[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Aug 26 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 26 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Wow Hillary's speech just seem to say I support Obama because he is a Democrat and not Bush.....I think she said that ten times....rather luke warm

Actually, it was more I support Obama because McCain would be a nightmare. What was her line, "No way, no how, no McCain"? She ripped McCain up one side and down the other. At one point, she said McCain wouldn't be another Bush...he's be worse.

If you want reasons to vote for Obama, you got way too many hours of them yesterday, and you'll get more on Thursday and Friday. If you were a Democrat who supported Hillary but were unconvinced because you didn't like Obama's church, or his inexperience, or his friends from 20 years ago, this speech was for you. She said that to claim to support her and then to not vote for Obama would be a betrayal of her, and a betrayal of her 25 years of work.

And if that speech didn't convince you, nothing will.

So you agree with me. The speech was all about her.

"She said that to claim to support her and then to not vote for Obama would be a betrayal of her, and a betrayal of her 25 years of work."

"Actually, it was more I support Obama because McCain would be a nightmare."

I rest my case, talk about lukewarm endorsement. Follow the logic. McCain=nightmare.....Obama...better than nightmare...you pick which is better....

Or....McCain is unbalanced...evil........cares less about the poor, loves pollution, destroyes civil rights./loves endless War and killing..........other choice Obama...you choose... Wow luke warm ....



Add in evil McCain and being a good Democrat...nothing about Obama except your quotes.....better than nightmare.........he follows my policy(hillary) of last 25 years.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 27 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

kenberg, on Aug 26 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

I'm fine with Biden on the ticket. I have read that Biden and McCain like and respect each other. They could do themselves and the country a favor by keeping that in mind as the campaign moves on. Probably too much too ask.

given that biden said mccain would be a better president than obamba, and that he thought kerry should have picked mccain as VP in '80, i'd say they like one another

I don' think its fair to judge today's McCain based on comment made 6 months back...

The John McCain who is running for President this year bears no relation to the John McCain of years past. He has made major policy reversals on

1. Tax Cuts
2. Immigration
3. The role of the religious right
4. Drilling
5. Overturning Roe versus Wade (He has always been anti Abortion, but this "overturn Roe versus Wade" is new)
6. Ethanol
7. Gay Marriage
8. Torture

These aren't nuanced policy decision. McCain has no political center other than mindless belligerence, naked ambition, and "A noun, a verb, POW"

Years back, he was at least honest about the ambition part: Here's a quote from "Faith of My Fathers"

Quote

I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism.  In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president.  I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought it was my one shot at the prize... In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time.

These days, of course, he is attacking Obama with lines like the following "“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."

I've never liked McCain much, dating back to the Keating 5 days. Even so, I do wish that Kerry had convinced him to be his running mate. I think that Kerry - McCain would have been a strong ticket. There was little danger of Kerry dying in office, and once the election was done McCain could have been shoved into a closet somewhere, and occasionally let out to attend State funerals. However, at these point in time he strikes me as being down-right deranged. He's coming across as brain-addled, he can't keep simple facts straight, he keeps babbling on about the fact that Georgia was once of the first Christian nations.

I guess there is a reason that he had to cut off the whole straight talk express...

[RichMor]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

These aren't nuanced policy decision.  McCain has no political center other than mindless belligerence, naked ambition, and "A noun, a verb, POW"

Well I'm glad someone brought up the 'noun, verb, POW' topic.

I can't begin to imagine what it must have been like to be a POW in a hostile country. John McCain's courage in terrible circumstances does say something profound about his character. So I think it is legitimate and sensible for a voter to consider McCains character when considering him as a candidate.

But still..............

McCain is making more and more references to his POW experience to deflect honest criticism of his policies and pronouncements. He can't remember how many houses he and his wife own but he can 'remember a time when I didn't have a table or a chair'(rough quote).

I think McCain is disrespecting a large number of veterans, MIAs, and KIAs by cheapening their stories for his own political ends.

[jdonn]

RichMor, on Aug 27 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

John McCain's courage in terrible circumstances does say something profound about his character. So I think it is legitimate and sensible for a voter to consider McCains character when considering him as a candidate.

