That's funny- Hillary comes away wounded.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Ok, I just want to say.

I TOLD YOU SO ON HUCKABEE.

He will still lose nationally, if he had peaked earlier his campaign would be over by now. He just peaked at the right time.

This is more serious for Obama than Huckabee. The Republicans are all over the place in early states. New Hampshire and South Carolina are not leaning anywhere near Huckabee though.
An early win for Obama however could put Clinton in trouble and take Edwards out completely.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I don't anything Hillary can say or do can cost her the nomination at this point. I could be wrong, but it seems democrats are so invested in hatred towards the republicans that they don't really look at their own candidates much.

How many posts about Hillary and Obama (assided from negative ones by us republicans) do you actually see on the forums?

I think Hillary losing in Iowa is much less defining than Romney losing Iowa.

Well a lot of us aren't all that happy with Hillary... but let's face it. We'll vote Hillary over the average Republican simply on ideological grounds.
Personally I am very strongly influenced by a candidate's position on torture. That makes McCain and Paul the only candidates I can support out of the GOP picks. And I still like even Hillary, even Edwards (I like Hillary betty than Edwards) more as a president than either of them... though there is a chance McCain could win my vote.
It's not so much a hate of Republicans... It's ideological differences.
I'd prefer Obama, but I would support Hillary.
I think Obama especially can beat her in the primary. He's gaining momentum... and Hillary is coming off as, ironically, too moderate for the average Democratic voter. She started out good, but these last few debates have taken their toll on her.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Java, let me ask you a classic hypothetical question on torture.

The FBI has an islamofascist captured in the US. His group has announced that there is a nuclear bomb in new york which will explode in 24 hours (just like the show - heh heh!) The FBI has lots of specific hard evidence which convinces them that the threat is real, but they have no idea where the bomb is - repeated seraches have not turned it up. He refuses to tell where it is - do they torture him to get the info?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

No. For one thing it's not necessarily true that the torture will induce any truthful information on time.
The only certainty is that it will hurt our image as a champion of human rights.
Plus even if I did think this would be okay, that's an extraordinary circumstance. It would be more exceptable if the law was made to specifically allow torture under those circumstances rather than allow it to be the norm or at the president's discretion.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Since you thing hypotheticals that have never happened in the history of our country are relevant...

Aliens come down and tell us they have Jesus hostage. They say they are going to waterboard him until...

OMFG how dumb do you have to be to use hypotheticals for which there is no basis on fact.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

[quote]Or maybe it will. In the hypothesized situation, they check out the false info, come back and say "Abdul, lying to us is futile" and reapply the torture.,

Our "image" is more important than millions of americans dead? And how many countries would do the exact same thing, no matter how much they lecture us? How exactly is human rights involved in such a situation? Some people have claimed torture in all cases is wrong, but they've never given any moral argument to support it that that I've seen. It would square with eg the utilitarianism ("the greatest good for the greatest number") of John Stuart Mill, predecessor of today's liberals.

I thought you would realize that my point was that the absolute prohibition of torture as government policy, as espoused eg by John McCain, may be wrong - that's why I chose the extreme example.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

The point zipped over your head.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847