jackattack

Because being released doesn't make you innocent either.

No you are an Obama apologist. Ethnic cleansing doesn't account for the gains across the country like in Al Anbar province. Not to mention it says the population shift would have cause a decline in sectarian violence. Attacks on the troops are down as well.

Oh please. One Imam told Bin Laden that? That's like saying Obama's old pastor is mainstream Christianity. Totally ridiculous. There are not many churches like trinity church. That is one of the few churches in the country that preaches black liberation theology. Not even many black churches preach that. There are an awful lot of mosques that preach radical islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_extremism

No it was the surge. Along with the sunni awakening which probably wouldn't have happened without the surge.

I'd say army reserves. I've been to Indiana and it's hella cool. Good Luck and God Bless!

... And Article 17 states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." For a political treaty, I have to say I think that section is pretty [bleep] unambiguous. No room for "well, we weren't really going to kill him". The first sentence of Article 13 is also an interesting - albeit slightly ambiguous - statement; "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." Yes. Well done. What I was getting at though, was the significant number of detainees released without actually being sentenced for anything. "These people", are not guilty of anything because the US military saw fit to throw them into lock-up. Which is why so many - I believe someone quoted a number earlier - have been released. You're not talking about brutal treatment for individuals whose guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt; You're talking about brutal treatment for people who were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The fact that the preceedent that sets for your governments actions doesn't scare the [cabbage] out of you, well, scares the [cabbage] out of me. Just because they are releasing them doesn't mean they are innocent. They just don't have enough for a conviction for most of them. Even Osama Bin Laden's assistant who helped him escape Afghanistan when we invaded only got 5 1/2 years. They still shouldn't have let the prisoners who they aren't going to charge with anything go until the war is over. Something like 50 have been confirmed to go back to terrorism.

There are many top imams who preach extremist islam. That would lead me to believe it is a substantial number of muslims who buy into extremism. And the I forget the whole story but before 9/11 some Saudi imam told Bin Laden the exact number of people he could kill. It was like 3 million innocent people and 1 million children.

You're trying to argue 100 million Muslims want to kill you because one complete nutjob does, and he happens to use some twisted interpretation of the Qu'ran in justification? Frankly, I wonder to myself how many of these Islamist Extremists even abide by sawm during Ramadan, while they're training to wage war against the west. Half of them relate nothing to spiritual Islam. Terrorists are despicable. But to suggest each and every Muslim wants to kill you is just plain crazy, it really is. I never said each and every muslim wants to kill me. All I said is if even 10% of muslims accept extremist interpretations of the Qu'ran that is still 100 million. I made that figure up. It may be 5%. Even that is at at least 50 million.

Just because we were wrong going in doesn't mean we should withdraw. A year and a half ago when the violence was near the highest it had been should we have said "oh we shouldn't be here anyway lets just leave the Iraqis at the mercy of Iran, and Al Qaida". That is exactly what Obama and his buddies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to do. Harry Reid even said that the war was "lost" How he is still Senate majority leader I have no idea. He should have been censured at the very least.

Well I think the facts of the surge speak for themselves. Overall from the beginning of the war you might be right but over the last year the democrats have been completely wrong. They just don't like to admit it. I mean if the surge has been a success wouldn't you change your vote on it? It is ridiculous. Ya it's been successful but I was right in my opposition to it. :wall:

I'm pretty sure Osama Bin Laden does. :wall:

He caucuses with the democrats and usually the chair of a committee is a member of the majority party. And in 2009 the democrats are going to throw one of the few democrats in the tradition of JFK completely under the bus. And what I meant is that mainly Lieberman goes against his party on the war, which he is right on. Hagel mainly goes against his party on the war also, but he is wrong. Just like Harry Reid.

No it didn't, it's making things worse. The government is just causing the value of the dollar to decline. Fueling inflation won't get them out of recession. Wow, if you agree with the libertarians that we should have just let those corporations die, you obviously know NOTHING about economics/global economics. Not only would the US's economy be spiraling out of control beyond our imagination, but the world would be facing very detrimental repercussions as well. What they are doing is unconstitutional. Only congress is supposed be able to appropriate money. They are just creating money out of thin air to get around that.

Whom? Joe Lieberman (who technically isn't even a democrat anymore)? Lady Rothschild? lol Joe Lieberman is a democrat. He was the Vice-Presidential nominee only 8 years ago. He's still the chairman of the homeland security committee. He still caucuses with the democrats. He's the only reason they have the majority. And unlike Hagel the thing he goes against his party on he's actually right about. I mean Hagel has been nearly as bad as Harry Reid.

^^ Thats really never been proven either way I think. And it doesn't really matter. It's only brought up by atheists who like to go "OMG HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN!!!" I've never read the Qu'ran but I think the main thing about it is that the violent verses are in the second to last book/chapter and the later verses are supposed to overrule the first ones. Even if only 10% of muslims buy into extremist interpretations of the Qu'ran that's more than 100 million people who want to kill me and my family.

Hagel hasn't even endorsed Obama. There is also a top democrat who has endorsed McCain. He's a little bigger than Hagel.

