|
"His last vestiges of integrity"? Even though I'm not a McCain fan I would have to say he has more integrity in his pinky finger that Obama has in his whole body.
So, what you're basically saying is that the people I know who've been waterboarded and have experienced it are wrong and you and the democrats are right because you're more "enlightened". Thanks Bill for clearing that up for me.It's not just Democrats. Until he sold out the last vestiges of his integrity to try to get elected, John McCain was vehemently against waterboarding because it was torture. While he's never said he was waterboarded (at least not to my knowledge), I think we can agree that he has more experience with torture than you or your friends who have experienced a view of that world through training.
Now that his presidential aspirations have been dashed, I hope the old McCain comes back out. The Republican side of the aisle desperately needs his perspective on some issues.
I don't know that I would agree with that statement. He took a pretty low road while campaigning when he could have spend the same effort extolling his personal virtues and accomplishments to, what I believe would've been, a much better result while being a man of great integrity. Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.
I like McCain and respect his record but his actions in the campaign made me not vote for him. He was too busy beating up Obama to lay out his accomplishments for review. If he had worked harder at touting his own achievements I think he would have done better and retained much more of his integrity.All IMO.
"His last vestiges of integrity"? Even though I'm not a McCain fan I would have to say he has more integrity in his pinky finger that Obama has in his whole body.Then you have a warped sense of integrity. How do you explain sponsoring a bill against torture and then refusing to vote for it? How do you square calling guys like Falwell "agents of intolerance" and buddying up to him at the Libery College speech to re-launch his presidential aspirations? How do you explain hiring some of the same strategists who were punching him below the belt when he ran against Dubya in 2000?
Surely I'm not the only one who watched him sell out and thought it was very unfortunate. I think he tried to figure out what he had to do to win the nomination this time but read the signs wrong, very wrong, and his integrity took a hit.
There's nothing wrong with my integrity. I highly recommend to you Mr. Dunn that you stop the personal insults. As far as Obama goes, do I need to say more? The man has plenty of dirt on him. Of course I'm sure you overlook that.
|
Where do you get that we have been doing it nonstop to certain individuals? That isn't true. Trust me, if someone had died from it the press would have found out about it, playing it over and over and telling us how evil Bush is.Link2.
Based on the description of his injuries I suspect that Gen. Mowhoush was beaten while being held down using towels or blankets of some sort. Unfortunately a lot of our younger soldier, raised on movies like Full Metal Jacket, believe that this is an acceptable way of dealing with "problem" individuals. I even heard rumors of it happening to people in other units once or twice while I was in basic training. The other thing to remember is that the people who did this were in fact prosicuted, which means that it was not an accepted or sactioned practice. Here is a video of some kids beating their friend for being the first to fall asleep. While they did it as a joke, it shows something about our society as a whole and the youth in particular.
This is not just a case of overzealous idiot teenagers, much of this was run by higher-ranking officers and CIA operatives. If men were abused in this way, how can you say the same people in charge weren't doing something terrible when waterboarding others?
And the "prosecution" you speak of is a joke, seems as though accidently killing someone gets you administrative punishment or house arrest.
Where do you get that we have been doing it nonstop to certain individuals? That isn't true. Trust me, if someone had died from it the press would have found out about it, playing it over and over and telling us how evil Bush is.Link2.Based on the description of his injuries I suspect that Gen. Mowhoush was beaten while being held down using towels or blankets of some sort. Unfortunately a lot of our younger soldier, raised on movies like Full Metal Jacket, believe that this is an acceptable way of dealing with "problem" individuals. I even heard rumors of it happening to people in other units once or twice while I was in basic training. The other thing to remember is that the people who did this were in fact prosicuted, which means that it was not an accepted or sactioned practice. Here is a video of some kids beating their friend for being the first to fall asleep. While they did it as a joke, it shows something about our society as a whole and the youth in particular.This is not just a case of overzealous idiot teenagers, much of this was run by higher-ranking officers and CIA operatives. If men were abused in this way, how can you say the same people in charge weren't doing something terrible when waterboarding others?
And the "prosecution" you speak of is a joke, seems as though accidently killing someone gets you administrative punishment or house arrest.
