Obama's campaign attacks McCain's military service.

Great Debates
161

I’m not convinced that it’s ambition that has degraded his political character. I mostly fault the current incarnation of the Religious Right Wing Republican Party, who has taken such a stranglehold on the party and the process, that no one who didn’t purport to uphold their policies has a chance in hell of being elected.

I think John McCain (has come to) love this country so much that he truly wants to be at the helm so that he can make it the place he thinks would be better, same as Barack Obama. Sure, some ambition is requisite, but I don’t think ambition alone is poisonous.

But he simply can’t run as the same John McCain of 2000. That guy didn’t win the nomination then, and he won’t win the Presidency now. Unfortunately, I think down deep that’s who he really is, but having to mold himself to this other guy is so difficult that it causes him to constantly contradict himself.

Now, no matter how you look at it, I think that’s still a bad thing for this country. But I don’t ascribe nefarious motives to him based on ambition.

162

As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out in his introduction to Mother Night:

“Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.”

163

Actually, I did, three times. It keeps getting ignored. As in -

I appear to be saying exactly what I did say, which you quoted as part of your own post.

Each and every word of which is exactly, literally, completely true.

Now, if you would like to dispute that any or all of these claims are true, feel free. All of them are, and have been adequately documented. If you would care to continue to claim that I am accusing Kerry of adultery, again, feel free. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Regards,
Shodan

164

Where are you finding the info on what seats were installed?

The A-4 was made by the Douglas Aircraft Corp, who also made ejection seats. I would guess that Douglas would have installed one of their own, as opposed to the one from the Weber Corp, on your link.

165

Oddly enough, you have just as much access as anyone to the post Dio was responding to, in which I used the word “decorations,” not “medals”. He doesn’t seem to have forgotten anything at all.

You, on the other hand, appear to have overlooked the possibility that my choice of one word over the other was deliberate; and you seem to have rashly equated them, just so you could tweak the nose of a leftist.

Actually, the only thing that’s odd is that you were so clumsy about it that a lightweight such as me was able to see through it and call you out.

166

For all those who think that McCain’s military service will make him a better president shouldn’t they explain how that works?

Looking at the List of United States Presidents by Military Service I see nothing that indicates having done military service (or not) has had any bearing on whether the President was a good one. There are good and bad ones to be had from both those with and without a military background.

In short I am not seeing military service as any kind of indicator of how good a POTUS someone will make.

167

I see now! Friend Shodan was merely posting a factual timeline, and not making any inferences at all! Simply a mundane recitation of fact, having no implication, or even relevence. He might have posted a recipe for coconut macaroons as easily. And more usefully.

168

In fact I do. This is an in-depth article describing the writing of Obama’s keynote address at that convention. It describes the process well:

So there you go. I’m sure you’ll find this information helpful - though, frankly, it was obvious at the outset.

169

Thats kind of a long article, and I am not interested in reading every word in search of the elusive gotchaya. I will trust that you have, and can simply refer me directly to the part that proves your contention about Max Cleland’s speech. Not Obama’s, not Kerry’s…Cleland.

Thanking you in advance, I remain, your obedient servant etc.

e.

170

Back to Clark’s statement, the Team McCain reaction to it, and the Obama response …

Clark’s statement on its merits was not inaccurate: McCain’s noble service does not qualify him nor disqualify him as an executive. It was nevertheless a silly thing to bring up from a political POV, but Clark has never been the wisest at working the media.

Team McCain tried to get Obama to make the mistake of saying that he could not be responsible for what his supporters say, which would then give Team McCain at least one Get Out Of Jail Free card for any negative campaigning done by McCain-centric 527s.

Team Obama didn’t go for the head fake. They neither defended the statement (which is of course very defensible) nor claimed that Obama was not obligated to reject statements of supporters. He answered it in a quiet but clear manner, calmly rejected it, and can regain his own storyline.

