2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Sabrinaset]

Some white women have had their hearts ripped out and are mad as hell. Given the number of black people I know who swore they would vote for McCain if Clinton won this isn't so hard to understand. I don't care who Obama picks as a VP, but for his sake, she'd better be a liberated outspoken intelligent white woman who will legitimately share power with him.

You've convinced me, Lester! I'll accept the VP position! I hope four out of five is good enough though! :biggrin:

[section 8]

Didn't South Carolina, in one last futile gesture, secede from the Confederacy in the very last days of the war?

i don't know about that, but we did fire the first shot of the civil war.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Is he? I could have sworn he was white. I saw picture of his mom. She's not black.

Huh.

Go figure.


Verily.
Obama is in fact an irish-american.

[section 8]

i love the title of this thread> i see "white women" i think of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJkHykGRXrw

[Samurai]

I think this whole thing is just media-created bullpoop. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would choose McCain at this point. And again, what people say to pollsters never seems to reflect how they will actually vote.

Then how about this Democrat, who wasn't just a random voter, but an actual delegate to the Democrat convention?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052

Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 14, 2008

Washington - As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

“I’m sure people are going to be upset with me,” said Bartoshevich, a 41-year-old emergency room nurse from Waterford in Racine County, and convention delegate pledged to Clinton.

Joe Wineke, chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, reacted with disbelief when first told Friday afternoon that one of his state party delegates is now a McCain supporter.

“Not a delegate? To the national convention?” said Wineke, who was getting ready for the start of the Wisconsin state party convention Friday in Stevens Point.

“We have a Clinton national (convention) delegate who says she’s voting for John McCain?” Wineke repeated, for clarification. “I’ve never heard of such a thing.”

Wineke said “almost everybody I know who was for Hillary” is solidly behind Obama now. As for Bartoshevich, he said, “my suspicion is she doesn’t know what she’s getting into” because “the delegates to this convention will be very upset.”

Asked if publicly supporting the other party’s presidential nominee could affect a delegate’s convention status, Wineke said, “I never thought I’d ever get a question like this.”

After some preliminary checking, Wineke said he assumed Bartoshevich would remain a delegate.

But Friday night, after a story about Bartoshevich appeared on the Journal Sentinel’s Web site, he had apparently reconsidered. At the state Democratic Party convention, party members, including Clinton supporters, unanimously passed a resolution asking the national party not to seat Bartoshevich at the Denver convention. Wineke spoke in favor of the resolution.

Another pledged Clinton delegate, Paula Dorsey of Milwaukee, offered the resolution.

Dorsey said trying to expel her fellow Democrat from the party’s convention “hurts my soul and it hurts my heart,” but it is the party’s presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), whom convention delegates must support.

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/19947499.html

Delegate Stripped of Position After Pledging to Vote Republican



So, any other Democrat daring to air any opinion other than enthusiastic support for Obama need not even show up, I guess, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. There are more than a few Dems who realize Barack's naivety could be very dangerous to the country, or that his numerous and very long-lasting associations with corrupt and very nasty people shows a better window into his soul than flowery words on a campaign trail that ring utterly hollow to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid...

[section 8]

So, any other Democrat daring to air any opinion other than enthusiastic support for Obama need not even show up, I guess, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. There are more than a few Dems who realize Barack's naivety could be very dangerous to the country, or that his numerous and very long-lasting associations with corrupt and very nasty people shows a better window into his soul than flowery words on a campaign trail that ring utterly hollow to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid...

Careful with the Kool-aid references,

Obama is Bill Clinton version 2.0,(which is why he beat Hillary) he will sidestep, spin and smooth talk his way out of any corners anyone tries to back him into.
the man was born for politics.

[Crowley]

Then how about this Democrat, who wasn't just a random voter, but an actual delegate to the Democrat convention?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052



http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/19947499.html


So, any other Democrat daring to air any opinion other than enthusiastic support for Obama need not even show up, I guess, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. There are more than a few Dems who realize Barack's naivety could be very dangerous to the country, or that his numerous and very long-lasting associations with corrupt and very nasty people shows a better window into his soul than flowery words on a campaign trail that ring utterly hollow to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid...

McCain is scumbag of the highest order:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgkn_DvBpio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mtqucMUX9M

And McCain from this Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZD-Hn4SitY

So McCain is A-OKay and SOUGHT the endorsement of a guy who hates Gays, Catholics and thinks the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina.

Not to mention this asshole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUPkHyvNPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gg621-DrmU

Supporter "You can have your Tiger Woods!"

So McCain is A-OKay with racists and bigots supporting him... so much for straight talk.



how did he vote when it came to Veteran's benefits?
He and Bush are opposing the GI Bill.

Where's that YouTube of him screaming obscenities in outrage over Walter Reed?
Oh it doesn't exist.

Where's his outrage at the troops having inadequate body armor?
I haven't seen it... could someone point it out to me.

Why can't he tell Shiite from Sunni if he's the guy with experience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EetobKXQsr8

He also is unaware of troop levels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ke9Q-qXg4
The troop level in Iraq: 155,000
Pre- Surge: 130,000

Isn't the management of Iraq supposed to be his forte?

umm... and he was tortured right? So when it came time to vote on torture what'd McCain vote? He voted against a bill that would have prohibited torture.

he cracked under torture and these are two excerpts from what he had to say about that experience:

"A major aspect of his prison experience is isolation. Man is a social animal; he does not live alone. From birth to death, he lives in the company of his fellow man. His relations with other people and, especially with those closest to him, are almost as important to him as food or drink. When a man is totally isolated, he is removed from all of the interpersonal relations which are so important to him and taken out of the social role which sustains him. His internal as well as his external life is disrupted."

"After a few days it becomes apparent to the prisoner that his activity avails him nothing and that will he will be punished or reprimanded for even the smallest breaches of the routine. His requests have been listened to but never acted upon. He becomes docility of a trained animal. Indeed, the guards say that prisoners are “reduced to animals”. It is estimated that in the average case it takes from four to six weeks of rigid, total isolation to produce this phenomenon."

Yet he voted FOR torture.

So he served his country honorably... undeniably. But look... Olney was a Marine. Military service doesn't give carte blanche to bad behavior and McCain's actions in the last 20 years have been less than honorable the more digging you do.

Phil Gramm, Keating 5, S&L, Drumming for war with Iran, In bed with corporate lobbyists, opposing his own campaign finance reform bill recently... his behavior has been less than honorable.

And you know he recently made this rather rousing speech on Katrina in which he said "NEVER AGAIN" was total bullshit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRar6yKZE8g
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/katrina_kerfuffle.html

So yeah he served honorably, but his behavior following his service has been far less than that of someone I would consider to be an honorable man.

Tell me again about who's associating with nasty people?

[section 8]

How many times do i have to say it, he knows first hand torture works,

And i don't consider anything we are doing to be honest to God torture.

Let ME take charge of this operation, i'll be pulling teeth before i aked the first question.

[rick]

i don't know about that, but we did fire the first shot of the civil war.

By "we" you do mean the South, right?

[section 8]

South Carolina if i'm not mistaken

[Lester C.]

You've convinced me, Lester! I'll accept the VP position! I hope four out of five is good enough though! :biggrin:

Sorry, but you're not tall enough to see over the podium. The camera going to flash on you and Obama and only he'll be visible on screen.

[section 8]

Sorry, but you're not tall enough to see over the podium. The camera going to flash on you and Obama and only he'll be visible on screen.

Didn't stop Kuchinich

[Red Jack]

Then how about this Democrat, who wasn't just a random voter, but an actual delegate to the Democrat convention?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052



http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/19947499.html


So, any other Democrat daring to air any opinion other than enthusiastic support for Obama need not even show up, I guess, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. There are more than a few Dems who realize Barack's naivety could be very dangerous to the country, or that his numerous and very long-lasting associations with corrupt and very nasty people shows a better window into his soul than flowery words on a campaign trail that ring utterly hollow to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid...

She's a racist. If she chooses McCain over her own self interest, she's a racist. just like all the "Reagan democrats" and Dixiecrats. The pundits keep dancing around it and the pollsters give it clinical names to make it palatable on chat shows but all you're seeing is the last gasp of the old racist enclaves in this nation attempting to hold on to the little ground they have left.

It won't work.

"Naivete" is BS. There is no job, no job in any other venue, even government, that prepares one to be President and you'll find that a good many presidents had minimal governmental "experience" before getting the big chair and did fine with it. And some of our WORST have had lots of "prior experience." The current one could hardly do a worse job if he was attempting to screw up worse every day.

And, seriously, if you want to open the can of worms relating to "shady associations" I think Mr. Obama would love to take the Republicans down that road. I mean, give me a break.

Stick with the fiscal and Defense debate. Whatever traction you've got is there. Morally, you guys got destroyed a long time ago. And your "experts" are currently responsible for destabilizing a massive and volitile region on this planet as well as several thousand deaths and tens of thousands of horribly mained humans.

For nothing.

Because of lies.

If Obama was lobotomized on his first day in office he couldn't do worse than Bush the Lesser and his pack of toadies. And he'd still be a damn sight better than anything McCain has to offer as well.

Get used to Obama's face. He'll be your next president.

Suck it, haters.

[Crowley]

How many times do i have to say it, he knows first hand torture works,

And i don't consider anything we are doing to be honest to God torture.

Let ME take charge of this operation, i'll be pulling teeth before i aked the first question.

Except that torture didn't work on him other than to get him to declare what the torturer wanted him to declare... so let's just dispel that little myth.

[Corrina]

Exactly.

Torture made McCain make completely untrue statements in support of his enemy.

[4PointOh]

She's a racist. If she chooses McCain over her own self interest, she's a racist. just like all the "Reagan democrats" and Dixiecrats. The pundits keep dancing around it and the pollsters give it clinical names to make it palatable on chat shows but all you're seeing is the last gasp of the old racist enclaves in this nation attempting to hold on to the little ground they have left.

It won't work.

"Naivete" is BS. There is no job, no job in any other venue, even government, that prepares one to be President and you'll find that a good many presidents had minimal governmental "experience" before getting the big chair and did fine with it. And some of our WORST have had lots of "prior experience." The current one could hardly do a worse job if he was attempting to screw up worse every day.

And, seriously, if you want to open the can of worms relating to "shady associations" I think Mr. Obama would love to take the Republicans down that road. I mean, give me a break.

Stick with the fiscal and Defense debate. Whatever traction you've got is there. Morally, you guys got destroyed a long time ago. And your "experts" are currently responsible for destabilizing a massive and volitile region on this planet as well as several thousand deaths and tens of thousands of horribly mained humans.

For nothing.

Because of lies.

If Obama was lobotomized on his first day in office he couldn't do worse than Bush the Lesser and his pack of toadies. And he'd still be a damn sight better than anything McCain has to offer as well.

Get used to Obama's face. He'll be your next president.

Suck it, haters.

We black gays have a saying, Red Jack, and I'd like to say it on your behalf:

Go IN, bitch! Let have!

(Translation: You tell 'em, buddy!)

[section 8]

Except that torture didn't work on him other than to get him to declare what the torturer wanted him to declare... so let's just dispel that little myth.

Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what, I think if McCain HAD any intel to offer he'd of gladly given it up

so lets just dipel that little myth.

[Red Jack]

Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what, I think if McCain HAD any intel to offer he'd of gladly given it up

so lets just dipel that little myth.

Torture doesn't work. No one in "the biz" thinks it does and intelligence gleaned that way has been proven to be spotty at best. moreover, when you're torturing people as a matter of course, you don't get to bitch about it when people are torturing your guys.

The cycle of capture and torture does something that is almost impossible: makes war MORE brutal than it would be otherwise.

Any way you slice it, it's a shitty idea and a stupid thing to do.

[section 8]

Torture doesn't work. No one in "the biz" thinks it does and intelligence gleaned that way has been proven to be spotty at best. moreover, when you're torturing people as a matter of course, you don't get to bitch about it when people are torturing your guys.

The cycle of capture and torture does something that is almost impossible: makes war MORE brutal than it would be otherwise.

Any way you slice it, it's a shitty idea and a stupid thing to do.

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?
Furthermore,
If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries?
Shitty ideas dont often last that long.

[4PointOh]

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?

Because the American claim is that WE'RE the civilized ones and THEY'RE the monsters. We couldn't keep claiming that if we started behaving like the monsters.

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

No? Rape. Murder. Infanticide. All shitty ideas. All been around since the dawn of time.

[Crowley]

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?
Furthermore,
If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries?
Shitty ideas dont often last that long.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.cloonan.html
When we speak today of "breaking" a terrorist suspect, many people picture something grim—perhaps a subject curled up in a fetal position and begging for mercy. But it's not what I picture. I worked as a special agent for the FBI's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002. During that time, my colleagues and I had the chance to question numerous operatives from al-Qaeda. We broke many terrorists. But we did it the right way: by being intelligent and humane.

Intelligence failures had much to do with the atrocity of September 11, but those had nothing to do with a lack of torture. Let me be clear on one crucial point: it is the terrorists whom we won over with humane methods in the 1990s who continue to provide the most reliable intelligence we have in the fight against al-Qaeda. And it is the testimony of terrorists we tortured after 9/11 who have provided the most unreliable information, such as stories about a close connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I never regret that the FBI didn't abuse its detainees. Had we done so, we would have had much less reliable intelligence, and we would have been morally debased. By instituting a pol-icy of torture in the years following 9/11, we have recruited thousands to al-Qaeda's side. It has been a tragic waste.

I've mentioned that we assured our detainees that we wouldn't harm them or their families. One of our techniques for breaking them was repeating that powerful promise again and again and again. But who would believe us now?
-Jack Cloonan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4193
The Torture Myth

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.

But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

[section 8]

Because the American claim is that WE'RE the civilized ones and THEY'RE the monsters. We couldn't keep claiming that if we started behaving like the monsters.



No? Rape. Murder. Infanticide. All shitty ideas. All been around since the dawn of time.

The Former two are indavidual crimes, not usualy state sponcered activities.
and the latter, too Biblical.

True we ARE civilized, and so far how's that workin' out for us?

Sometimes you gotta speak to a man in his own language.

But hey what do i know? Go ahead, treat the guy who wants you dead like family, hell invite him to your house to fuck your sister.

What exactly do you all think the word WAR means?

[Crowley]

What exactly do you all think the word WAR means?

War and gathering intelligence are two very different means to an end.

Establishing personal relationships has quite often been a means historically to ending battle between feuding empires. Politics and Diplomacy.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

[section 8]

*Singing* "C'mon people now Smile on your brother everybody get together"

Thats nice son, but who are you gonna be diplomatic to?
First you have to find someone of influence who will listen to reason.

Bear in mind, that we are dealing with a people who are still bitter over the crusades.

Sometimes when someone wants you dead, your only corse of action is to make them deader faster.

[4PointOh]

Sometimes you gotta speak to a man in his own language.

Really? So then let's start allowing black people to lynch racists and homosexuals to bash homophobes.

[Crowley]

*Singing* "C'mon people now Smile on your brother everybody get together"

Thats nice son, but who are you gonna be diplomatic to?
First you have to find someone of influence who will listen to reason.

