We have hit the wall of ethic conviction. He has his ethics, and we have ours.

I think it does no harm to acknowledge if the opposite party's convictions are honestly held. Its rather rare on Elephantman's side of the fence to find such.

On the other hand, telling someone they're doing wrong and are enabling wrong won't stop them from being a party to it. They've been given warning and so have no-one to blame but themselves when history (and preferably the law) judges them guilty.

One feels an obligation towards the opposite side to get them to understand the consequences of their choices, if only to distinguish one's own side in the great argument. After that, the gloves come off.

What I find most interesting about Elephantman's briar patch within a briar patch is that it is really a transparent plea for "brand based" voting as opposed to "product based" voting. The question is why?

----

ondelette said:

They are people who have been held because the Bush people thought, or continue to think, that these people have credible, actionable intelligence.

And one kind of actionable intelligence is the knowledge that people who are subject to American interrogation techniques have the ability to reveal those techniques to our enemies. One of the beautiful contradictions of Intelligence is that we will always reveal more top secret information to our enemies than to the citizenry, all the while being told that the reason we can't know "THE SECRETS" is to prevent our enemies from finding out what we have already told them. Maybe my problem with this seeming contradiction is my confusion about who the enemy is.

---

It is not telco immunity that will stop Maine Rep. Herbert Adams, it is this particular abomination that was designed to do the trick:

--

SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

`(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(c) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

---

Increased oversight of my ass. God these people suck.

After all, leftists never have a problem torturing people to death or tossing them into far-flung gulags if they're the ones dishing out the horrors. Regardless of the hypocritical, self-annointed moral providence, leftist governments, once instituted, are among the most bloodthirsty on earth. This is about reclaiming our national charter, our respect for civil liberties and our rights as Americans. This ugly, alien nonsense has been clapped on us by a political sect weaned on the M.O. of the boot-heel left.

is still an evil choice.

Until you have a choice between good and evil it is best not to make any decisions or choices because you not only will encourage evil, but you become evil as well.

As long as people keep choosing the lesser of two evils, evil will always win.

where rank stupidity, egregious dishonesty, astounding laziness, massive hypocrisy, stupendous cynicism, breathtaking condescension and world-class ass-kissing rule supreme.

There is literally as much substance in it as the National Enquirer and a pile of dogshit.

Joseph Heller and George Orwell could not possibly have topped this.

And these asshats get up every morning, look themselves in the mirror, and don't have a problem with what they see, the consequences of their shilling of no matter to them.

If you work in the media and lie, either overtly or by omission or distortion, you are by definition not a journalist. You are a liar, period, and demand that you be eviscerated by your critics.

I literally cannot comprehend how a sentient being could do that and not shoot themselves.

mccain is the greater of the two evils.

Let us take that as axiomatic.

Since Nader cannot win, but can only operate as a spoiler against the lesser of the two evils, a vote for Nader necessarily helps the greater of the two evils.

Is it not so?

While I espouse third party voting, I do so out a deep disgust of both ruling parties. Elephantman does so in order to get you to vote for someone other than obama

The effect is the same either way, is it not? And since the effect is the same, does not the bottom line therefore show you to be no different from elephantman? You both arrive at the same place, do you not?

I also would not choose a lesser evil over a greater evil, as I would not choose evil.

Not true. Your own logic clearly shows your assertion to be an impossibility.

By your own admission, the circumstances clearly prevent you to avoid choosing evil, regardless of who you vote for, and regardless of whether you actually vote. To the contrary, you are in fact choosing to support the greater over the lesser of two evils.

Neither high principles nor spite are effective here for your purpose of pursuing a more just government. Your only logical choice is the lesser of two evils. Instead, you have chosen illogic and the greater evil.

Is it not so? If not, why not?

And he speaks for a large plurality, maybe a majority, of our fellow citizens.

I understand that you meant this to refer solely to his views on Guantanamo, but it is worth noting that virtually all of the views espoused by elephantman are supported by only a small minority of Americans at this point.

I would not choose evil

"Lesser of two evils" is a jocular expression. I vote for the candidate, among those who can win a particular election, who espouses the policies that I agree with more, or disagree with less. I have no problem with third party or independent candidates who run meaningful campaigns with the intention of winning, like Bernie Sanders.

I do tend to question the seriousness, although not necessarily the sincerity, of candidates who run for president before ever running for a single prior office, or of "national" parties that virtually never get a single candidate elected in any positions, even while supposedly espousing a platform that represents that plurality of voters in many individual districts, such as the Green Party.

"Evil" is a subjective term, as well. I feel that a definition of the word "evil" that includes Barrack Obama, or the policies he espouses, would be far too inclusive. A definition of evil that includes Barrack Obama, yet excludes Ralph Nader, would be quite arbitrary, and possibly inconsistent.

I think John McCain is utterly selfish, misguided, confused, and immature, but I don't think I'd describe him as "evil".

Although McCain's policy proposals are disastrous and could literally result in the collapse of American prosperity, prestige, and democracy if he is elected, this isn't Hitler versus Stalin. The idea that both major candidates are so "evil" that neither can be chosen over the other is not accurate.