NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-candidates-iraq;_ylt=A9G_R2x0QmJIUScANxqs0NUE

The gist of that article is this:
Independent voters prefer McCain over Obama on Iraq.
For a little more depth, the prefer McCain over Obama on Iraq because McCain has military experience. And that, literally, is it. McCain's military 'experience' supersedes their dislike for his stance towards and policy on Iraq and his support for Bush's policies on Iraq.

I'm not quite sure I comprehend the level of stupid required for such a political stance. You dislike his position on pro-war positions, but you want to elect him into a position to start and continue wars because he has military experience? How the hell does "military experience" override the fact that the positions he derives from said experience is contrary to the position the people want on it?

It's like:
Clown running for some clowning position "Hi, I'm an experienced clown. My idea of funny is fart jokes. I promise more fart jokes!"
Amateur clown running for same position "Hi, I'm a new clown, but I promise hilarious, high-brow comedy!"
Idiot voter: "Man I love high-brow comedy and hate fart jokes, but I better vote for the guy with experience."

Experience for the sake of fucking experience shouldn't win you any god damn points when that experience leads you to positions contrary to what people handing out those points want.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

The US requires an endless amount of suckers to function. Don't knock it.

What you are missing is this:

Many people have more wisdom than ego, and therefore are willing to defer to greater experience, even if that experience is telling them what they don't want to hear.

It's like this:

Highly experienced clown: "Let's do fart jokes midway through the sketch. 30 years of study in this field tells me it will have them rolling in their aisles, since your audience is teenage boys. The national clown college concurs, and in fact I did my Phd thesis on the neurophysiological response to scatalogical humor in teenage boys, so I'm very confident that this approach will work better than the the reading of Parodies of Proust you are considering as an alternate approach."

Naive client: "I hate fart jokes. Fart jokes suck. F**k you."

Naive yet wise client: "I personally hate fart jokes, but I trust your background on this. Let's do it."

What you are missing is this:

Many people have more wisdom than ego, and therefore are willing to defer to greater experience, even if that experience is telling them what they don't want to hear.
And many people are suckers that believe experience inherently makes a person better at something or makes a person know better than some one else. That is not always the case. People with "experience" often eventually develop a "holier than thou" stance touting their experience as a reason they are always right - even when they arn't. People should not award points to some one for "experience" when they don't agree with the results of that experience. If I want an opinion, I will defer to some one with experience, even if I don't agree with that opinion. But since I don't agree with his opinions, his experience is not going to make me want to put him in charge of things those opinions are on.

More specifically, I wouldn't trust McCain's experience given his repeated excursions in pandering to try and win the vote.

snip

America being the teenage boys, obviously.

And many people are suckers that believe experience inherently makes a person better at something or makes a person know better than some one else. That is not always the case. .

Not always but it's a damn good way to bet. Experience + training = expertise.

People with "experience" often eventually develop a "holier than thou" stance touting their experience as a reason they are always right - even when they arn't. .

True, but it misses the danger: People with INexperience are even worse. Ask a National Park Ranger (an experienced one) what kind of people get lost more often. Do you really think inexperience is an advantage, when have a guy so inexperienced that he actually thinks you can't ease a commodity shortage by increasing the output of that commodity. Youthful enthusiasm, sweet words and no experience and therefore no actual basis for comparison other than "sounds good to me" is not a good way to go.

People should not award points to some one for "experience" when they don't agree with the results of that experience..

Illogical. That is EXACTLY when you should defer to experience. When you already agree, it doesn't matter. If the Park Ranger says don't take the north trail in this weather, based on his/her experience, do you? You are saying that uninformed, untrained opinion should be valued over experience. That makes no sense.

Doctor: "You have cancer. I'm recommending some difficult treatment, based on my training and experience."

Patient: "I don't have all your so called experience, and I disagree with your treatment plan, but I sure don't want cancer!"

Window Washer: "I couldn't help overhearing. I have no experience in medicine, and I say, eat a carrot every day, and Hope for Change."