Bear in mind, that we are dealing with a people who are still bitter over the crusades.

Sometimes when someone wants you dead, your only corse of action is to make them deader faster.

You know, kid... you again choose to be willfully ignorant and ignore evidence.
I just posted you the take of a 25 year FBI veteran and this is the nonsense you come back with? This is why we don't take you seriously. I think Intelligence operatives in the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, MI5, The Mossad, NSA and other agencies know more than you or I.

And I've yet to see an article where any real or respected member of the intelligence community endorses torture.

[4PointOh]

But hey what do i know? Go ahead, treat the guy who wants you dead like family, hell invite him to your house to fuck your sister.

This was uncalled for. What are you, some kind of fucking maniac?

What exactly do you all think the word WAR means?

Murder.

[Red Jack]

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?
Furthermore,
If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries?
Shitty ideas dont often last that long.


You're joking.

We had slavery in this country for four centuries. Women were considered born evil for a good thousand years. The Earth was considered to be a disc spinning under a dome made of hammered bronze for a couple thousand years. They bled sick people for centuries in order to "balance their humors" and, of course, lots of folks still think there's such a thing as a ghost.

Shitty ideas stick around because they make enough people feel good to keep the reasoned argument from winning out. This torture crap is like that.

you don't get to call the other guy uncivilized or monstrous if you're doing the same things he is.

[section 8]

This was uncalled for. What are you, some kind of fucking maniac?
.
well. "Section 8" IS Military jargon meaning mentaly ill or unstable.

i'd be a murderer before a suicide.

[Buzz Dixon]

i don't know about that, but we did fire the first shot of the civil war.Actually, the first shots of the Civil War were fired along the Mississippi; Confederate and Union pickets squeezed off a few shows at each other in the days preceding the bombardment of Ft. Sumter.

[Buzz Dixon]

If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries? Because no one tortures for information, they torture to obtain confessions.

[section 8]

You know, kid... you again choose to be willfully ignorant and ignore evidence.
I just posted you the take of a 25 year FBI veteran and this is the nonsense you come back with? This is why we don't take you seriously. I think Intelligence operatives in the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, MI5, The Mossad, NSA and other agencies know more than you or I.

And I've yet to see an article where any real or respected member of the intelligence community endorses torture.

I doubt you've looked.

The beauty of the internet is it is chock full of different opinions, from experts or otherwise.

yes you've posted a statement ( a very well written one) by an agent who says torture doesnt work. while his colleages "torture" people. hmm what could be missing here?

Every time i Disagree with you you say i'm "Ignoring the facts" why cant you just agree to dis-agree? or write me off as a moron and drop the issue, but passive agressive posts don't make you right.

[section 8]

You're joking.

you don't get to call the other guy uncivilized or monstrous if you're doing the same things he is.

personally i'd rather call him "that dead guy who TRIED to kill me."

[KevinTBrown]

Will somebody please make the obvious Uranus joke and get it over with?:rolleyes:

Nah.

Too easy and too much of a pain in the ass to relate....

[section 8]

Actually, the first shots of the Civil War were fired along the Mississippi; Confederate and Union pickets squeezed off a few shows at each other in the days preceding the bombardment of Ft. Sumter.

i said "if i'm not mistaken."

i must have been

[Red Jack]

personally i'd rather call him "that dead guy who TRIED to kill me."

I think you're just being provocative. that's just silly.

or psychotic.


either way.

[section 8]

Will somebody please make the obvious Uranus joke and get it over with?:rolleyes:

only a real asshole would make that crack.

[section 8]

oh C'mon Jack
Surely it can be both.

We can debate this all day
I have my views you have yours
Argueing is better done in congress.

[Crowley]

I doubt you've looked.

The beauty of the internet is it is chock full of different opinions, from experts or otherwise.

yes you've posted a statement ( a very well written one) by an agent who says torture doesnt work. while his colleages "torture" people. hmm what could be missing here?

Every time i Disagree with you you say i'm "Ignoring the facts" why cant you just agree to dis-agree? or write me off as a moron and drop the issue, but passive agressive posts don't make you right.

Firstly I'm not being passive aggressive. Passive aggressive is attacking people in signatures as you so often do.

What I'm doing is confronting you and asking you to use information to back up your very flimsy arguments.

We don't allow police to torture inside the US because countless times witnesses are coerced into false confessions and that tampers cases. So why would we do it for intelligence gathering when it provides false positives?

But you won't have a good answer... instead you're going to talk in testosterone fueled pro wrestling hyperbole about how tough guys torture people with no information or evidence to back it up other than an episode of 24.

[Red Jack]

oh C'mon Jack
Surely it can be both.

We can debate this all day
I have my views you have yours
Argueing is better done in congress.

Nah. You like a ruckus. the US tortures now because we have an idiot and a bunch of soulless gits running the country who have bent and, in some cases, shredded the Constitution because they want things the way they want them. Soon they will be gone and life will improve.

Having an idiot at the wheel makes the other idiots happy but it doesn't make any of them right.

[section 8]

Firstly I'm not being passive aggressive. Passive aggressive is attacking people in signatures as you so often do.

What I'm doing is confronting you and asking you to use information to back up your very flimsy arguments.

We don't allow police to torture inside the US because countless times witnesses are coerced into false confessions and that tampers cases. So why would we do it for intelligence gathering when it provides false positives?

But you won't have a good answer... instead you're going to talk in testosterone fueled pro wrestling hyperbole about how tough guys torture people with no information or evidence to back it up other than an episode of 24.

No. Not passive agresive at all.

[LtMarvel]

Torturing gains you information. What it doesn't do is give you truthful information. People being tortured eventually will give what they think people want to hear to make the torture stop.

Watch Taxi to the Dark Side, section 8. You'll see we've been torturing innocents for years.

[Michael P]

Because no one tortures for information, they torture to obtain confessions.

Or for a sick thrill. Not everyone, but there has to have been at least one guy who really got off on it.

[Michael P]

No. Not passive agresive at all.

No, he's pretty much being straight-out aggressive.

And with good reason. Your position is both logically and morally disgusting.

[Crowley]

No, he's pretty much being straight-out aggressive.

And with good reason. Your position is both logically and morally disgusting.

Thank you. He doesn't seem to understand either the definition of the term nor the fallacy inherent within his argument. Plus he has no credible evidence to back up his stance... as he nearly always doesn't.

[Crowley]

Nah. You like a ruckus. the US tortures now because we have an idiot and a bunch of soulless gits running the country who have bent and, in some cases, shredded the Constitution because they want things the way they want them. Soon they will be gone and life will improve.

Having an idiot at the wheel makes the other idiots happy but it doesn't make any of them right.

He's under the rather false impression that there are two legitimate sides to every argument... which is a great myth propagated by the 24hr news channels.

[Sabrinaset]

This was uncalled for. What are you, some kind of fucking maniac?

You're joking.

No, he's pretty much being straight-out aggressive.

And with good reason. Your position is both logically and morally disgusting.

Gentlemen, I see you've been formally introduced to the wonder that is Section 8! KevinTBrown, Crowley, and I welcome you!

[section 8]

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/does_torture_work.php

Torture: the effects.
http://www.lacan.com/torturef.htm

[Buzz Dixon]

Hey! When did Barack Obama get an action figure?
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/walloffame_2006_431754873

[Kevinroc]

The interesting thing with some of these rather loud people insisting they are voting for McCain are clearly in a very small minority. Democrats seem rather happy with Obama as their party's nominee. The same can't quite be said for Republicans and McCain.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_dems_satisfied_with_obama.php

68% of Democrats were satisfied with Obama as the nominee. Compared to 52% for John McCain. And remember this poll was conducted when Obama finally sowed up the delegate count to win his party's nomination while McCain had been the presumptive nominee of his party for months.

[section 8]

No, he's pretty much being straight-out aggressive.

And with good reason. Your position is both logically and morally disgusting.

More of a matter of opinion.

It isn't like i'm nominating torture to become an olympic sport.

[section 8]

He's under the rather false impression that there are two legitimate sides to every argument... which is a great myth propagated by the 24hr news channels.

this is the third television referance youve made so far. (i thought there was no couch)
I dont watch Tv
havent watched a Television program in about two months now.

Motion pictures excluded

[section 8]

The interesting thing with some of these rather loud people insisting they are voting for McCain are clearly in a very small minority. Democrats seem rather happy with Obama as their party's nominee. The same can't quite be said for Republicans and McCain.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_dems_satisfied_with_obama.php

68% of Democrats were satisfied with Obama as the nominee. Compared to 52% for John McCain. And remember this poll was conducted when Obama finally sowed up the delegate count to win his party's nomination while McCain had been the presumptive nominee of his party for months.

I'm Undecided, in fact i may not vote at all, if neither side can convince me.

[Crowley]

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/does_torture_work.php

Torture: the effects.
http://www.lacan.com/torturef.htm

neither of your links back up your statement that torture works as an effective method of intelligence gathering. Quite the opposite in fact:

With the horror of torture the subject is taken beyond the range of ordinary human experience — beyond the pleasure principle — and persistently re-experiences invasive and intrusive (imagery) representations, which are experienced as imposed from outside. The subject is flooded, left in a state of wonderment in which s/he becomes the subject of their own nightmare, unable to wake up from the dream and finding themself suffering from acute de-attachment and isolation. In this state when trying to re-present to themselves what is going on it is like a mouth that opens to scream out in terror but does so without sound. Thought is knotted, torn and cut leaving a sense dislocation and lack of navagiation between the familiar and uncanny. As a person who was tortured put it when seeing more horror: "Dead bodies loaded on the truck, in no order, mixed...But what order do you put dead bodies in? What rule is there for that?"

These foreign images can result in confusion, bewilderment and disorientation as the person has incorporated something alien, which does not correspond to their previous self-image. The person is haunted by foreign images that replace the former self-representations. The ego is unable to make these images its own. The imposed images are more real than imaginary, they are indelible.

What is perceived cannot be thought, as there is a disruption within the perceiver - the body as the other of signification. There is a breakdown in translation, a translation from an ego/body - system of perception - into a body with signifiers. Put another way, with torture the victim's ego/body - system of perception - becomes an object, an abject object. It is a body that has been left in the lurch and cannot be represented by the subject who has been dropped (from the stage of language). The subject is no longer in a scene and as such his/her speech is no longer address an Other. In this situation the social function of communication, interlocution, is broken down with the result the subject's relationship with the outside world is disrupted. Instead of self-representation there is a void/hole.

In fact your second article says alot about the effects on the body which line up with my articles on why torture is ineffective.

[Red Jack]

this is the third television referance youve made so far. (i thought there was no couch)
I dont watch Tv
havent watched a Television program in about two months now.

Motion pictures excluded

None of that matters. you're just wrong on this one. not all opinions are equal.

[Royal]

vote Green or Libritarian then.

Or write in Social Democrat.

[Sabrinaset]

I think McCain and Obama will both outlive Hillary Clinton (and I'm writing about natural causes here, not accidents, etc.).

Hmm?

How do you figure that?

Women naturally outlive men anyway...so I fully expect her to outlive McCain at the least.

We should cut Hillary open and count the rings. In the interests of science, of course!

[section 8]

My position is mainly that torture works to break the will of the subject.
you CAN get intel with torture, but it is a crap shoot.

If intel is your goal then i suggest the torturer pick his/her spots carefuilly.
not everyone has answers to the questions you're asking.

[section 8]

No, he's pretty much being straight-out aggressive.

And with good reason. Your position is both logically and morally disgusting.

this is the pattern with Crow he starts out ok,

then wants some links of other peoples opinion to validate my own.

Then he starts implying ignorance,

then comes the flat-out name calling.

as a last resort he'll critcise my spelling ( which i admit is not one of my strenghts )
to be honest it's gotten old.

[section 8]

vote Green or Libritarian then.

Or write in Social Democrat.
i could save time by not voting at all

[Michael P]

this is the pattern with Crow he starts out ok,

then wants some links of other peoples opinion to validate my own.

Then he starts implying ignorance,

then comes the flat-out name calling.

as a last resort he'll critcise my spelling ( which i admit is not one of my strenghts )
to be honest it's gotten old.

Well, your positions *are* unsupported by evidence, you *are* ignorant, and your spelling *does* suck.

Maybe it's not his problem.

[section 8]

Well, your positions *are* unsupported by evidence, you *are* ignorant, and your spelling *does* suck.

Maybe it's not his buisiness.

Fixed, well about the spelling at any rate.

[Crowley]

My position is mainly that torture works to break the will of the subject.
you CAN get intel with torture, but it is a crap shoot.

If intel is your goal then i suggest the torturer pick his/her spots carefuilly.
not everyone has answers to the questions you're asking.

Goal post shifting is now something we can add to your resume.

[Crowley]

Well, your positions *are* unsupported by evidence, you *are* ignorant, and your spelling *does* suck.

Maybe it's not his problem.
basically.

[Sabrinaset]

One more thing ... when Red Jack and I agree on something, specifically Section 8 ... !

[section 8]

neither of your links back up your statement that torture works as an effective method of intelligence gathering. Quite the opposite in fact
In fact your second article says alot about the effects on the body which line up with my articles on why torture is ineffective.
*Facepalm* How silly of me, i forgot "cherrypicking and twisting my words into something i never said", that comes after the Implication of ignorence and before the name calling.

Goal post shifting is now something we can add to your resume.

My second post in this little meeting of the minds

Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what, I think if McCain HAD any intel to offer he'd of gladly given it up

so lets just dipel that little myth.
So Crow, What can we add to yours?

Now is anyone willing to offer any almighty links to evedince that a subject with the desired information can withold it?
:biggrin:

[Kevinroc]

i could save time by not voting at all

Let me ask you a few questions.

How do you feel about the war in Iraq? Do you think we should continue down our current path?

How do you feel about the economy? Do you think we should continue down our current path?

How do you feel about social issues like abortion and gay marriage?

[Crowley]

One more thing ... when Red Jack and I agree on something, specifically Section 8 ... !

I know it's kinda scary when me, you, Michael P, Red and Buzz all agree.

[Red Jack]

I know it's kinda scary when me, you, Michael P, Red and Buzz all agree.

I'm trying not to be as harsh. Sometimes, when writing, nuance is lost and things get more heated more quickly than I might prefer. Not always, obviously, but more than I prefer.


But yes. We should be on the lookout for the Apocalypse if this keeps up.

[section 8]

I know it's kinda scary when me, you, Michael P, Red and Buzz all agree.

the differance is i still respect Jack, Buzz and Michael P.
even though i disagree with them.

[Sabrinaset]

the differance is i still respect Jack, Buzz and Michael P.
even though i disagree with them.

Oh believe me, that will change pretty quickly when they keep calling you out on your errors. Heck, all KevinTBrown and I had to do is just ask you to clarify one of your statements.

And I'm not too hurt that you don't respect me. Something MacQuarrie said a long time ago about being happy that he had the right people mad at him...? Well, I'd be pretty worried if you DID respect me.

[section 8]

Let me ask you a few questions.?

How do you feel about the war in Iraq? Do you think we should continue down our current path?
a limited question, i think we need a change in direction when it comes to Iraq, but not imediatley make that direction "away".

