missiles the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other off hair-trigger alert.

Why is this a bad thing?

I agree... working towards ridding this planet of nukes is what I would call a good thing.

[Charles RB]

I'd have thought you could reduce your number of nukes and still have enough to twat anyone you want.

[the4thpip]

I'd have thought you could reduce your number of nukes and still have enough to twat anyone you want.

Yes, but "ours is bigger than theirs" is an argument that appeals to many right-leaning voters.

[Charles RB]

Yes, but "ours is bigger than theirs" is an argument that appeals to many right-leaning voters.

Yeah, but they're reducing too.

Of course, that could mean France has more than you. Oh noes! :eek:

[the4thpip]

Yeah, but they're reducing too.

Of course, that could mean France has more than you. Oh noes! :eek:

You know, Sarkozy offered us Germans nukes a few months ago. Merkel just looked at him like he was crazy.

[Charles RB]

You know, Sarkozy offered us Germans nukes a few months ago. Merkel just looked at him like he was crazy.

Why did Sarkozy do that? :confused:

[the4thpip]

Why did Sarkozy do that? :confused:

IIRC, he wanted Germany to help put France in charge of a new "Mediterranean Union" consisting of France, Italy, Spain and some North African countries.

[Charles RB]

IIRC, he wanted Germany to help put France in charge of a new "Mediterranean Union" consisting of France, Italy, Spain and some North African countries.

It'd be enough for some countries to just be in charge of the European Union!

[the4thpip]

It'd be enough for some countries to just be in charge of the European Union!

I think that is his problem... All the Eastern European new additions are making him feel pushed to the side.

[section 8]

I agree... working towards ridding this planet of nukes is what I would call a good thing.

Ridding the planet of nukes would be like the US banning handguns,
You won't be rid of them all, in fact you'd only be rid of the legit ones.

[the4thpip]

Ridding the planet of nukes would be like the US banning handguns,
You won't be rid of them all, in fact you'd only be rid of the legit ones.

So would you be in favor of my country getting nukes?

[section 8]

So would you be in favor of my country getting nukes?

Germany right?

[the4thpip]

Germany right?

Jawohl, Liebchen.

[Cam63]

The Swift Boat group wasn't telling the truth with any degree of accuracy. The veterans who were physically closest to the events backed Kerry.

Yes to that.

[Charles RB]

Ridding the planet of nukes would be like the US banning handguns,
You won't be rid of them all, in fact you'd only be rid of the legit ones.

Nuclear weapons - viable ones - are costly to make and maintain. You can easily get an illegal handgun, you can't easily get an illicit nuclear bomb; you'll need to either need to buy one from another nation, which would be noticed as it gets transported, or you'll need to build one, which will also get noticed.

Besides, reducing the number of nukes isn't the same as dumping them all. (It'd seem odd to have enough between you all to destroy civilisation several times over, surely once would be enough?)

[section 8]

Nuclear weapons - viable ones - are costly to make and maintain. You can easily get an illegal handgun, you can't easily get an illicit nuclear bomb; you'll need to either need to buy one from another nation, which would be noticed as it gets transported, or you'll need to build one, which will also get noticed.

Besides, reducing the number of nukes isn't the same as dumping them all. (It'd seem odd to have enough between you all to destroy civilisation several times over, surely once would be enough?)

well i cannot argue with the latter.
But last time a nation was "Noticed" developing nukes we ended up in Iraq , chasing our tails, and scratching our heads. this loss of credibility would be damning if a nation really did pursue nuclear weaponry.

and i disagree with the implication that nukes are easy to spot. what of the nukes that Russia "misplaced"?

[the4thpip]

well i cannot argue with the latter.
But last time a nation was "Noticed" developing nukes we ended up in Iraq , chasing our tails, and scratching our heads. this loss of credibility would be damning if a nation really did pursue nuclear weaponry.

and i disagree with the implication that nukes are easy to spot. what of the nukes that Russia "misplaced"?

Which nation was "noticed" developing nukes when Cheney invaded Iraq?

Oh, that's right. North Korea.

[section 8]

interesting that there were two tests and that Iranian scientists were reportedly present for the second.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

The last time I saw any stats, we (USA) had nukes to match every other country on Earth, combined, and a disproportionate amount of our military budget goes to contracts for said fissionable devices, and to upkeep. Just a ten percent reduction in production would free up a shitload of money. Ain't gonna happen--the Pentagon might as well be a corporate charity. 'Big Nuke' is the 500-Pound Gorilla for politicians--the last guy who even hinted he was gonna rat the Arms Industry out to the public got his brains blown out in Dealey Plaza.

[CutterMike]

So would you be in favor of my country getting nukes?
I am stunned that no one quoted Tom Lehrer's "MLF Lullaby" after this...:wink:

[Paul McEnery]

interesting that there were two tests and that Iranian scientists were reportedly present for the second.

It's very interesting that certain people reported that, yes.

It's also quite interesting that what we are told is a drive towards nuclear weapons isn't doing Iran any good at all.

And it does seem to me that, as in Iraq, the best disincentive against invasion is a population full of well-armed militias.

[Tages]

and i disagree with the implication that nukes are easy to spot. what of the nukes that Russia "misplaced"?

Lost paperwork.

[Paul McEnery]

Lost paperwork.

Spent all the money on vodka and never actually made them?

[Paul McEnery]

If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries?
Shitty ideas dont often last that long.

I can name a few.

But anyway, here's the real question.

Since torture doesn't work as a way of getting information, what's it there for?

Once you've figured that one out, why we shouldn't be doing it is a solution that just falls out.

[Sabrinaset]

You know, I was looking through some old stories and found this: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-'kiss-my-ass'-for-his-support.html) Good grief, Bill!

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a "sticking point" in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support...

The party strategist, who was allied to one of the early rivals to Mr Obama and the former First Lady, said Mr Clinton was "very unhopeful" about the nominee's prospects in November.

"Bill Clinton knows the party will unite behind Obama, but he is telling people he doesn't believe Obama can win round voting groups, especially working-class whites, in the swing states," the strategist said.

"He just doesn't think Obama will be able to connect with the voters he needs."

[Samurai]

You know, I was looking through some old stories and found this: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-'kiss-my-ass'-for-his-support.html) Good grief, Bill!

Well, here's hoping Bill's right for a change...

[section 8]

I can name a few.

But anyway, here's the real question.

Since torture doesn't work as a way of getting information, what's it there for?

Once you've figured that one out, why we shouldn't be doing it is a solution that just falls out.
*psssst* wrong thread.

[Corrina]

Is the UK telegraph a reputable paper? I'm honestly asking, as i'm not familiar with it.

The story says the paper has 'learned' and lists two unnamed sources, plus they're using a photo out of context--(they don't say where & when the photo was taken, which they should, at the very least, and they're using it to support their story.)

I'm a little bit doubtful of its veracity, based on all that.

Here's where I look at sources:
1. Did they double-check with the subject (any quotes from the Clintons or their aides in response to this story or a 'no comment?' --no.)

2. They make a judgment about a statement ('tepid.')

3. The sources are unacknowledged.

4. They quote Joe Klein, implying he's a friend of Clinton's (has 'known him for 20 years') but they don't say how he has access to current Clinton aides or the man himself or they don't identify him as a reporter--just someone who wrote a book.

This is what I do with a lot of articles to determine whether they're worth paying attention to.
1. The source and if it's publicly acknowledged.
2. If anything is skewed in the descriptions.
3. If information is left out or, if included, the implication is far from the truth.

[Sabrinaset]

Is the UK telegraph a reputable paper? I'm honestly asking, as i'm not familiar with it.

I think ALL the old media is pretty suspect, actually ... but I've been posting stories from the NYT for the past few months or so, so I figure what the heck. Also ... it strikes me as somthing Bill would do, especially considering how well he "helped" Hillary's campaign. I don't know a thing about UK papers though, so you could be right.

But considering it was the National Enquirer of all things that actually did the legwork and filed the story on Jesse Jackson's love babies and how he drained money out of his corporation to pay off his women when the rest of the "reputable" press wouldn't ... *shrugs*

Bottom line: Bad papers have run good stories.

[Paul McEnery]

Is the UK telegraph a reputable paper? I'm honestly asking, as i'm not familiar with it.



Not any more. It used to be the Tory house organ, plain and simple. But for ages, Conrad Black fucked it up.

Black just got put away for fraud for the rest of his life by the US courts.

He also owned the Jerusalem Post, which should tell you something about anything you read that's from that source.

He doesn't own the Torygraph any more, but it's going to take a lot of undoing, the damage he did. And there's no particular reason to believe that the current owners are the men to do it.

[Charles RB]

Is the UK telegraph a reputable paper? I'm honestly asking, as i'm not familiar with it.

It's got a known conservative bias and you should take that into account when reading political stories. In this case it's probably inaccurate.

[cactusmaac]

Is the UK telegraph a reputable paper? I'm honestly asking, as i'm not familiar with it.

The story says the paper has 'learned' and lists two unnamed sources, plus they're using a photo out of context--(they don't say where & when the photo was taken, which they should, at the very least, and they're using it to support their story.)


It's like the Wall Street Journal. It has a conservative slant but their reporting tends to raise few complaints.

[rick]

It's got a known conservative bias and you should take that into account when reading political stories. In this case it's probably inaccurate.

It's probably an accurate report, but then again, think about what the story actually says.

Someone who knows Bill Clinton, heard from someone else who knows Bill Clinton that Bill Clinton said something bad about Obama.

So here are the facts, a person heard something from another person, but was not actually there.

Then again, considering just how bitter the campaign was, I would not be in the least bit surprised, nor would I really hold it against him if Bill said that Obama could kiss his ass.

Either way, it’s meaningless.

[Nick Soapdish]

It's probably an accurate report, but then again, think about what the story actually says.

