^ I don't think it's that scary. I can imagine any college student or someone in grad school would likely consult wikipedia if they had to do a paper, and as long as the info was good, their professor would not know/care.

And really, where does knowledge come from anyway? If they don't get it from wiki, they might get it from an encyclopedia or a news reel and I wouldn't say they are necessarily more reliable than wiki. But if they just lifted the info without validating it, that would be extremely disturbing. I would also think a senator would have access to intelligence reports that go deeper than anything wiki can fathom.

8/11/2008 4:40:52 PM

Quote :

"And really, where does knowledge come from anyway?"

^ Um. . .experience?

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2008 4:42:30 PM

Quote :

"^ Um. . .experience?"

Um. . .you're wrong?

8/11/2008 4:44:02 PM

real knowledge comes from MotherJones.com and Daily Kos, obviously

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : whoops how did I forget the Huffington Post]

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : also i'm a virgin and i've never smoked weed, but i know all about sex and weed from reading]

8/11/2008 4:48:29 PM

hooksaw, dont be such a daffy bitch.

knowledge doesn't come from experience. wisdom, maybe. but not knowledge.

I swear, you have so many basic misconceptions about general life, it's a wonder how you ever got into grad school.

8/11/2008 4:52:16 PM

Quote :

""And really, where does knowledge come from anyway?" ^ Um. . .experience? "

It was a rhetorical question, but i'll bite...

So once someone has that knowledge from experience, how do they put it in a form other people will use?

8/11/2008 4:58:10 PM

theres a difference in someone telling you something and you believing it, whether correct or not, and you actually experiencing something and realizing it for yourself

8/11/2008 5:08:36 PM

It'd be no different than consulting an encyclopedia off the shelf, except more updated. Not to give McCain a free pass or anything but who cares?

I'm more worried about his hawkish chatter toward Russia. There's no need to rattle sabers given the shit we pulled in Iraq honestly. NATO's stance doesn't condone this and are we to go counter to the international community AGAIN?

Great McCain! Your neocon colors are showing...

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : -]

8/11/2008 5:11:03 PM

^^ The vast majority of "knowledge" is not experienced though. If knowledge only comes from experience, then why do we have congress? How many congresspeople have any experience with abortion, war, poverty, economic hardship, racism, etc.? If experience was the standard of knowledge, then we might as well shut down 96% of the Internet as being useless.

My point is that someone looking to wikipedia might not necessarily be different than someone asking a professor, if the person who put the info on wikiepedia got their information from the same book the professor got his "knowledge" from. And the person that wrote the book may have either experienced it themselves, or got it from someone else.

Essentially, it's not practical for everyone to have to experience everything first hand to make judgments about it, which is why we rely on heuristic methods such as wikipedia, books, and teachers to gain "knowledge." Thus, while you shouldn't solely rely on wikipedia, it's not necessarily a useless place to find information.


[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 5:15:41 PM

i dont think wikipedia is useless, although the fact that pretty much anyone can change an entry is something to always be aware of

Quote :

"we might as well shut down 96% of the Internet as being useless."

i know you said this in jest, but I think its actually close to correct

8/11/2008 5:20:18 PM

^

Quote :

"i dont think wikipedia is useless, although the fact that pretty much anyone can change an entry is something to always be aware of"

This is true, which is also why I noted that one should validate the information (which is something i'd bet McCain's staff could do easily by making some phone calls). Also Wiki makes it VERY easy to see what edits were done when, it only takes a little savvy on his staffers part to do so.

8/11/2008 5:25:20 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .you're wrong?"

terpball

1. No, I'm not.

2. Prove that I'm wrong.

Quote :

"hooksaw, dont be such a daffy bitch. knowledge doesn't come from experience. wisdom, maybe. but not knowledge. I swear, you have so many basic misconceptions about general life, it's a wonder how you ever got into grad school."

joe_schmoe

1. Nothing "daffy" or "bitch"-like about it, schmoe.

2. knowledge

Quote :

"acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

As any rational person knows, "knowledge" can come from many sources--experience being one very important source. Would you trust a guy to build your house that has only read books and taken courses about building homes or the guy who has actually built homes? Ideally, though, the builder would have both academic and real-world experience--and references who could detail their experience with the builder.

