A housing issue: McCain not sure how many they own

Just once, I would love to see a candidate who would only tell us the things he is going to accomplish.

Obama took that high road for a while, but began to be perceived as weak for not fighting back against classic GOP smear campaigns, and has now stooped to the level of McCain's mudslinging.

McCain took a few weeks off after he became the presumptive nominee, or did you forget about that? Obama has young children, and a grandmother up in age. Are you really going to fault him for taking some time off to visit his elderly grandmother, and spending some quality time with his young daughters during their summer break from school?

McCain was best buddies for years with Charles Keating, convicted of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud in the collapse of American Continental and Lincoln. Taxpayers lost more than $2 billion dollars on the bailout. Keating contributed more than $112,000.00 in political contributions to McCain. McCain and his family vacationed frequently with Keating at Keating's vacation home in the Bahamas, all paid for by Keating, while McCain was a Senator. His wife and her father did business with Keating. So tell me, McCain was best friends with, vacationed with, and did business with a crook, is that okay? His own father-in-law, Jim Hensley was convicted of federal liquor violations. Four years later, he was again prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records. He had many connections with the mob. McCain married into a family with mob connections. Who do you think helped get McCain elected to Congress, huh? I suppose that's okay too, right?

A man who has multiple marital affairs, and a mistress for nearly a year before he finally divorced just doesn't fit my definition of integrity.

I don't know ruby, it worked for Kennedy in Illinois. Mobsters getting him elected I mean, lol, everyone's going to attack me now, I said something about America's King Arthur.

I think a large percentage of the population would read "middle to upper middle" and "what it is to struggle" in the same sentence, and have their brains explode.

But you're right - they're both richer than the vast majority of Americans and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a viable Presidential candidate who wasn't, these days.

Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a viable Presidential candidate who wasn't, these days.

HA! I guess the key word there is "viable" and as long as you're not looking at Third Party candidates, your statement holds true... forever and ever. The thing is, if more people would look outside the duality box, there might one day be another alternative... a viable one.

The thing is, if more people would look outside the duality box, there might one day be another alternative... a viable one.

Here's hoping...

This is a ridiculous spin on a comment on a question designed to make McCain seem like a rich out-of-touch elitist. The fact is that Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on. If you asked Obama in which companies he owned stock, I would be willing to bet he couldn't answer successfully.

I'd say far more people have 401k's then a real estate portfolio they don't care about.

Poeople who don't understand this or don't want to will continue to try the spin.

Understand that McCain cares so little about money that he doesn't even know the size of his real estate portfolio?

A great vacation in Hawaii

Ah yes, because the Hawaiian tourism industry relies exclusively on the filthy rich.

help from a Chicago mobster(Rezko) to buy his 1.65 mill $ mansion

So if you ever bought Enron stock before their scandal, then you're guilty of fraud by association?

help from a Chicago mobster(Rezko) to buy his 1.65 mill $ mansion So if you ever bought Enron stock before their scandal, then you're guilty of fraud by association?

Non-sequitir.

First, it's spelled "non sequitur," and second, it's actually a valid analogy.

Obama has been shown to know nothing of Rezko's shady side, and was not involved with any of Rezko's shady dealing.

He worked with Rezko (bought Enron stock) without knowledge of Rezko's criminal actions (before Enron's scandal was made public).

That's my point...guilt by association is not guilt at all, I don't hold his dealings against him and I don't think anyone should, just like I don't hold Cindy McCains dealing against John McCain which is what this boils down to, she handles the money, I don't blame him for marrying an intelligent rich woman, and he is a senator, not the investor in the family.

I was just in Detroit last week. The city and metro area are in meltdown economically, and the whole state is following suit. Unions deserve a big part of the blame, along with government on all levels. The city's inability to elect a competent and non-sleazy mayor in decades is also a significant factor.