I'm sure to get blasted for this but pardon me, how does getting captured show character? If you live through the ordeal, you must have great character? What would happen if someone with bad character was captured, would they just topple over? It was surely an awful experience, I would never want it to happen to me, but being captured and tortured is NOT a positive attribute toward being president.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 27 2008, 09:02 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 26 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 26 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Wow Hillary's speech just seem to say I support Obama because he is a Democrat and not Bush.....I think she said that ten times....rather luke warm

Actually, it was more I support Obama because McCain would be a nightmare. What was her line, "No way, no how, no McCain"? She ripped McCain up one side and down the other. At one point, she said McCain wouldn't be another Bush...he's be worse.

If you want reasons to vote for Obama, you got way too many hours of them yesterday, and you'll get more on Thursday and Friday. If you were a Democrat who supported Hillary but were unconvinced because you didn't like Obama's church, or his inexperience, or his friends from 20 years ago, this speech was for you. She said that to claim to support her and then to not vote for Obama would be a betrayal of her, and a betrayal of her 25 years of work.

And if that speech didn't convince you, nothing will.

So you agree with me. The speech was all about her.

The speach was all about Hillary's supporters.

Clinton and Obama just went through a pretty bruising primary during which Hillary consistently attacked Obama on issues like readiness.

Its ludicrous to argue that Clinton should spin on a dime and suddenly start waxed rhapsodic about how Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. She would essentially be saying either

"I was lying then" OR "I am lying now". Either way, no one is going to buy it, least of all those supporters of Hillary who bought into that tripe...

What you can do is make a convincing case like the following: "No matter what you might think of Obama, McCain is 100 times worse"

This is consistent with the earlier messaging but still makes an important case to mobilize around Obama.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

RichMor, on Aug 27 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

John McCain's courage in terrible circumstances does say something profound about his character. So I think it is legitimate and sensible for a voter to consider McCains character when considering him as a candidate.

I'm sure to get blasted for this but pardon me, how does getting captured show character? If you live through the ordeal, you must have great character? What would happen if someone with bad character was captured, would they just topple over? It was surely an awful experience, I would never want it to happen to me, but being captured and tortured is NOT a positive attribute toward being president.

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around). McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well. When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).
I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character. But maybe that's just semantics...

[boris3161]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

[Lobowolf]

boris3161, on Aug 27 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It's the president's show...he's gotten a lot of mileage from the "change" message, but he's still open to attack on lack of experience, particularly from a foreign policy perspective. Biden won't be setting policy, so I think it makes sense for Obama to add some experience to the ticket and fill in some of the gaps.

[jdonn]

boris3161, on Aug 27 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It is generally normal, and good strategy, to pick someone who fills in perceived weaknesses rather than someone who reinforces perceived strengths. Likewise I would expect McCain to pick someone a fair amount younger and more conservative.

[jtfanclub]

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around). McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well. When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).
I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character. But maybe that's just semantics...

It's not quite that simple. For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it. If he'd accepted, he'd have been court-martialed. For another thing, he was a prisoner. If they wanted to tie him to a stake and leave him for the American forces to find, there wasn't anything stopping them. Certainly his refusal to be a political pawn was lauditory, but then he also wrote several documents denouncing America, under duress of course. Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President. But John McCain can actually considers it building character. If you say so.

[Lobowolf]

jtfanclub, on Aug 27 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around).  McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well.  When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).
I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character.  But maybe that's just semantics...

It's not quite that simple. For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it. If he'd accepted, he'd have been court-martialed. For another thing, he was a prisoner. If they wanted to tie him to a stake and leave him for the American forces to find, there wasn't anything stopping them. Certainly his refusal to be a political pawn was lauditory, but then he also wrote several documents denouncing America, under duress of course. Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President. But John McCain can actually considers it building character. If you say so.

I'm certainly no expert on military justice, but this really doesn't sound right. Got a citation to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? ESCAPE is authorized, so I have a very hard time believing that a soldier is required to refuse release.

