The Republican Thread

[Soxbadger]

1 billion could go a longway in this country. That's closing the budget gap in a LOT of cities scrapping for every last dollar.

 

How many more fighter jets, missiles, tanks, etc did we just order?

 

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/dis...s-big-cuts.html

 

That money could go a longway in this country. But we as a country cant make decisions to cut off our nose to spite our face. In the long term, I have no doubt that $1bil spent on India will be worth it. When we spend billions to trillions on machines of war, its worth it to spend a small fraction on goodwill.

 

You never know if it will pay off, but we cant just start cutting things just to cut them. Is maybe the spending excessive? Sure, but some spending had to happen, so its the difference between the excess and the non-excess that we have to discuss. I doubt that Obama is spending in excess of 2x what the minimum cost could be, and I doubt that Obama is spending to spend, so there has to be some reason for the expense.

 

I guess I believe that being a diplomat is part of being the President and that through diplomacy we could potentially save far more money in the future.

 

No way to verify, just my belief.

[Chisoxfn]

I don't like the Democrats much.

 

I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media.

What poor reasoning? I think it is a worthy thing to know and learn. Something was said by an official. Does he know, I have no idea. Have I ever claimed to know it as true.

[bigruss]

Right, because this is our one and only shot to make an impression. And a 5 day trip in 2010 is going to make all the difference.

 

I love this attitude that the United States HAS to do x, y, and z or else the world will never talk to us again. When did that start?

So when do we start making allies? Right when we need them? I like that idea, wait until we desperately need an ally than ask them to be the ally. That works.

 

How about our foreign relations have been slacking lately, and India provides a much needed friend. Ignoring them could cause problems we dont want (not saying they will hate us, but maybe they won't be so favorable in helping us later). You do realize there is a give and take in foreign relations.

[StrangeSox]

Who has that attitude? The argument is that overseas travel, while expensive, is a worthwhile expenditure because of the benefits it can bring.

[Chisoxfn]

Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people.

 

Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant.

I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking?

[bigruss]

How many more fighter jets, missiles, tanks, etc did we just order?

 

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/dis...s-big-cuts.html

 

That money could go a longway in this country. But we as a country cant make decisions to cut off our nose to spite our face. In the long term, I have no doubt that $1bil spent on India will be worth it. When we spend billions to trillions on machines of war, its worth it to spend a small fraction on goodwill.

 

You never know if it will pay off, but we cant just start cutting things just to cut them. Is maybe the spending excessive? Sure, but some spending had to happen, so its the difference between the excess and the non-excess that we have to discuss. I doubt that Obama is spending in excess of 2x what the minimum cost could be, and I doubt that Obama is spending to spend, so there has to be some reason for the expense.

 

I guess I believe that being a diplomat is part of being the President and that through diplomacy we could potentially save far more money in the future.

 

No way to verify, just my belief.

Very well put.

[Chisoxfn]

It's circumstantial evidence at best.

 

 

Provide it.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't raise that question. Assuming that the claim should be addressed is begging the question that it is worth addressing. The White House does not need to respond to every off-the-wall assertion thrown out, and accusations shouldn't be assumed true otherwise.

 

How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean?

f*** off. I don't have to prove anything. You haven't done a damn bit of research on this subject and are taking the easy road.

[BigSqwert]

f*** off. I don't have to prove anything. You haven't done a damn bit of research on this subject and are taking the easy road.

Stay classy.

[StrangeSox]

What poor reasoning? I think it is a worthy thing to know and learn. Something was said by an official. Does he know, I have no idea.

Right, there was no compelling reason to believe his claims. This was pointed out, and you and Mike responded by shifting the burden to others to disprove the claim.

 

 

Have I ever claimed to know it as true.

 

No, you did not. But you still tried to shift the burden, and you tried to use fuzzy arguments that "if they don't address it, there's reason to believe it."

 

Like I said, the figure may be right, but assuming it's true without examination simply because someone said it and, so far, no one has refuted it does not make for a good argument.

[Chisoxfn]

Stay classy.

You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic.

[Rex Kickass]

Right, because this is our one and only shot to make an impression. And a 5 day trip in 2010 is going to make all the difference.

 

I love this attitude that the United States HAS to do x, y, and z or else the world will never talk to us again. When did that start?

I think if you start insisting countries meet in teleconference instead of in person with our leader, it will make negotiations considerably more difficult.

 

There is a reason why sales forces still travel to meet with people they stand to benefit from. And its not for air miles or that wonderful Hyatt bed.

[BigSqwert]

You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic.

I don't see why there is even a debate about this. Someone with little to no credibility threw a number out there and we're supposed to all believe it?

[StrangeSox]

f*** off. I don't have to prove anything.

 

If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do.

 

You haven't done a damn bit of research on this subject and are taking the easy road.

 

I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable?

[Balta1701]

I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking?

As far as I can tell, the 3000 people line comes from the same source in Mumbai as the $200 million/day number. (Again, not that I don't believe it...but I don't see any commenter by googling who isn't citing the same person in India who put out the dollar amount).