How do you feel about the economy? Do you think we should continue down our current path?
The contrary, drastic measures need to be taken at the rate we are going

How do you feel about social issues like abortion and gay marriage?

I;m for Gay marriage,but against abortion in most cases.

[Royal]

i could save time by not voting at all

Then how can the nation help you if you choose to be mute?

[Crowley]

the differance is i still respect Jack, Buzz and Michael P.
even though i disagree with them.
It's not about disagreement... I've tried to explain that in the past to you, as has Kevin and Sabrina. It's about showing some consideration towards your fellow posters by providing information to back up claims and adding actual substance... of which you are occasional very adept at doing.

But you seem to get into a combative mode that is very disappointing and lacks any kind of thought or consideration which betrays your interest and background.

I've said it before several times and I'll say it again... you have the potential to be a big contributer to this forum, this behavior you get into in this thread and some others doesn't suit you and betrays the intelligent person you actually are.

[schwamp]

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise06072008.html

An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November

Your Whiteness is Showing
By TIM WISE

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.

I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.

That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.

First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...

Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?

See, I told you your whiteness was showing.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.

But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.

Tim Wise is the author of: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com

You come off like a punk with a post like this. "Whiteness"? WTF.

[FalconX2000]

Then how can the nation help you if you choose to be mute?

If you see a shooting star and wish hard enough...

[section 8]

Then how can the nation help you if you choose to be mute?

I'm not so nieve to believe the nation has any interest in helping me regardless.

Socially frowned upon as it may be, not voting is still my right. Ive been an avid (more like "Rabid") Pro voting advocate,and even worked for the Office of Voter Registration, and Elections.

But i see little light at the end of either tunnel, Ironic since i doubt neither canidates good intentions

but i heard of this road once.....

[Crowley]

Oh believe me, that will change pretty quickly when they keep calling you out on your errors. Heck, all KevinTBrown and I had to do is just ask you to clarify one of your statements.

And I'm not too hurt that you don't respect me. Something MacQuarrie said a long time ago about being happy that he had the right people mad at him...? Well, I'd be pretty worried if you DID respect me.

Mac is very wise.. and quite right. Section's need for attention is very apparent. But he wants attention by any means instead of seeking out solely positive attention.

[Crowley]

You come off like a punk with a post like this. "Whiteness"? WTF.

Hi Schwamp,

Tim Wise wrote the column not the poster 4PointOh.

[Sabrinaset]

Mac is very wise.. and quite right. Section's need for attention is very apparent. But he wants attention by any means instead of seeking out solely positive attention.

See, you're absolutely right about this, and about Section in your previous post. He could be a welcome addition here, but ... I dunno. And this, mind you, is coming from YABS ADHD Queen! :eek:

Maybe he'll mature here, given enough time.

[Crowley]

See, you're absolutely right about this, and about Section in your previous post. He could be a welcome addition here, but ... I dunno. And this, mind you, is coming from YABS ADHD Queen! :eek:

Maybe he'll mature here, given enough time.

I sincerely hope so.

[Paul McEnery]

See, you're absolutely right about this, and about Section in your previous post. He could be a welcome addition here, but ... I dunno. And this, mind you, is coming from YABS ADHD Queen! :eek:

Maybe he'll mature here, given enough time.

He's getting there.

Sometimes the carrot rather than the stick.

[schwamp]

Hi Schwamp,

Tim Wise wrote the column not the poster 4PointOh.

Hiya. Yeah, I noticed the by Tim Wise part, I should be careful who I'm referring to.
Sorry 4 Oh.

[section 8]

What is with the constant need to convert me? i never said i personally liked the idea of torture, just that in some cases it may be required. Why does THAT have to turn into an arguement? Why cant we both leave the thread with our own opinions, yet understanding the other side's point of view a little better.

Y'know what? screw it.

OK Crow,You are right
Torture doesn't work
it never has
The sun rises and sets on your very whim
Whatever i gotta say to break this endless cycle.

[Paul McEnery]

What is with the constant need to convert me? i never said i personally liked the idea of torture, just that in some cases it may be required. Why does THAT have to turn into an arguement? Why cant we both leave the thread with our own opinions, yet understanding the other side's point of view a little better.

Y'know what? screw it.

OK Crow,You are right
Torture doesn't work
it never has
The sun rises and sets on your very whim
Whatever i gotta say to break this endless cycle.

The way I look at it, if there's any state that might have cause to use torture, it would be Israel. They genuinely do have the suicide bombers at the gate. And yet Israel's head of interrogation -- don't ask for citation, because buggered if I remember enough more than this to find the article in The Guardian -- says you never get anything reliable or useful.

Now I know I'd squeal like a pig if in enough pain, and I know exactly where my pain threshold is (never get a staph infection in your elbow, is my advice), but that still doesn't mean the "information" you get is going to help, and the blowback you get for being known as torturers isn't worth the little and probably misinformation you get for it.

At least, this is what the people in the trade say, and they'd know, I should think.

[Crowley]

What is with the constant need to convert me? i never said i personally liked the idea of torture, just that in some cases it may be required.

Sometimes you gotta speak to a man in his own language.

But hey what do i know? Go ahead, treat the guy who wants you dead like family, hell invite him to your house to fuck your sister.

What exactly do you all think the word WAR means?

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?
Furthermore,
If torture is so ineffective, how could it survive all these centuries?
Shitty ideas dont often last that long.

Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what, I think if McCain HAD any intel to offer he'd of gladly given it up

so lets just dipel that little myth.

*Singing* "C'mon people now Smile on your brother everybody get together"

Thats nice son, but who are you gonna be diplomatic to?
First you have to find someone of influence who will listen to reason.

Bear in mind, that we are dealing with a people who are still bitter over the crusades.

Sometimes when someone wants you dead, your only corse of action is to make them deader faster.

My position is mainly that torture works to break the will of the subject.
you CAN get intel with torture, but it is a crap shoot.

If intel is your goal then i suggest the torturer pick his/her spots carefuilly.
not everyone has answers to the questions you're asking.

Goal posts just keep shifting.

[Crowley]

The way I look at it, if there's any state that might have cause to use torture, it would be Israel. They genuinely do have the suicide bombers at the gate. And yet Israel's head of interrogation -- don't ask for citation, because buggered if I remember enough more than this to find the article in The Guardian -- says you never get anything reliable or useful.

Now I know I'd squeal like a pig if in enough pain, and I know exactly where my pain threshold is (never get a staph infection in your elbow, is my advice), but that still doesn't mean the "information" you get is going to help, and the blowback you get for being known as torturers isn't worth the little and probably misinformation you get for it.

At least, this is what the people in the trade say, and they'd know, I should think.
That's precisely what Jack Cloonan says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo

[section 8]

Goal posts just keep shifting.

where is the shift?

and why are you still slandering me?

[AllisterH]

A lot of would be presidential candidates fade fast after losing the nomination or the presidency. It's almost as if they've been working for that one moment all their lives, and then when it's over, so's their point of living.

Mind you, I am not wishing this happens, just saying it would not be unheard of. Barring some massive upheaval between now and the Democratic convention, she will never be the President of the United States under any circumstances now. Assuming Obama wins the Presidency, her influence in the party will diminish dramatically.

In short, much of her reason for living is now gone.

Er, in 2016, she would STILL be younger than McCain is right now....

The Clintons have had setbacks from before and counting her out is just plain stupid. While their influence will be lessened, I doubt the DNC would even THINK about forcing her out.

As for Obama vs McCain, I remember CBR at this time 4 years ago where everyone was saying , "Oh, this will be a slam dunk for Kerry".

Yeah right. It's going to be closer than many people think. I doubt we're going to see a replay of Reagan's shellacking of Carter in 1980.

[section 8]

oh were you finished? well then allow me to rebut.

"i never said i personally liked the idea of torture, just that in some cases it may be required."

That one is self explanitory, What's next?

Sometimes you gotta speak to a man in his own language.

But hey what do i know? Go ahead, treat the guy who wants you dead like family, hell invite him to your house to fuck your sister.
War is war, it should be avoided at all costs if possible. But once the proverbial Gauntlet is thrown you can't afford to be "nice"

No one leave awar with a clean conscience. they already torture and execute our "Guys" why should we pussy out when it comes to slicing nostrils?

This was a reponse to the moral question of the use of torture, not the effects as you so clearly stated was the issue.

i had almost forgotten about that. now that i think of it, it seems YOUR goalpost might have moved a little.

Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what, I think if McCain HAD any intel to offer he'd of gladly given it up

Read the entire post, but thanks for proving me right about your habit of cherry picking If anything shopuld be bold it is the first sentence .

Sometimes when someone wants you dead, your only corse of action is to make them deader faster

this was in responce to your post about diplomacy, which doesn't always work, hence the above quote.



My position is mainly that torture works to break the will of the subject.
you CAN get intel with torture, but it is a crap shoot.

If intel is your goal then i suggest the torturer pick his/her spots carefuilly.
not everyone has answers to the questions you're asking.

That sounds alot like
Point in fact they broke him.

when tortured EVERYONE TALKS. it's psychological, and not a matter of if but when. that's why Special forces are trained to RESIST torture, not trained to be immune to it. no one is, and no one ever will be.

you just have to be sure of who knows what

Looks pretty consitant to me.

[Buzz Dixon]

Er, in 2016, she would STILL be younger than McCain is right now....

The Clintons have had setbacks from before and counting her out is just plain stupid. While their influence will be lessened, I doubt the DNC would even THINK about forcing her out.

As for Obama vs McCain, I remember CBR at this time 4 years ago where everyone was saying , "Oh, this will be a slam dunk for Kerry".

Yeah right. It's going to be closer than many people think. I doubt we're going to see a replay of Reagan's shellacking of Carter in 1980.No, she's done. Her moment has passed.

If McCain wins, she will be blamed and won't get another chance in 2012.

If Obama wins, either he or his vice president will be the candidate in 2012. That means 2016 at the earliest, but it also means 8 years for Obama supporters to get in the forefront of the nominations.

She's done as a presidential candidate.

Didn't Horace Greely die within a few weeks of losing his election?

(Mind you, I'm not saying this will happen, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.)

Also, Kerry never led Bush in the polls; Bush always had a 4 point lead, minimum.

[section 8]

What if she uses VooDoo?

What? like you all weren't thinking the same thing.

[Crowley]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,5593581.story
In the days since Clinton abandoned the race and endorsed him, the political arm of Planned Parenthood and other women's groups have rallied behind Obama and joined forces to attack McCain. Among other things, they have highlighted McCain's opposition to abortion rights. The Republican's moderate image, they say, has misled many women into thinking he supports abortion rights.

"It's astonishing the extent to which that's just assumed about him," said Hesla.

For a generation, women have favored Democrats, and men have leaned Republican. In 2000, Al Gore won 55% of the female vote; Bush offset that with 54% of the male vote.

In his run for reelection, Bush fared better among women, thanks partly to his emphasis on terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although he held a 7-percentage-point lead among men over Democratic rival John F. Kerry, Bush finished just 1 percentage point behind among women.

But terrorism is no longer the dominant issue. Bush administration shortcomings in the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina have damaged the Republican Party. Four out of five voters see the country as headed in the wrong direction.

And now, the nation's economic slowdown is the top concern for voters, and they see Democrats as better suited than Republicans to lead a turnaround.

Among those most concerned about economic troubles are white blue-collar women, a swing group targeted by both the McCain and Obama campaigns.

"Women see themselves as more economically vulnerable than men, more likely recipients of the social safety net at some point in their lives, and they see a larger role for government," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found a wide gap last week: Women favored Obama over McCain, 52% to 33%. The survey also found that voters who cast ballots for Clinton in the Democratic primaries preferred Obama over McCain, 61% to 19%..

[Crowley]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,5593581.story
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found a wide gap last week: Women favored Obama over McCain, 52% to 33%. The survey also found that voters who cast ballots for Clinton in the Democratic primaries preferred Obama over McCain, 61% to 19%.

Good polling numbers for Obama.

[Paul McEnery]

No, she's done. Her moment has passed.

If McCain wins, she will be blamed and won't get another chance in 2012.

If Obama wins, either he or his vice president will be the candidate in 2012. That means 2016 at the earliest, but it also means 8 years for Obama supporters to get in the forefront of the nominations.

She's done as a presidential candidate.

Didn't Horace Greely die within a few weeks of losing his election?

(Mind you, I'm not saying this will happen, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.)


If you remember what Bush Sr. looked like after 92, we all must have been thinking his number was up. 16 years later, he's still ticking along even with a son who must be driving him to the brink of cardiac arrest on a daily basis.

Hillary will be fine. She's got no significant policy differences from Obama, and she'll be perfectly placed to build up her empire in the Senate as she spearheads his objectives, which are, indeed, her own.

[the4thpip]

i could save time by not voting at all

See, this is the kind of thinking that kept "Countdown" in the top 20 of comicbook sales! :mad:

[LtMarvel]

Also, Kerry never led Bush in the polls; Bush always had a 4 point lead, minimum.
I find your death pediction bizarre, at best.

However, there were plenty of polls that had Kerry ahead. Even Faux News had one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_vs_kerry_historical.html)!

[section 8]

See, this is the kind of thinking that kept "Countdown" in the top 20 of comicbook sales! :mad:

i think the election is slightly more important.

Besides given the amount of shit thrown at me any time i voice an opinion i was expecting a collective sigh of relief.

[LtMarvel]

Maybe I was looking at the same poll (who knows), but at best I saw McCain getting 1/5 of Clinton supporters. And that was in the middle of early stages of grief. November is sill months away, by then McCain will get far, far less than 1/5.

The latest electoral map I see has Obama winning 304-221 (VA's 12 was tied in the poll). It also has Democrats expanding control over Congress, Senate: Dem 58 GOP 42 (+7) and House: Dem 238 GOP 197

[Joe Rice]

Whew. I read through this whole thing, and as an immigrant to Brooklyn from Appalachia, I think it should be pointed out that Appalachia is not exactly like the South. They didn't cecede, really. They usually vote with the South, at least the whites do. The truth is Appalachia is actually much worse. Racism will die much faster down South than in Appalachia for the simple fact that, as institutionalized as it can be down there, at least there are, you know, black people there. Just think of how far it's come just through that basic familiarity as opposed to those fools the news interviewed in WV or KY.

[KevinTBrown]

i think the election is slightly more important.

Besides given the amount of shit thrown at me any time i voice an opinion i was expecting a collective sigh of relief.
As long as the reason you're not voting is based on an informed decision and not one borne of laziness, it's your choice.

[KevinTBrown]

I know it's kinda scary when me, you, Michael P, Red and Buzz all agree.

The Axis of Non-Evil?


:tongue:

[Corrina]

In case anyone's wondering, the McCain/Hilary thread is here now because it devolved into general election talk and was now running parallel to this thread.

[TCJohnson]

Well, with the elections coming up, and considering how poliltically interested most of us are, I don't think two threads are going to be enough. Think you should allow for more political threads until the election is over.

[FalconX2000]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

And just when I'd about given up on CNN, they come up with gold like this.

[the4thpip]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

And just when I'd about given up on CNN, they come up with gold like this.

