MrRain422

Planning on going for Ornette Coleman on Sunday.

I have the utmost respect for McCain's service. It was honorable and heroic. I just don't think that it necessarily qualifies him to be President, and it certainly doesn't get him off the hook for everything in the way that he and his campaign want it to. I disagree with denigrating his service but I also think that it's healthy and prudent to have a critical eye for when it is relevent and when it is not.

She didn't complain that McCain is running on his service though, just that he uses it as an excuse for a lot of unrelated things. Kerry didn't do that. McCain's time as a POW was his answer to his housing gaffe for god's sake.

The issue, to me, is that he is an advisor to the McCain campaign, but they don't disclose that when he appears.

9/11 9/11 9/11

The fact that it's even that believable shows just how low Fox goes sometimes. It's really not that far off from some things that they have said/done. That being said, they didn't actually do this one.

I have to think that that would be on Media Matters by now if it as real, and it's not.

There is a lot of evidence of lying. It can't be elevated to the level of "proof" because of destroyed evidence and refusal to testify to Congress. To suggest that there is no proof because investigations have been continually resisted is pretty backwards thinking, IMO. There is a ton of evidence that apparently adds up to nothing to some of you, simply because those that are implicated have attempted to cover it up at every stuff. If any of you are curious though, here are some good places to start: 1) Downing Street Memo 2) Habbush Letter

That's a huge stretch and you know it. I don't recall Lincoln torturing anyone or committing criminal conspiracy. He did do some things that were outside the law, but citing extraordinary circumstances, consulting Congress. Bush said that Congress is meaningless and he can do whatever he want. He refuses to even acknowledge any limits to his power. The Lincoln comparisons is one of the most insane Republican talking points that have somehow gotten swallowed up by the mainstream.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Not all presidents have been war criminals, though certainly Bush isn't the first. But just because others have doesn't mean that Bush's crimes haven't been worse, and it also doesn't mean it was okay that others got away with it. I just don't buy the excuse that others doing it before, especially long ago, makes it acceptable now. And that's not even getting into Bush's many crimes that aren't related to war.

Personally I feel that not having a war criminal holding our highest office is a significant gain. Bush has stacked the Department of Justice with people who are loyal to him. What prosecutor are you speaking of here? Mukasey? Or Gonzalez before him? Anyone who would prosecute would lose their job, simple as that. There is no independent counsel right now. The other option would be through the House of Representatives, but Pelosi has stated explicitly that impeachment is off the table because she thinks it would hurt Democrats. The list of credible evidence against the Bush Admin

The fact that Bush has not been impeached has nothing at all to do with a lack of evidence. It has to do with Democrats having no spine, that Democratic leadership has decided (rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective) that pursuing impeachment would be politically damaging for Democrats, and because some members of Congress from both parties don't want investigations because of how they may be personally implicated.

Torture is a crime. So is conspiracy. So is contempt of Congress. So is lying to start a war. So is spying on Americans without a warrant. So is extraordinary rendition. So is preemptive war. So is destruction of White House records. etc

Good times today at the Rays @ Sox game. Had never seen the Rays in person before.

Just to clarify, is it your view that if someone is sick due to their own lifestyle choices, whether in the past or right up to today, that if they are too poor to pay for treatment, they should be left to die?

Sure, people should take better care of themselves, but once they haven't, then what? Should people who are sick because of their own lifestyle choices be deprived of healthcare if they can't afford it? And what about those whose illnesses are not due to their own choices?

What an anus.

Drudge nails it again!

So basically no or poor medical care for poor people. Got it.

The local news here just said that Bayh and Tim Kaine have both officially been notified that they're not the guy. It's probably going to be Biden, with Chet Edwards as a possibility too. At this point I'll be surprised if it's anyone other than those two, though neither of those guys strike me as particularly strong Veep candidates. Of course I don't think the Veep candidate makes much difference anyway.

Patients should provide healthcare for other patients? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

No, but there's also more media now than ever before, so they all have to cover this stuff like crazy (or at least they think they do) in order to not be scooped.

CNN is reporting that it's probably Biden, due to intense activity at the Biden house tonight.

I believe that adequate healthcare is a human right, though I understand that there's a lot of room for debate regarding who should provide it.

No, he's just throwing much dirtier shit.