Serious reasons? Mine are plenty serious, believe me. Just because I don't have the time to flood you with links, quotes and data doesn't mean I can't.
That is not my point. I was not talking about the lack of backing for your reasons, but the lack of seriousness of the reasons themselves. If you have serious reasons, I didn't see them expressed.
Shrug. I never said I consider him honest. Just more honest than McCain.
Shrug. You never offered a single reason for anyone to see why anyone would possibly think Obama is more honest than McCain, and it certainly isn't obvious.
McCain is no better at public speaking, really - he's had plenty of gaffes, some extremely embarassing. Iraq/Pakistan border comes to mind...
A simple Iran/Iraq gaffe -- and who hasn't made similar verbal errors? -- isn't half as embarassing as Obama actually not knowing that Kentucky is closer to his own home state of Illinois -- adjacent, even -- than Arkansas. Seriously. He said he expected Hillary to do better in Kentucky because it's closer to Arkansas. That's not just a verbal error mixing up two similar sounding names, that is not knowing WHICH STATES BORDER YOUR HOME STATE AS A U.S. SENATOR OF THAT STATE.
McCain actually, obviously, knows that Iran borders Pakistan, and he knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite. Duh. And Obama knows there's only 50 states, not 57. Duh. And while Obama didn't know that Kentucky bordered Illinois, well, I am sure he does now, and it's humiliating that he didn't know, but it's also not very important (unless you live on that border, I suppose).
My point here is that taken as a whole and honestly evaluating what was said and what was meant, Obama's gaffes are a lot more embarassing than McCain's.
While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there.
Actually, it's quite clear in my area *snips a lot of stuff that's common all over and not directly relevant to the conversation*
I've lived in more than a dozen cities in the last 23 years (seen many more), and in my experience the R/D ratio tends to even itself out, overall. Even in "red or blue" states.
What's that got to do with anything? You claimed the Republican Party is especially well-known, as opposed to the Democratic Party, for descending to low levels. And I state categorically that this is bullshit.
I offer as outside evidence the extremely close presidential popular votes of the last so many elections.;)
If you are implying the Republicans stole either of the last two elections, you have absolutely no factual basis for that claim. Even a DEMOCRATIC expert I talked to -- actually hired by the Democratic National Committee -- says that's false. RFK Jr's article in Rolling Stone about Ohio in 2004 was, provably -- I did the research myself -- totally full of lies.
I am, literally, fighting for liberty. Are you? If so, good.
Yes, I am. The difference as I see it between us is that while you feel a particular political party which you've put time and effort into is the solution to the problem
That is not remotely true. It's sad that you would be so closed-minded as to even think it. I've never said or expressed such a sentiment.
The Republican Party clearly has a much more rational and constitutionally grounded overall philosophy, but the Party itself is no solution to anything. The principles are the solutions, and the party is one mechanism to help install those principles, but it is not necessarily a solution. Judging by the drastically increased federal spending from 2000-2006, it's quite easy to see why many Republicans do not feel warmly towar
Not at all. You obviously do not understand what I wrote. I was attacked as hypocritical because, the poster said, I attacked him for being partisan, while I am also partisan. But I did not attack him for being partisan, I attacked him for being hypocritical.
B) You're contradicting yourself
I don't see how anyone would think so.
There simply isn't another way to read that than as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.
There simply isn't any way to read that as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.
Obama was chastising people for spreading debunked rumors. McCain was saying "I'm older than you, so listen up!"
McCain did no such thing.
Quote for me what you think he said that supports your representation of it. I can't find what you're saying anywhere.
he's not very good at picking advisers (failed CEO of HP as an economic *and* tech adviser!?)
First, she is a fantastic advisor. Carly Fiorina, despite her flaws, is very sharp and knows what she's talking about.
Second, come on: Obama has had even more problems with advisors than McCain.
at party organizing (he has what? 3% of Obama's organization on the ground)
That is not party organizing, it's campaign organizing. Different things. But I get your point, and would only point out that Howard Dean had by far the most people on the ground right up until the time he got killed in Iowa. Obviously, Obama supporters are more excited than McCain supporters. And equally obviously, this doesn't tend to be a deciding factor.
at computers
Granted, though not sure why I should care too much. I'd rather have a lack of experience with computers than a lack of experience with Russia, Europe, Iran, the Middle East, etc.
or at remembering where other countries are (is this NOT considered part of 'foreign policy' experience? or are they just 'senior moments' as if that made it better?).