Someone who knows Bill Clinton, heard from someone else who knows Bill Clinton that Bill Clinton said something bad about Obama.

So here are the facts, a person heard something from another person, but was not actually there.

Then again, considering just how bitter the campaign was, I would not be in the least bit surprised, nor would I really hold it against him if Bill said that Obama could kiss his ass.

Either way, it’s meaningless.

Right. He could still be ticked at Obama, but it doesn't mean that he won't come around or that he won't manage to at least pretend to be his biggest fan in public.

[section 8]

It's got a known conservative bias and you should take that into account when reading political stories. In this case it's probably inaccurate.

these days ALL Media has to be filtered through a B.S. Detector.

[Charles RB]

Ha, these days? There's been media bias and manipulation before. In World War One, you had press barons not only colluding with British propaganda agencies but in of Lord Beaverbrook running those agencies. (He then used his papers to slag off the British Council because it was a rival and replacement for his old ministry)

[Typo Lad]

Not any more. It used to be the Tory house organ, plain and simple. But for ages, Conrad Black fucked it up.

Black just got put away for fraud for the rest of his life by the US courts.

He also owned the Jerusalem Post, which should tell you something about anything you read that's from that source.

He doesn't own the Torygraph any more, but it's going to take a lot of undoing, the damage he did. And there's no particular reason to believe that the current owners are the men to do it.

To be fair, the Post is okay in the non-political stuff. The UKT is just nuts.

[Nick Soapdish]

Ha, these days? There's been media bias and manipulation before. In World War One, you had press barons not only colluding with British propaganda agencies but in of Lord Beaverbrook running those agencies. (He then used his papers to slag off the British Council because it was a rival and replacement for his old ministry)

Or William Randolph Hearst who used his paper to push America into a war with Spain among other things.

[LtMarvel]

Perhaps someone should list which papers have page 3 girls for us Yanks to better evaluate their journalistic seriousness.

And examples would help...

[Briareos]

I was stunned to see on a network nightly news broadcast that Obama's patriotism was questioned by some because he didn't have his hand over his heart during the National Anthem and for not wearing flag pin on his lapel. The report didn't mention who these people were but damn is that a really weak argument to crit a guy for.

DM Jim

The problem is the left is trying to change the subject. The isusue isn't that he doesn't wear a flag pin. It's that he stoped doing it all of a sudden. It's a little thing that combined with all the other little things makes you wonder if he really has the best interest of our country at heart or if he believes (like some on the left do) that the US is too strong and that making us weaker would help everyone or some such nonsense.

[Red Jack]

Who cares if he wears the pin or not? really. it's a pin.

if you can't find something better to poke with it might be best to fold up now and save later embarrassment.

[Nick Soapdish]

... nonsense.

But he hasn't stopped wearing it. He does wear it sometimes.

And you guys on the "right" forgot to mention that part of your argument before. Most of the complaints were simply that he didn't wear one and that he didn't put his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance. This is the first time that I've heard that argument.

So you're assuming that he wants to weaken America based solely on the realization that he doesn't always wear his flag pin? You have a real gift for grasping at straws.

And what's with this "some of the left"? "Some of the right" believe that we should've killed everybody in Iraq and all the Muslims in the Middle East, but I don't point it out because it's a fringe belief held by Ann Coulter and the people that buy her book that aren't doing it just to get outraged by conservatives.

[Samurai]

The problem is the left is trying to change the subject. The isusue isn't that he doesn't wear a flag pin. It's that he stoped doing it all of a sudden. It's a little thing that combined with all the other little things makes you wonder if he really has the best interest of our country at heart or if he believes (like some on the left do) that the US is too strong and that making us weaker would help everyone or some such nonsense.

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize. His associations with and support from radical Anti-Americans (including the whole 60's radicals bunch, Soros, Rev Wright and his bigoted view of American history, and his cousin who is now burning down schools and murdering and raping people in the streets), his calls for surrender, retreat, and military cutbacks and disarmament in a time of war, his wife's statement that she has never been proud of America her entire adult life (her sole exception that Barack won the nomination), his unwillingness to wear a flag pin even after being given one by a disabled veteran (he put it on temporarily, and then removed it later and never wore it again), supporters posting pictures of Che Guevara in the campaign headquarters, Obama's extreme liberal voting record, his constant calls for "change" without ever saying 1 thing he actually likes about America and wants to keep, and much more. Individually they are minor points, but put everything together and it paints a pretty strong picture of a guy who really doesn't like America much, either now or in the past, and merely wants to change it into some unrecognizable thing which he would like. Sort of the way some people marry a person not because they love who they are, but who they think they can turn them into.

[CutterMike]

Ya know, if not wearing a flag pin, and not putting one's hand over one's heart for the national anthem is grounds for calling someone "unAmerican" then I want to have:

-- Everyone at a baseball game who starts cheering, sitting down, and drinking beer before the anthem is finished;
-- Everyone watching a parade who doesn't stop what they're doing and salute (in whatever manner the law allows) when a flag-bearer is ten paces from them and hold it until they are ten paces past;
-- Anyone who throws away those paper flags that the Vets give out instead of burning them when they find one in a jacket pocket six months later;
-- Anyone who leaves their flags up when they're fading, dirty, or frayed, and;
-- in short, anyone who does ANY of those things that I see Good Americans™ who won't vote for "unAmerican" Obama do every fucking day...

arrested for being unAmerican and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Because, if not wearing a pin is so goddamned important, then the ones that I've mentioned off the top of my head should probably be felonies.

Or maybe, the "pin"heads should get a clue.

[Nick Soapdish]

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize. His associations with and support from radical Anti-Americans (including the whole 60's radicals bunch, Soros, Rev Wright and his bigoted view of American history, and his cousin who is now burning down schools and murdering and raping people in the streets), his calls for surrender, retreat, and military cutbacks and disarmament in a time of war, his wife's statement that she has never been proud of America her entire adult life (her sole exception that Barack won the nomination), his unwillingness to wear a flag pin even after being given one by a disabled veteran (he put it on temporarily, and then removed it later and never wore it again), supporters posting pictures of Che Guevara in the campaign headquarters, Obama's extreme liberal voting record, his constant calls for "change" without ever saying 1 thing he actually likes about America and wants to keep, and much more. Individually they are minor points, but put everything together and it paints a pretty strong picture of a guy who really doesn't like America much, either now or in the past, and merely wants to change it into some unrecognizable thing which he would like. Sort of the way some people marry a person not because they love who they are, but who they think they can turn them into.

And almost all of those minor points are outright wrong or gross distortions.

IMO, the worst of them is the last since he's constantly been talking about things that he loves about America. I'm not sure if I've ever heard one speech or read one essay by him where he doesn't talk about it.

Ya know, if not wearing a flag pin, and not putting one's hand over one's heart for the national anthem is grounds for calling someone "unAmerican" then I want to have:

-- Everyone at a baseball game who starts cheering, sitting down, and drinking beer before the anthem is finished;
-- Everyone watching a parade who doesn't stop what they're doing and salute (in whatever manner the law allows) when a flag-bearer is ten paces from them and hold it until they are ten paces past;
-- Anyone who throws away those paper flags that the Vets give out instead of burning them when they find one in a jacket pocket six months later;
-- Anyone who leaves their flags up when they're fading, dirty, or frayed, and;
-- in short, anyone who does ANY of those things that I see Good Americans™ who won't vote for "unAmerican" Obama do every fucking day...

arrested for being unAmerican and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Because, if not wearing a pin is so goddamned important, then the ones that I've mentioned off the top of my head should probably be felonies.

Or maybe, the "pin"heads should get a clue.

I've always wondered about using the American flag to sell products through cheap advertising gimmicks (particularly the cheap giveaways) or designs such as using an American flag for a bathing suit. That also seems to be awfully disrespectful.

[LtMarvel]

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize. *Bunch of crap Samurai made up or copied from some whacko site*

I don't know what motivates you. I really don't. I thought Rick might've nailed it when he said you view politics as a team sport and you'd do anything for your side to win. That was my working theory, anyway.

But one thing I know after reading your crap list. Your motivation has nothing to do with what's best for the United States, the Presidency, or humanity. It has nothing to do with fixing a wrong, putting our country on the right track.

When I read posts like the one I quote above, I truly wonder about the person posting. "Hey, I got to do harm to this candidate...let me see if I can list things and claim they are about patriotism." It certainly is not well-reasoned thought for someone to claim that having a murderous cousin hurts your patriotism. Liberal voting record is not anti-patriotic or anti-American. (Historically, liberal means change, right? Change has been good, right, because voting isn't limited to white male land-owners, right?)

Things I do get: your side is losing. I don't know of a historical reference to a party in charge of a country where 70+% of its citizens think it's on the wrong track. And it looks particularly bleak in congress, where Democrats are expecting sizable pickups. And Obama is energizing voters, getting young people and others excited about politics for the first time. And there doesn't seem to be a good way for McCain to overcome Obama.

But this baseless speculation and demonizing...it's only going to get people to further question your character and honor. Attack Obama on the issues. Attack on policy. Attack on his voting record. But don't tell us that anyone who receives his party's nomination for President of the United States is unpatriotic just because you don't like the guy's views. Or that he is winning.

It makes you look so small.

[kingdom2000]

The problem is the left is trying to change the subject. The isusue isn't that he doesn't wear a flag pin. It's that he stoped doing it all of a sudden. It's a little thing that combined with all the other little things makes you wonder if he really has the best interest of our country at heart or if he believes (like some on the left do) that the US is too strong and that making us weaker would help everyone or some such nonsense.

God you are pathetic. Seriousily. Do you even think for yourself anymore or do you simply regurgetate whatever bullshit that Faux News and Limbaugh comes up with? I know you pretend to be a conservative but we both know that is utter bullshit. Your a republican. Just call yourself that, because a true conservative wouldn't not tolerate how the republican party operates.

