Further to the discussion between JT and me which starts here
I believe as long as it stays civil, no can tell me I cannot talk about certain things just because they disagree.
JT - you cannot post a video of Hillary and make negative comments and then expect no reaction.
What is this reaction with Hillary, anyway? I don't remember anything so negative during her tenure as first lady or senator that should provoke such a reaction.
Barack apologized for what he said, which I don't think he need have done, but he did. I think people "get" what he meant.
You mentioned WW II. Why did you not mention Vietnam?
What about "restraint"? Is it that hard to have a civil discussion about this issue??

I'm going to side with Ess, I think that those lives were wasted in a very real sense of the worded "wasted". I think that they did die believing that they were fighting for their country, but I really don't think that American values or the general condition of the American life improved as a product of their sacrifice. I think that the lives of Americans and Iraqis have been worsened as a result of the war. For a soldier's death to not be a waste, that death would need to have some benefit for the nation. I see no such benefit.

This is not to say that I have any less respect for the troops. I think that the Administration is the cause of the waste. I think that the fact that their lives were wasted is an outrage and I would person, if I were a citizen, be hounding the politicians that were responsible.

Exactly.

Can anyone fill me in about what's being discussed?

Until that happens, Hillary Clinton is the female Jack Thompson and is against video games. I am a gamer, therefore I am against Hillary Clinto and her male clone. According to whichever logical fallacy I'm working with here, this makes Hillary Clinton wrong, and everything she says wrong. Thus in the interest of being right, according the the facts I've created from my long string of logical fallacy, I must disagree with everything Hillary Clinton says and/or does.

Edit:
Sorry, missed the link in the first post.

So I clicked the link, and immediatly became bored with what I was doing and skimmed the topic. Thus leaving me utterly lacking in details. Meaning I'm too lazy to read the discussion and shall thus refrain from participating in this one.

But I'm upping my post count anyways =D

The fallacy of association. A personal favorite of mine.

I like Hillary and even though I'm not a fan of religious references in political discourse, I do understand how a substantial part of the American electorate works and I think Barack is (already) as commanding and endearing a speaker as Reagan was.

The thing about Hillary that I've never really understood about Hillary is how much she is hated by those who don't have a favourable opinion about her. Judging by some of the reactions I've seen in other places, my best guess would be that she's afflicted by some sort of highly contagious mutant plague.

Like, Red, I'm more or less satisfied with most of the high profile candidates from both Republican and Democrat camps, but I do have a clear preference at this point for a Democrat. Any Democrat.

The Republicans are in my opinion, still too connected and subject to dark and sordid vile creatures of political influence, from William Kristol and Richard Perle to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

After what they have done with 6 years of controlling nearly every branch of the American government (including the judiciary) I wouldn't trust anything that even rhymes with Republican Party for the next decade or so. Their rule, if nothing else, has been an attempt on reason, truth, freedom, humanity and civilization itself.

Of course what happened to America on 9/11 was terrible and all of us can agree that terrorism is immoral. What the war in Iraq has shown us is that a sound foreign policy requires a basis that is beyond those trivial points. While Bush's gung ho foreign policy may have been cathartic for the folks back home who wanted to let off some of their self-righteous rage, America is now despised, weakened and divided because of it. All the while it's enemies have grown stronger.

Unfortunately for all of us, America had the wrong leadership at the wrong time. Had their been someone in the white house able to avoid turning the world into a black and white chessboard, I have no doubt at all, that the world would have been a much better place today.

I agree with everything Daemon and Ess have said so far.

I don't mind Obama, but other than that I kind of agree. I have respect for McCain though I don't agree with his views. And his refusal to tangle horns with a president that he so obviously disagreed with is problematic.

McCain is a remarkable man and I'd love to have a grandfather like him. I kinda did. Nevertheless McCain has changed dramatically on a wide range of issues in a very short period of time and I'd be seriously worried about him earning the Republican nomination if I didn't already know he's shot himself in the foot in that category.

Other than that, I'm perfectly fine with any of the prominent GOP candidates so far. Romney and Giuliani are remarkable candidates on the right, even without my lowered expectations. My personal favourite republican candidate hasn't announced his candidacy yet. A genuine anti-war Republican. Chuck Hagel.

