Obama '08?

McCain just lost my vote.


McCain: Bush should veto torture bill
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain just lost my vote.


McCain: Bush should veto torture bill
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

Perhaps McCain is waking up to reality? I also think we should never outlaw any methods, as a matter of law. It is not our policy, but in extraordinary circumstances, it should be on the table as a last resort, or as an option. That is only common sense, ci, so perhaps McCain is waking up to common sense. I might just vote for the man after all.

Butrflynet wrote:

Part of the problem is that the people who are fanning this are leaving out one very important word in the quote from Michelle's speech. Another part of the word is that when you are reading the text of that speech you don't hear the inflection that was in her voice when she said that word they omitted. When the word and inflection are included, the quote takes on a different meaning.


What's the word that is being omitted?

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Isn't youtube great???? :wink:

When she spoke in Milwaukee earlier in the day, she said "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".

Later, in Madison, she added the 'really'.

Maybe in the next speech she'll see fit to tell us what country it is that she does feel proud of.

Isn't youtube great???? :wink:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Part of the problem is that the people who are fanning this are leaving out one very important word in the quote from Michelle's speech. Another part of the word is that when you are reading the text of that speech you don't hear the inflection that was in her voice when she said that word they omitted. When the word and inflection are included, the quote takes on a different meaning.


What's the word that is being omitted?

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Isn't youtube great???? :wink:

Depends on who is doing the editing of the video uploaded to youtube.

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain just lost my vote.


McCain: Bush should veto torture bill
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

Perhaps McCain is waking up to reality? I also think we should never outlaw any methods, as a matter of law. It is not our policy, but in extraordinary circumstances, it should be on the table as a last resort, or as an option. That is only common sense, ci, so perhaps McCain is waking up to common sense. I might just vote for the man after all.

The 'last resort' has nothing to do with the law.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain just lost my vote.


McCain: Bush should veto torture bill
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

Perhaps McCain is waking up to reality? I also think we should never outlaw any methods, as a matter of law. It is not our policy, but in extraordinary circumstances, it should be on the table as a last resort, or as an option. That is only common sense, ci, so perhaps McCain is waking up to common sense. I might just vote for the man after all.

The 'last resort' has nothing to do with the law.

Cycloptichorn

Huh?
Actually, liberal logic is hard to fathom. I would think the next step is to outlaw war, since that is also inhumane as well, don't you think, cyclops? What are you waiting for, simply with the stroke of a pen, outlaw all acts of war, and we would no longer have these problems at all. I don't know why you guys have not thought of this yet?

Well, we have only used methods to fit the circumstances so far, in my opinion, so why get all hot and bothered with laws? A law does nothing but tie the hands of the people protecting us, thats all it does. It is nothing more than a political tool, thats all. It makes no more sense than making a law against war. And that is impractical. This whole issue is utter stupidity perpetrated onto us by a bunch of mindless leftists, as a tool to demonize Bush. It has accomplished nothing productive.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

I agree that there is a lot of structural and fundamental work yet to be done. But, it's a good environment to be doing it in - Republicanism has failed the country, and it's become rather obvious.

McCain will NOT WIN running as Bush term 3. It's a serious problem for him.

It is a good environment for us, which is why the right is deeply concerned. But they play for keeps. There are many many billions of dollars at stake here (consider changes in regulatory regimes alone). What is about to come at Obama or any dem candidate will not only be broad, deep and serious, it will be effective and influential. They know how to do effective and influential.

This is why, even though it is disappointing that it means he would have to withdraw his proposal to conduct the general election as only a publically-funded campaign, I think Obama would be a stupid fool to agree to it without negotiations and agreements that include the 527s, 501s, and other mechanisms of negative Swiftboat campaigning.

The one thing that eases the disappointment is the knowledge that we received today. We're very close to breaking the 1 millionth donor milestone this month and the vast majority of those are each under $200. That's public funded at its best.

I wonder what words McCain will be using after tonight when he talks about honesty, ethics, honor, morality, marraige, or lobbyist reforms...

I wonder what words McCain will be using after tonight when he talks about honesty, ethics, honor, morality, marraige, or lobbyist reforms...

Butrflynet wrote:

I wonder what words McCain will be using after tonight when he talks about honesty, ethics, honor, morality, marraige, or lobbyist reforms...

I wonder if Tony Rezko and his buddies pop into Obama's mind when he talks about honesty, ethicsm, honor, morality etc etc etc.

Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.
By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is seeking his party's presidential nomination.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

I wonder what words McCain will be using after tonight when he talks about honesty, ethics, honor, morality, marraige, or lobbyist reforms...

I wonder if Tony Rezko and his buddies pop into Obama's mind when he talks about honesty, ethicsm, honor, morality etc etc etc.

I'm sure they do. That is probably why Obama has donated all the Rezko money to charity.

okie wrote:

Well, we have only used methods to fit the circumstances so far, in my opinion, so why get all hot and bothered with laws? A law does nothing but tie the hands of the people protecting us, thats all it does. It is nothing more than a political tool, thats all. It makes no more sense than making a law against war. And that is impractical. This whole issue is utter stupidity perpetrated onto us by a bunch of mindless leftists, as a tool to demonize Bush. It has accomplished nothing productive.

What a completely unAmerican attitude. We are a nation of laws. Not just when it is convenient. All the time.

You just don't think it's wrong to torture people, and that's a horrible opinion. And one that I cannot countenance without asking you to consider your words more carefully.

Cycloptichorn