McCain Moment... it's not that important

[Loyal Rogue]

Ok. So, what was your beef with McCain suggesting that it was about oil and that we should lessen our dependence on foreign oil?

Bwahahaha.
Your question just made me realize that it took two pages to get right back to the first post of the thread.

You completely missed the joke.
Frets never had any beef with McCain or anyone suggesting the war was for oil or that we need to get away from dependence on foreign oil. lol

Frets was making a semi-humorous connection between McCain's statements... follow me here and connect the dots...
(I say semi-humorous because the sad part is that it's probably closer to the truth than any of us wants to admit...)

"The Iraq war was for oil."
"We need to break our dependence on foreign oil."
"Who cares about troops coming home."
...
If troops don't come home and we occupy the country forever it will effectively be a US territory and all oil from there will no longer be considered "foreign".

McCain has now revealed his bold plan for making sure that America doesn't depend on foreign oil and we never have to send troops to the middle east again because they are never leaving.

[Frets]

^ hits the nail on the head.

[FlashLackey]

I accept your clarification if that is what you intended to say. Although, I wonder why it took two pages of nonsense to finally simply answer my original question. Or, have someone else answer for you.

The way you wrote the post more strongly suggests a different meaning. Even then, it doesn't really make sense.

You write "Is this his bold economic plan?" immediately over the link to the "war over oil" video. The logical reading of that is that you were referring to that comment and not both comments which would have been apparent had you placed the question above (or below) both links.

McCain clearly does not say that it's not important that troops come home. He says that when they come home is not important. So, that renders this idea of him saying that they should "never come home" an inaccuracy. I guess my accurate reading of what he actually said is what made me "miss the joke."

[Frets]

Because you sidetracked all the way thru it.

[FlashLackey]

How do you figure that?

You made the post. I asked what the reasoning was for disagreeing with that point. All you had to say was that you didn't disagree with that part. It was others that made various side-challenges to my observation that McCain was saying the same thing there as the Democrats you support.

[jAQUAN]

Just about everyone else got the joke the first time.
Read it again as soon as your humor chip arrives. </obligatory smiley>

[FlashLackey]

It was using humor to mock a political figure. Not a "joke" in the sense of requiring a sense of humor to "get."

Since the premise of the jab was based on a falsehood and it was worded awkwardly, I read a different meaning that still included humor. I don't see why this is such a big deal to anyone.

[Frets]

Are you saying McCain creates improperly worded falsehoods.

Everything was taken verbatim from what he said.

[FlashLackey]

"not too important [to know when troops will come home]" != "never take our troops out"

exaggeration != verbatim

[gerbick]

Dude, where the **** did you get that spin from? Seriously!?

Here's the actual quote.

In a TV interview this morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked whether he could estimate when U.S. troops could leave post-surge Iraq. "No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."

That's the actual series of events. Don't add anything else to it.

Implied != verbatim either.

Either way, he does have one point. At this moment, it's not that important. It won't happen unless there's a plan, an opportunity, and above all, a need.

Neither exist at the moment. I won't reach for the Democrats, nor the Republican endeavors on this quote. I'm tired of reaching for an agenda or series of statements that just don't exist.

You all are acting like Fox News.

[Frets]

Watch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...i_n_99866.html

What is more important Oil or Lives?
Where is the grand plan?
If the grand plan is to reduce U.S. causualties in Iraq surely the way to secure that would be to remove troops from harms way. U.S. troops are not dying in Viet Nam. There are no U.S. military bases in Viet Nam.

Why does the U.S. need permanent bases in Iraq if not to secure middle east oil?
What other vital security need for the U.S. to be present for a long time basis in Iraq?
Is it in defense of Israel? If the U.S. needs a military presense to defend Israel then wouldn't it seem logical that the U.S have bases in Israel?

[gerbick]

Not trying to play devil's advocate... but he's saying what I've been thinking this entire time.

Drop the need for their oil, we'll not be there, our people won't get killed.

