Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I invite everyone to check out the "other hypotheticals post"

Where and when did I say I was outraged? When did I wave a banner? Dicemonkey, I'm honestly surprised by your question.

I do think the medical records are a bit more relevant when you have a very old candidate with a history of cancer.

Ahtman-

McCain was called out by fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line." McCain exploded: "F*** you! I know more about this than anyone in the room."

Do you have some data to suggest that this context is not accurate or is misleading in some way?

Frazzled wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Where do you draw the line though?

If, for example, McCain suffered from a disease that could cause extreme fatigue and personality disorders...would that sway your vote?

Thats a medical condition. As Ahtman has noted there's no correlation here.

Just as there's no correlation Obama's middle name means he might be a terrorist. They are both stupid trains of thought.

You misunderstand my point. JFK suffered from the disease I just described (Addisons) and it was hidden from public view. His administration did a good job of showing how much of an outdoorsman/athlete he was....and there was a very good reason they did(and why he looked so tan).

My point was that even though JFK suffered from a disease that was arguably worse than PTS, he handled Cuba just fine...against some true hardliners. The President doesn't literally sit with his finger on the button and I feel this issue is a non-starter.

Ahtman wrote:
Please point out where I used the word insane in this thread.

You didn't, though you did imply that PTSD only manifests itself in 'outbursts'. To me that paints a similar picture.

Ahtman wrote:
Please point out where I called McCain a hero in this thread.

What I can do for my part is point out your smug sense of self-righteousness that makes you think that you understand "the people". At the same time you let others convince what to think. You can rag on Hannity, Coultier, and Limbaugh but you take your talking points from DailyKos, Michael Moore, and Rolling Stone. Come up with your own thoughts instead of parroting others and then maybe you can tell us all about how you "know" the people.

Where did I mention 'the people'? You're putting words in my mouth here. You made a point about how this particular issue would sway independents away from Obama. I agree it will. Why? Because people who are not in the business of habitual self-reflection are not apt to enjoy having their assumptions questioned. That's one of the reasons all the rhetoric surrounding Iran paints it as an evil empire. It is accepted 'wisdom', to question it is political folly.

As for others convincing me what to think. Of course I do. Part of being a responsible individual is remaining open to all possibilities. That is the nature of discourse. The existence of an issue as a talking point does not render it inapplicable. To assume that it does is purely arbitrary selectivity.

While I admit I recently posted a link which cast Hannity in a negative light I cannot help but feel you are assuming that I default to a position supportive of Democrats. In my mind DailyKos, Michael Moore, and Rolling Stone are just as reprehensible as any of the conservatives you mentioned. That still does not render them incapable of producing valid insights.

double

Mannahnin wrote:
I do think the medical records are a bit more relevant when you have a candidate with a history in the GOP.

I corrected your typo. Please don't try to play nuetral at this point, or pretend you have some altruistic motive other than partison rancor.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Where do you draw the line though?

If, for example, McCain suffered from a disease that could cause extreme fatigue and personality disorders...would that sway your vote?

Thats a medical condition. As Ahtman has noted there's no correlation here.

Just as there's no correlation Obama's middle name means he might be a terrorist. They are both stupid trains of thought.

You misunderstand my point. JFK suffered from the disease I just described (Addisons) and it was hidden from public view. His administration did a good job of showing how much of an outdoorsman/athlete he was....and there was a very good reason they did(and why he looked so tan).

My point was that even though JFK suffered from a disease that was arguably worse than PTS, he handled Cuba just fine...against some true hardliners. The President doesn't literally sit with his finger on the button and I feel this issue is a non-starter.

OTT but handled Cuba II ok. Cuba I (Bay of Pigs) was a disaster, and Cuba II was a hair's breath from starting a nuke war.

But I agree with your point-hence the release of medical records should be fair and complete.

Frazzled wrote:OTT but handled Cuba II ok. Cuba I (Bay of Pigs) was a disaster, and Cuba II was a hair's breath from starting a nuke war.

