2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[rick]

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.


You seem to be saying two different things here.

On the one hand you are saying that we should not use the same methods that we executed the Japanese for, but then say that a few of those methods can be used in some instances.

A few questions…

To be clear, you are aware that we did execute Japanese solders for the sole crime of waterboarding?

That being said, why is it that in the one case it is an executable action, but in another it's a desperate but acceptable practice?

And if we follow with the scenario that you write about above, how does that compare to the current situation where waterboarding was used, not to get information about an impending attack, but to locate other suspected terrorists?

After all, using your own logic, the administration commited a war crime, since the information torture was used to gain was not about an impending attack.

[Samurai]

You seem to be saying two different things here.

On the one hand you are saying that we should not use the same methods that we executed the Japanese for, but then say that a few of those methods can be used in some instances.

A few questions…

To be clear, you are aware that we did execute Japanese solders for the sole crime of waterboarding?

That being said, why is it that in the one case it is an executable action, but in another it's a desperate but acceptable practice?

And if we follow with the scenario that you write about above, how does that compare to the current situation where waterboarding was used, not to get information about an impending attack, but to locate other suspected terrorists?

After all, using your own logic, the administration commited a war crime, since the information torture was used to gain was not about an impending attack.
I'm trying to research your claim, and I'm not finding any Japanese who did only waterboarding and no other forms of torture who were executed (though it was only a quick search). And I'm also finding some that were only jailed for 10 or 15 years. Can you reference the actual case you're referring to? Waterboarding was 1 form of torture they used, not the only one, and not even close to the most brutal.

Locating bin Laden and other terrorist leaders and cells is little different than stopping impending attacks, because they are planning and carrying out attacks all the time. However, again, it should be a last resort, in the most extreme cases, against the worst people with the most vital information. Other than that, torture should not be used.

You know, it'd be very easy to simply say "Nope, not ever and ever, never ever use anything like torture, no matter what!" But that is a very simplistic answer, and not an honest one for most people IMO. If you knew your family had 30 minutes to live, and the guy that strapped them to a bomb somewhere was sitting in front of you, laughing and refusing to talk, would you absolutely rule out getting physical with him? I know I wouldn't. If you can honestly say you wouldn't, good for you. But if he wouldn't talk, I'd do whatever I could to make him talk before time ran out.

Now, we aren't talking about any specific target here, but we are talking about more of our soldiers and civilians, as well as local people, being targeted every day. If he doesn't talk, more people are going to die. If he does, there may be a chance to save some lives. That makes the decision a little tougher, IMO, than an abstract "should we torture people or not?" On the face of it, "No, of course not!" is the obvious answer. But it seldom is such a simplistic and black and white scenario in real life. Some of the abuse is going on because there are simply some sadistic bastards in the world. But the interrogation is not being done for shits and giggles, it has a purpose, and if all coercion and interrogation were stopped, I believe it would have consequences as well...

[Charles RB]

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?

This is an irrelevant analogy. German soldiers are immediately known to be German soldiers because they are wearing military uniform and are German. This is not true of terrorists unless you catch them when they're actively running around with guns. There's room for doubt. Also, the German soldiers taken as POWs had legal rights and protections, which the US followed.

And as Adam just showed, there have been people who were let go without charge. So, there was no evidence. So, your country tortured someone who was innocent, in one of its military bases, and publicly.

And this after, again, the bulk of evidence suggests torture is an unreliable tool for gathering intelligence.

[LtMarvel]

Let me help you out: 24 is a work of fiction.

Torture gains confession or whatever information the torture victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. Whether that confession/information is truthful or accurate is not important.

We have done a lot more torture than waterboarding. The subject of Taxi to the Darkside wasn't waterboarded, was tortured, and cause of death was officially listed on his death certificate as homicide (in English, so the documentary crew was the first to translate that for the victim's family). This wasn't in Iraq, this was Afgahnastan.

The United States is guilty of war crimes. That is how low the Bush Administration has brought the United States.

[the4thpip]

They weren't fucking tortured, either.

My dad always said he was treated VERY humanely.

[KevinTBrown]

What does this have to do with the election?? Great points being made, but nothing to do with whomever becomes President. :wink:

Except for the fact that McCain was against but now is for torture......

[the4thpip]

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program (see video below), John McCain was asked about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's call yesterday for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

McCain first flatly asserted that the news contradicted what he had heard in direct talks with Iraqi officials. And then, tellingly, he concluded, before going into his standard Iraq rap: "Prime Minister Maliki is a politician."

Interestingly enough, according to a wire story: "Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces." This "clarifying" statement was apparently made in response to suggestions from the White House that the "timetable" language in yesterday's news reports from Iraq represented some sort of translation error. "Specific dates for withdrawal" is certainly more emphatic than "timetable."

We don't know yet how the White House will respond to this new Iraqi rebuke. But John McCain's breezy dismissal of Maliki's new position as just politics helps explain why Iraqis are a mite sensitive about U.S. respect for that nation's sovereignty.

If you watch the McCain video, you'll also get to enjoy the candidate's efforts to dance around the question of whether the U.S. economy is, as 75 percent of Americans think, in recession. He "imagines" the economy may be, technically, in recession.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/08/just_politics/index.html

[Buzz Dixon]

Samurai, we've documented that the very administration you seek to defend has admitted 100 people have died in U.S. custody, 25 of which were the direct result of physical abuse/torture.

That's a helluva lot more torture than three examples of waterboarding.

And waterboarding is torture, no if, and, or buts about it.

If it's not, let's see Cheney and Bush volunteer for an hour's worth on live TV just to show how harmless it really is.

[Sabrinaset]

Under what circumstances did the other 75 die ...?

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't have exact figures, but several apparently died from wounds sustained in combat prior to capture, some from natural causes (though under the circumstances, it isn't surprising for heart attacks and strokes to occur). There have been a few suicides and at least one homicide by other prisoners.

[section 8]

*check fingernails for dirt, looks up*

Oh hell no!
Don't even look at me, I have nothing to say.

[Samurai]

What does this have to do with the election?? Great points being made, but nothing to do with whomever becomes President. :wink:

Except for the fact that McCain was against but now is for torture......

And just what evidence do you have to prove McCain is for torture?

[KevinTBrown]

And just what evidence do you have to prove McCain is for torture?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/did-mccain-flip.html

http://bluenc.com/admiral-mccain-flip-flops!-votes-for-torture!

[kingdom2000]

And just what evidence do you have to prove McCain is for torture?

Come now, you even have to ask if Captain Flip-Flop was at it again? Its pretty much a given on any issue at this point. He would decide up is down and down is up if he thought it would score points with the base.

[Crowley]

And just what evidence do you have to prove McCain is for torture?

You're losing the argument so now you're attempting total denial? Amazing.

McCain Draws Criticism on Torture Bill
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: February 17, 2008

Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid.

The bill, which the Senate passed Wednesday by 51 to 45, would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods.

Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has led the battle in recent years on a number of bills to end torture by the United States. He said he voted against the bill Wednesday because legislation he had helped to pass already prohibits the C.I.A. from “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66732

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-yellen/obama-and-my-achy-breaky_b_111268.html

http://www.berkeleybubble.org/2006/09/28/sept-28-the-day-democracy-died-in-the-us/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/america/17torture.php

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-votes-to-kill-anti-torture-bill.html

[Samurai]

You're losing the argument so now you're attempting total denial? Amazing.



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66732

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-yellen/obama-and-my-achy-breaky_b_111268.html

http://www.berkeleybubble.org/2006/09/28/sept-28-the-day-democracy-died-in-the-us/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/america/17torture.php

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-votes-to-kill-anti-torture-bill.html

I already addressed this pages ago. You don't have anything else? From Kevin's link:

McCain insists that he remains opposed to torture and waterboarding, but that this bill would have applied military standards to the CIA, which he opposes. As McCain said on the Senate floor:

"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.'"

McCain argued that when the Congress voted to apply the Army "Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques, indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment."

"What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, " McCain said, "but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program."

So he is completely opposed to torture, he just feels that applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA isn't the best way to go about it. It's a lie to say McCain is for torture unless you have a lot better proof than this...

Oh, and Huffington Post and other lefty blogs are not credible sources.

[rick]

Oh, and Huffington Post and other lefty blogs are not credible sources.

Hi, I'm home from work.

Now right to the point.

You are pretty much the last person around here who gets to determine what is and what isn't a legitmate source.

Also, I admit that I do not have the names of the Japanese who were executed for waterboarding, but that doesn't change that they were.

[Crowley]

Oh, and Huffington Post and other lefty blogs are not credible sources.

Yeah... what lefty blog did you find that picture you lied about, liar?

[Crowley]

I already addressed this pages ago. You don't have anything else?So he is completely opposed to torture, he just feels that applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA isn't the best way to go about it. It's a lie to say McCain is for torture unless you have a lot better proof than this...

Oh, and Huffington Post and other lefty blogs are not credible sources.
If one is completely against torture than you don't vote for a bill that allows it. Pretty simple logic.

[Nick Soapdish]

Yeah... what lefty blog did you find that picture you lied about, liar?

Probably the same one that he got that quote from Obama on.

[Samurai]

Hi, I'm home from work.

Now right to the point.

You are pretty much the last person around here who gets to determine what is and what isn't a legitmate source.

Also, I admit that I do not have the names of the Japanese who were executed for waterboarding, but that doesn't change that they were.

I didn't ask for their names, I asked you to simply cite your source. You seem very confident of it. Why? In my quick search, it seems some Japanese were executed, but I didn't find anything that said it was for waterboarding and nothing else. And I also found some Japanese who were charged with waterboarding as well as other torture, but got 10-15 years. Which suggests to me that either there were different judges and one was much harsher than the other, or the ones who were executed did vastly more heinous things than waterboarding (though they may have done waterboarding too).

And if you believe you and other folks on the left are better able to judge what is and isn't a radical right-wing site, then it stands to reason that I and other right-wingers are the best ones to judge what is or isn't a radical left-wing site. And places like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Huffington Post are most assuredly radical left-wing sites.

[Samurai]

If one is completely against torture than you don't vote for a bill that allows it. Pretty simple logic.

Except, he didn't vote to allow torture, he voted on a bill to determine just how best to restrict the CIA interrogation methods, and he felt something other than the Army Handbook was the best choice. A vote for specific CIA restrictions rather than cribbing the military handbook, which does not apply in many situations because the role of the CIA and Army are different, is in no way a "vote to use torture."

[rick]

IAnd places like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Huffington Post are most assuredly radical left-wing sites.


The Huffington Post is about as radical as Harry Truman.

As for my sources about Japanese being executed for waterboarding, my main source was none other than John McCain. :smile:

McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3554687)

[Samurai]

The Huffington Post is about as radical as Harry Truman.

As for my sources about Japanese being executed for waterboarding, my main source was none other than John McCain.

McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3554687)

Read the very first paragraph of your link:

AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

In other words, they cut off body parts, electrocuted people, pried out teeth, shoved bamboo under their fingernails, starved them, and worked them to death in alarming numbers, as well as waterboarded them, and some (the very worst offenders) were executed for it.

That would be an accurate statement, as I said before. "They were executed for waterboarding people" would not be.

[rick]

And if you believe you and other folks on the left are better able to judge what is and isn't a radical right-wing site, then it stands to reason that I and other right-wingers are the best ones to judge what is or isn't a radical left-wing site.


The only source you have used that I have ever straight out called unacceptable is the Unification Church owned Washington Times.

And that was because that paper is owned by a cult leader dedicated to the destruction of democracy and his own rise to world domination.

Which honestly I would think would make any reasonable person suspicious of their accuracy or motivations.

I might not like or agree with many of your sources, but I don’t right off dismiss them, although admittedly I take anything with a name like “Right-Wing News” or “Democratic Underground” as having a very obvious political bias to their reporting.

[rick]

Read the very first paragraph of your link:


In other words, they cut off body parts, electrocuted people, pried out teeth, shoved bamboo under their fingernails, starved them, and worked them to death in alarming numbers, as well as waterboarded them, and some (the very worst offenders) were executed for it.

That would be an accurate statement, as I said before. "They were executed for waterboarding people" would not be.


I would enjoy your moral equivocation if you weren’t talking about Americans acting monstrously.

Read the headline.

What are you going to do, say that your candidate is wrong?

Besides there is also This (http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2008/winter/genoways-torture/)


from the Virgina Quarterly Review

The US officially outlawed the practice after World War II, because it had been used against Allied troops by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempeitai. Indeed,eight Kempeitai officers were executed for water boarding British prisoners, and Japanese officer Yukio Asano was convicted by an Allied court of war crimes in 1947 for, among other things, water boarding John Henry Burton, a US civilian.



Although I have to admit that in the case of Asano, the US only gave him 15 years at hard labor.

[Samurai]

I would enjoy your moral equivocation if you weren’t talking about Americans acting monstrously.

Read the headline.

What are you going to do, say that your candidate is wrong?

Besides there is also This (http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2008/winter/genoways-torture/)




Although I have to admit that in the case of Asano, the US only gave him 15 years at hard labor.

In case you haven't been paying attention, "my candidate", John McCain, is wrong a lot. He's wrong on many of the issues. He's flip flopping and pandering to whomever he's speaking to. What in the world makes you think I believe McCain is always correct?

[king mob]

In other words, they cut off body parts, electrocuted people, pried out teeth, shoved bamboo under their fingernails, starved them, and worked them to death in alarming numbers, as well as waterboarded them, and some (the very worst offenders) were executed for it.

That would be an accurate statement, as I said before. "They were executed for waterboarding people" would not be.

Why don't you read the words of someone who was tortured by the Japanese & see what they think.

Some of the best brains in the United States, together with some of the weaker ones, have combined recently to try to decide whether “waterboarding” is or is not a form of torture. This problem seems to occupy a surprising amount of time and involves not only very senior people but also President Bush personally.

I know the answer to this difficulty and I will supply it later in this article. Indeed, the solution is quite simple, but it requires personal experience. There is really no scope for argument at all.

It is easy to confuse torture and ill-treatment, both of which have been widespread throughout the whole of history. In everyday terms, ill-treatment is self-explanatory and implies deliberate bad treatment, often as a form of punishment. It is today widespread and looks like being with us until the end of time. Sometimes the intention is that the victim should not survive.

Torture, on the other hand, is ill-treatment but with a specific purpose. This purpose is almost always to persuade the victim to provide information that he has and that he does not want to disclose. It follows that it is preferable that the victim should be kept alive because death puts an end to the prospect of obtaining information. Sometimes victims die, however, because of the ferocity of the torture, which is a very dreadful death indeed. Perhaps even worse, victims are sometimes killed when they have provided the information required.

The variety of forms of torture embraces the full range of human ingenuity. Indeed, there have been people who as a form of employment have specialised in devising treatment and procedures that give rise to ever-increasing decrees of pain and discomfort. There seems to be no limit to the techniques and to the pain itself.

For historical and cultural reasons, which we need not explore here, many of the most dreadful tortures have been devised and used in China and Japan, up to quite recent times and including the Second World War.