Patient: "Thanks window washer guy! That's something I agree with!"

I've found that there typically, people who utterly discount the value of experience are those that don't have any themselves. It's easy to discount something that only other people have. That's why religious people discount the value of material rewards even as they pray for them.

The US requires an endless amount of suckers to function. Don't knock it.

Not "Suckers". Dreamers. Remember the Gipper!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you are missing is this:

Many people have more wisdom than ego, and therefore are willing to defer to greater experience, even if that experience is telling them what they don't want to hear.

It's like this:

Highly experienced clown: "Let's do fart jokes midway through the sketch. 30 years of study in this field tells me it will have them rolling in their aisles, since your audience is teenage boys. The national clown college concurs, and in fact I did my Phd thesis on the neurophysiological response to scatalogical humor in teenage boys, so I'm very confident that this approach will work better than the the reading of Parodies of Proust you are considering as an alternate approach."

Naive client: "I hate fart jokes. Fart jokes suck. F**k you."

Naive yet wise client: "I personally hate fart jokes, but I trust your background on this. Let's do it."
Actually, in the current situation, it's more like this:

Old clown: "I have some related experience in the laugh-making field. It is true I have never been an opening headliner and have never commanded an audience, but I did spend several years languishing in some podunk venue which garnered decent critical reviews even though nobody ever saw my act. Based on this, I believe I will be the best qualified to continue the fart-joke act you are trying to replace."

Naive client: "Great! I love fart jokes!"

Wise client: "What are you talking about? The fart jokes bombed. We want a new act, not a continuation of the old act."

Naive client: "I don't care. I like them."

Old clown: "I will, of course, put my own twist on it, but my research shows that the fart jokes were a boffo success, and I know they can only get better."

Naive client: "See? He'll put a new twist on the fart jokes. They'll be even better."

Wise client: "Well, I suppose they couldn't possibly get worse, but I don't care what his research says. Those fart jokes did nothing but stink the joint up. Boffo success, my ass. We lost audience because of them. I want a new act."

New clown: "I have a new act. I've been developing it just for your venue, after watching the old act. I have no fart jokes."

Wise client: "Oh, yeah? Tell me about it."

Naive client: "Fuck that, I want farts."

True, but it misses the danger: People with INexperience are even worse. Ask a National Park Ranger (an experienced one) what kind of people get lost more often.
You do realize that implies that experienced people get lost. Which is my point.

Do you really think inexperience is an advantage, when have a guy so inexperienced that he actually thinks you can't ease a commodity shortage by increasing the output of that commodity.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I bet it has nothing to do with Iraq.


Illogical. That is EXACTLY when you should defer to experience. When you already agree, it doesn't matter. If the Park Ranger says don't take the north trail in this weather, based on his/her experience, do you? You are saying that uninformed, untrained opinion should be valued over experience. That makes no sense.
Your comparison is close, but still false.
A person who does a survival show tells you to not to take the north path.
A person who does alot of research on survival and woods and that crap tells you to take it.
Who do you chance it with?


Doctor: "You have cancer. I'm recommending some difficult treatment, based on my training and experience."

Patient: "I don't have all your so called experience, and I disagree with your treatment plan, but I sure don't want cancer!"

Window Washer: "I couldn't help overhearing. I have no experience in medicine, and I say, eat a carrot every day, and Hope for Change."

Patient: "Thanks window washer guy! That's something I agree with!"

I've found that there typically, people who utterly discount the value of experience are those that don't have any themselves. It's easy to discount something that only other people have. That's why religious people discount the value of material rewards even as they pray for them.

That's even more absurd and wrong than the park ranger scenario. I can tell you for a fact and from experience that younger doctors, ie "less experienced" people, are going to know far more about a disease and employ better means of treating it than a "more experienced" older doctor who is set in his ways and hasn't kept up to date with changing medical practice.

That's even more absurd and wrong than the park ranger scenario. I can tell you for a fact and from experience…

Experience, eh? On that basis, I choose to disregard your argument.

