Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. clinton saved some big bucks with that big time "ignore al queda," thing. he did have to pay to rebuild 2 embassies, but fixing the cole hit W.

and I understand the obama plan is that letting the nukes start to leak is okay. they're mainly stored in red states?

Where is that Obama's plan? First of all, Gates, the defense secretary, oversees most, if not all, of the expenditures on this stuff. And I love rhetorical hyperbole as much as the next guy, but do you think he's going to let our nuclear weapon facilities degrade to the point they become dangerous?

The argument is here is over some form of pork Kyl's delivering. That and someone in the GOP sees a good opportunity to paint Obama as weak on defense domestically while fucking with his foreign policy. Cheap, shitty, deflective politics.

This is the gridlock for which we voted. Nothing is going to get done. It's all sideshow nonsense. The only matter of significance right now is what happens with this trade row we have going with China. The rest of the news, IMO, might as well be Entertainment Tonight.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Uh. Yeah it was.



Um. When did I do that?

Perhaps you were having a different conversation in your head or something.

Newsflash, Abed... In the very posts you just cited, you are arguing Kyl is requesting the money to build new weaponry.

Your refusal to admit Hank's point wasn't right and request for information from him corroborating his argument wasn't a request for a cite? Oh... that's right. I forgot. Unless the exact word "cite" is used, it doesn't count.

God, I hope you're not this much of a tool IRL.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Newsflash, Abed... In the very posts you just cited, you are arguing Kyl is requesting the money to build new weaponry.

I'm not sure why you think that matters.

ETA: Also, "assume" is not the same as argue.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure why you think that matters.

ETA: Also, "assume" is not the same as argue.

Thanks for the clarification: You are just that big a fucking tool.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where is that Obama's plan? First of all, Gates, the defense secretary, oversees most, if not all, of the expenditures on this stuff. And I love rhetorical hyperbole as much as the next guy, but do you think he's going to let our nuclear weapon facilities degrade to the point they become dangerous?

i was responding to the hyperbole that any spending was bad. I'm comfortable the President will not do anything dumb, or risk our safety- although any Preisdent does have to make choices WRT where $$$ go and surely deciding not to put money into maintaining nukes could lose in such a choice.

But, in sum, I do not think President Obama would sit watching our nukes "leak." for that matter, I'm not even sure a nuke can leak. My rhetoric was simply a response to the silly argument that the Senator wishing to spend to maintain numkes was bad per se.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know you often are fucking around here, but I'm not sure of when it ends. This started with me saying "isn't it possible the money is needed for upkeep of some sort."

then the mob started attacking me since 1) he wants the money to buy new nukes, OR 2) I hadn't linked to articles that detailed how the money was being spent.

is it possible the guy is fucking with Obama? sure, although those are some big fucking stakes right there if he is- he's willing to fuck up our ability to reach a treaty ever for political reasons?

is it possible he's trying to use this as a lever to fix something that will never be fixed if he doesn't move now?

My impression from your questions was that the question I really should have asked was: which newspapers do you read?

Reading this response, and your astonishment that Kyl might hold up a treaty for political reasons, I realize it really is time to skip to that one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So you don't think Kyl is holding this up for a little pork and the pleasure of embarassing Obama?

He is. Absolutely. But Abed, and everybody else who argued Kyl was looking to buy new weaponry with any of that money, was refusing to admit Hank was right on that point. Which is seriously fucking annoying because it's so goddamned obvious.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Thanks for the clarification: You are just that big a fucking tool.

Okay. Whatever.

The point was Kyl's conduct, not exactly how the money was to be spent. I don't know, I never knew, and I never claimed to know. In fact, I've now had a brief a look at Kyl's webpage and I still don't know. The point is that he wants substantial sums of money to be spent in ways that he directs in exchange for having his party agree to ratify what seems like an important treaty.

Hank says we should be open to the possibility that the Senator has sincere concerns that he feels wouldn't otherwise be met. I'm rather more cynical than that, and you have helpfully provided a more plausible assumption about what the money is for.

Why you think anyone was arguing actually about exactly what the money was for is beyond me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i was responding to the hyperbole that any spending was bad. I'm comfortable the President will not do anything dumb, or risk our safety- although any Preisdent does have to make choices WRT where $$$ go and surely deciding not to put money into maintaining nukes could lose in such a choice.

But, in sum, I do not think President Obama would sit watching our nukes "leak." for that matter, I'm not even sure a nuke can leak. My rhetoric was simply a response to the silly argument that the Senator wishing to spend to maintain numkes was bad per se.

I agree, but I think it's worth looking into whether Kyl is overspending. I want to hear Gates, who has attempted to rein in spending, weigh in on the issue. I don't think it's wise to simply say, "Oh, we're talking about nuke safety? Well, let's just spend away. Too much can never be enough!" I don't care what the expenditure is - I think we should examine whether we are receiving value.

Which is probably a long way of me saying I agree with you. Which is no surprise.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He is. Absolutely. But Abed, and everybody else who argued Kyl was looking to buy new weaponry with any of that money, was refusing to admit Hank was right on that point. Which is seriously fucking annoying because it's so goddamned obvious.

I want your Hank interpretter. Will you loan it to me?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree, but I think it's worth looking into whether Kyl is overspending. I want to hear Gates, who has attempted to rein in spending, weigh in on the issue. I don't think it's wise to simply say, "Oh, we're talking about nuke safety? Well, let's just spend away. Too much can never be enough!" I don't care what the expenditure is - I think we should examine whether we are receiving value.

Which is probably a long way of me saying I agree with you. Which is no surprise.

How lovely. I agree too!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why you think anyone was arguing actually about exactly what the money was for is beyond me.

Perhaps because you wrote this:

"You think he wants to spend $84+ billion on simple maintenance? Also, since when has any member of congress said "modernization" and not meant "build a bunch of new stuff to replace what we have now?"

You annoying fuck... You made me violate my "never dig for a board cite" rule.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree, but I think it's worth looking into whether Kyl is overspending. I want to hear Gates, who has attempted to rein in spending, weigh in on the issue. I don't think it's wise to simply say, "Oh, we're talking about nuke safety? Well, let's just spend away. Too much can never be enough!" I don't care what the expenditure is - I think we should examine whether we are receiving value.

Which is probably a long way of me saying I agree with you. Which is no surprise.

Kyl's goal is not to have this debate in a budgetary setting, where the pros and cons of different expenses are being weighed, and where the discussion has already been held (18 to 21 times from RT's posts) and an increase approved, but in a setting where the expense is tied to treaty ratification and there is an increase over and above the increase already allocated in budget discussions.

The simple point really is that this approach runs a bit contrary to Republican rhetoric. Not surprising, of course, but there you are.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree, but I think it's worth looking into whether Kyl is overspending. I want to hear Gates, who has attempted to rein in spending, weigh in on the issue. I don't think it's wise to simply say, "Oh, we're talking about nuke safety? Well, let's just spend away. Too much can never be enough!" I don't care what the expenditure is - I think we should examine whether we are receiving value.

Which is probably a long way of me saying I agree with you. Which is no surprise.

Gates has already weighed in in support of the treaty that Kyl is trying to block. Does that count for anything?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps because you wrote this:

"You think he wants to spend $84+ billion on simple maintenance? Also, since when has any member of congress said "modernization" and not meant "build a bunch of new stuff to replace what we have now?"

You annoying fuck... You made me violate my "never dig for a board cite" rule.

To which Hank responded (appropriately), "we must be able to find out," suggesting to me that he recognized that I did not know and was speculating.

ETA: BTW, this is an even dumber thing to argue about.