That had nothing to do with waterboarding. This was not a sactioned interrogation as well. As far as punishment goes, I'll agree they did get off too easily.
|
This is not just a case of overzealous idiot teenagers, much of this was run by higher-ranking officers and CIA operatives.
By younger, I was not refering to age as much as I was experience. Most of our current military has never been involved in a war. Many of the soldiers who's idea of how things in the military should work comes from the movies are mid-level and high level officers. They would be captains and majors, maybe even light colonels at this point. That has been a big problem througout the military, according to people I've talked to. The current crop of soldiers don't want to listen when the older, more experienced grunts try to tell them how the world really works. I had an experience with that myself while playing paintball with a bunch of ROTC cadets a few years ago. We had a disagreement and they started on about how nobody's perfect. I tried to explain that in combat, that is the attitude that gets people killed. They just blew me off.
Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.
Yeah, okay. Both sides were slinging and so were their supporters. But of course when people are on our side, it is easy to ignore their faults isn't it.
|
|
-Obviously multiple people did die in U.S. custody due to torture and beatings.
-These weren't sanctioned interrogations? If the presence of CIA operatives and/or high-ranking officers doesn't mean sanctioned, then what does?
-There were cover-ups involved which raises the question of how many of those were actually successful in keeping other deaths quiet.
-The first link I posted mentioned a man who was "hooded... and soaked with water" and that he later died. Sounds like waterboarding was involved to me.
-With all these problems, do you honestly believe the Army/CIA won't (or hasn't more likely) cross the line and overdo the waterboarding resulting in someone's death? This isn't smacking a guy around until he talks, this is bringing him to the brink of death through suffocation. There's a reason the U.S. Army banned this years ago, why it was brought back says something about our current culture and government.
-Also, go back to my reference to the Constitution (which was ignored I noticed). What part of the information below doesn't apply to the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments?
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."
|
-Obviously multiple people did die in U.S. custody due to torture and beatings.
-These weren't sanctioned interrogations? If the presence of CIA operatives and/or high-ranking officers doesn't mean sanctioned, then what does?
-There were cover-ups involved which raises the question of how many of those were actually successful in keeping other deaths quiet.
-The first link I posted mentioned a man who was "hooded... and soaked with water" and that he later died. Sounds like waterboarding was involved to me.
-With all these problems, do you honestly believe the Army/CIA won't (or hasn't more likely) cross the line and overdo the waterboarding resulting in someone's death? This isn't smacking a guy around until he talks, this is bringing him to the brink of death through suffocation. There's a reason the U.S. Army banned this years ago, why it was brought back says something about our current culture and government.
-Also, go back to my reference to the Constitution (which was ignored I noticed). What part of the information below doesn't apply to the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments?
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."
On a technicality, it isn't being used as a punishment. There is no provision in the Constitution against "cruel and abusive interrogation techniques that certainly aren't torture, absolutely not, no, no, no, what electrodes?"
On a technicality, it isn't being used as a punishment. There is no provision in the Constitution against "cruel and abusive interrogation techniques that certainly aren't torture, absolutely not, no, no, no, what electrodes?"
That is called "Shock Treatement", is a form of treatment for mental disorders. Not torture at all. Why are they on his testicles? Why everyone knows that a man's brain is ...
I'm waiting to seemore reaching across the isle.
Yeah, there is still some chance he might pick a RINO for something.
-Obviously multiple people did die in U.S. custody due to torture and beatings.
-These weren't sanctioned interrogations? If the presence of CIA operatives and/or high-ranking officers doesn't mean sanctioned, then what does?
-There were cover-ups involved which raises the question of how many of those were actually successful in keeping other deaths quiet.
-The first link I posted mentioned a man who was "hooded... and soaked with water" and that he later died. Sounds like waterboarding was involved to me.
-With all these problems, do you honestly believe the Army/CIA won't (or hasn't more likely) cross the line and overdo the waterboarding resulting in someone's death? This isn't smacking a guy around until he talks, this is bringing him to the brink of death through suffocation. There's a reason the U.S. Army banned this years ago, why it was brought back says something about our current culture and government.
-Also, go back to my reference to the Constitution (which was ignored I noticed). What part of the information below doesn't apply to the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments?
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."
When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.
