This might ruffle a few feathers

[The Stig]

That slander does more than just "reach its own conclusions through biased interpretation." It simply takes selective facts and turns them upside down.

Let's play the same stupid game with McCain: John McCain is a fighter pilot war hero - NOT EXACTLY, John McCain didn't even fly fighter jets in Vietnam, and he did nothing heroic as a pilot. All he did was run away from a burning plane that killed 134 of his shipmates and get shot down.

Now that statement on its own is more or less true. McCain flew the A-4 Skyhawk, which is designated as a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter. I haven't heard of him doing anything heroic in the plane, so the statement that he did nothing heroic as a pilot isn't false. He got shot down, and he did run away from his plane when it was on fire, and that fire spread and eventually killed 134 of his shipmates. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

Now of course, those are very selective truths. The facts surrounding those selective truths COMPLETELY change their meaning.

- The A-4 may have been a ground attack aircraft, but it's a small, fast, single seat jet. Anybody not familiar with military aircraft would immediately assume it's a fighter jet if they saw one. Anyways, flying a ground attack mission takes a hell of a lot more balls than flying a fighter jet, especially over heavily defended airspace like Vietnam's.

- McCain may not have done anything heroic in the plane, but he sure as heck did heroic things during the war. I don't even need to elaborate on that point. Refusing an offer to go home unless your fellow prisoners get the same deal says enough.

- McCain did get shot down, but you can't blame him for that. Early in the war the Americans were almost defenseless against the SA-2 missile. Inadequate leadership at the highest levels put American pilots into an impossible situation (hey, that sounds familiar), since they couldn't shoot the missile sites until they got shot at. It doesn't take a genius to realize that plan doesn't work too well.

- McCain did indeed run away from a burning plane that started the Forrestal fire, but once again it was nothing you can criticize him for. A rocket fired prematurely from another plane and hit his, setting the fuel tank on fire. It was run away or die, and there was absolutely nothing he could do to stop the fire.

So I hope it's blatantly clear to even the biggest idiots here that you can't trust these sets of twisted statements. If they can take a clear war hero like John McCain and make him seem like a lying coward, then they can make anything noble and make it seem bad.

[hifigator]

Stig, I once again think you make great points and that was the type of discussion I was hoping for from the beginning. As I said, the author of the original piece clearly had an agenda. His bias is quite evident. Still, that doesn't warrant an entire and blanket dismissal af the entire piece.

We are all smart enough to know that regardless of every detail, this is still politics. We don't expect any candidate to stand up and give us a detailed description of all of his/her mistakes through the years. Nor should we expect a candidate to focus on what, in retrospect, would be considered exercising poor judgement.

But there is some validity to analysis of past actions and decisions. In McCain's case, the fact that he has a lot of experience, shouldn't, at least in and of itself, justify support. What did he do in past situations? Conversely, with a limited resume', as Obama has, what past decisions did he make and what past actions did he take, are, if anything, all the more important.

Obama is claiming pie in the sky. He is running on "change." He has seemingly endless claims. We can only place our trust in such promises on the past actions and decisions which he has made.

At least a few of the items on this list question past decisions and actions. That is really the key. Jack provided a contrasting version of the Kenyan election story. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two versions.

[The Stig]

You're right that we should analyze the candidates' past actions and decisions. But that piece you posted doesn't do that - it's just a hatchet job that twists the facts so much that it makes them into falsehoods. It's not an analytical piece, it's just a hatchet job.

I don't pretend that the little example I made up is analysis of John McCain's war record. It was an example of being so selective that you twist the facts upside down. It's not a matter of having an agenda, it's a matter of telling the truth.

To analyze a candidate's past actions and decisions, you need to have a truthful account of what those past actions and decisions were. I really hope you're not stupid enough to think that the hatchet job you posted is a truthful account of Obama's past actions and decisions.

To take the example I posted: What does McCain's lack of heroism as a pilot and cowardice in the Forrestal fire tell us about him? How do we analyze those decisions and actions? The answer is that we can't, because the account of McCain's decisions and actions is so selective that it's untrue.

[TBird41]

Sept 25, 2008 11:47:14 GMT -5 The Stig said:

You're right that we should analyze the candidates' past actions and decisions. But that piece you posted doesn't do that - it's just a hatchet job that twists the facts so much that it makes them into falsehoods. It's not an analytical piece, it's just a hatchet job.

I don't pretend that the little example I made up is analysis of John McCain's war record. It was an example of being so selective that you twist the facts upside down. It's not a matter of having an agenda, it's a matter of telling the truth.

To analyze a candidate's past actions and decisions, you need to have a truthful account of what those past actions and decisions were. I really hope you're not stupid enough to think that the hatchet job you posted is a truthful account of Obama's past actions and decisions.

To take the example I posted: What does McCain's lack of heroism as a pilot and cowardice in the Forrestal fire tell us about him? How do we analyze those decisions and actions? The answer is that we can't, because the account of McCain's decisions and actions is so selective that it's untrue.

Please stop trying to reason with Hifi. You'd have better luck trying to explain algebra to a Cuse grad. All talking to Hifi does is encourage him to continue posting stupid things like this.

[hifigator]

Whatever Tbird, we were actually on the way to something productive.


Stig, I agree, but, at least down here, the only thing we ever see in the mainstream papers are obvious bias from one side or the other. And TV isn't any better. Obama is running primariy on two things: he is running on epitomizing Change and he is running that he isn't GWB, unlike McCain.

If you would like to offer argument of that point, I will gladly listen.

McCain is running on being a moderate and bipartisan candidate who will shake up Washington. Will he? That obviously remains to be seen.

I have serious reservations about Obama, even excluding his obvious and glaring weakness of having virtually zero experience doing anything. So I look at what he has said and done in the past as well as who he goes to for advice. He says he is for change and not a typical politician. I think that is only true because he hasn't had the time yet to develop into one. What did he do to start his political career? He went to Chicago, which has arguably the most corrupt political ties anywhere. He talks to a "made man" and tells him that he should make him a senator. Voila! You are now a senator.

Before I get too far off topic, there is no denying that the original piece is biased against Obama. There is no denying that the author had an agenda. But rather than dismiss the entire piece because the author was biased, why not address the claims to check for validity and accuracy? So far, only one point has been contested, that by Jack and the links that he gave, offered a different opinion of certain events, though stopping well short of denying the events themselves.

If, in fact the list is a fabrication, then it shouldn't be difficult to prove. What I think we see by and large instead, is a history of associating with what most would agree are the wrong people. What we also see is a history of "doctored claims" which put a positive spin on Obama when it might not be warranted. That being said, I understand this is politics and such is the modus operandi for the field.