I swear, you have so many basic misconceptions about life in general, it's a wonder how you survive life's quotidian challenges.

Quote :

"So once someone has that knowledge from experience, how do they put it in a form other people will use?"

moron

In the context of geopolitics, the "form" would most likely be advice (advisors) from diplomatic officials that have experiential knowledge of economics (possible sanctions); the projection of national power (national identity, regional hegemony, and so on); politics (triangulation, PR, and so on); foreign policy (international coalition-building, backroom deals, and so on). At times like this, a president has no more valuable advisors than those who have real knowledge based on years of experience in the aforementioned areas of statecraft.

This is no time for amateur hour.

8/11/2008 5:56:07 PM

damn that's a tally right there hooksaw. Why couldn't you put me in that list? I feel left out

8/11/2008 5:56:58 PM

^
Kainen is a foaming moonbat. There, you happy now?

JK.

8/11/2008 6:01:39 PM

Quote :

"At times like this, a president has no more valuable advisors than those who have real knowledge based on years of experience in the aforementioned areas of statecraft."

So how do you know this? Do you have experience as a president?

8/11/2008 6:04:42 PM

Much better. And you're a flaming nutbag so I think that makes a great dinner date.

8/11/2008 6:05:41 PM

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic today summed it up very nicely for me as to why I am chiefly supporting Obama. And this is the most cardinal reason for me...

Quote :

"What the Obama campaign has lost sight of, I think, and what it needs to regain control of, is the essential message of his candidacy. After the last eight years, we simply cannot risk a continuation of the same reckless, belligerent, argument-losing, ideological and deceptive foreign policy of the current crew. The damage that neoconservatism has done to America, to the Middle East, to democratic norms, to Israel's security, to civilized values and fiscal sanity is immense and deep. From his knee-jerk COld War posture over Georgia to his Rovian campaign tactics, McCain is simply too close to this disastrous record to contemplate. McCain's trigger-happy temperament, shallow understanding of the complexities and passion for military force as the answer to everything is the bigger risk. He is a recipe for more, wider and far more destructive warfare:"

8/11/2008 8:10:22 PM

^ the strange thing though is that prior to his presidential campaign gearing up, he never came off that hawkish.

I'm wondering if that's a show he's putting on to play tough guy, or if he actually has changed his position on those things, or if he started to believe the campaign rhetoric that he had been spewing just to get votes.

8/11/2008 8:13:21 PM

Kainen,

I saw that Sullivan post too. I liked the mellodramatic video he attached with it. "insanity insanity insanity.....there's going to be more wars, more wars, more wars." hahaha good grief. Someone should tell him that using easily out-of-context quotes like that only undermine his case (except among those who already agree with him).

But seriously, I have also expressed concerns about McCain's foreign policy stance--particularly his apparent desire to continue Bush's first term policy of not talking with N. Korea, which clearly reversed any progress that was made. But, at the same time, I agree with moron that this is probably just posturing for the Republican base during an election. Reagan also talked tough in election years, but in his second term he actually had more success negotiating with the Soviet Union than many of his predecessors.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

Obama has also engaged in similar election-year posturing for his progressive-dove base, like when he talks about meeting with America's enemies like Kennedy did with Khrushchev at Vienna in 1961 (i won't even get into his initial blunder on saying he would meet without preconditions). It sounds like a good idea to Dems that think there are no limits to American soft-power. But a glance at the history of Obama's example would reveal that a poor performance in Vienna left Kennedy looking weak and played a role in setting up the Cuban Missle Crisis (the closest we have ever come to nuclear war).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The bottom line is that a naive President that is too eager to talk with our enemies can be just as dangerous as a President that is too unwilling to talk. McCain may have left you and other progressives with a "bomb-dropping" impression (though mostly from out of context quotes on YouTube), but Obama has likewise left me with the impression that he does not take the threat of Nuclear Iran seriously enough to even consider using force to stop it (there are options bellow full invasion). I just can't trust someone that doesn't realize the threat that poses. In reality, I think, we would be much better off if neither men use the foreign policy they are campaigning on.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ``]

8/12/2008 9:58:01 AM

Your points are fair socks but I still think we carry far more a risk of a war torn 4 years with McCain that Obama. I haven't seen one reason to think otherwise...either by his quotes, his demanor, his rattling, stances...it frightens me. Hell, even Pat Buchanan of all people said that McCain will "make Cheney look like Ghandi'.

