.. what the problem is?

Because from what I can tell all I see is whining and moaning that ya lost.

Taking it so far that a few of you will vote for the guy who dosn't have your issues on his plate. You'll be happy when he wins? (not that you can do that, lol)...

You're telling others how to digest sour grapes? Like it's up to you?

I was an Obama supporter from the get-go. I wrote him a letter in 2005 asking him to run for president. But I love Bill Clinton - an idol of mine. I liked his wife, too, but I wanted her to act like more of a lady. I didn't like it when she would act like a man, because it was phony. When I saw her on TV crying when she was speaking to the crowd in New Hampshire, I said to my father (a Hillary supporter), "Now, I don't know who to vote for." I wanted to see an emotion other than anger and grandeur. And I wouldn't have lost a bit of sleep had she won; I would have voted for her in the general.

My favorite Bill Clinton quote, "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America!"

I shaved her back, too. She howled in abject pleasure.

I was/am a Hillary supporter. not to the point however of making a stink about her not being the nominee however. I think she is very much a lady ! more an average woman not some cut out Jackie O. I like that she was tough .

also alot of the supporters of Obama are young. I would hope they have the discipline to make it to the polls to vote. Most Clinton supporters will in fact pull the lever for Obama however.

I think that really the convention means squat . Your preaching to the choir. Where it really matters is in the debates to come !!!! that's what I'm waiting for !!

I really have a problem with what you've written here (though, obviously, you have as much right to your opinion as I have to mine). It seems to me that, given the fact that she is female, she always acts like a woman. She acts like a woman because she IS a woman.

If by "lady" you're referring to the traditional behavior of "well bred" women, I don't think that would translate well into politics. What would ladylike behavior be? Speaking in a quiet soothing voice? Not fighting back when she was trashed by her competition? Crying and giggling? Acting nurturing? Being a model of good manners as the spin machine of her opponents ripped her to shreds? Because politics has been so traditionally male, a lot of the mannerisms that we expect from politicians are masculine. If she came on with a totally different set of mannerisms there'd be so much focus on how she acted that the issues would fade into the background.

I think as more and more women enter the political arena, our idea of how "real" politicians act will become more gender-neutral. Until that time women have to play the game as it exists in the present.

Moving towards gender neutrality will probably be pleasant for a lot of the men too. I suspect that the mud slinging pissing contests that we have now are over the top for most male candidates too.

A very few female politicians have managed to carry the lady think off-- Ann Richards comes to mind. But it's so hard to pull that off that the demand would cripple most women's ability to express themselves fluently. It would be like asking all men to behave exactly like an arbitrary male politician.

I think that the move on the part of some Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for McCain, despite the fact that Obama's platform is very similar to Hillary Clinton's points to the fact that we are a nation of idiots who deserve every hardship we must endure because we elect morons due to the fact that we are a bunch of emotional, illogical, and intellectually immature morons ourselves.

Not voting for Obama because you were a hillary supporter is a pretty clear illustration of sexism, IMO. It shows that some HC supporters vote for the person and not the policies, which is exactly why we are so easily hoodwinked and manipulated into the mess we are in today. Saying you were a hillary supporter, so you are going to vote for McCain is like announcing to the world that you are ****ing idiot.

I agree. They criticize Bush because he's incapable of working with the opposition and then proceed to do exactly the same thing themselves. What a bunch of irresponsible morons.

It does make you wonder why he didn't choose Hillary for VP when most reports I hear say that it would have given him the best chance of winning.

Plus the first possible black president choosing the first possible woman VP would have been a great gesture. ( I'm not counting G. Ferraro because her and Fritz didn't win )

Obama voted for the PATRIOT ACT!

Ya... so'd McCain... like I've said in other topics... we're screwed.

Yeah exactly soo why is this even a debate? they're both against american civil liberty--

Seems most people don't care. I'll probably vote for the Libertarian candidate myself. Although it'll be a waste of a vote for a good many years.

yea, and they both hate freedom and liberty.

Come on, don't be sheep. This isn't as black and gray as that.

Supporting the constitution is now labeled as being a sheep? Nice.

No Way, No How, No Obama

Could you expand further?

And I never knew you supported Hiliary!... Congrats?

I can see why some Clinton supporters may support McCain.

Here's a few reasons:

-Only voted for Clinton to see a woman in office
-Agrees with Obama on policies but believes experience is more important than policy
-Believes that Clinton will win in 2012 if McCain wins in 2008

Not supporting any of those reasons. But it isn't fair to make blanket statements as some are doing.

