posted
Blayne, rein it in on the name-calling, okay? Please?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You don't find it childish that Senator McCain choose to incorrectly and foolishly criticize Senator Obama over the usage of a collaqual and for the most part interchangeable term?
IP: Logged |
It's a term of abuse from the British, for a foolish or worthless person. That isn't a descriptive assessment of actions, but rather an assessment of the whole person.
I'm not going to debate this with you. I will say my opinion of your actions is dropping, despite our agreement politically, for whatever that may be worth to you.
---
Edited to add: Say he is acting "foolishly" or "childishly?" Fine. But don't use a word that denotes "a worthless person," please.
That's all I have to say on it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Indeed. Wait a second, calling someone a foolish git is tautology and no different from calling someone "foolish". I think your overreacting. The potential meaning of "worthless" entirely depends on context and is also ironically a collaqual term which also in context doesn't nessasarily mean "worthless".
In short I think your overreacting and taking it a bit too personally and how should I say it, childishly. "my opinion of you is dropping" thank you very much oh pretentious Queen of the Universe.
IP: Logged |
posted
The two terms are not exactly interchangable and the difference in the debate was an important point. Think of strategy as the what and why - the big picture. Tactic are the how, the actions, the specifics of how you implement the strategy.
In this case I think that the different uses of the word told us a lot about the two candidates. Sen. Obama was, I believe, correct, that the surge is one tactic in the strategy of bringing about a stable Iraq which part of a larger strategy of bringing about a more stable Middle East which is part of a safer more peaceful world. That tactic, the surge, has succeeded; the broader strategy has not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that the "strategy vs. tactic" line was predetermined by McCain's handlers to point out that McCain has a military history and understands military terminology. If it could be used as part of a "gotcha" on Obama's understanding of the situation in Iraq, then so much the better. As it was, it was clear McCain was just looking for an opportunity to use it. All Obama had to do was to use either word, and McCain jumped on it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
posted
There is a difference between calling someone's opinion foolish and calling that someone a fool. The first is an opinion, the second is a personal attack.
If you have an inability to perceive that difference, further arguing of the point will be of little use.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted. Presidential candidates are targets for criticism, and calling McCain a "git" is hardly provocative.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Also, as I think more about it, the strategy/tactic argument is a metaphor for this election. Both candidates are now talking about change. Sen. McCain is talking about tactical changes to what the present administration is doing; Sen. Obama is talking about strategic change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
-Bok
Nonsense, victory is always possible.
IP: Logged |
posted
Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
-Bok
Nonsense, victory is always possible.
It is, but you're going to have to change your strategy, and hence your tactics to achieve it. Pride is not one of your assets in this fight.
You can't really use the terms interchangeably in the context McCain and Obama were discussing it. I too think McCain was trying to demonstrate his superior knowledge of foreign affairs by saying Obama doesn't know the difference between the two. Fortunately Obama did in fact know the difference and demonstrated that knowledge, unfortunately I am willing to bet MOST Americans actually don't know the difference, so a few likely think McCain's criticism was apt.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but it's not always necessary. You're overreacting to her overreaction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Blayne, it's common knowledge that you can be intelligent without being juvenile. Please try for that dynamic when you post. Yes Speed was kinda rude for saying that, but you can prove the ignorance of the statement without being mean about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Anyone else reminded of A Fish Called Wanda?
quote: WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted.
By asking him please not to call someone else names?
Brace yourself, Glenn -- I might ask someone else to refrain, please, from doing something else rude at any minute. I'm kinda wild that way -- you might want to be prepared.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted.
By asking him please not to call someone else names?
Brace yourself, Glenn -- I might ask someone else to refrain, please, from doing something else rude at any minute. I'm kinda wild that way -- you might want to be prepared.
*amused
I can't imagine this is anything other than a false positive on my sarcasmometer. I haven't registered a reading from CT ever since I started posting here.
posted
Well, you know, it's my wild and crazy side. I call her "DT."
Ridin' off the rails and raisin' tarnation wherever she goes.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Anyone else reminded of A Fish Called Wanda?
quote: WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
And I bet your one of those people who thinks Normandy was crucial for defeating the Nazi's.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else ever get confused when Blayne Bradley is talking to BlackBlade and momentarily think that someone is just talking to himself, before you check the SNs again?
No, just me? 'Kay sry, carry on.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the mistake you guys are making is your attempt to appeal to Blayne as an individual who cares about and/or is largely capable of being mature.
You go get papa janitor to tell him to chillax, or you don't interface with him at all. Those are your options that don't involve derailing the thread.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should say that just now, I have asked Papa Janitor to review the thread. Not because I think it necessarily needs to be locked or specific posts deleted, but because it seems to me to be at a point where his gaze would be usefully turned.
