|
SoY
I am the LizardKing
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: dill705]
#8672098 - 07/23/08 02:22 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Thus, they will only accept McCain's piece if he changes his policy
Incorrect.
They will only accept McCain's piece if it contains some semblance of a plan or outline of his strategy.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Here's McCain's clear plan. WE'LL LEAVE WHEN THE IRAQIS ARE READY. Not before. Things are looking very good so it might be quite soon. That is all the proper answer should be.
Incorrect again Zappa. That is like saying "I'll turn my homework in when it is finished." NO FUCKING SHIT. The entire point is that they want to know WHAT qualifies the Iraqis as being ready, and HOW McCain will attempt to actualize such qualifications.
How in your right mind could you believe that those are irrelevant issues concerning our current occupation and future strategy there??
-------------------- "The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji "Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream." "My karma ran over my dogma!"
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: SoY]
#8672231 - 07/23/08 02:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SoY said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Thus, they will only accept McCain's piece if he changes his policy
Incorrect.
Then you don't understand McCain's policy. Which is to reject any timetable based on arbitrary dates. Quote:
They will only accept McCain's piece if it contains some semblance of a plan or outline of his strategy.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Here's McCain's clear plan. WE'LL LEAVE WHEN THE IRAQIS ARE READY. Not before. Things are looking very good so it might be quite soon. That is all the proper answer should be.
Incorrect again Zappa. That is like saying "I'll turn my homework in when it is finished." NO FUCKING SHIT. The entire point is that they want to know WHAT qualifies the Iraqis as being ready, and HOW McCain will attempt to actualize such qualifications.
Here is the fallacy of the cloistered student. This is not a homework assignment. This is the real world. When a person grows out of his infantile narcissism he learns that he does not control all factors, as one does when one is doing homework (ravenous dogs aside). Flexibility is a hallmark of smart management. His policy is "I will do everything I can to get the job done and then, and only then, I will conclude my efforts." Your preferred policy is "I will do whatever and whether the job gets done or not I'm leaving at 4." Service worker mentality.Quote:
How in your right mind could you believe that those are irrelevant issues concerning our current occupation and future strategy there??
I think it is utterly foolish to even pretend to commit to some arbitrary timetable, as per the Times' demands, for a fluid situation. Even the Washington Post, and Barry himself (maybe, Barry will say anything), gets it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html
Quote:
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
So please, the Times was being their usual whores denying McCain their space. Fuck 'em. Their business is circling the bowl. Dueling weekly OpEds would have sold millions of papers. Millions. They don't care. They want one thing and one thing only and that is to further their own notions of influence. Which they lose more and more of everyday.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: zappaisgod]
#8672336 - 07/23/08 03:20 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Here is the fallacy of the cloistered student.
What about the fallacy of the edited op-ed? (Ok, I just made that up, but bear with me...)
An op-ed is an opinion piece... it should be free from editorial review. Granted the paper has the right to say yeah or nay, but to say "Not good enough" is BS. "Your opinion isn't good enough to print in our opinion section. Please clarify your opinion, so that it matches Barry's opinion, and we will print it." I could handle a "nay, we don't want to print your drivel", but to go beyond that as they did, is not only rude towards McCain, but is very disrespectful to American voters that would like to know what the candidates opinions are to help them decide how to vote. The editor just spit in our face telling us that we aren't intelligent enough to decide if McCain's opinion is drivel or not.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: zappaisgod]
#8672384 - 07/23/08 03:32 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I understand the staying there till we're done opinion, but there needs to be some sort of accountability in the form of more benchmarks measuring their progress.
Saying "we're there until we can leave" is just as subjective and arbitrary as saying leave in 18 months. There needs to be clearly defined, measurable performance indicators which can be worked towards.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Redstorm]
#8672493 - 07/23/08 03:49 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Saying "we're there until we can leave" is just as subjective and arbitrary as saying leave in 18 months.
I disagree. Anybody that tries to set a withdraw date is either lying or an idiot. At least McCain was being honest when he said we might be there for another 100 years. (And we probably will be, in the form of US military bases on Iraqi soil.) Simple fact is that we will be there as long as there is an oil interest in Iraq. (I don't like it, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore the obvious.)
(Again, please don't read the above as an endorsement of US forces in Iraq. The sooner we are out the better, in my opinion. Dump war money into fusion power research and let the middle east go to hell. The world does not need the US to police it, and the US cannot afford to police the world. However, my fantasy world and reality are very different. I stick by my original premise: anybody that tries to set a withdraw date is either lying or an idiot.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8672516 - 07/23/08 03:55 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"We're here until we are done" certainly is arbitrary without transparent, measurable benchmarks.
Who is to define "done" without them?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8672549 - 07/23/08 04:03 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Who is to define "done" without them?
Done is when the oil is gone. (the cynic in me speaks)
I would define "done" as when the commander in chief decides that the Iraqi government can support itself and removes the bulk of American troops or when congress decides to cut the funding, whichever comes first.
