Repug hate having their lies destroyed

[boutons_deux]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2010-07/54986951.jpg

Stimulus signage has GOP outraged


Critics say they amount to taxpayer-funded political advertising. Others respond that signs, too, are jobs

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-stimulus-sign-controversy0716-20100715,0,5674059.story

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they are jobs. However, make it so it isn't a political message. It absolutely, without doubt, is spending tax payer dollars for advertising that their party did something.

I hope someone is within their right to sue over this. Maybe the DNC should have to pay for of such signs.

[DMX7]

Socialism!

[Spurminator]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's good to actually see what the money is being used for. We are all in this together, after all, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, they are jobs. However, make it so it isn't a political message. It absolutely, without doubt, is spending tax payer dollars for advertising that their party did something.How? It is merely saying how it was funded.

You are the one making it political.

As usual.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's good to actually see what the money is being used for. We are all in this together, after all, right?
It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.

It is improper use of funds to give free campaign commercials to a set of politicians.

[DMX7]

How? It is merely saying how it was funded.

You are the one making it political.

As usual.

It's political because it's the truth, and the truth has a well known liberal bias.

[DMX7]

It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.


So what? Let the people decide if that project was a waste of money or not. What are you trying to hide?

[Spurminator]

It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.

It is improper use of funds to give free campaign commercials to a set of politicians.

It doesn't say anything about any politicians or political parties.

[Spurminator]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7392/puttingamerica.jpg

[Spurminator]

dp

[z0sa]

It doesn't say anything about any politicians or political parties.

The article states every House Republican opposed the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill.

[Nbadan]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7392/puttingamerica.jpg

:lol

[Spurminator]

The article states every House Republican opposed the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill.

I'm talking about the sign.

[z0sa]

I'm talking about the sign.

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

[Wild Cobra]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7392/puttingamerica.jpg
Now that one gets a nice laugh, and yes, believe it's closer to the truth. However, that would be improper to place also.

Look, if you want to use something that effectively advertises, then pay for it out of the advertising funds of those who benefit from it.

[Wild Cobra]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.
But that keeps the county sign shops open, so they don't have to let government employees with union benefit to hurt like the rest of us might.

When will some money go to the private sector?

[boutons_deux]

What's political about this, WC?

The stimulus helped all Americans just not ex-ACORN employees, Dems, Black Panthers, commies, etc.

I've read many articles citing Repug Congrassholes who voted against the stimulus, etc, but showed up at groundbreaking, etc, ceremonies and claimed how great the funds were for their districts and "their" voters.

[Spurminator]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

:lol It's only political propaganda to partisan cheerleaders. Most people don't see it that way, nor care. Plenty of people couldn't even tell you what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is.


That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

It came from stimulus funds. Somebody has to make the signs and install them, right? That's work.

[Wild Cobra]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.
But that keeps the county sign shops open, so they don't have to let government employees with union benefit to hurt like the rest of us might.

When will some money go to the private sector?

[z0sa]

:lol It's only political propaganda to partisan cheerleaders.

If every single person in the minority hadn't opposed the act, maybe this statement would have merit.


Most people don't see it that way, nor care.

Says who?


Plenty of people couldn't even tell you what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is.

And that changes the facts how?




It came from stimulus funds. Somebody has to make the signs and install them, right? That's work.

Is your point these signs were a good use of stimulus funds?

[Spurminator]

If every single person in the minority hadn't opposed the act, maybe this statement would have merit.


You're missing the point. This is no longer a political ping-pong ball. This is an approved act. As such, it is something that affects us and I see no problem with signage showing us where it's being used.

The sign is a statement of fact. A notice. It's only an advertisement to partisan cheerleaders who seem concerned that unknowing passers-by might actually approve of the work being done. It's like objecting to school textbooks publishing Barack Obama as the current President because you feel it's "gloating."


Is your point these signs were a good use of stimulus funds?

I'm making no point about whether the funds were used intelligently or even whether I approve of the stimulus at all. But this seems to be a piece of what it was intended for. They were going to have to install "Road Construction" signs anyway... Pretty miniscule thing to get worked up about if you ask me.

[z0sa]

You're missing the point. This is no longer a political ping-pong ball. This is an approved act. As such, it is something that affects us and I see no problem with signage showing us where it's being used.

Approved barely, with much politicizing and coverage in the MM and abroad, and at the expense of every, single, one of the minority's approval.

I don't know why you've chosen to play dumb about the obvious politicization just because the signs are also a semi-decent use of stimulus cash.


The sign is a statement of fact. A notice. It's only an advertisement to partisan cheerleaders who seem concerned that unknowing passers-by might actually approve of the work being done.



Did it create a few additional jobs? Yes. Is it politicizing tax payer funded work? Yes, it is.

Have you stopped to think that at least a portion of the tens of thousands of drivers seeing these signs, who aren't aware of even the basics of the act, as you presume, will soon find out the Republicans opposed the act universally? And vice versa (Democrats accepted it)?

The fact that plenty of people don't know what the sign is about is indeed part of the reason why it's a politicization. The Republicans could actually gain a few votes from this, but they're mostly going to be the losers on this one IMO.



I'm making no point about whether the funds were used intelligently or even whether I approve of the stimulus at all. But this seems to be a piece of what it was intended for. They were going to have to install "Road Construction" signs anyway... Pretty miniscule thing to get worked up about if you ask me.

First of all, that's a rather extravagant sign (purposely, I'm sure, so everyone can make out it out while passing by). I am honestly curious is standard size, and how many smaller signs not depicting the name of the act in huge lettering could be made for the same amount of money.

Second, as we've gone over, it's not some universally accepted act, even if it was passed by the majority; a huge amount of our leaders opposed it. There's many, many people who voted for them, who don't approve, and did not want it passed, and don't think this is a good use of their tax money. So why are you confused about Republicans, who represent most of that demographic, opposing these 950 of these signs being put up? That's whoring it out IMO and "self-congratulating", as they say.

I'll repeat that I don't have a problem with the message, for part of the reason you stated: we should know how our tax dollars are being used. However, should such info be depicted so vaguely on the side of the public highways? 950 times? And of an act many Americans oppose? I don't know, but IMO things certainly seem like they have some political connotations, however indirect.

[ElNono]

When will some money go to the private sector?

What makes you think those signs were not manufactured by the private sector?

[Spurminator]

Approved barely, with much politicizing and coverage in the MM and abroad, and at the expense of every, single, one of the minority's approval.

I don't know why you've chosen to play dumb about the obvious politicization just because the signs are also a semi-decent use of stimulus cash.

....

as we've gone over, it's not some universally accepted act, even if it was passed by the majority; a huge amount of our leaders opposed it. There's many, many people who voted for them, who don't approve, and did not want it passed, and don't think this is a good use of their tax money. So why are you confused about Republicans, who represent most of that demographic, opposing these 950 of these signs being put up? That's whoring it out IMO and "self-congratulating", as they say.