(from article 105: Misconduct as a prisoner)
"( Escape. Escape from the enemy is authorized by custom. An escape or escape attempt which results in close rconfinement or other measures against fellow prisoners still in the hands of the enemy is not an offense under this article. "

Anything on this "first-in, first-out" policy?

[mike777]

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

In one famous case when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Aug 27 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

In one famous case when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 27 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

In one famous case  when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

I am not sure what you are asking.

If you disobey a direct legal order from the chain of command I would think you could be court martialed or be subject to nonjudicial punishment


" I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way."




http://www.au.af.mil...wcgate/ucmj.htm
http://en.wikipedia....risoners_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_St...Code_of_Conduct

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Aug 27 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 27 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

In one famous case  when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

I am not sure what you are asking.

If you disobey a direct legal order from the chain of command I would think you could be court martialed or be subject to nonjudicial punishment


" I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way."




http://www.au.af.mil...wcgate/ucmj.htm
http://en.wikipedia....risoners_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_St...Code_of_Conduct

My (limited) understanding is that the Code of Conduct is not legally binding. The post from jt indicated that there was a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibited accepting release, which clearly WOULD, if violated, subject one to a Court Martial.

I agree that if the alternative to remaining as a POW was a Court Martial, that doesn't necessarily say a lot about his character (though I think I'd rather do 20 years in an American military prison than 5 in a Vietnamese one). If he wasn't subject to a Court Martial, though (and I don't know that violation of the ethical guidelines of the Code of Conduct subject one to a Court Martial), then I think it says a great deal about his character.

Having said that, I'm much more interested in policy than character as a general rule for presidents (or other politicians). But if he had a bona fide option to leave, and chose not to, that's a far cry from just getting caught and tortured.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Aug 27 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

It's not quite that simple.

This much is true.

Quote

  For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it.

No. There are provisions of the Code of Conduct that make accepting any special privilege or advantage a no-no, but that's not the same thing.

Quote

Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

I cannot speak to this, as I do not know if it's true.

Quote

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President.  But John McCain can actually considers it building character.  If you say so.

Frankly, that kind of remark is just silly. What the Hell has getting raped got to do with anyone's qualifications to be President? Absolutely nothing! As for McCain, I can't recall him (or anyone else with a brain) saying that being raped builds character.

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

My (limited) understanding is that the Code of Conduct is not legally binding.

Read, carefully, article 134 of the UCMJ. When I was in the Army, we used to call it the "and anything else you do that we don't like is illegal, too" rule.

[mike777]

Let us all back up.

In case of war and under combat or extreme war conditions we are given a legal order by chain of command. I repeat a legal order.


If we choose to ignore it, in this case get POW release from Hanoi Hilton on non orders.

1) In real life we may get no legal punishment
2) In real life we cannot be shocked if we get some form of punishment.........shunning by POWS........etc......


In USA.....Obama may win by huge landslide or
undecided may vote on some Character issue.
Agree if You think Obama is one hundred times better than McCAin...easy vote.


btw side issue I thought Bill Clinton Speech was not a home run..it was a GRAND SLAM OUT OF THE PARK.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

boris3161, on Aug 27 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It is generally normal, and good strategy, to pick someone who fills in perceived weaknesses rather than someone who reinforces perceived strengths. Likewise I would expect McCain to pick someone a fair amount younger and more conservative.

the rumor i started hearing a few days ago is that mccain and powell are talking about the possibility... whether it happens or not, what would you think of a mccain/powell ticket? how would america at large like it, in your opinion?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Aug 28 2008, 05:17 AM, said:

the rumor i started hearing a few days ago is that mccain and powell are talking about the possibility... whether it happens or not, what would you think of a mccain/powell ticket? how would america at large like it, in your opinion?

Powell has the baggage of explaining his presentation to the UN about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." Everyone with common sense saw that he had not come close to making the case, and he had to be aware of that himself.

Some of us (me, anyway) thought then that he must have been aware of real evidence that he could not present in public. But there was no such evidence, and he went on anyway.