Not always but it's a damn good way to bet. Experience + training = expertise.



True, but it misses the danger: People with INexperience are even worse. Ask a National Park Ranger (an experienced one) what kind of people get lost more often. Do you really think inexperience is an advantage, when have a guy so inexperienced that he actually thinks you can't ease a commodity shortage by increasing the output of that commodity. Youthful enthusiasm, sweet words and no experience and therefore no actual basis for comparison other than "sounds good to me" is not a good way to go.

Illogical. That is EXACTLY when you should defer to experience. When you already agree, it doesn't matter. If the Park Ranger says don't take the north trail in this weather, based on his/her experience, do you? You are saying that uninformed, untrained opinion should be valued over experience. That makes no sense.

Doctor: "You have cancer. I'm recommending some difficult treatment, based on my training and experience."

Patient: "I don't have all your so called experience, and I disagree with your treatment plan, but I sure don't want cancer!"

Window Washer: "I couldn't help overhearing. I have no experience in medicine, and I say, eat a carrot every day, and Hope for Change."

Patient: "Thanks window washer guy! That's something I agree with!"

I've found that there typically, people who utterly discount the value of experience are those that don't have any themselves. It's easy to discount something that only other people have. That's why religious people discount the value of material rewards even as they pray for them.

You throwing training in there muddies the waters. If you're faced with two doctors, one of five years experience, one of forty, is the more experienced one necessarily better. He might just have done the five years experience 8 times over rather than anything new.

Experience for experience sake is worthless, saying someone has x years experience mean nothing, what does matter is the experiences they've had and what they've encountered/done in those years.

You throwing training in there muddies the waters. If you're faced with two doctors, one of five years experience, one of forty, is the more experienced one necessarily better.
A better example.

You need a surgery.
One doctor has 5 year experience, he's a surgeon.
Another has 40 year experience, he's a gynecologist.

Which do you choose?

A better example.

You need a surgery.
One doctor has 5 year experience, he's a surgeon.
Another has 40 year experience, he's a gynecologist.

Which do you choose?

Depends. Am I a woman with a cervical problem?

A better example.

You need a surgery.
One doctor has 5 year experience, he's a surgeon.
Another has 40 year experience, he's a gynecologist.

Which do you choose?

See what I said about experiences.

If the 40 year one has spent forty years in a poorly rated hospital doing low risk procedures not necessarily related to what I need doing, and the other has spent 5 years in a highly rated hospital performing superbly the type of procedure I need, then I'm going to say the 5 years guy is better experienced for my purposes, and vice versa of course.

Not always but it's a damn good way to bet. Experience + training = expertise.

True, but it misses the danger: People with INexperience are even worse. Ask a National Park Ranger... *snip*

This example is quite far off...

First of all, the president won't be leading alone. No matter what field is in question, he will have whole truckload of experts to give their opinion.

Second, what kind of frickin experience does a guy have from being, I quote, "a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a North Vietnam prison"? Must've seen a lot of that conflict :rolleyes:

Even if he DOES have some "military experience" from sitting in that prison, let's emphasise the other portion of the text. "A Navy pilot"... Sure, he can fly a fighter/bomber/whatever but does that make him good at organising and leading the war? Sorry, I doubt it.

And to repeat: President will have access to specialists on all fields. I'd more expect the so-called "experience" to be hindrance if he gets this idea stuck in his head that he can lead the war better than the army generals...

A good administrator is one that has the skill to hire the best experts possible.

I tought the PotUS is an administrator, not a clown, surgeon, bomber pilot, wathever...

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/farted.wav

:)

Well guys you're missing an important thing Obama says he'll end this war by withdrawing, McCain by eliminating the resistance. So it basically a nuisance to compare these two policies.

I said not a clown...

Well guys you're missing an important thing Obama says he'll end this war by withdrawing, McCain by eliminating the resistance. So it basically a nuisance to compare these two policies.