Irrelevant. It passed. It is under way.

Again, your argument betrays your view of current issues as points in a big partisan spectator sport. It's not a "Congrats Los Angeles Lakers" billboard in San Antonio. It's a notice of a public project that is happening whether Republicans voted for it or not.




Have you stopped to think that at least a portion of the tens of thousands of drivers seeing these signs, who aren't aware of even the basics of the act, as you presume, will soon find out the Republicans opposed the act universally? And vice versa (Democrats accepted it)?

The fact that plenty of people don't know what the sign is about is indeed part of the reason why it's a politicization. The Republicans could actually gain a few votes from this, but they're mostly going to be the losers on this one IMO.

You present the idea that passers-by would look up more information on the act as though it were a bad thing. If they choose to vote one way or another based on their understanding of the terms of the stimulus, that's their choice.

If they learned something about it that they didn't know, great. But in today's media environment they're just as likely to Google an article blasting the Democrats for the Stimulus as they are to find one praising them.


I'll repeat that I don't have a problem with the message, for part of the reason you stated: we should know how our tax dollars are being used. However, should such info be depicted so vaguely on the side of the public highways? 950 times? And of an act many Americans oppose? I don't know, but IMO things certainly seem like they have some political connotations, however indirect.

How would you suggest the sign read?

[CosmicCowboy]

The free golf carts I got with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were made in Korea....:lol

[z0sa]

Irrelevant. It passed. It is under way.

Nah, it's not irrelevant, because many Americans disapprove. Just because the signs are made doesn't mean people have to approve of them, like them, stand behind the act that paid for them, or anything else.


Again, your argument betrays your view of politics as a big spectator sport. It's not a "Congrats Los Angeles Lakers" billboard in San Antonio. It's a notice of a public project that is happening whether Republicans voted for it or not.

Eh, you're free to make assumptions, however wrong they may be.







You present the idea that passers-by would look up more information on the act as though it were a bad thing. If they choose to vote one way or another based on their understanding of the terms of the stimulus, that's their choice.

:lol where have I even implied anything such as the bolded. Please, come with something tangible, friend.

My argument is hinging on the fact it's a politicization through reasoning, NOT any personal beliefs or allegiances. I've made no mention of any negative aspects or connotations of people researching into it; I've consistently made it clear I have no problem with the message. Why do you assume things and jump to conclusions without any reasoning?


If they learned something about it that they didn't know, great. But in today's media environment they're just as likely to Google an article blasting the Democrats for the Stimulus as they are to find one praising them.

Agreed; I think this will cause many people to google the act, which will bring knowledge about the two party's arguments concerning it.

Since it (obviously passed), one presumes many people will find the Democrat's arguments more convincing, as well. That's JMO, though.

[z0sa]

How would you suggest the sign read?

Would you please argue first, why such signs should be put up on the road in the first place? I approve of the message's attempt at informing, but I think their existence is entirely unnecessary. People should be aware of this kind of knowledge through more direct methodology (which should be and in many cases, is govt sponsored, I think): online, in newspapers and books, and in their local library/college. 950 of these signs ($665,000) could have been spent better, not on signs, but on entirely different media altogether. I'm sure there's plenty of other jobs that could have been made with this money, IOW, and been a more effective usage of the stimulus cash.

[Stringer_Bell]

Yes, they are jobs. However, make it so it isn't a political message. It absolutely, without doubt, is spending tax payer dollars for advertising that their party did something.

I hope someone is within their right to sue over this. Maybe the DNC should have to pay for of such signs.

How about when the Republicans put Americans back to work they can make fancy signs too?

Compared to funding aimless wars in the middle east and buying brand new benches for every park in Montana...I don't think these signs are too much to pay for.

[CosmicCowboy]

The free golf carts I got with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were made in Korea....:lol

LOL They sold $7,000,000 of them. I need to get some Obama bobbleheads for the carts.

[DMX7]

Don't forget about your socialized government sponsored Rascal Scooters either, Tea Baggers.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, you're free to make assumptions, however wrong they may be.

My argument is hinging on the fact it's a politicization through reasoning, NOT any personal beliefs or allegiances.Based on your assumptions, however wrong they may be.

[z0sa]

Based on your assumptions, however wrong they may be.

Prove one of these "assumptions" is wrong.

[DMX7]

it's a politicization through reasoning

Ughhh... That's the worse kind.

[z0sa]

Ughhh... That's the worse kind.

Not. There's far worse political propaganda that is aimed only at harming and destroying reputations over votes. That's much worse than pointing out in large lettering 950 times "We won, see these supposedly great things happening because of that fact?"

[DMX7]

Ughhh... That's the worse kind.

^ Sarcasm

[ChumpDumper]

Prove one of these "assumptions" is wrong.Your assumption: Signs should not be made concerning the funding of highway projects if the law providing the funding was opposed by a number of people.

That assumption is completely and undeniably wrong.

[DarrinS]

So, 1 trillion dollars lowered unemployment by how much?

Maybe this is why BHO (mmm mmm mmm) has such high approval numbers.

[z0sa]

Your assumption: Signs should not be made concerning the funding of highway projects if the law providing the funding was opposed by a number of people.

I made no such assumption, nor tried, nor implied.

[ChumpDumper]

I made no such assumption, nor tried, nor implied.Of course you did. It's the basis of your whole "argument."

[DarrinS]

Maybe the DOJ will need to hire some temps for their Arizona lawsuit?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe the DOJ will need to hire some temps for their Arizona lawsuit?Maybe your butt will stop hurting someday.

[z0sa]

Of course you did.

Not.


It's the basis of your whole "argument."

The basis for my argument is not "Signs should not be made concerning the funding of highway projects if the law providing the funding was opposed by a number of people."

Find one quote where I state that the signs should not have been made because a number of people opposed it.

[DarrinS]

I'm sure some temp employees will be needed to administer unemployment benefits.

[ChumpDumper]

Not.Did.


The basis for my argument is not "Signs should not be made concerning the funding of highway projects if the law providing the funding was opposed by a number of people."

Find one quote where I state that the signs should not have been made because a number of people opposed it.You want me to quote your post?

You forgot composing it?

I believe it.

You assume that it could only be a political sign because it was made and people opposed it, but signs like that are made all the time whether people oppose the laws or not.

It could just be the kind of sign that is always made -- you assumed it is different somehow.

You have proved nothing but your ability to make faulty assumptions.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure some temp employees will be needed to administer unemployment benefits.Still hurts, eh?

[z0sa]

I approve of the message's attempt at informing, but I think their existence is entirely unnecessary. People should be aware of this kind of knowledge through more direct methodology

I don't think the signs should have been made, not because they are politicizations, and not because a large number of people opposed it; the reason I brought the latter up is to help prove the politicization is occurring. Indeed, the signs should not have been made, because other avenues exist that would have been better suited for the stimulus cash if informing people about the stimulus plan's benefits was the public goal in this case, as it clearly is.