Somebody had posted the chart earlier, glad I now got the link to see where it's from.

Clearly, at least on paper, Obama's plan will do more to strengthen the economy. More money goes to those people who will use it to finally replace that broken fridge, fix that leaking roof or get their kids new shoes instead of hand-me-downs. McCain gives more money to people who will put it into an account in the Caymans.

[KevinTBrown]

Somebody had posted the chart earlier, glad I now got the link to see where it's from.

Clearly, at least on paper, Obama's plan will do more to strengthen the economy. More money goes to those people who will use it to finally replace that broken fridge, fix that leaking roof or get their kids new shoes instead of hand-me-downs. McCain gives more money to people who will put it into an account in the Caymans.
Obama's plan definitely works out best for me.

Now will it actually get passed?

[Corrina]

Well, with the elections coming up, and considering how poliltically interested most of us are, I don't think two threads are going to be enough. Think you should allow for more political threads until the election is over.

Oh, sure.

The only reason I merged this one is that it segued back into general election talk. If it had stayed on the specific subject or gone off in some sort of unique hijacked direction, then it would have stayed separate.

[Charles RB]

Clearly, at least on paper, Obama's plan will do more to strengthen the economy. More money goes to those people who will use it to finally replace that broken fridge, fix that leaking roof or get their kids new shoes instead of hand-me-downs.

And then the government gets the sales tax on the stuff they bought, so it still gets their money anyway! Win-win!

[FalconX2000]

Obama's plan definitely works out best for me.

Now will it actually get passed?

How many Republican senators are retiring soon? The Senate's slim Dem majority could become a comfortable one.

[Paul McEnery]

And then the government gets the sales tax on the stuff they bought, so it still gets their money anyway! Win-win!

That's the city, usually.

[FalconX2000]

And then the government gets the sales tax on the stuff they bought, so it still gets their money anyway! Win-win!

To be fair, that probably means the businesses that sell said stuff will raise their prices, creating inflation if done with too broad a brush and too hamhanded a fist.

The real meat for the government comes from taxing America's richest 5% more.

[cactusmaac]

Somebody had posted the chart earlier, glad I now got the link to see where it's from.

Clearly, at least on paper, Obama's plan will do more to strengthen the economy. More money goes to those people who will use it to finally replace that broken fridge, fix that leaking roof or get their kids new shoes instead of hand-me-downs. McCain gives more money to people who will put it into an account in the Caymans.

The reverse is true. It's the degree of business investment that determines the health of the economy. Money held in bank deposits can be lent out many times over as loans to businesses needing capital. That's especially true for the Caymans since they have no reserve requirements. Money that will be spent further down the economic food chain just goes on consumption.

[Paul McEnery]

The reverse is true. It's the degree of business investment that determines the health of the economy. Money held in bank deposits can be lent out many times over as loans to businesses needing capital. That's especially true for the Caymans since they have no reserve requirements. Money that will be spent further down the economic food chain just goes on consumption.

Ooh, absolute supply-side economics.

Never worked in the past, won't work now.

Consumer confidence is down, people ain't spending, that means loss of work in retail, manufacturing, services, and everything else.

Unless by healthy economy you mean money trading hands between rich bastards while the rest of us starve.

[Michael P]

Unless by healthy economy you mean money trading hands between rich bastards while the rest of us starve.

That is generally the accepted definition.

[kingdom2000]

The reverse is true. It's the degree of business investment that determines the health of the economy. Money held in bank deposits can be lent out many times over as loans to businesses needing capital. That's especially true for the Caymans since they have no reserve requirements. Money that will be spent further down the economic food chain just goes on consumption.

That has been what Bush's economic plans have been about from day 1. Give big business what they want (cause small businesses don't have "cayman" accounts), they will help grow the economy. The problem is this trickle down method doesn't work. It never has worked. It simply fails to takes into account that greed prevents it from working. As we have seen the companies either pocketed the money or gave it away to their board but they rarely used it to reinvest in themselves or their workers so that money never really re-entered the economy in a useful way.

We have had 8 years of trickle down, supply side economics and the only thing that has been proven is that it doesn't work. Its about the only "accomplishment" of Bush's. He has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that trickle down economics is a completely and utterly failed economic theory. Something most experts already agreed on but Repubs refuse to acknowledge (because its great excuse to bend over for their big business brethen).

Also that useless "consumption" is what drives 75% of the US economic output. That "consumption" is why Bush's great economic hope is the $600 or $1200 checks that have been sent out.

[mgs]

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. What do you mean, specifically?

is he gonna bend or break? I'm hearing a lot of promises and that's about it. He could end up as either one of the greatest reform presidents or one of the worst. Everyone is praising him, yet, almost nothing about him speaks for his experience on dealing with national & international issues..

[Paul McEnery]

That is generally the accepted definition.

Whose?
.....

[CutterMike]

Whose?
.....

The rich bastards'...

...I'm assuming that MikeP forgot the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.

[cactusmaac]

That has been what Bush's economic plans have been about from day 1. Give big business what they want (cause small businesses don't have "cayman" accounts), they will help grow the economy. The problem is this trickle down method doesn't work. It never has worked. It simply fails to takes into account that greed prevents it from working. As we have seen the companies either pocketed the money or gave it away to their board but they rarely used it to reinvest in themselves or their workers so that money never really re-entered the economy in a useful way.

We have had 8 years of trickle down, supply side economics and the only thing that has been proven is that it doesn't work. Its about the only "accomplishment" of Bush's. He has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that trickle down economics is a completely and utterly failed economic theory. Something most experts already agreed on but Repubs refuse to acknowledge (because its great excuse to bend over for their big business brethen).

Which experts say so? I read a lot of econ blogs and the fact that Bush has discredited supply-side theory would be news to most of them. What they would say is that the economic benefits of cutting taxes have pretty much already been maximised and further tax cuts would only have modest benefit.


Also that useless "consumption" is what drives 75% of the US economic output. That "consumption" is why Bush's great economic hope is the $600 or $1200 checks that have been sent out.

You've got that backwards. 75% of economic output is used to finance consumption. Growth in economic output is known to be far more tightly correlated with private investment and capital formation than with consumption. The "stimulus" cheques Bush gave out were a standard populist move that will not have any noticeable effect except add yet even more debt to the budget.

[Crowley]

Which experts say so?
Ravi Batra.

http://www.usagold.com/taylorbatracrash.html

[cactusmaac]

Ravi Batra.

http://www.usagold.com/taylorbatracrash.html

That guy? He's been predicting the imminent self-destruction of capitalism for over 20 years.

[Crowley]

That guy? He's been predicting the imminent self-destruction of capitalism for over 20 years.

the rest of your sentence is "with startling accuracy." :wink:

[Crowley]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/16/obama_has_20_point_lead_on_low.html
Six percent in the new poll call gas and energy prices the single most important issue in the presidential election now underway. In February, under 1 percent highlighted the issue as tops. Asked which candidate they trust to deal with the situation, 50 percent said Barack Obama and 30 percent said John McCain. Eleven percent said neither presumptive nominee is better on gas prices.

Another favorable poll for Obama...

and one not so favorable:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121340482731674019.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
More than half of blacks -- 57% -- say the country should make "every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment," according to a poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan Washington think tank that studies social attitudes. Just 27% of whites agree with that view. The same poll shows that nearly half of whites -- 48% -- believe the U.S. has "gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country." Far fewer African Americans -- 27% -- agree.

Wall Street Journal NBC poll:
Obama’s strengths and weaknesses
In the head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain among African Americans (83-7 percent), Hispanics (62-28), women (52-33), Catholics (47-40), independents (41-36) and even blue-collar workers (47-42). Obama is also ahead among those who said they voted for Clinton in the Democratic primaries (61-19).

Yet among white men — who made up 36 percent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential election — Obama trails McCain by 20 points, 55-35 percent. “That is the reason why this election is close,” Hart notes.

In addition, McCain leads Obama among white suburban women (44-38), group which makes up about 10 percent of all voters that Hart calls “absolutely critical” for both candidates in the fall.

However, Obama has a seven-point advantage (46-39) among all white women. How important is that lead? Newhouse explains that Republican candidates always expect to win white men by a substantial margin, but it is white women that usually decide the race. “If a Republican wins among white women, we usually win that election,” he says, noting that George W. Bush carried that group in 2000 and 2004.

[PatrickG]

That has been what Bush's economic plans have been about from day 1. Give big business what they want (cause small businesses don't have "cayman" accounts), they will help grow the economy. The problem is this trickle down method doesn't work. It never has worked. It simply fails to takes into account that greed prevents it from working. As we have seen the companies either pocketed the money or gave it away to their board but they rarely used it to reinvest in themselves or their workers so that money never really re-entered the economy in a useful way.


This is why I think a modified "trickledown" focusing on low income self-employed people and small businesses is the way to go.

If you're running a business that grosses, say, less than $500k a year and you're taking home less than $50k, you're a prime candidate to spend more money and stimulate the economy.

Heck, most people in that position, if nothing else, would use extra money to hire people to work for them so they could cut back on their hours.

IMHO, we need to find those employers who earnestly say, "I would pay my employees more if I could afford it" or "I would extend my hours if I could afford it" and lift those people up to a point where they can afford it.

[Paul McEnery]

Which experts say so? I read a lot of econ blogs and the fact that Bush has discredited supply-side theory would be news to most of them. What they would say is that the economic benefits of cutting taxes have pretty much already been maximised and further tax cuts would only have modest benefit.

Ooh, that's a little bit disingenous.

The point is, tax cuts for the rich won't do anything more (and econ blogs are so rarely concerned with anyone else). No doubt! They didn't do anything in the first place!

It's economics 101 that the flow of currency is what keeps the economy popping, and the rich have been taking all that extra cash and salting it away in solid assets rather than pumping it into the economy.


You've got that backwards. 75% of economic output is used to finance consumption. Growth in economic output is known to be far more tightly correlated with private investment and capital formation than with consumption.

Can I just stop you there and say that this might not be the most meaningful metric? And that in fact the only thing it genuinely measures is how much more of the surplus value generated by working people is getting sucked up by the rich.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, assuming this is true, this is going to really fuck things up for the next President: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

[KevinTBrown]

Even though they are little snippets taken out of context, it's still good for a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iWYAOMYmp0

[Red Jack]

is he gonna bend or break? I'm hearing a lot of promises and that's about it. He could end up as either one of the greatest reform presidents or one of the worst. Everyone is praising him, yet, almost nothing about him speaks for his experience on dealing with national & international issues..

I'm sorry. That's crap.

There is no validity to the notion that you can have experience that prepares you for the job of President of the USA. Zero. It's a smokescreen designed to create plausible deniability for those who may need it later.

"It wasn't because I'm "nervous" about the "black thing." It's because he's untested."

What, "untested," like every other President in our lifetimes? Our current Commander-in-Chief is a joke despite his "military experience" and "business acumen." Bill Clinton ran the poorest and least educated state in the nation before anybody ever heard of him. Ronald Reagan was a great frontman but he got to take credit for being present at the end of a war of attrition that he did little or nothing to finish. His economic policies were an evil joke when they were first floated and remain brutal jokes now that Bush the Lesser has shoved them down our economy. John McCain gets props for surviving a brutal ordeal, no question, but that ordeal was the result of his being shot down and captured by the enemy when LOTS of other guys didn't. He never rose to a high enough position in the actual military to give him any more insight into its upper echelons than you or me. Something he's acknowledged himself multiple times.

Barack Obama is from a single parent family, his skin is the wrong color for success in the non-entertainment or sports related aspects of this society. He wasn't born rich. Through innate intelligence, massive drive and real durability, he rose to the positions that allows you to even have this discussion. He is the first REALLY VIABLE Presidential contender from a formerly enslaved class in the history of the West. Not just the US. The WEST.

Will he bend or will he break? Please. Walk that same mile and then we'll talk.

You can't possibly do better in this pack.

There's no one even close.

[Michael P]

Barack Obama is from a single parent family, his skin is the wrong color for success in the non-entertainment or sports related aspects of this society. He wasn't born rich. Through innate intelligence, massive drive and real durability, he rose to the positions that allows you to even have this discussion.

And boy, does all that piss the Republican Party off.

[Nick Soapdish]

Because the American claim is that WE'RE the civilized ones and THEY'RE the monsters. We couldn't keep claiming that if we started behaving like the monsters.



No? Rape. Murder. Infanticide. All shitty ideas. All been around since the dawn of time.

Or put another way.
Communism: one billion Chinese can't be wrong.

Oh believe me, that will change pretty quickly when they keep calling you out on your errors. Heck, all KevinTBrown and I had to do is just ask you to clarify one of your statements.

And I'm not too hurt that you don't respect me. Something MacQuarrie said a long time ago about being happy that he had the right people mad at him...? Well, I'd be pretty worried if you DID respect me.

I was even quicker. I think it only took me two posts.

Well, assuming this is true, this is going to really fuck things up for the next President: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

I've been hearing a lot about the treaty that the US wants Iraq to sign. Apparently, the two sides are so far apart that it's pretty much DOA but Iraqi politicians are opposed because they say that it means the end of Iraqi sovereignty. So I think it's pretty unlikely for it to happen. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

[sundaeGURL]

I think it is much more honorable to Tax and Spend than to Borrow and Spend as the GOP is currently doing. Why should our grandchildren and great grandchildren be stuck with our bills? I’m just observing their speeches in POLLCLASH (http://pollclash.com), that’s why I said this.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh believe me, that will change pretty quickly when they keep calling you out on your errors. Heck, all KevinTBrown and I had to do is just ask you to clarify one of your statements.

And I'm not too hurt that you don't respect me. Something MacQuarrie said a long time ago about being happy that he had the right people mad at him...? Well, I'd be pretty worried if you DID respect me.

Do not be so MEAN!

Section's finding his bearings. He's making with the funny. He's saying some things that are true, and some things that are bollocks.

Kick him in the bollocks, agree with the truth, laugh with the funny.

Same as with the rest of us.

[the4thpip]

in that case, i'll go back to what i originally wanted to post.

Don't be so sure McCain could out live us all.

Maybe if he nukes us all and stays in his bunker...

[the4thpip]

Nah. You like a ruckus. the US tortures now because we have an idiot and a bunch of soulless gits running the country who have bent and, in some cases, shredded the Constitution because they want things the way they want them. Soon they will be gone and life will improve.

Having an idiot at the wheel makes the other idiots happy but it doesn't make any of them right.

Excellent post.

[the4thpip]

More of a matter of opinion.

It isn't like i'm nominating torture to become an olympic sport.

If it had been in the 80s, I bet the Romanian judges would have been just as strict as in figure skating.

[the4thpip]

That's the city, usually.

Exactly... And if it's anything like in Germany, lots of cities are quite broke and are having a hard time paying to fix pot holes etc.

[the4thpip]

That has been what Bush's economic plans have been about from day 1. Give big business what they want (cause small businesses don't have "cayman" accounts), they will help grow the economy. The problem is this trickle down method doesn't work. It never has worked. It simply fails to takes into account that greed prevents it from working. As we have seen the companies either pocketed the money or gave it away to their board but they rarely used it to reinvest in themselves or their workers so that money never really re-entered the economy in a useful way.

