[particle bored]

OMGF,

I don't know how you got to that last post's premises, but they look entirely unfamiliar to me. What I have "been arguing" is that any award of any K to Halliburton while Cheney is in office is an improper award, regardless of "process."

Your desire to change my view into something that suits your tack and eventual mark is nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you.

I haven't expected anyone to read my mind. I have posted comments in response to prior comments. Whatever you want to take from them is your concern. But if you want to know where I stand on something, don't accuse me of APPARENT hypocrisy or inconsistency, because the appearance resides in your mind -- not in my position.

Here's my position: if the army overrides the auditor's concerns, who is the army protecting? the US Taxpayer? or the contractor? and what is the army's history on cost overruns? or overspending generally?

 

[N8 v2.0]

OMGF,

I don't know how you got to that last post's premises, but they look entirely unfamiliar to me. What I have "been arguing" is that any award of any K to Halliburton while Cheney is in office is an improper award, regardless of "process."

Your desire to change my view into something that suits your tack and eventual mark is nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you.

I haven't expected anyone to read my mind. I have posted comments in response to prior comments. Whatever you want to take from them is your concern. But if you want to know where I stand on something, don't accuse me of APPARENT hypocrisy or inconsistency, because the appearance resides in your mind -- not in my position.

Here's my position: if the army overrides the auditor's concerns, who is the army protecting? the US Taxpayer? or the contractor? and what is the army's history on cost overruns? or overspending generally?

In actuality, all the blame for the contracting out of the US military support operations lies at the foot of your hero Bill Clinton et al.

 

[particle bored]

In actuality, all the blame for the contracting out of the US military support operations lies at the foot of your hero Bill Clinton et al.

more flawed thinking, Natey.

Clinton wasn't my hero, ever. once again, you prove that it's easier to dismiss something if you fabricate its existence.

such a brave man, attacking scarecrows as you do!

(cowards attack the person, not the idea)

 

[N8 v2.0]

more flawed thinking, Natey.

Clinton wasn't my hero, ever. once again, you prove that it's easier to dismiss something if you fabricate its existence.

Odd... you sound just like a paranoid liberal....

 

[Transcend]

Odd... you sound just like a paranoid liberal....

He's just paranoid, period.

 

[particle bored]

He's just paranoid, period.

nice joke Beavis. but your friend Butthead beat you to that first-class putdown!

 

[particle bored]

Odd... you sound just like a paranoid liberal....

hard to believe that it's NOT really a choice of liberal or not, eh? I know, it's confusing when you consider the possibility of disliking Clinton AND Bush. your world doesn't allow for such independent thought, eh?

I'm sorry I've confused you. it's not my intent.:redhot:

 

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF,

I don't know how you got to that last post's premises, but they look entirely unfamiliar to me. What I have "been arguing" is that any award of any K to Halliburton while Cheney is in office is an improper award, regardless of "process."

That's not entirely true. If no other company could do this work, would we simply just not be able to do it since Halliburton would be barred from receiving any contract under your idea? There are ways to separate Cheney from the equation and there are ways of making the inappropriateness mitigated. Did that happen in this case? No, probably not. Could it happen? Yes, it could.

Your desire to change my view into something that suits your tack and eventual mark is nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you.

Don't accuse me of making straw men. I've been trying to ferret out your point. You have had trouble articulating it. That's not my fault.

Also, I haven't made statements about what your point is. I've pointed out what I feel are inconsistencies with your statements.

I haven't expected anyone to read my mind. I have posted comments in response to prior comments. Whatever you want to take from them is your concern. But if you want to know where I stand on something, don't accuse me of APPARENT hypocrisy or inconsistency, because the appearance resides in your mind -- not in my position.

No one was talking about Cheney and his ties to Halliburton. We were talking about the repayment of possibly illegal cost overruns. If you wanted to talk about Cheney, you should not have expected one of us to bring it up.

Here's my position: if the army overrides the auditor's concerns, who is the army protecting? the US Taxpayer? or the contractor? and what is the army's history on cost overruns? or overspending generally?

