Even those it was a youtube debate and how your answering questions the people had who will/could be voting for you and not just question joe next door made. Well to me they really only took question that they would normally aks on a regular debate and that really pisses me off.

I hate that saying with a passion. 

O, I finally found out who said that quote guys, the "murder in the dark of night" quote, looks like I was off by a few words.

In and interview John Kerry said ,"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, break sort of the customs of the [*uh*] of [*uh*] the historical customs, religious customs."

Now he might have been referring to a specific incident, but none of the charges brought against the American soldiers in any of the cases that I know of, have yet resulted in a finding of guilt. Since we have a system here that you are "innocent until proven guilty" should he have made those comments? I believe not, he simply could have said that the incident, if he was talking about one incident in particular, "It is a tragedy and we need to investigate it thoroughly. I hope that these charges are false and this was all a big misunderstanding."

http://www.americandaily.com/article/10643

Not to mention that most of the charges brought against our troops are coming from the enemy itself. Like in Hadetha. That is a sham, and if any of our people get court-marshaled over it I will hold it over President Bush's head until they get exonerated.

Concerning Blackwater. I don't really give a rip. They may have over-reacted but they have, up to this point, been perfect in their record of the missions they have been on. 100% success rate. That is saying something. Even having said that, I believe that if people are wanting to crucify them over it, I say the same thing as in other cases, give them the benefit of the doubt, and if it does in fact turn out that they are guilty - Give them the full punishment of the law.

Eomund said: O, I finally found out who said that quote guys, the "murder in the dark of night" quote, looks like I was off by a few words. In and interview John Kerry said ,"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, break sort of the customs of the [*uh*] of [*uh*] the historical customs, religious customs." Now he might have been referring to a specific incident, but none of the charges brought against the American soldiers in any of the cases that I know of, have yet resulted in a finding of guilt. Since we have a system here that you are "innocent until proven guilty" should he have made those comments? I believe not, he simply could have said that the incident, if he was talking about one incident in particular, "It is a tragedy and we need to investigate it thoroughly. I hope that these charges are false and this was all a big misunderstanding." http://www.americandaily.com/article/10643 Not to mention that most of the charges brought against our troops are coming from the enemy itself. Like in Hadetha. That is a sham, and if any of our people get court-marshaled over it I will hold it over President Bush's head until they get exonerated. Concerning Blackwater. I don't really give a rip. They may have over-reacted but they have, up to this point, been perfect in their record of the missions they have been on. 100% success rate. That is saying something. Even having said that, I believe that if people are wanting to crucify them over it, I say the same thing as in other cases, give them the benefit of the doubt, and if it does in fact turn out that they are guilty - Give them the full punishment of the law.

(emphasis added)

Off by a few words?? If you take "murder in the dark of night" and remove the "murder", that kind of changes the meaning. I want a full retraction.

Overreacted.  Are you serious?  17 people dead for no reason and you "don't give a rip"? They went someplace they were ordered not to go and opened fire on civilians for no apparent reason (as far as anyone can tell so far). And this is merely the most notorious of Blackwater's abuses. The SS was very effective also, but that doesn't mean their methods were OK.

[edit: And did you really say it's a "sham" that most of the reports of soldiers abusing Iraqis is coming from the Iraqis claiming to have been abused?  Most reports of crimes come from the victims of those crimes, you know.  I suppose you think everyone in Abu Ghraib had it coming. 

[And I looked at your source and found a total lack of context.  [edit2: found the context, see below.]]

Found the transcript. Keep in mind this is from December 4, 2005.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. AndDemocrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

Given context, it is clear that he was saying that we should delegate search-and-seizure missions to Iraqi troops who would be less likely to escalate an already tense situation with cultural faux pas, and who ought to be stepping up to the plate in any case.

Do you honestly disagree with that statement?

[edit: source]

[edit2:  You know, now that I really look at it, that's a really interesting interview.  For one thing, everyone made fun of Kerry for being a long-winded blowhard and being wishy-washy.  But at the end when Schieffer tries to do "gotcha!" questions, Kerry straight-up says, basically, 'I'm not going to play that game', whereas most politicians would have spent two minutes dodging the question and saying nothing.]

Jjust as a note, when I said, "I don't give a rip," I was not talking about the deaths of those people, I was talking about what would happen to blackwater. I am not an uncaring bastard.

Just a thought, if it isn't OK for American troops to do the search and seizure missions, which apparently results in "going into Iraqi homes in the dead of night, terrorizing... [blah blah]", Then is it OK for Iraqi troops to do the same thing? Especially when they have less professionalism than US Troops do?

