Who'll be the better president?

[FordGT90Concept]

Remember him gutting the anti-torture bill that was going through Congress a while back, after being prompted to by President Bush?

Because all that bill wanted to do is modify the Army Field Manual. It didn't make it criminal to torture and as such, it would have put the issue behind without addressing the issue. "Anti-torture," yes; accomplish anything, no.

McCain, of all farking people, helped gut an anti-torture bill. :shadedshu

He only supports bills that accomplish something productive and doesn't half-ass it.

It's still a fact he wanted to engage in Russia and wipe off N-Korea and what not.

He doesn't want to "engage" Russia but he knows they are fully capable of doing somethings we won't like. We have to keep one eye on them and one eye on the rest of the world. Despite being in a weakened economic state, they still have a lot of influence over the middle-east especially.

McCain never said he wanted to "wipe off" anyone. I think you are confusing McCain for Ahmadinejad. :shadedshu

your serious, i can tell so much that is wrong with this statement

Then tell me "so much."

Personally I'm not here to admire a man for his past deeds as a armed solider. Just look at George Bush and how everyone was talking about how he served in the air force when he was running for president. Now tell me how that experience that he truly didn't even have helped us as a country.

McCain to me seems like the worse president we could have at a time like this. Bush comes off as an uneducated president who just threw us into this war without really knowing what hes doing. McCain on the other hand seems like a man who would push us farther into this war without even taking a chance to making some sacrifices for a little peace in not only our nation but worldwide.

McCain may be willing to die for his country, but I as a citizen would not die for this country in that state that its in. Why? Because I believe in whats Just, and what the U.S. has been doing for quite sometime is a little off that path. The only thing I'd admire now is change.

O and personally, If it wasn't for the morons who believe in war and settling everything with a weapon McCain wouldn't be much of a "Hero" at all.

Bush and McCain have nothing in common besides the little (R) after their name on documents. Their thought processes are different, their priorities are different, their knowledge of foreign affairs is different, their experience is different, and their mores are different.

I'd rather have anyone running in the primaries except Obama (influenced by religious and cultist zealots) and Dodd (major contributor to Fannie Mae failure) as a Democratic choice and that includes Biden, Clinton, and Richardson. They are at least respectable people with no ugly historical backgrounds. The last thing we need in USA is to be lead by the same kind of radicalism we seek out and destroy abroad. The fact he is even elgible to run with those dark connections is appalling.

The best days of the USA are ahead of us but we have to earn it just like everyone else and those before us.

Please give an example of this. Compared to McCain, who hardly even looked at Obama during the first two debates (as if Obama was somehow not worthy of being looked at), Obama seems as respectful as can be.

However, if your own personal experiences with the man differ, I'd like to hear.

The constant use of "John" in the first debate. The way he talked to "Joe the Plumber." The list goes on and on. It's not something he usually comes out and says but he portrays it in his mannerisms. Obama is a professional spinner. It doesn't matter what topic comes up, he always turns it into something about Bush. Yet, people miss it. Frankly, I don't see how people can buy his bullshit. Maybe it's because they aren't actually listening to what he says. McCain pointed out that "eloquence" in the third debate.

McCain's face never hides what he is thinking--it is half of what keeps him honest. The other half is his personal convictions.

There's a lot of reasons why McCain would rather not look at him. I think the strongest reason is dating back to Obama not accepting public financing when agreed he would. Also, the fact that he said he would do 10 townhall style debates in between the official debates during the primaries and said he wouldn't after he got the nomination. Ask Iowa Senator, Chuck Grassley, McCain doesn't forget things like this and won't let it go for years.

 

[mdm-adph]

Because all that bill wanted to do is modify the Army Field Manual. It didn't make it criminal to torture and as such, it would have put the issue behind without addressing the issue. "Anti-torture," yes; accomplish anything, no.

That's not what I remember the bill saying -- I remember it was going to make the CIA follow the rules set down in the US Army Field Manual. If not, please show me in the bill where that's different.

He only supports bills that accomplish something productive and doesn't half-ass it.

"Half-assing?" In Washington, some call that "reaching across the aisle," something McCain is supposed to excel at, right?. :shadedshu

The constant use of "John" in the first debate. The way he talked to "Joe the Plumber." The list goes on and on. It's not something he usually comes out and says but he portrays it in his mannerisms. Obama is a professional spinner. It doesn't matter what topic comes up, he always turns it into something about Bush. Yet, people miss it. Frankly, I don't see how people can buy his bullshit. Maybe it's because they aren't actually listening to what he says. McCain pointed out that "eloquence" in the third debate.

