once again the jokes write themselves...

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
regardless of their beliefs, one of them will inherit iraq. . .whether obama opposed the war or not or mccain supported the war or not, becomes irrelevant. . .what matters is what are they going to do about it. both of them, yes both of them, are going to keep some amount of troops in iraq. . .both of them are going to re-deploy troops in afghanistan. short of obama deciding to evacuate from the middle east, however much he opposed the iraq war isn't going to make a lick of difference in the execution of whatever strategy either men choose. believing that because he opposed the iraq war means he'll have a better understanding of what to do with iraq is unfounded.

As he noted, this isn't what he said. The point is about judgment in getting our troops INTO conflict. Either of them has a mess on their hands in Iraq - but I believe Shoeshine's point was about what a potential president might do in the future as related to other potential conflicts.

The candidates' respective stances on Iraq are simply not irrelevant - they're enormously valuable insights into what their views are on the appropriate uses of American forces.

Uh, what?

'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel'

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

minor aside: classic rock fail. the line is from "won't get fooled again." you expect boardees to take your opinions on policy seriously, when you can't even get THAT right?!? :p

(joking, kidding, making a funny, no not serious, notice the use of smiley, etc…)

Originally posted by callat703:
As he noted, this isn't what he said. The point is about judgment in getting our troops INTO conflict. Either of them has a mess on their hands in Iraq - but I believe Shoeshine's point was about what a potential president might do in the future as related to other potential conflicts.

The candidates' respective stances on Iraq are simply not irrelevant - they're enormously valuable insights into what their views are on the appropriate uses of American forces.

i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense. if anything, mccain very early on understood that bush's strategy was wrong. . .yet, that very same understanding of strategy and how to use force is immediately discarded because of his support of the war in iraq.

it's one thing to support obama because you are against the war and so was obama. . .it's another thing completely to say that because he was against the war, he's able to make better choices about war than someone who was for the war.

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

minor aside: classic rock fail. the line is from "won't get fooled again." you expect boardees to take your opinions on policy seriously, when you can't even get THAT right?!? :p

(joking, kidding, making a funny, no not serious, notice the use of smiley, etc…)

oh, i can't believe i messed that up. i had baby o'riley in my mind and transposed the endings. ugh. . .

Originally posted by nkotb:
Uh, what?

'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel'

The fact that they are even carting this guy out there to shill for them is just more than I can comprehend.

"I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a socialist society. … If you look at spreading the wealth, that's honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth," Wurzelbacher said.
"No one can debate that. That's not my opinion. That's fact."

There you have it, straight from Joe the Plumber. Obama is a Marxist. It's fact.

How much you want to bet ol' Joe didn't even know who Karl Marx was until last week?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense.

Unless I missed something, nobody is using that "underlying logic." I haven't seen anybody here make the contention that you're objecting to. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read every word of this thread, so if I missed it, apologies - but I don't think anybody has said "because Obama opposed the war he's better equipped to deal with the current situation in Iraq."

Now, if you'd like to discuss the question of judgment related to entering war in general, that seems very much related to what the conversations on the board have been.

Palin - Plumber in 2012!!!

I love it. That's the ticket I'm waiting for. Now THAT will be a great thread.

Originally posted by callat703:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense.

Unless I missed something, nobody is using that "underlying logic." I haven't seen anybody here make the contention that you're objecting to. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read every word of this thread, so if I missed it, apologies - but I don't think anybody has said "because Obama opposed the war he's better equipped to deal with the current situation in Iraq."

Now, if you'd like to discuss the question of judgment related to entering war in general, that seems very much related to what the conversations on the board have been.

this is what mr. shoeshine said-

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the larger issue than how mccain and obama will continue to handle the botched situations in iraq and afghanistan is how they will handle new foreign policy obsticals that will emerge while they are in office. mccain loved the iraq war and still thinks the concept was good if the execution was poor. obama didnt like the iraq war to begin with and realizes that it was not a sound policy decision. for me thats the clear difference

now, your clarification of shoeshine's post is that he's talking about the judgment of each candidate in making decisions about going to war. . .it's clear that the assumption is predicated on a personal view that the iraq war was wrong. . .putting the two together clearly implicates that because obama knew that iraq was wrong (and that mccain supported the iraq war), obama will have better judgment on when to use force than mccain, because mccain supported the war in iraq. . .shoeshine, by relying on past experience (obama opposing the war=sound policy decision; mccain supporting the war=risky and unsound policy decision) to determine how the two would react to future events, draws a conclusion that because obama opposed the iraq war, he'll have a better judgment on when and how to use force than mccain, who supported the unsound policy decision on iraq. i simply do not understand that logic- now, i will admit that i may be missing something here, but so far i don't know why it is. . .

while mccain may have supported the war, he certainly opposed the way it was carried out- surely that is just as valid a position, if not moreso, on judgment and military strategy. since the end of the first gulf war, it's been an unfortunate belief amongst the miliary advisors inside the subsequent adminstrations (both clinton and bush ii, until petraeus) that american air superiority and technology outweighs sheer numbers on the ground….mccain, being a military man, knows that's not a sound ground-war strategy (just like powell and schwartzkopf from gulf war i). . .by saying that his judgment is flawed because he supported the iraq war is unsupportable.

i realize that my initial tie to a future war in iraq was misleading- i thought that my second post was more accurate.

again, i don't know what i'm missing. . .

