This one combines a couple of articles. The first one is :Democrats challenge 87B (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/27/budget/index.html)

Some points.

1. Both parties agree with the 66b for the pentagon. I can understand this. I do wonder if it's going to manpower or machinery. I'd like to know the answer. If it's manpower and support great if it's a bone to military contractors then come on. Still, we have agreement there and it's the majority of the money. The rest of the story is what is interesting.

2. $164 mil to train iraq army. Heh, considering their performance in the last couple of wars this is likely not enough money. :) Seriously, I don't know how anybody else feels but this doesn't bug me so much.

3. $900 million to import petroleum products. There's a whole lot of irony there I'd say. I wonder what's up with that??

4. An additional $4 million is to start telephone area codes and a 911-type emergency number. There is $19 million to begin setting up wireless Internet service.

I agree with the first part but wtf, $19m for setting up wireless internet service in Iraq. This pisses me off as I don't have wireless here. Please tell me why WE need to supply them with this???


5. Bush wants $100 million for 2,000 sanitation trucks -- at $50,000 apiece. He wants $400 million for two new prisons housing 8,000 additional prisoners, at $50,000 per bed.

I don't really know the cost of sanitation trucks and assume that's the going rate. I'm ok with this one but 50k per bed prisons?? Again, wtf. Why are we going to blow 400 million to house 8000 prisoners?? This one is pure and simple waste. I don't get it.

OK, now, the crux of my point here. We ( USA citizens )are going to take it in the shorts for this spending. Again, why?

Partly because Reluctant to share (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10285-2003Sep27.html)

Ok, we turn down foreign aid because "That helps explain why the White House is asking Congress for more than $87 billion as the next installment for the anti-terrorism war, the vast majority destined for Iraq, including $20 billion for reconstruction. Bush and his lieutenants working the U.N.'s diplomatic corridors said Congress would be less likely to deliver the money if the United States were not in control of Iraq, sources reported. "

This sounds like the administration would rather get the money from US citizens doesn't it. What would it hurt to pursue foreign aid then taylor the package we have to foot to the remainder no matter how large that may be. The administration just said screw that, lets make sure the public pays the bill no matter what.

I know this is a simplistic view but it's what resonates strongest from the article.

Now, my question, why don't we reduce foreign aid elsewhere to make up the 87b?? Shouldn't taxpayer dollars go to this countries citizens before foriegn ones? I'm not talking about shafting any countries here but surely there are areas where cuts can be made and a fair amount of fat trimmed to come up with these funds.

Finally, I'm not a conservative but isn't the conservative mantra smaller government and keeping more of our tax dollars? Bush on one hand gave more of our tax dollars back to some of us but is willing to take that same money right back out of our future pockets. Is there really any way this is defensible from a purely conservative view? This is a sincere question.

So, with a little tightening up of the pork, I think the money is definitely needed and should be allocated but not solely on our dime and if we aren't willing to cooperate with the rest of the world to get it we need to trim what we give the rest of the world.

I would point out that according to the following site we currently don't give enough foreign aid to make up this 87b. In 2001 we gave 22b total. I won't because this figure is sobering when compared to the mess that we caused with our current middle east misadventure and I'm trying to have a serious discussion with this thread. ;)

2001 foreign aid (http://www.yannone.org/NewFiles/foreignaid-costs.html)

Dola -

Fresh off of google news comes a washington post article that touches on a lot of what I left unsaid and did a good job of it.

Rebuilding Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11048-2003Sep27.html)

I'm especially in agreement with this:


Still, much of the furor surrounding the spending request is sheer political mischief. The notion that any spending on the Iraqi infrastructure should be matched dollar for dollar with investments back home may play well with voters who worry, and rightly so, about the U.S. electric grid or drinking water. But to pile spending on spending and further increase the deficit is not a responsible solution. And while it might be appealing to make loans rather than grants to Iraq, that, too, would be an unwise course. Iraq already faces $200 billion in debt. There isn't any government empowered to make a binding repayment commitment, and an American claim on future oil revenue would play into the hands of those who viewed the war all along as a bid for Iraqi resources.

I do believe this is true and it's pretty depressing all the way around. It's depressing that political divisiveness is going to screw any meaningful attempts at rebuilding Iraq ( I'm not predicting failure for the rebuilding but it's certainly possible in the current climate in this country ). It's depressing that politics got us into this mess in the first place and that because no one really wants to cooperate that we the people are being told that we have to watch our infrastructure deteriorate and have no choice because we didn't have strong, forward thinking leaders on either party to lead us.

