I started a thread for us so that we can resume our discussion from the locked thread.

TVCJohn says:


quote:
Nothing wrong with taking out proven fraud and unnecessary waste. The problem is when someone will take viable research and call it waste just to score points with the special interest groups.[/quote]


I'm glad you approve of his idea to take out proven fraud (there's PLENTY of it) and unnecessary waste. But, what is this "viable research" that he is taking out? What is YOUR source? What "viable research" has he specifically stated that he will "take out"?

quote:

Not sure where you got your source but regarding SDI research...

Here's a pretty good place to start. If you're truly interested in the facts about this subject, and not just in apologizing for it, there is a lot more information to be found, pretty easily.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723735,00.html

quote:

Same as above....BTW....I'd be curious what he (or his special interest supporters) has against space based defense technology. If you don't want defense contractors to get defense contracts, maybe we can let Kraft Food Corporation make the next round of defense systems. Maybe we can find out if mac-n-cheese can be used an alternative rocket fuel.

Do you know how many politicians take money from defense contractors?

Where is the need for space based defense? A nuclear device can be delivered in a suitcase. It's a waste of money. Simple as that. And, of course, defense contractors should get the defense contracts, but you're intentionally avoiding the fact that many of them have been convicted of fraud NUMEROUS TIMES and billions are wasted on programs we don't need. And, no, I don't know know how many total politicians get campaign contributions. Do you? Surely you're not suggesting that defense contractors aren't major contributors to camaigns?

quote:

If we had these future combat systems, do you think they could be used as deterrants to make countries think twice before contemplating an attack? I see that as a benefit. Maybe these advanced combat systems could be portable to weed out threats domestically or for our allies. That would be good thing.

The $600 billion a year we spend on defense now didn't stop, nor deter, a bunch of Saudis from capturing aircraft with box cutters and flying them into buildings, did it? Money well spent?

quote:

I see you don't like Sen Obama's idea though.

I said this.....when?

quote:

What is your source that "vital defense systems" were killed by GB 1?

Well, I'll tell you what. The horse's mouth is usually a good place to get some information. Let's go and see what Dick Cheney had to say about slashing the military budget (or, as you would call it, "dismantling the entire military), when he, as I've stated ad nauseum, was serving as Bush I's Defense Secretary, and speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 31, 1992:

quote:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Wow a "peace dividend"! Right after the Persian Gulf War, when Cheney supposedly was so sure that Saddam was an imminent threat to America. My god, why was he so WEAK ON DEFENSE??? Didn't he realize that Saddam could have attacked at any moment???? Horrors! Of course, this was '92, an election year. And, Bush I was desperate to shore up his approval rating, since Reagan's tax cuts left the budget so starved for revenues. Dismantling our entire military probably didn't seem like such a bad idea to him.

Now, if you want, we can research what "vital defense systems" were among the programs that were eliminated by "well over" $350 billion dollars in cuts to the defense of this nation by the Bush I Administration.

You wanna?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MeatUSCGRetired,

Ok back with you. In the interest of brevity (and my laziness)......pick out your best talking point above that you think is bullet proof and we'll go from there.

Just a quick side note that we are not going to start threads with the sole purpose of calling out one member for a debate.

T

quote:

Originally posted by militia1:
Just a quick side note that we are not going to start threads with the sole purpose of calling out one member for a debate.

T

No worries...in this case he's cool. Good call on the top-cover though.

What is wrong with private E-Mail??

quote:

Originally posted by Shallowwater:
What is wrong with private E-Mail??

It doesn't allow some to show their superior debating skills and knowledge.

Or complete ignorance

quote:

Originally posted by militia1:
Just a quick side note that we are not going to start threads with the sole purpose of calling out one member for a debate.

T

The only reason I started this thread is because TVCJohn and I were debating on a thread that was closed down to rescue Wray. I copied my last posting on that thread and pasted it on this one. TVC and I agreed to pick up the debate on another thread, and the only reason I put TVC's name on this is so that he would recognize that I had started the thread for that purpose.

Of course, EVERYONE is welcome to post on this thread. It wasn't meant to be exclusive.

quote:

Originally posted by TVCJohn:
Ok back with you. In the interest of brevity (and my laziness)......pick out your best talking point above that you think is bullet proof and we'll go from there.