All this stupid shit about lapel pins and all this other crap is just an excuse. A way for you to pretend you have the moral high ground on what is ultimatly a stupid decision where you continue to sell out your ideals so you can maintain a label you clearly don't believe in. The issues? Whats that?

Nope instead its bullshit because if you talk issues its makes it really hard to lie to yourself about how you don't support the party of larger government, zero fiscal responsibility, and utter corruption. Its hard to talk about issues, making the firm decisions and showing leadership when your man can barely spit out a sentence coherently and the man your party chose for the future can't seem to figure out where he stands on any given issue in his attempt to pander to everybody. Everywhere you look, its the Republican ideals leading the day, but not conservative ideals.

So you take a page from the republican handbook and you lie to yourselves. Over and over and over until the lie becomes a truth you can embrace and be proud of. And like any idiot that believes his own shit, you try to tell it to others. Sadly you do it with pride, which is what is so damn sad about the lot of you.

Both of you need to quit claiming your conservatives. Its bullshit. We all know it. Your Republican in whatever form that takes in whatever year it may be, ready to sell the shit in whatever form they present it to you and happy to ask for more. There might be true conservatives out there, you two are not it. If you where you would not show such blind loyalty to a party that left you long ago and you would not waste your time to focus on the bullshit when its the issues that matter. You wouldn't tolerate how your current party operates and you wouldn't vote for them because of a simple label...if you truly held the beliefs you claim to have but clearly really don't.

But then you are a trained member of the Republican army via Faux News and Rush, and sadly they trained you to eat whatever is fed and to not ask questions. Its truly pathetic in its own way because the very thing they demand (no dissention) is the very thing that is killing the party.

So continue your republican focus on silly things but could you go out and find some real conservatives if they still exist?

[CutterMike]

(...)
Liberal voting record is not anti-patriotic or anti-American. (Historically, liberal means change, right? Change has been good, right, because voting isn't limited to white male land-owners, right?)
(...)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b: archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b: capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: preservative
2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b: capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reactionary
Main Entry: re·ac·tion·ary
Pronunciation: \rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1840
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics

Pretty much says it all, really.

[Samurai]

God you are pathetic. Seriousily. Do you even think for yourself anymore or do you simply regurgetate whatever bullshit that Faux News and Limbaugh comes up with? I know you pretend to be a conservative but we both know that is utter bullshit. Your a republican. Just call yourself that, because a true conservative wouldn't not tolerate how the republican party operates.

All this stupid shit about lapel pins and all this other crap is just an excuse. A way for you to pretend you have the moral high ground on what is ultimatly a stupid decision where you continue to sell out your ideals so you can maintain a label you clearly don't believe in. The issues? Whats that?

Nope instead its bullshit because if you talk issues its makes it really hard to lie to yourself about how you don't support the party of larger government, zero fiscal responsibility, and utter corruption. Its hard to talk about issues, making the firm decisions and showing leadership when your man can barely spit out a sentence coherently and the man your party chose for the future can't seem to figure out where he stands on any given issue in his attempt to pander to everybody. Everywhere you look, its the Republican ideals leading the day, but not conservative ideals.

So you take a page from the republican handbook and you lie to yourselves. Over and over and over until the lie becomes a truth you can embrace and be proud of. And like any idiot that believes his own shit, you try to tell it to others. Sadly you do it with pride, which is what is so damn sad about the lot of you.

Both of you need to quit claiming your conservatives. Its bullshit. We all know it. Your Republican in whatever form that takes in whatever year it may be, ready to sell the shit in whatever form they present it to you and happy to ask for more. There might be true conservatives out there, you two are not it. If you where you would not show such blind loyalty to a party that left you long ago and you would not waste your time to focus on the bullshit when its the issues that matter. You wouldn't tolerate how your current party operates and you wouldn't vote for them because of a simple label...if you truly held the beliefs you claim to have but clearly really don't.

But then you are a trained member of the Republican army via Faux News and Rush, and sadly they trained you to eat whatever is fed and to not ask questions. Its truly pathetic in its own way because the very thing they demand (no dissention) is the very thing that is killing the party.

So continue your republican focus on silly things but could you go out and find some real conservatives if they still exist?

What the hell are you going on about? I won't speak for Bri, though I'm pretty sure what I say here applies to him as well. I'll let him confirm or deny that.

I'm most definitely a conservative first and foremost. I hate a lot of what McCain supports, and I'm not shy at all about saying that. It's an election year, the Republican is the underdog, yet do you hear me unreservedly cheering for McCain? No. He is one of the most non-conservative Republican in the Senate. I hate his stances on immigration, the 1st Amendment, global warming, taxes, and a host of other issues. Why would someone who is "only Republican, not conservative" publicly come out against the Republican candidate on half the issues he supports, if he cares only about party unity, not positions? He wouldn't. You're just trying to be dismissive, and you know you are lying to do it.

What's hilarious is your claim that "a real conservative would vote Democrat, not Republican, and the fact that you aren't voting Democrat proves you aren't a real conservative!" What BS! And I suppose the opposite is also true, that you'd tell a liberal that they aren't a true liberal if they don't support Glorious Leader, Kim Il Obama. So, "real" conservatives and liberals must all support Obama! And since that probably also includes everyone in between, what you are really trying to say is "real Americans support Obama, you're not a real American if you choose to vote McCain!" Man, I don't know what kind of hypnotic whammy Obama has pulled on you, but it's a bit frightening, I gotta say. Wake up man, he's just a politician who'll say and do anything to get elected, and will most likely screw the country over if he does take office. I assure you, it is VERY easy to be a "real conservative" and a "real American" and not support Obama.

At least until he opens the re-education camps.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-06-Lobbyists_N.htm

A look into how Obama has dealt with Lobbyists in the past. He played poker and basketball with them, ate meals with them and accepted raised campaign funds from them.

He also frequently voted against them, always paid for his own meals and never allowe dhimself to become indebted to them.

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON — On Wednesday nights during Illinois General Assembly sessions, a group of lobbyists and lawmakers used to gather at the headquarters of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association for a weekly poker game. Barack Obama, who represented part of Chicago as state senator from 1997-2004, was a regular.
These days, Obama says lobbyists are part of the problem with Washington, and he refuses to accept their fundraising help. But during his eight years in Springfield, Ill., Obama played golf and basketball with them and hit them up for campaign donations, according to records and interviews. He shared meals with them, though he was careful to pay his own way, they say.

Obama also accepted lobbyist money when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and he later used his influence to help secure grants for 16 Illinois-based institutions represented by six of his lobbyist contributors, public records show.

He did all that while retaining a reputation for independence. "I can't remember a time that state senator Obama wasn't on the side of the consumers," said David Kolata, executive director of the non-partisan Illinois Citizens Utility Board.

A look at Obama's past relationships with lobbyists shows that, for most of his political career, Obama wasn't as attentive to the appearance of coziness with special interests as he is now. But it also shows that he often voted against the interests of his lobbyist friends, and he helped pass two significant upgrades to Illinois campaign finance and ethics laws.


Excerpt 2:

Although he did business with lobbyists, Obama in 1998 helped pass a bill restricting lobbyist gifts and fundraisers near the Illinois Capitol building in Springfield. In 2003, he helped draft gift restrictions for state employees. And in Congress last year, he worked to enact disclosure requirements for lobbyists who raise funds for lawmakers.

He also cast some high-profile votes against powerful interest groups. In May 2003, for example, SBC Communications, Illinois' main telephone provider, deployed dozens of lobbyists who lined up much of the Democratic establishment behind legislation that consumer groups said would increase phone bills.

Michael Lieteau, a lobbyist for SBC, had played poker and basketball with Obama. Lieteau recalled, noting, as other lobbyists did, that Obama always paid his own tab.

Obama was one of just six Democratic senators who voted no. He sided against the Democratic governor, the Democratic House speaker and his mentor, Democratic Senate President Emil Jones. Even the political consultant he had hired to help him run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, David Axelrod, was working for SBC.

[the4thpip]

I can name a few.

But anyway, here's the real question.

Since torture doesn't work as a way of getting information, what's it there for?

Once you've figured that one out, why we shouldn't be doing it is a solution that just falls out.

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/8000/7606/2590-deadpool_400.jpg

[kingdom2000]

What the hell are you going on about? I won't speak for Bri, though I'm pretty sure what I say here applies to him as well. I'll let him confirm or deny that.

I'm most definitely a conservative first and foremost. I hate a lot of what McCain supports, and I'm not shy at all about saying that. It's an election year, the Republican is the underdog, yet do you hear me unreservedly cheering for McCain? No. He is one of the most non-conservative Republican in the Senate. I hate his stances on immigration, the 1st Amendment, global warming, taxes, and a host of other issues. Why would someone who is "only Republican, not conservative" publicly come out against the Republican candidate on half the issues he supports, if he cares only about party unity, not positions? He wouldn't. You're just trying to be dismissive, and you know you are lying to do it.

What's hilarious is your claim that "a real conservative would vote Democrat, not Republican, and the fact that you aren't voting Democrat proves you aren't a real conservative!" What BS! And I suppose the opposite is also true, that you'd tell a liberal that they aren't a true liberal if they don't support Glorious Leader, Kim Il Obama. So, "real" conservatives and liberals must all support Obama! And since that probably also includes everyone in between, what you are really trying to say is "real Americans support Obama, you're not a real American if you choose to vote McCain!" Man, I don't know what kind of hypnotic whammy Obama has pulled on you, but it's a bit frightening, I gotta say. Wake up man, he's just a politician who'll say and do anything to get elected, and will most likely screw the country over if he does take office. I assure you, it is VERY easy to be a "real conservative" and a "real American" and not support Obama.

At least until he opens the re-education camps.


Wow great use of quotes of things I never said and of course making up more shit about Obama. Is your position that pathetic? Issues man, issues. Are you republicans so out of practice that you can't do that?