Oh please. Obama has had at least as many "senior moments" of his own, including not knowing WHERE HIS OWN STATE IS. Obama attributed Clinton's lead in Kentucky to the proximity of that state to Arkansas, despite the fact that Kentucky borders HIS home state of Illinois, and does NOT border Arkansas.
Given that barely graduated in the military
That is untrue. Being low in his class DOES NOT imply that he "barely" graduated.
But he should *already* know this stuff, especially the difference between Sunni & Shiite.
I have had the same dogs for 10 years and I still get their names wrong, even though I know exactly which one is which. People switch names all the time. Ted Kennedy switched "Obama" and "Osama" (something I also unintentionally and embarassingly do on occasion). Almost everyone switches "Iran" and "Iraq." Anyone who actually thinks he doesn't know the difference between being "Shiite" and "Sunni" is just being stupid, just like people who actually think Obama believes there are 57 states in the U.S. are being stupid.
Seriously, if you want to compare "senior moments," I don't think Obama will win.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility.
Correct. And it is also not your responsibility to show me where I am wrong. However, if you cannot show me where I am wrong, you can't expect anyone to give a damn when you say I am wrong.
Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.
Your lies are transparent. I gave evidence, I gave facts, I gave legitimate arguments. You do not respond in kind, but instead simply give: "Keep dreaming."
This is only true if you ignore all of the details, and look only at the big picture.
No, you have it backward: it's only NOT true if you ignore the facts and look only at the rhetoric.
If their positions are so similar, why did Maliki come out in favor of Obama's plan?
Because he is a politician.
You seem to be suggesting that McCain has a timetable that he's keeping a secret
No. I am stating as fact that you are wrong to claim he doesn't have one.
the current administration has clearly fallen short of expectations
As McCain is not in the current administration, this is a red herring.
Why should we trust McCain's management competence in the absence of both an administrative track record
Um. Obama has none either. Did you really think this was a good point when you typed it?
Maybe you should spell out some of those "damned good reasons."
They are pretty obvious. You don't want to give information to enemies that they can use. You don't want to have negative press that can affect the withdrawal if you don't hit your goals. Etc.
McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed.
I'm afraid this is far from obvious to me.
Shrug. Your problem.
Why would we maintain troops there in the absence of an imminent threat of violence?
That is, of course, irrelevant to the point, which is what McCain actually said. If you want to disagree that what he said is reasonable or feasible, fine, but that is a separate point.
McCain drew an analogy to our stations in Japan and Korea...
Exactly. So how you continue to misrepresent McCain is astonishing.
You seem to like claiming that things are obvious or clear. In my line of work, an assertion of obviousness is typically viewed as a tool for intimidating students rather than a constructive argument.
Bull-fucking-shit. McCain said one thing -- troops would be out of danger -- and you insist he said the opposite. You can disagree with whether what McCain said is feasible, but when you assert that McCain said we'd keep troops there in harm's way for 100 years, you are lying.
Wait, what? I believe you're doing exactly what you accuse Jamie of doing.
OK. But you're wrong.
It's ironic you accuse him of being "overtly partisan"
I never did any such thing. Please read it again. I chastised him for expressing overtly partisan hypocrisy. You left out the antecedent. I did not say HE was overtly partisan, I said his hypocrisy was.
Hypocrisy, BTW, is not unique to any party.
I never in any way implied that it was.
Anyhow, McCain was complaining that youngsters dare question their elders.
Absolutely false. He never in any way implied that it is wrong to question.
Though I wonder what you'd have said if the "McCain is a closet Buddhist!" story got published.
The exact same thing that I would say if "Obama is a closet Muslim!" got published. Indeed, I received many emails from friends saying he was, and I replied to them with the facts, sometimes including a link to snopes. I personally researched many of the claims so I could disprove them.
In chastising Jamie for distorting McCain's words, you have done the same with Obama's.
I did no such thing. You apparently base this on the flawed premise that in comparing Obama's words to McCain's, that I am misrepresenting Obama, since McCain meant something and Obama meant something else. But in doing so, you misrepresented McCain.
McCain was doing the SAME THING as Obama: chastising people for saying untruth is truth.
Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.
Translation: "Damn, he sure kicked my ass, but I am going to try to get in a last word anyway, and pretend that I just don't want to bother."
Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise.
False.
It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that.