One of these has been widely known in the Far East as the water torture and it is this which, with adjustments, is now quoted in the US as “waterboarding”. The water torture was extensively used by the Kempeitai, the military police branch of the Imperial Japanese Army, in South East Asia during the Japanese occupation which came to an end in 1945.

I am probably the only person in the UK, and possibly even in the Western world, to have suffered personally the full-scale traditional water torture and to have survived. This arose from having been a lieutenant in the Royal Signals in the Second World War. My personal experience of systematic organised and deliberate torture dates from August 1943. In that year I was in a small PoW camp in Kanchanaburi, Siam, [now Thailand] known as the Sakamoto Butai. This was the PoW camp supporting the main Japanese Army mechanical workshops, responsible for maintaining the machinery used on the construction of the infamous Burma-Siam Railway. The Japanese troops working there were almost all technical personnel, and were mostly reasonable and fairly civilised men. The PoW camp consisted of about 200 men, mostly British and mostly captured in Singapore the previous year. We also were supposed to be technicians of various kinds. The main problem in being a PoW is usually not the physical problem of food, or even of basic survival. The problem is one of noninformation. No one receives any reliable information about the outside world. This is a very serious matter psychologically.

The only way to get over this difficulty in a PoW camp is to acquire and to operate suitable radio sets. In a PoW camp this means making them, which for obvious reasons is a matter of great difficulty and great danger. The relatively stable day-to-day routine in the workshop camp and the technical background were helpful for making small and totally illicit radio sets. The technical genius who conjured up the working radio receiver at Kanchanaburi from basic materials such as silver paper was a sergeant major in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; one Lance Thew, formerly the proprietor of a civilian radio shop in Sunderland. Our radio receiver worked nicely, under secure conditions for many months. The end came one day in August 1943, however, when several PoW camps on the Burma-Siam Railway were raided by the Japanese Military Police simultaneously. What gave rise to this widespread search is not known, even to this day.

[king mob]

Continued

On August 29, 1943, without warning, a small group of Japanese soldiers, who were never precisely identified, arrived in the camp and started a search of the PoW living huts. It was not long before the Japanese discovered one complete, usable radio set and some incomplete ones. A terrible commotion broke out. Retribution descended first on Thew, then on an heroic sergeant named Fred Smith, then on a group of officers, including myself. As an officer in the Royal Signals I tended to attract attention in difficulties like this. The Japanese regarded Royal Signals personnel with great respect, quite rightly. But they also deemed us not only as highly suspicious, but probably also as responsible for every communication problem in the PoW camps throughout South East Asia.

Thew and Smith were badly ill-treated immediately.

A little later, on September 29, 1943, the group of six officers were removed from the workshop camp to another one in Kanchanaburi where, eventually, we were each individually beaten for some hours until unconsciousness took over. I emerged from the fray with two broken arms.

After several days nominal recovery the six of us were swept into the local HQ of the Kempeitai where the official interrogators and torturers now took over. Once again the Royal Signals got special attention. To begin with I was placed in front of a group of three Japanese; two were NCOs and were quite awful, even in appearance; the third was a young man of my own age, who introduced himself as the interpreter. The interrogation lasted for some days, on and on and on. The Kempeitai men wanted to know everything about the PoWs in the Sakamoto Butai, including the full story of the making of the radios, the sources of material, the circulation of the news and of various related sins. Men being interrogated in those circumstances are in a very difficult position. One has only a fraction of a second to think up answers to questions and the protection of one's life and the lives of others must be paramount. Eventually, after several days, we reached the point where the Kempeitai clearly felt they were not getting anywhere. They announced that they were going to take '”further steps”.

This is the beginning of the classic torture situation. The interrogators, unable to learn what they want by conventional question and answer, decide that they have to resort to conventional torture.

One morning I was led out to the back of the Kempeitai building, where the simple apparatus for the historic water torture was laid out. From its availability I wondered if they used it quite often. I was laid on my back on a bench; my arms, still broken and almost useless, were placed across my chest, my face was covered by a cloth and a tap feeding a hose-pipe was turned on. It was all so simple. To encourage me to say something the senior Japanese man beat me from time to time with the branch of a tree. This did not do my arms any good at all. The interpreter, who did not seem sympathetic to the whole procedure, held my left hand. I suspected that he wanted to make sure that I remained alive.

The whole operation was a long and agonising sequence of near-drowning, choking, vomiting and muscular struggling with the water flowing with ever-changing force. To put it mildly, it was ghastly, quite the worst experience of my life. There were occasional intervals for interrogation. How long the torture lasted, I do not know. It covered a period of some days, with periods of unconsciousness and semi-consciousness. Eventually I was dumped in my cell, which was so small it offered little scope for movement. At about this time two of my colleagues were beaten to death. Their bodies were dumped in a latrine where they may well remain to this day.

The remaining two years, until the war came to an end in August 1945 were a long sequence of further ill-treatment, near starvation and continuous fear, night and day, first in Bangkok then in Singapore. During this period another of my colleagues, Major Harry Knight, a splendid Australian, died of ill-treatment and neglect.

At the end of the war, I made a formal complaint to the War Crimes organisation in South East Asia about the beatings that killed my two colleagues and badly damaged the rest of us. Captain Matsuo Komai, of the Imperial Japanese Army, was convicted of responsibility for this and was hanged in Singapore. I did not make a complaint about the interpreter, who presided over the water torture, but I never forgot him.

The physical damage suffered by victims of torture can usually be repaired. But the psychological damage can never be repaired. It accompanies victims of torture throughout the rest of their lives. It certainly accompanied me for a long time until the appearance of a news item in The Daily Telegraph in 1986 intimating the establishment of a new organisation, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. The distinguished director, Helen Bamber, and her staff helped me enormously. Then came a review of a book by a fellow former PoW, Jim Bradley, in the Telegraph in 1991. By following up the review I was able to identify the interpreter present throughout the water torture in 1943. His name was Nagase Takashi. With my support, my wife wrote to him and we received expressions of deep remorse. This led to our visiting Thailand and Japan in 1993 where we met. I had started the search for Nagase with murder in mind. In the end I gave him a formal written statement of forgiveness, in Tokyo, towards the end of our visit.

The repercussions of August and September 1943 are still with us today. In July 2007, a deputation from north Japan made the journey to Berwick-upon-Tweed to visit my wife Patti and me. It was led by Osamu Komai, son of Captain Komai who was responsible for the dreadful beatings which killed two of my colleagues and which left me very badly damaged. Although aware of my responsibility for the execution of his father, Osamu Komai wished to come in person to apologise formally for the beatings. Then on New Year's Day, this year, Nagase Takashi and I had a telephone conversation. Ideally, Mr Nagase and I would like to meet again but age and health are now problems.

In case anyone is still in doubt whether the water torture is, or is not, torture I shall refer to a Japanese Army document, which is authoritative. I have an extract from the Japanese Secret War Service Guide, headed '”Fundamental Rules for Interrogating War Prisoners”. This was probably issued in the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 1938. In the list of “official” tortures item No 3 reads: “Putting the person interrogated on his back (it is advisable to raise the feet a little) and dripping water into the nose and mouth simultaneously.” A later section draws attention to the importance of minimising the disturbance caused by victims' screams.


http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3476414.ece

[the4thpip]

My favorite topic still: Veeps!

(...)there's very high interest among conservatives in the identity of McCain's running-mate, and a sense that they should enjoy a veto over the choice, on pain of letting McCain go into November without benefit of an energized "base" or strong support from the conservative noise machine.

For the most part, the veto threat will be communicated privately, unless McCain gives conservatives grounds for fear that he will betray them. That's why it's interesting to read the very explicit list of unacceptable candidates offered by John J. Miller of National Review in a subscription-only article entitled "McCain's Untouchables: Four men who should not be on the ticket."

First on Miller's list is Joe Lieberman, "a pro-war liberal in the mold of the Cold War's Scoop Jackson, but a liberal nonetheless," who would make the country "one heartbeat away from a Democratic administration." Most Democrats would disagree with that judgment, but we don't get a vote here.

Second is former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, known to be a McCain favorite. But to Miller, Ridge is a "pro-abortion Catholic" with an "unexpectedly liberal voting record" as a congressman back in the 80s, and who as a governor in the 90s "wasn't a game-changing conservative reformer in the mold of Michigan's John Engler or Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson."

Miller's third "untouchable" is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, another McCain buddy, who is "not a conservative, but rather a populist who has assumed conservative positions on a few issues." Miller scores Crist for being an Arnold Schwarzenegger enthusiast, an abortion rights supporter, and (in an unstated nod to rumors about his sexual orientation) a bachelor.

Finally, Miller anathemizes Mike Huckabee, a favorite of both political handicappers and key elements of the Christian Right. Noting Huck's positive media reviews, Miller says: "In the heat of a general election, however, reporters no longer would portray him as colorful, but as crazy." That was not intended as a compliment. Like Crist, Huckabee also gets large demerits for "populism."

Miller is just one conservative, and others might add Tim Pawlenty or Carly Fiorina or Condi Rice to the "untouchable" list. But on Lieberman, Ridge, Crist and Huckabee, he speaks as one with authority. Don't expect McCain to Go There.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?source=refresh

[the4thpip]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/07/08/tomo/story.jpg

[rick]

In case you haven't been paying attention, "my candidate", John McCain, is wrong a lot. He's wrong on many of the issues. He's flip flopping and pandering to whomever he's speaking to. What in the world makes you think I believe McCain is always correct?

Why in the world would you vote for a candidate who is in your own words a flip-flopper and a panderer?

[thehod]

Why in the world would you vote for a candidate who is in your own words a flip-flopper and a panderer?

Because the cornerstone of democracy is clearly a two party system where the best you can ever hope for is "better the devil you know."

How humanity has survived this long is beyond me.

[the4thpip]

McCain lied about 300 economists supporting his economics plan. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11618.html)

[Samurai]

Why in the world would you vote for a candidate who is in your own words a flip-flopper and a panderer?

Because the other guy is worse. Both candidates are flip flopping and pandering like there's no tomorrow. But I agree with what I believe are McCain's real positions, what he'd really do pandering aside, maybe 50-55% of the time. I agree with what Obama would do, pandering and flip flopping aside, (best guesstimate, since he has far less history to judge) maybe 15-20% of the time. So, looking over the issues, the "lesser evil" is McCain, despite my many differences with him. Hopefully he'll choose a good VP and cabinet who'll steer him more toward the positions I'd like, if he's elected.

Why are you voting for your flip flopper and panderer? The same reason, I'd suppose...

[Michael P]

Why in the world would you vote for a candidate who is in your own words a flip-flopper and a panderer?

Because he's in favor of blowing up brown people.

[KevinTBrown]

Because he's in favor of blowing up brown people.
Hey now.......



Oh. Wait. You meant the color brown.

Never mind.

[the4thpip]

Safe Republican 36

Safe Democrat 165
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

[Major Comma]

how key is the hispanic vote to the election?
Is richardson on Obamas shortlist for VP?
who is leading in the battle for women voters?
sorry for all the questions but knowkedge is power!:biggrin:

[section 8]

Because the cornerstone of democracy is clearly a two party system where the best you can ever hope for is "better the devil you know."

How humanity has survived this long is beyond me.

Well, More like "The devil with whom you share common interests"

[LtMarvel]

Safe Republican 36

Safe Democrat 165
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
Site appears to be down...

[Sabrinaset]

how key is the hispanic vote to the election?
who is leading in the battle for women voters?
sorry for all the questions but knowkedge is power!:biggrin:

Well, Kris is voting for him too, so there's one vote in BOTH columns! :tongue:

[Major Comma]

Bree,
PROGRESS!
one vote at a time but Kris is leading the way!

[KevinTBrown]

Site appears to be down...

It's up now.

Safe Republican 36

Safe Democrat 165
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

Interesting though.

Taking all the "Dems", Obama has 293.



I think once there's a debate or 2, that number will surely INCREASE for Obama or definitely solidify.

[Sabrinaset]

Bree,
PROGRESS!
one vote at a time but Kris is leading the way!

Well, she really wanted to vote for Hillary or Edwards though ...

I think once there's a debate or 2, that number will surely INCREASE for Obama or definitely solidify.

You know ... count me as one of those who DON'T think it'll be a slam-dunk for Obama in the debates. I mean, I'll grant he's good, and he definitely looks better than McCain on TV, but he does sometimes get lost without a TelePrompTer.

[Nick Soapdish]

You know ... count me as one of those who DON'T think it'll be a slam-dunk for Obama in the debates. I mean, I'll grant he's good, and he definitely looks better than McCain on TV, but he does sometimes get lost without a TelePrompTer.

I agree.

There is an expectation based on Obama's great speaking skills that he'll blow him away and even if Obama does better than McCain, people will be surprised at how well McCain compares.

And like you say, it's not the same.

OTOH, McCain has looked pretty lost even on some of his rehearsed speeches.

[Samurai]

So, for those of you supporting Obama, what do you think of his vote on the FISA bill today? Here is what supporters at his website are saying:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/

[kingdom2000]

So, for those of you supporting Obama, what do you think of his vote on the FISA bill today? Here is what supporters at his website are saying:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/

What was his vote? For it I assume.
Personally I don't mind. Assuming that I understand the bill right, it basically removes the unlimited tapping power that Bush enjoyed. Of course this comes to late since all signs point to a Dem president (which is probably why the repubs went for it) but still.

I don't care about the telecom immunity because at the end of the day nothing on that would have happened. A class action would have been filed and years and years later a settlement would be announced that would result in maybe $5 buck savings on your next phone bill and put millions of dollars in the lawyers pockets. I think the trade-off is worth it.

[Major Comma]

Bree,
I wanted hilary to win the nomination too.
it was very dissapointing to me that she didnt.
I think she would have ran a great campaign and come out as the winner in the end.
If Obama loses maybe she will try again in four years .
and if Obama does lose he will probaly run for Governor of Illinois and win.
And that will position him for another bid or a possible VP slot.

[Typo Lad]

So, no comment on jesse Jackson's comments?

[Corrina]

I had to go look up what he said.

My take is that Jackson's comments will probably help gain sympathy for Obama among white voters. I hate to say it but it's true.

As for the open microphone, I am reminded of a sketch that Howard Stern did back when he wasn't constantly drooling over naked lesbians and actually tried some political commentary. He was talking about Marge Schott, who was basically run out of baseball for being a racist. She'd been caught saying a nasty slur (the 'n' word) on tape.

Stern: And what did you learn, Marge?
Marge imitator: "Don't say n****** when the camera's on."

Which basically means to me: assume everything you say in public in going to become public if you're a public figure.

Aside: Marge Schott was a racist and a Nazi sympathizer (by a lot of evidence) but I think she got extra flack because she was an unattractive, nasty women. Because a lot of the owners of baseball were unattractive, nasty, prejudiced men . But they were never run out of the sport. Of course, they never said anything to the cameras.

[Royal]

Well, she really wanted to vote for Hillary or Edwards though ...



You know ... count me as one of those who DON'T think it'll be a slam-dunk for Obama in the debates. I mean, I'll grant he's good, and he definitely looks better than McCain on TV, but he does sometimes get lost without a TelePrompTer.

Even if he did ace the debates, there's still the option of framing Obama the chicken for not doing the (stacked) town hall meetings.