So, what you're basically saying is that the people I know who've been waterboarded and have experienced it are wrong and you and the democrats are right because you're more "enlightened". Thanks Bill for clearing that up for me.It's not just Democrats. Until he sold out the last vestiges of his integrity to try to get elected, John McCain was vehemently against waterboarding because it was torture. While he's never said he was waterboarded (at least not to my knowledge), I think we can agree that he has more experience with torture than you or your friends who have experienced a view of that world through training.
Now that his presidential aspirations have been dashed, I hope the old McCain comes back out. The Republican side of the aisle desperately needs his perspective on some issues.
Sure, McCain has been tortured, but he's never waterboarded. So what makes him an expert? As you've stated the man has no integrity, so why are you believing anything he says anyways.
|
|
When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.
Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I expected more from you Gary than towing the party line and fearmongering.
|
|
You'd be surprised. I'd check out the FBI's record with interrogating the suspects in the first attack on the World Trade Center and the prosecutions that followed. All without resorting to torture. Not only did they get a lot of good information, it was also legally actionable.
You mean they got lucky and found a fragment that identified the vehicle, got luckier and one of the idiot terrorists went back to collect a deposit on the vehicle, had an informant to identify everyone, and had documents from the member of the group who assassinated Meir Kahane. They also arrested one person, questioned him, then let him go, at which point he fled to Jordan and remains on the Most Wanted Terrorist list.
You might want to pick a somewhat better example.
When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I expected more from you Gary than towing the party line and fearmongering.
Where did I put words in your mouth? I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked a serious question. Do we let these guys go? Fearmongering? It isn't fearmongering when it's the truth. Do you think these guys are going to become model citizens when they get released?
|
|
Where did I put words in your mouth? I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked a serious question. Do we let these guys go? Fearmongering? It isn't fearmongering when it's the truth. Do you think these guys are going to become model citizens when they get released?When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I expected more from you Gary than towing the party line and fearmongering.
Why are all the conservatives here taking what the government says as gospel? I thought the government was incompetent and full of lying gits according to you guys. How come it's now got it right that everyone in Gitmo is guilty (even though more than half have now been released because they weren't)? Suspicion of guilt ^= proof of guilt. I didn't think I'd have to explain the "presumption of innocence" to intelligent people.
|
|
Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.Yeah, okay. Both sides were slinging and so were their supporters. But of course when people are on our side, it is easy to ignore their faults isn't it.
Never said there wasn't mutual slinging, only that McCain's party was slinging much more. Most of McCain's ads were attacks against Obama. Most Obama's ads were ads talking about hope and the future. Sure Obama tossed out a couple comparing McCain to Bush, but the amount of negative ads put out by McCain was much higher.
I also stated that I wasn't initially on any particular 'side' but that the negativity from McCain's camp swayed me the other way. Don't make blanket accusations to try to smear my honor. I expressed my opinion on the matter in a non-offensive, non-accusing manner. Try to respond in kind.
The population of the U.S. would dwindle to 1/3 if the Brits ruled America again because of all the car accidents from having to drive on the wrong side of the road.
I loved Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda"....
;)
My name is Otto. It means "eight".
What was the middle thing again?
I had the privilege to see him in the late eighties in Joseph Papp's Central park production of King Richard III. Brilliant. I've never laughed so much during the opening monologue.
P.S: I am aware that this is both off topic and late but really I just have to ignore the political bickering as much as I can. It makes me quite anxious that people fail to see that society is more than politics again and again. Politics is less the business of running the country and more of a glorified Gladiator spectacle these days. Oh, he won? Throw in more lions, we'll see how he does this time.
Wouldn't the title of this thread exempt almost everyone who posted here from doing so? : D
High tails it.
|
|
Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.Yeah, okay. Both sides were slinging and so were their supporters. But of course when people are on our side, it is easy to ignore their faults isn't it.Never said there wasn't mutual slinging, only that McCain's party was slinging much more. Most of McCain's ads were attacks against Obama. Most Obama's ads were ads talking about hope and the future. Sure Obama tossed out a couple comparing McCain to Bush, but the amount of negative ads put out by McCain was much higher.
I also stated that I wasn't initially on any particular 'side' but that the negativity from McCain's camp swayed me the other way. Don't make blanket accusations to try to smear my honor. I expressed my opinion on the matter in a non-offensive, non-accusing manner. Try to respond in kind.