I am for rebuilding Iraq but as inexpensively as we can. Yes, we can do it cheaper and we should. We do have an obligation certainly but bottom line that obligation starts with us.

I was thinking about what I wrote earlier about foreign aid and the first thing that came to my mind was that pulling funds would possibly cause destabilization of these countries and thats a bad thing.

Then I thought, is it really? Isn't it actually a capitalistic concept?Call it free market politics. If a country cannot survive in the world economy then shouldn't it be allowed to fold and another group be allowed to take it's place? Even if we have monetary interests in the country the free market concept applies. You invest in a risky venture you take your chances.

I'm beginning to see the merit of telling the rest of the world to take care of their own countries for the next four years until we pay off the 87b. Surely we can come up with other non cash ways of helping these countries. Perhaps charitable institutions can turn their attentions to these countries like they're supposed to do when we cut social programs to pay for this thing. I'm for that.

Yes, I like this idea.

It's a mess isn't it? But before we go around questioning the millions of ways of getting from point A to point B. I am saddened how the media has so quickly forgotten why we even have to go from point A to point B in the first place. I am particularly disgruntled by the way our media suggests that, if we quit now and don't pay a dime, we will be better of in the long run.

I'm with you all the way on this one Dutch. That's why I posted the last article because it was nice to see a media outlet face that and admit that while it isn't pretty, it's what we have to do.

Now, that said, lets here your ideas on how to get from point A to point B. :)

Maybe I am a little slow, but I still don't understand where all the Iraqi oil money will be going.

If the US would just call this an occupation we could start pumping Iraq oil out by the millions of barrels. Set the whole country up like a toll-road. The US government would own all the oil fields in Iraq untill the debt had been repaid in full.

Why the White House keeps saying that "Some" of the money made from the selling of Iraqi oil "May" go to pay off the cost is beyond my grasps. I say to Hell with OPEC, to Hell with the Oil companies that claim they own the right to the oil, and Even to Hell with the Bush family fortune that can't afford to have cheap oil flood the market. I scream Bring on 75 cents a gallon gas untill this whole Iragi Occupation is out of the red and into the black

I don't think it's that simple. Notice in the first part that they are asking for 900m to bring oil TO Iraq. I'm guessing all isn't well with Iraqi oil right now and I don't think we can just go in and take it even if we wanted to.

Even if we could, with the previous accusations about this being an oil war, the administration I don't think could survive something like this politically not to mention I don't really think it was ever part of the plan and we definitely don't like changing the plan too much it seems.

We cannot take ownership of the Iraqi oil. The President made it clear at the outset that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people and that they are to recieve any benefits from it. If he went back on that, it would set our country even further back diplomatically (which at this point we cannot afford) as well as destroy any hope of a relationship with the future Iraqi government.

GrantDawg,

you said what I wanted to say in my last post and reading it side by side your answer seems less contentious. I believe what I said about our inflexibility but it really doesn't apply to the question about why we don't just go get the oil. It would be the wrong thing to do and there's really no flexibility issue about that.

Basically, I like your answer better. :)

Then why does the future 100+ Billion dollars that the US is about to spend in rebuilding, restoring, and even upgrading Iraq have to be a no strings attached gift?

Why not a loan?
Why not an "investment"? A term the White House loves.
=============
Why does it have to be a Gift from their uncle Sam?

From my last article posted Taur,


And while it might be appealing to make loans rather than grants to Iraq, that, too, would be an unwise course. Iraq already faces $200 billion in debt. There isn't any government empowered to make a binding repayment commitment, and an American claim on future oil revenue would play into the hands of those who viewed the war all along as a bid for Iraqi resources

It sounds nice to call it a loan but if they can't pay and their debts keep rising are we really rebuilding or restabilizing anything? Plus that pesky point about no government empowered is a real issue and we aren't ready, nor are the Iraqi's ready for the power to be handed over yet.

Can we afford to put off the rebuilding until there is a stable Iraq government or will a stable government rise out of the stability. I'd say the latter is more likely.

Originally posted by Axxon
5. Bush wants $100 million for 2,000 sanitation trucks -- at $50,000 apiece.

Just think, for an extra 4K I could have had a sanitation truck instead of a Navigator

Yep, chicks dig the heavy machinery, thats for sure.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Do you actually have a point or is this meaningless redundancy the height of your contribution??

Man, I asked for debate and I get a waste of time.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
dola,



I may be off base here, but aren't the Republicans in charge of both houses? I wish they would start acting like it.

Do enough swing voters want them to act like it in this case though?? That's the real question. The poll numbers are going south quick and the elections are right around the corner. The democrats know this that's why they're playing the game this way.