My point was not about just unions, it is about the rights of workers. International labor is tops in sweatshops and slave labor. I have been an HR Pro in industry (domestic & internationally founded) and corporate America for a long time, they pack up, layoff and fire workers at the drop of a hat and they are vocal and concerned about formations of any sort. I've witnessed massed layoffs, seen people break down in tears after 20 years of work, they had no protection. Most in the US are not out of work because of unions, there aren't that many. Most industries don't have any protection for employees, they are against the average person having any rights, they are just numbers on a punch card.

Reminder: McCain has no plan for a "100-year war effort." You do realize, of course, that this is a fiction perpetrated by Leftist partisans.

McCain doesn't have a plan for such, no, but he's quoted as perfectly content leaving our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

DSMB,

As an aside, do you think that the Left will succeed in besmirching McCain's well-documented military service? Or, do you think such efforts will backfire on the Left? And, keep in mind, unlike Senator Kerry, McCain never tossed his (or somebody's) medals over the fence and never slandered his brothers in the service, so his standing is far more strong than Kerry's was.

Tom Bombadil: As an aside, do you think that the Left will succeed in besmirching McCain's well-documented military service? Or, do you think such efforts will backfire on the Left?

Tom, you and others here need to read Phillip Butler's firsthand account of his POW experience in Vietnam and what he can tell us about John McCain. Please see #57.1, hit the link and read the piece. Even this can't backfire on anybody except McCain, and since he hyperbolically wears his war medals as qualifications to be president, he will deserve what he gets from the truth being told.

And, keep in mind, unlike Senator Kerry, McCain never tossed his (or somebody's) medals over the fence and never slandered his brothers in the service, so his standing is far more strong than Kerry's was.

I can understand a Vietnam veteran not wanting to think about his/her service having been in vain (even though it was—which is the fault of LBJ and his advisors, not the veterans), but to deny Kerry his right to protest the Vietnam War is anti-American, Tom. It's unconstitutional. If you're going to support a presidential candidate who upholds the U.S. Constitution, you are by default required to defend Kerry's right to do whatever he wanted with his medals and to support anti-war movements all day long.

It is the height of disrespect, in my opinion, to hold the position that a returning veteran has sullied his/her reputation by fighting against a war for which s/he has personally sacrificed. People who would do so should go to war themselves, feel it, smell it, taste it, watch your friends be blown to smithereens and then tell me you're willing to sacrifice your right to fight against something as futile as the Vietnam War.

I have many close friends who served in Vietnam who resented Kerry's pompous testimony. And, no, I do not at all respect Kerry's medal toss (whosever's they were, depending on which story Kerry tells). Kerry may have a "right" to say and do what he did, but that doesn't make him right (as in correct).

I've stood at the Vietnam Memorial with a former soldier who served with his brother. My friend came home; his brother did not. We stood at that wall and cried and prayed.

Kerry is full of crap, as far as I'm concerned, and he is utterly loathesome. I am not voting for Obama, but I do not have the contempt for him that I feel for John Kerry. I feel the same way about John Murtha slandering our Marines in Haditha also, while we're on the subject. Murtha turned out to be wrong, but he's too bullheaded to admit it.

By the way, I've already read and commented on Butler's article. Butler is a longtime antiwar activist, and that's why he's voting against McCain ... not because McCain was a prankster, partier, and mediocre student at the Naval Academy. I honor Butler's service, and have already said so publicly. But, he's wrong.

Tom,

As a kid growing up watching the Vietnam War casualties nightly on the television news and seeing our protesters harassed by government and beaten by police and looking at the photojournalism that came out of Kent State in 1970, I have all my adult life been an adamantly outspoken about the stupidity and self-indulgence of the Vietnam War.

This doesn't mean I haven't cried for our lost and injured veterans. I get the feeling that a lot of veterans think anti-war advocates don't respect their service. That's just not true.

Being the age I am, I was almost right in the center of this time period and contemporaneously and for many years after felt its effects on those who paid. Vietnam, in my opinion, was little more than an international display of how stupid and imperialistic the U.S. can be. It pains my heart that any of our soldiers died for this, just as now with Iraq. My empathy for the people on the ground runs deep.