#1. I did not tell you what you can or cannot say.

#2. I am guilty as I made the mistake of answering your questions. I knew you were baiting me but I answered them anyway. Shame on me for that. By the same token, you kinow how I feel about debating politics yet you persist. All I did was post something funny. You could have well commented on it without baiting me.

#3. What negative comments did I make?

#4. As to why I do not like Hillary, I have 2 friends that both experienced her in person and based on their comments do not feel she is the type of person I want leading my country. On top of that she is far too socialist for my liking.

#5. Barak is also too left for me. Also, several things he and his wife said lead me to believe they are going to turn the campaign into a racial thing. I want no part of it.

#6. I mentioned WW2 because it was the biggest war so far. I didn't mention Vietnam because I try not to think about it.

#7. I think I was very civil, especially considering conversations we have had in the past.

I hope I have answered all your questions. You have all the right in the world to agree or disagree as you choose.

Bill Maher and Guests

I recall Maher got canned because he said something to the effect of "the guys that flew planes into the towers weren't cowards."

Why couldn't he say that?
What about radio announcers getting canned for saying anything "against" the US government, etc?
Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks. :rolleyes:

I think it's very true what they say about the news in the above clip. :no:

Can you be allowed to say what you want when it's all about corporations and the almighty dollar? When people who disagree with what you say have the power to take away your very livelihood? When Fox is a "news" channel - with a right-wing agenda?

Discuss! :D

Hubby - Edmond; Vietnam '66-'67 - had heard since the 70's that McCain had "flipped" and given out valuable information to the enemy in return for better treatment.
War hero, my ass.

This guy feels the same way. I am just beginning the research on this, but it sure doesn't look good for McCain. Then again, W got elected and he was a deserter...

I think that there are many valid ways to be unhappy with John McCain as a politician, but I really don’t feel that this is a reasonable line of attack on his character. I think that it's hard to say exactly what happened during his POW years, but allow me to point this out:

John McCain can't raise his hands above his head. He was so severely beating on a number of occasions that he is now unable to fully extend his arms. Furthermore, because of a refusal to sign certain documents he got an extra 5 years tacked on. This doesn’t indicate to me a man that was willingly giving out information, at least not at first.

I'm not sure how qualified that Paul E. Rifenberg is to speak on this subject of torture, and I know that I'm completely unqualified to say nearly anything being a soft college-boy. However I think that torture is an experience that few of us have ever or will ever have to go through, and I'm entirely sure that sure that it's much more harrowing then can be imagined by people that haven't gone through it. I think that after six years of beating and captivity the line between "evade answering questions to the utmost of his ability" and not is less straight-forward than Mr. Rifenberg would lead you to believe. For a person who has never been tortured, I think that Mr. Rifenberg is incredibly quick to point fingers. I think that he's being raked through the coals, in this case, for not conforming to some theoretical and hypothetical ideal.

Futhermore, I don't think that it is really John McCain who has called himself a war hero (though please correct me if this is not the case). I think that this is a label that has been applied to him, and then is being violently attacked. I think that some things are certain: he was a man who in the service of his country went to war, was tortured, and came back with enough strength of will to put his life back together and eventually run for office. I think that I find enough of that estimable that I am willing to forgive what I consider to be an entirely human lapse.

I wonder how many of the other people in office would do better in a similar situation? I would imagine relatively few, so then John McCain's behaviour in this situation really be that negative? Isn't it more the case that he's the only member of government (to my knowledge) who had the bad luck to be exposed to a situation where we can see how ridiculous our expectation of tortured individuals is?

I gotta say that I love the way you make me think. :yes:

True that he is not calling himself a war hero - as far as I know. Good point!

I don't know about other politicians - there seems so many who avoided going into combat some how - but I have heard of men who have been tortured and never let out any info. How many died there because they wouldn't talk?
McCain is one of the lucky ones to somehow be let go. I wonder how many others were let go and how long they were imprisoned.

A lot more stuff will be coming out pro and anti McCain now that he's in the running.

I'm gonna check out some stuff I remember reading, but it'll have to wait 'til next week.