In a very simplistic manner, I agree with what's said. I don't think he's saying as I am, not fully, but the gist remains the same. I'd rather not need a damn thing from there... so that would mean that what happens there, happens there.

[FlashLackey]

Dude, where the **** did you get that spin from? Seriously!?

Here's the actual quote.

I didn't add anything. All I did was summarize the question that was asked. I didn't claim that it was verbatim. If you didn't like my summary, ok. Here it is verbatim:

"that's not too important ["do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home"]"

I don't see any different meaning than the way I summarized it, or the way the article you quoted summarized the question, either. It just made it a little easier to read since the verbatim question doesn't fit into a sentance structure with McCains quote.

I appreciate you bolding the other points in his quote. I think they show further that Fret's was using McCain's statement out of context and that he wasn't saying that we would "never take our troops out."

Frets, isn't that the video that you already posted?

"What is more important Oil or Lives?" - False dilemma fallacy.

"Where is the grand plan?" - I didn't know that any of this was ever presented as being a "grand plan" as much as they are observations about the situation in Iraq as it relates to us.

"plan is to reduce U.S. causualties in Iraq" - I believe his point is that casualties have been reduced, showing signs of progress in Iraq and that that should be our focus, rather than setting an arbitrary withdraw date.

"permanent bases in Iraq" - I'm not sure if McCain is for or against a permanent base. But, the question isn't really about "need" but whether or not it would serve the interests of those who want stability in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, bases were set up and remain operational in certain countries because we didn't want to go through a war with them more than once.

"defense of Israel" - I don't think that the US needs a base in Iraq to defend Israel. They are actually equipped to defend themselves pretty well already. But, if we needed to help, we have the means to do so effectively without an Iraqi base.

[gerbick]

"not too important [to know when troops will come home]" != "never take our troops out"

Dude, seriously. That bolded part, you added it. Show me where the **** somebody outside of your own imagination said that. I've quoted what was said.

It doesn't help you to add more stuff to it. It makes you just as out of context as the person you're saying is also out of context. Simply put, stick to the facts.

Your bracketed add-ons are either your whims or lack of meds. Stop adding them dude.

And stop pointing fingers. I think you two are at the opposite end of what I'd call truth. One adds, one assumes. Both are really, really wrong.

As I stated before... in plain ****ing English... there's no plan at this moment due to this administration's inability to plan more than what they were going to do that morning [exaggeration].

[FlashLackey]

Perhaps you aren't aware of what it means to use "[]" within quoted text. It is a way of including text within a quote to clarify it's meaning and tell the reader that it is not part of the actual quote. I don't need to show you "where the ****" anyone said that because using those brackets means that the person being quoted did not say it.

[gerbick]

and I'm not sure that if you're going to include bracketed quotes from other contexts, you include those sources or otherwise it will look like you are as guilty of implying and basic truth-bending as those that you have stated that preceded you.

you do the same tactics to justify your agenda. don't fingerpoint when you are as guilty.

mismatching sentiments and statements is just a sad attempt at trying to make a full truth out of unlikely related comments.

you said you didn't add. but you added brackets around some made up drivel. which is it dude? was is it said?

or did you make it up?

you made it up. it wasn't said. you added it. your clarification was fabricated by you. the facts are enough without your spin.

[FlashLackey]

It was a paraphrase of the question McCain was responding to in the quote. The re-wording was necessary to create a more understandable sentence. The meaning was not changed. It was not from a different context. In fact, the question was the context and is the reason for why I included it with the quote. "not too important" doesn't mean much without knowing what it is in answer to.

This is a very common and ordinary practice in writing. In fact, the author that you quoted who presented McCain's quote also paraphrased the question he was asked for the same reason I did.

In any event, I'm sorry that you found it misleading. I hope that my explaination is enough to assure you that I was not trying to change any meaning.

[gerbick]

You seriously don't get it.