When Kerry threw his war medals at the White House in 1971, had I been there, I'd have been applauding him. That this event could have undermined the validity of Kerry's patriotism only underscores Americans' own lack of patriotism when they refuse to defend a person's right to protest its own government. I'm not even sure they see the dichotomy of their own complaint.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people will follow a lead. Isn't it paradoxical how opposing politicians, i.e., Bush, would use a candidate's American right to express himself to try to portray him as unAmerican?

99.4 - Hear! Hear! Well said! And I lived through what you did. I've never forgotten. And I fundraised for the POW/MIAs in my school. And I've wiped the tears of veterans who came back from that war, thinking nobody cared... thinking we were all against them. That just was not true.

Many Veterans were treated shamefully upon their return, and in fact, many Vietnam War protesters were not "supporting the troops, but protesting the war." Let's get honest: many of our troops were called war criminals and pigs, they were spat upon, and otherwise denigrated by many naive and ignorant people who were enjoying the sense of anarchy and rebellion that was sweeping through the culture.

A few changes during that era were very good and very necessary, chief among them, the recognition of civil rights for African Americans. The tragedy for America is that the Republican Party - which had taken the lead on many Civil Rights initiatives - abandoned these reforms in the 1960s and ceded the Civil Rights reforms to the Democrats and to the Left. After all, it was the Democratic Party that had been a haven for the KKK and many bigoted politicians. Shame on the Republicans for losing the moral high ground on Civil Rights.

Back to the war ....

Lest we believe the war protesters were completely altruistic, peace, love, and flowers, we should remember that among their numbers were many anarchists, socialists, and communists - William Ayers, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Weather Underground, elements of the SDS, Black Panthers, et al - who were violent and even terroristic. The cry was "REVOLUTION" and not all of it was peaceful or well-intended.

Study the Democratic Convention in 1968 and discover how violent many protesters were, in deliberately provoking the Chicago Police and other law enforcement and National Guard. Protesters were throwing bags of human excrement at the police in order to incite the police into action, so that the protesters could win a "public relations" battle. And, they did.

Sure, the protesters had a "right," but many of them didn't handle it rightly. Freedom of speech is a precious gift. And freedom is not anarchy. With freedom comes responsibility, and every action has a consequence.

America continues to suffer the aftershocks of that era, and many of them are not positive.

Let me ask you this: Which reads for better news copy? The story about those who were heartless, or those who were compassionate?

It's the same story today.

Tom Freedom of speech is not a "gift", it's a right too few exercise well.

You make some good points although you do seem to slant a bit right ;)

You make some good points although you do seem to slant a bit right ;)

Just a bit, LOL.

Aine, there are certainly some decent and well-intended war protesters today, just as I know there were some back in the 60s. I have a couple of pals who did organizing for the SDS. They later changed their minds about a lot of the things they said and did back then.

I guess many of us have friends who fought in the war and others who protested the war, just as today, no doubt.

Just pointing out, it sounds like they (soldier/sailor and protesters) both fought for what the believed in.

Sometimes they are one & the same.

It's hard to talk about the Vietnam War without bringing in other aspects of the upheaval of the time. The thing that bothers me most, then and now, is if any of our soldiers think anti-war advocates do not support them. I blame some of this on our media, which tends to report provocative events rather than the whole event, and a lot of it on our government for its historical tendency to keep information under lock and key lest the American public dissents.

I remember news reports of the day of returning vets being spit on and ridiculed. Though I don't know anyone who did that, I'd have to ask, was that in part because of the atrocities that were committed in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia by some of our soldiers? Our leaders are good at marching our country off to war, and then it's left to the historians to report what actually happens to people who are trained to kill in the name of their country. The psychological aspects of becoming a killing machine, particularly in moments of war that are chaotic and highly dangerous (like not being able to discern who is the enemy and who is civilian) are great. The United States does not like to talk about this side of war, but people live with it or die from it all the time. The ramifications are huge.