As for the other, I didn't say you had to vote Obama. If conservatives did more then relentlessly toe the party line you might have got a better candidate then McCain. But nope, you remained mindlessly loyal and got what you deserved. And because of that we continue to get this pointless dribble so you can pretend you are a conservative. Your not. Quit saying you are. You are a proud Republican who has to lie to himself everyday so he can remember why he is a proud republican. So we get crap about "true American" and "re-education camps" and whatever new bullshit you decide to talk yourself into being proud that you eat. Its the bed you pretend conservatives have chosen to lie in. I just find it hilarious. And sadly pathetic. But hey "Go Republicans!" right? Thats all that matters, values be damned.

[Samurai]

Wow great use of quotes of things I never said and of course making up more shit about Obama. Is your position that pathetic? Issues man, issues. Are you republicans so out of practice that you can't do that?

As for the other, I didn't say you had to vote Obama. If conservatives did more then relentlessly toe the party line you might have got a better candidate then McCain. But nope, you remained mindlessly loyal and got what you deserved. And because of that we continue to get this pointless dribble so you can pretend you are a conservative. Your not. Quit saying you are. You are a proud Republican who has to lie to himself everyday so he can remember why he is a proud republican. So we get crap about "true American" and "re-education camps" and whatever new bullshit you decide to talk yourself into being proud that you eat. Its the bed you pretend conservatives have chosen to lie in. I just find it hilarious. And sadly pathetic. But hey "Go Republicans!" right? Thats all that matters, values be damned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25561143/

Conservatives to battle McCain over platform
Activists don’t want his views on warming, stem cells, other issues adopted

You really are a silly goose. "Mindlessly loyal"? Bwahahaha! I suppose voting for Obama (or throwing their vote away on some 3rd party with no chance in hell) is the only way one proves they are not "mindlessly loyal"? And yet, the arm twisting of Democrats who supported Hillary and threaten to vote Republican, 3rd party, or just stay home continues... I guess "mindless loyalty" to Obama is to be applauded and encouraged.

There is a major division in the Republican party right now. (Trust me, that's a good thing for Obama, so you can recognize and applaud it! It's ok!) Conservatives (like me) are not happy at all with McCain. Yeah, he's better than Obama on certain issues, about the same on others, and has more experience, so overall still a better choice. But he is not at all in sync with conservative values on a number of major issues, despite attempting to give them some lip service.

If you can't even recognize all of that, and tell the difference between someone who cares about and discusses the issues (to the point of disagreeing with their party's candidate) rather than automatically supporting whatever the Republican says, you really have no business pontificating about politics.

[kingdom2000]

See here is the thing, come November people will not just be voting for a President. There are actually other positions that will be up for grabs and who gets them can be just as important on a federal and state level. You keep thinking "McBush vs Obama". I am actually thinking beyond that. I am thinking "rubberstamp Congress" and the need to eradicate it. Congress needs to get its conflict and need to compromise back.

I have this really strange idea of supporting the person you feel best represents you, not supporting the party. I know, crazy talk to faux conservatives such as yourself.

I have, for instance, have voted republican before. Well, at least before the great polarization of 2000. On many issues I have a republican stance. On others a liberal one. Basically I am probably like alot of those undecided outs there who can go with either party depending on the issues. Hell, if it wasn't for the great volume of shit that Bush has caused in his 8 years, something like immigration would have switched me into the undecided vote column. Instead my decision is made real simple because frankly I don't think this country can survive four more years of Bush policy.

I will be glad when the disaster that is Bush (yeah i know its the clinton's fault) is finally expunged from the Republican party and hopefully a meeting of minds can occur rather then this win no matter mentality that has infected repubs such as yourself. The worse thing Rove ever did was create this one vs the other mentality where crossing borders is wrong. That faux conservatives have embraced it so euthiastically is part of my problem.

The reason I don't vote for repubs now.is simple. I don't agree with them. I don't agree with their tactics, I don't agree with recent actions, I don't agree with their mindless loyalty and belief in a unified front no matter what and of course more then a little sick of their utter corruption and kow towing to big business. You know, the issues. Notice at no point do I point out silly and idiotic little gaffes to justify my decision.

As a result, this year I will be voting across the board Democrat. I don't care who they are, I see Democrat, they get my vote. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to do that. However, as long as faux conservatives such as yourself continue to do the "republican = conservative" checkmark down the ballot, regardless of how false that belief is, there really isn't any reason to give more then lip service to your claimed causes.

And why not, I don't believe any of that dribble above and I am betting Republican leadership doesn't either. The idiots already bought it twice in 2000 and 2004 and come election day I have absolute confidence that once again all "conservatives" will vote along party lines because of false sense of loyalty and pride will demand it.

[king mob]

Things I do get: your side is losing. I don't know of a historical reference to a party in charge of a country where 70+% of its citizens think it's on the wrong track.

There's some comparison to be made between Obama & Tony Blair in that both are charismatic figures promising massive change & improvement from a dismal right wing government that's fucked their respective country's up.

Of course the punchline was that Blair & Labour gave us something vastly worse than the last Conservative government.

[Cam63]

The problem is the left is trying to change the subject. The isusue isn't that he doesn't wear a flag pin. It's that he stoped doing it all of a sudden. It's a little thing that combined with all the other little things makes you wonder if he really has the best interest of our country at heart or if he believes (like some on the left do) that the US is too strong and that making us weaker would help everyone or some such nonsense.

Wow... ........

[the4thpip]

Cam, does anything about Bri still surprise you?

[Typo Lad]

It may be better to not quote some people and bring more attention to their boarderline psychotic views.

[Corrina]

these days ALL Media has to be filtered through a B.S. Detector.

Agreed. I pretty much put every article I read through the evaluation I did the UK Telegraph article.

And it's possible for real news to come through a lousy source, like the Enquirer. What doesn't change is the need to look for the sources, how close they are to the situation, and the biases that come out in the article.

I'd figure the Enquirer people would be more likely to hear about sex scandal than a money scandal, for instance, since they're focused on who sleeps with who, rather than following the money. So I'd pay more attention to them saying "Jesse has a mistress" than "Jesse took bribes from a contractor."

[Dreadstar]

It may be better to not quote some people and bring more attention to their boarderline psychotic views.

I'll never understand why anyone gives the borderline rabid from either side a soapbox and audience to argue with, but that's just me.

[FalconX2000]

I'll never understand why anyone gives the borderline rabid from either side a soapbox and audience to argue with, but that's just me.

I guess it plays on and brings forth the underlying sentiments of the audience.

Perhaps the same reason why we find Mr. T awesome, but in a more polarising way since politics affects people far more than being pitied on.

[Samurai]

See here is the thing, come November people will not just be voting for a President. There are actually other positions that will be up for grabs and who gets them can be just as important on a federal and state level. You keep thinking "McBush vs Obama". I am actually thinking beyond that. I am thinking "rubberstamp Congress" and the need to eradicate it. Congress needs to get its conflict and need to compromise back.

I have this really strange idea of supporting the person you feel best represents you, not supporting the party. I know, crazy talk to faux conservatives such as yourself.

I have, for instance, have voted republican before. Well, at least before the great polarization of 2000. On many issues I have a republican stance. On others a liberal one. Basically I am probably like alot of those undecided outs there who can go with either party depending on the issues. Hell, if it wasn't for the great volume of shit that Bush has caused in his 8 years, something like immigration would have switched me into the undecided vote column. Instead my decision is made real simple because frankly I don't think this country can survive four more years of Bush policy.

I will be glad when the disaster that is Bush (yeah i know its the clinton's fault) is finally expunged from the Republican party and hopefully a meeting of minds can occur rather then this win no matter mentality that has infected repubs such as yourself. The worse thing Rove ever did was create this one vs the other mentality where crossing borders is wrong. That faux conservatives have embraced it so euthiastically is part of my problem.

The reason I don't vote for repubs now.is simple. I don't agree with them. I don't agree with their tactics, I don't agree with recent actions, I don't agree with their mindless loyalty and belief in a unified front no matter what and of course more then a little sick of their utter corruption and kow towing to big business. You know, the issues. Notice at no point do I point out silly and idiotic little gaffes to justify my decision.

As a result, this year I will be voting across the board Democrat. I don't care who they are, I see Democrat, they get my vote. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to do that. However, as long as faux conservatives such as yourself continue to do the "republican = conservative" checkmark down the ballot, regardless of how false that belief is, there really isn't any reason to give more then lip service to your claimed causes.

And why not, I don't believe any of that dribble above and I am betting Republican leadership doesn't either. The idiots already bought it twice in 2000 and 2004 and come election day I have absolute confidence that once again all "conservatives" will vote along party lines because of false sense of loyalty and pride will demand it.
2 points - If you want to stop a rubberstamp Congress, you should not vote Democrat. It's almost assured that Dems will control Congress, and having a Dem in the White House will create exactly the situation you want to avoid... a lack of checks and balances.

Second, your perceptions of the Republican party and conservatives are just flat out wrong. Take it from someone who is one, heck, take it from the news article I posted yesterday, there is no "mindless loyalty" or "unified front". In fact, there are deep divisions in the party. Bush has turned out to be a VERY weak leader. Not only have several of his decisions gone against conservative values, he has screwed up others badly and he utterly fails to explain and defend his actions, to use the "Presidential pulpit" to lead a conservative movement. He just hides from the cameras and does what he wants.

As a result, he has allowed the Democrats to completely control the national conversation, unopposed except for a few voices here and there. And those voices are split. Some say we need a strong conservative leader willing to promote his message and rally people. Others say we need more compromise, a moderate who can recapture the the centrist vote. The latter group won the nomination process, but there are still great divisions in the party even for the conservatives who end up reluctantly voting for McCain. How McCain does will lead to further changes in the party. If he wins, the centrists will say "See? We were right!" and take stronger control. If McCain loses, the conservatives will be the ones to say "See? We were right!" and gain a stronger position.