Incorrect. He had said previously that he would give the order, and it was the job of the generals to implement that order. NOW he says, he will only do it if the generals say he can do it.
Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.
Considering that I actually just showed you were wrong, and considering you still have many lies left out on the table you've not taken back, I shan't care what you think about how "honest" or "informed" I am.
I think the timetable is the most relevant aspect of the debate. Obama has submitted a concrete numerical goal, while McCain refused to make any such proposals.
See, I don't get this at all. Both of them say they will get out as soon as possible, modulo the same preconditions.
Do you really think the two managers have functionally equivalent positions?
First, I am not going to even begin to think it is rational to compare business product development to managing a war.
Second, this is further a bad analogy because as I've already made clear, and as should be obvious, the fact that timetables are not being talked about in public doesn't mean they don't exist. There's damned good reasons for not talking about them in public.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the possibility of nuance.
No, I don't seem to be doing that at all.
He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
This is a decisive example of "straight-talking."
Yes, thank you for recognizing that McCain was talking very straight and plainly.
He said it was fine with him, and then he added that bold counterfactual to soften the blow.
False. You are -- apparently intentionally, but either way -- misrepresenting him.
At this point it's pretty well-established that Americans are indeed being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed.
Right now, yes.
Logically, this makes his previous statement completely useless.
Incorrect. Since he was talking about the future, not the present, it is -- logically -- nonsensical to come to such a conclusion.
He did not say, nor intend to say, nor intend anyone to think, that we will only keep troops there NOW if they are not being injured, harmed, wounded, or killed. And Obama would not say such a thing either. McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed. But currently, they ARE harmed, so -- according to McCain -- we should either get them out, or change the situation so they are no longer being harmed.
What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?
It was your first comment, but it wasn't the first comment of yours that I replied to. So no, what I said wasn't false.
Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made.
I never said you DID. However, when I said I did NOT, and that therefore it was a straw man, you said it was mere "hyperbole."
I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man.
And I pointed out that you are incorrect.
We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words.
And now I've established that your premise about my premise is wrong.
You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record.
Incorrect on all counts. I have only made a few criticisms of him, hardly a "relentless" attack, and I misrepresented not a single thing.
You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions
See, there you go with straw men again. I never said any such thing. And please don't give us this "hyperbole" nonsense.
I did say he has changed on MANY positions, which is, of course, true: his broken promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing, his reversal on his support for the DC gun ban, his change on oil drilling, his change on accepting the support of "special interests," his change on the Cuba embargo, and much more.
I am not saying all of these changes are bad. His change to saying the DC gun ban was unconstitutional was a good change, though it doesn't speak well of his supposed expertise on the Constitution to have thought the other way less than a year ago. His change on drilling could easily be explained as a simple change based on the conditions "on the ground," and I do not condemn him for that at all, although I do wish he had had more foresight to support it earlier. Same thing on nuclear power, actually.
is dishonest
I said Obama has been dishonest, yes. And I gave specific examples.
has no record
Again, I never said that.
and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq
I backed that up with facts. You may disagree with my conclusion, but I think given the facts you look a lot more subjective in your conclusion than I do with mine.
All of those claims are known falsehoods
Lie.
You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain.
Red herring.
All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain.
This is a lie in two ways. First, I don't do this whenever anyone asks me about why I support McCain. I've actually been very candid about why I support McCain, for months. I even suggested like two years ago that I thought he was the best candidate for the GOP.
Second, no one actually ASKED me in this discussion why I support McCain. And even if they had, I wouldn't devote much time to it, because it is beside the point of this discussion.
Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence.
Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.
Straw man fallacy.
No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.
I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.
You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean.
You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).
You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.
I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.
Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.
Nope. You are ignorant. He did not have to show up to every drill, he had to show up for a certain number of hours... which he did.
Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.
Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing.
You know what a straw man is, don't you? I never attacked "the other side" simply for doing that.
In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq.
You're lying again.
A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.
Also a lie.
After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution
And another lie.
When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.
More lies. Since the beginning, back in 2003, McCain was criticizing the handling of the war, saying we didn't have enough troops and so on.
Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.
You're joking, right?
Not remotely.
McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.
The first sentence is true. The second sentence is NOT true. What he objected to was the notion that the CIA and the military should have the SAME RULES about how to conduct interrogations. In fact, McCain has all along favored specifically banning the CIA from conducting certain procedures, like waterboarding. He simply did not want to link the CIA to the Army Field Manual.