I do not believe that most Iraqis are being mistreated by the US Forces. There may be some instances but for the most part it isn't happening. When it does allegedly happen, we should do a full investigation, but we should give the troops the presumption of innocence and not say they murdered people until after the trial is complete.

I happen to agree with you that Iraqi's should start to take over the job of military policing their own country. But if the American Commanders do not believe that they are ready for the job, I would trust them. In any case lets kill this thread. We obviously won't convince each other here.

It was a terrible debate. CNN clearly cherry picked some of the worst questions and pretty much only let the people they wanted speak for more than 3-4 min. It was a crapfest and may have even been worse than the Fox debates (and that is saying something).

I just want to settle three ongoing questions and then let it die without bringing up anything else.

But it still sounds like you're saying, 'It's terrible that those people were killed, but I don't care whether anything is done about Blackwater, the company that is responsible.'  Is that a correct assessment of your feelings?


I'm afraid you've missed the point. Kerry wasn't saying that it was morally wrong for American troops to do that, but somehow not for Iraqi troops. He was saying that Iraqis would be less likely to aggravate such situations by their lack of knowledge of local culture and/or religion; and also that such missions would be a good first step in Iraqi forces actually taking on some of the work they should have been doing already.


Again, who has said that? You said that Democrats were talking about "murder in the dark of night", then when I asked you for a source you said, 'well I guess not murder but Kerry badmouthed the troops', then I showed that he didn't and you go back to 'well someone accused them of murder.' Again I ask, who said that, and in what context?

Final-Fan said: I just want to settle three ongoing questions and then let it die without bringing up anything else. Jjust as a note, when I said, "I don't give a rip," I was not talking about the deaths of those people, I was talking about what would happen to blackwater. I am not an uncaring bastard. But it still sounds like you're saying, 'It's terrible that those people were killed, but I don't care whether anything is done about Blackwater, the company that is responsible.' Is that a correct assessment of your feelings? Just a thought, if it isn't OK for American troops to do the search and seizure missions, which apparently results in "going into Iraqi homes in the dead of night, terrorizing... [blah blah]", Then is it OK for Iraqi troops to do the same thing? Especially when they have less professionalism than US Troops do? I'm afraid you've missed the point. Kerry wasn't saying that it was morally wrong for American troops to do that, but somehow not for Iraqi troops. He was saying that Iraqis would be less likely to aggravate such situations by their lack of knowledge of local culture and/or religion; and also that such missions would be a good first step in Iraqi forces actually taking on some of the work they should have been doing already. When it does allegedly happen, we should do a full investigation, but we should give the troops the presumption of innocence and not say they murdered people until after the trial is complete. Again, who has said that? You said that Democrats were talking about "murder in the dark of night", then when I asked you for a source you said, 'well I guess not murder but Kerry badmouthed the troops', then I showed that he didn't and you go back to 'well someone accused them of murder.' Again I ask, who said that, and in what context?

 First let me thank you for being very civil. No really. It is appreciated. 

 OK, lets take these 3 questions one at a time. 

1) No Final, that is not a correct assessment of my feelings. If you notice I said to investigate and then if they are guilty (which I have no idea, as I haven't been following the incident), to give them the full penalty of the law. Perhaps more accountibility in the future will be needed.

2) You make the best argument for clarifying his murky statement, though I still think our troops will do the best job and are simply the most professional and most considerate military in the world. They go out of their way to make sure they do not accidentally kill civilians. Almost to the point where their hands are tied in battle. 

3) The person who talked about "murder" was the 2nd most powerful Democrat in the House of Representives, John Murtha. This is his quote, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," and I know the context too. He was talking about the Haditha incident. The Haditha incident has been proven a complete farce. The people who reported the "atrocities" were part of the Insurgents who are trying to kill American soldiers. All the soldiers that have been accused of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" have been exhonerated. All except one officer. Here is a link to an explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#Haditha.2C_Iraq_killings (I think I said the wrong Officer's name earlier in this thread)

I had simply mixed Kerry and Murtha's quotes.  Sorry about that, slip of the memory. Final, I would ask one final thing of you, however, please read my comments and then step back think about them from a different point of view before you comment. I try to do the same also. (though I don't always succeed)

Eomund said: Also by implementing the FairTax you would end the underground economy of prostitutes, drug-dealers, and other various nefarious dealings of money under-the-radar. All those people would then pay tax anytime they bought something. (Again up to the poverty level they wouldn't because of the Prebate).

 Also, the fair tax will act as a rather large subsidy for all of this illegal activities.  Yes, those making money from them are more likely to pay tax, but for consumers, there will be a sudden drop in real prices for all these goods.

 Anyone wanting to avoid tax, will just be able to shop abroad.  A bit of a problem for those close to the border, or those with enough money to have homes abroad.