I wouldn't mention this publicly, except Samprimary has (rightly, I think*) raised the issue, and it won't do Papa J any good to get multiple messages cluttering his inbox.
---
*but then again, you know me. I did just remove Hank Paulson from my Christmas card list, not once, but thrice. "Take that, sir, and no more of this lack of oversight**, or I shall subject you to the cut sublime!" And, in truth, I might indeed raise my eyes to gaze at the seagull winging past, should he step in front of me.
---
Edited again: ** FYI, as Dagonee notes elsewhere, [there is common incorrect characterization of this.]
Gallup's new results today have it at +8 for Obama (50-42), a +3 jump. One-third of their polling sample came from yesterday, after hearing the debates, so this may be a beginning sign of how the debate was received nationally rather than the specific voter groups watching it that we saw the night of the debate. (Rasmussen has Obama at +6 still, by the way.)
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, for sure. It's just that I'm well aware of how such seemingly small distinctions can actually change big matters significantly, and how irritating that can be to someone in the field. I've punted healthcare reform about on the site for years, and such stuff always comes up.
I'm a bit tongue-in-cheek above (no, really ), but I did wince when I remembered you'd raised the issue before, and why. It reminded me of a couple of hairs pulled out of my own head through the years, eh?
---
Vadon, I'm reading that we won't see a full effect in the polls until around Tuesday. Does this ring true to you?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we won't see a full-effect until Tuesday, because 2/3 of the polls right now are taken from before the debate. But tomorrow, on Monday that will be 1/3, and then on Tuesday all polls will have been taken after the debate. I'm just saying that 1/3 of the sample of Gallup has seen the debate now, and with just that 1/3 difference, the poll number jumped by 3.
Edit: Well, the new third may not have seen the debate, but the debate happened before they were polled. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone else ever get confused when Blayne Bradley is talking to BlackBlade and momentarily think that someone is just talking to himself, before you check the SNs again?
posted
Blayne, you're the furthest out of line with a couple of posts on this page, though you're not really the only one. Dear participants, one and all, I remind you to make your arguments without personal attack, please. Thank you.
posted
Pursuant to my post yesterday on Palin's Pakistan comments, we get this from McCain:
quote:"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."
Uh oh!
First off - The only situation that's been discussed has been one viewed through the lense of what is in America's best security interest. And I bet if he was the one making that argument, country, duty and honor would be plastered all over it like a bad 60's wallpaper job.
Secondly - Apparently you aren't allowed to record offhanded comments that politicians, especially major presidential ones, make when they don't have notecards in front of them, because off the cuff answers are useless and they don't really mean them.
I really thought he would have been able to walk that one back better, but it was the perfect storm of bad timing. It's kind of hard to walk that back when one night you're attacking Obama for being a naif and then the next day your supremely qualified VP candidate says the exact same thing. Oops!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That or he only wants to back off the comment enough to keep Pakistan happy. I'm sure there are plenty of neo-cons who like hearing the "we'll go where we want" rhetoric.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is a model of leadership. He wanted Faith based initiatives, he got them. He wanted NCLB, he got it. War with Iraq and Afghanistan, check. Oil profits, check. Patriot Act, check. And in the middle of a lame-duck presidency, he still has enough juice to whip the Senate and the House into 700B bailout. It's really something. Every year or so, Congress does something to remind me how small they really are. Thanks guys.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend sent me word of a rally against Palin held in Anchorage a couple of days ago, something which I suspect is not going to get a lot of mainstream press attention.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim ...
Kansas City has a transcript of the debate up. I see Obama saying "Jim" when he is speaking directly to the host, whose name is "Jim Lehrer." I don't see a reference to "Tim."
---
Edited to add: McCain also addresses the moderator as "Jim.":
quote: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody. ... And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. -- Senator John McCain
I'm sorry I'm making this response so late. I would have PMed you if I knew how. Using the transcript you linked to, one of Obama's responses was
OBAMA: "I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending."
This was a direct response to Mccain. He was looking at Mccain when he said Jim. And then he corrected himself by saying John. There was no comment by Jim Lehrer between Mccain's statement and Obama's. It's easier to pick this up while watching rather than reading the debate since he was looking at Mccain. Obama even sounded like he was correcting himself since there was barely any pause between Jim and John. The pause came after he said John. If I wrote the transcript, I would have made "It's" the beginning of the sentence.
And when I looked back at the transcript, it turns out Obama called him Tom, not Tim.
OBAMA:"...They did it on the Medicaid prescription drug bill and we have to change the culture. Tom -- or John mentioned me being wildly liberal."