You added an unnecessary, self-interpreted "clarity" to something that was real clear in the context as I had quoted it, as he had stated it, then went to keep defending that usage as "I didn't add anything"... when honestly you had.

It's not misleading. Your roundabout way of finally stating that you had indeed added something - as I had stated before "You added that..." which was still some form of clarification from your point of view. It wasn't needed. It's not needed. And as far as it goes, you just should have been smart enough to see that I was talking about your added bracketed information in the first place and it was, again as previously stated, something you added and it was not needed.

You seriously just... wow. I stated the obvious, have to quote, catch, and then clarify ad nauseum something that was blatantly clear... you added something and it was not necessary in the least.

I didn't quote a paraphrase in the least FL. LA Times would have an issue with your assumption. See the double quotes in that link I just posted? It's a literary device used to denote that people are being quoted verbatim. It's very commonly used in writing, and the author I had quoted that presented McCain with those questions and resulting quotes was not paraphrasing.

I'd suggest to sticking to the facts only. Not adding some of your (polar opposite) wisdom between the two of you.

And again dude... for reiteration sake... my issue was with the fact that you added something, I called you out for it saying that it came from only your head, and you denied it... which was very wrong. You had added bracketed information that was your paraphrase. And that is something you've overlooked... that "paraphrase" of yours came from your head.

Nowhere else. And read backwards again... that's all I've stated...

Lord. You induce more palm to forehead incidents than my damn clients.

[japangreg]

Right. He agrees with Bush on some things and disagrees on others. Relative to all other elected Republicans, he has probably disagreed with Bush more than any other. That is probably the reason why the interviewer was compelled to question him about that specifically. I didn't say that he hates Bush and would never say anything good about him or never admit that he agrees with him on some things.

That wasn't the issue - "constantly at odds with" implies a much greater degree of disagreement than someone who would go on national television and claim to be Bush's stanchest supporter; McCain's "maveric" title is all but a legacy of a political time gone past, a label the national media is too lazy to re-examine because it has become convenient and acceptable a way to discribe a man who will tell you (that is, would tell you when he needed to pander right) that he the most fervent Bush supporter. But hey, if you won't take my (or McCain's) word for it...

Why is it partisan and not just a discussion? Is anything that makes Obama look bad necessarily partisan?

Please: why mention his name at all if you do not know that he said anything about Iraq being about oil? You ducked and weaved about "Democrats" making that claim, and then threw his name out there and hoped it stuck.

I don't know that Obama has made the "all about oil" statement. I wasn't clear enough there.

No, you weren't - care to explain how his name came up then, if you had no idea if the charge you were making was true?

Obama is an elected Democrat who argues for lessening our dependence on foreign oil. I can assure you that I was not intentionally trying to tie Obama to the "all about oil" statement that other Democrats have made.

Again, show me one person, Dem or Repub, who doesn't argue for less dependance on foreign oil: you might as well have picked Jimmy Kimmel or OJ Simpson.

Anyway, other elected Democrats have made both arguments. So, I should have used a different example.

2 elected Dems have made the argument, at least as far as either of us know. And you did use them as examples.

I was speaking about Democrats at large rather than elected only. I don't have empirical evidence to prove it. But, I believe that if you conducted a poll asking Democrats: "Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a war over oil?" and "Do you believe the US should try to reduce their dependence on foreign oil?" a LOT of people would check both boxes. I would honestly be surprised to find that anyone who has followed the subject would deny that.

As I said before, I do not deny that - but you're statements broad side an entire party, without qualifiers, with absolute certainty. "Demcrats do" is not that same as "Some democrats do" or even "I think democrats do"

Let me interject about this point of contention: ad hominem.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use this term as much as you... to quote a Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means"...

I have been completely forthright about what I do and do not have evidence for. I don't really need to be personally chastised for doing something that is perfectly ordinary in an adult conversation.

No, you haven't and apparently, yes you do. Or maybe you've missing the point where Gerbs had to do it too for not clarifying what was and was not your opinion and not fact.