McCain's face never hides what he is thinking--it is half of what keeps him honest. The other half is his personal convictions.

I took the use of "John" as a way to make things personable. To me, that's a kindness. I also don't see any problem with the way he talked with Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber. Of course you're going to see it differently -- you support McCain. It's all very subjective.

And the fact that McCain's face "never hides what he's thinking?" I take that as a "deer caught in headlights," especially when Obama surprised him that the fine would actually be zero.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'll let McCain explain his position:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_bush_should_veto_antito.php

Read the McCain's statement from the bottom of this one:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_276.php

 

[mdm-adph]

I'll let McCain explain his position:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_bush_should_veto_antito.php

Read the McCain's statement from the bottom of this one:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_276.php

I really don't see how that helps any. He almost sounds like he's contradicting himself.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I took the use of "John" as a way to make things personable. To me, that's a kindness. I also don't see any problem with the way he talked with Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber. Of course you're going to see it differently -- you support McCain. It's all very subjective.

And the fact that McCain's face "never hides what he's thinking?" I take that as a "deer caught in headlights," especially when Obama surprised him that the fine would actually be zero.

Everytime Obama used it, it was on the offesnive. Do you think "personal attacks" are kind? You gotta be joking. That's a double standard. Just because Obama does it makes it OK? In all three debates, McCain never used the word "Barack." McCain was professional; Obama was looking to make McCain mad. Too some extent, Obama succeeded but, McCain kept a lid on it.

McCain didn't, and still doesn't believe it is "zero." He has no reason to either. Obama can say whatever he wants until it is in ink. Now Obama is obligated to make the fine "zero" and impose a different way to pay for it without making him a flip-flopper. Then again, even if he did put a fine on it, people really wouldn't care. Obama flip-flopped a lot already.

I really don't see how that helps any. He almost sounds like he's contradicting himself.

The bill makes the CIA follow the techniques of the Army Field Manual and he feels that the CIA needs more options available than the military. So, he voted against it. To quote McCain:

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.

McCain felt that the laws in place are sufficient and there's no reason to further restrict what the CIA can do.

What's wrong with having a book of interregation for the CIA and one for the Departement of Defense? All methods in both books must be inside the confines of international treaties.

 

[mdm-adph]

Everytime Obama used it, it was on the offesnive. Do you think "personal attacks" are kind? You gotta be joking. That's a double standard. Just because Obama does it makes it OK? In all three debates, McCain never used the word "Barack." McCain was professional; Obama was looking to make McCain mad. Too some extent, Obama succeeded but, McCain kept a lid on it.

McCain didn't, and still doesn't believe it is "zero." He has no reason to either. Obama can say whatever he wants until it is in ink. Now Obama is obligated to make the fine "zero" and impose a different way to pay for it without making him a flip-flopper. Then again, even if he did put a fine on it, people really wouldn't care. Obama flip-flopped a lot already.

You know -- and I swear I'm not trying to be offensive here -- one of the reasons why I don't think McCain didn't use Obama's first name is that he knows that he probably would have stumbled over it, judging from his repeated mispronunciation of such names as "Ahmadinejad." He probably stuck with what he was able to say.

And I don't think you can say he used McCain's name offensively "everytime," unless you can show me a chart. The Daily Show made fun of Obama constantly praising McCain in those debates -- there were certainly times when Obama used "John" in a positive manner.

The bill makes the CIA follow the techniques of the Army Field Manual and he feels that the CIA needs more options available than the military. So, he voted against it. To quote McCain:

McCain felt that the laws in place are sufficient and there's no reason to further restrict what the CIA can do.

What's wrong with having a book of interregation for the CIA and one for the Departement of Defense? All methods in both books must be inside the confines of international treaties.

You know, McCain can explain that all he wants to, but it still just looks like a cop-out. The Bush Administration has been very vocal in that it thinks its organizations like the CIA are above the law, and this just looks like McCain bowing to the pressure from them.

Considering there's not much, if anything, stopping the CIA right now, doing this would've been better than nothing, especially since it involves possibly innocent people being tortured.

 

[Bigjohn]

I love how the dems always bring up "Joe the UNLICENSED plumber"....
You should not need government licensing to enact a trade.... but besides that, in the state he lives and works, the OWNER needs to be licensed, not the employees...

 

[mdm-adph]

I love how the dems always bring up "Joe the UNLICENSED plumber"....
You should not need government licensing to enact a trade.... but besides that, in the state he lives and works, the OWNER needs to be licensed, not the employees...