THAT'S the point I was making when I posted the article that showed that the Post and me, the poster, think that just sucks. Politics as normal isn't the right approach to the issue but it's being played that way.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
And "chicks dig heavy machinery" is adding to the debate?

Look, it's simple. I don't participate in very many of these types of debates. Most of them are simple pissing matches like the one you're trying to start here.

I do try to occasionally hold a discussion and trying to be more of a centrist and have managed to hold some interesting debates from people without it devolving into a pissing match just like this one was doing until you stepped in. I've been told that people apppreciate the approach now and then.

I don't think I'm asking for much. Leave this thread alone. There's a lot of threads you can ruin; have fun. Just let those of us who want to reasonably discuss the issue have one thread. Damn.

If you want to disagree or question and actually debate peacefully I'll surely oblige you. Just be civil man, I've always been with you.

Thanks.

I would really like to hear your opinion on my thoughts. I may have gotten the basic story from sources you don't like but I did try and put my own spin on it. What do you think about the current situation and the games being played and what should we do to fund this??

Ok, so you're really only interested in being a smart ass. Got it, know what you're about now. Now again, it's even more clear why I hate people.

*sigh*

Hehe regarding rebuilding Iraq cheap. Well that is just the way to go. Look at the success we had rebuilding Japan and Germany after WW2. We didn't go cheap there, and I believe those should serve as the blueprints for rebuilding a nations infrastructure. Wireless internet? Why not, technology is a growing component of industry. I am all for doing it right.

Regarding no Iraqi oil money flowing this way. Going into this thing I thought there would certainly be some of this. Perhaps I was just wrong...I dont' see anything wrong with telling the new Iraqi government that we want to recoup some of our investment, but I am far from a diplomat.

Regarding the Iraqi oil industry not being up to snuff. The Iraqi oil industry is about 3 and a half decades behind the technology being used to drill/pump oil around the world today. Well that and there are those pesky millitants blowing holes in the pipelines and such.

At any rate after all that has been done to the people of Iraq, by Saddam as well as the suffering inflicted by two wars and 15 years of economic sanctions, they deserve to have their nation rebuilt in the best way possible. I mean that is why we are there in the first place isn't it?

OK, do you mind paying for the whole thing ourselves or do we spread the cost??

Also, I heard on fox this morning that the democrats are actually ready to give in to the whole deal but are going to ask that the tenth year of the tax cut for the wealthiest be cut thus paying for the bill. That sounded kinda interesting too.

Originally posted by Axxon
Ok, so you're really only interested in being a smart ass. Got it, know what you're about now. Now again, it's even more clear why I hate people.

*sigh*

i recommend that if you are this thin-skinned you should avoid posting. My comments were far from out-of-line. As a centrist, you take an interesting position in regards to your misanthropy.

In addition, if you have read any threads in which I was a participant, you would know that I enjoy debates on nearly every subject ranging from the serious to the silly. Your comment about "chicks and machines" led me to believe that your debate had deteriorated towards the latter.

If I was being a smart ass, I wouldn't have deleted my posts to which you took offense. Funny how you comment about these becoming pissing matches and you are the one to start and continue the pissing. Enjoy the piddle in your underwear.

Originally posted by Axxon
OK, do you mind paying for the whole thing ourselves or do we spread the cost??

Also, I heard on fox this morning that the democrats are actually ready to give in to the whole deal but are going to ask that the tenth year of the tax cut for the wealthiest be cut thus paying for the bill. That sounded kinda interesting too.

I think the long term costs to the American People will go up as the number of countries sending aid to Iraq goes up. I believe that for every Dollar a "New" foreign country contributes to the rebuilding efforts they will be expecting the US to somehow compensate their country for at least a dollar in another form of payment(trade status/technology/goods) The US has already bought the broken down House, so why would another country want to invest in this "Money Pit"?

Q: Is the tax cut you are referring too, the new break on dividends?

Hehe,

You're funny. You delete your smart ass post because I chose not to quote it. You actually went so far as to delete everything that you posted; quite a bit of useless work because basically no one else really is going to give a crap.

I'll definitely tell you that I don't have thin skin; I just want a decent thread and you're hell bent to not let that happen. Sure definitely deflates your not wanting to start a pissing match doesn't it? Since you refuse common courtesy though we can have a pissing match.

My hatred of people is definitely centrist though. If more people tried to meet each other half way in thought then there would be no reason to hate the species. Disagreements would become interesting tools to further human thought and we'd be a hell of a lot better off.