That you see none of this, and in fact believe the exact opposite about the Republican party, says you are not talking to any real conservatives or Republicans, you are only reading left-wing sites that bemoan the "Bush zombies" and other nonsense. When was the last time you actually spent time on right-wing sites, searching for either mindless unity or division? Because I spend a fair amount of time on them, and they are most certainly NOT a unified front.

[Mr.EZ]

How can anyone ever possibly support the republican party after the promoted W.? He's their boy, and no matter how many of them reversed their backing of him, they were the ones that helped him get to where he is now.

[Dreadstar]

How can anyone ever possibly support the republican party after the promoted W.?

Because to some people their base position on certain issues is still preferable to the Democratic one. For example, my sister-in-law distills the entire political spectrum down to *one* single issue: abortion. It really is that simple.

[Samurai]

How can anyone ever possibly support the republican party after the promoted W.? He's their boy, and no matter how many of them reversed their backing of him, they were the ones that helped him get to where he is now.

How could anyone support the Democrats after they backed Clinton, twice? He was their boy.

Both parties have had disappointing Presidents lately, as well as in the past.

It really comes down to how you feel about the issues. If you are conservative, why in the world would you vote for someone who disagrees with you in every way, just because you didn't care for the last Republican President?

[Grazzt]

How could anyone support the Democrats after they backed Clinton, twice? He was their boy.

Both parties have had disappointing Presidents lately, as well as in the past.

Then how come you guys don't toss both parties out on their ass?

As a citizen of a nation that is currently being run by a party less than two decades old, it actually does happen.

[Dreadstar]

Then how come you guys don't toss both parties out on their ass?

I've been trying for over 20 years.

Talk to the guys who believe that voting for anyone but the big 2 is "throwing your vote away." It's their fault we dig the trench deeper.

[Mr.EZ]

How could anyone support the Democrats after they backed Clinton, twice? He was their boy.

Both parties have had disappointing Presidents lately, as well as in the past.

It really comes down to how you feel about the issues. If you are conservative, why in the world would you vote for someone who disagrees with you in every way, just because you didn't care for the last Republican President?

Clinton got his dick sucked. Bush has done more things wrong than anyone would really be able to list without becoming depressed.

I would've killed for 4 More With Clinton and Gore.

[Samurai]

Then how come you guys don't toss both parties out on their ass?

As a citizen of a nation that is currently being run by a party less than two decades old, it actually does happen.

Because our entire system (and national psyche) is built to reward larger parties, not minor parties. It's winner take all, not proportional. So if 1 side, say the conservatives, were to divide their votes between the Libertarians and Republicans, while the other side were united behind the Democrats, the Democrats would win everything. And vice versa if the Dems and Greens split the vote and the Republicans were united. We don't have a parliamentary system, we have a Republic, and whoever gets the most votes wins it all.

[Samurai]

Clinton got his dick sucked. Bush has done more things wrong than anyone would really be able to list without becoming depressed.

I would've killed for 4 More With Clinton and Gore.

He did a hell of a lot more wrong than that.

[kingdom2000]

Democrats become a rubberstamping Congress? Have you been paying any attention? Half the time they can't get in agreement on how best to kiss ass much less form that unified front that Repubs can do get stupid things done year after year. That is the biggest difference between the two parties right now, Repubs can form the unified front at the snap of the fingers and Dems couldn't if with a gun pointed to their heads.

I like how random your bullshit is depending on what you need your silly faux conservative points. Really, quit it. Your a republican not a conservative. Admitting it is half the battle.

[KevinTBrown]

Democrats become a rubberstamping Congress? Have you been paying any attention? Half the time they can't get in agreement on how best to kiss ass much less form that unified front that Repubs can do get stupid things done year after year. That is the biggest difference between the two parties right now, Repubs can form the unified front at the snap of the fingers and Dems couldn't if with a gun pointed to their heads.

I like how random your bullshit is depending on what you need your silly faux conservative points. Really, quit it. Your a republican not a conservative. Admitting it is half the battle.

Here, allow me to answer that bolded question for you (and him):

*ahem*

NO!

[the4thpip]

He did a hell of a lot more wrong than that.

Yeah, I think "don't ask, don't tell", "defense of marriage" and "ending welfare as we know it" was stupid pandering to a Republican congress and I never really forgave him for those.

[Royal]

Then how come you guys don't toss both parties out on their ass?

As a citizen of a nation that is currently being run by a party less than two decades old, it actually does happen.

We. Fear. Change.

That and when any third party gains steam, they're either labeled "kooky", "crazy" or in my case "Socialist".

Yet you're never going to see either party admit that they've been an ineffective waste of time and money for 35 years.

[CutterMike]

Democrats become a rubberstamping Congress? Have you been paying any attention? Half the time they can't get in agreement on how best to kiss ass much less form that unified front that Repubs can do get stupid things done year after year. That is the biggest difference between the two parties right now, Repubs can form the unified front at the snap of the fingers and Dems couldn't if with a gun pointed to their heads. (...)
"A feller once asked me if I was a member of an organized political party and I told him, 'No, sir! I'm a Democrat!'" -- Will Rogers

...Things really haven't changed much in 70 years, have they...?

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah, I think "don't ask, don't tell", "defense of marriage" and "ending welfare as we know it" was stupid pandering to a Republican congress and I never really forgave him for those.

I'm pretty sure "Don't ask, don't tell" was introduced in 1993 to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

[kingdom2000]

Yeah it was Clinton's "solution" to the gay issue in the military. I have to wonder though...if gays where completely removed from the services just how hurt would they be for troops?

On the bright side...if McBush gets his wish and picks a fight with Iran to start a third front then a draft will probably occur. Just say your gay and your out. No moving to Canada required.

[CutterMike]

Yeah it was Clinton's "solution" to the gay issue in the military. I have to wonder though...if gays where completely removed from the services just how hurt would they be for troops?

On the bright side...if McBush gets his wish and picks a fight with Iran to start a third front then a draft will probably occur. Just say your gay and your out. No moving to Canada required.
I'm sorry... I'm a bad person... Every time I see "McBush", all I can think of is a lesbian fast-food place.






I'll go away and hide, now...

[Sabrinaset]

I'm sorry... I'm a bad person... Every time I see "McBush", all I can think of is a lesbian fast-food place.

I'll go away and hide, now...


http://www.rikthib.com/Humor/lesbush.jpg

[Buzz Dixon]

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2162/hotdoghs1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Curiously, I find this picture hilarious....oh, merciful heavens...this is gonna get 'shopped like nobody's business on 4chan...:eek:

[Buzz Dixon]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u224/CutterMike/mccain-eating-hot-dog.jpg

...this one, too...:rolleyes:

[Buzz Dixon]

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize. His associations with and support from radical Anti-Americans (including the whole 60's radicals bunch, Soros, Rev Wright and his bigoted view of American history, and his cousin who is now burning down schools and murdering and raping people in the streets), his calls for surrender, retreat, and military cutbacks and disarmament in a time of war, his wife's statement that she has never been proud of America her entire adult life (her sole exception that Barack won the nomination), his unwillingness to wear a flag pin even after being given one by a disabled veteran (he put it on temporarily, and then removed it later and never wore it again), supporters posting pictures of Che Guevara in the campaign headquarters, Obama's extreme liberal voting record, his constant calls for "change" without ever saying 1 thing he actually likes about America and wants to keep, and much more. Individually they are minor points, but put everything together and it paints a pretty strong picture of a guy who really doesn't like America much, either now or in the past, and merely wants to change it into some unrecognizable thing which he would like. Sort of the way some people marry a person not because they love who they are, but who they think they can turn them into.Obama will stop the torture. That's a good enough start for me.

[Samurai]

Obama will stop the torture. That's a good enough start for me.

The torture was already stopped, and only consisted of 3 individuals.

Unless you are including things far less severe than waterboarding as "torture". In which case, just where does Obama draw the line? Is harsh language forbidden? Females with uncovered faces actually talking to them? Underwear on their head? What exactly has Obama said he'll forbid from ever happening again, anywhere? Because I want to know so that next time there's a complaint by a terrorist that a female that was not properly covered dared to address him, and that constitutes psychological torture (as they have been trained to allege), we'll know whether or not Obama kept his word to "stop the torture"...

[Charles RB]

The torture was already stopped, and only consisted of 3 individuals.

Why have you repeatedly pretended that only three people have been tortured in US custody or agents since the War on Terror started? You must know that's not true. Why are you lying on this issue? What is your vested interest in torture, rendition flights etc continuing when, aside from it being known innocent people have been tortured and logically will always be, evidence points to it not working? Something pointed out here repeatedly, I might add.

[Gilda Dent]

We. Fear. Change.

That and when any third party gains steam, they're either labeled "kooky", "crazy" or in my case "Socialist".

Yet you're never going to see either party admit that they've been an ineffective waste of time and money for 35 years.

Also, the moment a third party idea gains momentum in the mainstream, or at least in the core of a party's base, it's adopted by one of the big two as a way of drawing those voters both in. This is how we get things like the so-called "defense of marriage" laws; the Republicans recognized that this was a fringe group issue that could be leveraged to gain votes and integrated it as an issue.

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah, I think "don't ask, don't tell", "defense of marriage" and "ending welfare as we know it" was stupid pandering to a Republican congress and I never really forgave him for those.

Bree is right on "Dont ask, don't tell", which was Clinton's way of fulfilling a campaign promise by not changing the situation at all. It says gays can serve if they stay in the closet, which was already how things were to begin with.

Signing the "defense of marriage" federal law was unforgivable. Obama's public opposition to gay marriage is one reason I'm not voting for him.

I'm not sure who I'll be voting for, but it won't be Obama or McCain.