Well when they say that, the question people tend to ask themselves is if withdrawing from war will eliminate the resistance and if continued war can.

Regardless of the answer, it's a reasonable question.

The WORLD requires an endless amount of suckers to function. Don't knock it.

fixed.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-candidates-iraq;_ylt=A9G_R2x0QmJIUScANxqs0NUE

The gist of that article is this:
Independent voters prefer McCain over Obama on Iraq.
For a little more depth, the prefer McCain over Obama on Iraq because McCain has military experience. And that, literally, is it. McCain's military 'experience' supersedes their dislike for his stance towards and policy on Iraq and his support for Bush's policies on Iraq.

I'm not quite sure I comprehend the level of stupid required for such a political stance. You dislike his position on pro-war positions, but you want to elect him into a position to start and continue wars because he has military experience? How the hell does "military experience" override the fact that the positions he derives from said experience is contrary to the position the people want on it?

It's like:
Clown running for some clowning position "Hi, I'm an experienced clown. My idea of funny is fart jokes. I promise more fart jokes!"
Amateur clown running for same position "Hi, I'm a new clown, but I promise hilarious, high-brow comedy!"
Idiot voter: "Man I love high-brow comedy and hate fart jokes, but I better vote for the guy with experience."

Experience for the sake of fucking experience shouldn't win you any god damn points when that experience leads you to positions contrary to what people handing out those points want.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

Its america man...sorry to say but people seem to have lost their interest in what matters anymore. They rather vote on american idol then on who their president is, sad fact is that americans have entirly lost the idea of what it use to mean to be an american...now were all self-indulgent people sitting on couchs watching TV and shouting for experience because we don't really know what anyone's talking about but if someone's been doing it longer then they should continue doing it. :rolleyes:

More specifically, I wouldn't trust McCain's experience given his repeated excursions in pandering to try and win the vote.

But yet you would trust Obama, who has argued against unilateral action in Iraq, and proposed unilateral action against Pakistan?

Ok, I know he didn't specifically say against Pakistan, but he did say that he supports taking unilateral action in Pakistan against Al Qaida. Basically, it would amount to the same thing, and turn Pakistan, an ally fighting against Al Qaida, into a enemy working with Al Qaida.

McCain supported the Iraq War, because he thought it was right. He still supports it because he still thinks it was right. However, he was one of the first critics of how the war was run. He still argues that the way the Bush Administration handled the war was wrong. He has argued repeatedly that we attacked with insufficient poorly equiped troops and it wasn't until the surge, which by most accounts has worked, that he stopped being a constant voice of reason on the subject administering the war.

Everything he has argued about has been right up to this point so it seems his experience actually has some merit and people understand that we are in this was whether we like it or not, and now need someone that can clean up the mess without causing more problems.

The people I talk to that do not support the war seem to understand that simply pulling out prematurely is a bad thing, and by all accounts I can find, Obama wants to pull the troops out within 1 to 2 years after he is elected. Mark my words, if Obama is elected and Iraq is not ready for us to pull out within 1 to 2 years, and our troops leave, we will see things far worse than 9/11 coming from a new Iraqi version of Osama Bin Laden in the decades to come.

Well guys you're missing an important thing Obama says he'll end this war by withdrawing, McCain by eliminating the resistance. So it basically a nuisance to compare these two policies.

Very good point, and only one of them actually solves a problem. The other just ignores it. Which would you prefer?

McCain's military experience is not going to be directly applicable to the Presidency. Indirectly, in the form of him understanding a bit of what soldiers go through and thus taking that into account in his decision making, yes, but not directly.

In order for it to be directly applicable experience, he would need to have been a Captain or even an Admiral, which he never was.

In short, Mott Haven, your analogy is completely and totally off base.

never look into why people that aren't particularly politically engaged make the choices they make. it is a dark and frightening place.

fixed.

No. The Ponzi scheme was invented in the US. And the US is the poster child for ponzi schemes. We have the biggest in the world, and people get freaked out if u mention it. Other countries, though having copied us a bit, aren't as bad. Even America Jr. (the UK).