So damned if he wins, damned if he loses.

[kingdom2000]

Jesse Jackson is just pissed that this little upstart that has only been on the national stage for about 4 years is about to what Jackson has dreamed of doing for decades. Jackson probably honestly thought he would either be the first black president or would have been the man behind the first with all the power and place in the history books that provides. Instead he has been marginilized made mostly irrelevant. Few people takes the fall from somebody to nobody with grace.

That and he is a damn fool to think that Faux News wouldn't keep the mics live around a Democrat. I bet they did back flips when they checked the feed. Any case it whatever from a whatever man whose entire career has been based on fostering hate and strife who is now forced to support a man whose advocating the opposite.

[kingdom2000]

Even if he did ace the debates, there's still the option of framing Obama the chicken for not doing the (stacked) town hall meetings.

So damned if he wins, damned if he loses.

Sadly, as 2004 showed, who wins the debates isn't as important as it used to be. Basically all that matters is the sound byte and avoiding any gaffes. Hopefully his people are practicing keeping his answers to 20 words or less so the stupid people can pretend they comphrehend complicated issues since Kerry's main mistake was not mentally going "how do I dumb this down" before every answer.

[KevinTBrown]

Even if he did ace the debates, there's still the option of framing Obama the chicken for not doing the (stacked) town hall meetings.

So damned if he wins, damned if he loses.

Correction: He was against the FORMAT McCain wanted. Obama wanted it to be a true "Lincoln/Douglas" debate, as was initially suggested by McCain "way back" when Hillary was still in the race. McCain waffled and then kept hammering about doing "town hall meetings".

[section 8]

I agree.

There is an expectation based on Obama's great speaking skills that he'll blow him away and even if Obama does better than McCain, people will be surprised at how well McCain compares.

And like you say, it's not the same.

OTOH, McCain has looked pretty lost even on some of his rehearsed speeches.

Clinton and Obama Lost the Myrtle Beach debate to Edwards,
In Spite of this, Obama Took SC, And Edwards dropped out.
So i do not put too much stock in debates

[Sabrinaset]

I had to look up the story as well. Here it is. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/jesse.jackson.comment/?iref=mpstoryview)

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for "crude and hurtful" remarks he made about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama after an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized to Sen. Obama's campaign Wednesday over "hurtful" remarks.

The remarks came Sunday as Jackson was talking to a fellow interviewee, UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson. An open microphone picked up Jackson whispering, "See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off."

...The elder Jackson repeated his apology in a news conference in Chicago a couple of hours before Fox News aired Sunday's remarks. He said he wanted to address the issue publicly before the cable network aired the comment, because "I know that they will further violate the context of it."

Well, it's nice to know that JJ's comments will sound much better IN context! :biggrin:

[Royal]

Correction: He was against the FORMAT McCain wanted. Obama wanted it to be a true "Lincoln/Douglas" debate, as was initially suggested by McCain "way back" when Hillary was still in the race. McCain waffled and then kept hammering about doing "town hall meetings".

You really think people are going to know or care about this tidbit?

[Tetsuo_man]

I'm not sure this has been posted before but little old lady ticketed for sign in front of mccain event.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/16825700/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news

[Royal]

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/daretohope500.gif

[Major Comma]

when are public figures going to learn?
there can be a mic ANYWHERE!

[section 8]

I'm not sure this has been posted before but little old lady ticketed for sign in front of mccain event.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/16825700/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news

that was too convieneint,and nothing new.

Shortly before i left the Carolinas I had a chance to see Bill Clinton speak at ST Andrew's college in Laurinburg NC.

During the speech, Obama supporters jeered the former president, and one kid held up a large "OBAMA" sign, written on a map of the US.

Clinton, without batting an eye said "Leave it up, if he wants to get some publicity on our dime it's okay" (not his exact words but somehing like that.)

I found this grace to be in stark contrast to the childish and obnoxious lack of taste shown by this one holding the sign.

[Major Comma]

i have never understood why a candidates supporter will goto their opponents events .
whenver they make a scene they come off looking like fools.

[section 8]

It's in poor tastes, ive been to opposing canidates speeches before, but i kept my mouth shut and heard them out.

oh look
Someone youtubed it :biggrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pkc8TR56pU&feature=related

I keep watching and looking for myself, but i know i'm on the other side.

[rick]

So, for those of you supporting Obama, what do you think of his vote on the FISA bill today? Here is what supporters at his website are saying:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/


It was a terrible vote on his part and a major disappointment.

Also a flip flop.

I'm still voting for him, but he didn't do himself, the constitution or the nation any favors today.

[rick]

i have never understood why a candidates supporter will goto their opponents events .
whenver they make a scene they come off looking like fools.


Although you do have to admit that there is a certain amount of humor in the fact that what caused the trouble was a sign that equated the Republican Presidential candidate with the current Republican President.

[Crowley]

It was a terrible vote on his part and a major disappointment.

Also a flip flop.

I'm still voting for him, but he didn't do himself, the constitution or the nation any favors today.

I agree... his rational for the voting the way he did makes sense... but I still think it was a very bad move.

[Tages]

Safe Republican 36

Safe Democrat 165
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

Woohoo! Nevada's a toss-up!

[rick]

I agree... his rational for the voting the way he did makes sense... but I still think it was a very bad move.



I understand why he voted for the legislation, there are definite positives to bill.

But removing the possibility of holding the telecoms legally responsible for their cooperation in the administrations illegal activities pretty much guarantees that we as a nation will never learn the extent of just how far the administration went in their flaunting of the constitution.

I realize that Bush and company are not ever going to be held responsible in court for their crimes, but this legislation actually allows the administration to bury the truth of what happened forever.

Sen. Obama helped.

And damm it if I don’t have to give credit to Sen. Clinton for voting against this evil little bill.

Makes me start to second guess my vote that does.


The only good thing about this entire joke of a law is that since the new legislation gives final say on government cases involving spying to the secret FISA court instead of the Supreme Court it is very likely that the Supremes, who as we all know might not agree on much, but certainly agree on their own positions and authority are very likely to declare the law unconstitutional.

But that will still take years to work its way through the legal system.

[Paul McEnery]

Woohoo! Nevada's a toss-up!

They should settle Nevada like men, at the poker table.

[kingdom2000]

Even with lawsuits, the public would have never learned anyway. Bush and co would had many many ways to protect that kind of info from coming to light. All this belief that suing the telecoms would lead to this vomitting of truth is a pipe dream at best.

[section 8]

On the FISA Bill, (i think Rick used the right word when he said "Joke")

All i have to say is: someone should tell Obama he isn't president yet, it is a little early to start screwing us.

[rick]

All i have to say is: someone should tell Obama he isn't president yet, it is a little early to start screwing us.


Yeah, he shouldn't even be at third base yet.

[Typo Lad]

when are public figures going to learn?
there can be a mic ANYWHERE!
What I find amusing is this is the second time the man's gotten in trouble for something like this.

[Buzz Dixon]

And damm it if I don’t have to give credit to Sen. Clinton for voting against this evil little bill.

Makes me start to second guess my vote that does.Based on prior behavior, that was probably her intent.

[GozertheGozarian]

What I find amusing is this is the second time the man's gotten in trouble for something like this.
Now I'm going to have that SNL skit in my head all day.

[Corrina]

I am not disappointed in Obama in his vote on this bill because, looking at his record before this election, it's clear that expediance and getting elected was at least as important to him (if not more) as the ideals that he puts forth.

He's an incredibly ambitious man and he's in politics. When the chips are down, he is going to do what keeps him in power.

However, I wish I'd been wrong.

But this doesn't mean he can't be a good President. The great presidents all had this flaw as well. FDR tried to put through his court-packing scheme to gain more power. Lincoln suspended all kinds of civil rights and he waffled on whether slavery was morally wrong. (He kept saying, basically, that it was bad for the union to disagree over it, not that it was morally a horrible thing.)

McCain lost any integrity a long time ago. And he has a temper and he keeps getting cozier with the people who've run this country into the ground the last eight years. (He just hired Bush's 2004 campaign manager, I think.)

Obama may be a politician under all his rhetoric but he's a superior one.

[FalconX2000]

I am not disappointed in Obama in his vote on this bill because, looking at his record before this election, it's clear that expediance and getting elected was at least as important to him (if not more) as the ideals that he puts forth.

He's an incredibly ambitious man and he's in politics. When the chips are down, he is going to do what keeps him in power.

However, I wish I'd been wrong.

But this doesn't mean he can't be a good President. The great presidents all had this flaw as well. FDR tried to put through his court-packing scheme to gain more power. Lincoln suspended all kinds of civil rights and he waffled on whether slavery was morally wrong. (He kept saying, basically, that it was bad for the union to disagree over it, not that it was morally a horrible thing.)

McCain lost any integrity a long time ago. And he has a temper and he keeps getting cozier with the people who've run this country into the ground the last eight years. (He just hired Bush's 2004 campaign manager, I think.)

Obama may be a politician under all his rhetoric but he's a superior one.

I think alot of Obama fans, or people warming to Obama, came to expect too much of him; an unfortunate side effect of his speaking skills. Michael Smerconish and Cenk Uygur are 2 examples of this in the media.

They should settle Nevada like men, at the poker table.

Obama is a very good poker player. McCain has said he prefers crap. Uhh...craps.

[the4thpip]

I am not disappointed in Obama in his vote on this bill because, looking at his record before this election, it's clear that expediance and getting elected was at least as important to him (if not more) as the ideals that he puts forth.

He's an incredibly ambitious man and he's in politics. When the chips are down, he is going to do what keeps him in power.

However, I wish I'd been wrong.

But this doesn't mean he can't be a good President. The great presidents all had this flaw as well. FDR tried to put through his court-packing scheme to gain more power. Lincoln suspended all kinds of civil rights and he waffled on whether slavery was morally wrong. (He kept saying, basically, that it was bad for the union to disagree over it, not that it was morally a horrible thing.)

McCain lost any integrity a long time ago. And he has a temper and he keeps getting cozier with the people who've run this country into the ground the last eight years. (He just hired Bush's 2004 campaign manager, I think.)

Obama may be a politician under all his rhetoric but he's a superior one.

The thing is though... How does that work here? Wouldn't voting against it have done more to get him elected? Salon war room put it quite well, I thought:

Assumed in a lot of this angry talk is the premise that Obama's FISA vote is part of a broad strategy to "move to the center" or even "the right," reflecting a theory of how to win general elections that is in itself deeply unpopular on the left.

But was Obama's position on FISA really a matter of political calculation? If so, he needs to check his math.

By almost any measure, political passions on this issue are heavily concentrated among the FISA bill's opponents. There was no real voter pressure on Obama to support the bill. Public opinion polls have consistently shown the bill generally and telecomm community in particular aren't very popular (see this Glenn Greenwald summary of early polling about FISA, and an ACLU poll taken in January of this year).

The general netroots indictment of Democrats in Congress supporting FISA often cites lust for telecomm cash and pundit approval as motivating factors for "sellouts." But Barack Obama hardly needs telecomm campaign contributions, and if there's been any windfall of talking-heads approval of his position, I've certainly missed it. I forced myself to watch Fox News last night to see how the conservative noise machine was reacting to Obama's vote. Given the incessant attention being paid to Fox's own manufactured "controversy" involving Jesse Jackson (including a hilarious poll of Fox viewers showing they think, by a 2-1 margin, that Obama indeed "talks down to black people"), there wasn't much talk about FISA, but it followed the McCain line citing Obama's vote as just another flip-flop.

As for the theory that Obama needed to vote for the FISA bill to protect his flanks on national security, there are a vast array of more visible and popular ways for him to do that.

(Netroots proponents of the "sellout" theory do need to stare at the roll call votes and notice some of the Democrats who not only voted for final passage, but parted ways with Obama by voting against the Dodd amendment on telecomm immunity: Jim Webb, long a netroots favorite, and not noted for political cowardice; Kent Conrad, a reliable progressive on most issues; and Barbara Mikulski, who hasn't had a serious electoral challenge in recent memory).

So what gives? I honestly don't know. I tend to agree with Gail Collins' New York Times column today, which bluntly argues that progressives who accuse Obama of a "move to the center" weren't paying sufficient attention to, or didn't take seriously, his longstanding rhetoric about compromise and transpartisan politics. Perhaps Obama sincerely believed the FISA "compromise" (I put that in quotes deliberately) qualified as a measure that would help overcome the stale left-right debates of the past. But if so, it appears he picked the wrong moment, and the wrong issue, to show he could rise above ideology and embrace compromise.

[Infra-Man]

I had to go look up what he said.

My take is that Jackson's comments will probably help gain sympathy for Obama among white voters. I hate to say it but it's true.

As for the open microphone, I am reminded of a sketch that Howard Stern did back when he wasn't constantly drooling over naked lesbians and actually tried some political commentary. He was talking about Marge Schott, who was basically run out of baseball for being a racist. She'd been caught saying a nasty slur (the 'n' word) on tape.

Stern: And what did you learn, Marge?
Marge imitator: "Don't say n****** when the camera's on."

Which basically means to me: assume everything you say in public in going to become public if you're a public figure.

Aside: Marge Schott was a racist and a Nazi sympathizer (by a lot of evidence) but I think she got extra flack because she was an unattractive, nasty women. Because a lot of the owners of baseball were unattractive, nasty, prejudiced men . But they were never run out of the sport. Of course, they never said anything to the cameras.

Wow... that's some classic 90s Stern w/ Billy West doing Schott, and yeah, it's actually fitting for this situation.

If Jackson was criticizing Obama for his comments on parental responsibility and his moral lecturing to the black community, I wonder why Jackson never said he wanted to cut Bill Cosby's nuts off (Cosby Stands His Ground, Jesse Jackson Backs Him Up, Saying: Let's Fight The Good Fight (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/02/national/main627156.shtml)).

[FalconX2000]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/10/stunning_return_and_a_vital_vote/?page=1

Ted Kennedy likes to make an entrance.:biggrin:

I justify posting this in the election thread with the 2 lines in the article mentioning Barack Obama.:tongue:

[Corrina]

Obama voted for the FISA bill so the Republicans couldn't keep harping on the 'he's not patriotic thing.' Plain and simple.

They're already got Rev. Wright and Michele Obama's out of context comment about 'for the first time, I'm proud of my country,' and if he'd voted this down, they'd use his name & 'foreign' origin and link him as weak on national security and terrorism. (And, no, none of this is far but the person running McCain's campaign is the guy who went after Kerry's war record, so....)

I'm sure that's the political calculation that went into it.

It's not as if Obama voters are going to run off and vote for McCain because of it, so Obama figured it was worth taking the heat from the disillusioned rather than the 'non-patriotic' heat.

[Paul McEnery]

So here's the skinny on the FISA bill from Kevin Drum at CBS, and it makes sense to me:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/politics/animal/main4200909.shtml

[section 8]

I am not disappointed in Obama in his vote on this bill because, looking at his record before this election, it's clear that expediance and getting elected was at least as important to him (if not more) as the ideals that he puts forth.

He's an incredibly ambitious man and he's in politics. When the chips are down, he is going to do what keeps him in power.

However, I wish I'd been wrong.