But no, we get stupid waste of time asswipes who bring nothing to the table but the desire to piss on everybody who is at the table and somehow feel empowered by the fact that they can devolve the most and be pains in the asses.

You know what I mean and since you have no interest in the thread topic maybe you can let us know why being an unoriginal unentertaining waste of bandwidth fulfills you so?

Come on, lets debate this. You do love to debate right?

Ok, I'll start, I think you're too stupid to realize that saying, "Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!" isn't saying anything at all except that you're too stupid to understand the discussion that's going on and you get a bit intimidated but you see the words salon and washington post and somewhere you remember someone you "really respect" said bad things about them so in panic you post your dashing commentary and proudly await the pats on the back which don't come because well, you're stupid.

Then someone asks you to at least attempt a clue and now you're more embarrased and still too stupid to comment on what you don't understand so you continue to be an ass because at least you know how to do that pretty well.

Am I close??

Eventually I hope the 87 billion gets through, but I do want this admin to have to account for its spending better. The method for handing out reconstruction contracts needs oversight, things like the 50K per bed prison need examinaton(I believe 50K per bed is exactly what Halliburton charged in Gitmo btw), and a general oversight of all of the DOD spending in Iraq is essential. I don't know if any of these costs are excessive, but I do know that up to now there has been shockingly little transparency and oversight. If this leads to a more scrutinized process I think that will be better in the long run for the US and Iraq.

ps- Did anyone else hear of an item that would give witness protection money to 100 Iraqi families at a cost of 100 million?

Originally posted by Taur
I think the long term costs to the American People will go up as the number of countries sending aid to Iraq goes up. I believe that for every Dollar a "New" foreign country contributes to the rebuilding efforts they will be expecting the US to somehow compensate their country for at least a dollar in another form of payment(trade status/technology/goods) The US has already bought the broken down House, so why would another country want to invest in this "Money Pit"?

Q: Is the tax cut you are referring too, the new break on dividends?

Yeah, I can see that from the asking for aid side of the equation. Good point. On the other side of the coin, aid withholding, we wouldn't be in that situation.

As for the tax, I'm not really sure. It was part of a panel discussion and if the commentator actually said what tax he meant I didn't pay enough attention to the specifics. I picked up the general implication and that's my point. It makes the democrats point about paying for it ( in 10 years ) but gives the needed money and both sides get to make some brownie points with the public.

Originally posted by JPhillips


ps- Did anyone else hear of an item that would give witness protection money to 100 Iraqi families at a cost of 100 million?

No, but if they gave extremely important information I'd say it's expensive but worth it. This sends a positive message about cooperating with us. Seems that 1,000,000 per family is an awful lot though.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
i recommend that if you are this thin-skinned you should avoid posting. My comments were far from out-of-line. As a centrist, you take an interesting position in regards to your misanthropy.

In addition, if you have read any threads in which I was a participant, you would know that I enjoy debates on nearly every subject ranging from the serious to the silly. Your comment about "chicks and machines" led me to believe that your debate had deteriorated towards the latter.

If I was being a smart ass, I wouldn't have deleted my posts to which you took offense. Funny how you comment about these becoming pissing matches and you are the one to start and continue the pissing. Enjoy the piddle in your underwear.

Just for documentary purposes. Should have done it last time.

I don't know what his posts contained (beyond your quoted parts), and I agree he didn't add much to the discussion, but the validity of your sources is a valid subject area to approach in this debate, since that is where you get the information from which we are all debating. They are both longstanding liberal-leaning publications. That said, the Post in particular is reknowned for its quality political reporting, and for BonGavel to have a real point, he would have to go into the article and refute what it is saying with facts of his own. He doesn't, which tends to make his response about the credibility of those sources look shallow and unimportant.

What I am saying is that, while he does a pretty damn poor job of making his case, his point is valid within the scope of this debate. Whether you buy into it or not is up to you.

Chief Rum

My biggest peeve was that what I was discussing really wasn't what was discussed in the salon article. I mainly used it to show the breakdown of the spending and I pretty much don't see where my breakdown is along any particular left or right leaning or where getting the breakdown from a conservative media would have given me different numbers.

The Post article was particularly telling because it was clearly aimed at chastising the left and I felt that it was a particularly powerful chastisement ESPECIALLY because of it's source.

I resent that all of this was missed when it was responded to with a knee jerk reaction and no comment or any point except that the source was from a liberal media. Had I been saying something like "see, look at what's happening in Iraq" then I'd have deserved his answer. I was trying to rise above that with my post, you know, take a story and actually think about it and present that new thought for discussion.

