1984

idk, mayb lolz?

godsshoeshine wrote:

manimtired wrote:
rasmussen had the most accurate polling in the last election so i'll go with them…

lol

rasmussen was actually beat by the rcp poll of polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

ACTUAL RESULTS: Obama 52.9, McCain 45.6

Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/2) - Obama 53, McCain 46
AND
CNN/Opinion Research (10/30-11/2) - Obama 53, McCain 46

Rasmussen results (11/1 - 11/3): Obama 52, McCain 45

Gallup 10/31 - 11/02 2472 LV 2.0 55 44 Obama +11

LOL@gallup.

703..you didnt answer my question about obama being a bigot bc he's against gay marriage.  what say you?

LOL! http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/goss_obama_decision_crossed_a.asp

LOL! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

im going to out-link 703 today!

yes, someone please put this thread out of its misery.

back wrote:
yes, someone please put this thread out of its misery.

Or, you know, don't read it.  ::)

why do people just hate joe biden?
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/04/23/vp-shock-biden-less-popular-than-cheney/

see my new link! LOL!

sweetcell wrote:

callat703 wrote:
Paging Venerable Bede.

yes please.  let's inject some intelligence in this exchange STAT.

sorry, skipped out of work early yesterday so my wife and i could take our 5 1/2 week old baby girl to her first baseball game. . .a glorious day game at at&t park that went into extra innings. . .

sorry vansmack that her first taste of at&t park will not include you in your angels poncho….

i can assure you that was a MUCH better use of your time.

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:
yes, someone please put this thread out of its misery.

Or, you know, don't read it.   ::)

oh, are you having fun lol-ing back and forth with manimlame?

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:
yes, someone please put this thread out of its misery.

Or, you know, don't read it.   ::)

oh, are you having fun lol-ing back and forth with manimlame?

I just don't get the "stop by a thread to say you don't like a thread" phenomenon.

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:
yes, someone please put this thread out of its misery.

Or, you know, don't read it.   ::)

oh, are you having fun lol-ing back and forth with manimlame?

I just don't get the "stop by a thread to say you don't like a thread" phenomenon.

    you can't know my intentions. I "stopped by" to see if anything intelligent was happening.  the thread had possiblility. 

  most recently, i stopped by to see your reply to me! see how it works?

Yeah yeah, I'm hoping now that Venerable has checked in, we can actually have a discussion about the issue itself - or perhaps he agrees with Shep Smith?

i guess you cant have a discussion b/c i disagree with you and think youre misguided sheepish fool? fine…

lol

as much as i would rather read any threads involving mannie, than think of some political post to put in it, i did find this headline on cnn today, delicious:

Commentary: Obama waffled on torture – and looks weak.

callat703 wrote:
Yeah yeah, I'm hoping now that Venerable has checked in, we can actually have a discussion about the issue itself - or perhaps he agrees with Shep Smith?

thanks for thinking so highly of me. . .

frankly, i don't have much to say on this topic, other than i don't get the allusion to 1984.  my concern would be that if the current administration is willing to release only some of the documents, why not go ahead and release all of the documents. . .until that time, i don't really see how one can make a truly informed decision on the merits of the information gathered via "torture."  not to mention asking the obvious question about whether or not the administration only released the incriminating documents first, and are withholding the other documents for obvious political purposes. 

this is all without speaking to the ethical and moral questions related to torture and what, if any, actual information they received that did stop any potential terrorist attacks.  there are consequences both in inaction and action, it's simply a matter of how far one is willing to bend towards one side or the other and are willing to deal with those consequences.  see, this season of 24.  i, for one, am unwilling to sit here and say that i know what happened, that i know the circumstances of the situation, or that i would never approve or engage in such activity (the stanford prison experiment has pretty much debunked the ability of any of us to make those statements). 

the other thing, as rep. peter hoekstra put it in his wsj editorial, is that congress knew about these procedures, yet continued to provide funding for these programs, and the administration released the documents over the objections of not only the current cia chief, but also 4 previous cia chiefs. 

it's easy to play monday morning quarterback and pass judgment on prior acts that may or may not have actually provided information that resulted in thwarting potential terrorist acts. . .are we so willing and able to say no torture, even if there is evidence that, say, 50% of the time it provides some amount of reliable and valuable intelligence?  or even 15% of the time?  for my own part, i can't say yes or no, rather, there needs to be some accounting for the situation, and not be viewed in a vacuum of only ethical and moral determinations.