[Royal]

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize. His associations with and support from radical Anti-Americans (including the whole 60's radicals bunch, Soros, Rev Wright and his bigoted view of American history, and his cousin who is now burning down schools and murdering and raping people in the streets), his calls for surrender, retreat, and military cutbacks and disarmament in a time of war, his wife's statement that she has never been proud of America her entire adult life (her sole exception that Barack won the nomination), his unwillingness to wear a flag pin even after being given one by a disabled veteran (he put it on temporarily, and then removed it later and never wore it again), supporters posting pictures of Che Guevara in the campaign headquarters, Obama's extreme liberal voting record, his constant calls for "change" without ever saying 1 thing he actually likes about America and wants to keep, and much more. Individually they are minor points, but put everything together and it paints a pretty strong picture of a guy who really doesn't like America much, either now or in the past, and merely wants to change it into some unrecognizable thing which he would like. Sort of the way some people marry a person not because they love who they are, but who they think they can turn them into.

Heaven forbid you find my Attlee shrine.

Your heart couldn't take it.

[Samurai]

Why have you repeatedly pretended that only three people have been tortured in US custody or agents since the War on Terror started? You must know that's not true. Why are you lying on this issue? What is your vested interest in torture, rendition flights etc continuing when, aside from it being known innocent people have been tortured and logically will always be, evidence points to it not working? Something pointed out here repeatedly, I might add.

Because only 3 individuals were waterboarded. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN05191813

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.

Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said at the Senate hearing on threats to the United States.

He said waterboarding has not been used in five years.


Like I said, if you count lesser forms of coercion, the number goes up. The more lenient your definition of "torture", the more people were "tortured", so, just what definition is Obama using? The waterboarding already ended 5 years ago, and only was done to 3 people anyway, so he must be using a broader definition that that, and I want to know just where Obama draws the line? What will he call "torture" (and will be outlawed) and what will he consider legal coercion? I think that's an important question, don't you?

[Samurai]

Heaven forbid you find my Attlee shrine.

Your heart couldn't take it.

Considering I'm a fan of Churchill, you're probably right... :)

[Charles RB]

Heaven forbid you find my Attlee shrine.

I presume you mean Clement Attlee?

Because only 3 individuals were waterboarded.

Even if I believe he's entirely telling the truth, other people have been tortured.

And you specifically said only three people have been tortured. Not waterboarded, you specifically said tortured.

Why were you deliberately lying that only three people had been tortured?

[Samurai]

I presume you mean Clement Attlee?



Even if I believe he's entirely telling the truth, other people have been tortured.

And you specifically said only three people have been tortured. Not waterboarded, you specifically said tortured.

Why were you deliberately lying that only three people had been tortured?

Well, what definition of torture are you using, and just what forms of torture are you including? Do you mean things that were actually ordered, or things that were done illegally and for which guards have been charged and punished? Because I'd call that abuse, not torture. Abuse is someone just being a bully and hurting someone, while "torture" has a purpose to extract information. So yes, more than 3 people were abused. How many more were "tortured" depends upon your definition of torture... what's yours, and what evidence do you have that it was used?

[Charles RB]

Not only are you not answering the question, you are being willfully idiotic and outright trying to pretend that the incidents of torture aren't really torture unless we have some weirdo definitions.

Which is not going to fly when everyone remembers Abu Ghraib.

And the rendition flights.

[Adam C]

Exactly... theres' a great deal of circumstancial evidence that Obama's idea of "patriotism" doesn't match anything most people would recognize.

I don't know if you lost your argument here when you admitted that you're down to circumstantial evidence, or that you claimed George Soros is a radical anti-American.

And given that naivete about Che Guevara is so widespread, I'm not sure that Obama supporters putting up pictures of him in campaign headquarters really says much about Obama. It's a fairly common (if annoying) form of political stupidity, much like the myth of Ronald Reagan an exemplar of small government conservativism.

[Samurai]

Not only are you not answering the question, you are being willfully idiotic and outright trying to pretend that the incidents of torture aren't really torture unless we have some weirdo definitions.

Which is not going to fly when everyone remembers Abu Ghraib.

And the rendition flights.

Abu Ghraib was abuse, not torture, and the guards were charged for it.

Are you saying picking up a suspect and flying him somewhere is torture itself? Or that whatever was done on the other end was surely torture, whatever it was?

And I don't see you answering my question about just what Obama considers to be torture, and where does he draw the line.

[Charles RB]

Are you saying picking up a suspect and flying him somewhere is torture itself? Or that whatever was done on the other end was surely torture, whatever it was?

How the FUCK are you unaware that the rendition flights involved flying people out to torture them?

And I don't see you answering my question

You didn't answer mine, why do you think I'm going to answer yours?

And yours, to be frank, is bullshit. It links into your lying and misrepresenting incidents of torture as part of this quite worrying thing you've got going where you are defending torture.

[Samurai]

How the FUCK are you unaware that the rendition flights involved flying people out to torture them?



You didn't answer mine, why do you think I'm going to answer yours?

And yours, to be frank, is bullshit. It links into your lying and misrepresenting incidents of torture as part of this quite worrying thing you've got going where you are defending torture.

Because they don't necessarily fly them out to torture them (though there is evidence that at least some of them may have been abused).

Condoleezza Rice insisted the United States “does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.”

Here's a quick quiz:

1) Which US President first approved the use of "Extraordinary Rendition" (as opposed to "Legal Rendition which had been used since the 80's)?

Answer: Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'[14]

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[15] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[16] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,

This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[17]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

So, if electing Democrats is supposed to be to "end the torture" (of which Extraordinary Rendition is a big part, you say), does it surprise you to learn that it was Democrats who created the program, and Al Gore who helped convince Clinton to sign off on it? THESE are the guys you're going to elect to "stop the torture"?

[Adam C]

Here's a quick quiz:

1) Which US President first approved the use of "Extraordinary Rendition" (as opposed to "Legal Rendition which had been used since the 80's)?

Answer: Bill Clinton.

Good job Sam. When confronted with the crimes of a Republican administration you immediately try to shift the attention to Clinton. You are nothing if not consistent.

And the answer to your question is that Obama has at least said he'd put an end to torture. McCain's given no such assurances and even backed away from his former strident oppositon.

[CutterMike]

(...)
THESE are the guys you're going to elect to "stop the torture"?
No. The Democrats aren't running a Clinton for President this year, remember?

Just te same way that the Republicans aren't running a Bush.

On the other hand, the guy that the Democrats ARE running has said that he wants to stop the U.S. doing that sort of thing. The Republican hasn't.

Do you have that clear, now?

[Samurai]

Good job Sam. When confronted with the crimes of a Republican administration you immediately try to shift the attention to Clinton. You are nothing if not consistent.

And the answer to your question is that Obama has at least said he'd put an end to torture. McCain's given no such assurances and even backed away from his former strident oppositon.

Like almost everything Obama says, there are no specifics. What does he consider "torture"? Waterboarding? Ended 5 years ago after only 3 uses. Rendition? It was a Democrat program, Bush only continued to make use of it after 9/11. So how much faith can you really have that a Democrat will truly end it? And just what else does he consider to be torture? Will we hear about female officers questioning Islamic men? Will there still be loud music or shifting sleep cycles? Are ALL of these things and more torture in Obama's opinion, and if so, 2 questions: What will happen if such an incident is found to have happened under Obama's presidency? Guards will be prosecuted, same as under Bush? Then there is no change at all. And if no forms of coercion of any kind are allowed, what will that do to our ability to gain intel, uncover plots, etc? If after Obama outlaws all forms of coercion and torture there is another terrorist attack, will that have any effect on how strenuously he tries to gain information from captured terrorists?

[Adam C]

Samurai you've defended this administration to the hilt, against all evidence, over it's use of torture. And then you turn around attacking Clinton for starting the rendition program and Obama for not being specific enough. And you expect anyone to take this seriously with the reek of hypocrisy hanging heavy around you like reverb in a 80s hair metal record?

Secondly, it doesn't even matter if a Democratic administration started the rendition program and all the crimes that entails. The administration of George W. Bush chose to continue to employ this policy and send suspects overseas to countries where they knew damn well they would be tortured. That is what is at issue here.

Third, these policies have been revealed to the public now and are widely unpopular. I find it telling that during the primaries all (except friggin' Hillary) the various Democratic candidates came out against these policies, yet on the Republican only McCain, Huckabee, and Paul did. And Paul's far off from the Republican mainstream. And McCain has backed off from his position. So if nothing else I have reason to believe that a Democratic presidential candidate will end torture because the party has seen which way the wind is blowing and staked its position accordingly. Meanwhile the GOP is mired in holding up it's failed and ethically compromised policies in this regard.


If after Obama outlaws all forms of coercion and torture there is another terrorist attack, will that have any effect on how strenuously he tries to gain information from captured terrorists?

So you admit that the Bush administration has been using torture then? Good for you?

[Samurai]

Samurai you've defended this administration to the hilt, against all evidence, over it's use of torture. And then you turn around attacking Clinton for starting the rendition program and Obama for not being specific enough. And you expect anyone to take this seriously with the reek of hypocrisy hanging heavy around you like reverb in a 80s hair metal record?

Secondly, it doesn't even matter if a Democratic administration started the rendition program and all the crimes that entails. The administration of George W. Bush chose to continue to employ this policy and send suspects overseas to countries where they knew damn well they would be tortured. That is what is at issue here.

Third, these policies have been revealed to the public now and are widely unpopular. I find it telling that during the primaries all (except friggin' Hillary) the various Democratic candidates came out against these policies, yet on the Republican only McCain, Huckabee, and Paul did. And Paul's far off from the Republican mainstream. And McCain has backed off from his position. So if nothing else I have reason to believe that a Democratic presidential candidate will end torture because the party has seen which way the wind is blowing and staked its position accordingly. Meanwhile the GOP is mired in holding up it's failed and ethically compromised policies in this regard.



