That’s downright frightening Harry. This government is meant to be accountable to IT’S people not to some international popularity contest or bureaucracy (That’s the very foundation of a democracy and republic that liberals actually thwart regularly through the unelected courts blatantly breaking their constitutional authority).

As for children – they have had no time as an adult under their belt to allow time to develop a rounded and informed decisions should CERTAINLY NOT be able to vote. An adult can be ignorant (granted), but children by definition almost ALWAYS ARE ignorant for the reasons I stated.

I do agree that international popularity and ignorant children voting would help democrats though (Its true whether commented with rancor or not….but there’ a reason for it- the old saying strikes me here- if you aren’t a liberal when your 20 you have no heart, if you not conservative by the time you’re 30, you have no brain)

My piece of advice? Put off making up your mind for as long as possible. Once people 'commit' to a candidate, they start acting very strangely, as if they're cheering for a football team. I know which way I lean, but haven't committed yet.

I am ever stunned by how many Brits seem completely ignorant of some of their most critical history in the 10 year Churchill/Chamberlain debate. What the hell do they teach you kids in school over there?

By the way Palin did come off as green in that interview though no more so than the Dem PRESIDENTIAL Nominee Obama who has basically said the same stuff in relation to Pakistan and changed his mind 3 times on what he thinks about Russia/Georgia (ie. he has no CLUE).

B) McCain is right to change his mind on the tax cuts- that’s what makes an economy grow and helps middle class people with what really changes their lives- JOBS and opportunities.

C) Some of your talking points are right some are wrong, but they are not worthy of addressing because both political parties play politics (such as Obama’s outright lie that republicans are trying to scare people because he doest look like the guy on the $1 bill or might be a Muslim). What is important is not all this sound and fury signifying nothing, but rather who understands the economy, international history and forign policy, and who supports a republic via the constitution more- and where it matters there is NO CPOMPARISON. Obama is downright awful, McCain is merely poor.

D) Yes REALLY Obama will have more government than Bush – his plan AS HE STATES IT dramatically increases the size of government – if you don’t know that you should NOT vote- Seriously because you are clueless on the basics

klinteastwood - sounds like you need to grow the fuck up. No Liberal has ever declared Obama a "Christ figure". But the Rove-style Republican smear machine sure has. Gee, I wonder why...

And if you want to talk about shallow, at least Obama isn't out hawking "I'd rather be Waterboarding" t-shirts like so-called true conservatives. (Get it? Shallow... Waterboarding... your conservative party...)

Oh really? John McCain seemed to think so during one of the Republican debates when he had a rather heated exchange with Mitt Romney over that precise issue:

http://tinyurl.com/5etmk7

Keyword: WE

He does not claim to be Christ, nor do his supporters. The Republicans put forth that accusation because it scores cheap political points.

And I completely understand your other concerns. It's a sentiment that's shared by many when weighing experience, policy and so forth.

Now, go back to your council estate you limey, socialist twat!

Palin, on the other hand, is a complete mystery. She doesn't have a catalogue of interviews or a history of debates upon which to draw a clear picture of who she really is and what her plans are (Although a number of accounts of her tenure as Alaskan governor and Wasilla mayor leads me to believe she's utterly unqualified for the White House). Her interview with Charlie Gibson consisted solely of scripted and dodging answers. And she was so visibly unnerved by even the simplest questions. That's truly frightening to think she could be President in the case of an incapacitated McCain.

I personally find it an abomination that their campaign sought to shelter her from the press, not answerable to anyone. If she's qualified, she ought to make that case to the public. Not through rallies and speeches, but under questioning and through debates. No one knew who she was 2 weeks ago, but now half the nation believes she's qualified to lead the nation.

Apparently the admissions process for getting into a community college is more stringent than getting into the White House.

Note to you habeus corpus applies to us citizens not enemy soldiers or combatants. For that we go to Geneva Convention rules (if they meet the standard) or military rules when they don’t I’d teach you a class on this stuff, but you’d have to pay me fist. -

I also know that” that getting rid of habeus corpus subjectively, at the 'discretion' of the US Government is among the most dangerous and repellent things that has occurred in the last century”, unfortunately you don’t know the president that did that to US civilians- he went by the initials FDR (Yup another saint with a “D” after his name).

Sorry, your post doesn’t confuse me at all- it does make me laugh at your ignorance though. Maybe when you stop spouting left wing website left wing rhetoric and actually tell me what you are specifically worked up about we can continue your lesson.

Also for clarification, I don’t base my tastes for a candidate on “D” or “R” – it is unfortunate that modern democrats are almost to a person socialists who will hurt the economy (and thus the middle and lower class), but that’s not an all encompassing fact. If JFK were running today on the Policies he used in the 60’s, I would vote for him over McCain. I think he was smarter than McCain and understood economics better….unfortunately the current apples of the “D” party have fallen very far from that tree.

For the record almost all taxes are currently paid by the upper and upper middle class (Check the IRS website for the stats). What Obama will do is increase taxes on investment, on businesses, and on S corps (which are basically run on personal taxes)- and he result is that he will discourage new investment and new business people to take the risk of opening a small business. These businesses also run on very low profit margins *which is why about 8 out of 10 out of business), so increasing taxes on them will put more over the edge and drive more large businesses out of the country. This is not even that complex.

Ultimately how the middle class gors and becomes wealthy is by having more jobs that compete with each other for workers- so when you stifle business growth you lessen the numbers and wealth of the middle class. There is a reason the US economy has historically outperforms socialist and communist versions- its indisputavboe and not really that complex.

Also JFK gave tax cuts in a time of war (including to the rich). And after both the JFK and bush Tax cuts (as well as those of the 20s and by Reagan) all resulted in the same thing – MORE TAX REVENUE FO THE GOVERNMENT. Indeed the federal government brought in 20% MORE tax revenue AFTER the Bush cuts than it did before. Which is because the economy doesn’t operate in a magical vacuum that is immune from taxes. All you have o do is think like a business owner (Small or large). Do you take a risk on investment where failure is a loss and wining with profit will be obliterated by taxes anyway? Of course not. Which is why time and against low taxes on performance results in more money for the government and a healthier economy.