Of course there is good *and* bad in people - it's all in the percentages, and when one is running to lead the country that most effects us, I say we should know all we can. :yes:

We know about Hillary and I liked Obama from the start - I'm sure more good and bad will come out about him, too - and I don't care for McCain. I don't think Giuliani could get elected with his history - the religious folk, dontcha know, and I don't see anyone else yet who would have any chance.

Time will tell. :shrug:

Yeah, I think that this is the real crux of the issue. I don't think that statistics on this exists (I couldn't find any).

Also, just because someone died doesn't mean that they would never confess. An inexpert torturer would either kill someone too early or make the experience bearable enough to tolerate.

The question is in the hands of an experienced and competent torturer with enough time on his hands, what happens? I personally suspect that eventually he will break the will of the tortured person, with only a few exceptions. For example, taking waterboarding (which was done to John McCain): "According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the waterboarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in." This was done in a situation where the agents KNEW that they weren't going to be killed!

Article from News Max

I haven't checked out the auto-bio, yet...

Congresspedia

McCain has announced that he supports the inclusion of intelligent design teaching in schools. In 2005, McCain told the Arizona Daily Star that he believes "all points of view" should be available to students


If he wants "all points of view," he better back the inclusion of Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as the Great Turtle Spirit, etc. And hey! Why not bring back those Roman and Greek Gods, too?!

:D

WWFSMD, indeed.

As I said, I have respect for him, even though I don't agree with his views. I'm a liberal atheist dove, so we're pretty much diametrically opposite on most issues.

WWFSMD? I ask myself that every day! :yes:

Thanks for the discussion, dude! ^_^

I would probably not vote for Hillary. I want to vote for her because of her gender, but that's not enough of a reason. The whitewater scandals were enough knowledge for me not to trust her.

I wish third-party candidates were a viable alternative in American politics, but I don't see them becoming so. Neither party seems to offer much choice and I distrust the published statements of either camp. To often the issues that politicans care about in campaigns are not the issues that get focused in once candidates take office. I wish candidates could be voted on regarding their political stances, but I'm too skeptical of both democrats and republicans.

He ever hear of a library?

Fact is that you have to set a limit on how many things you can teach, there's only so much time. The reason they call it science class is that they use the scientific method to come up with the theories and laws that the students learn. If folks want to learn about alternate theories for Life, the Universe and Everything, they should take Theology.

Why is Whitewater such a big deal, can someone explain that to me?

Not me, man. :shrug:

Modern Propaganda

Quite the interesting list.

Who has served and who hasn't

Overwhelmingly the biggest mouths and most warmongering have not served their country. Many got deferrments or enlisted in a cushier position where they were safe from having to do anything and couldn't be drafted.

For instance, neither Perle, Wolfowitz nor Cheney served. Cheney had "other priorities".
:rolleyes:

This about sums those types up for me:

These are the people making desicions that affect the world. :no: :ph43r:

And another thing... :P

Can anyone tell me that if this were a pic of Bill Clinton as a cheerleader that the Republicans wouldn't have made *much* fun with it?!!

Code of Conduct

Did McCain try his hardest to follow all 6 articles? :eyebrow:

It's not even about the almighty dollar.

Phil Donahue's story.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

You're right. It's about shutting up dissenting voices.

I :wub: Phil! He's a good man. :yes:

I wanted to be him when I grew up. That is, after I gave up wanting to be Bart Starr.

If I ever grow up, I will be Molly Ivins. She was awesome, and although she openly labeled herself a bleeding heart liberal, I think she was perceptive and articulate. And she always asked questions that anyone of any party or persuasion *should* be asking. I certainly didn't agree with her stand on a lot of things, but I cheered her on anyway, even when it made me uncomfortable. She made a lot of people uncomfortable, and that is the way it should be.

Chickenhawk - Roy Zimmerman

Doonesbury - The Sand Box - Military Blog

Doonesbury - Blowback

"a clean, well-lit place to vent"

niiiiice.

Johnny Tex and the Texicans - So Long, Texas - Hello, Mexico

"page not found"

http://www.texasreddirtmusic.com/slthm.html

It works here