So you admit that the Bush administration has been using torture then? Good for you?

Well, I do think the waterboarding could probably be called torture, though it is still not the same as chopping off limbs or executing your children in front of you, or a whole host of worse things. The rest of it (loud music, female officers sitting on their lap, etc), I don't really consider to be torture, but rather a strong form of coercion. Where is the line drawn? That is a bit hard to say. Generally, if there is a chance of severe bodily harm or lasting damage, then it's torture IMO. Annoyance, aggravation, irritation... those I don't call torture nearly so easily, though others do. And if it is done needlessly for sheer pleasure, that is all abuse, and should not be tolerated either.

Anyway, here is McCain on torture:

The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.

That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.

Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

So, not only is it very clear to me that McCain opposes torture, he has supported several laws against torture over the years. How is that any different than Obama? Simply because he opposed using the military field manual rules for the non-military CIA? That is not evidence at all that he supports torture.

[rick]

How could anyone support the Democrats after they backed Clinton, twice? He was their boy.


Mostly because despite the best efforts of the Republican party and Bill's own dick, Clinton managed to leave this country in better economic shape then it had been since the 1950's.

And most people sort of appreciated that.

Because of that it's easy to vote for Democrats. Especially if you pay attetion to what happens in the real world instead of basing all political decisions on what they are talking about on talk radio and blogs.

[rick]

The torture was already stopped, and only consisted of 3 individuals.


We both know that is simply not true.

Or does this person count as one of your 3?

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4664/abumq9.jpg


I was going to give a few more examples but the above picture was the only one I could find that wasn't simply too obscene for this web site.


So don't sit there and say 3, it's just to easy to disprove.

[KevinTBrown]

We both know that is simply not true.

Or does this person count as one of your 3?

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4664/abumq9.jpg


I was going to give a few more examples but the above picture was the only one I could find that wasn't simply too obscene for this web site.


So don't sit there and say 3, it's just to easy to disprove.

Then just post them as links and let people look at them at their own "peril".

[Adam C]

Well, I do think the waterboarding could probably be called torture, though it is still not the same as chopping off limbs or executing your children in front of you, or a whole host of worse things.

Oh god, not the risible "...but it's not as bad as..." defense. Here's former waterboarding supporter Christopher Hitchens (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808) after he voluntarily underwent waterboarding. It practically is drowning. It's torture. But hell it's use by the Khmer Rouge hasn't stopped you from saying otherwise.

The rest of it (loud music, female officers sitting on their lap, etc), I don't really consider to be torture, but rather a strong form of coercion. Where is the line drawn?

http://jonahwalters.blogspot.com/2007/03/music-as-torture-at-guantanamo-bay.html

Spin journalist David Peisner also interviewed a former detainee at Guantanamo, a young British Muslim called Shafiq Rasul who was arrested in 2001 along with two friends for suspected of terrorist activity (all three were later released). He describes being chained in a "stress position" to the floor of a minuscule booth. The booth was pitch black except for the blinding flashes of a strobe light, and the air-conditioning was cranked to almost freezing temperatures. Loud, menacing heavy metal was blaring. Says Spin "Rasul endured such 'interrogation sessions' every day, sometimes twice a day, for nearly three weeks. Often there was little or no interrogation taking place." Rasul describes being left in that pitch black booth for up to twelve hours with the heavy metal music blaring, and says "Even if you were shouting, the music was too loud--nobody would be able to hear you. You're there for hours and hours, and they're constantly playing the same music. All that builds up. You start hallucinating." Another interviewee, an Egypt-born Australian citizen by the name of Mamdouh Hahib, desribes being captured by Pakistani police in in October of 2001, then being transfered (supposedly by U.S agents) into Egyptian custody. In addition to electric shocks, beatings, and other traumatic interrogation techniques, he was also forced to endure dangerously loud music. He says, "What surprised me was that they used English [-language] music. They put headphones on me, then put on the music very loud." From Egypt, Hahib was transferred to Guantanamo, but was in such awful physicological shape that he doesn't remember his whole first year being held at Guantanamo.

And it's certainly not only the prisoners who have expressed disgust with these interrogation tactics. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 1977 that the use of harmfully loud music on prisoners is "degrading and inhuman." The Israeli Supreme Court decided eight years ago in 1999 that this practice "causes the suspect suffering. It does not fall within the scope of...a fair and effective interrogation." Amnesty International considers the use of drastically loud music torture, and even Dr. Stephen Xenakis, a retired brigadier general in the U.S army and a practicing psychiatrist, says that sonic bombardment is "really traumatizing to the brain. It will lead to anxiety and the kind of symptoms you get with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo?gusrc=rss&feed=39

Binyam Mohamed, the British resident who is still held in Guantánamo Bay, knows a bit about such torture. The CIA rendered him to Morocco, where his torturers repeatedly took a razor blade to his penis throughout an 18-month ordeal.

When I later sat across from him in the cell, he described how psyops methods were worse than this. He could anticipate physical pain, he said, and know that it would eventually end. But the experience of slipping into madness as a result of torture by music was something quite different.

"Imagine you are given a choice," he said. "Lose your sight or lose your mind." While having your eyes gouged out would be horrendous, there is little doubt which you would choose. Mohamed remains in Guantánamo. The US military will decide, probably within two
weeks, whether to go forward with a military commission, based on "evidence" that was tortured out of him.

To those who have the misfortune to study torture, all this is old hat. Members of the IRA interned in Northern Ireland in the 1970s recall the use of loud noise, piped into their cells, as the worst aspect of their ordeal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer

In another e-mail, an unidentified FBI agent describes at least three incidents involving Guantanamo detainees being chained to the floor for extended periods of time and being subjected to extreme heat, extreme cold or "extremely loud rap music."

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," the FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more."

In one case, the agent continued, "the detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."

And regarding the lap, thing, how is sexual harassment a permissable means of interrogation?

[Nick Soapdish]

Isn't the line drawn at "coercion"?

I know that confessions are routinely tossed out if they are due to coercion and it was my assumption that it was because it was illegal.

After all, coercion is the use of force or intimidation (fear) to gain compliance. It's just a more diplomatic word for concepts such as torture or blackmail. But it's still an ugly word with an ugly meaning.

But I guess we're all moral relativists when you come down to it. Some are just more flexible than others and it's on different issues.

[LtMarvel]

The torture was already stopped, and only consisted of 3 individuals.

Unless you are including things far less severe than waterboarding as "torture". In which case, just where does Obama draw the line? Is harsh language forbidden? Females with uncovered faces actually talking to them? Underwear on their head? What exactly has Obama said he'll forbid from ever happening again, anywhere? Because I want to know so that next time there's a complaint by a terrorist that a female that was not properly covered dared to address him, and that constitutes psychological torture (as they have been trained to allege), we'll know whether or not Obama kept his word to "stop the torture"...
More misinformation.

Watch Taxi to the Darkside. We tortured dozens, hundreds. We paid out bounties to local warlords for terror suspects. The warlords brought in people off the street. (Some of the warlords were the terrorists!) We tortured them, some to death.

[Samurai]

Oh god, not the risible "...but it's not as bad as..." defense. Here's former waterboarding supporter Christopher Hitchens (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808) after he voluntarily underwent waterboarding. It practically is drowning. It's torture. But hell it's use by the Khmer Rouge hasn't stopped you from saying otherwise.



http://jonahwalters.blogspot.com/2007/03/music-as-torture-at-guantanamo-bay.html




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo?gusrc=rss&feed=39



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer



And regarding the lap, thing, how is sexual harassment a permissable means of interrogation?


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16270

Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention.

This instruction comes straight from the pages of an official al Qaeda training manual, and officials at the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they see clear evidence that detainees are well-versed in its contents.

Police in Manchester, England, discovered the manual, which has come to be known as the "Manchester document," in 2000 while searching computer files found in the home of a known al Qaeda member. The contents were introduced as evidence into the 2001 trial of terrorists who bombed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

The FBI translated the document into English, and it is posted on the Justice Department's Web site.

The 18-chapter manual provides a detailed window into al Qaeda's network and its procedures for waging jihad - from conducting surveillance operations to carrying out assassinations to working with forged documents.

The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison."

Officials say they see evidence of the al Qaeda-directed misinformation campaign in allegations of detainee abuse and mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed frustration over this effort during a June 21 interview on the "Tony Snow Show."

"These detainees are trained to lie, they're trained to say they were tortured, and the minute we release them or the minute they get a lawyer, very frequently they'll go out and they will announce that they've been tortured," Rumsfeld said.

The media jumps on these claims, reporting them as "another example of torture," the secretary said, "when in fact, (terrorists have) been trained to do that, and their training manual says so."

During a February 2004 Pentagon news conference, a DoD official said new information provided by detainees during questioning is analyzed to determine its reliability.

"Unfortunately, many detainees are deceptive and prefer to conceal their identifies and their actions," said Paul Butler, principal deputy assistant secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict.

Butler said the Manchester document includes "a large section which teaches al Qaeda operatives counterinterrogation techniques: how to lie, how to minimize your role."

The document, he said, has surfaced in various locations, including Afghanistan.

The manual's preface offers a chilling reminder of the mentality that drives al Qaeda disciples and the lengths they will go to for their cause.

"The confrontation that we are calling for ... does not know Socratic debates, ... Platonic ideals ... nor Aristotelian diplomacy," its opening pages read. "But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

So, they've all been trained to cry "torture", and the media is only too happy to spread the word.

As for the picture, rick, I already addressed that. It was abuse, not torture, and the guards responsible have been charged and punished (and rightly so). Obama can't stop abuse by guards as President, so if you consider that torture, you might as well admit Obama's claim that he'll "stop the torture" is false... no one can prevent rogues from doing something wrong and abusing people.