As for driving companies overseas- I agree that Bush and McCain do not have good plans at all on this front – lower taxes help, but free trade and Unions also effect this as to some extent do the incentives you correctly site. Unfortunately Obama is also bad here, and being terrible on the taxes will be what primarily differentiates him form Bush/McCain (He will change the equation- change it for the worse)

I watch Fox and CNN regularly and have never seen the Muslim thing- there is no way this is a smear that has had any publicized impact that Obama repeatedly claims.

Anyway glad the conversation has been civil- you are certainly right in you criticism that Bush is no conservative. Even in war- he may have understood the lessons of Churchill, but failed to learn those of Nam (he ran the war as Johnson made famous as a Liberal) .

Seriously, Damon's comical rant is about as helpful to Obama as the endorsement from Barbara Streisand

I'd say the Republicans should be more worried about the embarrassing nutty political rants of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter who speak on behalf of their party. Sure, they have a right to rant...but really, how embarrassing for you. And our country.

Nor do I think Biden will destroy Palin, if for no other reason than the is being set so low for Palin. The left has made her ought to be such a drooling, moronic red neck that as long as she says her name correctly, she will win.

Barring some major turn of events, I predict McCain will win. Except for theshortlived post convention bump, Obama has been trending downward since the Pennsylvania primary. The selection of Palin threw his campaign off balance and he has yet to find any way to fix it other than attack, attack, attack, and it has not worked so well for him.

Seriously, if you are running on hope and change, going negative and running with a 30+ year veteran of the US Senate is not the way to go.

Wow, so in hating prejudice you drop the most imbecilic and ignorant rant seen on this entire board….Well played you leftist tool your own words show your stupidity better than anything I could possibly say.

That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.

And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism."

Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 87 Aug 1, 1996

- You are correct, and that’s just one of many, many areas Mc-Lame is wrong.

He only had 2 years with the Dem congress, and when actual conservatives took over in the senate and House with (The Contract with America Congress) in the biggest landslide in American HISTORY (not counting the Civil war), Clinton had the political sense to give in from what he wanted to do and sign the bills the Gingrich congress forced down his throat. Because if nothing else he was a good politician.

Clinton may have griped about the balanced budget and fought welfare reform in private, but he signed it in public.

Unfortunately once the Republicans took over the white house as well, they lost some key members, and many new ones became corrupt and acted like leftists (as did Bush).

Incidentally, Impeaching Clinton was asinine and set a horrible precedent even though he did indisputably commit a crime in lying under oath

"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and time again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."

However, in this election I am most definitely voting for Obama/Biden.

As for you folks voting for McCain, I have a question. In the coming election, there are four people who have a chance of sitting in the Oval Office. Of those four, two will only get that chance if one of the other two (the winner) dies or is otherwise incapacitated. If you disregard that for a moment and look at all four individuals, how in the name of holy fuck can you choose the ticket that might place a zealot like Sarah Palin in the highest office of the land?

The woman's a reactionary, creationist, secessionist, hypocritical, book-banning, fundamentalist monster. Seriously, don't tell me you can look at her and not get Greg Stilson vibes coming off of her in chilling waves. She's exactly the sort of person who, if president, will wake her staff in the middle of the night after having a dream and threatening to cut her chiefs' "goddamned hands off" if they don't help her push the button.

Sarah Palin is quite possibly the most diabolical human being to come this close to the Oval Office. God help us all if she becomes president.

"The missiles are flying. Hallelujah."

No D-Day = Stalinist Europe from Dublin to Moscow.

I'm sorry 900LBGorilla, but you're a fucking ghoul. You've got the Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, a man who endured torture for a number of years, telling his PARTY and the COUNTRY that waterboarding IS torture. You know, the guy does know a little something about the subject of pain and torture. And yet, you seem to feel otherwise.

Well, congratu-fuckin-lations. I'm sure you're already wearing your "I'd Rather Be Waterboarding" t-shirt as we speak.

http://tinyurl.com/6675kl

Dismay seems to be an appropriate word for how millions of ordinary people around the world must feel now as the inevitable result of another pointless US election creeps upon us.

Bastard who aren't compassionate democrats like you should all die, right, 69dude? You realize that Obama would really like supporters like you to stop talking?

Where you are right is that the US entered later than we should have and though we supplied you (and Russia), we screwed England on some promises such as destroyers early in the war. You can, however, thank our left wing president FDR for that screw up…actually we all got lucky that Hitler invaded Russia as FDR’s indecisiveness would have turned out much worse had that not happened (FDRs own cabinet wrote a letter about how paralyzed he was and how he stopped showing up to meetings when it looked darkest for England). On a sidenote the lionized FDR is the same president who had the same wring headed liberal non- war arguments that you 2 seem to agree with a SECOND time. He also thought that becoming “friendly” and using stick-less negotiations with Stalin would get him to leave Poland and Eastern Europe alone after WWII….oooops Sorry Eastern Europe, like Chamberlain before him FDRs “peaceable intentions” got a lot of you killed and took your freedom.

On a side note, England is given FAR too little credit in that war when we cite the Russian impact on WWII. Had they not invented Radar and had the Brave English pilots not outfought the Nazis in a tide turning battle for Britain, the Russians would have had a fare more formidable and intact Luftwaffe to deal with- and the Russians were pushed to the brink a couple times in that war- this (and lack of American mass bombing of German industry) certainly could have turn the tide completely or given German industry the time to perfect the Jet or invent a Bomb of its own.

What about North Korea's reaction? Do you give one shit about the hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians who would perish in North Korea's retaliation? Or the U.S. troops who would get steamrolled because we currently don't have the conventional forces to repel an invasion? How about North Korea's promise to strike at Japan as well? How about the very real chance that China would use the conflict to retake Taiwan, a U.S. friendly country we'd basically be handing to the Chinese?

Do you, in fact, have any coherent thought in your head regarding international politics?

This is called living in fantasy land. Is water boarding nice – no and neither is blowing up women and children…neither is bombing or shooting someone in a war…..in fat waterboadring is nicerthan any of that.