But I agree with your point-hence the release of medical records should be fair and complete.

I agree the Bay of Pigs was a disaster (who wouldn't?) but his standing up to "Our precious bodily fluids" LeMay during the missile crisis was outstanding.

Mannahnin wrote:Do you have some data to suggest that this context is not accurate or is misleading in some way?

Do you know the history between Cornyn and McCain or any back room theatrics that lead up to this? No, you have a sentence and then his follow up. There could easily, and probably is, more to this.

dogma wrote:Where did I mention 'the people'? You're putting words in my mouth here.

meet

dogma wrote:It certainly will. People don't like having their assumptions of heroism questioned in real life.

You are positing yourself as know what people want and how they feel about heroism, especially in relation to McCain.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Please point out where I used the word insane in this thread.

You didn't, though you did imply that PTSD only manifests itself in 'outbursts'. To me that paints a similar picture.

The hell I did little man. I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who's only idea of an argument is to make things up. At this point I'm arguing with a fool and you can only bring me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
I do think the medical records are a bit more relevant when you have a candidate with a history in the GOP.

I corrected your typo. Please don't try to play nuetral at this point, or pretend you have some altruistic motive other than partison rancor.

There's really no call for the rudeness.

Please find an example of me displaying "rancor" towards McCain.

Thanks for the Argument Ad Hominem. Clearly, my point is irrelevant if I am supporting a candidate.

What exactly is altruistic about wanting to know whether there's a serious medical issue with the guy who might be the head of my country next year? It's in my self interest, and all of ours, to know more about how likely the guy is to kick off and leave Palin our head of state.

Face it, people who are sufficiently driven as to become potentially the president of the United States have greater strengths than ordinary people, and greater flaws. Our current president spent a good deal of his life slacking off, failing at running one business after another and snorting cocaine. Either of the current contenders would be a better choice. After all, Ronald Reagan was older than McCain and he got shot, and he still finished two terms. And any mention of Rolling Stone is just slowed, everybody knows that they are so biased that it's unbelievable. Considering the events of the past few weeks, and Dubya's ability to deploy the national guard on American soil and declare martial law for no better reason than because his magic 8-ball (tee-hee!!!) says so, I will be very surprised if there is an election.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:OTT but handled Cuba II ok. Cuba I (Bay of Pigs) was a disaster, and Cuba II was a hair's breath from starting a nuke war.

But I agree with your point-hence the release of medical records should be fair and complete.

I agree the Bay of Pigs was a disaster (who wouldn't?) but his standing up to "Our precious bodily fluids" LeMay during the missile crisis was outstanding.

Edited for typing like a billy goat.
Mayhaps LeMay. I do know the way almost had a nuke exchange because of the blockade, and that the rooskies were under orders to launch the nukes on invaders if the nukes were active (this from the Russian commander at the time). That would have started WWIII. All that when they had subs shortly thereafter that could hit us anyway. but it did check Khruschev who thought Kennedy weak after meeting with him earlier (with no preconditions...)


Also, what do you have against rainwater and pure grain alcohol. You're not one of those Commie Pinko's are you?

O P E...its easy as one two three...

Ahtman wrote:
You are positing yourself as know what people want and how they feel about heroism, especially in relation to McCain.

No, I'm positing how the issue would be framed by the GOP if it were to be raised. And making the relevant extension that at least some segment of the public will buy into that frame. 'People', an invocation of an indefinitely sized group, does not equate to 'the People', an invocation of some kind of unified perception. The extension of my comments into the realm of totality was YOUR inference. I admit my language could have been clearer, but your reaction is simply uncalled for.

Ahtman wrote:
The hell I did little man. I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who's only idea of an argument is to make things up. At this point I'm arguing with a fool and you can only bring me down to your level and beat me with experience.

What message does this convey when you read it?

Ahtman wrote:It's not like he just popped out of hiding yesterday, he's been a public man for decades and held political office for decades and has there ever been a PTSD incident that made him betray his state or country in any way? No.