Truth be told, an uncertain number of our soldiers committed horrible crimes while in Vietnam; rape, murder, assault, mutilation. From History News Network:

Even an accompanying [Toledo] Blade piece on "Other Vietnam Atrocities," tends to decontextualize the "Tiger Force" incidents, treating them as fairly extraordinary events by listing only three other relatively well known atrocity incidents: former Senator, presidential candidate and Navy SEAL Bob Kerrey's raid on the hamlet of Thang Phong; the massacre at Son Thang -- sometimes referred to as the "Marine Corps' My Lai"; and the war crimes allegations of Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert -- most famously chronicled in his memoir Soldier. This short list, however, doesn't even hint at the scope and number of similar criminal acts.

For example, the Toledo Blade reports that its "review of thousands of classified Army documents, National Archives records, and radio logs reveals [the "Tiger Force"] ... carried out the longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War [from May and November, 1967]...." Unfortunately, this seven month atrocity-spree is not nearly the longest on record. Nor is it even the longest string of atrocities by one unit within its service branch. According to formerly classified Army documents, an investigation disclosed that from at least March 1968 through October 1969, "Vietnamese [civilian] detainees were subjected to maltreatment" by no less than twenty-three separate interrogators of the 172d Military Intelligence (MI) Detachment. The inquiry found that, in addition to using "electrical shock by means of a field telephone," an all too commonly used method of torture by Americans during the war, MI personnel also struck detainees with their fists, sticks and boards and employed a form of water torture which impaired prisoners' ability to breath [emphasis mine].

Incidents such as these are certain gas to throw on the flames of anti-war protesting. But we need a deeper understanding of what war can do to individuals—how it can open the door to the basest human instincts, none of which are pleasant. I have little doubt that some individual soldiers committed crimes out of a psyche damaged by war and that others did it out of an opportunity to indulge their darkest human nature.

The combination of a doomed war, the draft, extremely poor leadership both at the White House and in the Pentagon, reports of atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers and the lack of discussion on the psychological and physical realities of war results in confusion, anger and ignorance. It's a lot like what is happening right now in Iraq. Isn't it interesting to read in the above excerpt that our freedom-loving country has used waterboarding before? What else have we done?

I can tell you from experience that the war still lives on in the minds of many veterans who returned. It's like a ticking time bomb in some minds. A few years ago a Vietnam vet friend of mine killed his wife (who was my best friend) and then himself... and I have little doubt that it was due to a flashback, and there were no warning signs or anything. It just happened one day. We're talking decades after his return.

Tom B. In response too: As an aside, do you think that the Left will succeed in besmirching McCain's well-documented military service? Or, do you think such efforts will backfire on the Left?

Hopefully the goal is not to belittle McCain' service record. I believe the point is more along the lines that the Hanoi Hilton did not offer military tactics training to prisoners. McCain is not a career military man. Thus I fail to see how a Pilot who gets shot down very, very early in his military experience has much more actual military tactical training than an American Airlines pilot who served one-term in Vietnam? For that matter, the senate offers no more military tactics training than American Airlines corporation.

Had McCain stayed to become general, I'd be impressed. Otherwise McCain is going to utilize real actively serving military advisers just like Obama would [senatorial experience is mute]. Unless of course, the goal of the war is purely political like Vietnam and Iraq, then is becomes more ideology driven and the military advisers are props like in the Bush administration.

Besides, McCain doesn't have any computor technology knowledge [by his own admission]and today's army is very technical as compared with when McCain served. Obama is more technology savvy, I believe McCain has let technology pass him buy which is a scary thought all the wayy around...

my 2 cents, good dialog as always!

Don't spin me bro, McCain is besmirching his own military record, it is him and his campaign that is using his POW experience like he alone was the only military man that was subjected to imprisonment and torture. It is no more a reason to elect McCain as president then Clinton's years as the wife of a president.