I would bet you any amount of money that you would find waterboarding to be VERY distinguishable from real torture if you had the option of spending half a day with that option or the same time in a Vietnamese prison a camp, in Saddam Husseins actual torture rooms, or at the mercy of terrorists who chop off body parts. Comparing these is beyond silly- it’s childish.

You still haven't explained how your magic single bomb would work.

Next thing you know he'll want to talk to Iran. .... That would be silly. What good is diplomacy in a world filled with inherently evil people?

Yeah yeah he's a constitutional scholar. But as Alberto Gonzales said ... the constitution is a quaint document.

This country isn't about the constitution...it's about jingoism .... gay marriage ... the rights of fetuses ... hunting with automatic weapons.

They really ought to put that stuff in the constitution for it to be relevant.

The idea that an inefficient business killing bureaucratic system is “pro middle class” because it gives us some meager pittance to replace the jobs it drives away is beyond dim-witted. I don’t kno how anyone who has taken Economics 101 can vote for this.

Quote: "...a scary tactic that does no permanent damage whatsoever..."

Well, as far as damage and harm is concerned, a basic Wiki definition provides at least this much:

"Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure."

What seems lost on you is that the increase and APPROVAL of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (a term coined and used by the Nazis), means we lose the moral high ground on any sort of torture debate. It also puts our troops and citizens at risk should they be captured/abducted in various places around the world. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

I'd like to see how you faired under a waterboarding session. If you don't find it all that bothersome, maybe you can then volunteer for one of these vague military exercises that you seem to think validates the use of waterboarding.

Japan has threatened North Korea? After WWII? With what? Japan has virtually no offensive capabilities whatsoever. Their armed forces are strictly of a defensive nature and minute.

One bunker buster? For an entire nuclear weapons facility?

"N Korea will not try anything and if they do they would be swiftly defeated."

No, they will not be swiftly defeated. Yes, they will ultimately lose but only after causing a gargantuan loss of life, both South Korean, American and, yes, North Korean. The destruction wreaked by the North Korean army would be devastating. They're well trained, well equipped and highly motivated. Going to war with North Korea wouldn't be the same as going to war with Saddam's troops. It would be very, very difficult and very, very costly.

Seriously, what the fuck does THAT mean? Does Harry actually think 7-year-olds should be voting? Or that people who AREN'T U.S. citizens should be determining who OUR President should be?

Is that what Leftists like Harry actually believe -- that OUR elections should be determined by other people? Wait, let me guess, this is where someone is going to say "Yes, that IS how it should be! The United States is too powerful a country to decide for ITSELF how it should be run!" Seriously, I've already had my eyes pop and jaw drop at other web sites where ultra Leftists have made that argument. That the outcome of American elections should be determined by the rest of the world, which truly stuns me that anyone could even think that way...

A) You seem hung up on “terms” which is just a silly way to avoid the conversation.

B) If you think that terrorists are going to be nice to prisoners if we don’t waterboard then man I don’t know what to tell you – that level of naiveté is astounding

C) Yes torture is defined by damage and pain levels

D) You seem to have this fantasy land ideal that we can fight evil with harsh words- this has never been the case, and never will be. I wish it were, but that’s called fantasy land. We have every right to use fear abnd force short of actual torurte to scare evil people in order o save innocent lives. A terrorist who would blow up a woman or child loses his right to niceness. Sorry dude.

D) You continually fail to reconcile that we train our own troops with harsher and more painful exercises- do we then torture ourselves too yes no maybe? (I hear crickets)

F) Being reduced to citing the heavily discredited wiki is just funny.

I do not own a small business, but I have worked doing the books for aspects of one, and have worked for large and small companies.

I have also studied economics and it is clear to me based on your post that you have not. There is not much else I can even say to you other than pick up a book and study economics and the history of capitalism and socialism. There is not even a debate here, you need to go learn about the topic- maybe then your vote will be more informed (and if so it will be different).

You already lost this argument when you said that waterboarding is not torture. It's been defined as such by everything from the most basic of Wiki entries (nice token "heavily discredited wiki" jab) to the Army Field Manual, Geneva Conventions and United Nations Convention Against Torture. Techniques such as this have been shown to be ineffective and are not endorsed by the Intelligence community who is certainly more experienced with extracting information from suspects than you. Your ignorance and apparent desire to validate the use of torture is astounding.

Incidentally former CIA agents have defended the use of waterboarding as an interrogation tool, insisting that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, a major al Qaeda figure, got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. So its ineffectiveness or the need to do it for extended periods is a myth. Should it be sued frequently- hell no....but to rule it out in drastic situations is insane.

-Glad to see you are above prejudice Cap’n. Its “enlightened people like you” that make the world a better place…by the way where are you from Nazi Germany Circa 1941?

As for your question, I'm aware that we train our military (and the various sub-branches) by subjecting them to numerous hardships. I'm not going to assume to know what precise "exercises" you are referring to. Do you know what these are or are you hiding behind vague assumptions about our military?

Some of our ops are waterboarded, some endure extremely low temp waters for very extended periods after extreme exertion, and some undergo portions of interrogation techniques they may face. Some die in training. Much of this is as or more rough than waterboarding- none of it is as rough as what Saddam, a WWII Japanese soldier, a terrorist, or many others would do to you to get information with actual torture techniques that actually make the word have the well deserved horrific connotations that Waterboarding does not meet.....Again I wouldn’t use it much, but if its between a planner who may be set to pull off another WTC and this….no contest- and I bet most Americans would agree.

so do we torture our own Special forces?

Waterboarding is torture; it would be easier for Gorilla to just admit it and say he supports it. Just be honest. We don't judge here.

I love how you guys get hung up more on a word than the actual act- we NEEEEED to change th definition of torture so we have a buzzword. its SOOOOOOOO important- really. Talk about semantics over substance.

Police subject themselves to Tasers to experience the pain. Doesn't mean a Taser isn't effective against a real perp.

Gorilla you paying attention?

Your forgot about how we've beat some folks to death. Maybe you should read up more on some of the results of using these more extreme (aka outside the Army Field Manual, Geneva Conventions, etc.) techniques.

Quote: "Maybe while we're at it we should call call our troops murderers when they win a battle and demand they use rubber bullets so they arent murderers anymore- how's that sound?"