We have had 8 years of trickle down, supply side economics and the only thing that has been proven is that it doesn't work. Its about the only "accomplishment" of Bush's. He has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that trickle down economics is a completely and utterly failed economic theory. Something most experts already agreed on but Repubs refuse to acknowledge (because its great excuse to bend over for their big business brethen).

Also that useless "consumption" is what drives 75% of the US economic output. That "consumption" is why Bush's great economic hope is the $600 or $1200 checks that have been sent out.

Exactly. I can't believe that anybody who's been reading the newspaper in the past 25 years still believes in trickle-down economics.

[the4thpip]

Which experts say so? I read a lot of econ blogs and the fact that Bush has discredited supply-side theory would be news to most of them. What they would say is that the economic benefits of cutting taxes have pretty much already been maximised and further tax cuts would only have modest benefit.



And how did those "maximized benefits" look? The US stock market grew slower than European and Asian markets under Bush.
The US Dollar lost almost half its value against the Euro and other currencies since Bush took over.
The German economy is once again the driving force in Europe after years of softness, and that's happened after taxes were raised, not lowered. Unemployment here is going down here, but on the rise in the US.

Where is the good that you can prove those tax cuts for the rich did?

[Michael P]

Where is the good that you can prove those tax cuts for the rich did?

Well, the rich seem to be doing gangbusters.

[the4thpip]

Well, the rich seem to be doing gangbusters.

Unless they invested in real estate.

[PatrickG]

Well, assuming this is true, this is going to really fuck things up for the next President: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

...

If that happens, I'm starting a petition to make Iraq the 51st state. Just to push the issue.

[Major Comma]

Funny how the "secret plan" always becomes public.

[FalconX2000]

Which experts say so? I read a lot of econ blogs and the fact that Bush has discredited supply-side theory would be news to most of them. What they would say is that the economic benefits of cutting taxes have pretty much already been maximised and further tax cuts would only have modest benefit.



You've got that backwards. 75% of economic output is used to finance consumption. Growth in economic output is known to be far more tightly correlated with private investment and capital formation than with consumption. The "stimulus" cheques Bush gave out were a standard populist move that will not have any noticeable effect except add yet even more debt to the budget.

In theory, you are correct.

As long as workers maintain an acceptable level of production, the rest doesn't matter for economics. Everything else is geared towards making money for the rich. A healthy economy does not necessarily translate into a healthy nation unless that wealth is redistributed. Too much redistribution and you kill productivity the way communism did. Too little redistribution and you get Reagan situations, where the GDP is rising but huge portions of the nation aren't feeling it at all.

The rich bastards'...

...I'm assuming that MikeP forgot the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.

Well, we should remember that it was rich bastards that came up with economic theory anyway.

[Buzz Dixon]

Barack Obama is from a single parent family, his skin is the wrong color for success in the non-entertainment or sports related aspects of this society. He wasn't born rich. Through innate intelligence, massive drive and real durability, he rose to the positions that allows you to even have this discussion. He is the first REALLY VIABLE Presidential contender from a formerly enslaved class in the history of the West. Not just the US. The WEST.

Will he bend or will he break? Please. Walk that same mile and then we'll talk.

You can't possibly do better in this pack.

There's no one even close.We disagree on many things, Red Jack, but here we are in perfect synch. I fully anticipate disagreeing with many things President Obama will suggest, but would much rather have a President Obama than a President Business-As-Usual.

[Buzz Dixon]

Communism: one billion Chinese can't be wrong."I don't trust the Chinese. Any country of one billion that claims ping pong is their favorite indoor activity will lie about anything."
-- George Carlin

[CutterMike]

How many Republican senators are retiring soon? The Senate's slim Dem majority could become a comfortable one.
This doesn't necessarily make me happy... I don't want ANY politician feeling comfortable in office.

I want them all to be nervous as hell and constantly looking over their shoulders, rather than down their noses.

(...)
Don't be so sure McCain could out live us all.
...like the cockroach... Yeah, it works.

[4PointOh]

"I'm voting Republican!":

http://sonofbaldwin.blogspot.com/2008/06/im-voting-republican.html

[Charles RB]

Well, assuming this is true, this is going to really fuck things up for the next President: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

"Next President" nothing - if foreign nations have control of Iraq's airspace and are allowed to launch military operations there at will indefinately and after peace is declared, it really fucks things up for Iraq.

British soldiers died for this?

Funny how the "secret plan" always becomes public.

It's hard to keep big secrets a secret for any length of time, not when there's people who get PAID to find this stuff out.

[Paul McEnery]

Funny how the "secret plan" always becomes public.

Funny how that secret plan was public knowledge in 1999.

[Royal]

It'll be interesting to see if politicians start tapping the grassroots and netroots in their party to help mobilize the politically savvier members of this voting block. Though I wonder how it is that they can pick up the member of the under-30s who aren't as politically engaged. Is that where personality kicks in as opposed to policy?

That and assessability. Obama is possibly the first canidate with a paypal account. His office is youtubing like a mofo so that it's not that hard to miss a debate or a speech. You can't even walk around his virtual headquarters in Second Life.

It's really intriging.

[Michael P]

That and assessability. Obama is possibly the first canidate with a paypal account. His office is youtubing like a mofo so that it's not that hard to miss a debate or a speech. You can't even walk around his virtual headquarters in Second Life.

It's really intriging.

What kind of numbers is Obama pulling among elves with penises for hands?

[Royal]

What kind of numbers is Obama pulling among elves with penises for hands?

He's got a Furries for Obama fanclub.

[KevinTBrown]

How often does McCain agree with Bush?

95% of the time. (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html)

[Buzz Dixon]

Funny how that secret plan was public knowledge in 1999.The difference between a secret plan and public knowledge is that public knowledge is harder to come by.

[Paul McEnery]

The difference between a secret plan and public knowledge is that public knowledge is harder to come by.

Like military intelligence?

[Buzz Dixon]

Like military intelligence?True story: I was stationed in Korea in 1973-74. One of the things that was supposed to be secret -- not top secret, just regular ol' secret -- was the post roster: Y'know, names, ranks, SSns, unit assigned to, home address, etc.

Our deputy intelligence officer was taking a walk one night and stopped in a small shop to buy a snack. They handed it to him wrapped in computer paper. On the paper was part of the complete post roster.

Seems the janitors, instead of shredding stuff, simply carted it off and sold it.

[Nick Soapdish]

This doesn't necessarily make me happy... I don't want ANY politician feeling comfortable in office.

I want them all to be nervous as hell and constantly looking over their shoulders, rather than down their noses.


...like the cockroach... Yeah, it works.

The cockroach wouldn't really outlive us for long. Most of their current range is only liveable for them because it's made that way by people. Their habitat is the human home. And when the power starts going out, they'll die off and be stuck back in their original range. (Whatever that was.)

[Infra-Man]

So I saw that recent MoveOn.org ad about John McCain, that one with the mother and her child.

link to ad in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-LYtEFHjo

So am I the only one who finds this ad tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid?

[KevinTBrown]

So I saw that recent MoveOn.org ad about John McCain, that one with the mother and her child.

link to ad in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-LYtEFHjo

So am I the only one who finds this ad tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid?
Manipulative? Yes.

Tactless, shameful, stupid? No.

It's all about scaring people.....

[Infra-Man]

Manipulative? Yes.

Tactless, shameful, stupid? No.

It's all about scaring people.....

And I guess that's why I find it shameful, tactless, and stupid. I'm fed up with the fearmongering.

EDIT:
I don't expect anything substantive from political ads, of course, but this low-rent "Daisy" wannabe strikes me as an off-key appeal.

[Buzz Dixon]

So I saw that recent MoveOn.org ad about John McCain, that one with the mother and her child.

link to ad in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-LYtEFHjo

So am I the only one who finds this ad tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid?A tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid ad from MoveOn.Org?!?!? NO!!!!!:tongue:

[Infra-Man]

A tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid ad from MoveOn.Org?!?!? NO!!!!!:tongue:

Haha. Yeah, it's pretty much their M.O. MoveOn is almost as insufferable as Code Pink.

Here's another thing about that ad...

She says that McCain can't have her baby.

Given eligible service age and current term limits, McCain would not be president when little Alex turns 18. Furthermore, there is no draft. And on top of that, since we have a volunteer army, it would be Alex's choice whether or not he wants to serve his country and not his mom's choice.

This ad is not just tactless, shameful, manipulative, and stupid, it's also illogical and full of fail.

[LtMarvel]

This is the best ad so far (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU).

[stealthwise]

Unless they invested in real estate.

Eh, give it time. Real estate is rarely a bad investment, in the long run.

The market failing really has only hurt the lower to middle class who bought houses on mortgages they can't afford.

[FalconX2000]

This is the best ad so far (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU).

That was fun. lol.

[rick]

Personally, I rather liked the "Alex" ad from MoveOn.

Simple, effective and throws the reality of Sen. McCains own words back into his face.

Not sure if it will be very effective with undecided voters though.

[rick]

So good, I had to post it twice.

[the4thpip]

While a number of speakers --- such as Railroad Commission chairman Michael Williams and Mike Huckabee --- have praised the advance of Barack Obama and what it means towards a colorblind society, at least one vendor hasn't gotten the message.

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/ObamaPresident_WhiteHouse_TXGOPConvention.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6081

[Crowley]

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/ObamaPresident_WhiteHouse_TXGOPConvention.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6081

jesus christ...

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/ObamaPresident_WhiteHouse_TXGOPConvention.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6081

Guess Huckabee was a little too late: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/ts_alt_afp/usvotejapanhuckabee;_ylt=ApB.ZML9cQpKpi51lp_rHdpsn wcF

[Infra-Man]

This is the best ad so far (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU).

As Christian Finnegan sarcastically said last night on Countdown, "Oh my God, this video is going to make so many converts for the Democrats, especially for all those people thinking 'You know, I really love the political far-left. If only they could be a bit more smug'."

He added, "Honestly, I agree with all the points that the video was making, but halfway through, I found myself momentarily longing for fascism."

[Infra-Man]

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/ObamaPresident_WhiteHouse_TXGOPConvention.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6081

The only way this could be worse is if it was modeled at the Texas GOP convention by an Al Jolson impersonator.

Man... way to keep things classy, guys.

[Buzz Dixon]

I think Huckabee is sincere in his words re Obama, but I also think he's thinking of 2016, when he might be the Republican who can best woo independent voters.

[Red Jack]

The only way this could be worse is if it was modeled at the Texas GOP convention by an Al Jolson impersonator.

Man... way to keep things classy, guys.

"Welcome to the majors, Mr. Hobbs."

[KevinTBrown]

I found this to be an interesting read: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=916738

[mgs]

There is no validity to the notion that you can have experience that prepares you for the job of President of the USA. Zero.
Will he bend or will he break? Please. Walk that same mile and then we'll talk.

You can't possibly do better in this pack.


Hey I never said there was. And I'm not running for President. As for the choices, well, I don't like any one of them, but I don't think he's the savior everyone is making him out to be., Sure, like you say, his life can be considered a success story, but so what, there are thousands more people out there in the same situation, though not running for President. He shouldn't get a pass without being judged when or if he gets the job just because of his aspirations.

I just want someone who does the right thing, makes good choices and hopefully, it works out for us. US, the American people without being too detrimental to the rest of the world. I don't care if the President comes from a rich, poor, white, black, Noth, South, West, or whatever family. I just want one who does a good job.

Your emotional banter is one of the things that turns me off about hearing about him, typical speeches I hear from others so Pro-Obama. I'm just kinda waiting to vote, see what happens and then form an opinion.

[Charles RB]

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/ObamaPresident_WhiteHouse_TXGOPConvention.jpg

:frown:

You have to wonder what he thought about Condi Rice and Colin Powell getting top jobs.

[Red Jack]

Hey I never said there was. And I'm not running for President. As for the choices, well, I don't like any one of them, but I don't think he's the savior everyone is making him out to be., Sure, like you say, his life can be considered a success story, but so what, there are thousands more people out there in the same situation, though not running for President. He shouldn't get a pass without being judged when or if he gets the job just because of his aspirations.

I just want someone who does the right thing, makes good choices and hopefully, it works out for us. US, the American people without being too detrimental to the rest of the world. I don't care if the President comes from a rich, poor, white, black, Noth, South, West, or whatever family. I just want one who does a good job.

Your emotional banter is one of the things that turns me off about hearing about him, typical speeches I hear from others so Pro-Obama. I'm just kinda waiting to vote, see what happens and then form an opinion.

Nothing emotional or bantery about it. If Edwards had made a go of it, I'd be voting Edwards, whether Obama was in or not.

No. Not everybody has the same life story as Barack Obama. He's done exceptional things against considerable adversity and to refuse to consider those as factors in his character, a question you raised, is to not seriously be asing the question.

You asked if he would "bend or fold" and I told you, quite specifically, why that question is spurious. CLEARLY he's capable of both navigating and overcoming considerable obstacles without bending or folding so, again, I ask you, what is the problem with the guy?

And what does it even mean, bend or fold? The current administration does neither and is, arguably, the worst in American history on every front.

[Dazzler]

No. Not everybody has the same life story as Barack Obama. He's done exceptional things against considerable adversity and to refuse to consider those as factors in his character, a question you raised, is to not seriously be asing the question.

Yeah, nothing more difficult to overcome than two Ivy League educations. :tongue:

--Dazz

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, nothing more difficult to overcome than two Ivy League educations. :tongue:

--Dazz


Rather, few things are tougher to acquire than two Ivy League educations, especially considering Obama's beginnings.

[Dazzler]

Rather, few things are tougher to acquire than two Ivy League educations, especially considering Obama's beginnings.

I'm not sure why Obama's beginnings are considered so humble. is it the divorced parents? The living in Hawaii? The living in Jakarta?

I'm curious as to why he's now considered to be from a disadvantaged childhood.

--Dazz

[Joe Rice]

I'm not sure why Obama's beginnings are considered so humble. is it the divorced parents? The living in Hawaii? The living in Jakarta?

I'm curious as to why he's now considered to be from a disadvantaged childhood.

--Dazz

The single mom thing tends to be seen as such, as does being (partially) raised by grandparents.

[Dazzler]

The single mom thing tends to be seen as such, as does being (partially) raised by grandparents.

I don't see it that way. I'd expect from here on out most Presidential candidates will come from split homes. It's just the way the world is now.

I don't see a childhood spent in an exclusive college prep school as anything but living with more than a modicum of privilege. It's a breeding ground for Ivy league. In Hawaii, no less.


--Dazz

[Corrina]

I'm not sure why Obama's beginnings are considered so humble. is it the divorced parents? The living in Hawaii? The living in Jakarta?

I'm curious as to why he's now considered to be from a disadvantaged childhood.

--Dazz

The lack of money as well. He was at one of the best schools in Hawaii but he was a scholarship student. And he grew up in a very small apartment with his mother. She didn't own any property, at least not when he was growing up. Money was always tight.

[Joe Rice]

I don't see it that way. I'd expect from here on out most Presidential candidates will come from split homes. It's just the way the world is now.

I don't see a childhood spent in an exclusive college prep school as anything but living with more than a modicum of privilege. It's a breeding ground for Ivy league. In Hawaii, no less.