Every time he gets a question he doesn't like or flubs the answer we wind up back in Vietnam in his prison. This is not acceptable he showed strength in his service to this country but so did many many others so he needs to give up the past and lets talk about today and tomorrow. How can he lead this country if he is going to continue to look in the rear view mirror.

Sally---he will bring it up whenever the obama campaign tries to detract from his message with bogus issues such as how many homes are owned by John and Cindy McCain. There's nothing wrong reminding people in the glare of such foolishness that this patriot once spent 5+ years without any house. Period.

lisaed: There's nothing wrong reminding people in the glare of such foolishness that this patriot once spent 5+ years without any house. Period.

You miss Sally's most damaging point: John McCain has become a broken record on his POW experiences as though he's the only soldier who was captured, tortured and imprisoned. There were many others who behaved as honorably as McCain and suffered longer at the hands of torturers. His campaign has used this experience as a qualifier for the presidency and tries to make McCain sound like he's the pinnacle of American heroism. This is untrue. And wearing the POW on his sleeve in the manner that he does is an affront to the rest of our POW veterans.

As far as Obama bringing up "bogus" issues in his fight against McCain, both sides use this tactic. It's not a strategy trademarked by the Democratic Party alone.

visioncoast---well you see obama opponents are not allowed to attack obama---cause well it's racist---and mccain's opponents cannot attack mccain because he's a former POW.....seems about all even steven to me.

Sorry to disagree, but the POW issue is a big one because the McCain campaign is trying to pass it off as a presidential qualifier, and it does tremendous disservice to our other veterans.

And I thought Republicans were all about supporting our troops and veterans. My mistake.

visioncoast---personal biography is absolutely a qualifier---the POW bit is just part of the McCain biography.

with bogus issues such as how many homes are owned by John and Cindy McCain.

Or bogus issues like terrorist fist bumps. At least McCain's "bogus issues" are true.

There's nothing wrong reminding people in the glare of such foolishness that this patriot once spent 5+ years without any house. Period.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with reminding people that the man running for the Family Values Party dropkicked his first wife into the trash like a stale loaf of bread.

Personal biography is a qualifier, and McCain's doesn't.

lisaed: personal biography is absolutely a qualifier---the POW bit is just part of the McCain biography.

So the entirety of a person's biography is a presidential qualifier? Then certainly some parts of a biography would be disqualifiers, correct? But I like how you sidestepped my point.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your response to #14.9.

Ah, playing the old race card again.

When have Senator McCain's supporters here said that Obama is not a "true American" because of his bi-racial ethnicity? Senator McCain has a multi-racial family, as do I. Many of us are tiring of the strident allegations of race-baiting being trumpeted by the Left.

As far as other questions - and this transcends Senator Obama, who I certainly believe is a "true American" - one must ask why someone would not want to salute the flag, why someone would not want the US to win in Iraq, why some are more concerned about whether or not the terrorists in Gitmo are getting luxury treatment than they are about the victims of terror or crime, why some want America to have soft borders, why some believe foreign born terrorists have the same legal rights as American citizens, why some believe American taxpayers should pay for any and all social needs of illegal immigrants, why some resist all government and law enforcement efforts at protecting the nation from terror, why some are so intent on stripping American youth from the history and heritage of the nation, and a host of other questions.

Some minorities and bi-racial people are more truly American than some old white males, so you can't say thats what it depends on. in my OPINION the test should rely on your views. i see alot of people who think the minority VIEW (not minority races) should govern the country. But this would be ever changing, so there really can be no test. But you can't say the Native tribes are true Americans either, as there was no American country when they dominated the continent. All this aside I feel the same as Tom above, it's the ideals and potential policies that make a true American, we use American because no other countries claim that as an identity, if you're from Brazil, you call yourself Brazilian, Canada Canadian, Mexico, Mexican, etc. The U.S. is the only country that identify themselves as uniquelyAmerican, because I've never heard someone claim to be a United Statian, or anything of the like. So American, does describe peoples of the United States. this is all a play on words though. Our country was founded on the ideas of a republican democracy, where people are free to decide how their money is spent, even tax money, without having others opinions and lifestyles forced upon them. This is not to say which if either candidate is not a true American.