Sounds like an incredible straw man deflection.

Question-have we thus agreed rubber bullets are necessary in teh army?

and Geneva conventions don't even allow QUESTIONING beyond name rank and serial #....this isnt EVEN a strawman-its off topic. (The Geneva Conventions also SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE terrorists form the rights by the way).

Your welcome -its also the true colors of most americans when it comes to extreme cases cause unlike you they don't live in an ivory tower in a fantasyworld.

So guess I'll ask- President Gaius has a senior Al Queda operative (as we did) and who we think has material knowlege of an updcoming attack and says go bleep yourself when asked.....Preident Gaius let's innocent women and children die rather than runing water over the evil planner' head? Really?

And that's how you beat Al-Quaida.

Or something like that.

And this might be hyperbole.

What do you think of Bush and Cheney refusing to testify under oath about 9/11? If they were found to have been complicit in the attacks, would you be in support of torturing them?

BTW Waterboarding was used and approved by the Spanish Inquisition and Pol Pot.

Perhaps a clue to the more deluded that it might not be the mouthfreshening party trick that FOX News and Friends think it is ?

This is also a good thing as the executive is not SUBJECT to the congress in most things- it is an independent branch of government. The same scenario applied to FDR when he OUTRIGHT REFUSED to give ANY information to Congress regarding his wiretapping techniques. Funny how the NY Times doesn’t mention that (Actually they probably don’t even know about it as they aren’t that bright)

What also separates Bush and Cheney is that even if they were complicit they are US citizens and thus have Constitutional rights that enemy combatants don’t.(just like if you or I were complicit).

If there were evidence Bush and Cheney were complicit, then they WOULD have to testify, and impeachment and criminal proceedings (including possibly treason) would be appropriate.

Now all that said, I reiterate, though Clinton undeniably committed a crime in lying under oath (He should have refused to answer which was his right), I still say that impeaching him for that TYPE of perjury was idiotic and set a terrible precedent infringing on presidential independence for politics. I say this even though Newt Gingrich is probably the greatest and my most admired current conservative – his spearheading of the impeachment Clinton was dreadfully wrong and though congress was lesser without him the price he paid was necessary to hold others in the future from repeating this mistake.

Just wanted to help you complete your brilliant arguments.

Also, Bush had declared at least two American citizens as enemy combatants under Presidential order. So if Bush and Cheney were complicit, they could be deemed enemy combatants.

Clearly this was before he became a "Maverick" and changed his mind to lockstep into other Republican policies like the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy.

Just wanted to help you realise that your brilliant evasion, fleeing and scurrying away from the facts is even more laughable when the source of the facts were McCain.

No, no don't mention it. Only too glad to help.

The last 8 years are terrible how? We have had the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years (better than under Clinton even with the recent “bad number” being better than most of the Clinton years), we have had incredible growth in most Bush years outside 2001 and some normal dips. The main areas we have problems are energy (which is another story), the loss of blue collar and Manufacturing jobs- which has been a problem for decades and will CERTAINLY not be helped by Obama raising tax rates and strengthening Unions when corporations can get minimum wage workers (or less) in under developed countries, and by Illegals driving down wages in industries like Poultry where wages have dropped drastically as immigration rules are not enforced (that IS Bush’s fault but Obama won’t help that either). Our Economy DOES need to try and get manufacturing back-unfortunately neither Mc-lame nor Obama have a clue in this area- so we’re all kinda screwed.

With Cthulhu, you know what you'll be getting. With Dagon, you know all threats, er, all promises will be kept.

One of these was found on a foreign battlefield. I am not sure of the other. I am sure neither were waterboarded or the NY times would have written about 130 front page articles on it by now (like they did on the underwear scandal).

You do raise a more legitimate point here however- can Bush hold a Citizen as an enemy combatant without official charges. I believe he did this under the Patriot Act. (Correct me if I am wrong- I am not positive).

Using the Patriot Act which was approved by Congress CERTAINLY gives Bush the argument that he can do it. However, even if holding US Citizens is SPECIFICALLY APPROVED under the Patriot Act, I say that Bush is exceeding his authority as this is unconstitutional and Congress had no right to write (or Bush to sign into law) such a provision without a Constitutional Amendment. To be clear, the war powers privilege CLEARLY DOES give the president the power to suspend habeas corpus in some cases. As under Article I, Section 9, of the Cojstitution which states "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

But I don’t think that low level US soldiers acting as enemies on the battlefield meet this standard. It may be treason- but habeas corpus should still apply. Long story short it is unconstitutional for Bush to hold American Citizens as enemy combatants in these cases. That said left wing courts do FAR FAR more to overtly act unconstitutionally on a nearly daily basis (As did Mccain and the Democrats when they used a filibuster to over-ride the presidents CONSTITUTIONAL right to select Judicial Nominees) - and all these acts Bush, Judges, and the courts) are completely unacceptable.

Or rather you were trying to squirm out of it by claiming that there must be some good things that came from Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition. (sounds like you are dangerously close to trying justify both things) Though you'll have to refresh my memory as they don't immediately spring to mind despite your attempt to cloak them in Policybabble and Spin about "tactics" or "Policework".

It IS odd though, that absolutely NO-ONE sane or desperately Spinning would, upon hearing the words "Pol-Pot" or "Spanish Inquisition" automatically think "tactical and policework pioneers!"

Why is that do you think ? Perhaps they lacked sufficiently brazen spin-doctors and mouthpieces ?

For example do the NYPD use thumbscrews and boil people alive ? NO. They self-evidently do not, so stop wriggling.

They were used as torture by Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition. McCain said so as well as saying they WERE Torture. So when you try and claim I have no point you are really trying to say McCain has no point.

And McCain ALSO said this of Giulliani when he tried to justify waterboarding. His failure to call it torture reflected his inexperience.

But that's unpatriotic. I do hope Obama wins. Why would you so confidently believe otherwise? Polls might have them in a dead heat, or even McCain in a slight lead, but it's not like he hasn't led before. He did in early August.

The debates will define this election, for the most part. And in that I have utter confidence in Obama and Biden. Palin gave a rousingly snarky speech but if she crumbled so easily under Charles Gibson's questioning, she will surely implode in the debate.

