New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say

[saden1]

There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s. Public financing is a joke considering you have 527 groups doing all the dirty work for the candidates. So long as Obama is taking money from small donors and PAC money I'm OK with it. Anywho, this isn't a policy decision, it's a tactical and a smart one at that. Raise money from 1.5 million donors and implement a 50 state startagy. Can't fault the man wanting to win without cost.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s.

Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).

Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

Why do you feel Obama is doing whatever it takes to win an election?

And maybe I'm confused about your fundamental argument here, but are you suggesting that his (Obama) opting out, changing his mind, flip-flopping, or whatever you want to call it, is on the same moral playing field as, say, the government's role in waterboarding?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Why do you feel Obama is doing whatever it takes to win an election?

My reference there is to saden mentioning "f'ck the fair play, b.s." in an earlier post. To me, saden implied that it's time for Obama to do whatever it takes to win the election.

And maybe I'm confused about your fundamental argument here, but are you suggesting that his (Obama) opting out, changing his mind, flip-flopping, or whatever you want to call it, is on the same moral playing field as, say, the government's role in waterboarding?

I'm not equating Obama's stance of taking public financing or not to water-boarding. In a broader sense, I am talking about politicans, not specifically Obama, misrepresenting facts, misleading voters, saying one thing and then doing something completely opposite to win an election. If you are OK with that, I don't believe there is a huge moral difference between that and government personnel who have evidence that a known terrorist (murderer) can provide information that will save American lives and limited waterboarding is part of the process to get this information.

I'm NOT saying we should be waterboarding every suspected terrorist in custody. I'm also NOT saying we should be using it at a level worse than what our Special Operations forces undergo in training. It has also only been used on three very high level and dangerous terrorists.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of grey areas out there in campaigns, protecting our country and many other areas. Neither Democrat or Republican, liberal or convservative is going to be outside of the grey areas.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

My reference there is to saden mentioning "f'ck the fair play, b.s." in an earlier post. To me, saden implied that it's time for Obama to do whatever it takes to win the election.

I'm not equating Obama's stance of taking public financing or not to water-boarding. In a broader sense, I am talking about politicans, not specifically Obama, misrepresenting facts, misleading voters, saying one thing and then doing something completely opposite to win an election. If you are OK with that, I don't believe there is a huge moral difference between that and government personnel who have evidence that a known terrorist (murderer) can provide information that will save American lives and limited waterboarding is part of the process to get this information.

I'm NOT saying we should be waterboarding every suspected terrorist in custody. I'm also NOT saying we should be using it at a level worse than what our Special Operations forces undergo in training. It has also only been used on three very high level and dangerous terrorists.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of grey areas out there in campaigns, protecting our country and many other areas. Neither Democrat or Republican, liberal or convservative is going to be outside of the grey areas.

Oh, okay I see where you're coming from. Understood.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

My disdain for torture is not based on political bias, it's based on morality not to mention domestic and international law. It's a serious matter and you're equating it on the same moral field as Obama opting out of public financing? That to me is absurd.

BTW, RNC + Conservative 527's are projected to raise ~250 million. Fair play my ass.