But this doesn't mean he can't be a good President. The great presidents all had this flaw as well. FDR tried to put through his court-packing scheme to gain more power. Lincoln suspended all kinds of civil rights and he waffled on whether slavery was morally wrong. (He kept saying, basically, that it was bad for the union to disagree over it, not that it was morally a horrible thing.)

McCain lost any integrity a long time ago. And he has a temper and he keeps getting cozier with the people who've run this country into the ground the last eight years. (He just hired Bush's 2004 campaign manager, I think.)

Obama may be a politician under all his rhetoric but he's a superior one.


I've Said it before, Obama is Bill Clinton version 2.0
( i should note that, for the most part i liked Mr. Bill)

Obama was, for good or ill born for politics. He would prove a formitable opponant for anyone, least of all McCain ( who sounds more like Bush every day)

[Buzz Dixon]

I am not disappointed in Obama in his vote on this bill because, looking at his record before this election, it's clear that expediance and getting elected was at least as important to him (if not more) as the ideals that he puts forth.I understand your sentiment, however, I don't think one needs to get unduly worked up by the FISA bill.

First off, expect Bush to hand out pardons like popsicles before he leaves office, especially to those who aided and abetted torture. He would doubtlessly hand out pardons to the telecom companies if this version of FISA didn't pass.

Second, going along with the majority on this robs the GOP of ammunition against Obama and any Democrat who voted for it. This may indeed be a compromise, put politics is the art of the possible.

Finally, the way to fix this situation is not to punish those who have done it in the past but to make it more difficult for others to do it in the future. I'd like to see the Democrats close some loopholes that both presidents Clinton and Bush pried open.

[Paul McEnery]

I understand your sentiment, however, I don't think one needs to get unduly worked up by the FISA bill.

First off, expect Bush to hand out pardons like popsicles before he leaves office, especially to those who aided and abetted torture. He would doubtlessly hand out pardons to the telecom companies if this version of FISA didn't pass.

Second, going along with the majority on this robs the GOP of ammunition against Obama and any Democrat who voted for it. This may indeed be a compromise, put politics is the art of the possible.

Finally, the way to fix this situation is not to punish those who have done it in the past but to make it more difficult for others to do it in the future. I'd like to see the Democrats close some loopholes that both presidents Clinton and Bush pried open.

Please Mister Dixon, can I be your running mate?

[Nick Soapdish]

Like Crowley and rick, I'm disappointed in the vote. I'd also call it a flip-flop.

It was a "compromise" and it sounds like it did have some decent parts. But it had a whole lot of junk. The retroactive immunity sounds like the least of it (although it sounds like it'll help keep things quiet about how much monitoring we did). It's the monitoring of e-mails, but I'm less concerned about that than the wire-tapping expansion.

They can expand the tapping to a week before getting permission and can use any evidence that they get even if they get denied. With that rule, why would anybody bother to ask until Day 6? It could be especially loathsome if there isn't some sort of cap on the number of times that you can ask about somebody. I'm picturing somebody making weekly requests (right after the previous one gets rebuffed) and just keeping somebody under constant surveillance. Surely, they have some hedge against that. Right?

[Paul McEnery]

Like Crowley and rick, I'm disappointed in the vote. I'd also call it a flip-flop.

It was a "compromise" and it sounds like it did have some decent parts. But it had a whole lot of junk. The retroactive immunity sounds like the least of it (although it sounds like it'll help keep things quiet about how much monitoring we did). It's the monitoring of e-mails, but I'm less concerned about that than the wire-tapping expansion.

They can expand the tapping to a week before getting permission and can use any evidence that they get even if they get denied. With that rule, why would anybody bother to ask until Day 6? It could be especially loathsome if there isn't some sort of cap on the number of times that you can ask about somebody. I'm picturing somebody making weekly requests (right after the previous one gets rebuffed) and just keeping somebody under constant surveillance. Surely, they have some hedge against that. Right?

Well again, we have to be very naive to think there aren't black ops out there not giving a toss about due process; and that no legislation we enact will change that.

All we can achieve with a bill like this is to ensure transparency over the operations we see which are intended to be used in the courts.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well again, we have to be very naive to think there aren't black ops out there not giving a toss about due process; and that no legislation we enact will change that.

All we can achieve with a bill like this is to ensure transparency over the operations we see which are intended to be used in the courts.

I agree on the former. But this bill just seems to give those sorts more legitimacy on what they can use in courts.

[section 8]

Well again, we have to be very naive to think there aren't black ops out there not giving a toss about due process; and that no legislation we enact will change that.

All we can achieve with a bill like this is to ensure transparency over the operations we see which are intended to be used in the courts.

true about the Black Ops but i dissagfree with the last part.

This bill raises the bar, whereas before a handful of Black Ops would be focused only on the most likely terrorist suspects, this bill allows them to widen the dragnet without shame or guilt.

The "Blank Check of power", just became more blank.

[Paul McEnery]

I agree on the former. But this bill just seems to give those sorts more legitimacy on what they can use in courts.

I think one of those things we need to ask ourselves about this sort of thing is: what will actually happen as a consequence?

I surely got my panties in a bunch over PATRIOT, but um, what actually happened?

We've seen real draconian law in action in England and Ireland, and that was some kind of ugly and unjust. But with the American stuff? Not so much.

Now I don't want to get complacent about it. Pressure should be maintained, some aspects the law should be rolled back, and like any other laws we don't actually need, we should repeal those aspects. And I know that's easier said than done, but still, the sky didn't just fall.

Like most bills, it basically got passed in committee, and the vote was a formality. We don't know what all trade-offs were involved, and how much there's the expectation that the bad parts of the bill either won't be enforced or the enforcement of them will create the test case that will destroy them.

So, you know, save the energy for the fights that matter. And those are more about drumming up popular support for doing popular things that will save our bacon (rather than gutting crappy things that don't do very much).

[KevinTBrown]

McFlip-Flopper gets caught again.

This time in trying to make his divorce and susequent quickie marriage not appear so asshole-ish:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,3828535.story

[the4thpip]

McFlip-Flopper gets caught again.

This time in trying to make his divorce and susequent quickie marriage not appear so asshole-ish:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,3828535.story


Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

That is not exactly bigamy, is it?

[Corrina]

Well, most people are separated way before the divorce becomes official.

My brother hasn't lived with his wife for two years now but his wife is dragging her feet on the financial details. He's not officially divorced but the marriage is over. He has a new girlfriend.

So, the short time between McCain's marriage and the official divorce isn't necessarily indicative of douchebaggery.

Now, his political record is another story. :)

[Corrina]

Well, most people are separated way before the divorce becomes official.

My brother hasn't lived with his wife for two years now but his wife is dragging her feet on the financial details. He's not officially divorced but the marriage is over. He has a new girlfriend.

So, the short time between McCain's marriage and the official divorce isn't necessarily indicative of douchebaggery.

Now, his political record is another story. :)

[rick]

Well, most people are separated way before the divorce becomes official.

My brother hasn't lived with his wife for two years now but his wife is dragging her feet on the financial details. He's not officially divorced but the marriage is over. He has a new girlfriend.

So, the short time between McCain's marriage and the official divorce isn't necessarily indicative of douchebaggery.

Now, his political record is another story. :)


I have to agree with you here.

When I got divorced from my first wife, the whole process took a couple of years and by the time all was said and done, I was deeply involved with someone else and we ended up getting married not three months after my divorce was final.

[Tetsuo_man]

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Does anyone know what cohabited meant in this case?

[KevinTBrown]

Does anyone know what cohabited meant in this case?

Lived together as husband and wife under the same roof.

[KevinTBrown]

Oh I looooove this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html


Does anyone, other than Sam or Bri, truly believe it was "an honest mistake"? Something as KEY as that he forgets it???

[Typo Lad]

Really? That's the best the opposition can do?

That's up there with Obama's "57 States". Silly, but not worth actual coverage.

[Tetsuo_man]

Lived together as husband and wife under the same roof.

So they lived under the same roof while seperated and Mccain dated Cindy during the time...does anybody know if Mccain's then wife was ok with this?

[Dreadstar]

So they lived under the same roof while seperated and Mccain dated Cindy during the time...does anybody know if Mccain's then wife was ok with this?

I'm not sure why that's important.

[KevinTBrown]

Really? That's the best the opposition can do?

That's up there with Obama's "57 States". Silly, but not worth actual coverage.

Other than the fact that he made a big deal out of it in his book. Referred to it numerous times. And then in PA he switches it up?

:rolleyes:

[Typo Lad]

You sound like Samurai.

it's seriously a non-issue.

[Tetsuo_man]

I'm not sure why that's important.

Guess your right.

[Buzz Dixon]

So they lived under the same roof while seperated and Mccain dated Cindy during the time...does anybody know if Mccain's then wife was ok with this?IIRC, Mrs. McCain #1 was badly injured/maimed in a traffic while McCain was a POW. When released from captivity (how many years? 7? I can't recall), McCain and Mrs. McCain #1 no longer found their relationship viable. They divorced (McCain agreeing to pay for his wife's medical bills for life), and McCain married Mrs. McCain #2 shortly thereafter.

[KevinTBrown]

You sound like Samurai.

it's seriously a non-issue.
All right....

But what about 61 flip-flops?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-benen/jukebox-john-keeps-changi_b_112148.html

[Typo Lad]

Well, what about Obama's shifts (and Paul's right, "flip-flop" sounds childish)?

I'm hardly McCain's biggest fan, but before you go slamming him for anything, it beehoovs you to make sure it is unique to him.

There are real reasons not to vote for him. Changing his mind on issues over the span of years or mis-speaking are not.

[TCJohnson]

I am much more upset about McCain saying he was going to ban beer! Grrrrr!

[KevinTBrown]

Well, what about Obama's shifts (and Paul's right, "flip-flop" sounds childish)?

I'm hardly McCain's biggest fan, but before you go slamming him for anything, it beehoovs you to make sure it is unique to him.

There are real reasons not to vote for him. Changing his mind on issues over the span of years or mis-speaking are not.

Depends on which issues you're speaking about though...

If, for example, you're a big proponent of "gay marriage", then it's a sore point.




As far as Obama's "shifts" (I prefer the other phrase actually), they're not nearly as numerous. He has taken a few hard hits of late with his FISA vote (something that does not bother me) and his decision to not accept public funds. However, McCain's "shifts" are more issue related than Obama's. Neither are without "sin" though.

There are times I think McCain just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and that he's making it up as he goes along.

[Corrina]

IIRC, Mrs. McCain #1 was badly injured/maimed in a traffic while McCain was a POW. When released from captivity (how many years? 7? I can't recall), McCain and Mrs. McCain #1 no longer found their relationship viable. They divorced (McCain agreeing to pay for his wife's medical bills for life), and McCain married Mrs. McCain #2 shortly thereafter.

It was at least five years after his return from Vietnam. Seven sounds about right, I think, before the marriage broke apart.

I really think this is the wrong way to go about taking McCain apart. There are so many other better targets.

[KevinTBrown]

It was at least five years after his return from Vietnam. Seven sounds about right, I think, before the marriage broke apart.

I really think this is the wrong way to go about taking McCain apart. There are so many other better targets.
Agreed, but if he brings it up, which he did, it'll be discussed...

[darkhanamaru]

As far as Obama's "shifts" (I prefer the other phrase actually), they're not nearly as numerous. He has taken a few hard hits of late with his FISA vote (something that does not bother me) and his decision to not accept public funds.


I think the difference was he controlled very well the discourse on public funding and articulated why he did it. He was not nearly as prepared for the backlash on FISA and that was where I got concerned.

[kingdom2000]

Well, what about Obama's shifts (and Paul's right, "flip-flop" sounds childish)?

I'm hardly McCain's biggest fan, but before you go slamming him for anything, it beehoovs you to make sure it is unique to him.

There are real reasons not to vote for him. Changing his mind on issues over the span of years or mis-speaking are not.

We are just using the terminology that Republicans made famous in 2004. They made "flip-flopping" a cussword, where changing your mind or re-evaluating your stance on any decision is sign of weakness and inability to lead. Successfully I might add. That wasn't some random word that led to nothing, it truly influenced votes as it was designed to do.

The volume of flip-flops on McCain's part over the last 8 years both big and small is very much a valid measurement simply because the Republican party made it a measurement. For Obama to even attempt to catch up with McCain he would pretty much have to do a 180 on every stance he currently holds (which is what McCain has done). So yeah, to hang a republican by the very "bad" standard they themselves created to hang a democrat, its a lot of fun.

Honestly though, it might even be a valid measurement. There are some issues that flip-flopping on just seems highly strange and suspicious. It can suggest graft, it can suggest outside influence, it can suggest pandering and all kinds of other things. Obama voting for FISA might be example of that (did he get money from the telecoms?). McCain's willingness to flip on career long stances (campaign financing, torture, etc) is very much a concern and something that should be looked at. McCain has show a williness to sell out his very ideals for the win. Who else and what else is he willing to sell out if the need arises?

My point, "flip-flop" is very much a valid campaign issue and if the Dems where smart they would hang the republicans by their very own self-created concept.

[Paul McEnery]

My POV on the whole issue of the word flip-flop is that it's a deliberately infantile word, and it's used to appeal to the infantile side of people's personalities.

The world is not a simple either/or place, and the only people who benefit from thinking that way are the extremists (though of course there we can say there's an either/or -- precisely because the extremists have drawn that line).

I mean, we all get caught up in the "either you're for me or against me" tribalist mentality once in a while. And when we're younger, we see the world in simplistic all or nothing terms.

But the far right wants us grown ups to think like children. They want the world to be all or nothing like kindergarten, and they want to be in charge of what's the all and what's the nothing.

Anyone who makes a nuanced or mature decision with reference to the facts on the ground is NOT going to be acting within ideological purity. Hell, acting within ideological purity almost guarantees you're doing the wrong thing!

I've seen this a lot in my life: if you're not in complete agreement with me, you must be in complete disagreement. Done it myself, a few times. But it's an ugly failure to think that way, and I think we can do better.

[GigglingDemon]

I have to step in and defend flip-flop. Not only as a word but as a concept. Flip-flopper, at least to me never signified soemone who changed thier minds because of changing facts, but those who changed thier minds based on the popularity of the poisition at question.

Thats why Kerry IMO was reviled as a Flip-Flopper, becauase the preception was that he changed his mind not due to changing facts, but to changing political winds.

And honestly, this type of fli-flop, while satisfying to the voters, is something to watch for, because thats means either the pol doesnt have true convictions, or doesn't have the strength of character to stand up for them.

[AllisterH]

As far as Obama's "shifts" (I prefer the other phrase actually), they're not nearly as numerous. He has taken a few hard hits of late with his FISA vote (something that does not bother me) and his decision to not accept public funds. However, McCain's "shifts" are more issue related than Obama's. Neither are without "sin" though.

There are times I think McCain just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and that he's making it up as he goes along.

Er, wouldn't this just be an outgrowth of McCain being a Senator longer. A proper comparison would be to compare how many issues the 1st term senator McCain shifted on vs OBama.

As for his marriage, given the high rate of divorce among Vietnam vets (it was something like an order of magnitude higher than the general population), I'm not sure his divorce is that big a deal.

