final result
Posted By: dem4ever on 2008-09-27
In Reply to: Funny how view points are so different. - Chele
I think pretty much this debate was McCain's best hope. His strength, according to most, is foreign policy. I thought that all O really needed to do was avoid being seen as weak on foreign affairs. He more than lived up to that. The clear frontrunner is O. This debate did not change that. The next two pres debates will show O's strengths and Mc weaknesses. The Sarah/Joe debate is going to be high theatre. I am so looking forward to that one.
Another point. I don't get all misty when Mc tells his bracelet/POW stories. I think they are blatant attempts at pulling emotional strings and I cringe when anyone, anywhere tries to manipulate me. I am saying he uses stories for his benefit instead of feeling them. So as far as I am concerned they backfire.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I'm on the page, I'm looking at the result
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
OP said Likely voters 49/47. That's what it states. You can decide to pick and choose which ones you want, but drudge said of likely voters 49/47. That is what OP said. Also OP said "for anyone who believes in polls". The dems are all are so he!! bent on choosing only what benefits Obama. This poll still benefits Obama so what's the problem. Yes you can still site the other two which are not a true representation but they are 49/43 and 51/45. You are still only talking about a 6 point lead. That is not a heck of a large lead to claim victory. When there are still about 3 weeks to go.
Man I hope McCain wins then I'll come back and listen to you all whine. The race is not over yet. If Obama wins I will not be happy, but I will come on and admit I was wrong, but if McCain wins prepare for the other.
The top result on google for miserable.
First it was 'Failure', and now it's 'Miserable' search google for it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable&btnG=Google+Search
The inevitable end result of socialism...
dictatroship. Historically it has happened time and time and time again. What is dictatorship if not altering the constitution to re-elect yourself for life, centralizing all power in yourself...yada yada. At least some Venezuelans realized it before it was too late. If he loses the referendum they could be looking at civil war as well.
You see crime being a result of economy, but I see
A child concieved as a result of rape..........sm
is still half the mother's. Half her blood, half her genes, half her family history. The rapist can only have as much control over the victim after the fact as she allows. To murder a child just because it was conceived in such a manner reduces the mother to the level of the rapist.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Saddam's in his final hours....sm
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The official witnesses to Saddam Hussein's impending execution gathered Friday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone in final preparation for his hanging, as state television broadcast footage of his regime's atrocities.
With U.S. forces on high alert for a surge in violence, the Iraqi government readied all the necessary documents, including a red card - an execution order introduced during Saddam's dictatorship. As the hour of his death approached, Saddam received two of his half brothers in his cell on Thursday and was said to have given them his personal belongings and a copy of his will.
Najeeb al-Nueimi, a member of Saddam's legal team in Doha, Qatar, said he too requested a final meeting with the deposed Iraqi leader. His daughter in Amman was crying, she said 'Take me with you,' al-Nueimi said late Friday. But he said their request was rejected.
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. Also to be hanged at that time were Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, the adviser said.
The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam will be handed over shortly before the execution, the official said. The physical transfer of Saddam from U.S. to Iraqi authorities was believed to be one of the last steps before he was to be hanged. Saddam has been in U.S. custody since he was captured in December 2003.
Al-Nueimi said U.S. authorities were maintaining physical custody of Saddam to prevent him from being humiliated before his execution. He said the Americans also want to prevent the mutilation of his corpse, as has happened to other deposed Iraqi leaders.
The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully, al-Nueimi said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed, he said.
Munir Haddad, a judge on the appeals court that upheld Saddam's death sentence, said he was ready to attend the hanging and that all the paperwork was in order, including the red card.
All the measures have been done, Haddad said. There is no reason for delays.
As American and Iraqi officials met in Baghdad to set the hour of his death, Saddam's lawyers asked a U.S. judge for a stay of execution.
Saddam's lawyers issued a statement Friday calling on everybody to do everything to stop this unfair execution. The statement also said the former president had been transferred from U.S. custody, though American and Iraqi officials later denied that.
Al-Maliki said opposing Saddam's execution was an insult to his victims. His office said he made the remarks in a meeting with families of people who died during Saddam's rule.
Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence, al-Maliki said.
State television ran footage of the Saddam era's atrocities, including images of uniformed men placing a bomb next to a youth's chest and blowing him up in what looked like a desert, and handcuffed men being thrown from a high building.
About 10 people registered to attend the hanging gathered in the Green Zone before they were to go to the execution site, the Iraqi official said.
Those cleared to attend the execution included a Muslim cleric, lawmakers, senior officials and relatives of victims of Saddam's brutal rule, the official said. He did not disclose the location of the gallows.
Raed Juhi, spokesman for the High Tribunal court that convicted Saddam, said documents related to the execution would be read to Saddam before the execution. The documents included the red card, al-Maliki's signed approval of the sentence and the appeal court's decision.
On Thursday, two half brothers visited Saddam in his cell, a member of the former dictator's defense team, Badee Izzat Aref, told The Associated Press by telephone from the United Arab Emirates. He said the former dictator handed them his personal belongings.
A senior official at the Iraqi defense ministry also confirmed the meeting and said Saddam gave his will to one of his half brothers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam's lawyers later issued a statement saying the Americans gave permission for his belongings to be retrieved.
An Iraqi appeals court upheld Saddam's death sentence Tuesday for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate him in the northern Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982. The court said the hanging should take place within 30 days.
There had been disagreements among Iraqi officials in recent days as to whether Iraqi law dictates the execution must take place within 30 days and whether President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies had to approve it.
In his Friday sermon, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf called Saddam's execution God's gift to Iraqis.
Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves, said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as SCIRI, a dominant party in al-Maliki's coalition. Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam.
Final Palin segment
I was very impressed with Charlie Gibson. I am not an ABC news watcher, so I did not know what to expect. He brought up all the important issues involved in the contradictions between Maverick and Reformer claims including per diem, keeping the money from bridge to nowhere, lobbyists for Alaska, abuse of power in Troopergate, etc. I thought he allowed her to expose her lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. I thought he, for the most part, keep questioning her on points when she tried to evade questions by throwing out the slogans and talking points.
The one point that I had not heard before was the fact that the sendoff for the soldiers she staged in Alaska was timed to be on 9/11 for the publicity, and that the soldiers were not in fact going to leave for 2 to 3 more weeks.
All in all, I thought it was a good introduction of the actual Sarah Palin. When you add the tape of McCain disparaging mayors and short-time governors, it was a definitive package for those who have not yet made up their minds in this election.
Head in the sand....final thoughts
You said: I am truly sorry that any of you on the right equate not wanting to fight, not wanting to kill, eshewing revenge shrouded as justice and preferring diplomacy to preemptive attacks with **lily-liveredness.**
My answer: First of all, to say that going into Iraq was revenge does a huge disservice to the people who died on 9-11 and to the soldiers who have died in Iraq since. I think a statement like that is unconsciable. It is your right to say it, my right to disagree strongly, which I do. I have a hard time understanding how any American could think that.
Second, I have never referred to anyone as lily-livered. No one WANTS to kill. You and the left keep saying that like Republicans or anyone NOT liberal (sound familiar?) WANTS to kill. That is just nuts. However, some people do believe that our way of life, our country, are worth dying for or killing for if necessary. That being said, for diplomacy to work, both sides have to be interested in a peaceful outcome. In what alternate reality do you imagine that Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, Al-Zawahiri, the Taliban, or ANY terrorist would be interested in a peaceful outcome, when their stated purpose is the destruction of the United States and Israel, and eventually anything not Muslim? Where in there do you see ANY room for diplomacy? THAT is what I mean when I (not others who post, I cannot speak for them) say *head in the sand.* Do you actually believe that diplomacy will work with these people? I do not for the life of me understand how you can look at the history of terrorist attacks, their escalation, and say that somehow talking with these people will make a difference. Perhaps you can clue me in on the possibility that you see in diplomatically stopping the terrorist threat? How that could possibly happen? I would be willing to listen.
You said: I see those as strength of character, the courage of conviction and fairhandness.
I say: Strength of character is also standing tall and saying *your plan of terrorizing and separating this country and her people will not work. If you plan to attack us, know that we will fight back.* Strength of character is also not kowtowing to bullies. Common sense tells you bullies do not respond to diplomacy. Bullies win by intimidation, sneak attacks, and fear. It is impossible to negotiate with these people, because you cannot give them what they want. Saddam violated how many UN resolutions before 9-11? His word was worthless, absolutely worthless. Simply because YOU desire that kind of diplomacy and YOU have those kinds of values, if they are absent on the other side, you might as well chop your own head off and save them the trouble. Yes, I remember how you said you did not fear having your head chopped off. The trouble is, it is not just YOU they are after, and your seeming lack of caring for what happens to your country and other Americans is pretty darn scary. THAT is what I mean when I say the left has become about me, me, me and the heck with the rest of you. And look at Kim Jong Il and Admadinejad...diplomacy is really working with them, isn't it? When are you and the left going to learn, for it to work both sides have to WANT it to work.
Please demonstrate to me how terrorists will respond to courage of conviction or fair-handedness. When did they ever show fair-handedness? They make cowardly craven attacks designed to murder as many as possible in one strike. There is no courage or fair-handedness in 9-11, in the Achille Lauro, in Beirut marine bombing, in the Cole, and the gazillion suicide bombings over the years, the embassy bombings...where in ANY of that do you think diplomacy would work? They are not of a country with whom you CAN negotiate. And you are willing to just keep the courage of your convictions, even knowing there is no possibility that will work, and allow yourself AND your fellow Americans who might not be like-minded to be murdered? And that is okay with you? No, sorry, I will NEVER understand that.
You said: No need for you to comment on this because I already know **I have my head in the sand** and do not need to hear you tell me again what a naive person I am, but they are my beliefs and I honor them and are proud of them because, no matter what happens, they are good and decent values and Iraq will not change my mind or my values.
I say: I do not believe you are naive. I believe you just choose to ignore and or rationalize what does not fit with your stated ideals, and I believe you have some noble ideas, and perhaps with a strong charactered, fair-handed enemy those ideals would be fruitful. They are not. They are the antithesis of strong character and fair-handedness.
But, I am sure you will be relieved to hear, I get it. I will not be foisting my opinion on you any longer, because as you say, there is no changing your mind, which is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. As married as you are to your ideals, multiply that by about a gazillion and you know how the terrorists are married to their ideals. THEY are not going to change THEIR minds either, and we are NOT going to change THEIR minds by talking to them about strength of character and fair-mindedness.
And the rest of the story is that as long as there are still some Americans like us remaining, who are willing to go to the mat for America and ALL Americans, perhaps you will not ever have to give up the country and the way of life that let you form and hold those ideals.
You're welcome.
God bless.
never say cinch till the final tally is in!
x
She didn't have to be leading going into the final round to win, obviously!
There wouldn't be much point in the final round otherwise, would there? All five contestants in the final round are there because they have high enough scores that any of them can win.
About the same damage Clinton did in his final months after the election (NM)
x
Final roll call House on bailout bill. sm
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Please print it and remember those who voted to pick your pocket. They are clearly operating outside the consent of the people.
|