Because to me that says you're looking for scandal where I'm looking for trends. 'Outburts' as opposed to behavioral tendencies. Outbursts similar to the one you have just displayed.

Edit: spelling

Frazzled wrote: but it did check Khruschev who thought Kennedy weak after meeting with him earlier (with no preconditions...)

Khruschev possessed a credible military apparatus, Iran does not.

All they need is one nuke and one missile. At that point they call the shots. They have the missile and are almost done with the nuke. 5 years of the Europeans talking with no preconditions has produced this.


Iran WILL get the Bomb at this rate. The real question is do we stop them, and if we don't stop them, how do we deal with them.

We deal with them like rational actors. Just like we did, and are doing, with India and Pakistan.

Pakistan is not fomenting control and violent revolution in three countries.

Pakistan did not say its neighbor should be a stinking corpse.

We have contingencies for Pakistan to capture those nukes or obliterate them if the government falls. It is a great concern in intelligence and military circles.

So go to the hypotheticals thread Dogma, and answer the question I proposed to Obama.

Mannahnin wrote:

McCain was called out by fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line." McCain exploded: "F*** you! I know more about this than anyone in the room."

Do you have some data to suggest that this context is not accurate or is misleading in some way?

Absolutely. There are several types of lies.

Faking information is the most overt.

But selectively choosing which data to report leads to the same results.

I don't doubt that the event occured; nor do I believe the author is telling the full story. He knows he can be corroborated on these facts. So he includes the most daming facts. And perhaps omits others. A much more insidious method of being dishonest (and one the media is quite adept at): omission of facts or only reporting stories that support a specific POV.

If I wrote about all of our losses in WWII, and none of the successes, how would you perceive that war, having only my information? I would be factually correct. But the impression I would be enforcing would not be. By omitting other facts, I would be coloring the truth.

This article is replete with such instances of "journalism". A hatchet job of equal measure could be performed on Obama wrt to Ayers, his Church, Mayor Daley, and his many and varied youthful indiscretions. I could connect the dots for you, as did this author, to paint a very unflattering picture of the man. It would be factually correct, but textually wrong.

That's dirty play. And we both know it.

Omission of all the facts is typically more dangerous than altering facts. One can be easily checked, and the other cannot. It's why journalists do the latter.

Frazzled wrote:Pakistan is not fomenting control and violent revolution in three countries.

Pakistan did not say its neighbor should be a stinking corpse.

Maybe not three, but certainly two. India and Afghanistan. And Pakistan did indeed threaten the well-being of another nation. Do some reading on the India-Pakistan conflict and you'll see how close they came to open, potentially nuclear, war. In any case, Ahmadinejad's comments have no bearing beyond rhetorical weight. He has no control over the military. The person who does, Supreme Leader Khamenei, has openly said that Iran has no interest in threatening another state, and has declared a Fatwa against nuclear weapons. Bush's condemnation of Iran as part of the 'Axis of Evil' was far more threatening than anything anyone of political significance in Iran has ever said by simple virtue of the power of his position.

Frazzled wrote:
We have contingencies for Pakistan to capture those nukes or obliterate them if the government falls. It is a great concern in intelligence and military circles.

So go to the hypotheticals thread Dogma, and answer the question I proposed to Obama.

Indeed we do, we should have the same policy on Iran.

And the Supreme Leader is not lying at all...

Why are they bulding nukes? Why are they destabilizing Gaza/Lebanon killing Israelis daily, destabilizing iraq and killing coalition troops. I'll assume they're rational so what? Stalin and Hitler were rational and they both killed a godawful lot of people.

But again, thats a different thread. Go to the other thread and answer what you would do. That would be an interesting discussion. Its unnerving when you really think about it.

Frazzled wrote:And the Supreme Leader is not lying at all...

Of course he is, because it's only leaders of middle eastern nations who make outlandish and totally false claims about weapons of massive destructive capability in foreign countries and make claims about the intentions of the leaders of those countries.