I can see him missing that at first maybe and I did respond nicely to his dola but he simply then didn't want to practice simple civility.

My diatribe was actually a sly reference to a riff from one of my favorite movies. Basically I filtered what I kinda felt happened, insultized it then ran it through a familiar monologue. It was a nice little diversion.

Bonus points for anyone recognizing the riff. :D

[EDIT]

His first post was literally just "Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!"

I really don't see ANY discussion about the validity of the sources much less in relation to what was being discussed. If you do, then I'll accept that. I just don't see it myself. We can certainly agree to disagree.

You forget chief, that I am too dumb according to Axxon. The fact that my comment was valid (brief though it was) makes no difference to Axxon. I'm curious if a positive (yet brief) comment about those sources would have caused such vitriol?

Everyone knows those sources are dubious at best (for fairness), though I know that could be said for just about any source. Given that, I thought my comment about "shocking" was self explanatory. Same as every comment bashing "Fox news" type sources as "fair." You will never see me yelling at somebody for that comment.

And everything I deleted is captured in his quotes, minus a post about me saying something like "sorry for expressing my opinion. I know that isn't always appreciated" or something like that. He took it as being a smart ass, and that is his opinion. He didn't appreciate my two cents, so I removed them from his thread, knowing that he had all but one quoted. Then, he didn't like that. Oh well.


so, to add to his discussion, his very centrist view in this comment:

I would point out that according to the following site we currently don't give enough foreign aid to make up this 87b. In 2001 we gave 22b total. I won't because this figure is sobering when compared to the mess that we caused with our current middle east misadventure

struck me as non-centrist. "when compared to the mess that we caused with our current middle east misadventure"? If that isn't biased then I don't understand the word.

dola

my biggest peeve is people claiming to be something they are not. Axxon claims to be a centrist (i guess meaning that he is above being partisan) but makes the comment about the middle east misadventure. Your reaction to my one line comment about "Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!" further points out that your claims are false.

That statement in no way choked this thread, especially given your comment "chicks dig the heavy machinery." And I actually read the Salon article where they spend the end of the article drooling over Democratic hopes. Had the article merely reported the specifics of the 87b I would have been delighted. But, they have to quote democrats about "None of my constitiuents have homes that cost as much as the per person cost of the proposed jail." That isn't part of the NEWS. The news is the 87b and how it is to be spent. But I'm sure Axxon and co. don't see it that way because they agree with the comments.

BoneGavel's description of the thread is mostly valid but his supposedly innocent "sorry for expressing my opinion. I know that isn't always appreciated" was a more smart assed answer which basically says the same thing but has a smart assed spin on it.

To answer your content BoneGavel, no I most likely wouldn't have had the same reaction to a positive comment but trust me, I'd have had a similar reaction if someone would have made a similar negative comment on something I'd posted from Fox.

It's the automatic negative sniping with nothing particular to add that I objected to, it's not how you feel about those sources. Had you expanded just a bit and said "I don't trust those sources etc." I would have said, look at what I"m saying not where I got my source info from especially since the source info wasn't commentary but numbers. If those are wrong, and I really can't see the value of anyone actually slanting these numbers, then post that. That's what I was talking about.

Honestly, I wasn't basing anything I was writing on the author of the piece or their slant.

On your last point centrist doesn't mean making every single point sit in the center of the spectrum. It means you listen to every argument presented and give it sincere thought before commenting on it. It means not having a knee jerk reaction and not simply parroting a particular party line.

I've never hidden the fact that I oppose war but after it was done I publicly here defended the president and condemned what I call the WOMD witchhunt. These are examples that are across party lines and allows a meaningful discussion with those of both views without it degrading into a raging flamewar. Even in this thread I bashed both parties and politics as usual in general. Pointing to one particular quote and pigeonholing my stand is not only insulting but it's doing the very thing I asked you politely not to do.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
dola

my biggest peeve is people claiming to be something they are not. Axxon claims to be a centrist (i guess meaning that he is above being partisan) but makes the comment about the middle east misadventure. Your reaction to my one line comment about "Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!" further points out that your claims are false.

That statement in no way choked this thread, especially given your comment "chicks dig the heavy machinery." And I actually read the Salon article where they spend the end of the article drooling over Democratic hopes. Had the article merely reported the specifics of the 87b I would have been delighted. But, they have to quote democrats about "None of my constitiuents have homes that cost as much as the per person cost of the proposed jail." That isn't part of the NEWS. The news is the 87b and how it is to be spent. But I'm sure Axxon and co. don't see it that way because they agree with the comments.