I just think it would be funny if she started speaking in tongues. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Will you biy me a Heineken?

Education reform? Absolutely - we need to improve to not only stay competitive against the world, but we need an intelligent nation. (One that doesn't vote for a creationist, btw).

I don't think the Dems are AS bad as the Reps, but they have serious problems. I agree with you. Both parties need a good cleaning out with a focus on the welfare of the people.

The only thing we may disagree on is Social Security reform. If you're supporting privatization, count me out. No way should we hand over Social Security to a financial industry teetering on the edge of collapse.

B) I have already said McCain is wrong on this and indeed on many things….I don’t use him as a barometer of truth on almost any topic. He has some of the dumbest opinions I have seen in a Republican in quite a few areas.

We have neither capability, will or need to engage Russia in that part of the world.

Was it the Democrats who ignored the 4th Amendment and started wiretaps without a warrant- Actually YES. This Precedent was set by Liberal hero FDR prior to our entry in WWII when he started wiretapping and OUTRIGHT REFUSED Congressional oversight. Though FDR and Bush did have this right under the war powers act. Bush was even more within his rights as the 4th amendment addresses your property- calls generated from overseas are not a persons property, and thus not covered.

You should also tell the left of silly .com site that their GREATEST HERO- FDR set the precedent in WWII of actually IMPRISONING US citizens without cause (well except that they were Japanese)

Maybe left of silly .com should also generate its outrage at leftist judges who rob the citizenry of the CORE TENANT of the ENTIRE DOCUMENT which states that we are GUARANTEED A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT which is trampled on by leftist judges who legislate from the bench while being immune from our votes. Truly despicable from a constitutional standpoint and one of Jefferson’s greatest fears now come to pass. No one who has read the constitution should defend this abomination.

Or maybe left of silly .com.com should get outraged at the Dems in the Senate who broke the constitution by imposing a supermajority on the presidents constitutional RIGHT to select judicial nominees- they overrode the constitution with a SENATE RULE (the filibuster). Talk about outrage.

Go read my prior posts on economics only an economic simpleton would vote Obama on that count.

As for Palin Obama being equals your right they are not- Obama has never run anything, Palin has run a state and town. Obama has studied more foreign policy, but it seems to have dine no good as he changed his stance on both Georgia and Iran like 3 times over the course of a week (Hilary – who I am no fan of- made him look awfully green- as he is-hes been running for president more than actually working in the Senate).

We are in no danger whatsoever of having China collect on our debt. Same as in the 80's when Japan and Saudi Arabia held most of our debt. World financial markets are too interlocked to allow any 'collection' on debt to take place on such a massive scale. No 'Ameros' are in our future. Fannie and Freddie where saved, due in part to the Huge Chinese held debt in those entities that if they had been allowed to crumble, would have roiled the Chinese economy and had a ripple effect around the world.

Where debt hurts Americans, is that it raises prices for goods and servcies, while lowering gov't spending on programs and infrastructure. Politicians know that they can always ship the debt into the future, because if the worlds greatest economy, and greatest consumer of goods and services, would ever really fail, it would take every industrialized economy with it. The Chinese included. That is the beauty of capitalism.

Because Waterboarding and Torture is what we are talking about. You know it I know it and anyone who isn't completely blind knows it.

Trying to claim the premise rests on the farcical fallacy that Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition were brought up because I, McCain anyone sane wouldn't connect them with torture is a Lie.

Only someone trying desperately to find excuses would bring up idiotic nonsense about "toilet use" or "imprisoning people for murder" when the subject is torture.

Talk about a complete non sequitur and complete blindness to common sense never mind logic.

Both are self-evidently used for their CLEAR and UNCONTESTED association with Torture. Period.

It simply doesn't matter that you are hopelessly trying to divert and change the discussion. Nobody believes that Waterboarding, Pol Pot or the Spanish Inquisition has anything to do with "toilet use" or "imprisoning people for murder". The only person deranged enough to believe that they are relevant to a discussion about Torture is you. You can Spin all you wish it just looks pathetic and evasive.

Waterboarding is self-evidently associated with Torture NOT "imprisoning people for Murder" or "Toilet use".

That some are trying to wriggle out of this with horseshit excuses about toilet use and police procedure merely proves a complete lack of integrity and an inherent inability to face the facts. To claim otherwise is absurd and somewhat staggering in it's ineptitude.

As for disagreeing with McCain, that is your right. But I am willing to bet he knows a great deal more about the subject than you or 99% of Republicans.

Under Clinton we had a deficit until the Conservative republican Congress FORCED THROUGH a balanced budget which Clinton signed because his party just lost the largest landslide in US history (Civil war excluded) and he wanted to get re-elected.. This was part of the “Contract with America” written by the new conservative congress- maybe you’ve read it? Guess not.

Under Reagan we had a deficit, but it was not as large as in much of the past in comparison to the economy (like most figures such as movie grosses these numbers are given without relating inflation or size of the economy and is thus which is utterly meaningless unless 1dollar in 1987 is with the same as a dollar in 1937-and I think anyone out of second grade knows it isn’t even close)

As for the rest your argument IS based on a non-sequitur- sorry. If you want to debate tell me why I am wrong based on my prior posts- I’m not going to retype or double post them.

I know full well that Clinton could not have done it without congress. But Congress could not have done it without him either. It was an elction cycle, and he did want to get re-elected. He had to run against part of his own constituency to make it work. He had to buy into it and sell it. He had to cut spending and programs that liberals and even moderates had come to count on. Welfare reform was done under HIS administration. The get tough tactics that that angered some Dems had to be pushed through by him. Why is it, that credit can never be given where it is due? Why is it that Reagan and both Bushes could not achieve balanced budgets and leave office with a surplus? Reagan came into office riding on more momentum for change than any President in recent memory. But typical republican apologists like you dismiss his deficit, but give no credit to Clinton for his surplus. You can not have it both ways.

No President can change the economy on his own. None. And Clinton benefitted from a very prosperous economic boom. But he KNEW how to take advantage of it and a Republican controlled congress. Every President runs for re-election - save LBJ, so do not try and play that card. Clinton knew what he was doing. He knew the risks and the rewards.