Western leaders would never do anything so crass and endangering.

Why are they bulding nukes?

Other than "people" going around singing BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN ?

I don't want Iran to get the nuke capability, but continued threats of aggression to them surely plays into their hands and helps the leaders and more fanatical elements justify their claims.

If only there was someone willing to go and talk to them.

Th Europeans have been talking to them for five years.

And we've fought how many wars against them ?

Or like Libya you mean ?

Fought how many wars against who Redy?
Me personally, I'd just shut up about it, try to open a free trade zone with them and politely inform them privately of our new MADD policy with them if Iran gets a nuke. Once they know what we will do if they go off the deep end then we can treat them like every other country, while we madly rush to free ourselves from foreign oil.

On the positive this thread has wandered considerably from PTSD...

I'm with you 100% on the alternative energy stance. I acknowledge the massive vested interests in the USA ( and elsewhere obviously) towards keeping a dependency on oil but it astonishes me that given-- speaking from a euro trash perspective here -- the largely inventive and astonishingly effective capitalists you breed over there some bright spark isn't already changing the world for the better.

..You know... like you used to. With ease. When you were the good guys.

*sighs*


Without slighting the no doubt brave and noble USA armed forces I cannot for the life of me work out why you don't spend more time and energy "attacking" the enemy with what you're country is really really REALLY good at : ruthless capitalism.

No flamage-- honest ! -- but you're generally more successful economically than militarily.*

.. Al Queda and co. must be kicking themselves, all this pointless fighting and explosions when all they really needed to be doing was buying houses and defaulting on mortgage payments to send the entirety of western civilisation reeling.


* NOTE : Again this isn't a slur on the fighting prowess of your military. Any war you go into could be over in minutes and I freely acknowledge that the way you ( and us !) try to avoid civilian casualties etc in Iraq and elsewhere prolomgs any conflict whilst exposing our own troops to greater danger. Iraq is in a bad way yes, but look at pics of Dresden etc to see what could have happened.

You're right Red. Indeed there are some hawks like myself who have been espousing the use of the legions of paratrooping lawyers to leap in and take over the world, but to my surprise the use of Lawyers of Mass Litigation has been held a crime against humanity by the Geneva Convention. Curses, foiled again...

But agreed, energy independence would put a lot of problems in perspective.

The problem with the military is the disconnect between perception and capability. The US armed forces are absolutely the best in the world...at dismantling other conventional armed forces. All the MBTs, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and stealth fighters in the world don't mean anything when your enemy is a 17 year old kid with an AK-47. Thankfully that 17 year old kid has no hope toppling the US government...unless of course we help him do so.

The greatest enemy of the United States is its own paranoia...or maybe Lou Dobbs. I'm not quite sure.

You';re showing your age Dogma. If you were a little older you'd know the true threat to humanity, indeed sanity, is Barney the Dinosaur. Next to Barney Lou Dobbs is a lightweight...


I love you. You love me...ahhh!

By the reversed logic, Dubya should have made a superb president, since he went to such lengths to avoid Vietnam altogether.

dogma wrote:While I admit I recently posted a link which cast Hannity in a negative light I cannot help but feel you are assuming that I default to a position supportive of Democrats. In my mind DailyKos, Michael Moore, and Rolling Stone are just as reprehensible as any of the conservatives you mentioned. That still does not render them incapable of producing valid insights.

I've read Rolling Stone, I'm pretty certain it's incapable of producing valid insights. Even in the stopped clock is right twice a day, 1,000 monkeys on a 1,000 typewriters way, Rolling Stone is incapable of ever saying anything that's even accidentally inciteful.

Meanwhile, I'm just not sure its worth forming hypotheticals about McCain's possible mental health. He's been in public life for long enough that something was bound to have become obvious by now, if there was a serious problem. But during that time in public life he's demonstrated more than enough political and policy failings to make him a dubious presidential pick, and has presided over a campaign that's proven just how bankrupt the Republican party has become. The PTSD thing is pretty flimsy, and really not needed.