--Dazz

As to your prediction, only time will tell.

Growing up biracial in Obama's timeframe was far from easy. And not all of Hawaii is some pleasure fest. Stop looking for things to be down on.

[Joe Rice]

The lack of money as well. He was at one of the best schools in Hawaii but he was a scholarship student. And he grew up in a very small apartment with his mother. She didn't own any property, at least not when he was growing up. Money was always tight.

And, yes, that too. A good school doesn't mean you're privileged necessarily.

[Dazzler]

The lack of money as well. He was at one of the best schools in Hawaii but he was a scholarship student. And he grew up in a very small apartment with his mother. She didn't own any property, at least not when he was growing up. Money was always tight.

Ah. Well, that's certainly more applicable. I would have to say that for the amount of sacrifice his parents made for him, he better be the President.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

As to your prediction, only time will tell.

Growing up biracial in Obama's timeframe was far from easy. And not all of Hawaii is some pleasure fest. Stop looking for things to be down on.
Why look when it finds you?
Admiring Barack Obama for his personal accomplishments is a fine thing, but let's be realistic about them and not act as though he came up in a trailer park with only candle light to read by. Whether he was a scholarship student (which, actually, makes me respect him more, by the way) or not, being able to go to a private, exclusive college prep school is a privilege. And it certainly did open doors for him to go on to an Ivy League education. Especially so since he worked for it.

Mostly, I take issue with acting as though he overcame insurmountable odds, when to all appearances, it was the sacrifice of his parents and grandparents that made it all happen, initially. Which, again, makes me respect him in that he's honoring that sacrifice.

--Dazz

[Corrina]

His father made no sacrifice. His father ran out on his mother and Barack and basically had no contact until Barack was a young man. No support, emotional or financial.

I'm not saying it makes him a great person or a great president. But the word 'disadvantaged' is definitely applicable.

[Dazzler]

His father made no sacrifice. His father ran out on his mother and Barack and basically had no contact until Barack was a young man. No support, emotional or financial.

I'm not saying it makes him a great person or a great president. But the word 'disadvantaged' is definitely applicable.

I stand corrected, then. The sacrifice of his grandparents and mother. And possibly step-father. I'm still not convinced of the disadvantaged part, though. A capable and strong mother is a bigger advantage than two emotionally distant and selfish parents.


--Dazz

[Joe Rice]

I stand corrected, then. The sacrifice of his grandparents and mother. And possibly step-father. I'm still not convinced of the disadvantaged part, though. A capable and strong mother is a bigger advantage than two emotionally distant and selfish parents.


--Dazz

Poor single parents, no matter how wonderful they are, are not an advantage.

[RachelEvil]

I think Huckabee is sincere in his words re Obama, but I also think he's thinking of 2016, when he might be the Republican who can best woo independent voters.

A squirrel-eating bible-thumper is someone who can best woo independant voters?

I think I'm scared of independant voters, now.

[Crowley]

I stand corrected, then. The sacrifice of his grandparents and mother. And possibly step-father. I'm still not convinced of the disadvantaged part, though. A capable and strong mother is a bigger advantage than two emotionally distant and selfish parents.


--Dazz

Ask any kids of mixed race who grew up with white parents (especially during the sixties.)

It's wasn't a picnic always for my cousins, it's still not a picnic for my niece and nephew. Being misidentified, being asked to pick a "side."

Being in a single parent household and being biracial in a time where being biracial put him into the minority of a minority... separately those things aren't disadvantages today necessarily, but in the 60's and 70's they were pretty big disadvantages... worse if not equal to those of Bill Clinton's upbringing.

[darkhanamaru]

Mostly, I take issue with acting as though he overcame insurmountable odds, when to all appearances, it was the sacrifice of his parents and grandparents that made it all happen, initially. Which, again, makes me respect him in that he's honoring that sacrifice.

--Dazz

As a scholarship student at an elite private school who then went on to an Ivy League education, I can tell you the story is never that simple. I, for one, pushed my mother to send me to private school. Yes, she made a few sacrifices to send me there in terms of time but if I hadn't pushed her that this was something that I wanted and needed it never would have happened.

[Dazzler]

Ask any kids of mixed race who grew up with white parents (especially during the sixties.)

It's wasn't a picnic always for my cousins, it's still not a picnic for my niece and nephew. Being misidentified, being asked to pick a "side."

Being in a single parent household and being biracial in a time where being biracial put him into the minority of a minority... separately those things aren't disadvantages today necessarily, but in the 60's and 70's they were pretty big disadvantages... worse if not equal to those of Bill Clinton's upbringing.
I'm not thinking of Barack Obama's race. If we're talking about his beginnings, I'm thinking solely of his foundations in terms of education and support.

Being disadvantaged to me means not having the ability or the resources to put yourself onto a better track, something Barack Obama did. He had the ability and the brains to be able to get into and maintain his standing at an exclusive college prep which lead to him being in not one but two Ivy League institutions.
He had the access to resources that allowed him to advance in the world and he did.

There are truly disadvantaged youth out there who do NOT have the resources or the capabilities to do the things that Barack Obama did with his life, and even if they are as intelligent as Barack Obama, they never will. He had advantages that helped get him where he is today.

My only point is that while he may come from humble beginnings, Barack Obama had the access to resources that gave him a vast advantage over others.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

As a scholarship student at an elite private school who then went on to an Ivy League education, I can tell you the story is never that simple. I, for one, pushed my mother to send me to private school. Yes, she made a few sacrifices to send me there in terms of time but if I hadn't pushed her that this was something that I wanted and needed it never would have happened.
While I respect that, I don't see that being the case in Obama's instance.
He started at an age where I think the parents have more control over the student's education than the student themselves. I think his mother truly sacrificed for his education.

--Dazz

[Adam C]

Being disadvantaged to me means not having the ability or the resources to put yourself onto a better track, something Barack Obama did. He had the ability and the brains to be able to get into and maintain his standing at an exclusive college prep which lead to him being in not one but two Ivy League institutions.
He had the access to resources that allowed him to advance in the world and he did.

Yet he only had access to those resources in the first place because his intelligence and discipline allowed him to maintain marks that would get him scholarships. By that logic Bill Clinton didn't have a disadvantaged childhood either. Having a disadvantaged background means that one has faced obstacles to advancement that most others do not have to face. It's existence is not ruled out by the fact that a person finds a way to overcome those obstacles through their own efforts.

[Dazzler]

Yet he only had access to those resources in the first place because his intelligence and discipline allowed him to maintain marks that would get him scholarships. By that logic Bill Clinton didn't have a disadvantaged childhood either. Having a disadvantaged background means that one has faced obstacles to advancement that most others do not have to face. It's existence is not ruled out by the fact that a person finds a way to overcome those obstacles through their own efforts.
Most other people aren't getting into Exclusive Prep Schools, either. Just having to depend on scholarships to that prep school doesn't equal disadvantage, otherwise, most of the population would be disadvantaged.

Disadvantage comes when you don't have access to an adequate education, or God forbid, an education at all. It comes when, although a child may be bright and full of potential, that potential has no viable outlet and ability to grow. His intelligence is an advantage that got him a boost. Kids with an average intelligence who depend on woefully underfunded schools staffed with underpaid and underconcerned teachers with no alternative to their education because they're not the best or brightest are disadvantaged.

Barack Obama had the advantage that thousands upon thousands of inner city and rural kids do not have. He may have had to depend on scholarships to get there, but he did have a leg up that many of them do not.


--Dazz

[Crowley]

Most other people aren't getting into Exclusive Prep Schools, either. Just having to depend on scholarships to that prep school doesn't equal disadvantage, otherwise, most of the population would be disadvantaged.

Disadvantage comes when you don't have access to an adequate education, or God forbid, an education at all. It comes when, although a child may be bright and full of potential, that potential has no viable outlet and ability to grow. His intelligence is an advantage that got him a boost. Kids with an average intelligence who depend on woefully underfunded schools staffed with underpaid and underconcerned teachers with no alternative to their education because they're not the best or brightest are disadvantaged.

Barack Obama had the advantage that thousands upon thousands of inner city and rural kids do not have. He may have had to depend on scholarships to get there, but he did have a leg up that many of them do not.


--Dazz
So you're saying that by studying hard and being intelligent he had an advantage therefore that cancels out his numerous disadvantages? That was his leg up?

I'm kinda seeing a big gap in logic here man. He was disadvantaged... his perseverance and intelligence got him through yet you're claiming because he was intelligent he must of had easy access to prep schools.

Would it have been better if they'd Harrison Bergeroned him? Would that make things easier?

[Dazzler]

So you're saying that by studying hard and being intelligent he had an advantage therefore that cancels out his numerous disadvantages? That was his leg up?

I'm kinda seeing a big gap in logic here man. He was disadvantaged... his perseverance and intelligence got him through yet you're claiming because he was intelligent he must of had easy access to prep schools.

Would it have been better if they'd Harrison Bergeroned him? Would that make things easier?

No. That's not at all what I'm saying, actually. I never claimed it was easy. But a better chance at access? Absolutely.

I'm saying that because of Barack Obama's intelligence, he had opportunities and resources that he could take advantage of that others would never have. I AM saying, however, that, yes, his intelligence and access to a prime education that he worked to the highest level does "cancel out" (or at least lessen) a lot of other disadvantages because a first class education and the intelligence to capitalize on it IS something that other students would and do not have. A mixed race student in a prep school is going to get a better education than the same student in a public school in the inner city. A poor student with a scholarship is going to fare far better than the poor kids whose only option is to stay in underfunded classrooms.
By definition an exclusive private school and an Ivy League education are privileges. Not everyone is privy to that education. However you get there, by money or intelligence, puts you into an privileged bracket. Otherwise, everyone would go to Harvard.

Disadvantaged youth do not go to exclusive private schools, nor do they (typically) go to Ivy League schools. Kids with similar backgrounds to these students who do have to have an advantage to move beyond it, whatever it may be.

I don't care how poor his family is, having the intelligence to be accepted, gain a scholarship, and maintain status somewhere where the education is second to none is something that could only be called advantageous.

I get the appeal of the whole rags to riches, story, but the truth is that not everyone could have access to the foundational education that Barack Obama had.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

No. That's not at all what I'm saying, actually. I never claimed it was easy. But a better chance at access? Absolutely.

I'm saying that because of Barack Obama's intelligence, he had opportunities and resources that he could take advantage of that others would never have. I AM saying, however, that, yes, his intelligence and access to a prime education that he worked to the highest level does "cancel out" (or at least lessen) a lot of other disadvantages because a first class education and the intelligence to capitalize on it IS something that other students would and do not have. A mixed race student in a prep school is going to get a better education than the same student in a public school in the inner city. A poor student with a scholarship is going to fare far better than the poor kids whose only option is to stay in underfunded classrooms.
By definition an exclusive private school and an Ivy League education are privileges. Not everyone is privy to that education. However you get there, by money or intelligence, puts you into an privileged bracket. Otherwise, everyone would go to Harvard.

Disadvantaged youth do not go to exclusive private schools, nor do they (typically) go to Ivy League schools. Kids with similar backgrounds to these students who do have to have an advantage to move beyond it, whatever it may be.

I don't care how poor his family is, having the intelligence to be accepted, gain a scholarship, and maintain status somewhere where the education is second to none is something that could only be called advantageous.

I get the appeal of the whole rags to riches, story, but the truth is that not everyone could have access to the foundational education that Barack Obama had.

--Dazz
Here's the logical conundrum:

What you just said means that under your qualifications the only way he could be disadvantaged is to not have earned scholarships to have gone to a prep schools, Ivy League schools and then work his way up to becoming the Democratic nominee.

So basically you're saying he can't be disadvantaged with the above... he can only be disadvantaged had he not earned scholarships... and ended up oh say a Wendy's Manager, a School Teacher or Social Worker. ( Three random example jobs)

It's your opinion and you've every right to it... but it's based in no reality I can fathom. Especially looking at the context of the world he grew up in.

Brown v. Board of Education happened in 54, Obama was born in 61. 1961 is when Affirmative action was still a germ of an idea... I can imagine that prep school was easy to get into.

[Dazzler]

Here's the logical conundrum:

What you just said means that under your qualifications the only way he could be disadvantaged is to not have earned scholarships to have gone to a prep schools, Ivy League schools and then work his way up to becoming the Democratic nominee.

So basically you're saying he can't be disadvantaged with the above... he can only be disadvantaged had he not earned scholarships... and ended up oh say a Wendy's Manager, a School Teacher or Social Worker. ( Three random example jobs)

It's your opinion and you've every right to it... but it's based in no reality I can fathom. Especially looking at the context of the world he grew up in.

Brown v. Board of Education happened in 54, Obama was born in 61. 1961 is when Affirmative action was still a germ of an idea... I can imagine that prep school was easy to get into.
You're focusing way too much on that word "easy". Easy has nothing to do with it. And, do you think that he could have worked his way up to the Democratic nominee without the prep school and Ivy league education, or did it give him....an advantage?

Especially by your logic, in Barack Obama's school days, he would have had considerable advantages over minority youths his age who were without his education. Racism did not keep him out of an exclusive institution and an inability to afford the highest quality education available did not keep out of it, either.
I maintain my point that he is not disadvantaged by the standards of lack of quality of life and lack of quality of education. He may have been poor, but he did have a family to support him, however humbly, financially and emotionally, and he did have access to adequate education. A superior education, as a matter of fact. How he got access to that education is not the subject. He had the ability to get in the program and stay there, so that put him at an advantage.

I'm not slighting Barack Obama for his education. I would be the last to have to shame someone for a privileged upbringing. However, compared to the truly disadvantaged youths I work with every single day, he did have some perks that got him ahead that are completely unavailable to them.

Anyway, it's not something to argue anymore. You say he's smart and disadvantaged. I say he's smart and not so much. Do we really want to go round and round on this?

(EDIT: In other news, I now hate the frickin' word "advantage".)

--Dazz

[the4thpip]

:frown:

You have to wonder what he thought about Condi Rice and Colin Powell getting top jobs.

He probably saw them as servants in the big house.

[the4thpip]

As to your prediction, only time will tell.

Growing up biracial in Obama's timeframe was far from easy. And not all of Hawaii is some pleasure fest. Stop looking for things to be down on.

I'm beginning to see Dazzler as a very hateful person (the poster, not the comic book character), so I stopped caring what he thinks.

[Red Jack]

The lack of money as well. He was at one of the best schools in Hawaii but he was a scholarship student. And he grew up in a very small apartment with his mother. She didn't own any property, at least not when he was growing up. Money was always tight.

Good point.

And they were on welfare at times. and food stamps. and, I know nobody likes to give this credence, but there's a reason there's never been a viable black presidential candidate before. it's the same reason there weren't any black presidents of the Harvard Law Review before Obama won that gig.

I think it's a freaking joke to try and paint Obama as coming from some elite (and therefore lacking the common touch) or that he had some cushy life because he busted his ass to go to schools (where he excelled) that he could only afford via scholarship (and therefore he's too "soft" to be president). As if Bush the Lesser is a boot-strapper who got one single thing in his life daddy didn't provide.