I've stated this rather clearly.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who gives a shit about some stupid signs? You guys realize the economy still sucks, right? This roller coaster is just about to take another dive.

[DMX7]

I'm sure some temp employees will be needed to administer unemployment benefits.

http://bighugelabs.com/output/motivator81871278e18b4f3066171a15122782b912ead131. jpg

[z0sa]

Did not.

FIFY


You want me to quote your post?

Yes.

[MannyIsGod]

Facts should not be presented because those facts might have political ramifications is Zosa's point?

:lol

[DMX7]

Who gives a shit about some stupid signs?

First-term Republican Congressman Aaron Schock

[ChumpDumper]

I will accept your explanation of the first assumption -- how about this one.
You assume that it could only be a political sign because it was made and people opposed it, but signs like that are made all the time whether people oppose the laws or not.

It could just be the kind of sign that is always made -- you assumed it is different somehow.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ this thread.

People are pissed because signs were put up that show how the GOP opposed putting Americans to work. Awesome.

I love those signs so much more now.

[z0sa]

You assume that it could only be a political sign because it was made and people opposed it,

No, I do not. Stop making assumptions.

I reason it is politicized by pointing out many Americans did not want the act in place, and every single one of the minority faction's leaders opposed it.

The widespread MM coverage and polarizing nature of the act itself, you choose to ignore. I don't.


but signs like that are made all the time whether people oppose the laws or not.

Prove it; I'm honestly curious. Also, for these similar signs you speak of, include the number of signs created, their size in relation to normal signs as well as this sign, and how much capital the act enabled.

A link with the info will do just fine.


It could just be the kind of sign that is always made -- you assumed it is different somehow.

Once again, I didn't. I stated clearly I was curious about this signs' size compared with other similar signs portraying the funding for an act/construction in general, and whether or not it is larger, smaller, or the same size as similar signs, as well as how much they cost.

I commented that the size seems rather extravagant, but made no comparisons with any other signs.

[CosmicCowboy]

meh. They are just signs. no big deal. I could care less.

It's actually fun watching you guys take responsibility for this great economy.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I do not. Stop making assumptions.

I reason it is politicized by pointing out many Americans did not want the act in place, and every single one of the minority faction's leaders opposed it.Yes, you restated your assumption quite nicely.

Do you realize it is an assumption?


Prove it; I'm honestly curious.:lmao You have never seen any signs trumpeting government funding of any project of any size?

I have to now assume that you have missed a lot in your life.

[ChumpDumper]

This kind of signage is completely unprecedented!

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/images/p96su18.jpg

[z0sa]

Yes, you restated your assumption quite nicely.

Hard to make an assumption when you are stating facts.

I think you are unaware that what you consider an assumption, is actually my opinion, based on facts.

Feel free to continue calling my opinion wrong, unjustifiably.


:lmao You have never seen any signs trumpeting government funding of any project of any size?

I have to now assume that you have missed a lot in your life.

Ad hominem attack.

I'll be waiting for that proof.

We both know that I've seen signs similar.

[ChumpDumper]

We both know that I've seen signs similar.So my work here is done.

Thanks for admitting that.

[z0sa]

This kind of signage is completely unprecedented!

I never stated nor implied such.

[ChumpDumper]

I never stated nor implied such.It had to be political!

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.archives.ncdcr.gov/exhibits/wpa/images/wpa_5220_roadwidening.jpg
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/images/p96su19a.jpg

[z0sa]

So my work here is done.

Thanks for admitting that.

It's pretty laughable that you think my opinion is defined as an assumption, or that you'd resort to these ad hominem attacks, or that you'd focus in on something I never even argued about.

I never stated such signs don't exist. Never implied it; and not only that, you've not given me nearly enough info, to prove these signs are not the exception instead of the rule. A few pictures of like signs doesn't prove that the polarity/nature of the act behind them was anything like the stimulus bill. It doesn't give any info about how many of the signs were built, how much they cost, or anything else I asked for.

Second, I told you I was honestly curious as my reasoning behind "Prove it". Not "I think you're wrong and can't prove it."

And third, you can admit now that you were completely off-base in assuming what my arguments are.

[z0sa]

It had to be political!

Is there something you've given me that proves any of these signs aren't politicized to any degree?


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/images/p96su19a.jpg

Manny, could you say, or link, somewhere that lists who these men are? I will begin looking into these myself, and who was behind their enabling, but you could make it much quicker.

[ChumpDumper]

It's pretty laughable that you think my opinion is defined as an assumption

as·sume/əˈso͞om/Verb
1. Suppose to be the case, without proof

You did assume.


or that you'd resort to these ad hominem attacksPeople often laugh at those.


or that you'd focus in on something I never even argued about.So you weren't arguing they are partisan?

Wow.


I never stated such signs don't exist. Never implied it; and not only that, you've not given me nearly enough info, to prove these signs are not the exception instead of the rule.Um, you are supposed to prove they are the exception, since we agree such signs are the rule.


A few pictures of like signs doesn't prove that the polarity/nature of the act behind them was anything like the stimulus bill. It doesn't give any info about how many of the signs were built, how much they cost, or anything else I asked for.Again, it's your job.


Second, I told you I was honestly curious as my reasoning behind "Prove it". Not "I think you're wrong and can't prove it."I've seen enough of these signs to know that they are the rule as much as do you since you admitted it. It's up to you to prove they are the exception.

[ChumpDumper]

Is there something you've given me that proves any of these signs aren't politicized to any degree?You are now demanding I prove a negative.

Good job.

[z0sa]

You did assume.

Negative.


People often laugh at those.

At those who make them.


So you weren't arguing they are partisan?

I never argued about the size or commonality of the signs. Period. Which is what I was referencing, and what you have indeed, focused upon.

Whatever else you are referencing is due to a misunderstanding on your behalf.


Um, you are supposed to prove they are the exception, since we agree such signs are the rule.

Negative. What I am proving is that the sign is politicized; this other argument you've imagined me making is non-existent.


I've seen enough of these signs to know that they are the rule as much as do you since you admitted it. It's up to you to prove they are the exception.

Again, it's not about the sign itself, which I've demonstrated little more than curiosity - it's about the political nature underlying. Just because these types of signs exist, does not prove one or all of them are not political in nature - what I've been opining on, by the way.

Really not much else to say. I never argued about the physical nature of the signs. Didn't happen. Produce a quote concerning the physical nature of the signs where I express more than curiosity about the signs (ie, argue they are physically different than other signs of the same nature), or do more than ask you to prove they are mass produced behind the tenets of a very polarizing piece of legislature like the stimulus bill.

[z0sa]

You are now demanding I prove a negative.

