nimh wrote:Diest TKO wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Yeah, like repeatedly asking McCain how many years he proposes to stay in Iraq: or Obama why he stayed so long in Wright's church.
Do you seriously think that these questions are on par with each other?
"What is your exit strategy?"
"Why do you hate America?"
Right on. I dont even catch on to that stuff anymore half the time, but you're right to call this out.
Please re-look at the original context. My point was that some "questions" repeatedly asked of candidates by partisan (or merely attention-seeking) media types are not real questions at all, in the sense that new information or an answer is sought. They are instead attempts to replay a particular point or spin in the public mind. I provided two excellent examples of that phenomenon, one against Mccain - that was already the subject of the discussion, and another against Obama to illustrate the same point.
The original questions were;
McCain -- When, under your direction, will U.S. forces leave Iraq?
Obama - Why did you remain so long in Rev Wright's church?
Diest chose to arbitrarily rephrase both questions in a way that fundamentally changed the nature of the McCain question and sharpened the Obama one. Your hyperventilation about the supposed difference in the outrage involved in the two (now highly distorted) "questions" has nothing whatever to do with the discussion.
Diest's arbitrary rephrasing of both questions, McCain's in particular, was a bald distortion of the facts. The discussion with Cyclo was clearly about the "How long will we stay in Iraq" question - one posed in such a way as to demand only a date certain. As I noted in the referenced dialogue McCain had clearly outlined an 'Exit Strategy' based on a progressive withdrawl of U.S. forces and parallel disengagement from the daily action, ultimately to remote garrisons - all based on the progress of events. The objection to it was exclusively over the "date certain" bit - and NOT the exit strategy.
In their original form, both "questions" were merely attempts to replay a particular spin - and that was the whole point.
Moreover, the distinction you are trying to draw doesn't withstand a moment's thought. I suppose I could arbitrarily rephrase the McCain question - just as Diest arbitrarily did both -to read, "How long do you propose to continue the slaughter of Iraqis and American Soldiers in that unhappy country?"
Diest's proclivity for such childish tactics - selecting one often trivial element from a larger context, distorting it to aid his purpose in finding (usually irrelevant) "fault", and then highly exaggerating its importance - makes a dialogue with him, at best, a waste of time. I'm surprised that Nimh fell for this stuff.