And what elite would that be, btw? What generationally rich and powerful black families have been running the country and placing their sons and daughters in the best schools, businesses and political positions for centuries? Or even for decades?

Zero. That's right.

They scramble and fight for every rung up the ladder, more so than their white counterpart. Yes. Sorry. Blackness counts as adverse and success in spite of it counts as overcoming an obstacle that defeats a great many.

And it answers the question whether or not he's got the necessary stones to do the gig.

[cactusmaac]

And how did those "maximized benefits" look? The US stock market grew slower than European and Asian markets under Bush.
The US Dollar lost almost half its value against the Euro and other currencies since Bush took over.
The German economy is once again the driving force in Europe after years of softness, and that's happened after taxes were raised, not lowered. Unemployment here is going down here, but on the rise in the US.

Where is the good that you can prove those tax cuts for the rich did?

You're objecting to something I didn't say. Cutting down the top rates in the 80s appeared to give a good boost but after that the modest increases and cuts have not had much effect either way. It's possible the Bush tax cuts avoided the economic pain from 9/11 cutting deeper but it's hard to say. The economy didn't seem to suffer much from taxes being raised in Bush I and Clinton's time.

The US economy's had nearly twenty-five years of growth with some pauses here and there. A lot of the trouble it's having is the result of over-investment and over-spending. Germany's doing well lately but it was stagnant for years after reunification. The credit crunch and sub-prime meltdown isn't much of an issue there because people were too pessimistic to borrow much.

[Joe Rice]

I'm beginning to see Dazzler as a very hateful person (the poster, not the comic book character), so I stopped caring what he thinks.

The lengths he went to go to in order to try to say that Obama had a privileged upbringing are astounding. Gross, really.

[Corrina]

I don't think you can take biracial/black out of the equation on whether Obama was disadvantaged, Dazzler. It's just too clear that is a big disadvantage in our society, especially at the time that Obama was growing up.

Though I have to say if I had to point to the one big emotional trauma growing up, it was being without his mother during his teenage years. He wanted to go back to Hawaii, she was still working overseas. Reading between the lines of what I've read, it definitely sounds like there was some resentment about it.

Anyway, I think Obama isn't elite. I just think he doesn't understand the white rural voter as well as he could. It's an environment that he doesn't have much experience with, just as I don't have much experience with black churches. Granted, there are more than a few racists among those white rural voters but most of them aren't and they do believe in the American dream--and I think emphasizing how he grew up, that he was scholarship student, that his mother really struggled to make ends meet--that will connect him to those voters, the more that they hear that story

[the4thpip]

Germany's doing well lately but it was stagnant for years after reunification. The credit crunch and sub-prime meltdown isn't much of an issue there because people were too pessimistic to borrow much.

Or maybe we did not have a government and Fed fascinated with the idea of an "ownership society" that turned out to (who could have known?) have disastrous consequences.

And my government still had to bail out several banks. But it looks like our economy is actually strong enough to deal with that.

Is yours?

[Infra-Man]

I'm not slighting Barack Obama for his education. I would be the last to have to shame someone for a privileged upbringing. However, compared to the truly disadvantaged youths I work with every single day, he did have some perks that got him ahead that are completely unavailable to them.

But if you're working with "truly disadvantaged youths," that means they have access to you and the guidance and services you can provide, which means that they have an advantage over kids who have no access to such additional guidance and services regardless of who is providing them. Ergo, by this logic, your truly disadvantaged youths are not truly disadvantaged compared to people who are not privy to access similar guidance and services.

[Dazzler]

But if you're working with "truly disadvantaged youths," that means they have access to you and the guidance and services you can provide, which means that they have an advantage over kids who have no access to such additional guidance and services regardless of who is providing them. Ergo, by this logic, your truly disadvantaged youths are not truly disadvantaged compared to people who are not privy to access similar guidance and services.
I would definitely put them as coming into life with a better advantage over other kids without access to the same services, sure. But that still doesn't mean they have parents who support them in any way, and our school definitely doesn't have adequate funding for even the basics. And we're certainly not a prep school.

There's a big difference in teaching high schoolers to fill out job applications for the first time and being on the fast track to ivy league.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

I'm beginning to see Dazzler as a very hateful person (the poster, not the comic book character), so I stopped caring what he thinks.
Oh, you little scamp.

Could it be love?

--Dazz

[FalconX2000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_49MgiTUA8

Jon Stewart has some some funny stuff in his recent show. For example:

"Baracknophobia! It is defined as the irrational fear of hope. The irrational fear that behind the mild mannered facade Barack Obama is intent on enslaving the white raceit'struewakeupwhitepeople. The email manifests itself mostly through rumour, often in the form of the only E-mail your grandmother has ever successfully forwarded."

"We're just getting in...we're just getting in some Baracking news. Right now. Oh this is interesting. Some guy I've never heard of Dot Com is reporting presumptive Democratic nominee Obama...has lady parts. Obviously scurrilous and unfounded, we'll examine it tonight on our special, Barack Obama's Vagina: The October Surprise In His Pants"

"If you think Baracknophobia is bad in America, you should see how bad it is in the greatest country on Earth: Sean Hannity's America!"

[cactusmaac]

Or maybe we did not have a government and Fed fascinated with the idea of an "ownership society" that turned out to (who could have known?) have disastrous consequences.

And my government still had to bail out several banks. But it looks like our economy is actually strong enough to deal with that.

Is yours?

Probably. The UK's even keener on property ownership than the US but so far it doesn't look like we'll see more bank failures or a recession.

[Infra-Man]

I would definitely put them as coming into life with a better advantage over other kids without access to the same services, sure. But that still doesn't mean they have parents who support them in any way, and our school definitely doesn't have adequate funding for even the basics. And we're certainly not a prep school.

There's a big difference in teaching high schoolers to fill out job applications for the first time and being on the fast track to ivy league.

--Dazz

But at the same time, there's a big difference in being in high school and not being in high school at all. I think I just have a problem with this sliding scale of disadvantage, and the idea (and please excuse the ironic wording) of privileging certain people with disadvantage, and, conversely, disadvantaging with privilege those who did struggle through disadvantages.

Certainly there are those that have it worse than others, but that should not diminish the work one does to make his or her life better given their situation, nor should it diminish the sacrifices of one's parents or grandparents in attempting to give their children a leg up in their future. There is a nobility in all toil to make a better the tomorrow, whether it be for yourself or for your children.

And if we continue to play the disadvantage sliding scale, we wind up seeing that your high school students certainly have it better than the kids who grow up in the Payatas dump in the Philippines or in a Sudanese refugee camp, or the orphans who must scavenge to live or do much worse things to get by. The fact that your students have an education and access to resources (even if they are limited) and likely don't have to worry about where they will have to sleep that night or if they will go hungry is a good thing, and it does nothing to diminish their situation in my eyes.

[FalconX2000]

Or maybe we did not have a government and Fed fascinated with the idea of an "ownership society" that turned out to (who could have known?) have disastrous consequences.

And my government still had to bail out several banks. But it looks like our economy is actually strong enough to deal with that.

Is yours?

The basic premise of owning homes isn't bad. Bush's "ownership society" agenda failed because of lousy planning and execution, not because it was a lousy idea.

Over 90% of Singaporeans own their homes and the economy is thriving.

[Typo Lad]

Or maybe we did not have a government and Fed fascinated with the idea of an "ownership society" that turned out to (who could have known?) have disastrous consequences.

And my government still had to bail out several banks. But it looks like our economy is actually strong enough to deal with that.

Is yours?
Actually, one thing I'll give some Republicans credit for is slamming the whole Sub-prime mentality.

A home isn't an investment! It's a HOME!

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I would definitely put them as coming into life with a better advantage over other kids without access to the same services, sure. But that still doesn't mean they have parents who support them in any way, and our school definitely doesn't have adequate funding for even the basics. And we're certainly not a prep school.

There's a big difference in teaching high schoolers to fill out job applications for the first time and being on the fast track to ivy league.

--Dazz

Yeah--smart people have an edge over dumb people. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President. I don't know why you've chosen a rather nonsensical solipsism as your main argument, but I can tell you--as someone of Obama's precise age, it was not easy for even a gifted, disadvantaged white person in America to go as far as he did. There was a lull in the late seventies, early eighties--where it was nearly impossible to get grants or loans for school--a scholarship was his only chance. His only advantage was being raised as an only child by people who loved him, and believed in him--who obviously steered him on the right course. There's no such thing as a self-made man. Without a supportive family, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

I doubt if my I.Q. or potential were any lower than his at aged 16--but I wasn't taught disciple, making A's in some classes, D's and F's in others that I didn't care about, while helping raise 4 younger sisters. I was accepted to Georgia State University, but my father claimed me as a dependent until I was 22, and refused to pay for it--because he didn't want anyone in the family to achieve what he couldn't--actually lying about having an Industrial Engineering degree from Georgia Tech--after flunking out after 2 quarters. You were less likely to get a grant or loan after 22. I gave up on school, and just kept reading. While it may sound like I'm defending your point, I'm definitely not--even people with good families who did well in school back then, if you were poor, you were FUCKED. Add race to that, and I can't imagine. There seems to be a real disconnect between the truth of what the very first Generation Xers went through, and the opinion of those who came after. Ronald Reagan fucked me, and there wasn't even a reacharound.

His record of serving his community alone should indicate his commitment to making things better. With a Harvard Law degree, he could have gone straight into corporate--but he didn't. We need someone with that kind of personal drive and vision in the White House.

[Dazzler]

Yeah--smart people have an edge over dumb people. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President. I don't know why you've chosen a rather nonsensical solipsism as your main argument, but I can tell you--as someone of Obama's precise age, it was not easy for even a gifted, disadvantaged white person in America to go as far as he did. There was a lull in the late seventies, early eighties--where it was nearly impossible to get grants or loans for school--a scholarship was his only chance. His only advantage was being raised as an only child by people who loved him, and believed in him--who obviously steered him on the right course. There's no such thing as a self-made man. Without a supportive family, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

I doubt if my I.Q. or potential were any lower than his at aged 16--but I wasn't taught disciple, making A's in some classes, D's and F's in others that I didn't care about, while helping raise 4 younger sisters. I was accepted to Georgia State University, but my father claimed me as a dependent until I was 22, and refused to pay for it--because he didn't want anyone in the family to achieve what he couldn't--actually lying about having an Industrial Engineering degree from Georgia Tech--after flunking out after 2 quarters. You were less likely to get a grant or loan after 22. I gave up on school, and just kept reading. While it may sound like I'm defending your point, I'm definitely not--even people with good families who did well in school back then, if you were poor, you were FUCKED. Add race to that, and I can't imagine. There seems to be a real disconnect between the truth of what the very first Generation Xers went through, and the opinion of those who came after. Ronald Reagan fucked me, and there wasn't even a reacharound.

His record of serving his community alone should indicate his commitment to making things better. With a Harvard Law degree, he could have gone straight into corporate--but he didn't. We need someone with that kind of personal drive and vision in the White House.

Do you think I'm arguing that his advantages should keep him out of the White House? Where did you get that idea? My position on Barack Obama may have softened, but I don't relish the idea of looking at him like some sort of fairy tale come true.

What I'm saying is that being realistic about what it took for him to get where he is now is a much better service and inspiration than simply categorizing him as "disadvantaged" and letting that be his selling point.

I think it should rather be where he had advantages over other people in his social status and era, how he got them, and how he utilized them. Being realistic is not the same thing as diminishing. Telling people "When you take an active interest in your children, that gives them advantage. When you make sacrifices to get them the best possible education, that give them advantage. When they know in their hearts they have the potential to succeed, that gives them advantage." is going to serve people better in the long run rather than focusing on how he was DISadvantaged.

He had to have a supportive family, that's an advantage not shared by many of today's inner city and rural youths. He had to have the best possible education, in this case, a prep schoo, something that is also lacking in today's social climate for many kids. He had to have a personal drive and initiative, something that, for many kids today, have been squashed under the assumption that they can't succeed and never will.

I teach kids today who have come to this school without ever reading a book, who don't understand that cursing is not socially acceptable, and who don't even know that a bag of Doritos is not a healthy dinner. They never had anyone, even family members, who took the time or the effort to impart that knowledge. Most kids come here with no knowledge that life outside gangs even exist.

The fact that Barack Obama had a support system that instilled values of self-worth and an education that put him on a road to success is advantaged.
--Dazz

[KevinTBrown]

The fact that Barack Obama had a support system that instilled values of self-worth and an education that put him on a road to success is advantaged.
--Dazz

Perhaps, perhaps not...

Yes, he had a loving family behind him, despite his father leaving. However, being a bi-racial child 35-40 was not easy, especially when your family is white and you're perceived as black. Nowadays, people rarely bat an eyelash at it. Then it was not something that was totally accepted.

It's not a matter of his race making him disadvantaged (and I'm not saying that you're saying that), it's that he comes from a broken home added to his bi-racial identity. His mother and grandparents did the best they could, but they still lived on food stamps. He was fortunate to be intelligent enough to get into a private school setting in Hawaii, otherwise he would not be where he is now.

Whatever advantages he received from his schooling he earned. It was not handed to him on a silver platter. He didn't walk through life expecting it to be given to him. He was never raised that way. But coming from a broken home and having to live with his grandparents was not a walk in the park.

[FalconX2000]

While Dazzler's initial attempts at making this point were clumsy, as is easy to do whenever a position is naunced, I do agree with some of his/her points. (Which one are you, btw? Dazzler sounds like a female and you have a female avatar, but I think I may have seen others refer to you as a male before).

How Obama's intelligence affected his life is, I think, irrelevant. If you are dumb, you struggle more. If you are smart, you can excel. I should however point out that Obama was actually a very dumb smart kid. He dabbled in drugs and gave his mother and grandparents a very hard time. He admits he was rebellious as a teenager and used his wits to frustrate his grandfather and fool his mother, successfully more often than not, even though he knew he was in the wrong.

It wasn't until he went to university that he started to grow up. I don't know if he simply matured in a new environment or there was some life changing event that he has decided not to mention in his books.

Obama did have a supportive family, which helped to make up for the lack of a father, and did grow up in the easy environment of Hawaii and the lax one of Indonesia.

[Dazzler]

While Dazzler's initial attempts at making this point were clumsy, as is easy to do whenever a position is naunced, I do agree with some of his/her points. (Which one are you, btw? Dazzler sounds like a female and you have a female avatar, but I think I may have seen others refer to you as a male before)

I'm often clumsy. It's not a new condition for me.

I'm a dude, by the way. I just happen to always identify more with females.


--Dazz

[KevinTBrown]

I say this about Obama's "dabbling in drugs": Anyone here who is about the same age as he is, like me, will say they "dabbled" as well. In my case, it was a one time thing with smoking marijuana. I'm saying everyone did, but a very large portion did.

[LtMarvel]

dabble free here. Unless you count the caffiene in Diet Mt. Dew...

[TCJohnson]

I once did shrooms.

Ok, it was an extra order of mushrooms on a pizza. I just want to be cool.

[cactusmaac]

Yeah--smart people have an edge over dumb people. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President.