Good job.

I haven't demanded anything of you.

[ChumpDumper]

Negative.Positive. You supposed it to be the case without proof.


At those who make them.Now you are making yet another assumption about what makes people laugh. Do you even realize this?


I never argued about the size or commonality of the signs. Period. Which is what I was referencing, and what you have indeed, focused upon.We are focused on the partisan politics you assume to be behind these signs.

Without proof.


Whatever else you are referencing is due to a misunderstanding on your behalf.Stonewalling is probably a good tactic at this point.


Negative. What I am proving is that the sign is politicizedWhat have you proved?

Nothing.

You are without proof.

Which makes it an assumption (see above definition).


Again, it's not about the sign itself, which I've demonstrated little more than curiosity - it's about the political nature underlying. Just because these types of signs exist, does not prove one or all of them are not political in nature - what I've been opining on, by the way.Thanks for admitting it again.


Really not much else to say. I never argued about the signs.I will not assume what other are laughing at or even if they are laughing, but I am laughing at the one who posted this sentence.

[DarrinS]

The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.


Maybe if it's repeated enough times, the 15 million unemployed Americans will believe it.



EDIT> And I could care less about the signs.

[ChumpDumper]

My butt doesn't hurt.
My butt doesn't hurt.
My butt doesn't hurt.
My butt doesn't hurt.
My butt doesn't hurt.


Maybe if it's repeated enough times, you will believe it.

[DarrinS]

Maybe if it's repeated enough times, you will believe it.

Wow. 52,000+ posts of weaksauce.

[ChumpDumper]

I know! I'll try some post count smack!

That ALWAYS works!

NO ONE will know my butt hurts then!

Yeah!

[z0sa]

Positive. You supposed it to be the case without proof.

I have stated my proof clearly. And it is only my opinion. You seem very concerned about it.


Now you are making yet another assumption about what makes people laugh. Do you even realize this?

I consider it a fact that people who use ad hominem attacks at any time during debate are laughable. You can disagree if you wish.


We are focused on the partisan politics you assume to be behind these signs.

You are focused on the physical nature of the signs, and me proving this sign is any different from ones you posted; neither of which concerns me.


Which makes it an assumption (see above definition).

Negative. Once again, you have mistakenly identified my opinion, based on facts, as an assumption.


Thanks for admitting [you have an opinion] again.

No problem.


I will not assume what other are laughing at or even if they are laughing, but I am laughing at the one who posted this sentence.

You're laughing at yourself?

[DarrinS]

Post 52621 is excellent. Keep it going.

[DarrinS]

I wonder how many road signs 15 million Americans can make?

[ChumpDumper]

I have stated my proof clearly. And it is only my opinion. You seem very concerned about it.There was no proof. I'm not terribly concerned about it. You might want to be though.


I consider it a fact that people who use ad hominem attacks at any time during debate are laughable. You can disagree if you wish.Your belief this is a debate is laughable.


You are focused on the physical nature of the signs, and me proving this sign is any different from ones you posted; neither of which concerns me.It's not my fault you have no proof and choose to find none.


Negative. Once again, you have mistakenly identified by opinion, based on facts, as an assumption.Sorry, it fit the definition perfectly. Looks like you made a faulty assumption about the definition too.


No problem.You have no problem you agree you have no proof regarding your assumption about the signs. Cool.


You're laughing at yourself?You made another faulty assumption about who wrote your quote.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm going to try to keep up with the post count smack. Maybe I'll make it to 10,000 myself in this thread!

[z0sa]

There was no proof.

We've been over this so let me switch gears: There surely is proof of you misunderstanding all of arguments thus far, as well as misinterpreting my opinion.


Your belief this is a debate is laughable.

It is a debate; and while such a belief is not laughable, I will say using ad hominem BS then deflecting when it's pointed out is certainly laughable.


Sorry

Apology for misunderstanding my argument and opinion while misusing assumption multiple times accepted.


You made another faulty assumption about who wrote your quote.

I made no assumption about the quote-writer; it was me. Why do I make you laugh at yourself?

[ducks]

What's political about this, WC?

The stimulus helped all Americans just not ex-ACORN employees, Dems, Black Panthers, commies, etc.

I've read many articles citing Repug Congrassholes who voted against the stimulus, etc, but showed up at groundbreaking, etc, ceremonies and claimed how great the funds were for their districts and "their" voters.

most amercians in the polls believe the stimulus did NOT help

[ChumpDumper]

We've been over this so let me switch gears: There surely is proof of you misunderstanding all of arguments thus far, as well as misinterpreting my opinion.I already posted clear proof that you don't know the meaning of the word assume, and that you were in fact making an assumption.


It is a debate; and while such a belief is not laughable, I will say using ad hominem BS then deflecting when it's pointed out is certainly laughable.I completely own my ad hominem attacks. They're fun.


Apology for misunderstanding my argument and opinion while misusing assumption multiple times accepted.You made a faulty assumption I apologized. You are doing this a lot.


I made no assumption about the quote-writer; it was me. Why do I make you laugh at yourself?You posted the sentence I quoted. You made a faulty assumption I was referring to another sentence. You are doing this a lot.

[DMX7]

most amercians in the polls believe the stimulus did NOT help

Do "most americans in the polls" have evidence to support this idea that the stimulus did NOT help at all?

[z0sa]

I already posted clear proof that you don't know the meaning of the word assume, and that you were in fact making an assumption.

Not at all.


I completely own my ad hominem attacks. They're fun.

You admit that was a pathetically laughable attempt; gotta start somewhere.


You made a faulty assumption I apologized.

You clearly said sorry, which is also known as apologizing.


You posted the sentence I quoted. You made a faulty assumption I was referring to another sentence.

No, I understand what you were trying to do. You left the statement ambiguous enough to be used right back on yourself.

Did you have trouble diagramming sentences in high school?

[Spurminator]

Would you please argue first, why such signs should be put up on the road in the first place? I approve of the message's attempt at informing, but I think their existence is entirely unnecessary. People should be aware of this kind of knowledge through more direct methodology (which should be and in many cases, is govt sponsored, I think): online, in newspapers and books, and in their local library/college. 950 of these signs ($665,000) could have been spent better, not on signs, but on entirely different media altogether. I'm sure there's plenty of other jobs that could have been made with this money, IOW, and been a more effective usage of the stimulus cash.

I already argued in favor of the signs. You disagreed, now it's your turn to suggest an alternative since you said the people should be informed. What methods would you use, how would it be worded, and what do you think that will cost?

I'll give you a bit of help: direct mail is more expensive than road signs. So you'll want to avoid that option.

[z0sa]

It could just be the kind of sign that is always made -- you assumed it is different somehow.

Your assumption: Signs should not be made concerning the funding of highway projects if the law providing the funding was opposed by a number of people.