Granted, that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about Obama's foreign policy...shit, I'm nervous about anyone's right about now given the state of things....but I'm making an informed decision based on what's out there.

8/12/2008 10:11:38 AM

^ Ditto. Based on my reading of McCain's record, he is much less hawkish than Obama supporters like to make him sound. Indeed, in terms of issues since 2001, he has not been much more hawkish than most Democrats

That includes Obama himself, who at times has said he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War (though he said the case wasn't made from his perspective as a citizen), that we should stay in Iraq, that we should not establish arbitrary time-tables for withdrawal etc etc.

Speaking of which, the latest "crazy" thing McCain has said among progressives is that we should push to allow Georgia into NATO. Pundits have been jabbering all week about how this would have gotten us into yet another regional conflict (never mind the deterrent effect of Georgia being a member of NATO) and it was just crazy crazy crazy. Here's Fred Kaplan making that argument:
http://slate.com/id/2197281

But guess what? On April 28th, Obama and McCain co-sponsored a resolution to support Georgia's NATO membership.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-523#votes

And guess what? Obama still apparently supports the measure!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_statement_on_georgia.html

Of course, no one wants to call him crazy crazy crazy, because it doesn't fit the narrative: McCain-warmonger, Obama-peacenik.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ``]

8/12/2008 10:29:22 AM

McCain: War Hero. Joined the military to fight for his country. His entire campaign relys on his experience over Obama.

Obama: Wouldn't join the military under any circumstances. His entire campaign is, John McCain is another GWB (this will get me the moderate vote), and any policy is better than GWB policy (this will get me the far left vote), I'm black (this will get me the black vote).

So far, Obama's campaign has been winning, hence hes ahead.

I predict....and you can all quote me on this.....that when these two finally meet in a debate (Obama has been avoiding any and all debates thus far), McCain will absolutely dismantle Obama on most policy issues and the war. Obama will continue to win "style" points, but the holes in his policy will be crystal clear.

College students will continue to support Obama because they have been fed that CHASS garbage and dont have any real world experience.....

Blacks will continue to support Obama...well because of obvious reasons.

Moderates will move away from Obama after the debates.

Chalk up a W for McCain.

8/12/2008 10:41:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCiQASnw6o

8/12/2008 10:45:29 AM

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous...i know they aim to be snarky but it just comes off as a bunch of sour last placers throwing rocks.

http://www.johnmccain.com/involving/petition2.aspx?guid=4160d817-603f-4803-8ef7-d83dee46c731

8/12/2008 10:50:39 AM

Quote :

"Obama: Wouldn't join the military under any circumstances."

I hope you have something to back this up.

8/12/2008 10:56:40 AM

he wouldnt vote for the iraq war under any circumstances

but he has voted numerous times to continue funding it

so whether or not he'd join the military is a toss up, like his stance on most other issues

8/12/2008 10:58:31 AM

^^ I started to quote something he said, then realized it was bigun and thought otherwise.

8/12/2008 11:16:47 AM

kainen, I think it was funny. I wish they would run some more issue ads, but this shows how stupid some obama fans are, but good for a laugh.

8/12/2008 11:31:59 AM

i think they're shit and have show no signs of maturity....reinforcing my wish that he never hit office.

8/12/2008 11:34:20 AM

^ I think its funny that the liberals on here can't even come up with a good argument for anything other than Obama is change. They ignore the fact that Obama has no real stance or solutions for just about anything and just like him because they a)hate traditional america, b) hate GWB c) hate their own lives.