I don't know about social security in America but in the UK child benefits are treat as separate to their parental situation and any other benefits being given. The rationale is that the money is being given for the child, not the child's parents to do whatever they like with, but also the child has the same basic needs be they born into aristocracy, or in some run-down suburb of Birmingham (with respect to people from Birmingham :P). Really, if you're saying only married couples, or those in civil partnerships, should receive benefits from the state, you're going back 50 years into the past. Marriage isn't the only indicator of a strong relationship, and most certainly isn't a measure of a person's ability as a parent. I have no idea whether married couples receive tax breaks for the sake of being married (I don't think they do since the very nature of being in a secure relationship improves your financial stability in general), but I would say tax breaks are given to married couples, those in civil partnerships and those who have been living together for a certain amount of time (but can't or won't enter an official union) in order to promote the rather vague term of "social cohesion". It's common sense to promote strong relationships, however, that doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage. Moreover, what about a gay couple who decide to adopt? You surely cannot deny them to adopt on the grounds they're gay, but you're only providing benefits to married couples, and gays cannot be married. Finally, the first line in that post - are you saying somehow that religion can decide what is and isn't a loving bond, but the state can't? I'd say neither is any more qualified than the other, both from an ideological and legislative point of view. Well yes. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't religious. And about adoption, I think that when you adopt or take a kid from foster care you get a monthly check to care for the kid. I'm not sure if it is when you adopt a kid, but I'm pretty sure that foster parents get money. If they adopt a kid they should be in a civil partnership or whatever and should get the same benefits married people get.

The burkha thing does gets silly sometimes. I heard a story about a lady who sued the dmv because they wouldn't let her take the picture for her license wearing it.

^^ It's not a reason to vote for him alone. But it's pretty stupid when people say he's not qualified to be President because he was a POW. I think it shows something about his character. [hide=] Am I missing something? What does bamboo chutes and fingers broken have to do with McCain? Those would be the gifts that the North Vietnamese gave him when he was a guest at the Hanoi Hilton. People are quick to say "McCain can't use a computer." And they are right, because torture has caused him to be unable to use his hands to type or manipulate a mouse. He has email, he just has someone to retrieve and print it for him to read. And likewise he has to dictate replies back. source here And as amused as I am about her email being hacked, it'll probably do more harm than good. She was believed to have been using that Yahoo account to shield communications from subpoenas as official public records, and now that email account's been shut down. source here [hide=some of the email info]An index of the e-mails in her inbox, which includes sender, subject line and date sent, indicates that Palin received numerous e-mails from her aides in the governor's office, some of which could be work-related. An e-mail from her press secretary, Meghan Stapleton, indicates the message is about the "Motor Fuel Tax Suspension". The subject line of an e-mail from Randall Ruaro, her deputy chief of staff reads, "Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger." Another one from Ruaro says, "Please approve" and another one is about "Court of Appeals Nominations." Other e-mails from Ruaro indicate they're about employee and budget issues for the DPS. DPS is how Alaska refers to its Department of Public Safety. Palin's chief of staff, Michael Nizich, sent her an e-mail August 22 with the subject line, "Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans." The subject line of another e-mail from Nizich reads "CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter."[/hide] He can use a computer for a very short period of time. He avoids typing because he can't do it for very long. For someone to suggest that he doesn't understand the internet is wrong. In 2000 he only won New Hampshire because of his website. http://graphics.boston.com/news/politic ... ult+.shtml http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said. Well that is just completely ridiculous. I was being sarcastic. I'm saying you're putting words into my mouth. At no point in this thread have I said "OMG, the Church hates gays so Church should be abolished". Allow to make my position absolutely crystal clear (although it will be no doubt muddied again by people pathetically playing semantics) - if the Church chooses not to accept religious homosexual marriages, then I would support the concept of a secular, state marriage being provided as well as religious marriages as a suitable alternative for gays to achieve equality to their heterosexual counterparts. It's really not a hard argument to understand. Well I think the idea of state marriages at all is not a very good one. You can't really legislate love. The only point to them is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier to raise their children and I don't think that two gay men really need that. Gays do have their own church. I don't know if they conduct marriages, but I know they have commitment ceremonies. If they want civil partnerships because all they want is the tax breaks than I say go for it.

Well driving a prius won't save you money unless you drive it for like 8 or 9 years. I really have nothing against it. It's just the opposite of saying redneck Sierra driving, gun toting, bible thumping conservative. And I hate starbucks. There actually is a place in the city where there are two right across the street from each other.

How about back in 30's or 40's when marijuana had been around and sold as a medicines for a long time, and suddenly it was a terrible drug that causes death, insanity, etc? Same thing, right? Why not just reverse it, educate people about the positives and negatives of it, and see how society deals with it. Personally, I'd love to just sit back and watch how our culture would change if marijuana was legalized. Pineapple Express anyone? ILLEGAL!!!!!

Thank God. They're the largest insurer in the country. If the government stood by and let these companies fall like dominoes we'd be going into a depression very soon. If they intervened from the get-go, these problems could be avoided... The sad thing is they've been watching the housing market decline for over a year now. Barack Obama tried passing legislation in 2006 to avoid it, or at least combat it. Too bad it's been in the Banking Committee forever and the only cosponsor is the other Illinois Senator. And I think all it would have done is increase the jail sentence for fraud.

The Bill O'reilly thing is hilarious. Ya just because Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate that means he's the force of evil whose real objective is to move America away from old Christian morality and give a kickin' to gun owners while he's at it. :thumbup: We all have our stereotypes. It's not nice but that's the way it is and during elections those stereotypes come to the fore. You're just as guilty for them as we are. There is a difference between disagreeing and thinking I am better than people who support Obama. I won't lie, sometimes I get a little heated and start thinking all democrats are prius driving, starbuck's drinking, hippies. I do come down when I am called on it or if I just realize it's a difference of opinion.

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said. Well that is just completely ridiculous.