Finally, you get to something resembling a point. For some of your questions, the article shines some light on what you would like to know. I'm not sure "Who is the army protecting" is the right question to ask. I think the right question is why is the army overriding the account oversight?

 

[particle bored]

That's not entirely true. If no other company could do this work, would we simply just not be able to do it since Halliburton would be barred from receiving any contract under your idea? There are ways to separate Cheney from the equation and there are ways of making the inappropriateness mitigated. Did that happen in this case? No, probably not. Could it happen? Yes, it could.

There really aren't any ways to REALISTICALLY separate Cheney. Conflicts of interest arise on APPEARANCE and then are assessed from there. Most give little to no wiggle room for escape.

Again, by saying it "could happen" that Cheney's influence isn't there, you seem to be taking some comfort in the same process that N8 referenced, while ignoring how politics affect every decision made by every bureaucratically employed person.

My experience working with govt personnel in the state local and fed govts is that all decisions are politically motivated, even when nobody admits to this. And when you're employed in the bureaucracy, you lack the critical distance to see this, IMO.

Don't accuse me of making straw men. I've been trying to ferret out your point. You have had trouble articulating it. That's not my fault.

***

I have no trouble with articulation. You're having trouble guessing my point. That is your problem. Again, you want to know my point, ask me.

Also, I haven't made statements about what your point is. I've pointed out what I feel are inconsistencies with your statements.

This unfortunately is untrue. See the immediately above quoted text of yours, indicated with ***.

No one was talking about Cheney and his ties to Halliburton. We were talking about the repayment of possibly illegal cost overruns. If you wanted to talk about Cheney, you should not have expected one of us to bring it up.

The fact that you believe Cheney has no role here shows that you lack critical distance.

Finally, you get to something resembling a point. For some of your questions, the article shines some light on what you would like to know. I'm not sure "Who is the army protecting" is the right question to ask. I think the right question is why is the army overriding the account oversight?

The "right question" is a rephrasing of my question, nothing more.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There really aren't any ways to REALISTICALLY separate Cheney. Conflicts of interest arise on APPEARANCE and then are assessed from there. Most give little to no wiggle room for escape.

Again, by saying it "could happen" that Cheney's influence isn't there, you seem to be taking some comfort in the same process that N8 referenced, while ignoring how politics affect every decision made by every bureaucratically employed person.

My experience working with govt personnel in the state local and fed govts is that all decisions are politically motivated, even when nobody admits to this. And when you're employed in the bureaucracy, you lack the critical distance to see this, IMO.

Please paint with a broader brush. I don't think you've smeared every government employee yet...oh wait, yes you have. The fact that you seem to think that everyone who works in the government is somehow in league with Cheney and Bush is outlandish. If that is not the case, I suggest you choose your words more carefully (work on that articulation thing) and explain your point better.

***

I have no trouble with articulation. You're having trouble guessing my point. That is your problem. Again, you want to know my point, ask me.

I did ask.

This unfortunately is untrue. See the immediately above quoted text of yours, indicated with ***.

I fail to see how I misrepresented your point. If you can't discern a question or a statement about the apparent contradiction in your statements from a straw man argument, then that's your problem, not mine. In the meantime, I suggest you stop being so defensive and actually try to engage in a discussion instead of an insult-fest.

The fact that you believe Cheney has no role here shows that you lack critical distance.

I'm not sure how you got that. The fact is that we weren't discussing Cheney. That doesn't mean that I don't think Cheney is involved. You might want to look before you leap.

The "right question" is a rephrasing of my question, nothing more.

No, it is not. Try again.

 

[particle bored]

OMGF, that was tired, sad and completely fictive. you spin almost as well as Karl Rove, ascribing to me sentiments that I do not hold, merely to be able to destroy them in your false superiority.

I'll not engage in another pointwise response, as it just provides you with more things to spin to your advantage.

at some point, you'll wake up. here's hoping it's sooner rather than later.