Considering that the president and congress are our employees, I think we are the ones that define "done" through our vote. (the sentimentalist in me speaks)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8672560 - 07/23/08 04:05 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I would define "done" as when the commander in chief decides that the Iraqi government can support itself and removes the bulk of American troops
Isn't that arbitrary without some sort of measurements, thoguh?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Redstorm]
#8672736 - 07/23/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Isn't that arbitrary without some sort of measurements
Of course it is arbitrary. One cannot know the future. We can come up with a set of measurements that make sense today, but next week/month/year things may have changed in such a way that those no longer apply. You cannot lock yourself into an end game and hope that your opponent does what you want. Thus we leave it open ended and elect responsible people into office that we trust to make an honest good decision as to when the time is correct to withdraw troops. Unfortunately, the NY Times is taking away the opportunity for the people to judge which candidate they think will do a better job of this. As I said earlier, a slap in the face to the American voter.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8672774 - 07/23/08 05:05 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You all seem to be forgetting that there is another party involved here and either one can end our presence there. Currently, neither one wishes to. But this is veering off-topic. The topic is the blatant whoredom of the NYTimes. McCain's piece has been read now by anybody who wishes to read it, has probably gotten read by more people because of the Times' stance, and the Times has yet again damaged its reputation for evenhandedness. Wait a minute. I didn't just use evenhanded and the Times in the same sentence, did I. Holy shit I did. That usage hasn't been allowed for decades. I apologize for my bad grammar.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8672797 - 07/23/08 05:12 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elect responsible people into office that we trust to make an honest good decision
|
dill705
Amazed
Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8673030 - 07/23/08 06:17 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
(Again, please don't read the above as an endorsement of US forces in Iraq. The sooner we are out the better, in my opinion. Dump war money into fusion power research and let the middle east go to hell. The world does not need the US to police it, and the US cannot afford to police the world. However, my fantasy world and reality are very different. I stick by my original premise: anybody that tries to set a withdraw date is either lying or an idiot.)
Words of fucking wisdom. QFT
-------------------- My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end. -Icelander- I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW! ~dill705~
|
dill705
Amazed
Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Redstorm]
#8673044 - 07/23/08 06:20 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end. -Icelander- I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW! ~dill705~
|
SoY
I am the LizardKing
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: zappaisgod]
#8673668 - 07/23/08 08:57 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Incorrect again Zappa. That is like saying "I'll turn my homework in when it is finished." NO FUCKING SHIT. The entire point is that they want to know WHAT qualifies the Iraqis as being ready, and HOW McCain will attempt to actualize such qualifications.
Read it again Zappa. This has nothing to do with *timetables* and everything to do with tangible definitions of conditions that would comprise the notion of *victory* and "an Iraqi people that are *ready* for us to leave". Once again you have gone off on some flamboyant tirade completely missing my point and insisting that it is unnecessary to set any goals or checkpoints for DEFINING what the concept of a *stable* Iraq would be.
Poor show, Jack
-------------------- "The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji "Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream." "My karma ran over my dogma!"
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Redstorm]
#8674507 - 07/24/08 12:16 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
elect responsible people into office that we trust to make an honest good decision
Pretty much... sad, isn't it?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: SoY]
#8676547 - 07/24/08 02:21 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SoY said:
Quote:
Incorrect again Zappa. That is like saying "I'll turn my homework in when it is finished." NO FUCKING SHIT. The entire point is that they want to know WHAT qualifies the Iraqis as being ready, and HOW McCain will attempt to actualize such qualifications.
Read it again Zappa. This has nothing to do with *timetables* and everything to do with tangible definitions of conditions that would comprise the notion of *victory* and "an Iraqi people that are *ready* for us to leave". Once again you have gone off on some flamboyant tirade completely missing my point and insisting that it is unnecessary to set any goals or checkpoints for DEFINING what the concept of a *stable* Iraq would be.
Poor show, Jack
I'm getting tired of this. You tell me to read it again. I did. Here is part of the text:
Quote:
It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.
I have an idea. YOU read it again. And again and again and again until you find that nugget. Because it was right there the whole time. And another thing. Where are those requirements met in Barry's essay? Nowhere.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: zappaisgod]
#8677574 - 07/24/08 07:35 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Where are those requirements met in Barry's essay?
Yes, but Barry walks on water, heals the gimpy, and can fix all of the worlds woes... we can't expect somebody like that answer to peons such as ourselves.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Libertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Seuss]
#8677958 - 07/24/08 09:10 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yep...such a 'liberal' slant to the media.
Just read it. It tells about how McCain made a MAJOR gaffe in an interview with Katie Couric for CBS, which if Obama made the media would have been all over him about, and his gaffe ended up on the cutting room floor. Liberal media bias my ass!!!
-------------------- A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: New York Times REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; [Re: Libertine]
#8677992 - 07/24/08 09:18 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Libertine said: Yep...such a 'liberal' slant to the media.
Just read it. It tells about how McCain made a MAJOR gaffe in an interview with Katie Couric for CBS, which if Obama made the media would have been all over him about, and his gaffe ended up on the cutting room floor. Liberal media bias my ass!!!
Fantastic. This anecdote single-handedly disproves liberal bias.
We don't need any analysis or examination of differences in treatment as a function of party or politics, no; this single instance proves there is no bias towards liberals in any newspaper, tv, internet, or magazine news producer anywhere in the world.
|
Libertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Just one of many examples... [Re: johnm214]
#8678066 - 07/24/08 09:38 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Libertine said: Yep...such a 'liberal' slant to the media.
Just read it. It tells about how McCain made a MAJOR gaffe in an interview with Katie Couric for CBS, which if Obama made the media would have been all over him about, and his gaffe ended up on the cutting room floor. Liberal media bias my ass!!!
Fantastic. This anecdote single-handedly disproves liberal bias.
We don't need any analysis or examination of differences in treatment as a function of party or politics, no; this single instance proves there is no bias towards liberals in any newspaper, tv, internet, or magazine news producer anywhere in the world.
I could post links all night to show to show there is no pro-liberal of pro-Obama bias. But then again I would probably be told they were just dozens and dozens and dozens of 'anecdotes'. Lapel flag pins, Reverend Wright, etc. Well I tell ya what I will be coming back to this thread with repeated links to show this 'single instance' was no outlier...it is one of many.
-------------------- A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.
|
|