You assume that it could only be a political sign because it was made and people opposed it


3 statements, dare I say assumptions, that Chump made concerning my argument and opinion, that show unequivocally and completely that he has no clue what I actually argued, or opined.

Thanks for the debate, Chump.

[z0sa]

I already argued in favor of the signs.

Could you please quote and/or restate your argument?


You disagreed,

I didn't disagree with the signs' message, and I think they have some use (as far as it can go).


now it's your turn to suggest an alternative since you said the people should be informed. What methods would you use,

Let me ask first: we both agree the people should be informed of where their tax dollars are going?

They should pour such cash into many different sectors, like expanding online sources and libraries/colleges. Government should be an important part of every American's life, but often, it isn't except Election year (or month or day or never, for many). This money could go into some novel plans, I'd think, like sending Americans to a govt college course free of individual charge (just an idea).


how would it be worded, and what do you think that will cost?

I'm averse to writing a professional estimate, sorry. I'm simply converting what was paid here, to doing other things. $665,000 in the pool of money to be drawn from.


I'll give you a bit of help: direct mail is more expensive than road signs. So you'll want to avoid that option.

Hahaha, I guess? Again, I only ever intended to convert the money we spent to other ways; a hypothetical is this we're discussing now.

[ChumpDumper]

3 statements, dare I say assumptions, that Chump made concerning my argument and opinion, that show unequivocally and completely that he has no clue what I actually argued, or opined.

Thanks for the debate, Chump.Right, because those were your assumptions, not arguments or opinions.

It shows unequivocally and completely that he has no clue what an assumption is, even after the definition was posted for you.

Thanks for the "debate."

[z0sa]

Right, because those were your assumptions, not arguments or opinions.

Thanks for admitting finally that you think those are assumptions I made. Like I've said all along, none of them are.

Hint: I never made any argument or opinion of that sort, either.



Thanks for the debate, z0sa.

No problem.

[spursncowboys]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

good point.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for admitting finally that you think those are assumptions I made. Like I've said all along, none of them are.I believe I addressed the one that wasn't quite early. As you had no proof of the other assumptions you did make, they stand.


No problem.None at all.

[Ignignokt]

Repealing the Glass Steagal Act and keeping the interest rates below market value was a stimulus and it lead to artificial wealth created which lead to an overvalued market and a crash.

So now that we found out that the market is overvalued, lets STIMULATE IT!!!!

Seriously, all you fools who are cheerleading anemic recovery and 9 % unemployment look idiotic.

Oh yeah, and the sign is pure pathetic propaganda. Traffic signs are not supposed to pimp DNC platforms, even idiots like Spurminator and chumpdumper should know that.

[Ignignokt]

And who gives a shit, whether it was done before. If govt introduced indentured servitude, i guess you'd apply the same logic.

[Ignignokt]

It doesn't say anything about any politicians or political parties.

Is that the requirment for propaganda??

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[spursncowboys]

Do "most americans in the polls" have evidence to support this idea that the stimulus did NOT help at all?

what evidence. the evidence that it "saved or created"? :lol
No other president used that standard. No other group of cheerleaders let a president get away with something like that. Also how many of the jobs, created by the stimulus, will stay after the money runs out and how many are just prolonged from the money?

[ChumpDumper]

So now that we found out that the market is overvalued, lets STIMULATE IT!!!!Is it currently overvalued?


Oh yeah, and the sign is pure pathetic propaganda. Traffic signs are not supposed to pimp DNC platforms, even idiots like Spurminator and chumpdumper should know that.It's the name of the act that funded the construction. I imagine most people don't even know that is its name.

[spursncowboys]

Why does a sign need to be put there? To give someone a job?

[ChumpDumper]

Why does a sign need to be put there? To give someone a job?Pretty much.

Isn't that the evidence for which you were asking?

[Ignignokt]

Is it currently overvalued?

It's the name of the act that funded the construction. I imagine most people don't even know that is its name.

Nice whitewashing!

[ChumpDumper]

Nice whitewashing!Nice avoiding the question!

[DMX7]

No other president used that standard.

What standard?

[LnGrrrR]

Zosa, if you think these signs are political in nature, tell me, what act done by a politician WOULDN'T be political? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Why does a sign need to be put there? To give someone a job?

It's one way to inform the taxpayer what their money is going to pay for.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh yeah, and the sign is pure pathetic propaganda. Traffic signs are not supposed to pimp DNC platforms, even idiots like Spurminator and chumpdumper should know that.

Hm, maybe some Republicans should've voted for it. After all, you must think that the act is viewed positively by the majority, otherwise, why would you care about the sign? A sign that said, "Dems are dumb for funding this" probably wouldn't raise your blood pressure too much, would it?

[z0sa]

Zosa, if you think these signs are political in nature, tell me, what act done by a politician WOULDN'T be political? :lol

Laws and acts passed by politicians tend to have political ramifications, wow that's a fucking zinger and a half.

[Ignignokt]

Nice avoiding the question!

that's because my earlier post awnsered the question already.

Nice reading fail.

[ChumpDumper]

that's because my earlier post awnsered the question already.

Nice reading fail.Except it didn't.

Nice posting fail.

[Ignignokt]

Except it didn't.

Nice posting fail.


Repealing the Glass Steagal Act and keeping the interest rates below market value was a stimulus and it lead to artificial wealth created which lead to an overvalued market and a crash.

So now that we found out that the market is overvalued, lets STIMULATE IT!!!!

Seriously, all you fools who are cheerleading anemic recovery and 9 % unemployment look idiotic.

Oh yeah, and the sign is pure pathetic propaganda. Traffic signs are not supposed to pimp DNC platforms, even idiots like Spurminator and chumpdumper should know that.


cept I did, moron redemption fail.

[ChumpDumper]

cept I did, moron redemption fail.Except you didn't.

Rebuttal fail.

Unless you are saying you think the market is still overvalued -- which would just be hilarious.

Is that what you are saying?

[Ignignokt]

Except you didn't.

Rebuttal fail.

Unless you are saying you think the market is still overvalued -- which would just be hilarious.

Is that what you are saying?

Now means present, as in today the market is overvalued.

You're too much of an idiot to know these things.

[Ignignokt]

LOL Chumpdumper doesn't know the meaning of now
LOL Chumpdumper doesn't understand credit markets.

[ChumpDumper]

Now means present, as in today the market is overvalued.

You're too much of an idiot to know these things.:lol

As I said, that is hilarious.

[DMX7]

Traffic signs are not supposed to pimp DNC platforms

How are they pimping DNC platforms? They inform people what their money is being spent on completely objectively. It's entirely up to them to decide if it's a good investment or not.

[DMX7]

Repealing the Glass Steagal Act and keeping the interest rates below market value was a stimulus and it lead to artificial wealth created which lead to an overvalued market and a crash.