So yes, what you are saying is a lie. Opposing linking the CIA to the Army Field Manual is NOT the same thing as being in favor of torture.
You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate.
False.
Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year.
And now he says that timeline is ENTIRELY subject to whether we can get out while leaving Iraq secure, which means the timeline is not 16 months, but "16 months, or less, or more."
McCain was against a withdrawal time-line
A specific date, yes, he has been against it, for good reason: as Obama now concedes, you can never know that far in advance if you'll be able to do it, and further, you give too much information away by announcing it.
... and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means.
Ask Obama, his view is THE SAME THING.
Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line."
Yes, but not one he would announce or promise to stick to (as Obama had done, but no longer does).
So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?
Talk about horribly uninformed. McCain was never against coming out of Iraq. He was only against announcing specific timelines, and he STILL has not announced specific timelines. And Obama is the one who has now come out and said his timeline is subject to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Facism is not opposite of socialism. Mao and Stalin and Castro taught us that.
The fact that you were able to post that comment disproves the comment.
Such a sad state of affairs of our educational system that anyone with such a lack of ability to think critically as you could be granted a degree.
All I want from you is just a wee bit of honesty. You can do it.
Serious reasons? Mine are plenty serious, believe me. Just because I don't have the time to flood you with links, quotes and data doesn't mean I can't.
That is not my point. I was not talking about the lack of backing for your reasons, but the lack of seriousness of the reasons themselves. If you have serious reasons, I didn't see them expressed.
Shrug. I never said I consider him honest. Just more honest than McCain.
Shrug. You never offered a single reason for anyone to see why anyone would possibly think Obama is more honest than McCain, and it certainly isn't obvious.
McCain is no better at public speaking, really - he's had plenty of gaffes, some extremely embarassing. Iraq/Pakistan border comes to mind...
A simple Iran/Iraq gaffe -- and who hasn't made similar verbal errors? -- isn't half as embarassing as Obama actually not knowing that Kentucky is closer to his own home state of Illinois -- adjacent, even -- than Arkansas. Seriously. He said he expected Hillary to do better in Kentucky because it's closer to Arkansas. That's not just a verbal error mixing up two similar sounding names, that is not knowing WHICH STATES BORDER YOUR HOME STATE AS A U.S. SENATOR OF THAT STATE.
McCain actually, obviously, knows that Iran borders Pakistan, and he knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite. Duh. And Obama knows there's only 50 states, not 57. Duh. And while Obama didn't know that Kentucky bordered Illinois, well, I am sure he does now, and it's humiliating that he didn't know, but it's also not very important (unless you live on that border, I suppose).
My point here is that taken as a whole and honestly evaluating what was said and what was meant, Obama's gaffes are a lot more embarassing than McCain's.
While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there.
Actually, it's quite clear in my area *snips a lot of stuff that's common all over and not directly relevant to the conversation*
I've lived in more than a dozen cities in the last 23 years (seen many more), and in my experience the R/D ratio tends to even itself out, overall. Even in "red or blue" states.
What's that got to do with anything? You claimed the Republican Party is especially well-known, as opposed to the Democratic Party, for descending to low levels. And I state categorically that this is bullshit.
I offer as outside evidence the extremely close presidential popular votes of the last so many elections. ;)
If you are implying the Republicans stole either of the last two elections, you have absolutely no factual basis for that claim. Even a DEMOCRATIC expert I talked to -- actually hired by the Democratic National Committee -- says that's false. RFK Jr's article in Rolling Stone about Ohio in 2004 was, provably -- I did the research myself -- totally full of lies.
I am, literally, fighting for liberty. Are you? If so, good.
Yes, I am. The difference as I see it between us is that while you feel a particular political party which you've put time and effort into is the solution to the problem
That is not remotely true. It's sad that you would be so closed-minded as to even think it. I've never said or expressed such a sentiment.
The Republican Party clearly has a much more rational and constitutionally grounded overall philosophy, but the Party itself is no solution to anything. The principles are the solutions, and the party is one mechanism to help install those principles, but it is not necessarily a solution. Judging by the drastically increased federal spending from 2000-2006, it's quite easy to see why many Republicans do not feel warmly towar
Anyone who hasn't figured out the neo-GOP scam by now...
Anyone who would be so dishonest or stupid as to redefine groups they disagree with as fostering a "scam" ...