But of course I never referenced what you read later so in fact it was irrelevant to this thread and in no way had anything to do with what I was getting at. You do know this and it's pretty clear to anyone who reads this. I think I'm done repeating myself on this point.

No, that particular statement didn't choke the thread but it's simply a weed and leave a weed around and you will choke the yard. Soon somebody makes a nasty flyby about your quote and then there is a response for that and soon all intelligent discussion is gone. You know this too.

I won't respond to your overly simplistic catagorizing me based on one opinion stated as I've already addressed that and I'd rather let my writing stand on it's own.

I love it. Only a chosen few listen to both sides before commenting. I have many issues with "my party" not the least of which is your appropriate comment about Repubs being about smaller government and not showing it. Know why I understand that Salon.com and the Post haven liberal slants? I read them. I always check out both sides of the argument.

My comment wasn't negative sniping. It was truth.

Also, you catergorized yourself by stating "I'm not a conservative" in your own post. Was that a misquote?

also, your comment "If it's manpower and support great if it's a bone to military contractors then come on." Who else is going to build the machinery needed for our military?

Next comment: "I agree with the first part but wtf, $19m for setting up wireless internet service in Iraq. This pisses me off as I don't have wireless here. Please tell me why WE need to supply them with this???" Wireless communications are far easier for us to eavesdrop upon. Landlines require a ground presence. Wirelss can be snatched from above.

"We ( USA citizens )are going to take it in the shorts for this spending. Again, why?"

If we had taken this approach with WWII, Darkiller and co. would be sprechen zie Deutch. We would have saved a lot of money if we had never entered that war.

See, had you typed this earlier we'd have saved a lot of meaningless posts. ;)


Originally posted by BoneGavel
I love it. Only a chosen few listen to both sides before commenting. I have many issues with "my party" not the least of which is your appropriate comment about Repubs being about smaller government and not showing it. Know why I understand that Salon.com and the Post haven liberal slants? I read them. I always check out both sides of the argument.

My comment wasn't negative sniping. It was truth.

I know they are slanted but so what? As long as my point had nothing to do with the slant then I'd say it's an appropriate article for my purposes.

Again, I don't disagree with what you posted so much as the relevence to the discussion.


Also, you catergorized yourself by stating "I'm not a conservative" in your own post. Was that a misquote?

Nope, but I'm also not a bison or a tilt-a-whirl or many other things. None of these statements in any way actually state what I AM though. I could just as easily say "I'm not a liberal so can you explain {whatever}" Doesn't seem all that different to me.


also, your comment "If it's manpower and support great if it's a bone to military contractors then come on." Who else is going to build the machinery needed for our military?

Needed machinery I'm ok with but the history of politics and the military contractors is long and ugly. Again, both parties are on board for the spending so nothing partisan here. I just understand the lobbyists and the pork and that would bother me.


Next comment: "I agree with the first part but wtf, $19m for setting up wireless internet service in Iraq. This pisses me off as I don't have wireless here. Please tell me why WE need to supply them with this???" Wireless communications are far easier for us to eavesdrop upon. Landlines require a ground presence. Wirelss can be snatched from above.

Good point. I can't argue it but I'm still pissed they're getting it before it becomes widespread here. :)


If we had taken this approach with WWII, Darkiller and co. would be sprechen zie Deutch. We would have saved a lot of money if we had never entered that war.

Well, from how many treated Dar earlier this year ...

Anyway, that's bullcrap; we entered the war because it was declared on us. We had no choice and while we had choices we avoided it like the plague.

AND, the real issue now isn't the war but the rebuilding after one and after WWII the entire world was in shambes and needed help, there wasn't a really good choice but to do what we did.

Rebuilding Iraq is also a good thing but I feel it can either be done at a reduced cost or the cost defrayed to our other handout receivers which no one has really commented on yet.

For the record I'm not against the rebuilding at all. I'm just uneasy with some of the rebuilding elements and the placement of the burdon.

Originally posted by Axxon
His first post was literally just "Salon and Washington Post with these types of stories? Shocking!"

I really don't see ANY discussion about the validity of the sources much less in relation to what was being discussed. If you do, then I'll accept that. I just don't see it myself. We can certainly agree to disagree.

I don't see it as an agree to disagree thing here. I find we agree on a lot, including the fact that his first post didn't present much to this thread.

But I don't think there is any question at all fo what he is saying with that statement. It is clearly sarcasm, do you not agree?

