reddogblitz

Don't know and don't care. You're a few wars behind buddy. What does that have to do with torture again?

Did I say that? Stop putting words on my keyboard. Non military folks absolutely should be able to vote. However, if you have never been in the military perhaps you should not assume you know what it is or what a war really is like. Perhaps talk to some veterans, especially war veterans to see what they think. Many war veterans think going to war again is a bad idea. Why do they think that? Maybe they know something you don't? Try to gain some of their wisdom. Look back historically at how similar wars were fought and why and what the results were. Similar to if you are thinking of buying a Jaguar, you might speak to people who have owned Jaguars before. Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks congenitally full of false bravery? You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture?

Whatever DC. Since there is no black and white definition of torture in the Geneva Convention and Bush's lawyers did some fine lawyering, it's OK for us to do whatever we want. I get it. So much for being the shining city on the hill I guess.

I would like to try to set the record straight on this s controversy about what the Geneva convention says about torture. If one searches the internet for "Geneva Convention definition torture, as I did, one gets hits with the Article 1 I quoted in my original post. After DC Tom disputed it, I dug a little further and found that the 1949 Geneva Convention actually says this about torture: Yes it's vague. However tying someone down and pouring water on their nose and mouth so they feel like they're drowning or feeding them rectally when it's not medically necessary are still torture even if you give them 3 squares a day, a Koran, and an air conditioned cell. Sorry for the confusion.

They don't call you "birddog" for nuthin'.

WOW Here's how the Geneva Convention (which we were a part and signed) definition describes torture: "Article 1 "1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." You can rationalize it all you want Tom, but to quote Barack, "we tortured some folks." As far as McCain's take, it's called wisdom. People who have lived through things have a clearer picture of it and it's impact. We don't value it much in America as evidenced by the ridiculous comments I've seen on here and elsewhere.

No love for Bad Bad Levi Brown?

John McCain was tortured. He says it doesn't work and doesn't produce good information. Why don't we listen to people with first hand knowledge instead of yahoos like Rumsfeld and Cheney?

Incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.(one of my all time favorite Perry Mason objections).

Where did you get this from? Or, are you being sarcastic? Did Pegula think so too? He was in on the interviews and had the final say.

This sounds like a preconceived notion.

I have.

Sounds like Super Bowl Style Security. That's the way it was in 2006 when I went to SB XL in Detroit.

How does one make the playoffs and then show they "don't belong" there? If you lose in the first round you shouldn't be there? Not sure how that would work. The fact that you are there proves you earned it and deserve to be there. Just because you make the playoffs doesn't mean that you can't get a better QB next year.without going in tank to get one. Seahawks did it. Saints did it. Just because you don't have the golden armed franchise QB doesn't you can't make the playoffs muliple years. Bungles do it. Texans did it. And of course we all know you can even win the SB without one ala Jeff Hostettler, Mark Rypien, etc. I'll take playoff this year regardless. Bird in hand.

Don't you ever get tired of playing for next year? That's pretty much what we did all through the Williams/Mularkey/Jauron/Gailey/Marrone eras. Waiting for that golden armed franchise QB. We've assembled a very talented roster, much more than we've had in a long time. It's time to win. The chart of the teams with the longest playoff drought featuring us at the top need to go away. Get the monkey off our back. Since we haven't been to the playoffs in so long perhaps some have forgotten that when you have a playoff season, it means you win a lot of games. You win big games at the end of the year when they count. It's a lot fun. Even if you lose the last one IMHO. P L A Y O F F S !!

P LA Y O F F S !! We'll worry about next year next year.

That's gonna take a lot of nukes. We dropped 2 on Japan and they were still nowhere near the Stone Age. And America is probably 50 - 100 times bigger. (Guessing)

The traffic ticket thing was pretty ridiculous. If you actually read the article, Marco got 4 tickets since 1997 but only 2 was he actually convicted on. Who cares how his wife drives?

I could see that. However I'm not so sure. She did commit to the Iraq war and war in Libya or whatever you want to call it. She and Gates talked Obama into it. The Iraq vote was opportunistic perhaps in that she saw everyone else was gong to vote for it and didn't want to appear weak in the next presidential election after the Iraqis stuffed daisies in our gun barrels and we were greeted as liberators. When the ISIS war hoopla hits a fever pitch, she would probably want to go along with it because that's how she and Bill make theirs decisions, lick you finger and stick it in the air to see which way the winds (of war) are blowing. And she would have to show she is as tough as all the guys like McCain and company.

Chafee is going to be interviewed on Rachel Maddown tonight. No word yet on when a Hillary interview will be however.

I prefer Matt "King of the" Cassel.

Brandon got his just desserts because violating rules is a big NO NO for the Patsies**. Everybody knows that.

I was glad to see someome else say what I've been saying. I've read in editorials and blogs and internet comment section posts that a Republican will get us into war but Hillary won't. Horse Hockey. Two things about that: 1. Hillary is the kind of old school feminist who has to prove she's tougher than the guys. 2. Look at her history. Iraq and Libya. It's as plain as day. One could also toss in that Dems got us into Korea and Viet Nam. And Bill Clinton bombed the **** out of Iraq for years and years even though it was not a "War". BO is pretty good at the war game as well.

No, he's into good "process" regardless of the results produced. "Process is more important than outcome."