I'm not interested in rubbing your face in the ugly reality.
You have no idea what reality is.
Should I waste the Shakespeare quote? "I do desire we may be better strangers."
The troll doth protest too much, methinks.
Look, idiot.
Again, that's my line. This is the word for people who pretend facts don't exist, e.g., you.
No, what I am doing is refusing to suffer a fool gladly.
No, that's MY line.
You've already fulfilled your part of proving you're a fool.
Yeah, people who stick to facts are fools in your world. That's why you vote Democrat. "Reality-based," my ass.
I'm not trying to convince people.
Good for you. It's nice to see people accept their limitations.
A) You're splitting hairs in the first answer.
Not at all. You obviously do not understand what I wrote. I was attacked as hypocritical because, the poster said, I attacked him for being partisan, while I am also partisan. But I did not attack him for being partisan, I attacked him for being hypocritical.
B) You're contradicting yourself
I don't see how anyone would think so.
There simply isn't another way to read that than as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.
There simply isn't any way to read that as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.
Obama was chastising people for spreading debunked rumors. McCain was saying "I'm older than you, so listen up!"
McCain did no such thing.
Quote for me what you think he said that supports your representation of it. I can't find what you're saying anywhere.
he's not very good at picking advisers (failed CEO of HP as an economic *and* tech adviser!?)
First, she is a fantastic advisor. Carly Fiorina, despite her flaws, is very sharp and knows what she's talking about.
Second, come on: Obama has had even more problems with advisors than McCain.
at party organizing (he has what? 3% of Obama's organization on the ground)
That is not party organizing, it's campaign organizing. Different things. But I get your point, and would only point out that Howard Dean had by far the most people on the ground right up until the time he got killed in Iowa. Obviously, Obama supporters are more excited than McCain supporters. And equally obviously, this doesn't tend to be a deciding factor.
at computers
Granted, though not sure why I should care too much. I'd rather have a lack of experience with computers than a lack of experience with Russia, Europe, Iran, the Middle East, etc.
or at remembering where other countries are (is this NOT considered part of 'foreign policy' experience? or are they just 'senior moments' as if that made it better?).
Oh please. Obama has had at least as many "senior moments" of his own, including not knowing WHERE HIS OWN STATE IS. Obama attributed Clinton's lead in Kentucky to the proximity of that state to Arkansas, despite the fact that Kentucky borders HIS home state of Illinois, and does NOT border Arkansas.
Given that barely graduated in the military
That is untrue. Being low in his class DOES NOT imply that he "barely" graduated.
But he should *already* know this stuff, especially the difference between Sunni & Shiite.
I have had the same dogs for 10 years and I still get their names wrong, even though I know exactly which one is which. People switch names all the time. Ted Kennedy switched "Obama" and "Osama" (something I also unintentionally and embarassingly do on occasion). Almost everyone switches "Iran" and "Iraq." Anyone who actually thinks he doesn't know the difference between being "Shiite" and "Sunni" is just being stupid, just like people who actually think Obama believes there are 57 states in the U.S. are being stupid.
Seriously, if you want to compare "senior moments," I don't think Obama will win.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility.
Correct. And it is also not your responsibility to show me where I am wrong. However, if you cannot show me where I am wrong, you can't expect anyone to give a damn when you say I am wrong.
Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.
Your lies are transparent. I gave evidence, I gave facts, I gave legitimate arguments. You do not respond in kind, but instead simply give: "Keep dreaming."
I made a point. You called names. You've accomplished nothing except to convince people you have absolutely no thoughts in your head.
This is only true if you ignore all of the details, and look only at the big picture.
No, you have it backward: it's only NOT true if you ignore the facts and look only at the rhetoric.
If their positions are so similar, why did Maliki come out in favor of Obama's plan?
Because he is a politician.
You seem to be suggesting that McCain has a timetable that he's keeping a secret
No. I am stating as fact that you are wrong to claim he doesn't have one.
the current administration has clearly fallen short of expectations
As McCain is not in the current administration, this is a red herring.
Why should we trust McCain's management competence in the absence of both an administrative track record
Um. Obama has none either. Did you really think this was a good point when you typed it?
Maybe you should spell out some of those "damned good reasons."
They are pretty obvious. You don't want to give information to enemies that they can use. You don't want to have negative press that can affect the withdrawal if you don't hit your goals. Etc.
McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed.
I'm afraid this is far from obvious to me.