Well, I love how you call everyone who disagrees with you a "dem," even though they've never given any indication that they call themselves that. Why don't you just say what you really mean, and start calling people "libs."

 

[TheMailMan78]

FYI guys. McCain didn't look at Obama during the debates due to massive neck trauma he received in captivity. I agree its rude for him not to face Obama but at the same time its also rude for him to turn his whole body away from the crowd. Just keep that in mind when making this argument about ether candidates manners.

 

[thoughtdisorder]

Lol! You guys are still at it!

Gotta love the passion!

 

[SK-1]

I don't know, but it's nothing compared to that video of John McCain and Jane Fonda leaving that hotel room together back in 1975.

What, you haven't heard about that one? There's this guy somewhere who works at a newspaper who totally says it exists.

I will SO take whatever it is you are smoking...

 

[mdm-adph]

FYI guys. McCain didn't look at Obama during the debates due to massive neck trauma he received in captivity. I agree its rude for him not to face Obama but at the same time its also rude for him to turn his whole body away from the crowd. Just keep that in mind when making this argument about ether candidates manners.

That exception doesn't apply to the second debate. (Even at the end, McCain somehow managed to shake Obama's hand without looking at him. Amazing.)

McCain's health should worry anybody. Seriously -- first I hear John McCain can't use a computer because of injuries. Now, he can't look at someone because of injuries.

This guy sounds like he's getting worse by the second -- at what point will an injury come up that will be blamed for him losing the election? Are Americans going to have to put up with being called "injury-prejudiced" for the next few months if McCain doesn't win?

I will SO take whatever it is you are smoking...

I gave just as much evidence as you did. So here -- you can have the crack pipe back.

 

[ManofGod]

mdm-adph, here you go, right back at you.

Got to love, black this, black that, black, black, black constantly being thrown in our face. What I personally find interesting is that for me, I typically forget that he is any particular skin color at all. I listen to what he says and does and totally disagree with him on all points.

 

[mdm-adph]

mdm-adph, here you go, right back at you.

Got to love, black this, black that, black, black, black constantly being thrown in our face. What I personally find interesting is that for me, I typically forget that he is any particular skin color at all. I listen to what he says and does and totally disagree with him on all points.

Well, I have no idea where you're coming from with that, but if you can look at a political candidate and forget his race, then that's a good thing. There's enough for conservatives to differ with Obama about without bringing up things like "He's black!" or "He's a secret muslim!"

 

[Bigjohn]

That exception doesn't apply to the second debate. (Even at the end, McCain somehow managed to shake Obama's hand without looking at him. Amazing.)

McCain's health should worry anybody. Seriously -- first I hear John McCain can't use a computer because of injuries. Now, he can't look at someone because of injuries.

This guy sounds like he's getting worse by the second -- at what point will an injury come up that will be blamed for him losing the election? Are Americans going to have to put up with being called "injury-prejudiced" for the next few months if McCain doesn't win?



I gave just as much evidence as you did. So here -- you can have the crack pipe back.

FDR could not walk very often due to Polio, which also damaged his internal organs.... McCain had his shoulders and arms broken, repeatedly, with out proper care or setting of the bone. The guy can't hardly turn his head, and you're holding that againt him? he can't raise his arms above his shoulders, and you're holding that against him?

Well Obama sat in Rev Wrights Anti-semetic, anti-white church for 20 years and you're giving him a pass on that completely... Boy. What a double standard..

 

[trt740]

For the biggest Bush hater of them all and shocking to be honest

Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 9:53 AM


No matter what your political convictions are this is an eye opener....What a thankless people we are!!!

David Letterman, on President Bush. (Surprising)

David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see....

'As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit the mark.''The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?'

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?

B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state.F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.

H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.

K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable' discharge after a few days in
the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?

Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer wha t sell s, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it
this way......Insane!

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New
York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the < STRONG >Pledge of Allegiance?'

David Letterman

No sure how authentic it is but it looks real to me.

 

[mdm-adph]

FDR could not walk very often due to Polio, which also damaged his internal organs.... McCain had his shoulders and arms broken, repeatedly, with out proper care or setting of the bone. The guy can't hardly turn his head, and you're holding that againt him? he can't raise his arms above his shoulders, and you're holding that against him?

Well Obama sat in Rev Wrights Anti-semetic, anti-white church for 20 years and you're giving him a pass on that completely... Boy. What a double standard..

Wow -- you just defended FDR as being worthy of the presidency despite his injuries. Good job! You see -- you can defend socialism, when it suits you.

I don't recall giving Obama a pass. Please don't make claims like that unless you can back them up.