Since when? Under which intellectually gifted presidents did the country do better?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

While Dazzler's initial attempts at making this point were clumsy, as is easy to do whenever a position is naunced, I do agree with some of his/her points. (Which one are you, btw? Dazzler sounds like a female and you have a female avatar, but I think I may have seen others refer to you as a male before).

How Obama's intelligence affected his life is, I think, irrelevant. If you are dumb, you struggle more. If you are smart, you can excel. I should however point out that Obama was actually a very dumb smart kid. He dabbled in drugs and gave his mother and grandparents a very hard time. He admits he was rebellious as a teenager and used his wits to frustrate his grandfather and fool his mother, successfully more often than not, even though he knew he was in the wrong.

It wasn't until he went to university that he started to grow up. I don't know if he simply matured in a new environment or there was some life changing event that he has decided not to mention in his books.

Obama did have a supportive family, which helped to make up for the lack of a father, and did grow up in the easy environment of Hawaii and the lax one of Indonesia.

Couldn't have been too lax--you don't get scholarships with poor GPA's.

I'm literally not saying this to be offensive--but how old are you? I'm just sayin', before Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No', and the subsequent public service messages, kids thought the older generation was full of shit--unless you were some brainwashed cultist, or preacher's kid, you tried everything. Do you really think smoking a joint or tripping ruins you for life?
All it ever does, in moderation (for the non-addictive personality), is to make you not only 'think outside the box', but make you seriously ponder the importance of the box--or the need for it, or with some--how you can change the box. I don't do drugs anymore--haven't even indulged casually in close to a decade, never had a problem with them (alcohol--a different story), just--they fulfilled their purpose. I've known pot-dealers who became advanced degreed Computer Scientists, Dead-Heads (although I can't stand them) who became filmmakers, stoned out musicians who've become Special Ed Teachers, and Civil Rights litigators. Drugs don't make you stupid, it's just that most people are stupid, Ergo, lots of stupid druggies.
As far as the rest is concerned, you must come from a world where everything is laid out clearly for you. As I explained, there's a contingent of a generation of fiscally-challenged smart people, who while brilliant enough to have excelled under the right conditions, the right conditions weren't there--for many born between '58 and '65. You couldn't get there from here. Your 40-something mailman might be in MENSA.

[Sabrinaset]

I say this about Obama's "dabbling in drugs": Anyone here who is about the same age as he is, like me, will say they "dabbled" as well. In my case, it was a one time thing with smoking marijuana. I'm saying everyone did, but a very large portion did.

The thing is, at least Obama is admitting he did it, which is far better than Clinton's "Ah didn't inhale" BS. And nah, I didn't do drugs, or even cigarettes either. I couldn't afford them.

Anyways, here's some more election news ...

Obama is opting out of public financing. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html)

Obama's campaign tightening access. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/america/19campaign.php) ... along with mention of a flap about Obama's campaign keeping Muslim women out of photoshoots.

Cindy McCain gone wild! (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=5201039&page=2)Well ... not really.

Wow, didn't see that coming! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/19/gop-recycles-clintons-attacks-against-obama/) McCain uses Hillary's talking points against Obama. Hmm ... was McCain ever in Bosnia?

I wanna glow! McCain calls for more nuclear reactors. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080619/D91CQTCO0.html)

Did Obama misuse a code word on Jerusalem? (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1738412720080617?sp=true)

[the4thpip]

The thing is, at least Obama is admitting he did it, which is far better than Clinton's "Ah didn't inhale" BS. And nah, I didn't do drugs, or even cigarettes either. I couldn't afford them.



And don't forget Bush's non-replies to whether he used cocaine, and the almost free ride the press gave him about that.

[Red Jack]

Since when? Under which intellectually gifted presidents did the country do better?

::cough, cough:::

FDR

::cough, cough::

Abraham Lincoln

::cough, cough::

[Sabrinaset]

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President.

Wow, that Jimmy Carter must have been a complete moron, huh? And let's not get into how smart Reagan was ... wow!

[Samurai]

Another major Hillary Democrat supporting McCain:

http://www.truthcaucus.com/2008/06/11/iowa-hillary-youth-chairs-endorse-mccain

IOWA HILLARY YOUTH CHAIR ENDORSES MCCAIN

OBAMA WENT TO IRAQ ‘ONCE FOR A PHOTO-OP’

EXCLUSIVE – TRUTH CAUCUS has received a copy of a John McCain endorsement issued by Cody Eliff, the co-chair of Iowa Students for Hillary. It’s copied below.

Cody Eliff sent a message to the members of Students for Hillary Clinton- University of Iowa Chapter.

Fellow Hillary supporters,

First, we all owe Dylan Lampe a great deal of thanks for his hardwork on this endeavor.

Hillary Clinton, the woman we admire so much, suspended her historic presidential campaign this past weekend to endorse Senator Barack Obama. She did this to obviously keep her promise to the voters to unite behind the nominee.

Hillary Clinton has received the worst treatment of any candidate in recent history in a primary from a largely pro-Obama media and from supposed liberals supporting Senator Obama. There has been rampant sexism and race baiting going on throughout this campaign. Whether it be the call by Keith Olbermann to have a superdelegate take her in to a room and “only he come out”, or when Chris Matthews insisted Hillary Clinton was not elected to her senate seat on merit, but because her husband cheated on her.

Barack Obama’s campaign and some of his supporters have been very dirty in the way they attacked Hillary Clinton this season. She has been labeled a “monster”, “D-Punjab” (for her strong support from the Indian American community), and has several times been compared to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, all of this from Obama surrogates and advisors. We her supporters have witnessed nasty things on the streets here in Iowa City too; We have been labeled racist, we have heard the word “cunt” used to describe our candidate from supposed liberals, and I was actually called a “fag” by a worker on the Obama campaign, in fact a precinct captain.

Senator Obama is unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief. He has said this himself at a press conference after the 2004 election after winning his Illinois seat. He has said he would invade Pakistan if necessary to attack al-Qaeda elements, which is a bad idea seeing how Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable right now. His remarks on Pakistan sparked rioting there last year.

Finally, Senator Obama was not nominated as we see it, but appointed by the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. He took his name off of the ballot in Michigan in order to pander to voters here in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich did not. She received over 50% of the vote there and he received zero votes. However, an unprecedented thing happened, the RBC of the DNC took the uncommitted votes of those that did not vote for Hillary and gave them to Senator Obama, votes he DID NOT WIN. And to deepen the wound, they stripped 4 delegates from her and gave them to him. Had this been done right, with her getting her share and him getting his zero, she would have led in pledged delegates and the popular vote (and she still does), and would be the nominee.

Someone who lost all 4 of the big battle ground states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan) and won his delegate lead in caucuses, in red states we will never win in november anyways, will be the nominee. We will put up someone who has been to Iraq once for a photo-op against someone who has a son serving in Iraq and has been there countless times, with Senator Clinton in some instances.

John McCain is an honorable man. He is good personal friends with Hillary Clinton. He is qualified to be president. We do not agree with him on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.

Nikki and I have decided that now is a good time to get this overwith. Barring a DREAM TICKET scenario or a scenario in which HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION, which we see as unlikely at this time, we endorse John McCain for President.

This was a VERY tough decision, those of you that know me know I am extremely passionate about our party. I feel that it has moved away from me. We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.

For those of you who just can’t stomach McCain, we suggest you look into Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate. She is an African American woman from Georgia and is a former member of the House.

We think the endorsement will make more impact if it goes to John McCain, but we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.

We know not all will agree with this, and we respect your decisions.

Thanks for your considerations and support for Hillary Clinton.

-Cody and Nikki

[LtMarvel]

Since when? Under which intellectually gifted presidents did the country do better?
<Looks at the country>

All of them?

[Paul McEnery]

Wow, that Jimmy Carter must have been a complete moron, huh? And let's not get into how smart Reagan was ... wow!

I think we might want to look a little more closely at Reagan's legacy there. And what Carter inherited.

[Corrina]

I say this about Obama's "dabbling in drugs": Anyone here who is about the same age as he is, like me, will say they "dabbled" as well. In my case, it was a one time thing with smoking marijuana. I'm saying everyone did, but a very large portion did.

I didn't. Really.

I mean, the experience with tequila was/is bad enough. :)
I didn't need to see what the harder stuff did.

However, I don't think it disqualifies him as a candidate at all, given that it's completely past and he obviously doesn't have a problem anymore. And that he's come to grips with *why* he acted out, which seems key.

[KevinTBrown]

I didn't. Really.

I mean, the experience with tequila was/is bad enough. :)
I didn't need to see what the harder stuff did.

However, I don't think it disqualifies him as a candidate at all, given that it's completely past and he obviously doesn't have a problem anymore. And that he's come to grips with *why* he acted out, which seems key.

Exactly.

His was, IIRC, freshman year in college. Mine was senior year in high school. Ironically, it was the same year.

[Typo Lad]

Cody and Nikki are petulant idiots who would rather vote for a man from a different party who has different views from their candidate of choice than vote for the man who beat our "thier" candidate for the nod, despite his having similar policies over-all.

Cody and Nikki, I know you think you're somehow punishing Senator Obama or his supporters for a percieved slight, but you're not. You're only punishing yourselves.

[Typo Lad]

Did Obama misuse a code word on Jerusalem? (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1738412720080617?sp=true)

"Code word" is the wrong term for it. "Politically Charged language". And yeah, he should apologize.

My favorite bit?

The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1995 describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and saying it should not be divided, but successive presidents have used their foreign policy powers to maintain the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and to back talks between Israel and Palestinians on the status of Jerusalem.

I remember when that law was passed. My father's boss was a huge proponent. Technically, every year we don't put an embassy in Jerusalem (which is huge) we're breaking US law. Fascinating, really.

And the original plan for Jerusalem has always, always been an International City, and the PA agreed to that back when they were in the PLO, so yeah, poor form.

[Infra-Man]

Another major Hillary Democrat supporting McCain:

http://www.truthcaucus.com/2008/06/11/iowa-hillary-youth-chairs-endorse-mccain

In other news, irrational people often say and do irrational things. Those silly kids.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Wow, that Jimmy Carter must have been a complete moron, huh? And let's not get into how smart Reagan was ... wow!

Carter's failure in trying to pull us out of a recession caused by a long, costly war aside--and dealing with what is undoubtedly a mild form of ADD, what part of
'Ronald Reagan fucked me, without even a reacharound.'
didn't you understand? That was some sort of 'status quo' Golden Age for you Reagan Youth, but if you started out poor, you were 90% fucked.

[KevinTBrown]

Another major Hillary Democrat supporting McCain:

http://www.truthcaucus.com/2008/06/11/iowa-hillary-youth-chairs-endorse-mccain

For every 2 Hillary supporters that go to McCain, 2 Republicans go to Obama....

In other words, it'll even out in the end.


So that's a big "SO WHAT???".

[Sabrinaset]

Carter's failure in trying to pull us out of a recession caused by a long, costly war aside--and dealing with what is undoubtedly a mild form of ADD, what part of

didn't you understand? That was some sort of 'status quo' Golden Age for you Reagan Youth, but if you started out poor, you were 90% fucked.

I guess the only part I understood was the part where you said "but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President." Well, fine ... Reagan must have been smarter than Carter under your statement. I mean, those ARE your words, right? No wait ... one of them wife-beatin' scum-suckin' Conservatives musta done changed yer post, cuz we-all knows Carter done had a better ecomony than that thar Reagan.

[FalconX2000]

Couldn't have been too lax--you don't get scholarships with poor GPA's.

I'm literally not saying this to be offensive--but how old are you? I'm just sayin', before Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No', and the subsequent public service messages, kids thought the older generation was full of shit--unless you were some brainwashed cultist, or preacher's kid, you tried everything. Do you really think smoking a joint or tripping ruins you for life?
All it ever does, in moderation (for the non-addictive personality), is to make you not only 'think outside the box', but make you seriously ponder the importance of the box--or the need for it, or with some--how you can change the box. I don't do drugs anymore--haven't even indulged casually in close to a decade, never had a problem with them (alcohol--a different story), just--they fulfilled their purpose. I've known pot-dealers who became advanced degreed Computer Scientists, Dead-Heads (although I can't stand them) who became filmmakers, stoned out musicians who've become Special Ed Teachers, and Civil Rights litigators. Drugs don't make you stupid, it's just that most people are stupid, Ergo, lots of stupid druggies.
As far as the rest is concerned, you must come from a world where everything is laid out clearly for you. As I explained, there's a contingent of a generation of fiscally-challenged smart people, who while brilliant enough to have excelled under the right conditions, the right conditions weren't there--for many born between '58 and '65. You couldn't get there from here. Your 40-something mailman might be in MENSA.

I never said drugs made people stupid, though that point depends on the drug in question.

I only referred to Obama's environment as lax. His ability and some measure of attitude help him to get to a good college but he managed to get into Punahou Academy in Hawaii largely because his grandfather's boss was an Alumnus.

[cactusmaac]

::cough, cough:::

FDR

::cough, cough::

Abraham Lincoln

::cough, cough::

What's your criteria for calling FDR intellectually gifted? His career at Harvard resembled Bush's at Yale i.e. lots of socialising and partying but little indication of being an outstanding student.

<Looks at the country>

All of them?

Hoover was one of the most gifted engineers in the world and helped translate De Re Metallica from the classical Latin. Wilson, Madison, Taft, Adams and Nixon ranked among the smartest men to become President but none would be confused with being great ones.

[FalconX2000]

Since when? Under which intellectually gifted presidents did the country do better?

Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Jefferson, FDR, Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson and Clinton were all intellectually gifted. I personally think LBJ would have made a fine president if he had focused more on domestic issues.

On the other end of the spectrum, Nixon was also intellectually gifted.

Carter is an example of someone who relies too much on his own intellect and too little on other aspects required of a national leader.

[Tetsuo_man]

Would it have been better if they'd Harrison Bergeroned him? Would that make things easier?

That made me smile and laugh. I mean it's laughable to think that you can't be successful as well as disadvantaged.

[FalconX2000]

Wow, that Jimmy Carter must have been a complete moron, huh? And let's not get into how smart Reagan was ... wow!

IMO, Reagan was very clever, though he didn't have the complete economic picture. Unfortunately, he made his case so compellingly it spawned those people who demonise every single tax increase, hype every tax cut, rubbish all regulations, etc etc. The GDP went up under Reagan. If only he'd paid some attention to the national deficit or the fact that all those riches were going to the top few percent...

[cactusmaac]

JFK's Dad hired ghost-writers to write his books. He was pretty average in terms of brains. Lyndon Johnson went to teacher's college. He was probably just behind Harding as being the least intellectually gifted president of the twentieth century.

[Sabrinaset]

I never said drugs made people stupid, though that point depends on the drug in question.

Well, that depends if you classify permanent markers as drugs, just for starters. We had a guy in two or so weeks ago who was hooked on the things, and they were ... well, I'll be charitable and call him a barely-functioning moron. If he had any brain cells left, I'd have been hard pressed to find them. What was really sad is that, although I can't prove it, I'm certain the guy used to be pretty intelligent once.

I'd say it's more accurate that stupid people generally do drugs. I mean heck, if most drug dealers are making under minimum wage, and mostly live with mom ...!