A new term in the political vernacular: McCain Democrats - Page 3 - Political Forum

Troianii · 03-11-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spm150

Is this actually that new of a term? We've known that McCain has expressed liberal views on certain issues so wouldn't it make sense that some Independents and Democrats would take him over Obama or Hilary? Just wondering.

Also, regarding youngsters getting involved with politics over talk radio. I can say that I'm one of the few kids that really started getting inovolved fter listening to conservative talk. Then again, I'm also 1 of a slim minority of freshman who know what each of the candidates actually stand for.

Congrats, and welcome to the club. I'm a conservative college freshman: I don't think there have been any others in my classes.

I also started listening to conservative talk when I was younger, around 13-16, on my way to work in Boston (2 hour trip). Lots of time to listen, but besides that I've never really listened to it consistently.

Personally, I was rooting for Mitt Romney long before he announced his candidacy, and I'm dead serious.

Spm150 · 03-11-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

Congrats, and welcome to the club. I'm a conservative college freshman: I don't think there have been any others in my classes.

I also started listening to conservative talk when I was younger, around 13-16, on my way to work in Boston (2 hour trip). Lots of time to listen, but besides that I've never really listened to it consistently.

Personally, I was rooting for Mitt Romney long before he announced his candidacy, and I'm dead serious.

I always found it more exciting to be around people who oppose your political views. If open minded, I like to think that the circulation of ideas floating around, even if against you, is very healthy and honestly gives a better perspective of the other case. I much rather prefer that to being surrounded by people who all agree with you with little room to debate anything.

I can say that during the beggining I was leaning towards McCain. After watching a debate I swung towards Giulianni, and after he dropped out I went for Romney. Needless to say I've gone back to supporting to McCain. I also have a strong feeling that I won't switching to democrat any time soon, if ever. Not with the way I've been influenced.

Freedom Rider · 03-11-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

That sounds to me like an opinion formed based on incomplete information. Do you know exactly what the Army Field Manual permits?

Further, the Japanese example is very weak. People like McCain were tortured for the fun of it - and we condemn our own who do the same.

For starters, here's proof that McCain did a 180 on this vote:

"On July 25, 2005 Senator John McCain -- a former prisoner of war for some 5-1/2 years during the Vietnam War who was reportedly tortured repeatedly during his captivity -- submitted an amendment to a military spending bill, intended to restrict all US government interrogators from using interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual.

On October 20, 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney met with McCain to try to convince him to agree that his amendment should only apply to military interrogators. Cheney wanted to continue to allow civilian interrogators, working for US intelligence agencies, to use more extended interrogation techniques. McCain did not agree.

McCain's amendment passed, and is now called the Detainee Treatment Act."

FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52 ) is online at
FM 34-52 Table of Contents

19 interrogation techniques are specified in it. Waterboarding is not one of them:

"Since passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the military has been restricted by law from using any technique beyond the Army Field Manual, whose 19 approved methods include tactics like “good cop-bad cop,” isolation from other prisoners and “false flag,” in which American interrogators pose as representatives of another country...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/wa...html?ref=world

"...The bill would have banned interrogation methods like stripping prisoners naked, forcing them to perform sexual acts or to mimic sexual acts, mock executions and beating or burning prisoners. The practice of waterboarding would also be prohibited. The Army asserts information elicited from such techniques is inherently unreliable...."

NPR: Bush Vetoes Bill that Bars Waterboarding

Re: Japanese war criminals and waterboarding:

"In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor."

NPR: Waterboarding: A Tortured History

To read about this subject in depth read
> > > ROUGH DRAFT < < <

BTW, your statement that "People like McCain were tortured for the fun of it - and we condemn our own who do the same" is really a moot point. We have considered waterboarding to be a war crime in the past, and the army prohibits its use even now - regardless of whether its done "for fun" or to extract information.

Troianii · 03-11-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spm150

I always found it more exciting to be around people who oppose your political views. If open minded, I like to think that the circulation of ideas floating around, even if against you, is very healthy and honestly gives a better perspective of the other case. I much rather prefer that to being surrounded by people who all agree with you with little room to debate anything.

I can say that during the beggining I was leaning towards McCain. After watching a debate I swung towards Giulianni, and after he dropped out I went for Romney. Needless to say I've gone back to supporting to McCain. I also have a strong feeling that I won't switching to democrat any time soon, if ever. Not with the way I've been influenced.