Many of us are tiring of the strident allegations of race-baiting being trumpeted by the Left.

Yeah, because no one's ever called Obama a secret Muslim, and terrorist by insinuation.

one must ask why someone would not want to salute the flag

A rather inane question when most Americans probably don't know the words to our national anthem.

why someone would not want the US to win in Iraq

That's kinda like asking "Why don't you want Oprah to be the greatest Olympian of all time?"

First, you've gotta define "win," (or "greatest Olympian") then convince someone who isn't simply ideologically gung-ho about "we'll totally, like, win awesomely" ("Oprah is Jesus") that it's entirely possible to do so without crippling our economy ("Oprah can do it without poisoning every other Olympian, bribing judges, and shortening her lifespan by 20 years").

why some are more concerned about whether or not the terrorists in Gitmo are getting luxury treatment than they are about the victims of terror or crime

I didn't know "not getting waterboarded and hounded 24/7 by snarling dogs" was "luxury treatment." Man, there goes my glowing impressions of what a "luxury hotel" is supposed to provide.

why some believe foreign born terrorists have the same legal rights as American citizens

They've all been convicted as terrorists? Knowing the US's less-than-stellar reputation for throwing people in a hole regardless of guilt when it comes to even hints of possible ties to hypothetical terrorism, it'd be rather wise not to set a standard of terrorist-paranoia-excused brutality for the world to follow, especially when we try to claim such a lofty moral high ground.

why some resist all government and law enforcement efforts at protecting the nation from terror

Cute demonization, but few people are moronic enough to buy that line, Tom. I don't recall anyone saying that we should get rid of all airport security. Do you?

why some are so intent on stripping American youth from the history and heritage of the nation

Indeed, why do so many people insist that America was created as a Christian nation? Such corruption of history. ;-)

It's rather ironic that you feign offense at playing "cards" when your own demonizations rest on nothing more than vapid exaggeration and a carefully and blindly cultivated "us vs them" mentality.

Jack, you and I could both lip-sync to the argument that could ensue between the two of us.

A couple of notes:

"Muslim" is not a race.

Very few residents at Club Gitmo have experienced harsh interrogation, and the couple who have been were ... newsflash ... very bad men with some very good information.

America was founded by people with knowledge and respect for Judeo-Christian values, even those who were Deist or non-religious. Love that fact or hate it, but let's don't obscure it.

OK...fire away...as I've said, we've been around all of these mountains many, many times before together.

I've missed you, Jack, and it's good to see you again.

Quick question for Tom:

How do we know only "Very few residents at Club Gitmo have experienced harsh interrogation" when they can't speak freely with their attorney's without as the laws now provide the very real possibility that their attorney/client communications can be legally observed therefore pitching the 5th Amendment out the window? Tell me how can we really pretend we actually have a clue as to the level of interrogation any of them have received? Because we can trust our government to tell us the truth? Bay of Pigs? Abu Ghraib? WMD's? Need I list more deceptions already known to have been perpetrated by those that pretend to act in the interest of our great nation?

United States Constitution:

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

For emphasis I stress: "No person shall . . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Since the attorney/client communication can be eavesdropped on legal and is currently also admissible as evidence in the newly created tribunals, I would strongly argue that persons are being compelled as a witness against themselves. Further they are clearly being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law since many of them haven't even been formally charged yet.

I know the argument that some will attempt to interject and it is that those being held in Gitmo and around the rest of the world in who knows what rat hole where, because it's a secret (more deceptions), are terrorists and not American citizens and the Bill of Rights doesn't/shouldn't apply to them. I disagree on 2 points:

1. Those being held by us have yet to be found guilty of anything, with 3 exceptions and due to how they were found guilty even those convictions (in my opinion) are suspect and 2. The founders of our country did not write the Constitution solely as a document for this country. They outlined their general beliefs about the rights of men within the context of the Declaration of Independence itself and then applied them to what became our Constitution, but they firmly intended it to be heard around the world and boldly offered a new vision for all people of all faiths and in all countries. Within that document they clearly stated the following:

Declaration of Independence-July 4, 1776-

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Those are the words of the founders of our country, not mine. Those great men stated unequivocally and boldly, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They didn't say all Americans, they said ALL MEN, period end of discussion.