Well guys you're missing an important thing Obama says he'll end this war by withdrawing, McCain by eliminating the resistance. So it basically a nuisance to compare these two policies.

Which isn't what this topic is about, at all.
This topic is about electing people with "experience" for the sake of "experience" despite inherently disagreeing with the policy that "experience" dictates.

The people I talk to that do not support the war seem to understand that simply pulling out prematurely is a bad thing, and by all accounts I can find, Obama wants to pull the troops out within 1 to 2 years after he is elected. Mark my words, if Obama is elected and Iraq is not ready for us to pull out within 1 to 2 years, and our troops leave, we will see things far worse than 9/11 coming from a new Iraqi version of Osama Bin Laden in the decades to come.
Never mind the fact that we would have created a "new Iraqi Osama Bin Laden" by being there in the first place. And never mind the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Or that there are already radicals in Iraq we are having to deal with.

As usual, right-wingers start pulling talking points out of their ass with no basis or facts.

No. The Ponzi scheme was invented in the US. And the US is the poster child for ponzi schemes. We have the biggest in the world, and people get freaked out if u mention it. Other countries, though having copied us a bit, aren't as bad. Even America Jr. (the UK).

They've copied us more then "A little". Right now we're arguing who has the biggest pile of Naive screw heads, and we're arguing the amount in millions per country.

Never mind the fact that we would have created a "new Iraqi Osama Bin Laden" by being there in the first place.

The only reason Osma Bin Laden is a thorn in our side is because we pulled out of Afganistan in the 80's before it was ready to govern itself properly. All we would be doing by pulling out of Iraq, before it is ready to govern itself, is repeating history instead of learning from it.


And never mind the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

While I agree that we need to find Osama, attacking Pakistan is not the solution as Obama has advocated.

Or that there are already radicals in Iraq we are having to deal with.

The radicals are there because we attacked, with that I cannot deny. The fact is that pulling out of Iraq before the country is ready to govern and protect itself will only create more radicalization not less and will only make the situation worse for us in the future.


As usual, right-wingers start pulling talking points out of their ass with no basis or facts.

I am a moderate, that understands what created our problems in the Middle East. This is not Vietnam we are talking about. The two cannot even be compared to each other. Today we are dealing with a radical organization created and trained by our own actions.

The only way to prevent it from getting worse is by not acting the way we have in the past. By not abandoning a nation that we wrongfully invaded before we have corrected the mistakes we have made.

They've copied us more then "A little". Right now we're arguing who has the biggest pile of Naive screw heads, and we're arguing the amount in millions per country.

America by far and away has the biggest pile of Naive screw heads as a percentage. Try discussing healthcare sometime. U can't even mention reality.

While I agree that we need to find Osama, attacking Pakistan is not the solution as Obama has advocated.


Are you confusing "invading Pakistani soil" and "toppling the Pakistani government?"

This example is quite far off...

First of all, the president won't be leading alone. No matter what field is in question, he will have whole truckload of experts to give their opinion.

Second, what kind of frickin experience does a guy have from being, I quote, "a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a North Vietnam prison"? Must've seen a lot of that conflict :rolleyes:

he knows what he is asking of our soldiers and he knows what soldiers expect of their leaders under the harshest of conditions.


Even if he DOES have some "military experience" from sitting in that prison, let's emphasise the other portion of the text. "A Navy pilot"... Sure, he can fly a fighter/bomber/whatever but does that make him good at organising and leading the war? Sorry, I doubt it.

A pilot is an officer involved with all levels of strategic planning. McCain in particular was a lieutenant commander during the Vietnam war and retired as a Captain (equivalent in the army to a Colonial). He also served as the Navy's liaison to the Senate.
He didn't just fly bombing runs he planned them recommended changes and was involved with decisions that affect all soldiers in the theater of operations.