 

[trt740]

another questionable association this time with a PLO spokesman

McCain Slams LA Times for Double Standard in Withholding Obama-Khalidi Tape

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/1...uble-standard-withholding-obama-khalidi-tape/

 

[SK-1]

I gave just as much evidence as you did. So here -- you can have the crack pipe back.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story

First story from April^

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

Second story^

linkage 4 ya

 

[trt740]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story

First story from April^

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

Second story^

linkage 4 ya

I see this is being address how many more of these people are there WTF are we electing here?

 

[magibeg]

Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 9:53 AM


No matter what your political convictions are this is an eye opener....What a thankless people we are!!!

David Letterman, on President Bush. (Surprising)

David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see....

'As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit the mark.''The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?'

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?

B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state.F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.

H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.

K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable' discharge after a few days in
the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?

Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer wha t sell s, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it
this way......Insane!

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New
York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the < STRONG >Pledge of Allegiance?'

David Letterman

No sure how authentic it is but it looks real to me.

An interesting read. However its not always what you have, its what you have the potential of having with better management. It's always a good time to take god out of the pledge of allegiance. Church and state should always be seperate

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You know -- and I swear I'm not trying to be offensive here -- one of the reasons why I don't think McCain didn't use Obama's first name is that he knows that he probably would have stumbled over it, judging from his repeated mispronunciation of such names as "Ahmadinejad." He probably stuck with what he was able to say.

You know as much as I do that isn't the case.

And I don't think you can say he used McCain's name offensively "everytime," unless you can show me a chart. The Daily Show made fun of Obama constantly praising McCain in those debates -- there were certainly times when Obama used "John" in a positive manner.

I began that analysis before and gave up because there were so many references to "John" by Obama. Here is the lengthy list of "John's" I did parse out:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/72571/#545702

Note that debates are never truly positive or they wouldn't be debates in the first place. A debate where everyone agrees isn't a debate at all.

Every time Obama "praised" McCain, it was followd by a "but" or some other rebutal of the previous statement nullifing any positive effect.

You know, McCain can explain that all he wants to, but it still just looks like a cop-out. The Bush Administration has been very vocal in that it thinks its organizations like the CIA are above the law, and this just looks like McCain bowing to the pressure from them.

Only because the liberals want you to believe it is. McCain stuck to the bipartisian agreements crafted in 2005.

The Democrats were trying to make the CIA play by the DOD rule book and there is absolutely no reason to do that. McCain took a stand here--he pressured Bush to veto it.

Considering there's not much, if anything, stopping the CIA right now, doing this would've been better than nothing, especially since it involves possibly innocent people being tortured.

What has the CIA done to you? "Torture" isn't the right word. It is common practice by all nations of the world to interrogate captives for potential information; however, there is humane and inhumane ways to do it. The CIA is not doing anything inhumane right now. There is nothing strong to suggest they are. If they are, we need to make sure the practice is discontinued. There is no reason to make the CIA play by the DOD rule book. For instance, a CIA interrogation method may be ellaborate and time consuming which can be applied over years (make them crack without realizing it). The DOD doesn't have time for that. If you make the CIA follow the DOD rulebook, the CIA could not longer use those time consuming and elaborate methods that generally produce better results. They're stuck using the methods that the DOD use.

Let me phrase it differently: The DOD wants information as to where enemies, weapons, and supplies are being stashed. That way they can go and check it out ASAP. The CIA wants information on high-value targets and long-term strategic information like where the head of state sleeps at night and where they are developing weapons of mass destruction. The DOD wants information to create on the fly tactics. The CIA wants information to create a sound, long term strategy.

I really can't make it any more clear than that. By vetoing it, it defines the role the CIA and DOD play in war.

 

[trt740]

An interesting read. However its not always what you have, its what you have the potential of having with better management. It's always a good time to take god out of the pledge of allegiance. Church and state should always be seperate

All our laws in the USA are based on the ten commandments as are the UK's and all the countries that were apart of her empire . So should we remove law ? and I don't agree with you. Religious back ground is the basis of our nation.

 

[mdm-adph]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story

First story from April^

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

Second story^

linkage 4 ya

...and believe it or not, it's still hearsay, just like the video of John McCain and Jane Fonda in 1975.

 

[trt740]

...and believe it or not, it's still hearsay, just like the video of John McCain and Jane Fonda in 1975.

No it's not hearsay the La Times confirms it happened but will not release the tape. I believe thats called bias and a cover up to an extent. Ask yourself this if there was a tape of Sarah Palin doing what is alleged here and now confirmed would they with hold that tape?