So now that we found out that the market is overvalued, lets STIMULATE IT!!!!

Seriously, all you fools who are cheerleading anemic recovery and 9 % unemployment look idiotic.


Which market is overvalued? The stock market? The real estate market?

Either way, the stimulus bill isn't trying to stimulate a market, it's trying to stimulate the overall economy. And 9% unemployment doesn't mean is hasn't worked when you consider the rate of job loss at the end of 2008, if it had continued at that pace without any intervention, then the unemployment rate would be a hell of a lot higher than 9%. It's not a panacea bill, it's a stimulus bill.

[Spurminator]

Could you please quote and/or restate your argument?

Are you serious? Just read my posts again. Damn.


They should pour such cash into many different sectors, like expanding online sources and libraries/colleges. Government should be an important part of every American's life, but often, it isn't except Election year (or month or day or never, for many). This money could go into some novel plans, I'd think, like sending Americans to a govt college course free of individual charge (just an idea).

I'm averse to writing a professional estimate, sorry. I'm simply converting what was paid here, to doing other things. $665,000 in the pool of money to be drawn from.

Hahaha, I guess? Again, I only ever intended to convert the money we spent to other ways; a hypothetical is this we're discussing now.You said you don't have a problem with the message. You said the people should be informed. How would you do it? That's all I'm asking.

[Spurminator]

Is that the requirment for propaganda??

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


It's usually a part of "campaign commercials" as these signs were labeled in the post I was replying to.

Campaign ads that don't tell you who to vote for, or even what party, are pretty lousy ads. But all of you guys complaining about it to the press are sure giving the Dems some generous free PR. Nice job! :tu

[Wild Cobra]

What makes you think those signs were not manufactured by the private sector?
Well, when I worked at the Multnomah County Electronics shop, right next to us was the county sign shop. They made all road signs, street signs, etc. Now i may be wrong, but I think all counties that are not small have their own. I'm pretty sure that will apply to the state highway departments too, or they contract with other government agencies. We did the work for the smaller towns in the area too. I didn't know of a single agency that contracted work to the public sector when they had union jobs with prevailing wages to support.

I'll bet it's the same in most states.

[Wild Cobra]

The free golf carts I got with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were made in Korea....:lol
You would think they would only offer such incentives to products made in the USA if the intent was to kickstart the economy rather than give well off people free products.

[Wild Cobra]

This kind of signage is completely unprecedented!

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/images/p96su18.jpg
That sign was probably paid for by the contractors. On top if that, the interstate project was not anywhere close to having the same controversy. There was partisan bickering about amendments, but in the end, it was a bipartisan act.

[boutons_deux]

Putting up signs to marking stimulus results is unacceptable to right-wingers

but forcing US Attorneys to implement Repug political plank of "routing out widespread voter fraud" is wonderful (rather than going after corrupt Repugs, that will get you fired (see San Diego))

[Ignignokt]

It's usually a part of "campaign commercials" as these signs were labeled in the post I was replying to.

Campaign ads that don't tell you who to vote for, or even what party, are pretty lousy ads. But all of you guys complaining about it to the press are sure giving the Dems some generous free PR. Nice job! :tu

You're full of shit.

Propaganda doesn't need to have political party affiliation for it to be such.

You could have the same sign say, More americans die each month than in Iraq.

Cartoons have been used as propaganda, and they didn't necessarily have party affiliation to it.

People have been bitching about texas textbooks going towards propaganda, but i guess if those textbooks don't flat out tell you who to vote for, then those people making those claims are all just being hysterical.

[Spurminator]

Propaganda isn't the same as a campaign commercial, which is what I was responding to. If you want to call it propaganda, I won't argue it. But calling it propaganda doesn't make it pro-Democrat/anti-Republican. And in this situation, it doesn't make it a bad thing either.

[LnGrrrR]

Laws and acts passed by politicians tend to have political ramifications, wow that's a fucking zinger and a half.

You're missing my point. If they put the money towards, say, some other program to inform the taxpayer, then it would still be "propaganda" as you put it. I see no way to inform the public of works being built without it having a political undertone.

[LnGrrrR]

That sign was probably paid for by the contractors. On top if that, the interstate project was not anywhere close to having the same controversy. There was partisan bickering about amendments, but in the end, it was a bipartisan act.

WC knows because he's actually one of the guys in that picture :D :lol

[ElNono]

Well, when I worked at the Multnomah County Electronics shop, right next to us was the county sign shop. They made all road signs, street signs, etc. Now i may be wrong, but I think all counties that are not small have their own. I'm pretty sure that will apply to the state highway departments too, or they contract with other government agencies. We did the work for the smaller towns in the area too. I didn't know of a single agency that contracted work to the public sector when they had union jobs with prevailing wages to support.

I'll bet it's the same in most states.

I'll save you some bet money then...

The logo design was made by the private sector. More here:

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/two_logos_for_the_road_to_reco.php

The government also solicited the sign manufacturing relating to ARRA, at least for the forest service:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d8c3a49a9ad3a78c0eec618aafb387d8&_cview=1

http://www.recovery.org/projectdetails.aspx?pid=BID:12796698&gloc=California*CA

There's also Private sector companies offering ARRA sign manufacturing too, like Avalanche Sign Manufacturing:

http://arrasigns.com/arra/logo/

But besides of the signs, money from ARRA did go indeed to the private sector, for example a $2.3 billion tax credits handed by the DOE to private companies...

http://www.pvgroup.org/NewsArchive/CTR_034067

[spursncowboys]

What standard?

saved or created

[Ignignokt]

saved or created

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

"Jr did you save 25 dollars from your paper route to get yourself a new bike!"

"No but i did create 15 dollars in the process, Mom!!!"

"Atta boy junior!"

[DMX7]

saved or created

So we shouldn't judge a stimulus' effectiveness based on how many jobs it created? It has to restore normal unemployment levels within 2 years or the whole thing is a failure? Even when the entire stimulus hasn't even been spent yet?

[spursncowboys]

you can't count how many jobs were saved.

[ChumpDumper]

you can't count how many jobs were saved.If a job was going to be cut, and then not cut because federal money allowed for that job to be kept, did federal spending save that job?

In some cases, it probably can be easily counted.

[jack sommerset]

you can't count how many jobs were saved.

It's bullshit.

[jack sommerset]

Dp

[z0sa]

Are you serious? Just read my posts again. Damn.

... or you could repost your argument so I have a specific statement to argue with, if I choose to argue with it all.

Nah, it's okay, I'll just "reread your posts again", argue with a random thesis statement I choose, and then you can deny it had anything to do with what you are actually arguing. or whatever.


You said you don't have a problem with the message. You said the people should be informed. How would you do it? That's all I'm asking.

I said as much, in response, so it is clear.

[Spurminator]

You're not good at this.

[z0sa]

You're not good at this.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao

[z0sa]

What problem do you have with simply quoting your argument again?