does the fact that people who do not qualify for a job, aka me and you, who argue these points of politics like mad clockwork, have anything to do with the fact that we should not be arguing these points in the first place? as if we are scientists combating mentally at each other's test tube throats about the ongoing, never solved equation of some shit or another. i don't argue car mechanics or directing an eleven minute short film with other people i meet or talk to, even strangers in a restaurant, because neither of i qualify for either position in this person that makes me. politics should be a job: you are intrigued by it as a child so you study it in school, where you can get out your "need to talk it over" phases, then you form a career around it. other people (the kicker) such as you and me again, can only talk about it in the form of written (mail, no email) correspondences to their personal state or federal official(s) about the states of affairs. think of the jobs. always think of the jobs and the peaceful state of mind the country would relish in, without the tv/magazine/books/this place/and me rambling on, that would be created. the end of neo politics as we know it.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
oh, i can't believe i messed that up. i had baby o'riley in my mind and transposed the endings. ugh. . .

"baba o'riley" :p

Originally posted by walkonby:
does the fact that people who do not qualify for a job, aka me and you, who argue these points of politics like mad clockwork, have anything to do with the fact that we should not be arguing these points in the first place? as if we are scientists combating mentally at each other's test tube throats about the ongoing, never solved equation of some shit or another. i don't argue car mechanics or directing an eleven minute short film with other people i meet or talk to, even strangers in a restaurant, because neither of i qualify for either position in this person that makes me. politics should be a job: you are intrigued by it as a child so you study it in school, where you can get out your "need to talk it over" phases, then you form a career around it. other people (the kicker) such as you and me again, can only talk about it in the form of written (mail, no email) correspondences to their personal state or federal official(s) about the states of affairs. think of the jobs. always think of the jobs and the peaceful state of mind the country would relish in, without the tv/magazine/books/this place/and me rambling on, that would be created. the end of neo politics as we know it.

all the eleven-minute shorts in the world aren't going to affect me if i choose not to let them. i'm not responsible for choosing which mechanic works at which garage, if i'm not happy with a mechanic i'm not going to be stuck with his/her decisions for 4 years.

you're so cute.

McCain is one of the few American politicians in either party with the courage and conviction to stand up to protectionist populism. By contrast, Obama embodies protectionism. .... McCain has voted 88% of the time against bills creating trade barriers, and 90% of the time against export subsidies for US producers. Few other senators have such a splendid record.

Obama has served a much shorter time in the Senate, and avoided voting on many key issues. He has voted against trade barriers only 36% of the time. He supported export subsidies on the two occasions on which he voted, a 100% protectionist record in this regard.

perhaps one of the more industrious of you will take up greg mankiw's challenge: "If any of my economist friends who are working for Obama wants to defend his positions on ethanol subsidies, tariffs on Chinese goods, the Byrd amendment, etc., shoot me an email, and I will gladly post it for my blog readers. But I am not holding my breath."

i have to go to one of these.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397701/

at 2:50 of this video, palin reacts to a question about her possibly being chosen as mccain's running mate: "as for that VP talk all the time, i tell ya i still can't answer that question until somebody answer for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day? i'm used to being very productive and working very hard every day…" - because the vice-president doesn't have to work or anything…

she then goes on to say that she want to make sure a VP nomination brings good things "especially for alaskans" (like more earmarks, per chance?). yeah, she's ready for national politics and seeing the country as a whole.

wow, i think bede took 100xs as many words to spin out of my post as i did posting. and i still dont see how the candidates prewar stances are completely irrelevant. or maybe i'm missing something

Originally posted by sweetcell:
at 2:50 of this video, palin reacts to a question about her possibly being chosen as mccain's running mate: "as for that VP talk all the time, i tell ya i still can't answer that question until somebody answer for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day? i'm used to being very productive and working very hard every day…" - because the vice-president doesn't have to work or anything…

she then goes on to say that she want to make sure a VP nomination brings good things "especially for alaskans" (like more earmarks, per chance?). yeah, she's ready for national politics and seeing the country as a whole.

ugh. . .i don't want to get into this topic again. . let's just say that while palin amusingly wonders what's the role of the vp, biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not. as for your editorial comment on earmarks- that's simply wrong. while governor, she has reduced the requests for earmarks coming from her office and the state. . .really, do we have to go over this allllll again?

from an ny times editorial:

THE presidential campaign has taken a detour into a dispute over the constitutional status of the vice presidency. It all started when Sarah Palin asserted in her debate with Joe Biden that the vice president should play an important role in the legislative branch.

Ms. Palin has been roundly mocked for her claim. But she was probably right.

Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the legislative branch, says that â??the vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.â? Aside from the job of replacing a president who dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character.

so, would you rather have someone who declares they don't know something and wants to learn or someone who claims to know something, but is astoundingly wrong? seems to me that, in keeping with the character of people on this board, they'd rather have the person who admits they don't know and wants to learn. i'm willing to stipulate the efficacy of a particular person's actual desire to want to learn.

the ability of bede to take one thing and systematically twist it into something completely different is whats really astounding on this board! now before you go saying that by saying that i mean this and by this i must mean that and if thats the case i must mean this….i meant that as a compliment. you must have learned that at a fancy college.

well my take on Palin is that she under the impression that the President of the Senate is some how equivalent in power to the Speaker of the House, which just isn't the case.

The President of the Senate has historically been a ceremonial position and the VP doesn't usually mix-it up on set the agenda of the Senate.