If it is sarcasm, then it must mean the oposite of what it actually says. It actually says that it is shocking that Salon and the Washington Post would have these kinds of stories. Given the sarcasm, then, it is clear BoneGavel is intimating that the Post and Salon do indeed have these stories all the time.

Now the only thing left to determine is what "kind" of stories is BoneGavel referring to, and what does he intend to say by pointing them out.

What kind of story he is talking about is clearly a reference to the Post and Salon being liberal-leaning media sources. This is further nailed home by the fact that BoneGavel has been consistently conservative in these dicsussions in recent months, and your own opening commentary contained some liberal-leaning commentary (your commentary, not the papers') that clearly indicated you leaned to the left (or at least against the administration), and at least on the issue of Iraq.

So if BoneGavel is actually saying he isn't surprised by these stories coming from these sources (he is), and he is referring to the Post's and Salon's left-leaning history (he is), then the only ground on which he must necessarily be intending to question is the validity of the sources. That is the only logical conclusion you can arrive at in that situation.

If you agree then that BoneGavel was questioning the fairness of the two publications (you do, right?), then that puts his post into the realm of fair commentary, since, as a debater, I am sure you are aware that the validity of the source is very much a pertinent issue in any debate.

You can, of course, say he didn't add much to the discussion with his initial post, a point I made myself and agreed with you on. But you can't say he didn't make a comment pertinent to the debate. He did. He questioned the validity of your sources. He did a very poor job of it (since he presented no arguments or evidence whatsoever to support his claim), but that doesn't make his comment invalid, as you claim. It just makes it extremely poorly supported.

Ignore it if you will for being an empty argument (because of the lack of suppoort), but an honest-to-himsdelf debater will realize he jumped at the inflammatory nature of BoneGavel's post without duly considering the relevcance of the comment to the debate. Instead of chastising him for making it personal (which he didn't actually do), you should have denounced his commentary for the shallowness that it was (something you later did, but milk was spilt by then...).

The fact is he made a valid, but unsupported commentary and rather than attacking his point, you attacked him, accusing him of sullying the thread. In that, IMO, you showed very poor form.

Chief Rum

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I don't see it as an agree to disagree thing here. I find we agree on a lot, including the fact that his first post didn't present much to this thread.

But I don't think there is any question at all fo what he is saying with that statement. It is clearly sarcasm, do you not agree?

If it is sarcasm, then it must mean the oposite of what it actually says. It actually says that it is shocking that Salon and the Washington Post would have these kinds of stories. Given the sarcasm, then, it is clear BoneGavel is intimating that the Post and Salon do indeed have these stories all the time.

Now the only thing left to determine is what "kind" of stories is BoneGavel referring to, and what does he intend to say by pointing them out.

What kind of story he is talking about is clearly a reference to the Post and Salon being liberal-leaning media sources. This is further nailed home by the fact that BoneGavel has been consistently conservative in these dicsussions in recent months, and your own opening commentary contained some liberal-leaning commentary (your commentary, not the papers') that clearly indicated you leaned to the left (or at least against the administration), and at least on the issue of Iraq.

So if BoneGavel is actually saying he isn't surprised by these stories coming from these sources (he is), and he is referring to the Post's and Salon's left-leaning history (he is), then the only ground on which he must necessarily be intending to question is the validity of the sources. That is the only logical conclusion you can arrive at in that situation.

If you agree then that BoneGavel was questioning the fairness of the two publications (you do, right?), then that puts his post into the realm of fair commentary, since, as a debater, I am sure you are aware that the validity of the source is very much a pertinent issue in any debate.

You can, of course, say he didn't add much to the discussion with his initial post, a point I made myself and agreed with you on. But you can't say he didn't make a comment pertinent to the debate. He did. He questioned the validity of your sources. He did a very poor job of it (since he presented no arguments or evidence whatsoever to support his claim), but that doesn't make his comment invalid, as you claim. It just makes it extremely poorly supported.

Ignore it if you will for being an empty argument (because of the lack of suppoort), but an honest-to-himsdelf debater will realize he jumped at the inflammatory nature of BoneGavel's post without duly considering the relevcance of the comment to the debate. Instead of chastising him for making it personal (which he didn't actually do), you should have denounced his commentary for the shallowness that it was (something you later did, but milk was spilt by then...).

The fact is he made a valid, but unsupported commentary and rather than attacking his point, you attacked him, accusing him of sullying the thread. In that, IMO, you showed very poor form.

Chief Rum

Look, we've finally gotten him to respond in well thought out paragraphs ok. :D :D

I agree with you to a point. The point I disagree with you on is the fact that I should have known that BoneGavel is traditionally conservative in these type of threads because as I said I don't normally participate in these types of threads. How can I be expected to know his history if his history is not with me? That would be to make a major assumption with no means to suppprt it, would it not?