Well, since we were discussing everything in that posting, I think it's only fair that you not ask me to eliminate all but one point, lazy or not.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Originally posted by TVCJohn:
Ok back with you. In the interest of brevity (and my laziness)......pick out your best talking point above that you think is bullet proof and we'll go from there.

Well, since we were discussing everything in that posting, I think it's only fair that you not ask me to eliminate all but one point, lazy or not.

Don't dodge him....Pick one to start with...Afterall, you're the superior debator.... right!

quote:

Don't dodge him....

"Um, Mr. Kettle? There's a Mr. Pot on the line for you. He said something about you being black...."

I always favored the "Master Debator" title delivered quickly with a strong boston accent!
Its so hard to act my age!
Peace,
Dick

quote:

Originally posted by asm3driscoll:
I always favored the "Master Debator" title delivered quickly with a strong boston accent!
Its so hard to act my age!
Peace,
Dick

Good one.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Don't dodge him....

"Um, Mr. Kettle? There's a Mr. Pot on the line for you. He said something about you being black...."

I guess you don't have a very firm position, if you're too afraid to pick the first talking point. I was anxiously awaiting what you would consider bullet proof..So i could put a bullet through it myself.

I consider the entire thing bullet-proof, Scourge. TVCJohn didn't pick one single talking point when he began debating me, and I see no reason to do that now, just becauswe he doesn't feel like doing all the research. But, when he does get around to debating my points, I promise you I will not run from a single question he asks me.


Now, when are you going to stop running from my questions?

quote:

Now, when are you going to stop running from my questions?

A cloud of dust....then crickets chirping.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
I consider the entire thing bullet-proof, Scourge. TVCJohn didn't pick one single talking point when he began debating me, and I see no reason to do that now, just becauswe he doesn't feel like doing all the research. But, when he does get around to debating my points, I promise you I will not run from a single question he asks me.


Now, when are you going to stop running from my questions?

I responded to your questions...Sorry you don't like the response, sometimes in the real world that's the way the cookie crumbles.


You attempts to divert from the request that you choose a bullet proof portion TO START With...Speaks volumes.

quote:

Originally posted by scrounge:

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
I consider the entire thing bullet-proof, Scourge. TVCJohn didn't pick one single talking point when he began debating me, and I see no reason to do that now, just becauswe he doesn't feel like doing all the research. But, when he does get around to debating my points, I promise you I will not run from a single question he asks me.


Now, when are you going to stop running from my questions?

I responded to your questions...Sorry you don't like the response, sometimes in the real world that's the way the cookie crumbles.


You attempts to divert from the request that you choose a bullet proof portion TO START With...Speaks volumes.

You responded, but you didn't answer the questions. You're still running from me.

As for choosing a "bullet proof portion", I've made my case. Who am I running from? The points are made, awaiting TVC's response. How does it make it different to copy one point and put it in a different posting? TVCJohn can respond to any point he wants, and I will answer any question he has.

Now, unless your next posting has some answers to previous questions posed to you, I'm gonna pretty much ignore your attempts to make something out of nothing here.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Originally posted by TVCJohn:
Ok back with you. In the interest of brevity (and my laziness)......pick out your best talking point above that you think is bullet proof and we'll go from there.

Well, since we were discussing everything in that posting, I think it's only fair that you not ask me to eliminate all but one point, lazy or not.

Fair doesn't really have anything to do with it. Like I said earlier, it is more of me (not you) being lazy having to respond to everyone of your points with a quality response. I could do it fairly easily with one/two liners but some of those I would want provide thorough responses and that would take time if I did them all. We would end up with quotes and counter-quotes. I think that would lose focus of the original points.

Seeing as how you started the thread, I felt it was a courtesy and polite to let you choose any one of the talking points that you felt was bullet-proof and then proceed from there. That should hopefully provide a quality discussion vs shotgunning each response to a talking point. That seems to happen alot on here. You did invite others to share their opinion of your points. That was cool and should generate plenty of discussion if you wanted to proceed down that path. One thing I won't do is get in a discussion of what to discuss. Been to too many rodeos for that. Anywho....no worries mate. I'll check in later and see where things are heading....

Well, as I said, I consider each of the points equally irrefutable, so just start from the top and work your way down. However you want to do this is fine with me.

No offense intended, my friend, but for future reference, if you're lazy about research, I wouldn't advise debating with me. I get off on research.