Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"In Samarra, the Iraqi government has tackled the insurgents who once controlled the city." Surely Allawi had no reason to misrepresent the situation on the ground in Samarra. And if he'd been inclined to bend the truth, I'm sure the man from the Bush campaign who helped him would have set him straight.

Sounds to me like the insurgents tried to regather their strength, the civilians got out of Dodge, and we went back in and routed them and restored order.

What am I missing?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It was also yet another bullshit story from Kerry since DeGaulle did, in fact, study those photos in rigid detail, according to CIA reports at the time.

This from the guy who thinks that Bush's deletion of "fully" from his "trained Iraqis" tagline removes the comment from the bullshit category. I think your bullshit detector might be sitting on a slanted table.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sounds to me like the insurgents tried to regather their strength, the civilians got out of Dodge, and we went back in and routed them and restored order.

What am I missing?

You're missing that Bilmore's point was that the media's info was outdated, all was well in Samarra. Turns out that Captain Ed was wrong on that one.

I agree that it made sense to go back in, but it did not make sense to claim that Samarra was a happy place where the New Iraq was flourishing. Hopefully we have turned that tide.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
This from the guy who thinks that Bush's deletion of "fully" from his "trained Iraqis" tagline removes the comment from the bullshit category. I think your bullshit detector might be sitting on a slanted table.

[Dr Evil Voice]But is it an evil slanted table?[/Dr Evil Voice]




Curse you, Gatti!!! Curse you!!!

[One Mean SOB]

Maybe I've just missed it, but why isn't anyone here talking about Bush's BS about "busting" the AQ Khan "network"? That was probably his most egregious lie in the debate, and you guys are nitpicking the DeGaulle story?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by One Mean SOB
Maybe I've just missed it, but why isn't anyone here talking about Bush's BS about "busting" the AQ Khan "network"? That was probably his most egregious lie in the debate, and you guys are nitpicking the DeGaulle story?

Man, I thought I had gotten rid of that facial tic and here you go bringing him up again. Khaaaaaan!

Agree with you, it's BS. I wish Kerry tied that in to his antiproliferation bit, saying no network was busted, and AQK is now free as a bird, and we are less safe for it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by One Mean SOB
Maybe I've just missed it, but why isn't anyone here talking about Bush's BS about "busting" the AQ Khan "network"? That was probably his most egregious lie in the debate, and you guys are nitpicking the DeGaulle story?

The DeGaulle story was a mere exagerration of the events that actually happened - like Kerry's war wound stories.

The Triblinka story was - I'll grant him this - an honest mistake, like "Manny Ortez" is his current favorite Sox player.

The complete misrepresentation of the events in Tora Bora, however, is shameful - much like the "seared, seared" Christmas in Cambodia fallacy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
[Dr Evil Voice]But is it an evil slanted table?[/Dr Evil Voice]




Curse you, Gatti!!! Curse you!!!

Hey, can I help it that today we saw no hot liquid MAG-MA?

[LessinSF]

The proof of who "won" the debate is that the line at the books moved from Kerry +200 to Kerry +160.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This one is too easy:

It is Right not to externalize costs.
This isn't interfering with the oil industry, this is interfering with externalizers.

I can't help it if a bunch of Maine liberals hijacked Texas' oil and y'all started thinking they were the Right.

So your argument is that it is Right not to externalize costs. How does one avoid "externalizing" the safety of the US in a hostile geopolitical environment? Are you suggesting that it is only people who use petroleum products who should bear the cost of the instability in the Middle East?

Okay, what's the tax rate on the oil used to fire the generators that supply your power? Do you use heating oil or gas to heat your water or your apartment/house? What about the tax on your public transportation?

Your answer raises more questions than your original argument.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The DeGaulle story was a mere exagerration of the events that actually happened - like Kerry's war wound stories.

The Triblinka story was - I'll grant him this - an honest mistake, like "Manny Ortez" is his current favorite Sox player.

The complete misrepresentation of the events in Tora Bora, however, is shameful - much like the "seared, seared" Christmas in Cambodia fallacy.

What was misrepresented? The story is consistent with everything I've read.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Not Me
Of the news programs on Fox News (not the opinion programs like O'Reilly), what programs do you watch and what problems do you have with those programs?

You are kidding, right?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
So your argument is that it is Right not to externalize costs.

Where possible, yes. Of course, exceptions apply where, e.g., it would be more inefficient to ensure fair taxation than to just rough-it.

Originally posted by taxwonk
How does one avoid "externalizing" the safety of the US in a hostile geopolitical environment?

I'm not sure what this means. Safety is not a cost. The cost of safety is.

As a nation, the U.S. needs to try and ensure others aren't externalizing the costs of their safety onto us. To almost the last one, they are. As a very easy example (that I'm sure would ruffle many, many feathers), when the Germans complain about us pulling the troops out, we could suggest that they start spending a proportion of GDP on defense that is similar to ours.

Come to think of it, that would be a great way of knocking both Germany and France in line (i.e., suggesting that Germany needs a bigger army .

Originally posted by taxwonk
Are you suggesting that it is only people who use petroleum products who should bear the cost of the instability in the Middle East?

Good heavens, no. Are you? One of the analysts on CNBC was just saying the other day that even if we replaced every SUV in America with a Corolla, the price of gas wouldn't even drop by (5 cents?). I am saying, however, that they should more directly bear some of the cost of securing their oil, and of fixing the roads.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, what's the tax rate on the oil used to fire the generators that supply your power? Do you use heating oil or gas to heat your water or your apartment/house? What about the tax on your public transportation?

No idea, of course -- what's your point, and ha ha ha - Frank Kreusi says not enough, but I don't think he's looking to contribute anything to our efforts in Iraq.

Why shouldn't it be enough to cover what we use. Are you gonna scream when the poor people say their homes are cold or are you gonna scream when I tell them to move to Florida if they can't afford heat in Illinois? Did you see the recent series by Mary Schmich where Cabrini Green residents were complaining that their new mixed-income housing didn't include 4 and 5 bedroom units? Its a perfect example of why I'm willing to let people sleep on the streets.

I don't see the point you are trying to make with the last question. Is it some kind of suggestion that I'm standing in the middle of the ladder stepping on the hands beneath me, and that I'd protest if those above me stepped on my hands? I hope not.

The Right carries its burden in this country. Everyone else continually asks it to contribute more.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.
  My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.
  
  About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".
  
  I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".
  
  Today we registered him to vote.
  
  -- Proud Dad
  
  And yes, this is a true story.

linky

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.
  My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.
  
  About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".
  
  I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".
  
  Today we registered him to vote.
  
  -- Proud Dad
  
  And yes, this is a true story.

linky

They let retards vote?