Politics today isn't about mavericks or change. There is no individuality. Parties work in concert top to bottom. It's called being on message. The Republicans will not change with a new public face; the Democrats will not be significantly different than their last power period, merely 8 years ago. Believing 1 man can control the party is uneducated and simplistic - childish - today.

Voting for McCain because you dislike Bush but believe McCain will be different is childish. Voting for Obama because you dislike Bush and his 8 years is as logical as the American system gets. If you like Bush and his 8 years, then voting for McCain is logical too. But that doesn't apply to many people now.

I see a lot of Republicans who cannot defend the last 8 years but believe McCain will somehow change the entire policy and approach of his party and redeem Bush's mistakes. They believe in the myth of personality. That is childish.

One of the great problems with American politics is the long term inflexibility of its voters - a small group by turnout. Many of those who vote devote little actual consideration to what they are voting for; they will vote for who their parents voted for, or their friends, or who they think they should given their social position. And they will do it their whole lives, it will become a tradition - I vote Republican, I vote Democrat. And thus radical changes over time in the party they believe they support, they forgive, ignore or rationalise/cognitive dissonate because the thought of voting for 'the other side' is so awful. It is so contrary an idea to the concept of democracy and yet it has such a hold in a nation that believes in it so much. If voters would just swallow their pride, tradition and what their daddy told them, and vote for the party with the best chance of fixing any problems, whether that follows a Republican or Democratic presidency and whether it is the same or the other party that is in the best shape, or not. Then politics in America would be a little better off.

A generational shift is occuring even now in the U.S - especially in the south. More and more white collar workers - educated, and younger, from northern states, are changing the voting dynamic. It may not be enough this election cycle to change the outcome, but change is coming - pun intended.

Of course, the actual amount of oil in ANWR has been estimated to yield enough actual oil to power every American's car for a single day, but who cares what the tree huggers say? Drill Now! Wildlife Preserves are for pussies! There's no such thing as global warming! Adam and Eve had dinosaurs for pets! San Francisco! Energy Independence! Energy Independence! Energy Independence! Ignorance is strength! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Energy Independence!

2) She's married to a secessionist and has been present at Alaskan Independence Party meetings, despite being a registered Republican.

3) She says that one should teach both creationism and evolution in schools, but not as science and religion but as two scientific theories, thus undermining the difference.

Furthermore, I am neither a liberal nor an atheist, which proves how fundamentally shallow and poor your deductive reasoning is.

But, my sister-in-law said that Austin was shutting down yesterday in preparation for Ike, in case the city felt any effects from the winds and rain. Hopefully Harry, Yoko, FatherGeek and Co. are safe, dry and happy!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that waterboarding doesn't leave any physical damage even if it causes pain and discomfort. Does that in theory mean that if a machine is designed which can inflict any amount of physical pain and discomfort on its victims, that it doesn't constitute torture? If not, then at what level does the pain in effect become torture?

Sure, being fed into an industrial shredder or having one's nails extracted is probably very painful and uncomfortable, but could a case be made that being burned alive feels a lot worse? If so, does that mean the shredding and nail pulling isn't torture as much as being torched is?

Or what about special forces soldiers who knowingly and willingly endure beatings while training for interrogation? Does their willing participation mean that real captives who are beaten AREN'T being tortured?

The bottom line is that if we condone waterboarding then we have in fact begun descending a very slippery moral slope which surely and inexorably will erode America's moral high ground. What is the point of fighting an enemy which we slowly and gradually begin to resemble?

Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple, no matter how many "worse" forms of bodily harm you try to compare it with.

Oh and if you ask me, a Mother of 5 has no business running the country which she will once McCain gives up the ghost.Don't blame Gibson cause this Woman failed to give direct answers, she's a idiot and she was coaxed/prepped nonetheless.You bitch about partisan polititcs, well guess which side fucked up the Country during the last 8 years?No candidate can bring total change, but i'll support the "lesser evil" any time of the motherfucking day.Most Republicans are classless douchebags and the Dems need to grow more pairs of balls to go after McCain/Palin we don't need to treat her with kid gloves because she's a Woman.Ol'Johhny picked her for obvious reasons one of them would be a psychological tatic: "you can't diss a mother of five, you sexist bastard.."Race Card?1? No, "it's the Gender card stupid".

I however will vote for change if any.Bam is not the so called mesiah, but I'll give him the job before that rhetoric spewing ol pussy and the MILF. Atleast you're honest enough to attack both contenders, however you are very bitter.

Not looking through Rose tinted glasses.

SE

UH OH!
Current mood: shocked

I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin.

I couldn't be more supportive of a woman in office, but let's face it, it comes down to the person, and their beliefs, male or female.

Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?

I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be... Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she's FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land.... Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country.

Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play...

Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?

I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice... I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the "lipstick on a pig" comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president...

Palin's Desire to "save and convert the gays"-really??

According to this Associated Press story, the church of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is hosting a kind of conference devoted to the "conversion of Gays" -- no kidding.

Here's the AP text:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) ? Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed since she was a child.

Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com /2008/09/sarah-palins-church-h osts-anti-gay.html

I feel it's necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman.

Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies... And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that.

Oh, and...Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!

And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it"..

Lindsay- "I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!"

Samantha- "I love this country- however i wasn't born here and don't have the right to vote- so i beg of you all to really do your research and be educated when you cast your vote this coming november.... and if you're in doubt- vote for obama! Mainly because if she gets elected my green card probably won't get renewed!!!"

xoxo
Lindsay and Samantha

It really makes life easier for us readers.

Yes, the Republican party was all those things you said they were in the past, they changed. And guess what? So did the Dems. This is 2008 dude.

And hence better qualified!

2) She has said that BOTH creationism and evolution should be taught but she has NOT emphasized one as being taught in science class and one in religion. She, like so many other creationists, is using a very popular tactic these days, the purpose of which is to blur the lines between the two.

3) Her husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party for YEARS and she was present during meetings in Wasilla. How common is it for Mayors in America to attend the meetings of every political party just because they happen to be mayor of the town in question?

You're splitting hairs here in an attempt to deflect legitimate criticism of her anti-American and zealous behavior.