Shrug. Your problem.
Why would we maintain troops there in the absence of an imminent threat of violence?
That is, of course, irrelevant to the point, which is what McCain actually said. If you want to disagree that what he said is reasonable or feasible, fine, but that is a separate point.
McCain drew an analogy to our stations in Japan and Korea ...
Exactly. So how you continue to misrepresent McCain is astonishing.
You seem to like claiming that things are obvious or clear. In my line of work, an assertion of obviousness is typically viewed as a tool for intimidating students rather than a constructive argument.
Bull-fucking-shit. McCain said one thing -- troops would be out of danger -- and you insist he said the opposite. You can disagree with whether what McCain said is feasible, but when you assert that McCain said we'd keep troops there in harm's way for 100 years, you are lying.
Again, no actual rebuttal: expected.
Keep dreaming. It's all you have.
Shrug. Show me where I'm wrong.
I know you CAN'T, but it's fun for you to dream, isn't it?
Gosh, pudge, were you assuming that no one would click on your misleading link?
There was no misleading link.
You say Obama blamed "blogs and the Internet"
Which he did.
but linked to a story in which he blamed Fox News and National Review (correctly, by the way) and didn't even mention blogs until the last sentence
So you're saying I am being misleading for saying he blamed "blogs" in a story that notes that he ... blamed "blogs."
Come again?
He never mentioned the Internet nor the blogosphere.
I never said "the blogosphere," and last I checked, most "blogs" are on the Internet.
So I don't think you're honest.
And I don't think you're rational. Honestly. You're telling me it is dishonest to say Obama said something he said. Just ... wow.
Uh, way to read through the link you posted.
Thank you.
It mentions blogs ONCE
Exactly.
That does not sound like he is blaming it all on "blogs"
I never said he blamed it "all" on blogs.
So he's blaming it on the CONSERVATIVE WRITERS, not THE BLOGOSPHERE.
Oh, you actually thought I was saying that Obama was blaming a lifeless mass of wires and computer chips, rather than real people? That's just silly!
Wait, what? I believe you're doing exactly what you accuse Jamie of doing.
OK. But you're wrong.
It's ironic you accuse him of being "overtly partisan"
I never did any such thing. Please read it again. I chastised him for expressing overtly partisan hypocrisy. You left out the antecedent. I did not say HE was overtly partisan, I said his hypocrisy was.
Hypocrisy, BTW, is not unique to any party.
I never in any way implied that it was.
Anyhow, McCain was complaining that youngsters dare question their elders.
Absolutely false. He never in any way implied that it is wrong to question.
Though I wonder what you'd have said if the "McCain is a closet Buddhist!" story got published.
The exact same thing that I would say if "Obama is a closet Muslim!" got published. Indeed, I received many emails from friends saying he was, and I replied to them with the facts, sometimes including a link to snopes. I personally researched many of the claims so I could disprove them.
In chastising Jamie for distorting McCain's words, you have done the same with Obama's.
I did no such thing. You apparently base this on the flawed premise that in comparing Obama's words to McCain's, that I am misrepresenting Obama, since McCain meant something and Obama meant something else. But in doing so, you misrepresented McCain.
McCain was doing the SAME THING as Obama: chastising people for saying untruth is truth.
Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.
Translation: "Damn, he sure kicked my ass, but I am going to try to get in a last word anyway, and pretend that I just don't want to bother."
Waaaaaaaah.
Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise.
False.
It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that.
Incorrect. He had said previously that he would give the order, and it was the job of the generals to implement that order. NOW he says, he will only do it if the generals say he can do it.
Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.
Considering that I actually just showed you were wrong, and considering you still have many lies left out on the table you've not taken back, I shan't care what you think about how "honest" or "informed" I am.
I think the timetable is the most relevant aspect of the debate. Obama has submitted a concrete numerical goal, while McCain refused to make any such proposals.
See, I don't get this at all. Both of them say they will get out as soon as possible, modulo the same preconditions.
Do you really think the two managers have functionally equivalent positions?
First, I am not going to even begin to think it is rational to compare business product development to managing a war.
Second, this is further a bad analogy because as I've already made clear, and as should be obvious, the fact that timetables are not being talked about in public doesn't mean they don't exist. There's damned good reasons for not talking about them in public.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the possibility of nuance.
No, I don't seem to be doing that at all.
He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
This is a decisive example of "straight-talking."
Yes, thank you for recognizing that McCain was talking very straight and plainly.