And to repeat: President will have access to specialists on all fields. I'd more expect the so-called "experience" to be hindrance if he gets this idea stuck in his head that he can lead the war better than the army generals...
We got into the Iraq war because Bush listened to his "experts" or a certain segment of them.
You will never find a time when all said experts agree on the same course of action. it is experience that allows you to determine which experts offer the correct advice. It is that experience that Bush and Obama lack.

A good administrator is one that has the skill to hire the best experts possible.

I tought the PotUS is an administrator, not a clown, surgeon, bomber pilot, wathever...
Why would you think that, after the last four presidents we've had?

Are you confusing "invading Pakistani soil" and "toppling the Pakistani government?"

No, as I said in fewer words in another post, invading Pakistan to engage Al Qaida would pull the Pakistani military into a war with us and would ally Pakistan with Al Qaida to defend the country from the invading force.

Even America Jr. (the UK).

Junior? I go to pubs that are older than the declaration of independence. If anything, the USA is UK Jr. :p

Junior? I go to pubs that are older than the declaration of independence. If anything, the USA is UK Jr. :p

we've out grown the Junior. your just the retiree that we hope dies before you spend all of our inheritance

America by far and away has the biggest pile of Naive screw heads as a percentage. Try discussing healthcare sometime. U can't even mention reality.
Indeed, I'm inclined to agree there.

"The government should have mandatory healthcare! If you don't like it you hate the poor!"

"But if you would reduce taxes private-"

"YOU HATE THE POOR! GO JUMP OFF A CLIFF!"
*Crowd starts chanting*
"Jump off a cliff...You hate the poor...Jump off a cliff...You hate the poor..."

"WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE!" *Leaves*

Still, most other countries have an overwhelming majority of screwheads, and the UK is somewhere up in the top ten.

Indeed, I'm inclined to agree there.

"The government should have mandatory healthcare! If you don't like it you hate the poor!"

"But if you would reduce taxes private-"

i see that you and reality aren't on speaking terms

The only reason Osma Bin Laden is a thorn in our side is because we pulled out of Afganistan in the 80's before it was ready to govern itself properly.
Uh, are you aware that we were never IN Afghanistan in the 80's? That was the Soviets who pulled out of Afghanistan.

"But if you would reduce taxes private-"
Of course, that position relies on the false assumption that private industry gives a rat's ass about the public. Especially the insurance industry - an industry founded on the premise of collecting money from people now so that the company might render services at some nondescript point in the future.

Junior? I go to pubs that are older than the declaration of independence.

That may be true but it is irrelevant. Bill Clinton asked Tony Blair to turn the UK into America Jr. in return for a very high paying job with an american bank when he was finished pretending to be the Prime Minister. Since nobody has complained, I assume everyone approves of this idea.

i see that you and reality aren't on speaking terms

Libertarianism takes its toll.

Of course, that position relies on the false assumption that private industry gives a rat's ass about the public. Especially the insurance industry - an industry founded on the premise of collecting money from people now so that the company might render services at some nondescript point in the future.

That sounds a lot like the government. Except the government makes you pay or it locks you up. And it definitely won't be rendering the services in the future.

That sounds a lot like the government. Except the government makes you pay or it locks you up. And it definitely won't be rendering the services in the future.
Because companies totally won't have you locked up for not paying. And they totally won't have you locked up after they totally don't increase your fees because you cost them too much money or make you give them money because you ran out of money.

Because companies totally won't have you locked up for not paying. And they totally won't have you locked up after they totally don't increase your fees because you cost them too much money or make you give them money because you ran out of money.

I just stopped paying my credit card premiums one day. They were like: "That's cool."

That sounds a lot like the government. Except the government makes you pay or it locks you up. And it definitely won't be rendering the services in the future.

True that. You go to work, pay your taxes, and when your spleen ruptures public healthcare won't even take you in.
Wait, what?

Because companies totally won't have you locked up for not paying. And they totally won't have you locked up after they totally don't increase your fees because you cost them too much money or make you give them money because you ran out of money.