It takes roughly 1-2 minutes of time.

You did make one, right?

[MannyIsGod]

Yet you can't go back and read it?

I mean, really?

[spursncowboys]

Yet you can't go back and read it?

I mean, really?

Yet another MIG sticking to his principles.

[z0sa]

Yet you can't go back and read it?

I mean, really?

We've (he and I) gone over much more shit than just whatever his argument probably is. It would be way easier for him to simply restate it, and that way, I would know exactly what he is arguing. Additionally, it will clarify the extent of his argument; as anyone can see, we've discussed more than whatever his argument is.

Not a very difficult concept to understand. And why are you acting butthurt about it?

[beachwood]

Repugs only like one kind of political advertising.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/bush-mission.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

You're missing my point. If they put the money towards, say, some other program to inform the taxpayer, then it would still be "propaganda" as you put it. I see no way to inform the public of works being built without it having a political undertone.

Zosa, any response? Curious.

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs only like one kind of political advertising.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/bush-mission.jpg
OK Beachwood. Now I know you are a retarded liberal, or libtard.

That banner indicates the air craft carrier's mission is accomplished. It was a few hundred miles away from it home port as it was returning. That banner was not to say the Iraqi mission was accomplished.

You buy into the media bullshit, then you are just a tool of the left. A kook-aide drinking liberal lemming.

Now I know as to what merit to give your posts.

Thanx for indicating you lack of competency, of parsing the truth.

Take a look at this view from port:

USS Abraham Lincoln Mission Accomplished (http://www.highdefwallpapers.com/images/funny/Uss_Abraham_Lincoln_Mission_Accomplished.jpg)

http://anh.24h.com.vn/upload/news/2009-12-12/1260582042-USS-Abraham-Lincoln-7.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027234.jpg

[Veterinarian]

It's political because it's the truth, and the truth has a well known liberal bias.

I lol'd at this. I've never heard this line before somehow.

[beachwood]

OK Beachwood. Now I know you are a retarded liberal, or libtard.

That banner indicates the air craft carrier's mission is accomplished. It was a few hundred miles away from it home port as it was returning. That banner was not to say the Iraqi mission was accomplished.

You buy into the media bullshit, then you are just a tool of the left. A kook-aide drinking liberal lemming.

Now I know as to what merit to give your posts.

Thanx for indicating you lack of competency, of parsing the truth.

Take a look at this view from port:

USS Abraham Lincoln Mission Accomplished (http://www.highdefwallpapers.com/images/funny/Uss_Abraham_Lincoln_Mission_Accomplished.jpg)

http://anh.24h.com.vn/upload/news/2009-12-12/1260582042-USS-Abraham-Lincoln-7.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027234.jpg

I'm sure the carrier's mission was accomplished but if you think that was the intended statement then you're dumber than pile of rocks.

[spursncowboys]

Zosa, any response? Curious.

This is like the american car companies going to dc in private jets.

Why do signs need to be put up anyway? If people are getting jobs then they will have jobs or oportunities to upgrade their current job. they don't need a sign that tells them that. Only the govt would hire someone to put up signs about hiring people.

[DMX7]

I'm sure the carrier's mission was accomplished but if you think that was the intended statement then you're dumber than pile of rocks.

You don't declare all major combat operations in Iraq over with a giant Mission Accomplished banner hanging behind you, and expect not to get taken to school over it.

But good judgement is something Bush isn't frequently accused of having. At least he admitted it was the wrong message to send and a mistake.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do signs need to be put up anyway? If people are getting jobs then they will have jobs or oportunities to upgrade their current job. they don't need a sign that tells them that. Only the govt would hire someone to put up signs about hiring people.

Don't you care about what your money is being spent on?

Without the sign, only the people actually hired to do the job would know about it. Now, people driving on the highway can see what their money is being spent on, and can approve or disapprove as they see fit.

They can also see how well the repairs are going, and then determine whether the government is investing its money wisely. If the repairs are shoddy, then they know to call up their representatives to look into the quality of the work done on that project.

[LnGrrrR]

That banner indicates the air craft carrier's mission is accomplished. It was a few hundred miles away from it home port as it was returning. That banner was not to say the Iraqi mission was accomplished.


WC, let's look at your logic on this point.

1) Aircraft carriers around the world perform various missions simultaneously. (Given)

2) Not every aircraft carrier puts up a giant banner signifying the accomplishment of a mission, which is then televised.

3) Not every aircraft carrier gets a personal visit from Bush upon accomplishment of a mission.

4) From 2 & 3, we can deduce that Bush appearing on the plane, as well as the banner, was uniquely significant.

5) From 4, we can deduce there was a specific mission accomplished, as the accolades were unique in themselves.

So WC, given the above logic, what specific mission do you think the aircraft carrier performed that it deserved such a high profile recognition?

[ChumpDumper]

Why did they have to stage that who charade in the first place?

Elitist!

[Wild Cobra]

You don't declare all major combat operations in Iraq over with a giant Mission Accomplished banner hanging behind you, and expect not to get taken to school over it.

But good judgement is something Bush isn't frequently accused of having. At least he admitted it was the wrong message to send and a mistake.
This was two different agencies acting on their own for the most part.

As you point out thought, "major combat operations" is not "all combat operations." Therefore, the mission of the war is not yet accomplished.

The left likes to misrepresent the meaning. That is their stupidity. Not ours.

[clambake]

lol

[ChumpDumper]

This was two different agencies acting on their own for the most part.

As you point out thought, "major combat operations" is not "all combat operations." Therefore, the mission of the war is not yet accomplished.

The left likes to misrepresent the meaning. That is their stupidity. Not ours.Yes, because there were no major military operations in Iraq after the Mission Accomplished debacle.

Not one.

[Wild Cobra]

So WC, given the above logic, what specific mission do you think the aircraft carrier performed that it deserved such a high profile recognition?
I don't recall all the details that far back.

Isn't returning to home port good enough for that carrier's current mission being over, i.e. accomplished?

Are you saying that banners are never put on ships returning home, when the crews families are waiting for them? That this is unusual?

One of the first, if not the first, navel vessel returning to home port after a wartime deployment.

Isn't that enough of an accomplishment for you?

If your standards are higher, then OK. I'll live with that.

[spursncowboys]

WC, let's look at your logic on this point.

1) Aircraft carriers around the world perform various missions simultaneously. (Given)

2) Not every aircraft carrier puts up a giant banner signifying the accomplishment of a mission, which is then televised.

3) Not every aircraft carrier gets a personal visit from Bush upon accomplishment of a mission.

4) From 2 & 3, we can deduce that Bush appearing on the plane, as well as the banner, was uniquely significant.

5) From 4, we can deduce there was a specific mission accomplished, as the accolades were unique in themselves.

