If you are simply parroting facts, or peoples views, that makes you, well a parrot.

If you use different sources (facts, views, opinions) to triangulate your own ideas, that makes you an intellectual.

If your most common response to any difficult question is, "What do I need facts for - What do I need different view points for - I already made up my mind." you are anti-intellectual.

...is I think the whole point.

The ticking time-bomb scenario is a smoke screen. In real life situations, if there are enough specifics available to know that the person in custody is CERTAIN to have the specific information needed for immediate action, it is likely there already is enough specifics for immediate action.

With pre-emptive torture, it's like data mining, collect a bunch of guys hopefully correctly identified as bad guys, then torture them with the hope one of them will spill some useful piece of information. This is humanity at it's worst.

As a side note MediaMatters has extensively documented BOs self-glorified ignorance.

People are only physically safe behind the safety of their computer screens, they are neither emotionally or psychologically safe. It can be very intense personally. Ok, it is not like when swords were carried and interaction had to be much more careful and civil in choice of words or you end up in a duel with a sword potentially up your ass, but it is still real visceral human interaction. This is humanity up on our computer screens not pixels. There is a tremendous opportunity for honesty of expression and risk taking in expression. And yeah there is a downside in that everyone gets to expose their latent sociopathic tendencies, but the freedom is worth it.

So "yes we can't" to censorship already.

McCain has already hit Obama twice on his words, specifically on his not keeping his word. He is establishing his strategy for Obama; Obama not a man of his word. This may sound silly because I don't think you can be a politician if you are a person of your word. But remember when Gore was made out to be the great exaggerator? Like all politicians do not exaggerate their accomplishments?

Obama is vulnerable here. Not because he exaggerates, misleads, or changes positions when it benefits him politically more than other politicians do, it is because he claims to be "new" type of politician (vs "old" school I guess), when in terms of politicking he can easily be exposed as any other politician.

...produces monsters.

– certainly not as trivial as Edwards hairstyle or Bill’s haircuts. Obama is the first man to run against a women for the highest office in the land. He has some pretty big responsibilities in that regard, as Hillary does running against a black man.

If Obama supporters are suggesting that the words “When Hillary is down in the polls” is the same thing as “When Hillary is feeling down.” they need to lighten up on the Kool-aide. He is clearly poking at the “emotional” nature of women. Furthermore putting her feelings in the context of “periodically”,- What? - is there some regular period when Hillary is down in the polls or some regular period when she is feeling down? While his references are somewhat appealing to the more conservative independent voters out there, it is a completely dumb-ass sexist thing to say.

“I am an Obama voter, but not a Kool-aide drinker.” - TinyBubbles

While I am thankful that I have not seen comments stating Hillarys “periodic feelings” negatively impact her leadership capabilities (I am sure there are right wing blogs who say this), and TinyBubbles shows you can support Obama without being blinded by the light, I am concerned about a candidate that does bring out the Kool-aide drinker in people.

Obama and Hillary can both show some class and ask the super delegates to vote their conscious and use their best judgment in casting their votes. Super delegates were created to be THINKING, KNOWLEGABLE, INFORMED voters. If they are just there to vote based on a formula, then get rid of them – it’s stupid.

I am pretty sure the idea was to have a combination of popular vote and more informed decision making. You know kind of like the way the constitution sets up America as a Republic.

I am also pretty sure Obama and Hillary will both shamelessly and without conscious come down on the side of this issue that benefits them the most.

---------

Life long Republicans converting to Democrats, conservatives converting to liberals. Conservatives unloading their conservative principals not for an independent candidate, oh no but for a full fledged liberal candidate. Wow, impressive, but nobody sees anything strange about lifetime republicans organizing and raising money for a liberal? Nothing strange there? Not even a little bit?

Contrary to Sinnards and others maniac ravings about those crazy manipulative Clintons, republicans are still the biggest and baddest manipulators of elections. Where they can, they will leverage republicans to influence the Democratic nomination in their perceived favor.

As far as Republicans advising which Democratic candidate has the worst chance of beating them - since when did Republicans become so concerned with the Democratic party that they felt compelled to give helpful advice?

Forgive me if I did not realize how darn nice and helpful those conservatives can be.