[Chisoxfn]

I don't see why there is even a debate about this. Someone with little to no credibility threw a number out there and we're supposed to all believe it?

3000 people, a history of overspending, the thought of a billiion bucks being spend on this trip.

 

That is all concrete evidence and a very discussion worthy points that you all insist should be swept under the rug.

 

If that is the case just stay the hell out of the thread cause the comments you add bring absolutely zero value to this discussion.

[StrangeSox]

You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic.

 

A discussion on the merits of the trip, regardless of cost or assuming argumento $200M, is worth having. I'll drop this if you will and we can all move on.

[BigSqwert]

If that is the case just stay the hell out of the thread cause the comments you add bring absolutely zero value to this discussion.

 

Sort of like this comment that seems to come from no source:

3000 people, a history of overspending, the thought of a billiion bucks being spend on this trip.

 

That is all concrete evidence and a very discussion worthy points that you all insist should be swept under the rug.

 

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do.

 

 

 

I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable?

Ummm, cause 3000 people, a history of significant spending, and speculation of 200 million in costs. Looks to me like I have support and all you do is post, no, bulls***. Well if that is the case, get out of the thread cause you clearly don't want to discuss things.

 

Just claiming it can't be true or isn't a fact isn't anything. And I don't need to support anything other than it is interesting and I want to hear more about it. You just want to sweep stuff under the rug. Be my guest but enough of this, one rumor, its gone.

 

No, reputable sources are calling this the most expensive presidential visit in US history and it is also the largest entourage ever in US history.

[Rex Kickass]

Swear word, insult and meritless comment.

 

Pointless inflammatory rebuttal

 

Perhaps you had the Filibuster confused with "The Pissing Contest" Forum. That's not in this forum, so if you have a beef - take it outside. Keep it respectful or take it elsewhere.

[StrangeSox]

Ummm, cause 3000 people, a history of significant spending, and speculation of 200 million in costs. Looks to me like I have support and all you do is post, no, bulls***. Well if that is the case, get out of the thread cause you clearly don't want to discuss things.

 

No, you don't. Speculation isn't evidence. I'm not exactly making an argument here, merely asking you to support yours. I don't need support to be skeptical. Now, if you come with some reliable evidence for a claim and I unreasonable question or reject it, that's a different story.

 

 

Just claiming it can't be true or isn't a fact isn't anything.

 

Asking someone to support an assertion is something. I did not say it cannot be true or is not a fact; I have said, repeatedly, that it is simply not a supported claim.

 

And I don't need to support anything other than it is interesting and I want to hear more about it. You just want to sweep stuff under the rug. Be my guest but enough of this, one rumor, its gone.

 

No, reputable sources are calling this the most expensive presidential visit in US history and it is also the largest entourage ever in US history.

 

Which can lead to a fair discussion, as long as we all agree that speculation isn't evidence and the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person making a claim.

Edited November 3, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Chisoxfn]

Sort of like this comment that seems to come from no source:

Please let me know when you make a post that has anything to do with actual discussion and debate.

[Chisoxfn]

No, you don't. Jesus Christ, stop crying and realize that speculation isn't evidence.

 

 

 

 

Asking someone to support an assertion is something. I did not say it cannot be true or is not a fact; I have said, repeatedly, that it is simply not a supported claim.

 

 

 

Which can lead to a fair discussion, as long as we all agree that speculation isn't evidence and the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person making a claim.

Seriously, do you read my posts. Never have I claimed the 200 million figure as fact. I've said it warrants debate and for a plethora of reasons.

 

And outside of about 2 parties, good debate has occurred, but these two parties continue to make post out of post stating it means nothing. We get it, but if you don't have anything else to add get out of the thread. It is like the countless bulls*** about how Walker needs to be fired. Say it once, unless you have new points or facts to debate with it, anymore times and it adds zero value and instead prevents valid discussion and debate.

[KipWellsFan]

I'm just surprised me and Kap aren't involved in this tilt!

[southsider2k5]

Why do I bother posting if you aren't actually reading my posts?

 

I am saying, clear as a bell, that the cost is THE SAME for each. How on any planet is that me saying its a crutch? My whole point here is that this is not an Obama issue, whatsoever, except when its convenient for Republicans. This is a reality of modern Presidential travel. Clinton was probably lower only because security probably got bigger after 9/11, so Bush is the best comparison.

 

Seriously, you guys are so far out in left field on this its ridiculous. You aren't functioning in reality. You are taking a number from a guy who clearly cannot possibly know, and which if you take even a minute to think about would realize is patently impossible... and then not only taking it on faith, but then applying it to Obama who has virtually no control over it!

 

Actually that kinda goes with exactly with what I said. Bush did it, so its OK.

[southsider2k5]

So now the federal government is supposed to bailout local governments with handouts? That doesn't seem like something that would go over well on your side of the aisle.

 

If we are going to piss away billions of dollars, I would rather have the money go to making sure there weren't classrooms with 40 kids in them in Michigan City, versus a few thousand people getting to spend time in India.