So WC, given the above logic, what specific mission do you think the aircraft carrier performed that it deserved such a high profile recognition?

they had the longest deployment at the time of 18 months. Bill sammons, yes he's a bush guy, said the banner was about the military. I believe that.

[LnGrrrR]

This was two different agencies acting on their own for the most part.

As you point out thought, "major combat operations" is not "all combat operations." Therefore, the mission of the war is not yet accomplished.

The left likes to misrepresent the meaning. That is their stupidity. Not ours.

ARe you stating that all major combat operations were over in Iraq? Or maybe you mean all the current major combat operations were over, but that Bush planned on starting a whole bunch of new ones the next day, and he was just happy that these specific operations were over? :lol

[clambake]

the banner was about a staged event.........that burned taxpayer money.

[ChumpDumper]

the banner was about a staged event.........that burned taxpayer money.It was an elitist banner.

[clambake]

the banner should have said "have you seen my daughters today?"

[LnGrrrR]

I don't recall all the details that far back.

Isn't returning to home port good enough for that carrier's current mission being over, i.e. accomplished?

Are you saying that banners are never put on ships returning home, when the crews families are waiting for them? That this is unusual?

One of the first, if not the first, navel vessel returning to home port after a wartime deployment.

Isn't that enough of an accomplishment for you?

If your standards are higher, then OK. I'll live with that.

I would argue that the significance of an event that is only about a ship coming home (important yes) and the significance attached to it (giant banner seen on live TV, national address from the President) don't quite match up.

However, if the event was actually talking about the end of all major combat ops, then the address by Bush would have been fitting.

Banners are probably hung on ships returning home, but their return isn't greeted by live TV and a speech by the President.

[Wild Cobra]

ARe you stating that all major combat operations were over in Iraq? Or maybe you mean all the current major combat operations were over, but that Bush planned on starting a whole bunch of new ones the next day, and he was just happy that these specific operations were over? :lol
Shock and Awe was over. The constant pounding was over. we had already secured a large area. Sure, there were still large scale operations, but not like before his speech.

[ChumpDumper]

Shock and Awe was over. The constant pounding was over. we had already secured a large area. Sure, there were still large scale operations, but not like before his speech.So it was not the end of major military operations in Iraq.

OK.

[LnGrrrR]

Shock and Awe was over. The constant pounding was over. we had already secured a large area. Sure, there were still large scale operations, but not like before his speech.

To the public at large, (and most of the military) there is not a big difference between "large scale" and "major combat operations" is there? Would you argue that since that day, what we've done in Iraq doesn't constitute "major combat operations"?

[clambake]

So it was not the end of major military operations in Iraq.

OK.

yeah, but at the time, bush didn't know that.

[Wild Cobra]

Banners are probably hung on ships returning home, but their return isn't greeted by live TV and a speech by the President.
So is it your contention, that under such circumstances, banners should be removed?

[Wild Cobra]

Would you argue that since that day, what we've done in Iraq doesn't constitute "major combat operations"?
I believe so, but I don't have the relevant facts.

I would say major combat operations were done, because we then split the different units into many less coordinated large scale operations, rather than one focused operation.

[LnGrrrR]

So is it your contention, that under such circumstances, banners should be removed?

I don't see anything wrong with the banner, assuming that all major combat operations were ended.

Do you think all major combat operations were ended?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see anything wrong with the banner, assuming that all major combat operations were ended.
Well, we are on different wavelengths. You are acting as if the carrier should be 100% tied to the presidents speech. I disagree with that.

Do you think the makers of the banner knew the words in the president's speech before putting up the banner?

Do you think all major combat operations were ended?
Asked and answered.

[spursncowboys]

the banner was about a staged event.........that burned taxpayer money.

im ok with spending money to celebrate veterans coming home.

[clambake]

im ok with spending money to celebrate veterans coming home.

yeah, it would have been great if it were about veterans coming home.

[LnGrrrR]

I believe so, but I don't have the relevant facts.

I would say major combat operations were done, because we then split the different units into many less coordinated large scale operations, rather than one focused operation.

Wouldn't you say it's misleading to argue that "major combat operations" are finished, if the tempo of operations remains the same but is split into various other operations?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, we are on different wavelengths. You are acting as if the carrier should be 100% tied to the presidents speech. I disagree with that.

If the banner was only about the mission of the carrier, isn't it somewhat short-sighted of the President's team to not assume that a banner which read "Mission Accomplished" might not be associated with the speech the President was making in which he was discussing the end of all major combat operations?


Do you think the makers of the banner knew the words in the president's speech before putting up the banner?

Do you think that Presidential team might not have thought that a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner might not be associated with the President's speech in which he was talking about a specific mission being accomplished?


Asked and answered.

So you think that all major combat operations were completed, and replaced with "large scale" combat operations.

In the same sense, I could say that I could tell my boss that I "finished" the major pieces of a project, even if I still had years to go before I was done with it, because I'd only have some "large scale" pieces left to finish. :)

[Wild Cobra]

This is pointless. we are going in circles.

I'll give you a bone though. The WH did know that specific banner would be there. Did you know that?

I know, makes your argument better. However, I say they are still separate issues, and for the left to make it a bis issue is real silly I think.

[clambake]

it's silly to pretend they weren't connected.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll give you a bone though. The WH did know that specific banner would be there. Did you know that?

I know, makes your argument better. However, I say they are still separate issues, and for the left to make it a bis issue is real silly I think.

I assumed the White House knew... it's kinda hard to miss, after all. :) And it's not like they couldn't have asked the crew to take it down temporarily. It shows poor planning on their part, to think that the two messages (Missions Accomplished + all major combat ops ended) wouldn't be seen as one message by the viewing audience.

[ChumpDumper]

The WH did know that specific banner would be there. Did you know that?Yeah. They made the banner. So it's not a stretch to think they knew it would be there.

[RandomGuy]

This is pointless. we are going in circles.

I'll give you a bone though. The WH did know that specific banner would be there. Did you know that?

I know, makes your argument better. However, I say they are still separate issues, and for the left to make it a bis issue is real silly I think.

Gasp... one side in a political debate elevating something fairly trivial into a full blown hullabaloo?

Never seen that happen...

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2010-07/54986951.jpg

Stimulus signage has GOP outraged



Neal Boortz: Enjoy paying bill for president’s PR (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-enjoy-paying-572320.html?cxntlid=daylf_tpcr):

Why the signs? The ABC investigation shows a political motivation: The Obama administration issued “General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications” for signs touting stimulus projects. According to the leaked document the signs and logos — similar to the Obama 2008 campaign logo — were designed to be “a symbol of President Obama’s commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work.” Yeah, right. That’s $20 million for Obama PR.

[ChumpDumper]

Outrage!

[LnGrrrR]

What does Neal Boortz think about warrantless wiretapping? How about state secrets? Deep packet inspection? What about advanced interrogation?