What do you like about McCain- the fact that he's against equal rights for women?

Can you guys explain something to me?

Hillary said during the campaign that McCain has a long and disinguished career (or something like that) and Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002. Why should you believe her now when she says he supports Obama. Don't you think she might be talking out of the side of her mouth?

Also, Biden said that he would be proud to run against or with McCain, but last night he bashed him.

Seems to me these people will say anything at any given time to get what they want.

I'm sure Republicans have done it too so don't jump on me here.

They're all pawns--wether Obama changes anything will be seen if and when he is President--I highly doubt it--But I am hopeful not naive.
What she said is true--McCain has more experience--Obama has been in the Senate for a couple of years--yet all 3 voted FOR THE PATRIOT ACT__@@!!!!!!!&*&!!!
But I think all this is irrevelant-as for as this election goes--
Since all 3 are puppets--and if Obama isn't then I suppose we'll see if he gets killed or not.

Sure.


She was talking out of the side of her mouth both times. She wanted to win an election so she trashed her opponent. Now she wants her ideals furthered so she supports him.


Biden called him his friend, then he said he strongly disagreed with the direction he wished to go toward.


Ever read a dictionary or thesaurus?

Dictionary: Politician - Someone who will say or do anything at any given time to get what they want.
Thesaurus: Politician - Tyrant, warlord, scumbag, trash

You're kinda a one trick pony.

If that happens the resulting civil unrest will make the LA and Crown Heights riots look like a superbowl party.

I think what she's saying is that Obama is the right man for this particular moment. Saying that McCain's platform isn't the right solution right now doesn't negate the fact that McCain behaved with incredible integrity when he was a POW and afterward. It's possible for a person to not be the right person for the moment but to still be an extremely admirable, decent person.

Anyone who says McCain is less than an admirable human being is out to lunch, but every human has a limited amount to give and right now we need what Barack has to give: vitality and vision of the future. McCain should have been elected instead of Bush. IMHO the Republican party goofed. But what was needed eight years ago isn't necessarily what's needed now. It's a tragedy for McCain, who has a limited number of years left to him, and a sad loss for America. But the world has changed too much for past values to be sufficiently appropriate.

Freedom is important to some of us. My favorite part of the patriot act though is the name. It implies that if you don't support it, if you support the constitution, if you don't want your civil liberties violated by an oppressive regime, you aren't a patriot.

Yet someone like you would be the first to cry "Why didn't someone know!" when a terrorist act happens.

Laws like this don't thrill me either. But you can't monitor and prevent terrorism if you can't watch suspected terrorists.

Oh, agreed entirely. I've been reminded enough who voted for the despicable act, know what I mean?

He won't be killed, at least I don't think so, but you're right. The civil unrest would be incredible. I'd hide in my home. =)

And if it's a "red neck" then flee the country!

Someone like me... what am I like? Please tell. How exactly do you know what I would say if another terrorist attack happened?


You can monitor terrorists without violating civil liberties. Thousands of people have been killed by terrorists. Millions have been killed by fascist empires.

Your reaction says it all.



I don't deny at all the great potential for abuse.

But look at the other side: Suppose on September 10, 2001 the AG went infront of a Superior Court judge and asked for arrest warrants for the (suspected) 9/11 hijackers. The judge would ask for the evidence to support the arrests. They would have none. The judge might ask for the suposition to support the claim these people were about to do something no one has ever done before (hijack civilian planes and crash them into buildings). They would have none. So the judge would deny the arrest warrants.

And on September 12th when the news came out that the gov suspected these people of planning something but couldn't arrest them w/o a warrant, what do you think would be said on CNN and MSNBC?

My reaction says it all? What reaction. What are you even talking about? You didn't answer the question. What kind of person am I?


This doesn't excuse the violation of civil liberties, and the constitution. When the "threat of the day" is more important than the law of the land, we've already lost.

Agreed.

But at the same time the Constituion isn't a suicide pact.

Since you guys are talking about the Patrio Act, I have a real question. Just hear me out.

In the years since 9-11, there has been no terrorist attack on US soil. The government has used the Patriot Act to prevent many attacks that were well into the planning stages. This is true, you can google it easily.

I really haven't heard many stories about people's rights being abused in the name of the Patriot Act. I did hear one or two, but even on the most liberal news outlets these stories were only briefly mentioned.