It is neither lazy or dishonest to make a point with no further proof than your own observations. Life would be pretty unbearable if formal proof were the standard requirement for all communication.

I completely agree - which is why, when I make a statement based off of my own observations or beliefs that I want to use as a basis for an argument, I try (as often as I can) to temper the claim with the appropriate qualifiers.

The only thing that lack of proof means is that it's not as persuasive to someone who might disagree. If my intention was to persuade anyone on this board, I would have given up years ago. The observation in question is one that I didn't expect anyone would contest. If people do, that's ok by me and I have to cede that I can't make a formal case for it.

That's fine - if you had said that after the initial post instead of arguing the point with more declaratives side-stepping, we wouldn't be here right now.

EDIT

And, just as a little trip down memory lane and to prove that I'm not just attacking you but do, actually, make a concious effort to be honest in my arguments and editing of the works of others, I'd present this post by one of our long, lost members...

[FlashLackey]

You seriously don't get it.

If by not getting it, you mean understanding why anyone would launch a tirade over someone using a common writing convention, no. I don't get it.

Can I add sentences? How about verbs? May I add those?

I felt that adding the context of the question made the phrase more readable. It was a perfectly legitimate way to write it and, contrary to your "mismatching" accusation, did not change or distort the meaning that was expressed by the verbatim quote. If you think that it wasn't needed and it was just as clear without, big deal. You should be no worse off for having to skim past a few words whose meaning is already clear to you.

In a TV interview this morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked whether he could estimate when U.S. troops could leave post-surge Iraq. "No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."

The bolded text is a paraphrase of the question. The author made this up based on the meaning of the original question for the same reason that I did. Do you have a problem with his writing of this?

why mention his name at all if you do not know that he said anything about Iraq being about oil?

I thought I already clarified that I was referring to his position regarding lessening our dependence on foreign oil and not Iraq being about oil. Do you honestly think that I am trying to slip some extra meaning in for partisan reasons? Even if I was, are you concerned that it's going to impact the election or something?

"Why mention his name?" Why not? I just don't understand this whole partisan tug-of-war mentality. Are you interested in what I think as a person or do I merely symbolize your perception of a political force? I'm getting the impression that I'm experiencing the psychological baggage of anyone who has bad feelings about Bush, Republicans, etc. regardless of what my positions are or what I write.

Again, show me one person, Dem or Repub, who doesn't argue for less dependance on foreign oil: you might as well have picked Jimmy Kimmel or OJ Simpson.

I thought I already clarified this point as well. I didn't say that nobody else makes that argument. In fact, it was the reason for my original questioning of Frets comment. I was wondering why that comment was being mocked when it is an idea shared between parties.

As I said before, I do not deny that - but you're statements broad side an entire party, without qualifiers, with absolute certainty. "Demcrats do" is not that same as "Some democrats do" or even "I think democrats do"

No they don't. The term "Democrats have" does not refer to all Democrats with absolute certainty. What you are doing is applying your personal worry that it might be misinterpereted to mean all Democrats with absolute certainty.

The only reason it should be necessary to qualify in that case is if we're interested in quantifying specifically how many or who amongst Democrats were applicable. In the context of this subject, that quantification was irrelevent to the point I was making. The point I was making was that Frets was seemingly treating McCain differently than people he agrees with for partisan reasons. How many or which partisans he agreed with was beside the point.

You seem to read everything I write to be understood from a purely partisan perspective. I'm starting to understand this pattern as meaning that I am more interested in knowing or debating individuals who post at flashkit while others are more interested in some larger partisan drama. I don't know how else to explain so much ramped up hostility over questions of semantics.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use this term as much as you... to quote a Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means"...

Hah! The irony.

And, just as a little trip down memory lane and to prove that...

I'm not sure what this example proves. But, I do appreciate the trip down memory lane. Unfortunately, I think that the climate here in the CL has become dumbed down and bitter compared to those days, imo. I miss Davo and the Geezer.