Being a POW I imagine would most certainly change a guy from what he was at the aisle.

[Paul McEnery]

I have to step in and defend flip-flop. Not only as a word but as a concept. Flip-flopper, at least to me never signified soemone who changed thier minds because of changing facts, but those who changed thier minds based on the popularity of the poisition at question.

Thats why Kerry IMO was reviled as a Flip-Flopper, becauase the preception was that he changed his mind not due to changing facts, but to changing political winds.

And honestly, this type of fli-flop, while satisfying to the voters, is something to watch for, because thats means either the pol doesnt have true convictions, or doesn't have the strength of character to stand up for them.

And there we have it. Proof that the word is ideologically constructed as a way of keeping people in line with the dominant orthodoxy.

Funny how the far right whines so much about political correctness, ain't it.

[Paul McEnery]

Er, wouldn't this just be an outgrowth of McCain being a Senator longer. A proper comparison would be to compare how many issues the 1st term senator McCain shifted on vs OBama.

As for his marriage, given the high rate of divorce among Vietnam vets (it was something like an order of magnitude higher than the general population), I'm not sure his divorce is that big a deal.

Being a POW I imagine would most certainly change a guy from what he was at the aisle.

Not that in any way the fact that his now crippled wife wasn't hot any more, whereas Cindy was stacked, had piles of cash, and could advance his career.

[Paul McEnery]

IIRC, Mrs. McCain #1 was badly injured/maimed in a traffic while McCain was a POW. When released from captivity (how many years? 7? I can't recall), McCain and Mrs. McCain #1 no longer found their relationship viable. They divorced (McCain agreeing to pay for his wife's medical bills for life), and McCain married Mrs. McCain #2 shortly thereafter.

Slightly before!

As we now know.

Actually, I don't give a toss about the indecent haste with which McCain jumped horses; except that he's shown a similar flexibility in whoring himself out to the far right. If he was whoring himself out to the trades unions, I wouldn't mind at all! After all, a politician is a piece of ass that everyone has had their way with, except a pauper.

[GigglingDemon]

And there we have it. Proof that the word is ideologically constructed as a way of keeping people in line with the dominant orthodoxy.

Funny how the far right whines so much about political correctness, ain't it.
Huh?

I know your tryign to make a point here, Im just not sure what it is.

[Buzz Dixon]

...Cindy was stacked, had piles of cash, and could advance his career....and owns a brewery. Don't forget that. She's the type of woman many men only dream about.

[Paul McEnery]

It was at least five years after his return from Vietnam. Seven sounds about right, I think, before the marriage broke apart.

I really think this is the wrong way to go about taking McCain apart. There are so many other better targets.

As slime goes, it's awfully sticky. It's an argument to character, which unfortunately seems to be bang on the money.

[Paul McEnery]

...and owns a brewery. Don't forget that. She's the type of woman many men only dream about.

I've made some less defensible choices in my life, to be sure.

Then again, nobody in their right mind would vote me in as President!











Then again, this is America. Hmmm....

[Tetsuo_man]

...and owns a brewery. Don't forget that. She's the type of woman many men only dream about. (emphasis mine though should be some men not all)

You mean a stepford wife with acess to lots of beer...

[Paul McEnery]

(emphasis mine)

You mean a stepford wife?

A true stepford wife wouldn't tease a poor guy about going thin on top.

[Tetsuo_man]

A true stepford wife wouldn't tease a poor guy about going thin on top.

Good point you trollop.

[Sabrinaset]

Huh?

I know your tryign to make a point here, Im just not sure what it is.

Well, it didn't take long for him to get banned. I wonder who else he was?

[darkhanamaru]

A true Irish wife would tease a poor guy about his Irish Curse.

Fixed It. since a drunken acquaintance was seen doing that in front of Coyle's

[Paul McEnery]

Well, it didn't take long for him to get banned. I wonder who else he was?

The same person he was the last couple times, I should think.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, the posting mannerisms are a dead giveaway ...

Trolls. Gotta love 'em. Although I really miss the Raelian we had a few years back.

[Buzz Dixon]

(emphasis mine though should be some men not all)Many does not equal most.

[KevinTBrown]

Um, about that stuff about Obama not being tough? Listen to this radio ad:

http://s4.video.blip.tv/1480004139606/Tpmtv-ObamaRadioAdVoteSameAsBush973.mp3


Yowza is right! :biggrin:

[Red Jack]

Not that in any way the fact that his now crippled wife wasn't hot any more, whereas Cindy was stacked, had piles of cash, and could advance his career.

So young. So cynical.

Damn that rap music!

[Buzz Dixon]

Yes YES YES!!! This is the ticket!
http://media.tumblr.com/DV5Gsmvapb404g31FNgxY6sD_500.jpg

[Samurai]

Um, about that stuff about Obama not being tough? Listen to this radio ad:

http://s4.video.blip.tv/1480004139606/Tpmtv-ObamaRadioAdVoteSameAsBush973.mp3


Yowza is right! :biggrin:

Yep, he sure is taking the high road, no attack ads or mud-slinging for Obama! Yeah, right... another flip flop.

But if McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's 2nd...

[the4thpip]

McCain is flip-flopping on a constructionist view of the constitution:

At the end of a pretty stressful week for John McCain, he's now being told by a constitutional scholar from his own state that he may not eligible for the presidency in the first place.

Professor Gabriel J. Chin of the University of Arizona wrote the analysis suggesting that McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was on active military duty qualified him as a citizen under a law later enacted by Congress, but didn't make him a "natural-born citizen," which is what the Constitution requires for the presidency.

This issue has been kicking around constitutional circles for a while, and Chin's opinion is decidedly a minority view. Indeed, earlier this year "the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation's founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country."

That's almost certainly true. But it may be a tougher argument for McCain to make now that he's devoted to "strict constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution.

After all, if you start messing with the language of the Founders, next thing you know, you've got a constitutional right to privacy, and we can't have that, eh?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

:biggrin:

[Crowley]

Yep, he sure is taking the high road, no attack ads or mud-slinging for Obama! Yeah, right... another flip flop.

But if McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's 2nd...

Since when is addressing the issues and citing sources to back up your points mudslinging?
He didn't go personal... he attacked the issue.

That's the high road Sam. I know it's hard for you to see since you've been slinging the "he's a Muslim with a crazy priest who's a racist commie and hates America" bullshit for so long.

[Samurai]

Since when is addressing the issues and citing sources to back up your points mudslinging?
He didn't go personal... he attacked the issue.

That's the high road Sam. I know it's hard for you to see since you've been slinging the "he's a Muslim with a crazy priest who's a racist commie and hates America" bullshit for so long.

Riiiight... calling him "McSame-as-Bush" isn't an attack ad, no, of course not... real mature Obama. :rolleyes:

[FalconX2000]

Riiiight... calling him "McSame-as-Bush" isn't an attack ad, no, of course not... real mature Obama. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see when he said "McSame as Bush". Give me a source.

Obama has stated that McCain is offering 4 more years of Bush's economic and Iraq/terrorism policies. That is a fair and issue based accusation, which is what the high road entails.

The closest Obama has gotten to a low road smear is when he said Hillary Clinton had 'internalised' Washington politics and learnt the wrong lessons from the 90s.

[rick]

Yep, he sure is taking the high road, no attack ads or mud-slinging for Obama! Yeah, right... another flip flop.

But if McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's 2nd...

Sam I don't expect you to agree, but it's a little hard to take you calling this an attack ad seriously when by far the bulk of the ad is taken up by debunking McCains attacks against Obama.

[rick]

Riiiight... calling him "McSame-as-Bush" isn't an attack ad, no, of course not... real mature Obama. :rolleyes:


But wait a minute there Sam, I thought that for you right-wing types, being compared to your hero George Bush would be a compliment.

[KevinTBrown]

I'd like to see when he said "McSame as Bush". Give me a source.

Obama has stated that McCain is offering 4 more years of Bush's economic and Iraq/terrorism policies. That is a fair and issue based accusation, which is what the high road entails.

The closest Obama has gotten to a low road smear is when he said Hillary Clinton had 'internalised' Washington politics and learnt the wrong lessons from the 90s.

Well Obama did NOT say it, but he did endorse a radio commercial in which an actor said it.

Samurai likes to play "fast & loose" with the facts. Pretty much like McCain when he starts to make up things...

Like here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/errors_en_espantildeol.html

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_false_accusation_about_energy.html


I love this site: http://www.factcheck.org/ It's unbiased and points out everything. Including Obama;s missteps along the way. But, so far, McCain is out-doing Obama in that one respect.

[FalconX2000]

Well Obama did NOT say it, but he did endorse a radio commercial in which an actor said it.

Samurai likes to play "fast & loose" with the facts. Pretty much like McCain when he starts to make up things...

Like here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/errors_en_espantildeol.html

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_false_accusation_about_energy.html


I love this site: http://www.factcheck.org/ It's unbiased and points out everything. Including Obama;s missteps along the way. But, so far, McCain is out-doing Obama in that one respect.

It took "nation of whiners" from perhaps McCain's closest and most prominent economic adviser for most of the media to stick it to McCain for more than a single day on any gaff.

I can't believe he's getting away with taking credit for the GI Bill...even MSNBC has relegated it to side story material.

[Nick Soapdish]

Oh I looooove this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html


Does anyone, other than Sam or Bri, truly believe it was "an honest mistake"? Something as KEY as that he forgets it???

I'm afraid that I'm with Typo. It's a nothing issue.

I'm not that bothered by the divorce either. The timing is poor, but that's about all.

Stick with his multiple stances on issues, such as trying to take credit for the GI Bill.

[kingdom2000]

McCain re-imagines (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/index.html) his POW experience for the Pittsburgh crowd:

Countdown guest host Rachel Maddow (and again, I ask, why does this woman not have her own show?) and Newsweek’s Richard Wolff don’t get trapped in the weeds of John McCain’s truthiness over his bizarre assertion in an interview that he recited the Steeler offensive line-up when asked about his Vietnamese captors for the names of his squadron when all his past recountings of this story (including his published memoirs and a TV movie based on the same), it was the Packers’ line-up. Instead, they discuss whether this compulsive and near constant exploitation of his POW days during his campaign ends up diminishing the experience and inuring his audience to it.

MADDOW: The McCain campaign is claiming that the Steeler story is an honest mistake. One of many, it would seem. So our choices here appear to be a) Sen. McCain’s memory is so bad that he can no longer be counted on to remember much of anything; or b) he will say pretty much anything to be President, even pander on the very issue that’s supposed to define him: the years he spent in a prisoner of war camp. Which one of those options is politically palatable here?


I have to go with Maddow on this. If its an "honest mistake" its a pretty damn bad mistake that doesn't bode well for McCain's capability as President. When a guy starts forgetting aspects of his life defining experience then those are some real concerns that voters should consider. Or he has taken this life defining moment and decided its so whatever (therefore insulting other POWs to me) that it can be molded so that story has maximum benefit to him. Considering the real man, one willing to do anything and everything to win, that has come out over the years I think the latter is more likely.

And looking at his behavior over the last decade, I still maintain that McCain caved to his captors and revealed secrets (not that I would blame him but his career isn't built on that). I think his "war hero" status is mostly a myth he has perpetuated for his political career. Without that myth he probably wouldn't be anyone of consequence.

[AllisterH]

Not that in any way the fact that his now crippled wife wasn't hot any more, whereas Cindy was stacked, had piles of cash, and could advance his career.

Yeah, but given that McCain was probably psychologically crippled by being a POW (and I doubt even you would disagree with that Paul), I honestly dont think he had the mindframe to deal with a crippled wife.

[beetlebum]

I understand your sentiment, however, I don't think one needs to get unduly worked up by the FISA bill.

First off, expect Bush to hand out pardons like popsicles before he leaves office, especially to those who aided and abetted torture. He would doubtlessly hand out pardons to the telecom companies if this version of FISA didn't pass.

Second, going along with the majority on this robs the GOP of ammunition against Obama and any Democrat who voted for it. This may indeed be a compromise, put politics is the art of the possible.

Finally, the way to fix this situation is not to punish those who have done it in the past but to make it more difficult for others to do it in the future. I'd like to see the Democrats close some loopholes that both presidents Clinton and Bush pried open.

A bit late.....

But I'm quoting this because I agree with what Buzz says.

[Nick Soapdish]

McCain re-imagines (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/index.html) his POW experience for the Pittsburgh crowd:

Countdown guest host Rachel Maddow (and again, I ask, why does this woman not have her own show?) and Newsweek’s Richard Wolff don’t get trapped in the weeds of John McCain’s truthiness over his bizarre assertion in an interview that he recited the Steeler offensive line-up when asked about his Vietnamese captors for the names of his squadron when all his past recountings of this story (including his published memoirs and a TV movie based on the same), it was the Packers’ line-up. Instead, they discuss whether this compulsive and near constant exploitation of his POW days during his campaign ends up diminishing the experience and inuring his audience to it.

MADDOW: The McCain campaign is claiming that the Steeler story is an honest mistake. One of many, it would seem. So our choices here appear to be a) Sen. McCain’s memory is so bad that he can no longer be counted on to remember much of anything; or b) he will say pretty much anything to be President, even pander on the very issue that’s supposed to define him: the years he spent in a prisoner of war camp. Which one of those options is politically palatable here?


I have to go with Maddow on this. If its an "honest mistake" its a pretty damn bad mistake that doesn't bode well for McCain's capability as President. When a guy starts forgetting aspects of his life defining experience then those are some real concerns that voters should consider. Or he has taken this life defining moment and decided its so whatever (therefore insulting other POWs to me) that it can be molded so that story has maximum benefit to him. Considering the real man, one willing to do anything and everything to win, that has come out over the years I think the latter is more likely.

And looking at his behavior over the last decade, I still maintain that McCain caved to his captors and revealed secrets (not that I would blame him but his career isn't built on that). I think his "war hero" status is mostly a myth he has perpetuated for his political career. Without that myth he probably wouldn't be anyone of consequence.

I doubt that he gave any secrets.

I wouldn't be surprised if he would have to avoid further torture - I think anybody would have - but I don't think he knew anything.

It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't recall the details of that captivity all that well. He's probably been trying his best not to remember it for the last three decades.

There are plenty of things to pick on McCain about. Don't waste time on the meaningless stuff. Stick with that behavior of the last decade or so. I think that's the most telling about how he'll be as a president and I think there are plenty of reasons there that he shouldn't be president.

I know Paul doesn't like the term flip-flop. It doesn't distinguish between earnest changes of opinion or changes of the situation. But I think it really does apply for a bunch of McCain's positions.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, but given that McCain was probably psychologically crippled by being a POW (and I doubt even you would disagree with that Paul), I honestly dont think he had the mindframe to deal with a crippled wife.

And I've had to throw a marriage overboard myself, so I've got no room to talk. And he does seem to have taken care of her on the back end.

Nevertheless, and I'm speaking personally here, I find something creepy about just McCain's approach to the careerist marriage, which fits alongside people like Gingrich in my mind. To me, it speaks of a kind of utilitarian view of relationships.