Given that I make that leap of intuition your point is well stated but honestly his opening statement on the thread said more to me than his previous postings did. I would be dishonest however to say that I didn't realize that he leaned to the right but I had no idea how far. I'm really not active enough on the politics threads to have everybody pegged that way.

I'll concede the point however. I did make a conscious decision to react harshly to the first post that I felt wasn't playing fair but lets face it, the thread was going nowhere and I don't think either party is particularly irate about what went on and there's been more of a thread about the reactions than about the issues but still the issues haven't totally been forgotten by any party.

I still don't think you had enough information to fairly make the point though. ;)

Nice analysis though. I really enjoyed reading it quite a bit.

Dola,

I do apologize to BoneGavel for that one post but honestly, I didn't mean it personally. Like I said, I was sorta playing around with the language and it was fun but in no way do I really mean to insinuate any reality to it and I apologize if it was taken that way.

I'd like to leave it up though, just to see if anyone can place the reference. That's up to you. I don't mind pulling it either.

While my post didn't add anything of value to the thread, I simply read the Salon.com article, saw all the democratic hand-jobbing and made my comment.

The only thing you said that I didn't appreciate was the "you're stupid" comment. But hey, if that makes you feel better, all the power to you and I won't jump all over you for your comment. You are entitled to you opinion, though I must ask you if you talked it over with my wife first. She has a similar opinion of me.

As far as Chief Rum's comments, I'll have to decipher them first, but I think he made a good point in there.

Bottom line: If you want to appear "in the middle" and start a debate based upon that, leave out the the 2 or 3 comments you made about "misadventure" and the other things. Because, if you don't, I will make comments like I did and consider it fair game.

The only person I've seen appear impartial on this list is Quiksand. He poses his debate seeds very well.

Um, I already apologized for the "you're stupid" thing. :D

I am getting too tired to really state what I mean about what I'm trying to do so I'll save it for work tonight ( I work third shift ) and I haven't slept yet today.

I don't mean what you think I mean but I can certainly see that it needs to be explained if I'm going to use it as part of my argument. Actually, I didn't really use it in my argument; I brought it up when I asked you to cool it. I'd much rather the conversation determine where my position is than any statement you or I make about it.

Ok, I can't exactly sleep if I'm thinking about what I'm going to clarify later so here goes, then I'll go to sleep.

There are two distinct aspects of politics. There's the rhetoric of politics and then there's the reality of politics.

The rhetoric of politics are the party platforms and the rallying cries and the soundbites that the politicians shout out as a shorthand so they can identify with their base. This is important in a way because it is simple and it does generally separate the key elements on either side from the swing voters. It makes elections easier to plan and it makes a nice base to begin forming ideals. It's not, however reality.

Reality is much trickier and way more centrally balanced. Politics is all about solving realities and making compromises in order to get things done. It requires going beyond the rhetoric to see where the other guy is coming from and forging a solution that can actually work. That's what politicians ( good ones ) ultimately do regardless of what they say then they get accused of lying.

I'd like to think that's what I was attempting here. I'm not suggesting that I or that you or that anyone drop their beliefs but I do believe that if we try and consciously drop the rhetoric we can see that we really aren't that far apart and maybe we can comprehend and deal with the reality a little bit more. I think this is a good thing to strive for.

Though I didn't necessarily accomplish that lets look at the power of the rhetoric of politics. I used the word misadventure which is relatively mild rhetoric you must admit but it sent this whole conversation downhill because you recognized the rhetoric and instinctively reacted to it.

Later, much later you could admit that I had made some good points and that it was the rhetoric that sent you off and damn that's some powerful stuff. Doesn't it scare you that simple phrases can mean more to you than getting to the point of what the other person is actually saying? It does me; I'm certainly not immuned but I try and recognize it as much as I can. It's like having some alien thought machine actually controlling you subjectively. I hate that and want to try and move past it.

This time it didn't work but I've learned from the thread. I hope you have too.

I never said that you didn't make any good points. I think Chief pointed out that my initial comment cast no aspersions in any direction, except to point out the liberal slant of your sources.

What did I learn? Nothing. I posted nothing for which I am ashamed and you should think the same (otherwise, don't post). Now, if I knew you and you called me stupid, then we would have some issues. People have the freedom on this board to act completely differently than their real life persona. I'm willing to bet that in real life Fritz is a priest, Quiksand has an IQ of 47, and SD is in porn. :D