If hundreds of American lives have been saved in the last 7 years, isn't that worth it? I'm not being sarcastic here. I truely want to know how it wouldn't be worth it for our government to be able to listen to, track and arrest terrorists.

Excellent question! Looking forward to seeing the answers.

i agree with you dixie. the patriot act has probably saved thousands of lives (instead of hundreds). but yes - it's VERY much worth it. the only people that have a problem with the patriot act are those that have something to hide. those that are maybe doing things that they shouldn't be doing.

We didn't have the patriot act on 9/11 and we had sufficient information to stop it. And of course the patriot act does good. No one is arguing whether it is capable of doing good. What we're saying is that the good it accomplishes isn't worth the cost.

That's certainly possible, but it makes them either ignorant, fanatical, or idiots - or all three. I don't look too fondly on Identity Politics as a reason for voting - look where it got Kenya the past year.



That makes them ignorant. Quite a few presidents have had all the leadership experience in the world - and then governed poorly, because the Presidency is a rather unique institution for which only governors have a slight taste of it, and even then it's quite different.



The "Hillary in 2012" is possibly the stupidest reason among them all for these people. The American electoral system de facto heavily favors incumbents, yet they somehow think it will be easier for Hillary to fight off incumbent John McCain in 2012 with the support of a badly demoralized Democratic Party (after flubbing it after Bush somehow), than for a Democrat to win in 2008 with the wind at his or her back.

I have a huge problem with the patriot act. So let's be clear, are you accusing me of criminal activity?

No we didn't. Not the who/what/when/where/. Don't even go there.

Untrue--I have nothing to hide and am just passionate about my personal liberities--
So easy to judge aren't some of you?

Privacy is it's own goal. You don't have to have something to hide to want privacy.

(yea, I'm arguing both sides of the issue.)

O, let's go there.

-June 13, 2001: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak claims Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 9/26/01]

-June : the German Secret Service, BND warned both the CIA and Israel in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." [Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung 9/14/01]
- Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

-July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/02]

-July 2001: CIA Learns Impending Attack Widely Known in Afghanistan [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/18/02]. This corresponds with evidence that bin Laden and others were telling many in Afghanistan about the attacks at this time.

-July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Ken Williams Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona [Fortune, 5/22/02; Arizona Republic, 7/24/03]

-July 10, 2001: CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black warns national Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice that al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself, and that the threat required immediate action. Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." [Washington Post - 1st October 2006]

-July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn al Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [Times of London, 6/14/02]

-Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested [CBS News, 10/9/02]

-Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Muttawakil Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/02; Reuters, 9/7/02]

-Late July 2001: Ex-House Judiciary Committee's Chief Investigator David Schippers Tries to Warn About Plans to Strike Buildings in New York

-Late July 2001: Argentina's Jewish Community Relays al Qaeda Attack Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/02]

-Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings

-Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001, was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

-August 2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin Warns US of Suicide Pilots Training To Attack US Targets [Fox News, 5/17/02]
The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01]

-A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, claims, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/01]

-Early August 2001: Government Informant Randy Glass Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]

-August 2001: Moroccan Informant, Hassan Dabou, Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/01]

-August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major al-Qaeda Assault on the US is imminent [Fox News, 5/17/02]

-August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents Convinced Zacarias Moussaoui Plans to Fly Something Into The World Trade Center [Newsweek, 5/20/02]

-August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of 19 Terrorist Living in US Planning An Attack In The Near Future [BBC, 10/2/02]

-August 27, 2001: Spanish Police Tape Phone Calls Indicating Aviation-Based Plans to Attack US [Observer, 11/25/01]

-August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines [Miami Herald, 9/20/01; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01; MSNBC, 9/23/01]

-August 30-September 4, 2001: Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [Associated Press, 12/7/01]
He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

-Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/02]

-September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/01]

We had ample amount of knowledge to stop that attack.

Prior to 9-11 we had the information. After 9-11, we had the will that it takes to start acting on the information we have.

Patriot Act is a means of aquiring information, not having the will to act on it. Point is, Patriot Act wouldn't have stopped 9/11, so why would it stop any other terrorist attacks.

Good point, but having no information about a pending attack would most likely be the result of getting rid of the Act, don't you think?

No... as stated before, we had enough to stop 9/11 without the Patriot Act.

9/11 was the reason the Patriot Act came into play--
Throughout history attacks have been planned to make governments more powerful upon their people--I believe 9/11 was no different

You're entitled to your oppinion but I don't believe the United States government brought the towers down.