Obama mentions Tom Coburn in the same statement, so maybe that's why he accidentally called Mccain, Tom.
Both quotes can be found on the last page of the transcript.
posted
I got the impression (as I watched) that Sen. Obama was basically saying, "hold on" to the moderator so he could address that point to Sen. McCain.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it could have been taken a couple of different ways. But the reason for my interpretation is that there was no pause between him saying Jim and John. It was like he said JimJohn, which is what my mother does when she can't remember which son she is talking to. The pause came after he said John and then he made his statement.
posted
I think it could have been either. I do think that Sen. Obama was making an effort to address Sen. McCain directly as the moderator requested.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I'm late to the game but I only remembered last night that there was a debate on Friday so I found it on the internet and watched.
I actually thought it was an even match -- and I'm leaning heavily in favor of Obama. Here's what I liked and didn't like from each of them:
McCain + : He touted his experience and his record, especially the old McCain who I respected. He reminded us of his vast military experience.
McCain - : I hated how he kept saying that Obama didn't understand things. I wish he would have gotten into the spirit of the debate and addressed Obama more directly, as Obama was trying to do.
Obama + : He comes across as so polite. I loved that he got into the spirit of things and directly addressed McCain. I thought he did a good job at refuting the points McCain brought to bear against him. Great job on alternative energy!
Obama - : Even though I like his ideas on foreign policy, he definitely comes across as less experienced, in contrast to McCain.
Obama also reached for his answers, but I can't call that a bad thing since I think considered answers are a good quality in a leader. I didn't mind him calling McCain "John" (was amused by his "Jim" trip-up) because they are both Senators and equals. In fact, I think Obama using McCain's first name highlighted this fact and was probably a good thing.
Now, as for the actual issues they discussed, I agree with Obama more often than McCain so my opinions haven't changed.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Bush is a model of leadership. He wanted Faith based initiatives, he got them. He wanted NCLB, he got it. War with Iraq and Afghanistan, check. Oil profits, check. Patriot Act, check. And in the middle of a lame-duck presidency, he still has enough juice to whip the Senate and the House into 700B bailout. It's really something. Every year or so, Congress does something to remind me how small they really are. Thanks guys.
Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I got the impression (as I watched) that Sen. Obama was basically saying, "hold on" to the moderator so he could address that point to Sen. McCain.
I interpreted it this way as well and, at the time, it didn't register that it could be interpreted another way.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
It officially closed down 777.68. That's the biggest one-day point drop in history - I'm not sure about percentage wise...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My pension fund has dropped more in the last quarter than the $2000 the bail out would have cost me and that's without the recent plunges in the stock market.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
It officially closed down 777.68. That's the biggest one-day point drop in history - I'm not sure about percentage wise...
It's the biggest percentage drop since the 9/11 drop. That makes sense though. The DOW has gone up considerably since 9/11, which means it'd have to lose a lot more (and it only lost I think 100 more point wise) in points to meet or beat the percentage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The DOW is going to plunge, it was inflated to begin with. If we are going to bail out the housing market, I want it to come with strings-- and the sketch of a planned economy(just a sketch)-- and if that means the upper third of the entire world is going to be a little poorer for a while until we work it out, then so be it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of me thinks maybe we should be focusing help plans to deal with the cleanup process, rather than stopping the mess from happening.
The idea of keeping people in their homes when they never should have gotten those homes to begin with is abhorrent to me. Let them get kicked out, as they should be, but don't leave the on the street, help them get into a house they CAN afford. People are complaining because credit card limits are being dramatically slashed all over the place as credit tightens up. Frankly I think this is a great thing since people were already borrowing way too much on credit cards, but maybe we should be helping them with their debt problems (not by giving them handout in cash per se) rather than ensuring that they get MORE debt by easing the credit crunch.
Home prices are falling, and they should be, as they were inflated to begin with. Some people are going to get screwed in the process, but a ton of people (hopefully me included in the next couple years) are going to get great deals on homes that were previously way out of their price range. I think that's how things should work, and there shouldn't be artificial interference with the value of homes.
I think some sort of measure to ease the credit crunch and stop a wholesale meltdown is necessary, but I'm wondering if that can't be done for a whole lot less money by letting a mild meltdown happen, let the market reset itself, and then help pick up the pieces. In other words, don't stop it entirely, don't let it go as it would without help, but take the edge off of it. There has to be a middle ground that doesn't leave people thinking that they can continue living a higher standard of living financed by debt and blinders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's just that I'm well aware of how such seemingly small distinctions can actually change big matters significantly, and how irritating that can be to someone in the field. I've punted healthcare reform about on the site for years, and such stuff always comes up.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