I just don't really understand how you can be so confused on issues. Obama is trying to turn the USA into Europe. The core values between the US and Europe are very different and once the debates start everyone will see the voids in Obama.

8/12/2008 11:34:34 AM

rofl

8/12/2008 11:35:58 AM

Quote :

"kainen, I think it was funny. I wish they would run some more issue ads, but this shows how stupid some obama fans are, but good for a laugh."

How good of a strategy is it to offend the people you're trying to get to vote for you?

Quote :

"I think its funny that the liberals on here can't even come up with a good argument for anything other than Obama is change. "

I hate to break this to you, but repeating something over and over is not what makes it true.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 11:45:53 AM

lol wtf does a) and c) even mean

8/12/2008 11:46:54 AM

^ He has succumbed to Mark Penn's strategy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12420.html

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 11:47:41 AM

Quote :

"How good of a strategy is it to offend the people you're trying to get to vote for you? "

LOL, like he ever had a chance. Against BONO?

8/12/2008 12:13:37 PM

Quote :

"^ I think its funny that the liberals on here can't even come up with a good argument for anything other than Obama is change. "

no offense dude but your post is idiotic. it's like you haven't paid attention to a damn thing anyone of his supporters have said as the reasons they support him. It's pretty dismissive and shitty. I can disagree with posters like socks or hooksaw and some otheres, but at least they have some decorum and fair play...as much as it pains me to admit it.

8/12/2008 12:27:10 PM

^^ So you're saying McCain is just a sore loser?

8/12/2008 12:27:55 PM

^^

8/12/2008 1:54:54 PM

sore loser? How so?

8/12/2008 2:18:16 PM

Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan on Greg Dejerjian quoting George Kennan (the father of containment in the Cold War) with regards to McCain's stance to expand NATO membership to Georgia

Quote :

""(E)xpanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking," - George Kennan, as cited by Greg Dejerejian. When you read Greg's post, you begin to understand how great a gamble a McCain administration would be. Think: Bush with less caution."

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/mccain_clueless.html

Again, no mention that Obama also supports expanding NATO membership to Georgia. And who was it that said his critics were "willfully ignorant"?

8/12/2008 4:43:15 PM

He's a liberal blogger. Maybe he's just being willfully political, rather than ignorant as you imply?

8/12/2008 4:48:56 PM

Quote :

"Maybe he's just being willfully political, rather than ignorant"

whats the difference

8/12/2008 4:50:37 PM

^^^ Also, it's a bit difficult to tell from the timing of Obama's statements and the timing of the blog post if Djerejian is really being ignorant. It's entirely possible he made his post before Obama made his statements.

Aside from that, I'll give a counterpoint to what you are trying to get at by linking a statement describing at least some slight differences in tone from McCain and Obama on this topic

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_also_cites_NATO_membership_for_Georgia.html

As usual, you have your McCain blinders on and cry about the Obama-ites doing the same thing.

8/12/2008 5:25:15 PM

^ Andrew Sullivan just posted the comment I quoted and linked to today, so he should know better.

And think you should re-read the politico post. The post explicitly says that the differences in substance between Obama and McCain on this issue are substance are small, and that the real differences are in tone. And if you read the links I have been posting, you will see that folks like Sullivan and Kaplan are saying that supporting Georgia's NATO membership is the fool hardy policy (a policy Obama also supports, as has since at least April). They are not saying "it would be a better idea if McCain sounded more friendly about it."

So I am only responding to the arguments they are making.
Plz check these links and see for yourself.

Quote :

"The substantive difference are now quite small -- McCain wants an element of NATO to take up the situation; Obama looks first to the U.N. -- but as Jake Tapper notes, the statements are different in tone, with Obama closing with a note of conciliation and McCain taking a harder line."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_also_cites_NATO_membership_for_Georgia.html

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2008 12:07:06 AM

Haha. The Democrats may swift-boat McCain yet.