I understand why traditionalists are bothered by the Clinton/Hart school of hounddoggery; and I'm bothered the same way by the trophy/career wife people.

[Paul McEnery]

I know Paul doesn't like the term flip-flop. It doesn't distinguish between earnest changes of opinion or changes of the situation. But I think it really does apply for a bunch of McCain's positions.

Well, one thing that bothers me there is that we should be talking about goal-oriented pragmatics, but instead we're talking about ideological purity as a mark of character. And that's the kind of talk we get out of Stalin's show trials. So I reckon the mere use of the word throws us unwittingly into authoritarian territory before we even consider the issues and the facts on the ground. And that, even more than the childish word, infantilises the voter.

What we should be asking ourselves is what our own personal goals are for the country, in both the long and the short term; what the goals are of the available candidates; and which are the best fit. Everyone has an agenda. It's a peculiar feature of American democracy that our politicians do their best to hide their agendas, instead of talking them up openly and getting the country to think about it.

[Charles RB]

Well, one thing that bothers me there is that we should be talking about goal-oriented pragmatics, but instead we're talking about ideological purity as a mark of character.

I did wonder that when it was the big bludgeon against Kerry - when did changing your mind in the face of new facts become a bad thing? Doesn't everyone complain when the government doesn't change its mind when it's doing something that doesn't work?

[king mob]

The Democratic presidential candidate is due to visit London as part of a major foreign tour of Europe and the Middle East but he has been unable to finalise his itinerary, leaving the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition dangling.

Downing Street officials are relaxed about the scheduling problems and say the government has made clear they are happy to accommodate the White House frontrunner whenever he can fit them in. The Tory leader, who has previously forged links with John McCain, Mr Obama's Republican rival, is understood to be equally keen.

Mr Obama is expected to spend less than half a day in Britain, sometime between July 24 and 28, in contrast to Germany, where the candidate plans to emulate John F. Kennedy by delivering what he hopes will be seen as an historic speech - in this case, designed to repair the transatlantic alliance strained by the Iraq War.
A British official with knowledge of the discussions said: "It will be only a short visit to the UK. He has bigger logistical problems with the other legs of the trip. We're happy to be flexible. We're not the main event."

The centrepiece of the trip will be visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, where Mr Obama has not been for more than two years - a fact that has laid him open to criticism from Mr McCain. He will also visit France, Israel and Jordan.

The Prime Minister is expected to have some tough questions for Mr Obama about his intentions as president after the nominee admitted that he is set to "refine" his policy over Iraq.

Foreign Office analysts have found Mr Obama difficult to pin down on a range of issues. One official said: "From our side they will try to tease out what he will actually do if he becomes president. You can read the speeches and the analysis but no one really knows what he believes, what is most important to him. It's a chance to hear from him directly."

Number 10 and the Foreign Office is particularly keen to known how determined Mr Obama is to renegotiate free trade arrangements, a popular move among less well off voters in the US, who blame job losses on foreign competition, but are anathema to European leaders.

They also want to know his views on the Middle East peace process, where his early campaign coolness has recently morphed into being what one official described as "more Israeli than the Israelis" - part of what many take to be a bid for the Jewish vote at home.

The biggest flashpoint could be Iran, where British, French and European diplomats, who have been negotiating with the Islamic regime for five years over its nuclear programme, have been irritated by Mr Obama's suggestion that he would bypass those talks in favour of direct negotiations with Tehran.

Some believe that he has a naïve approach to foreign policy - the same charge made against him by his domestic critics, and exactly the image that Mr Obama hopes his trip will dispel.

A Foreign Office official in London said: "There is a slight tendency for him to say stuff that is wildly optimistic, like pulling lots of troops out of Iraq quickly or talking to Iran.

"A lot of brainy people have been trying for several years to achieve exactly what he says he wants to do. It's not that easy. He has never negotiated with the Iranians and seen how duplicitous they can be. If anything people in Europe are now leaning more towards the stick than the carrot with Iran."

Mr Obama has endured flak in the US after calling for unconditional talks with Iran. One of his foreign policy advisers - who was not able to talk on the record - admitted that Mr Obama knows some Europeans believe his this could undermine current diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to surrender its nuclear programme.

The adviser said: "I'm sure he will want to learn from the expertise of the E3 [Britain, France and Germany]. He will do a lot of listening."

He said that Mr Obama would use the trip to strike a practical working relationship with Mr Brown, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in the hope that they will support changes in US foreign policy in the first months of his presidency.

"If he wins he's going to have a short period in which he can reshape American foreign policy," the adviser said, adding that Mr Obama will try to reduce expectations sparked by the Obamamania that has swept Europe and stress that he will need help to put the US on a new course.

"He's not a miracle worker, but there is an opportunity to make changes and he'll need their cooperation. That's what he'll want to get across."

The adviser added: "He wants to learn about countries that are vital to our alliances. He wants to understand the domestic pressures on the leaders. It's important to know what people are facing when you're asking them to help you. That understanding has been lacking under the Bush administration.

"He's also going to be hard headed on Afghanistan. That is where we will need more help from Europe."

Mr Obama is expected to put pressure on Germany in particular, which does not let its troops fight offensive operations, to commit fully to the Afghan war.

A British official involved in the planning of the visit to London to talk to Mr Brown told The Sunday Telegraph: "It will be a significant meeting but it's not going to involve major policy discussions. It's part of the process of getting to know each other."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2298381/Gordon-Brown-and-David-Cameron-prioritise-Barack-Obama.html

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25657232/

Great stuff from Obama to his press corp.

Veepstakes

Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed will be the only 2 high level government people accompanying Barack Obama on his trip to Iraq.

Chuck, who is my personal co-favourite besides Joe Biden for VP, just saw his stock rise me thinks.:biggrin:

[KevinTBrown]

And now the New Yorker is in trouble because of its upcoming issue:

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1024117

You think if they're going to do a parody on the cover, they'd make damn sure it was well known.

[Buzz Dixon]

re the FISA bill: I just lifted this off Mark Evanier's NewsFromMe.com site.

"Remember the good ol' days
when our government was either so virtuous or
so competent at not getting caught
that it didn't need retroactive immunity
for anything it had done?"

[FalconX2000]

re the FISA bill: I just lifted this off Mark Evanier's NewsFromMe.com site.

"Remember the good ol' days
when our government was either so virtuous or
so competent at not getting caught
that it didn't need retroactive immunity
for anything it had done?"

Nice. :biggrin: It's all relative. The information age is now. The internet didn't exist 30 years ago, and TV wasn't that widespread 60 years ago. It was easy to cover up back then. Who knows what great scandals happened in the 19th century?



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/14/cell_phone/

An interesting article showing how current polling methods are leaving out the growing number of people who have cell phones but no land line, a demographic likely to trend Obama.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-schwarzen.html

Schwarzenegger would be open to working in an Obama cabinet. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[KevinTBrown]

So, is McCain too old?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_age



http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/feeltheexcitement-300x251.jpg

[RachelEvil]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-schwarzen.html

Schwarzenegger would be open to working in an Obama cabinet. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Secretary of Cyborg and Barbarian Relations?

[Mr.EZ]

First off, expect Bush to hand out pardons like popsicles before he leaves office, especially to those who aided and abetted torture. He would doubtlessly hand out pardons to the telecom companies if this version of FISA didn't pass.

Provided he can't pardon himself, his staff and Cheney, I'll be almost ok with it. I'm really looking forward to those trials after Obama has them charged with treason and war profiterring.

[KevinTBrown]

Provided he can't pardon himself, his staff and Cheney, I'll be almost ok with it. I'm really looking forward to those trials after Obama has them charged with treason and war profiterring.

One can hope that he does indeed have them charged...... Odds are he won't though.

[Infra-Man]

The latest cover the The New Yorker ruffles some feathers. Though meant to be a satirical take on the misinformation surrounding Obama, the fear is that it will lend credence to the misinformation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/obama.cover/

The cover in question:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/newyorkercover220.jpg

[Buzz Dixon]

Provided he can't pardon himself, his staff and Cheney, I'll be almost ok with it. I'm really looking forward to those trials after Obama has them charged with treason and war profiterring.The President can pardon anyone and everyone for any crime, known or unknown, committed in U.S. jurisdiction. What has not been determined is if the President can issue a pardon for him/herself, if a pardon issued to cover up a crime in which the President is a co-conspirator is valid, or if the act of issuing and/or accepting a pardon with the intent of thwarting justice is a treasonable act.

[FalconX2000]

Provided he can't pardon himself, his staff and Cheney, I'll be almost ok with it. I'm really looking forward to those trials after Obama has them charged with treason and war profiterring.

One can hope that he does indeed have them charged...... Odds are he won't though.

I'm inclined to agree with Kevin. Obama has stated before in his books that, despite how others in his circle may try to convince him otherwise, he believes Bush and his cohorts believe what they are doing is good for America. He also thinks they're incompetent authoritarians, but there's that.

Combine that with the image he tries to project and the urgent priorities he has, I very much doubt he would charge Bush and co. with anything. I don't think he would stand in the way if Kucinich pushed through his impeachment charges, but he wouldn't spend political capital on it till it reached his desk.

So, is McCain too old?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_age



http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/feeltheexcitement-300x251.jpg

Ha!:biggrin: Nice.

[TCJohnson]

I'd like to see when he said "McSame as Bush". Give me a source.


There have been ads from The Campaign to Defend America saying that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ

THe CDA is a 501(c)(4) group and the ad was not endorsed by Obama.

[KevinTBrown]

There have been ads from The Campaign to Defend America saying that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ

THe CDA is a 501(c)(4) group and the ad was not endorsed by Obama.

So why does it bother Republicans that McCain is being compared to Bush? To them, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

[KevinTBrown]

Obama comments about Afghanistan and the need to increase troop support there: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_afghanistan

McCain's campaign's response: "Republican John McCain's presidential campaign said the Arizona senator will be speaking about his plan for Afghanistan on Thursday. His advisers declined to say whether he agreed with Obama's Afghanistan proposal before the speech."

Translation: Republican John McCain's presidential campaign said the Arizona senator has no clue as to what he's going to do yet because he had no plans. It wasn't until today that the presumptive Republican nominee knew Afghan was actually a country, he thought it was his blankie. His advisers declined to say whether they'll take the best of Obama's plan as their own in order to make McCain appear to be less addle-brained than normal.

[Samurai]

So why does it bother Republicans that McCain is being compared to Bush? To them, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

1) No, it isn't because many Republicans aren't all that fond of Pres. Bush, 2) we know it's actually being done to "scare people" in the typical politics of fear that the Dems always play, and 3) McCain has long been one of the biggest detractors and opponents of Bush in the Republican party. They agree on several issues (amnesty, leaving Iraq a stable country), but they disagree on methods and stances for many other issues, and claiming they are the same is ridiculously simplified, erroneous, and an attempt to "put Bush on the 2008 ticket to run against" when in fact, Bush isn't running in '08, one of his oldest opponents is (pun intended).

[Samurai]

I'd like to see when he said "McSame as Bush". Give me a source.


Try actually listening to the ad we were discussing, which is endorsed by Obama. And I didn't say Obama personally said it, the actor working for him, and personally endorsed by him, said it.

[KevinTBrown]

Try actually listening to the ad we were discussing, which is endorsed by Obama. And I didn't say Obama personally said it, the actor working for him, and personally endorsed by him, said it.

You never mentioned anything about an actor. Here's exactly what you said:

Riiiight... calling him "McSame-as-Bush" isn't an attack ad, no, of course not... real mature Obama. :rolleyes:

By saying, "real mature Obama," you're blantantly saying Obama made the comment.



So do you want to back-pedal now or just ignore this (as you tend to do when you get caught)?

[Samurai]

You never mentioned anything about an actor. Here's exactly what you said:



By saying, "real mature Obama," you're blantantly saying Obama made the comment.



So do you want to back-pedal now or just ignore this (as you tend to do when you get caught)?

He disputed it was an attack ad.

I quoted the attack ad, proving it included childish school-yard name calling, ie: "McSame as Bush".

The attack ad is followed by Obama, in his own voice, saying "I approve this ad."

He is therefore responsible for its content, even if a paid actor said it instead of him.

Nowhere did I claim Obama himself spoke the words "McSame as Bush", just that an attack ad he was responsible for and approved did.

Just what about that is unclear to you?

[beetlebum]

The latest cover the The New Yorker ruffles some feathers. Though meant to be a satirical take on the misinformation surrounding Obama, the fear is that it will lend credence to the misinformation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/obama.cover/

The cover in question:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/newyorkercover220.jpg

I understand the intent behind it, but still; it was kind of tacky.

[KevinTBrown]

He disputed it was an attack ad.

I quoted the attack ad, proving it included childish school-yard name calling, ie: "McSame as Bush".

The attack ad is followed by Obama, in his own voice, saying "I approve this ad."

He is therefore responsible for its content, even if a paid actor said it instead of him.

Nowhere did I claim Obama himself spoke the words "McSame as Bush", just that an attack ad he was responsible for and approved did.

Just what about that is unclear to you?


Once again, you said, "real mature Obama."

If you had instead said, "real mature Obama for approving such an ad," you'd have an argument.

You didn't.

[Sabrinaset]

So why does it bother Republicans that McCain is being compared to Bush? To them, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

Well, if it were, I would still be a Republican, I guess! :eek:

Samurai is right about a lot of Republicans not being all that happy with Bush, and a lot of people like me left because of him. Those who remained are certainly aware of that fact, and know that comparing McCain to Bush is only gunna drive us even FURTHER away, because Bush, among other things, drove us away in the first place... and McCain needs those votes. I doubt he'll get many of them though, the only way he's getting mine is if Obama does a crash and burn of Biblical proportions... which I kinda doubt will happen.

[Infra-Man]

I understand the intent behind it, but still; it was kind of tacky.

I actually think it's a pretty funny cover, and that it wouldn't have caused an uproar if it was a political cartoon within the magazine. It's the cover of The New Yorker, so the intent of the image is obviously satire.

The problem with satire, though, is that too many people are too stupid to distinguish truth from satire.

[Tommy]

McCain's against gay adoption (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics)

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes.

It is nice to know that he'd rather have children have NO parents than ones that love him.

I loath the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[section 8]

McCain's against gay adoption (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics)



It is nice to know that he'd rather have children have NO parents than ones that love him.

I loath the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

Congats Tommy, you are the first person to ever give me a real reason to vote Obama.

[beetlebum]

I actually think it's a pretty funny cover, and that it wouldn't have caused an uproar if it was a political cartoon within the magazine. It's the cover of The New Yorker, so the intent of the image is obviously satire.

The problem with satire, though, is that too many people are too stupid to distinguish truth from satire.

You don't think I'm one of them, do ya? :tongue:

Thus explains why some made a big fuss over it.

As for me, even though I still think it's a bit tacky--I don't think that it's that big of a deal, as some are trying to make it out to be.

[Tommy]

Congats Tommy, you are the first person to ever give me a real reason to vote Obama.

I'm too busy trying to figure out how a child with no parents could be considered a more successful family than a child with one or two?:confused:

[section 8]

The problem with satire, though, is that too many people are too stupid to distinguish truth from satire.