McCain is now boxed in a bit. Obama will have a fair amount of control of his message. Oh sure there will be those like Clark will just go off on their own (Clark may have been trying to audition for the VP spot and didn’t do too well if so) but Obama’s representatives will likely stay on approved message and Obama won’t have to worry too much about 527’s distracting from how he wants his campaign packaged. McCain will be dealing with, nay relying on, 527s to sell his message for him. And now he is on record as believing that the candidate needs to be out in front rejecting and denouncing even things as benign as a statement that being a POW is not proof of executive ability. It will leave him looking a bit disingenuous when his surrogates attack Swiftboat style and he tries to claim that he cannot be held responsible for they say or do. He is now going to be forced to spend much time rejecting the support of those who advertise on his behalf or come across as whiney hypocrite.

I give this round a slight advantage Obama for the potential long term tactical gain even though McCain will pick up some in the short term from it.

171

I thought I had distilled this well for you by quoting. I shall spare you time by quoting further:

Now, every speech would necessarily include Cleland’s, especially from the descriptions of how many speeches they vetted, and how minor some of them were. Cleland’s was a major one.

172

Actually, it’s not even that simple, as his most recent allegation of truthiness, quotes himself from a later post than the original one that was being debunked. It’s still not true, but it’s also not an accurate representation of what he originally alleged, either.

Obviously he has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread, so it will have to be I who submits the desired recipe:

Shayna, Queen of the Jungle’s, Nummy Macaroon Recipe

Ingredients
1 14oz bag sweetened flaked coconut
1 14oz can sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1-1/2 tablespoons pure almond extract, vanilla extract, Amaretto or Grand Marnier
2 large egg whites
Pinch of salt

Directions
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper or aluminum foil.

Mix together the coconut, condensed milk, and almond extract, keeping the coconut as fluffy as possible.
Whisk the egg whites and salt until soft peaks form. Fold the egg whites into coconut mixture.

Using a soup spoon, scoop the macaroon batter into mounds or balls about the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Place about 1 inch apart on the lined cookie sheet. The macaroon batter should be handled very gently. Do not squeeze the batter. If your fingers become sticky from sliding the batter off the spoon, dip them in cold water.

Bake the macaroons until golden brown, 18 to 20 minutes. Allow the macaroons to cool a bit before removing them, but don’t let them sit too long or they will glue themselves to the parchment.

Enjoy!

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Jew, who makes these to-die-for macaroons every year for Passover.

173

So, this fellow David Bernstien, he knows this stuff? He has the facts at his very fingertips? And I am obliged to take his word for it…why?

174

Okay, I’ll dispute the claim that he dumped his first wife because he wanted to marry Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz. If you want to respond that you never made or implied such a claim, I will ask you to do it in the context of disputing this.

Was that invitation directed to me or to Lobohan? In any event, neither of us claimed that you accused Kerry of adultery. You did accuse him of ending his marriage for the purpose of hooking up with a married woman whom he had never met.

175

You have your cite - it’s from Chicago magazine, which is run by the Tribune. If this isn’t a good enough cite for you, I encourage you to find other information that we can discuss.

You’re a smart and resourceful guy - I’m sure you can do so.

176

Sounds nummy, all right. I’d make a batch right now, except that my family won’t eat coconut. :frowning:

I wonder if they served macaroons at The Last Supper?

177

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

I don’t exactly know what you mean by this.

Here is the statement I have made more than once -

Kerry dumped his first wife, which is what I said, she was having health problems, then he married someone else.

Hooking up with a married woman is adultery. I have mentioned often enough that it ought to stick that I am not accusing Kerry of having done this. So it is directed at anybody who thinks I am.

I can’t tell if you honestly don’t understand what is printed, or if you are choosing not to.

For convenience, here are the four claims.[ol][li]Kerry was a military man[] he dumped his first wife. []she was having health problems. []Kerry then married a rich heiress[/ol]Here is a different claim -[list=a][]Kerry commited adultery[/list]Claims 1-4 are true. I have not made claim A.[/li][quote]

Regards,
Shodan

178

No. The carrying capacity of a Canaanite swallow is less then 3 ounces…

179

No kidding? Well you’re the one who said he dumped his first wife for a rich heiress.

180

What you said was:

It’s just silly, admit you used sleazy untrue implications to make a stupid partisan point and move on.