No, they won't have you locked up for not paying. Because there are no debtors prisons. And you can choose not to pay in the first place.

I really think u should look into the system before taking such a stand.

Meanwhile, all that medicare money you pay. U will never see a penny of it. But try not paying that.

Because companies totally won't have you locked up for not paying. And they totally won't have you locked up after they totally don't increase your fees because you cost them too much money or make you give them money because you ran out of money.

they cant in the US Debtor prisons have been illegal for well over 100 years here.
you can also declare bankruptcy and avoid repayment especially if you have family /trustworthy friends to give all your property to before hand.

I just stopped paying my credit card premiums one day. They were like: "That's cool."

Many people do that. You have to nag them a bit, but they will settle for what they can get.


True that. You go to work, pay your taxes, and when your spleen ruptures public healthcare won't even take you in.
Wait, what?

Yes, that happens. But I was talking about the US, where they take healthcare money from you with the 'promise' you'll get something for it later. That is a lie, and everyone knows it.

Meanwhile, all that medicare money you pay. U will never see a penny of it. But try not paying that.
Of course not, all that money going in now is to pay for things now. You will probably see your grandchildren's medicare money.

Of course not, all that money going in now is to pay for things now. You will probably see your grandchildren's medicare money.

No, 'cos the system will be repudiated long before then. There isn't enough money. Never mind the moneys that we owe everyone else that we borrowed to buy our toys or waste in school getting arts degrees (a valuable skill in todays increasingly globalized and militarized world).

I am thinking we had better build some more tanks and ships. We might be needing them soon.

No, 'cos the system will be repudiated long before then.
So your argument is built on presumption. Right, moving on.

Uh, are you aware that we were never IN Afghanistan in the 80's? That was the Soviets who pulled out of Afghanistan.

Actually, the CIA was in Afganistan from 1979 to 1988 training mujahideen fighters in order to oust the Soviets. They succeeded, and since we achieved our goal the CIA left. Afganistan fell into anarchy and civil war as there was no functioning government. Dozens of former Mujahideen became warlords vying for power. Around this time,mid to late 1988, Osama created Al Qaida and eventually supported the Taliban that gained power and managed to take control of a majority of the country.

Watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" its loosely based on the events that brought about the fall of the Soviets in Afganistan. It isn't completely accurate, but it is fairly close.

Actually, the CIA was in Afganistan
Ah, so you just mean some CIA agents by "us" being "in" Afghanistan? Not exactly like we are "in" Iraq, now is it? You believe that if the CIA had stayed in Afghanistan, that would have stabilized the government there? The CIA hasn't usually, to the say the least, been a stabilizing influence... but never mind. How about we get the troops out of Iraq, and just leave some CIA agents there, would that satisfy you?

So your argument is built on presumption. Right, moving on.

It's not an argument, I am telling you what the government itself is saying. The government has said it is going to have to repudiate it: "Given these and other factors, it seems clear that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary in order to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance."

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06gao2.pdf

And those were written when people thought the economy was good.

You should read them, instead of making what you think is clever one line rebuttals.

It's not an argument, I am telling you what the government itself is saying. The government has said it is going to have to repudiate it: "Given these and other factors, it seems clear that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary in order to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance."

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06gao2.pdf

And those were written when people thought the economy was good.

You should read them, instead of making what you think is clever one line rebuttals.

anyone with common sense knows we are going to have to raise Taxes cut spending and raise the interest rates tog et things under control the only problem is people wont like it. and thus far all of our leaders have been too populous.

Of course, that position relies on the false assumption that private industry gives a rat's ass about the public. Especially the insurance industry - an industry founded on the premise of collecting money from people now so that the company might render services at some nondescript point in the future.
They don't care. But if they don't provide the service, two things could happen:

1. If they die, and don't give the money from the insurance they promised,the said person's relative's will come after them with a lawsuit.

2. If they live, the said person will sue them AND go to their competitor.

He didn't just fly bombing runs he planned them recommended changes and was involved with decisions that affect all soldiers in the theater of operations.