[the4thpip]

Reading Samurai's sick, twisted posts could be considered a form of torture. I sincerely hope he'll some day have an epiphany and see the light.

[Tages]

So, proof that we don't torture people can be found in the denials of the people supposedly responsible for the authorizing of said torture.

Because it's not like the same people who said Saddam had WMD and links to al Qaeda and said that the war wouldn't cost more than 60 billion would lie about anything ever.

[Charles RB]

And regarding the lap, thing, how is sexual harassment a permissable means of interrogation?

Because they're men and not women being interrogated. That makes it funny!

Just like how constant loud music to cause sleep deprivation, stress and prevent communication are funny! Because lolz the silly terrorists are being scared by rock music ha ha! (Of course if it was done to Our Boys and not using our music it'd be EVIL.)

[Charles RB]

So, they've all been trained to cry "torture", and the media is only too happy to spread the word.

THEY ARE THE ENEMY! ALL WORDS FROM THEM MUST BE DENIED - THEY ARE AAAAALL ENEMY! NO INNOCENTS! NONE!

THE MEDIA IS ALSO THE ENEMY! IT IS REPORTING THINGS AGAINST THE DAAAALEK IMPERIUM! THE MEDIA MUST BE EXTERMINATED!

EXTERMINATE!

ETERMINAAAAAAAAATE!

So, proof that we don't torture people can be found in the denials of the people supposedly responsible for the authorizing of said torture.

Because it's not like the same people who said Saddam had WMD and links to al Qaeda and said that the war wouldn't cost more than 60 billion would lie about anything ever.

That sounds like Thal talk to me... Next you'll start saying we're not the superior race, won't you?!

[king mob]

[url]So, they've all been trained to cry "torture", and the media is only too happy to spread the word.



Oh not this line again.

[Typo Lad]

No. The Democrats aren't running a Clinton for President this year, remember?

Just te same way that the Republicans aren't running a Bush.

On the other hand, the guy that the Democrats ARE running has said that he wants to stop the U.S. doing that sort of thing. The Republican hasn't.

Do you have that clear, now?

To be fair, McCain has said he wants to end torture, going so far as to say it's the first thing he'd do on taking office. Sadly, he's backed away from this.

There really is a fine line between torture and abuse, and both are violations of international law.

Loud music and sleep deprivation may seem "mild" compared to other things, but it's still torture and a violation of how we're supposed to be treating prisoners.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92280874

Rev Caldwell gave a pretty good radio interview on NPR saying why he supports Senator Obama, including details on the various issues that often are sticklers for Evangelicals.

[Cam63]

Cam, does anything about Bri still surprise you?

I was tryin' to cut back on my fuckin' swearin'.

[rick]

As for the picture, rick, I already addressed that. It was abuse, not torture, and the guards responsible have been charged and punished (and rightly so). Obama can't stop abuse by guards as President, so if you consider that torture, you might as well admit Obama's claim that he'll "stop the torture" is false... no one can prevent rogues from doing something wrong and abusing people.


It's darn odd about how the commanding officer of Abu Ghraib as well as most of the personal convicted for their crimes to this day forcefully claim that the “abuse” and interrogations at the prison was conducted under the direct supervision of the American intelligence agencies.

Funny that.

[Michael P]

"Rogues" are people who break the rules and flout the command structure. The whole problem with Abu Ghraib was that there were no rules, and there was no command structure. The place was a grey zone, with no accountability. Which is exactly the way the occupation forces wanted it.

[Adam C]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16270

So, they've all been trained to cry "torture", and the media is only too happy to spread the word.

So the best you got is official denials from the people responsible, which as Tages pointed out, don't really have much of a track record as far as honesty goes.

Though perhaps I should have posted the full paragraph on that one detainee from the Spin article, even if it was quite long as is:

From Egypt, Hahib was transferred to Guantanamo, but was in such awful physicological shape that he doesn't remember his whole first year being held at Guantanamo. The most shameful episode of his story was yet to come, however. Says Spin "Hahib says his interrogators asked him about his treatment in Egypt, and after learning the things that troubled him the most (threats to family, loud music), they proceeded to apply them themselves." Hahib says of the traumatic incident, "They were trying to make me crazy. They try to take your mind from you. Even today, when I hear loud noise, I get disturbed." Hahib was released without charges from Guantanamo in January of 2005.

If this man is a trained Al-Qaeda agent as you allege, then why was he released without charges from Guantanamo? And the third article I posted wasn't based on detainee testimony, but information gathered by FBI agents investigating torture in Guantanamo. The excerpt I posted was based on what an agent saw just walking into interview rooms. So how do you explain that away with blanket claims of Al-Qaeda propaganda?

[Crowley]

So the best you got is official denials from the people responsible, which as Tages pointed out, don't really have much of a track record as far as honesty goes.

Though perhaps I should have posted the full paragraph on that one detainee from the Spin article, even if it was quite long as is:



If this man is a trained Al-Qaeda agent as you allege, then why was he released without charges from Guantanamo? And the third article I posted wasn't based on detainee testimony, but information gathered by FBI agents investigating torture in Guantanamo. The excerpt I posted was based on what an agent saw just walking into interview rooms. So how do you explain that away with blanket claims of Al-Qaeda propaganda?
What Sam and Briareos and others like John McCain don't get is that those of us against torture, are against it because we fucking love this country, the constitution and the fact that in this country the worst among us have a fair shot at legal representation.

The quaint "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Advocating for torture makes us look like monsters to the rest of the world and lets our enemies know that "anything goes" when it comes to Americans abroad.

[KevinTBrown]

I was tryin' to cut back on my fuckin' swearin'.

Better chance of you cutting back on beer.....

:biggrin:

[Samurai]

What Sam and Briareos and others like John McCain don't get is that those of us against torture, are against it because we fucking love this country, the constitution and the fact that in this country the worst among us have a fair shot at legal representation.

The quaint "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Advocating for torture makes us look like monsters to the rest of the world and lets our enemies know that "anything goes" when it comes to Americans abroad.

I already showed you that McCain is opposed to torture, and in the vast majority of cases, so am I, so that is a spurious statement.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

"Anything goes" has already always applied to Americans abroad. Kidnapped, killed, held for ransom, etc. Terrorists try to target civilians because they are much easier targets, and Americans are one of their favorite targets (Israelis are another).

[Joe Rice]

I already showed you that McCain is opposed to torture, and in the vast majority of cases, so am I, so that is a spurious statement.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

"Anything goes" has already always applied to Americans abroad. Kidnapped, killed, held for ransom, etc. Terrorists try to target civilians because they are much easier targets, and Americans are one of their favorite targets (Israelis are another).


"But mooooommmmm! They started it!"

[Adam C]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

Funny then that applying the exact opposite principle has only produced numerous abuses in a system that can't adequately account for guilt/innocence and has often roped in innocent people.

[Typo Lad]

I
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

There are laws, both International and US regarding treatment of POWs, and Enemy Combatants is a legal fiction created to get around said laws.

And even in WWII, if someone were caught as a Fifth Columnist, then yes, they'd be tried.

"Anything goes" has already always applied to Americans abroad. Kidnapped, killed, held for ransom, etc. Terrorists try to target civilians because they are much easier targets, and Americans are one of their favorite targets (Israelis are another).

Please leave Israel out of this.

(and by this, I mean the thread in specific and the US Presidential election in general)

[Michael P]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

They weren't fucking tortured, either.

[Michael P]

Please leave Israel out of this.

But how else will he make the point that people who are against torturing suspected terrorists hate Jews?

[Typo Lad]

stopitstopitstopit

[rick]

I already showed you that McCain is opposed to torture, and in the vast majority of cases, so am I, so that is a spurious statement.


As a general rule I think that the US should reject the use of methods that we executed the Japanese for using against American during WWII.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Samurai]

As a general rule I think that the US should reject the use of methods that we executed the Japanese for using against American during WWII.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes. Though many of them are beyond the pale and should be off the table completely, the very least of them may occasionally be of use against the worst, most intransigent, high-level terrorists with a great deal of useful knowledge, so long as the person comes to no lasting harm and the information retrieved is vitally important to national security. It should never be commonly or freely used.

Basically, if there's a choice between many more dead people because of some terrorist attack and some temporary, non-damaging extreme discomfort for the people planning those attacks, I choose fewer dead people.

[Gilda Dent]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminals, not captured enemies combatants or POWs in a war. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers we captured in WW2 were read their Miranda rights, told they are innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to sue their captors in US courts of law? No.

Those rights weren't established until 20 years after the end of WW2. Escobedo was in '64 and Miranda in '66.

Declaring whomever they want to interrogate an "enemy combatant" and interrogating them outside the US is simply the Bush administrations way of doing an end run around habeus corpus, Escobedo, and Miranda.

[Michael P]

Those rights weren't established until 20 years after the end of WW2. Escobedo was in '64 and Miranda in '66.

Actually, they were established in the Bill of Rights. Escobedo and Miranda established the right to be informed of those rights upon arrest.

Declaring whomever they want to interrogate an "enemy combatant" and interrogating them outside the US is simply the Bush administrations way of doing an end run around habeus corpus, Escobedo, and Miranda.

Agreed.

[Gilda Dent]

Good point. Thanks for the correction.

[Samurai]

Those rights weren't established until 20 years after the end of WW2. Escobedo was in '64 and Miranda in '66.

Declaring whomever they want to interrogate an "enemy combatant" and interrogating them outside the US is simply the Bush administrations way of doing an end run around habeus corpus, Escobedo, and Miranda.

Again, it isn't just the "Bush administration", it is the Executive Branch for the past 15 years...

[Adam C]

Again, it isn't just the "Bush administration", it is the Executive Branch for the past 15 years...

True, but again, no one's going to take this point seriously from you since you've been issuing continuous denials on this matter on behalf of the Bush administration.