Many of them on YABS

Or maybe my satire just isn't funny.

[Infra-Man]

You don't think I'm one of them, do ya? :tongue:

Thus explains why some made a big fuss over it.

As for me, even though I still think it's a bit tacky--I don't think that it's that big of a deal, as some are trying to make it out to be.

Not at all, doll.

I will say that it'll be interesting to see if and how the image becomes appropriated by Obama's detractors as the election draws near.


Many of them on YABS

Or maybe my satire just isn't funny.

The latter, and it's also poorly constructed :tongue:

I keed, I keed

[Michael P]

I think it's funny. But most Americans wouldn't know satire if it pointed up the absurdity of their foibles in a dry, humorous manner.

[section 8]

The latter, and it's also poorly constructed :tongue:

I keed, I keed

Wait a damned minute .... no nevermind you're right.

[Sabrinaset]

You don't think I'm one of them, do ya? :tongue:

Thus explains why some made a big fuss over it.

As for me, even though I still think it's a bit tacky--I don't think that it's that big of a deal, as some are trying to make it out to be.

It's not that it's tacky, so much as it kinda misses the mark.

[Buzz Dixon]

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should [be] a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes.

McCain's against gay adoption (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics)



It is nice to know that he'd rather have children have NO parents than ones that love him.

I loath the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.I'm reading the exchange very carefully, and while I do see McCain saying he prefers they be adopted by traditional heterosexual couples, I don't see him saying he'd rather children have no parents at all as opposed to be adopted by homosexual couples and/or single individuals of any orientation.

I don't know what he really feels or believes; this exchange is too imprecise to draw a firm conclusion.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm reading the exchange very carefully, and while I do see McCain saying he prefers they be adopted by traditional heterosexual couples, I don't see him saying he'd rather children have no parents at all as opposed to be adopted by homosexual couples and/or single individuals of any orientation.

I don't know what he really feels or believes; this exchange is too imprecise to draw a firm conclusion.

Oooh, yeah it is. It couldn't be more clear if he yelled at the top of his voice "get your fag hands off America's kids".

[Samurai]

McCain's against gay adoption (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics)



It is nice to know that he'd rather have children have NO parents than ones that love him.

I loath the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I'm too busy trying to figure out how a child with no parents could be considered a more successful family than a child with one or two?:confused:

Actually, when asked if that means he'd rather they remain in the orphanage, he says no, he believes in and encourages adoption. He'd just prefer if it were a mom AND a dad instead of only 1 parent or 2 of the same kind. Which is directly contradictory to what you claim he believes... which is why you are having trouble figuring it out.

[BnL]

Actually, when asked if that means he'd rather they remain in the orphanage, he says no, he believes in and encourages adoption. He'd just prefer if it were a mom AND a dad instead of only 1 parent or 2 of the same kind. Which is directly contradictory to what you claim he believes... which is why you are having trouble figuring it out.

Wrong. The question was, "President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?" McCain answered that he does not believe in gay adoption. Meaning, he agrees with Bush that gays should not be allowed to adopt.

He said nothing about PREFERRING heterosexual couples adopting, as you claim. When questioned further about whether he would prefer children remain in orphanages than be adopted by a gay couple, what he DID say was that he wanted to address that problem by making adoption easier for heterosexual couples. This is confirmed by the interviewer's follow up question.

Nice try though, Sam.

[section 8]

Ok i have a serious question.

First before someone misunderstands my meaning,. let me say now ( as i have before ) i am FOR gay couples being parents

That said How do couples of the same gender get around the "Mom" "Dad" thing?
what do their kids call them? or how do they distinguish between the two?

Again serious question.

[Buzz Dixon]

Oooh, yeah it is. It couldn't be more clear if he yelled at the top of his voice "get your fag hands off America's kids".I'm sure he's not in favor of it, but I don't see where he says it shouldn't be allowed.

I'm not in favor broccoli, but that doesn't mean I want it banned.

[BnL]

Ok i have a serious question.

First before someone misunderstands my meaning,. let me say now ( as i have before ) i am FOR gay couples being parents

That said How do couples of the same gender get around the "Mom" "Dad" thing?
what do their kids call them? or how do they distinguish between the two?

Again serious question.

It's different for every family. Usually, different euphemisms for "father" (for male couples) and "mother" (for female couples) are used. For example, gay male parents might be referred to by their children as Daddy and Papa.

[Buzz Dixon]

Ok i have a serious question.

First before someone misunderstands my meaning,. let me say now ( as i have before ) i am FOR gay couples being parents

That said How do couples of the same gender get around the "Mom" "Dad" thing?
what do their kids call them? or how do they distinguish between the two?

Again serious question.We have a friend of is part of a gay couple that has adopted three kids. He was once telling us a story where the kids came running into the house to get him and his partner's attention yelling, "Dads! Dads!"

[section 8]

It's different for every family. Usually, different euphemisms for "father" (for male couples) and "mother" (for female couples) are used. For example, gay male parents might be referred to by their children as Daddy and Papa.

That's pretty clever. i like it.

[Tommy]

I'm reading the exchange very carefully, and while I do see McCain saying he prefers they be adopted by traditional heterosexual couples, I don't see him saying he'd rather children have no parents at all as opposed to be adopted by homosexual couples and/or single individuals of any orientation.

I don't know what he really feels or believes; this exchange is too imprecise to draw a firm conclusion.

Actually, when asked if that means he'd rather they remain in the orphanage, he says no, he believes in and encourages adoption. He'd just prefer if it were a mom AND a dad instead of only 1 parent or 2 of the same kind. Which is directly contradictory to what you claim he believes... which is why you are having trouble figuring it out.

He says he is NOT in favor of gay adoption bluntly.

When asked about it more in depth, rather than answering the question asked he instead says he is pro-adoption.

And then he affirms that he is against gay adoption.

So yes, he'd rather see kids in orphanages than with gay couples.

[Buzz Dixon]

Wrong. The question was, "President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?" McCain answered that he does not believe in gay adoption. Meaning, he agrees with Bush that gays should not be allowed to adopt.

He said nothing about PREFERRING heterosexual couples adopting, as you claim. When questioned further about whether he would prefer children remain in orphanages than be adopted by a gay couple, what he DID say was that he wanted to address that problem by making adoption easier for heterosexual couples. This is confirmed by the interviewer's follow up question.

Nice try though, Sam.Here's the exchange again.
Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted(1) to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in(2) gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative(3) is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.(4)

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should [be](5) a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes. Okay, I'm putting my editor's cap on now...

(1) Mr. Bush takes the permission that gays should be prevented from adopting children.

(2) Mr. McCain does not believe gays should adopt children. However, he does not come straight out and say they must be prevented from doing so.

(3) The interviewer presents Mr. McCain with a choice of two options...

(4) ...and Mr. McCain doesn't make a choice, preferring to skirt the issue.

(5) "Should" offers an option. It indicates something is preferred, but not mandatory. If the interviewer wished to ask if adoption be restricted to heterosexual couples, he would have said "must" or "ought".

[Spike-X]

The latest cover the The New Yorker ruffles some feathers. Though meant to be a satirical take on the misinformation surrounding Obama, the fear is that it will lend credence to the misinformation.

...because people are fucking stupid.


Seriously. I'm a high school dropout on the other side of the world, and I immediately got what they were doing there. It really can't be that hard to figure out.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm sure he's not in favor of it, but I don't see where he says it shouldn't be allowed.

I'm not in favor broccoli, but that doesn't mean I want it banned.

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should [be] a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes.

That's absolutely categorical.

Also, he's a lying sack of shit, because it's actually been proved that, no, it doesn't make a lick of difference if you've got two gay men, one man and one woman, or two lesbians as parents.

Oh wait, that makes him more than a lying sack of shit. It makes him a bigoted lying sack of shit whose prejudice means that he dismisses the facts.

[Paul McEnery]

...because people are fucking stupid.


Seriously. I'm a high school dropout on the other side of the world, and I immediately got what they were doing there. It really can't be that hard to figure out.

You can see what they were doing, but still, it's so poorly achieved that instead of mocking that thought, it feels like more of the same.

[Paul McEnery]

Here's the exchange again.
Okay, I'm putting my editor's cap on now...

(1) Mr. Bush takes the permission that gays should be prevented from adopting children.

(2) Mr. McCain does not believe gays should adopt children. However, he does not come straight out and say they must be prevented from doing so.

In the context, there is no other meaning one could take from it. If I were to say "I don't believe in the death penalty", you would take my meaning instantly.


(5) "Should" offers an option. It indicates something is preferred, but not mandatory. If the interviewer wished to ask if adoption be restricted to heterosexual couples, he would have said "must" or "ought".

Not so much. Should can in fact mean "must" or "ought".

But even if McCain didn't mean to ban gay adoption...

TIME OUT! "Gay adoption" is a demeaning term because it implies that the adoption itself would somehow be "gay" because there are gay prospective parents; and never mind that there is no difference at all between a partnership between gay people or straight people or bi people or asexual people or shoe fetishist people insofar as raising children is concerned because sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with child-rearing skills.

But even if McCain didn't mean to ban gay adoption, and it's clear to me he would, then he is at least saying that gay couples should be discriminated against.

And that's not acceptable either.

[Michael P]

I would prefer if Alyson Hannigan were sleeping with me instead of Alexis Denisof. But I don't think there should be a law to that effect.

[BnL]

In the context, there is no other meaning one could take from it. If I were to say "I don't believe in the death penalty", you would take my meaning instantly.

No, it doesn't. Should does in fact mean "must" or "ought".

Were it to be an option, the word would be "would".

Yyyyyyep.

And even if you choose to believe that McCain is just being evasive and implying that he is opposed to gay adoption solely for political reasons, it doesn't matter. The effect is the same as if it were his genuine belief. Either way, he's going to stand in opposition to gay adoption.

[Paul McEnery]

I would prefer if Alyson Hannigan were sleeping with me instead of Alexis Denisof. But I don't think there should be a law to that effect.

If you were presented with a law that meant Alyson Hannigan would have to sleep with you, you would sooooo sign it.









Although from some of your bitter muttering, I think you might settle for Alexis! :tongue:

[BnL]

I would prefer if Alyson Hannigan were sleeping with me instead of Alexis Denisof. But I don't think there should be a law to that effect.

That's a completely meaningless and disingenuous comparison. You are not a candidate for President of the United States. And that isn't a heated political issue on which your base of supporters have an adamant stance, and are expecting you to take clear and decisive action on.

[Michael P]

That's a completely meaningless and disingenuous comparison. You are not a candidate for President of the United States. And that isn't a heated political issue on which your base of supporters have an adamant stance, and are expecting you to take clear and decisive action on.

Actually, my point was that, unlike McCain, I can distinguish from the way I think things ought to be and measures that ought to be law.

[Samurai]

Actually, my point was that, unlike McCain, I can distinguish from the way I think things ought to be and measures that ought to be law.

And where is your proof that McCain believes all things he prefers MUST be made into law?

[Paul McEnery]

What is the sound of the splitting of a bald man's hair?

[Corrina]

...because people are fucking stupid.


Seriously. I'm a high school dropout on the other side of the world, and I immediately got what they were doing there. It really can't be that hard to figure out.

The thing with covers, though, is that they're without context. They're supposed to be eye-catching--they want people far away to see it and come closer. But without coming closer, the context can't be seen.

And if you're at a newstand, glancing over at the cover, it's not stupid to think that the New Yorker is making fun of Obama rather than making fun of the people making fun/slamming Obama.

Basically, the cover is out there without context, to a lot of eyes.

[BnL]

Actually, my point was that, unlike McCain, I can distinguish from the way I think things ought to be and measures that ought to be law.

Ah, sorry. I misread you.

[Buzz Dixon]

In the context, there is no other meaning one could take from it. If I were to say "I don't believe in the death penalty", you would take my meaning instantly.I have lots of friends who don't believe in the death penalty yet don't make any effort to overturn it by writing their representatives, supporting anti-death penalty groups, etc."Gay adoption" is a demeaning term because it implies that the adoption itself would somehow be "gay"Point taken, though I do know of an example where it was indeed a "gay" adoption in that a child with homosexual leanings was taken from an abusive home and adopted by a homosexual parent since it was felt he could better relate to the child. (And to head off at the pass any one with lurid thoughts, this was all on the up and up with court ordered supervision.) I used "gay adoption" as shorthand for "adoption by a homosexual couple".

[Spike-X]

I have lots of friends who don't believe in the death penalty yet don't make any effort to overturn it by writing their representatives, supporting anti-death penalty groups, etc.

How many of them are running for President?

And to head off at the pass any one with lurid thoughts...

Actually no, I think that was just you.

[KevinTBrown]

Things are looking good for Florida Dems: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbvoters0712sbjul12,0,7473721.story

[Paul McEnery]

I have lots of friends who don't believe in the death penalty yet don't make any effort to overturn it by writing their representatives, supporting anti-death penalty groups, etc.P

That they're not in a position to overturn it doesn't make a lot of difference. Someone who doesn't believe in the death penalty wants it to be illegal.

McCain doesn't believe in gay parents adopting children, and is a legislator, and has track on voting against gay rights. It ain't rocket science.


Point taken, though I do know of an example where it was indeed a "gay" adoption in that a child with homosexual leanings was taken from an abusive home and adopted by a homosexual parent since it was felt he could better relate to the child. (And to head off at the pass any one with lurid thoughts, this was all on the up and up with court ordered supervision.) I used "gay adoption" as shorthand for "adoption by a homosexual couple".

Oh, I know you meant nothing by it. But the people who coined the phrase certainly did. The thing is, to even use the phrase at all is to discriminate. If you break it down to the true state of affairs, one is saying: do you think the state should discriminate against gay couples who wish to adopt?

At that point, the issue is clear, and we're just facing straightforward irrational prejudice.

The same straightforward irrational prejudice that informs McCain's voting record.

[Nick Soapdish]

I have lots of friends who don't believe in the death penalty yet don't make any effort to overturn it by writing their representatives, supporting anti-death penalty groups, etc.

If that's all he meant, there was a much easier way to say it which would've avoided the need for subsequent evasiveness.

[beetlebum]

If we were to take McCain's statements at a denotative face value, than he simply says he does not believe that gay people should have the right to adopt.

If we were to take it the statement as connotative, than McCain could be implying something more.

Consequently, whilst theorists may find it analytically useful to distinguish connotation from denotation, in practice such meanings cannot be neatly separated. Most semioticians argue that no sign is purely denotative - or lacking connotation.

In other words? While McCain remained purposely vague on whether or not he would outlaw gay adoption; most people in a position of power will vote according to their beliefs.

If a bill that outlawed gay adoption made it to the floor of the senate, I don't see McCain voting against it.

[Paul McEnery]

In any case, given that McCain has opposed civil unions, and voted for an initiative in Arizona that gutted civil unions, for him, the issue of gay couples adopting wouldn't even arise in McCain's America. He's also said that he would consider Federal legislation overturning any individual state authorizing the marriage of gay couples.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CWAWSoQeBbQ

[Buzz Dixon]

If that's all he meant, there was a much easier way to say it which would've avoided the need for subsequent evasiveness.I'm in agreement with you insofar as far too many politicians want to have it both ways. I am tired of politicians prevacating and parsing their meanings.