I agree, I'm a bit like Dr. Cox myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom Rider

For starters, here's proof that McCain did a 180 on this vote:

"On July 25, 2005 Senator John McCain -- a former prisoner of war for some 5-1/2 years during the Vietnam War who was reportedly tortured repeatedly during his captivity -- submitted an amendment to a military spending bill, intended to restrict all US government interrogators from using interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual.

On October 20, 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney met with McCain to try to convince him to agree that his amendment should only apply to military interrogators. Cheney wanted to continue to allow civilian interrogators, working for US intelligence agencies, to use more extended interrogation techniques. McCain did not agree.

McCain's amendment passed, and is now called the Detainee Treatment Act."

FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52 ) is online at
FM 34-52 Table of Contents

19 interrogation techniques are specified in it. Waterboarding is not one of them:

"Since passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the military has been restricted by law from using any technique beyond the Army Field Manual, whose 19 approved methods include tactics like “good cop-bad cop,” isolation from other prisoners and “false flag,” in which American interrogators pose as representatives of another country...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/wa...html?ref=world

"...The bill would have banned interrogation methods like stripping prisoners naked, forcing them to perform sexual acts or to mimic sexual acts, mock executions and beating or burning prisoners. The practice of waterboarding would also be prohibited. The Army asserts information elicited from such techniques is inherently unreliable...."

NPR: Bush Vetoes Bill that Bars Waterboarding

Re: Japanese war criminals and waterboarding:

"In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor."

NPR: Waterboarding: A Tortured History

To read about this subject in depth read
> > > ROUGH DRAFT < < <

BTW, your statement that "People like McCain were tortured for the fun of it - and we condemn our own who do the same" is really a moot point. We have considered waterboarding to be a war crime in the past, and the army prohibits its use even now - regardless of whether its done "for fun" or to extract information.

OK, so he changed his mind on one matter.

Hillary has flip-flopped in her very short term, but it's hard to catch Obama in a voting flip-flop because he's always present.

And really, it doesn't matter whether we ban waterboarding or not. If Obama is elected President and finds out that there's a nuke in NYC, ready to go off in less than 24 hours, and the CIA has one man in a room who knows where it is: Obama will authorize waterboarding, if that would get the job done. I'm sure that he would personally authorize the rack, he'd welcome the Inquisition in if they could get the information out. I'm talking about reserving it for extreme cases, but it doesn't matter whether we legalize it for extreme cases or not, it will be used in such cases.

Mooboy · 03-11-2008, 10:41 PM

"I also started listening to conservative talk when I was younger, around 13-16, on my way to work in Boston (2 hour trip). Lots of time to listen, but besides that I've never really listened to it consistently.

Personally, I was rooting for Mitt Romney long before he announced his candidacy, and I'm dead serious."

Two things i don't understand: how anyone could listen to conservative talk radio/ tv and how anyone could support Mitt Romney. And it's not a matter of them being conservative. It's a matter of principle... of fairness.

Spm150 · 03-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooboy

"I also started listening to conservative talk when I was younger, around 13-16, on my way to work in Boston (2 hour trip). Lots of time to listen, but besides that I've never really listened to it consistently.

Personally, I was rooting for Mitt Romney long before he announced his candidacy, and I'm dead serious."

Two things i don't understand: how anyone could listen to conservative talk radio/ tv and how anyone could support Mitt Romney. And it's not a matter of them being conservative. It's a matter of principle... of fairness.

Easy, 5:00 every day if I'm not doing homework I pop on the Savage Nation and listen to him for a bit. But really, are you implying that I'm being unfair by listening to conservative talk radio and having supported Mitt Romney I somehow lack principles? A bold statement, no pun intended.

Mooboy · 03-12-2008, 09:33 PM

"Easy, 5:00 every day if I'm not doing homework I pop on the Savage Nation and listen to him for a bit. But really, are you implying that I'm being unfair by listening to conservative talk radio and having supported Mitt Romney I somehow lack principles? A bold statement, no pun intended."

I'm implying that conservative talk radio and Mitt Romney are unfair and lack principles. Do i feel that way about everyone who listens to talk radio: no. As for you personally, seeing as how i don't know you, it'd be pretty rediculous for me to make judgements on your character.

I don't know how anyone could listen to talk radio for the reasons i mentioned. I don't know how anyone could support Romney because, although i accept that some ppl in this world are liberal and others conservative, Romney seems like neither.