Actually that isn't true, a higher percentage of mccain's ads were negative. But Obama actually put out more negative ads than McCain by simple expedient of rediculously outspending the poor guy. I'm not saying either didn't get douchy and release annoying negative ads. If I heard one more time how congressional liberals were going to do this, or how McCains health care plan would do this I would probably have stopped listening to the radio. Joys of living in a swing state.
Anywho, guys can we move on from the torture issue, both sides have said their piece and this isn't a pursuasive argument anymore it's rapidly degenerating.
Why are all the conservatives here taking what the government says as gospel? I thought the government was incompetent and full of lying gits according to you guys. How come it's now got it right that everyone in Gitmo is guilty (even though more than half have now been released because they weren't)? Suspicion of guilt ^= proof of guilt. I didn't think I'd have to explain the "presumption of innocence" to intelligent people.Where did I put words in your mouth? I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked a serious question. Do we let these guys go? Fearmongering? It isn't fearmongering when it's the truth. Do you think these guys are going to become model citizens when they get released?When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I expected more from you Gary than towing the party line and fearmongering.
Well,you have to trust somebody. Who are you going to trust? A government official who's involved with the situation or a press that lies on a consistent basis. The vast majority of these people were found on the battlefield with a gun in their hands. We will pay dearly for the release of these so-called innocents. Getting off on technicalities don't make them innocent.
Wouldn't the title of this thread exempt almost everyone who posted here from doing so? : D
High tails it.
Ain't that the truth. I enjoy all the arguing and fighting. Gives me something to do.
|
|
Well,you have to trust somebody. Who...Why are all the conservatives here taking what the government says as gospel? I thought the government was incompetent and full of lying gits according to you guys. How come it's now got it right that everyone in Gitmo is guilty (even though more than half have now been released because they weren't)? Suspicion of guilt ^= proof of guilt. I didn't think I'd have to explain the "presumption of innocence" to intelligent people.Where did I put words in your mouth? I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked a serious question. Do we let these guys go? Fearmongering? It isn't fearmongering when it's the truth. Do you think these guys are going to become model citizens when they get released?When you have a situation where there is a guard/prisoner situation, this happens. It happens in prisons as well. You have to punish the guards to deter the behavior in the future but you know this is going to happen on occasion. So I guess your solution is just let these guys go? The problem isn't with waterboarding, it's with the guards themselves. People have died in our custody due to punches and kicks, not due to waterboarding. You're stating way to much conjecture. We caught one so we know there's got to be more? If you're going to link, please do not use wiki, ok? I'm not saying that it didn't happen but lets face it, wiki isn't reliable. You keep quoting the Constitution. In the past we were wise not to give Constitutional Rights to foreign prisoners, unfortunately that has changed. I guess America will be happy to know when a few of these guys get released on technicalities, they'll be bombing innocents again. Or if we do convict them, the judge and juries that put them away will have to fear for their lives.Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I expected more from you Gary than towing the party line and fearmongering.
This would be the same government officials who said Pat Tillman died m enemy fire rather than blue on blue? Or the ones that claimed Private Jessica Lynch fought of dozens of soldiers and was rescued from a torture palace, when none of that happened?
You pays your money, you takes your choice. And, apparently, we won't be agreeing on this one either. Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)
You pays your money, you takes your choice. And, apparently, we won't be agreeing on this one either. Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)
Heh, heh, heh. You know Paul, you're pretty cool for a liberal. :)
|
|
This would be the same government officials who said Pat Tillman died m enemy fire rather than blue on blue? Or the ones that claimed Private Jessica Lynch fought of dozens of soldiers and was rescued from a torture palace, when none of that happened?
Of course the alternative is "the media" that reported the same things. CBS even ran the Jessica Lynch movie that burned all of this into the hearts and minds of all their viewers. ;p
Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)
Funny. My wife uses this one to describe men in general. ;-)
Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)Funny. My wife uses this one to describe men in general. ;-)
To women we're ALWAYS wrong. Has anybody ever done a study on why that is?
To women we're ALWAYS wrong. Has anybody ever done a study on why that is?Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)Funny. My wife uses this one to describe men in general. ;-)
So we'll die before they do, and they get all of our stuff?