And TR, yeah, he began the conservation movement, which is one reason I admire him. Now ponder how that would go over today. What, he wants to take big tracts of land away from miners and ranchers and developers and set them aside for tree-huggers and hippies? Oh yeah, that would go over really well with your crowd.

My biggest problem with the wacko right-to-lifers is referring to stem-cell research as baby-killing. The embryos in question are most often gotten from fertility clinics to be used rather than discarded. Sounds like making lemonade from lemons to me. And some real cures for real diseases would be a direct result of this research. Both Obama and McCain know this. That is one reason the far right hates them both.

Do you know how many embryos are destoyed in fertility clinics so that a couple can have ONE child? If you mouth-breathers REALLY wanted to stand by your convictions you would be protesting fertility clinics and rallying that this practice be BANNED ala stem-cell research. Then you'd see how tolerant the general population actually is of your radical views.

Vote the issues Harry? That'd be great. Just one thing, Obama and McCain are pretty much identical on all issues. And anything they appear to differ on goes away once on of them gets elected. While they're talking about lipstick, healthcare and pointless wars, the economy is on the verge of a total collapse making everything they stand for irrelevant. The Great Depression will seem charming and quaint by comparison.

It is an interesting horse race though. Obama should have won this by double digits but now he's in trouble all because the democrats are so mind-blowingly incompetent at campaigning. It's like watching a train wreck. All he has to do is focus on McCain and the economy but instead he decides to duke it out with McCain's flunky, Palin. They'll burst her bubble, leaving McCain to emerge unscathed just in time for the election against a much diminished Obama. The more he points out her lack of experience, the more he draws attention to his own. Not that I have a preference on way or the other now that Obama made it clear he's on board with FISA and the war agenda (even talking draft).

The sad truth is, if you're a Democrat, you should root for McCain and if you're a Republican, you should root for Obama. Because no matter who wins this, they will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time. There is nothing either of them can do to get us out of the hole the bankers have dug. The next president will be a one-termer. What we need to do is throw all the bums out of congress (except for the one honest one).

Did you know the Fed shut down Silver Springs State Bank in Nevada last week? McCain's son was on the board, and he bailed out in July. He was on the oversight committee overlooking internal audit practices. Likely he saw some bad shit, but neglected to share it with stockholders. Nice.

The Fed IS however talking about some kind of "softening the blow" funding and lending to wind down Lehman Brothers and other comparable institutions over the coming weeks to avoid a catastrophic domino effect not just in America but Worldwide.

It is true though, a lot of (relatively) small banks are beginning to go to the wall and the knock ons from Lehman Broters could well be horrendous.

Were I a campaign manager of even rudimentary intelligence I would be feverishly prepping the candidates for "All the Economy All the Time" very soon.

A "soft landing" for Lehman is being contemplated now rather than the panic immediate liquidation would bring.

Real fear is motivating these Banks to try and nullify the blow that a bankrupt Chapter 11 Lehman Brothers will have on the markets.

It may be too little too late though.

A buy out is now almost certainly off the table. Question is will Wall Street hold it's nerve or will Panic of incredible proportions set in tomorrow ?

Hold onto your hats folks this looks like being a rough one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

for each of the following the first number is the public deficit in the first year in office and the second number in the last year in office: ford: 3.4%,4.2 carter: 2.7%, 2.7%, reagan: 2.6%, 3.1, bush: 2.8%, 4.7%, clinton: 3.9%, -2.4% (surplus), bush: -1.3% (surplus), 2.6%.

basically the only presidents really since say, Johnson who have not significantly added to US public debt have been carter and clinton, and the two worst offender are bush and regan. That said, you may well say that you got a bang for your buck: bush's major expense has been the war on terror and communism fell sooner rather than later because of regan's military spending. so i'm fence sitting on whether it is a good thing or not, but the fact is republicans spend more and have bigger government.

Please look up Christopher Hitchens for a recent article on what waterboarding actually is, and then stop this nonsense once and for all.

Sooo, anyone heard the latest financial news regarding investment banks?!?

You vile piece of human flotsam, do us all a favour and fuck off.

We don't. We know damned well that we have no say whatsoever in who the next American president is. However, as the US is the world's only superpower we look on this with a sense of terrified amusement. Remember, when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold- so damn right we care that a creationist is within an ace of the White House.

Even the Jews don't want Creationism in public schools - and they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament. Jesus.

I don't agree with your choice for President, but I would rather someone vote for Obama because they like his policies than vote for McCain because they like his ads.

Informed voting ftw!

It is also relevant how closely associated Obama is with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers bombed several places in United States including the Pentagon Fort Dix, as well as others. Then recently it seemed Bill Ayers made the big push that got started the Obama campaign. And Bill Ayers was quoted immediately before Sept. 11 2001, how he didnt regret the bombings and how he didnt feel he did enough. If a terrorist like Bill Ayers all of a sudden made a push to have Barack Obama become president, I'd like to know exactly why. That is most definately relevant to this discussion one way or another. But perhaps you just want Barack Obama to be president so incredibly bad, that no skeleton in his closet will phase you.

I ask anyone who supports Obama, if you haven't spent some serious research learning about Obama's relationship with Wright and Ayers, consider now how obsessed with getting Obama elected you are. You seriously can't ignore that stuff outright. Even if it turns out to be innocent- you need to find out. These are not minor details. But perhaps if you are a person who has similar skeletons, maybe this isnt a big deal to you.

Ok Dave, I will go to his site. I want to know exactly how he is going to do all these things, and why these are going to be possible. I'm don't think he is specific enough in person to convince me of these things.

I'm glad neither of them won, but I really like this Obama guy over McCain and Palin.

Palin's got a lot of Botox work in that face. Hard to read any real emotions when looking at it. Making it very hard to trust what she says, since her face gives no tells. She's mastered the look at the center of the eyebrow area of her interviewers. Her eyes don't catch/follow their eye motions when these interviewers move their eyes. This is a trick my dad taught me to intimidate people and lie if I need to save my own ass.

She's pretty slick with her words and she seems too gleeful when talking badly about the Bama. I hate women who relish in talking badly about other people. Practically getting off on it.