Very few residents at Club Gitmo have experienced harsh interrogation, and the couple who have been were ... newsflash ... very bad men with some very good information.

Source?

America was founded by people with knowledge and respect for Judeo-Christian values, even those who were Deist or non-religious. Love that fact or hate it, but let's don't obscure it.

And it was founded as a wholly secular nation, not a Christian one. Seeing as how, in recent MSNBC-linked seeds, the vast majority of hit-and-run chuckleheads think that America was founded almost as a theocracy, I'd say any obfuscation isn't on the part of secularists, but the religious revisionists.

Jack, America was not founded as a theocracy, nor do I want it to become one. This "all or nothing" argument doesn't work. Acknowledging our heritage does not disenfranchise anyone. In fact, you have great freedom to be an atheist or secularist or whatever you want to be. You can write, blog, speak out, and vote your conscience. And, here's the kicker: that concept was passed on to America through many profoundly spiritual people who respected Judeo-Christian values.

JR, while our Constitution does clearly articulate the value of all men, our government only extends to the citizens of this country. This includes the adjudication of both rights and responsibilities. Foreign born enemy combatants are not afforded the same protections. And, let us be honest here: these people at Gitmo are not mere "suspects" but most of them were captured "in the act." The idea that we can take them through our regular court process doesn't work. These terrorists know how to "game" our system brilliantly, and to cave into their unConstitutional demands will absolutely make a mockery of our legal system and our military ... and put America at infinitely greater risk.

Tom-

"these people at Gitmo are not mere "suspects" but most of them were captured "in the act." The idea that we can take them through our regular court process doesn't work."

1. Prove they were caught in the act, you have specific and verifiable proof you can provide on this? They were found on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq true but those battlefields included cities and streets where alot of innocent people "could" have lived. Prove to me I'm wrong. We have only the word of our government to go by and by you're own admission in some other threads there are elements in that government you don't appear to trust.

2. I'd like to know why exactly we can't "take them through our regular court process". Please discuss and again thanks for your comments.

Okay, I missed a point that I'd like to hit on that you also made Tom.

"These terrorists know how to "game" our system brilliantly, and to cave into their unConstitutional demands will absolutely make a mockery of our legal system and our military ... and put America at infinitely greater risk."

Bin Laden has said in several instances his goal was to defeat what we stand for. What do we stand for? I would argue the rights contained in the Constitution. Further, I believe we already caved into the wishes of Bin Laden when we allowed our leaders to pass the Patriot Act and FISA revisions to strip us of our "inalienable" rights.

They didn't make a mockery of our legal system, our government has. My opinion anyway. Finally, I ask this. What puts us more at risk in your opinion, the possibility of another terrorist attack or the loss of the rights we have in the Constitution? I implore you to think long and hard on that before responding. Again thanks for your comments.

I implore you to think long and hard on that before responding. Again thanks for your comments.

And, because I want to honor that request, it may be awhile (tomorrow or Monday) before I get back into this interesting discussion.

This "all or nothing" argument doesn't work.

Like insinuating that not inserting "Judeo-Christian values" into every other sentence about the founding of the US somehow "obscures" US history.

Acknowledging our heritage does not disenfranchise anyone.

Obscuring it through de-emphasis of its explicitly secular nature does, as was evidenced by the chucklehead comments in the recent "In God We Trust" MSNBC seed. I think I'm understating reality when I say that more than half of the users who commented there had a variation on "If you don't totally grovel for Jesus, GTFO of the US."

I, too, look forward to your responses to JaRagga's comments.