Quote :

"Senator Barack Obama will start looking the other way when it comes to the role 527s and other independent groups play in the election, a source close to his campaign told the Huffington Post."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/source-obama-to-start-loo_n_118240.html

It's the huffingtonpost of course, so you can take it with a grain of salt. But only time will tell.

8/13/2008 12:36:23 AM

Quote :

"Andrew Sullivan just posted the comment I quoted and linked to today, so he should know better. "

Really?

Quote :

"(a policy Obama also supports, as has since at least April)"

I can't find any comments from Obama about this since the current conflict is overwhelming google. Do you have a link?

Quote :

"The post explicitly says that the differences in substance between Obama and McCain on this issue are substance are small, and that the real differences are in tone."

Thats exactly the point. I didn't study it, but the "tone" I got from Obama was we engage the Russians as well, and McCains tone seems to be "put the Russians in there place". Small difference in tone, huge ramifications.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM. Reason : a]

8/13/2008 10:38:33 AM

Obama's Tax Plan Actually Raises Marginal Tax Rates on Working-Poor

Here's a nice article, via Greg Mankiw's blog, about how Obama's tax plan actually discourages poor-working Americans to earn more income by raising marginal tax rates. Emphasis on "marginal".

While it's true that Obama actually cuts the income tax bill of individuals at lower income levels by exapnding various tax credits, those credits are also phased out very quickly as individuals earn more income. So while a person may be paying fewer taxes on their current income level, they are discouraged from earning more money. IOW: Obama's tax plan actually encourages poor-working Americans to STAY poor-working Americans.

Quote :

"Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it—we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income. Second, Obama would make some credits refundable for families with credits bigger than their tax liability, which would also have the nefarious effect of raising marginal tax rates. For example, consider a worker in the 10 percent bracket with $1,000 of tax liability before credits who claims $1,200 in credits. The tax impact of earning an extra $100 depends on whether the credit is refundable. If it’s not refundable, there’s no tax penalty on earning the extra $100 because the worker’s tax liability stays at zero. But if the credit is refundable, earning the extra money pushes the tax up from negative $200 to negative $190—that’s a 10 percent penalty on earning income. "

The graph illustrates a specific example of a 4 person family, one child dependent and one child in college. As one can see, Obama’s tax policy results in marginal tax rates of 34 percent to 39 percent in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range for this family. That’s an increase of 13 percentage points or more from the current rates.

Again, these are not total tax rates. They are marginal tax rates, which is more important when considering the question of how easy it is for people at lower income levels to improve their situation.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2008 10:38:44 AM

I'm not voting for McCain because I'm scared of him. It seems like McCain playing this patriotism angle a little to hard for my taste. I respect his service to the country, but that seems like its all he talks about. Whatever you want to say about his record or what he's said in interviews and speeches, at the end of the day I still see him as an old, hot headed, war monger. It doesn't seem like public opinion carries too much weight with him either.

At least if he gets elected we can hope for a team america 2.

Oh yeah, and I'm not a big Obama fan either.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM. Reason : dur again]

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2008 10:44:05 AM

TroleTracks,

1) Like I said. Kaplan and Sullivan said that expanding NATO membership to Georgia was dangerous and that McCain and Bush were also dangerous for suggesting it. They didn't say "I wish he smiled more when he said it". I am just responding to the arguments made by the liberal pundocracy.

2) That Politico post is referencing Obama's overall tone at the conclusion of his statement, which was addressing the invasion as a whole (and the hopes for conciliation between the two nations) and not specifically the issue of expanding NATO membership to Georgia. Therefore, it really has nothing at all to do with the arguments made by Kaplan and Sullivan, even if you were to you actually believe that we can achieve utopia through utopian-sounding rhetoric. Again, the argument is that expanding NATO membership is dangerous, not that mean words are dangerous. *ssiiiiggghh*

3) I already posted this link once. Here is Obama co-sponsoring a resolution in April to expand NATO membership to Georgia.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-523#votes

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2008 10:53:04 AM

Gotcha, I didn't read far enough back. Don't know what else to say other than a political blogger was being political, maybe/maybe not being ignorant.

8/13/2008 11:01:43 AM