Sounds rather odd but I honestly am not interested enough in the US elections to dig too deeply in to the candicates. "A pilot" to me doesn't imply much beyond flying a fighter to me.

I'll still stand by my opinion that his personal military experience isn't worth much thought. There will still be more experienced people guiding the president - whomever he will be - in military matters. If anything McCain is more likely to be stuck in old ways when it comes to waging war, which could probably be a bad thing.

Not to mention it's still doesn't change the fact that it's idiotic if people don't want more/extended wars and vote for president that brings more/extended wars.

1. If they die, and don't give the money from the insurance they promised,the said person's relative's will come after them with a lawsuit.

2. If they live, the said person will sue them AND go to their competitor.

In either case, the insurance company has a bigger, better equipped, better funded and nastier legal team to tie up the lawsuit for months while the claimant's cash pool dwindles until they can no longer sustain the lawsuit.

The claimant loses, and if he speaks crap about the insurance firm, they'll get him on libel charges. Way to screw over the average person.

Sounds rather odd but I honestly am not interested enough in the US elections to dig too deeply in to the candicates. "A pilot" to me doesn't imply much beyond flying a fighter to me.
For officers, which all pilots are, there is no such thing as being a grunt. His rank during Vietnam was lieutenant commander.
He rose to become a captain. He was offered the rank of Rear admiral, but choose instead to go into politics.

I'll still stand by my opinion that his personal military experience isn't worth much thought. There will still be more experienced people guiding the president - whomever he will be - in military matters. If anything McCain is more likely to be stuck in old ways when it comes to waging war, which could probably be a bad thing.

If McCain had stayed in the military he likely would have become an adviser to the president. He already served in such a capacity to the Senate. And as said before we already tried a president with no experience depending on his advisors. that was bush and thats how we got into the current mess.

Not to mention it's still doesn't change the fact that it's idiotic if people don't want more/extended wars and vote for president that brings more/extended wars.

McCain takes me more as a Nixon exit with honor strategy.
Obama takes me as an LBJ type and will let his advisors leave him stuck in the war.

I think it is more of a case that these undecided voters know that the US will be in this war in Iraq for a long time, while they may not like it they want someone with experience to be able to handle it the best for the US. So where is the fault in that logic?

Maybe to use your clown example

I don't like fart jokes, but I know that fart jokes are the only jokes that are going to be told, so I might as well vote in a clown that can tell a good fart joke rather than some new clown who couldn't tell a fart joke to svae his life.

Sounds rather odd but I honestly am not interested enough in the US elections to dig too deeply in to the candicates. "A pilot" to me doesn't imply much beyond flying a fighter to me.

Really? Do you relise how much intelligence you need to be able to fly a fighter jet a lot more than your average private. Regardless, while a pilot may just be out of training he is an officer and in order to move up the ranks needs to do more than just fly a plane, they need leadership and organisational qualities amongst others.

i see that you and reality aren't on speaking terms
Would you mind responding with an argument, so this could turn into a debate? I stated my opinion, you yours, mind an argument?

Really? Do you relise how much intelligence you need to be able to fly a fighter jet a lot more than your average private. Regardless, while a pilot may just be out of training he is an officer and in order to move up the ranks needs to do more than just fly a plane, they need leadership and organisational qualities amongst others.
And intelligence. Well, usually.;)

Really? Do you relise how much intelligence you need to be able to fly a fighter jet a lot more than your average private. Regardless, while a pilot may just be out of training he is an officer and in order to move up the ranks needs to do more than just fly a plane, they need leadership and organisational qualities amongst others.

you leaving out they already have to have a college degree. and that McCain had risen to the rank LT CMDR by the time he was captured in Vietnam.
He wasn't a fresh pilot he was a seasoned pilot who had duties to take care of younger pilots.

Though the OP would have allowed a wider debate, this has become yet another US election thread. Please take further comments to the sticky.