The one thing that gets me though, about this pick a winner to run the country stuff. Why are these guys always so rich and well off... Were is the average guy who represents the majority of us blue collars here. Why do these guys hire other people to write their speeches. How can I believe in anything they say when they are reading someone else's words. Until that guy or woman comes out and runs. I'm going to stay at home, but If I voted it would be for Obama.

snakes on a plane 4,710,000 aint it cool news 551,000

And by the way, asspiece, there is nothing that keeps politicians from passing "bad" laws (define this, please) and certainly not guns. The fact that you are such a stereotypical NRA card carrying redneck isolationist tool that you think that your beloved gun keeps democracy intact is beyond laughable.

For your information, aside from flaming your crushingly ignorant post, I provided 2 pieces of relevant TB- the vanity fair reference and an explanation as to why the rest of the world cares about this election.

So go back to beating off over guns and ammo or Soldier of Fortune or whatever the fuck it is, and be thankful that you live in a country where you are allowed access to a firearm, despite having a similar IQ to a brick.

Conservatives are racist, Conservatives are sexist, Conservatives hate gays, Conservatives hate foreigners, Conservatives don't care about the poor, Black Conservatives are Uncle Toms, Conservatives love war, Flyover country Conservatives are stupid

Maybe you're okay with all that, I don't know. It worries me a little more than Obama's former minister being pissed at Whitey.

As for Bill Ayers, thanks to you I've looked into this. I'm not concerned about Obama's peripheral connection to a guy who committed his crimes when Obama was a child. I see no evidence that Obama is Ayer's pupil in domestic terrorism, any more than I believe that Don Rumsfeld's former paling around with Saddam Hussein means Rumsfeld is likely to start nerve gassing his neighbors.

Why do you think I don't ever know what I am talking about? Am I saying something that seems so ill informed?

As far as if I think Obama's pastor is relevant despite the fact that he repudiated him, let me point out how rediculous that thinking is. A presidential canidate disowns an association of his who is highly controversial. Did he disown him because he all of a sudden contrasts his values? Or did he disown him because he was hurting his campaign? Tell me you are smart enough to know the answer to that one. We don't know the mind of Obama, but we have some common sense, please use it. In fact Obama stopped going to that church when he started his presidential campaign- why? Well let me theorize, though it doesn't require too much thinking. He knew ahead of time how that church and their rhetoric would not go over well with the american people in large. He seems to be aware of how nasty his church is, but continued faithfully to attend until it didn't jive with his political aspirations.

As for whether or not this makes Palin's church minister relevant, it is. I am aware of Pentacostal religion, and I think I find it disturbing that she is pentacostal. The views that her church may have, and that if she attends, I agree she must have them as well, are not anywhere near as disturbing as Jeremiah Wrights points of view. I think you have exaggerated her church's beliefs when you say that they believe policy decisions are based on understanding the will of God- please dont do that. And when you mention a "Supernatural Being" you are talking about God, why didn't you keep it simple and use that word- it's a lot easier to type and more accurate- however it doesn't sound as creepy as the description you used for effect. Anyway, my point is, yes her church is just as relevant as his church. Bring it on. In a battle of Crazy church vs. Crazy church, Obama's wins EVERY time.

Pastor Hagee has a whole lot more crazy in the tank than merely that batshit insane opinion.

Yet McCain not only saught him out and tried for months to get his endorsement but held a press conference greeting the endorsement warmly and did not finally reject the Endorsement till well after many of his crazy opinions had been highlighted.

In fact McCain recieved endorsement from another Religious Right moonunit Parsley whom he also had to disavow and reject the endorsement of.

So that's 2 crazy preachers to Obamas 1. And Hagee WILL get wheeled out if McCain is foolish enough to try the cheap smearing of Obama by association.

Were I McCain I would be far more worried about his clear and present connection to Bush and the Republicans than trying to stir up fear with these peripheral characters.

The constant comparison of Republicans to Nazis and their leaders to Hitler ends up with an undesirable effect that you may not be aware of. It waters down the negative image of Nazis and Hitler. They were damn bad people, but kids growing up nowadays might not really realize that. When a little kid hears people constantly comparing Bush to Hitler, the kid will think, oh Hitler wasn't that bad, he just was some unpoplular politician who poorly managed an unpopular war 60 years ago. So go ahead and use up your Hitler card, eventually Hitler will be watered down and benign, and who knows what negative consequences it has when an entire new generation grows up unaware of how evil the nazis were. Good job dems.

Conservatives are racist

Don't support affirmative action which would help people of color gain higher status in society. You can bitch about AA being racist itself if you like but it'll just make you look like a jerk.

Conservatives are sexist

Don't support a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body; didn't support the Equal Rights Ammendment

Conservatives hate gays

Don't believe in same-sex marriage or even same-sex civil unions in many cases.

Conservatives hate foreigners

Want to be either isolationist or impose our culture upon foreigners; refer to France and Germany as Old Europe; "Freedom Fries."

Conservatives don't care about the poor

Tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans; Won't even support social security tax on incomes over $102,000.

Black Conservatives are Uncle Toms

They support policies through association that harm the poor who are frequently Black.

Conservatives love war

Could have fooled me. We're fighting two preemptive wars right now; "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

Flyover country Conservatives are stupid

See above.

C'mon... Barack Obama should thank GOD every night he was born as dark as he was, because if he WERE White, a background like that would destroy any chances of a first-term Senator like him ever attaining high office.

There's nothing far fetched about that scenario at all.

Others may say it's splitting hairs to complain about one crazy preachers opinions but dismiss anothers because McCain only ACTIVELY SAUGHT HIM OUT FOR ENDORSEMENT.

He didn't just fall into a press conference and there was crazy John Hagee who just happened to endorse him while he was there. He had months to vet and scrutinise Hagee and Parsley yet didn't seem to care about their crazy so desperate was he for a Religious Right boost.

Endorsement means Endorsement. If you think the views of Preachers who have now somehow become a crucial test for a candidates fitness to be President then Hagee is completely valid for McCain as Wright is for Obama. They are connected.

I myself doubt the wisdom of judging candidatesb on the vi