Remember, if we (rhetorical) are willing to read bad things into the ambiguous statements of those we oppose, perhaps we are also reading good things into the ambiguous statements of those whom we support.

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm in agreement with you insofar as far too many politicians want to have it both ways. I am tired of politicians prevacating and parsing their meanings.

Remember, if we (rhetorical) are willing to read bad things into the ambiguous statements of those we oppose, perhaps we are also reading good things into the ambiguous statements of those whom we support.

Perhaps?

I don't think there's any question of that, but in this case, I don't think he's being all that ambiguous.

[Michael P]

The thing with covers, though, is that they're without context. They're supposed to be eye-catching--they want people far away to see it and come closer. But without coming closer, the context can't be seen.

And if you're at a newstand, glancing over at the cover, it's not stupid to think that the New Yorker is making fun of Obama rather than making fun of the people making fun/slamming Obama.

Basically, the cover is out there without context, to a lot of eyes.

I remember when people were trained to *find* the context in something they were looking at, instead of jump to conclusions.

[Paul McEnery]

I remember when people were trained to *find* the context in something they were looking at, instead of jump to conclusions.

I think the piece is intended to be thought-provoking, but I think it misfires because it's just not smart enough, just lazily recapitulating the stereotypes.

I also find that it comes from a very white point of view, which is one more reason to have thought twice about it.

Adding in the general smugness of the New Yorker -- and I do read and enjoy parts of it from time to time -- that's a bit of a thumbs down from my point of view.

[Paul McEnery]

Things are looking good for Florida Dems: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbvoters0712sbjul12,0,7473721.story

I loved this bit:

Acknowledging it's a "tough climate," Cindy Guerra said John McCain supporters shouldn't despair.

"At the end of the day people will wake up and say, 'Gosh, you know what? I would not have open-heart surgery with an intern at a hospital. I would really want that doctor who's been there and has the experience,'" said Guerra, vice chairwoman of the Broward Republican Party.

Way to play to your base, Cindy. Here's hoping they all live to the election!

[FalconX2000]

Try actually listening to the ad we were discussing, which is endorsed by Obama. And I didn't say Obama personally said it, the actor working for him, and personally endorsed by him, said it.

Sorry, since there were no quotes on your post I didn't see listen to the ad till you pointed it out. I assume you mean KevinTBrown's ad a couple of pages ago.

And who is the actor? More importantly, why would Obama endorse an actor?

On a more serious note, while nowhere near the same as Obama saying it, having one advertisement with that phrase isn't the most admirable thing, but...

He disputed it was an attack ad.

I quoted the attack ad, proving it included childish school-yard name calling, ie: "McSame as Bush".

The attack ad is followed by Obama, in his own voice, saying "I approve this ad."

He is therefore responsible for its content, even if a paid actor said it instead of him.

Nowhere did I claim Obama himself spoke the words "McSame as Bush", just that an attack ad he was responsible for and approved did.

Just what about that is unclear to you?

I very much disagree with you. The phrasing you used very clear points to anyone reading it that Obama said the phrase, not an actor in one of his ads. Given your consistent history of delibrately misleading phrasing and lying, I find it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[FalconX2000]

I'm reading the exchange very carefully, and while I do see McCain saying he prefers they be adopted by traditional heterosexual couples, I don't see him saying he'd rather children have no parents at all as opposed to be adopted by homosexual couples and/or single individuals of any orientation.

I don't know what he really feels or believes; this exchange is too imprecise to draw a firm conclusion.

I think saying "I don't believe in gay adoption" is a pretty precise position. I don't think he'd go out of his way to push a policy on it, but I think his position on the issue is clear.

Ok i have a serious question.

First before someone misunderstands my meaning,. let me say now ( as i have before ) i am FOR gay couples being parents

That said How do couples of the same gender get around the "Mom" "Dad" thing?
what do their kids call them? or how do they distinguish between the two?

Again serious question.

I half read a rather bad GW fanfic once about Quatre and Trowa...their children called them daddy and papa. Dunno if that is remotely true in real life, but there you go.

It's different for every family. Usually, different euphemisms for "father" (for male couples) and "mother" (for female couples) are used. For example, gay male parents might be referred to by their children as Daddy and Papa.

Damn, beat me to it.:biggrin:

[Spike-X]

I remember when people were trained to *find* the context in something they were looking at, instead of jump to conclusions.
Or needing every goddamn little thing spoon-fed to them.

[the4thpip]

Also, he's a lying sack of shit, because it's actually been proved that, no, it doesn't make a lick of difference if you've got two gay men, one man and one woman, or two lesbians as parents.

Oh wait, that makes him more than a lying sack of shit. It makes him a bigoted lying sack of shit whose prejudice means that he dismisses the facts.

See, it's still a lot easier to tell bigoted lies about gays than it is about pretty much any other minority group.

[Paul McEnery]

See, it's still a lot easier to tell bigoted lies about gays than it is about pretty much any other minority group.

Oh yeah? I could say anything I liked about Lithuanian-Americans, and you'd be none the wiser!

[FalconX2000]

See, it's still a lot easier to tell bigoted lies about gays than it is about pretty much any other minority group.

When I hear that we have to take seriously an effort to ban gay marraige by amending the state constitution of CALI FREAKIN FORNIA, I believe you.

[FalconX2000]

Oh yeah? I could say anything I liked about Lithuanian-Americans, and you'd be none the wiser!

It's hard to be bigoted about a demographic most people wouldn't think exists until you mention it.

[thespianphryne]

re: the whole gay parenting thing brought up earlier in the thread, I would just like to point out (like it's been pointed out by millions of other people) that I was raised by relatively well-adjusted, loving, heterosexual parents. So, it's not like the sexual orientation of one's parents has anything to do one's own orientation.


-Das

[Michael P]

re: the whole gay parenting thing brought up earlier in the thread, I would just like to point out (like it's been pointed out by millions of other people) that I was raised by relatively well-adjusted, loving, heterosexual parents. So, it's not like the sexual orientation of one's parents has anything to do one's own orientation.


-Das

Reminds me of the only part of "In and Out" that I liked. When the school board is debating whether or not to fire Kevin Kline because of rumors that he's gay, there's a cheesy "I Am Spartacus" moment where a bunch of his friends and students mock the notion that he'd "turn kids gay" by standing up and saying, "I'm his [whatever], and I'm gay." And then Wilford Brimley, playing his father, does it, and for whatever reason, that got the biggest (well, only) laugh from me in that entire movie.

[Samurai]

Sorry, since there were no quotes on your post I didn't see listen to the ad till you pointed it out. I assume you mean KevinTBrown's ad a couple of pages ago.

And who is the actor? More importantly, why would Obama endorse an actor?

On a more serious note, while nowhere near the same as Obama saying it, having one advertisement with that phrase isn't the most admirable thing, but...



I very much disagree with you. The phrasing you used very clear points to anyone reading it that Obama said the phrase, not an actor in one of his ads. Given your consistent history of delibrately misleading phrasing and lying, I find it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You probably don't understand the way election ads work in America. There are 2 kinds of ads... unofficial ads by groups that support the candidate, but are not officially endorsed by him, and official campaign ads that must include the candidate, in his own voice, either speaking the ad himself or saying after the ad, for example, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this ad."

Typically, it's the unofficial ads that are the attack ads because it gives the candidate deniability... "Yes, the ad was in support of my candidacy, but I don't approve such language and tactics, blah, blah, blah." But this was an official campaign ad, approved by Obama. He has no deniability here. Whether or not a paid actor said the lines or he did, this ad was put together by Obama's official campaign, and personally approved by Obama. Obama doesn't "endorse an actor", he approves the message in the ad, so unlike the unofficial ads, he can't say "Oh, I don't agree with using such language and tactics, we should stick to the issues and run a clean campaign, etc." This was from him and his official campaign, get it?

[Dreadstar]

Gotta back Samurai on this one. Obama implicitly endorsed the wording and message therein. It's an implicit "He speaks for me."

The thing is, is it even newsworthy? Aside from the cutesy wording, is it newsworthy that Obama is equating McCain with Bush?

Not really. Time to move on.

[Typo Lad]

I know Huffington Post has a bias, but this is interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/republican-jewish-officia_n_112708.html)

If the exchange at the end went down like that verbatim, then someone needs a kicking.

[thespianphryne]

I know Huffington Post has a bias, but this is interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/republican-jewish-officia_n_112708.html)

If the exchange at the end went down like that verbatim, then someone needs a kicking.

All I know is that there's a copy editor out there who needs a small kicking. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7185069&postcount=524)


-Das

[Typo Lad]

All I know is that there's a copy editor out there who needs a small kicking. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7185069&postcount=524)


-Das
Ooo. I utterly missed that. Good catch.

[Gilda Dent]

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

I agree with Mr. McCain on the bolded part, but his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise.

Also, the research that social conservatives like to quote so much compared children being raised by single mothers following a divorce to children being raised in intact traditional families. The research model was so problematic as to be invalid, but this is not surprising because it was conducted and designed for the purpose of proving that fathers are needed in a child's life. They didn't control for a good number of other factors, specifically income (the single mothers were more likely to be living in poverty than the intact families) the quality of the relationships (a divorce indicates that there were problems in the family to begin with), or compare the intact couples to single fathers, blended heterosexual families, or gay couples.

The studies are so badly flawed in their design that, though reliable, they're invalid on their face.

Those studies that do compare children raised by gays to those raised by straights come to the same conclusion, and that is that there are no qualitative differences among the groups. There are differences, but they're neutral in terms of quality of life both for the family as a whole and for the children.

And every major medical, psychological, and social welfare professional organization in the US has looked at the evidence and come to this conclusion. We know this for sure.

Ok i have a serious question.

First before someone misunderstands my meaning,. let me say now ( as i have before ) i am FOR gay couples being parents

That said How do couples of the same gender get around the "Mom" "Dad" thing?
what do their kids call them? or how do they distinguish between the two?

Again serious question.

Our daughter calls me "Mama" and Emily "Mommy".

[KevinTBrown]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Gotta love it.

McCain "knows how to win wars". Riiiiiiiiiiight....

He fought in VietNam. (We didn't win.)

He was a POW. (So he was "out of the war" for a portion of the war.)

And while a POW, he was tortured to the point of doing propoganda for the other side.


So, where's that "winning" part?

[Sabrinaset]

And now, for a few more news stories ...

Want Obama in a punch line? First, find a joke. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/15/america/15humor.php)

A realllly old man screws up. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/mclaughlin-takes-heat-for-oreo-comment/)

McCain rejects Obama attack on immigration. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_dc)

Obama and McCain trade attacks over Iraq. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080715103907.s5ls8dso&show_article=1)

Howard Dean to head South this week for votes. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080715/D91U8A8G5.html) Wait ... Howard Dean? This may not end well ...

[Paul McEnery]

A realllly old man screws up. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/mclaughlin-takes-heat-for-oreo-comment/)

OMFG!

I tell you, these old white guys have got some gnarly shit in their heads, and it's time for them all to move to Florida and take up golf.

So, dead pool on his career?

[Paul McEnery]

I agree with Mr. McCain on the bolded part, but his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise.

Oh no you don't. It's clear from the context that by both he means a man and a woman.

[Paul McEnery]

re: the whole gay parenting thing brought up earlier in the thread, I would just like to point out (like it's been pointed out by millions of other people) that I was raised by relatively well-adjusted, loving, heterosexual parents. So, it's not like the sexual orientation of one's parents has anything to do one's own orientation.


-Das

See, if we let people be well-adjusted and loving, their children grow up to be fags!

Terrorize everyone!

[Paul McEnery]

Ooo. I utterly missed that. Good catch.

I believe you are excused boots on that sort of thing. :biggrin:

[Sabrinaset]

OMFG!

I tell you, these old white guys have got some gnarly shit in their heads, and it's time for them all to move to Florida and take up golf.

So, dead pool on his career?


Wait a minute! You're an old white guy too! :eek:

[Paul McEnery]

I know Huffington Post has a bias, but this is interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/republican-jewish-officia_n_112708.html)

If the exchange at the end went down like that verbatim, then someone needs a kicking.

The freakish thing is that they're tarring Obama for...

Working with a Republican.

Hmm.

What is Hagel's record on Israel, btw?

[Paul McEnery]

Wait a minute! You're an old white guy too! :eek:

I still have flesh on my face, dammit. McLaughlin looks like a shrunken head!



On an entirely diversionary note, an old priest in our parish used to be a sailor in the South Pacific, and he had a box in his flat that he used to take down to, um, intrigue the young people of the parish.

Inside it was a fully-sized human head, flesh all green and pickled-looking. He'd swapped it with one of the natives for three woodbine.

I sometimes wonder how that was disposed of in the will. :biggrin:

[Michael P]

I still have flesh on my face, dammit. McLaughlin looks like a shrunken head!



On an entirely diversionary note, an old priest in our parish used to be a sailor in the South Pacific, and he had a box in his flat that he used to take down to, um, intrigue the young people of the parish.

Inside it was a fully-sized human head, flesh all green and pickled-looking. He'd swapped it with one of the natives for three woodbine.

I sometimes wonder how that was disposed of in the will. :biggrin:

"And to my cousin Simon, the anthropologist, who always thought he was smarter than me, I leave my shrunken head from the Pacific Islands... and a boot to the head."

[LtMarvel]

And now, for a few more news stories ...

Want Obama in a punch line? First, find a joke. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/15/america/15humor.php)

A realllly old man screws up. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/mclaughlin-takes-heat-for-oreo-comment/)

...
The weird part is I can see a scenerio where Obama becomes American currency...

McLaughlin shouldn't have used the "Oreo" label, even with all the qualifiers, and still asked his question.

[Adam C]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Gotta love it.

McCain "knows how to win wars". Riiiiiiiiiiight....

He fought in VietNam. (We didn't win.)

He was a POW. (So he was "out of the war" for a portion of the war.)

And while a POW, he was tortured to the point of doing propoganda for the other side.

So, where's that "winning" part?

Considering that he was only ever a bombing pilot, bringing up the failure of Vietnam strikes me as irrelevant to determining his capabilities in handling the major decisions involved in waging a war. Granted he did bring up Vietnam in support of this issue, but then the refutation to that falls down to asking how it makes him suited to win wars when he only ever held a low-level position.

Not that his foreign policy isn't a joke.

[Sabrinaset]

Considering that he was only ever a bombing pilot, bringing up the failure of Vietnam strikes me as irrelevant to determining his capabilities in handling the major decisions involved in waging a war. Granted he did bring up Vietnam in support of this issue, but then the refutation to that falls down to asking how it makes him suited to win wars when he only ever held a low-level position.

Not that his foreign policy isn't a joke.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that McCain *presumably* means that as President, he wouldn't have the same kind of bone-headed policies and even more bone-headed advisors walking about getting people getting trapped in a Hanoi Hilton for years like McCain was. Or at least that's what he's trying to sell.

[Corrina]

I think McCain is saying because he has military experience, he'll make better decisions about how to use the military.

History shows that is not necessarily so.

[Adam C]

Okay fair enough. That actually makes sense.