He said it was fine with him, and then he added that bold counterfactual to soften the blow.
False. You are -- apparently intentionally, but either way -- misrepresenting him.
At this point it's pretty well-established that Americans are indeed being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed.
Right now, yes.
Logically, this makes his previous statement completely useless.
Incorrect. Since he was talking about the future, not the present, it is -- logically -- nonsensical to come to such a conclusion.
He did not say, nor intend to say, nor intend anyone to think, that we will only keep troops there NOW if they are not being injured, harmed, wounded, or killed. And Obama would not say such a thing either. McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed. But currently, they ARE harmed, so -- according to McCain -- we should either get them out, or change the situation so they are no longer being harmed.
What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?
It was your first comment, but it wasn't the first comment of yours that I replied to. So no, what I said wasn't false.
Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made.
I never said you DID. However, when I said I did NOT, and that therefore it was a straw man, you said it was mere "hyperbole."
I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man.
And I pointed out that you are incorrect.
We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words.
And now I've established that your premise about my premise is wrong.
You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record.
Incorrect on all counts. I have only made a few criticisms of him, hardly a "relentless" attack, and I misrepresented not a single thing.
You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions
See, there you go with straw men again. I never said any such thing. And please don't give us this "hyperbole" nonsense.
I did say he has changed on MANY positions, which is, of course, true: his broken promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing, his reversal on his support for the DC gun ban, his change on oil drilling, his change on accepting the support of "special interests," his change on the Cuba embargo, and much more.
I am not saying all of these changes are bad. His change to saying the DC gun ban was unconstitutional was a good change, though it doesn't speak well of his supposed expertise on the Constitution to have thought the other way less than a year ago. His change on drilling could easily be explained as a simple change based on the conditions "on the ground," and I do not condemn him for that at all, although I do wish he had had more foresight to support it earlier. Same thing on nuclear power, actually.
is dishonest
I said Obama has been dishonest, yes. And I gave specific examples.
has no record
Again, I never said that.
and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq
I backed that up with facts. You may disagree with my conclusion, but I think given the facts you look a lot more subjective in your conclusion than I do with mine.
All of those claims are known falsehoods
Lie.
You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain.
Red herring.
All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain.
This is a lie in two ways. First, I don't do this whenever anyone asks me about why I support McCain. I've actually been very candid about why I support McCain, for months. I even suggested like two years ago that I thought he was the best candidate for the GOP.
Second, no one actually ASKED me in this discussion why I support McCain. And even if they had, I wouldn't devote much time to it, because it is beside the point of this discussion.
Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence.
Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.
Straw man fallacy.
No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.
I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.
You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean.
You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).
You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.
I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.
Again, you are not very good at this.
Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.
Nope. You are ignorant. He did not have to show up to every drill, he had to show up for a certain number of hours ... which he did.
Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.
Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing.
You know what a straw man is, don't you? I never attacked "the other side" simply for doing that.
In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq.
You're lying again.
A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.
Also a lie.
After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution
And another lie.
When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.
More lies. Since the beginning, back in 2003, McCain was criticizing the handling of the war, saying we didn't have enough troops and so on.
Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.
You're joking, right?
Not remotely.
McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.
The first sentence is true. The second sentence is NOT true. What he objected to was the notion that the CIA and the military should have the SAME RULES about how to conduct interrogations. In fact, McCain has all along favored specifically banning the CIA from conducting certain procedures, like waterboarding. He simply did not want to link the CIA to the Army Field Manual.
So yes, what you are saying is a lie. Opposing linking the CIA to the Army Field Manual is NOT the same thing as being in favor of torture.
You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate.
False.
Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year.
And now he says that timeline is ENTIRELY subject to whether we can get out while leaving Iraq secure, which means the timeline is not 16 months, but "16 months, or less, or more."
McCain was against a withdrawal time-line
A specific date, yes, he has been against it, for good reason: as Obama now concedes, you can never know that far in advance if you'll be able to do it, and further, you give too much information away by announcing it.
... and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means.
Ask Obama, his view is THE SAME THING.
Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line."
Yes, but not one he would announce or promise to stick to (as Obama had done, but no longer does).
So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?
Talk about horribly uninformed. McCain was never against coming out of Iraq. He was only against announcing specific timelines, and he STILL has not announced specific timelines. And Obama is the one who has now come out and said his timeline is subject to change.