So we'll die before they do, and they get all of our stuff?To women we're ALWAYS wrong. Has anybody ever done a study on why that is?Darn you conservatives to Heck for being both wrong and stubborn about it. ;-)Funny. My wife uses this one to describe men in general. ;-)
That might be the reason. That's why women are smarter than we are. They plan for the long term.
Well,you have to trust somebody. Who are you going to trust? A government official who's involved with the situation or a press that lies on a consistent basis.
Technically I would describe both as groups that lie on a daily basis, or at the very least present information that makes their position look much better than it really is.
Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.Yeah, okay. Both sides were slinging and so were their supporters. But of course when people are on our side, it is easy to ignore their faults isn't it.Never said there wasn't mutual slinging, only that McCain's party was slinging much more. Most of McCain's ads were attacks against Obama. Most Obama's ads were ads talking about hope and the future. Sure Obama tossed out a couple comparing McCain to Bush, but the amount of negative ads put out by McCain was much higher.
I also stated that I wasn't initially on any particular 'side' but that the negativity from McCain's camp swayed me the other way. Don't make blanket accusations to try to smear my honor. I expressed my opinion on the matter in a non-offensive, non-accusing manner. Try to respond in kind.
Actually that isn't true, a higher percentage of mccain's ads were negative. But Obama actually put out more negative ads than McCain by simple expedient of rediculously outspending the poor guy. I'm not saying either didn't get douchy and release annoying negative ads. If I heard one more time how congressional liberals were going to do this, or how McCains health care plan would do this I would probably have stopped listening to the radio. Joys of living in a swing state.
Anywho, guys can we move on from the torture issue, both sides have said their piece and this isn't a pursuasive argument anymore it's rapidly degenerating.
Stop being objective!
|
|
Stop being objective!Instead he tossed about half-truths and blatant lies at a much higher rate than his opponent and allowed the people around him to spout much worse lies and some outright hatred.Yeah, okay. Both sides were slinging and so were their supporters. But of course when people are on our side, it is easy to ignore their faults isn't it.Never said there wasn't mutual slinging, only that McCain's party was slinging much more. Most of McCain's ads were attacks against Obama. Most Obama's ads were ads talking about hope and the future. Sure Obama tossed out a couple comparing McCain to Bush, but the amount of negative ads put out by McCain was much higher.
I also stated that I wasn't initially on any particular 'side' but that the negativity from McCain's camp swayed me the other way. Don't make blanket accusations to try to smear my honor. I expressed my opinion on the matter in a non-offensive, non-accusing manner. Try to respond in kind.
Actually that isn't true, a higher percentage of mccain's ads were negative. But Obama actually put out more negative ads than McCain by simple expedient of rediculously outspending the poor guy. I'm not saying either didn't get douchy and release annoying negative ads. If I heard one more time how congressional liberals were going to do this, or how McCains health care plan would do this I would probably have stopped listening to the radio. Joys of living in a swing state.
Anywho, guys can we move on from the torture issue, both sides have said their piece and this isn't a pursuasive argument anymore it's rapidly degenerating.
Have conservatives and liberals finally found some common ground? Down with the objective!! ;-)
[threadjack]
I agree with Sebastian.
[/threadjack]
That's because you are wrong ;p
Well, you're wrong because you think he's wrong.
Sebastianity is a false cult! Repent!
*Sits at the edge of the seat as the politic talk intensifies... put some chili on the popcorn*
Sebastianity is a false cult! Repent!
Yes. Everybody knows the Jacks are the only true cult.
*Sits at the edge of the seat as the politic talk intensifies... puts some chili on the frog*
*Sits at the edge of the seat as the politic talk intensifies... puts some chili on the frog*
Hey, careful with that! chili isn't ggod with frogs, you may want to try butter...
*puts Big Tex's chili on the popcorn*
*Sits at the edge of the seat as the politic talk intensifies... puts some chili on the frog*Hey, careful with that! chili isn't ggod with frogs, you may want to try butter...
*puts Big Tex's chili on the popcorn*
*Gets out tub of salted sweet cream butter and iron skillet*
Is it true you froggies can grow your legs back if you lose 'em?