PS: I'm not trying to "win" anything, so your spinning of my rebuttal points achieves nothing of merit as far as I'm concerned. so if you have a real need to "win" this debate, you can have the victory.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF, that was tired, sad and completely fictive. you spin almost as well as Karl Rove, ascribing to me sentiments that I do not hold, merely to be able to destroy them in your false superiority.

I'll not engage in another pointwise response, as it just provides you with more things to spin to your advantage.

at some point, you'll wake up. here's hoping it's sooner rather than later.

PS: I'm not trying to "win" anything, so your spinning of my rebuttal points achieves nothing of merit as far as I'm concerned. so if you have a real need to "win" this debate, you can have the victory.

Point out to me what I've spun. I'd like to know exactly what I said that is a straw man and exactly how it is.

 

[particle bored]

you have my last reply above. the thing you're asking about involves asking some hard questions of yourself, not of me.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I am beginning think particle bored is one of Old Man G Funk's personalities....

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you have my last reply above. the thing you're asking about involves asking some hard questions of yourself, not of me.

So, you can make assertions, but you can't back them up. Good to know.

Note, this is not a straw man attack. You made the assertion that I am creating straw men. When asked to back it up, you waffled. That is all fact.

 

[particle bored]

I am beginning think particle bored is one of Old Man G Funk's personalities....

no. interesting theory,

but no.

I don't know OMGF, don't know his history, don't know his interests. only know what he's posted here in the few visits I've paid to this Political Debate forum.

aside from that, I'm not nearly computer savvy enough to have 2 accounts/member names.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I am beginning think particle bored is one of Old Man G Funk's personalities....

That's below the belt.

 

[particle bored]

So, you can make assertions, but you can't back them up. Good to know.

Note, this is not a straw man attack. You made the assertion that I am creating straw men. When asked to back it up, you waffled. That is all fact.

SPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

my final substantive reply to you is very straightforward.

and,

your desperate need to "win" already is conceded, emasculated one.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

SPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

your desperate need to "win" already is conceded, emasculated one.

Are you now asserting that my last post was spin as well? Can you back that up?

Didn't think so.

 

[N8 v2.0]

That's below the belt.

Note the similarities:

Originally Posted by particle bored
There really aren't any ways to REALISTICALLY separate Cheney. Conflicts of interest arise on APPEARANCE and then are assessed from there. Most give little to no wiggle room for escape.

Again, by saying it "could happen" that Cheney's influence isn't there, you seem to be taking some comfort in the same process that N8 referenced, while ignoring how politics affect every decision made by every bureaucratically employed person.

My experience working with govt personnel in the state local and fed govts is that all decisions are politically motivated, even when nobody admits to this. And when you're employed in the bureaucracy, you lack the critical distance to see this, IMO.

Please paint with a broader brush. I don't think you've smeared every government employee yet...oh wait, yes you have. The fact that you seem to think that everyone who works in the government is somehow in league with Cheney and Bush is outlandish. If that is not the case, I suggest you choose your words more carefully (work on that articulation thing) and explain your point better.

Quote:
***

I have no trouble with articulation. You're having trouble guessing my point. That is your problem. Again, you want to know my point, ask me.

I did ask.

Quote:
This unfortunately is untrue. See the immediately above quoted text of yours, indicated with ***.

I fail to see how I misrepresented your point. If you can't discern a question or a statement about the apparent contradiction in your statements from a straw man argument, then that's your problem, not mine. In the meantime, I suggest you stop being so defensive and actually try to engage in a discussion instead of an insult-fest.

Quote:
The fact that you believe Cheney has no role here shows that you lack critical distance.

I'm not sure how you got that. The fact is that we weren't discussing Cheney. That doesn't mean that I don't think Cheney is involved. You might want to look before you leap.

Quote:
The "right question" is a rephrasing of my question, nothing more.

No, it is not. Try again.

and now:

That's not entirely true. If no other company could do this work, would we simply just not be able to do it since Halliburton would be barred from receiving any contract under your idea? There are ways to separate Cheney from the equation and there are ways of making the inappropriateness mitigated. Did that happen in this case? No, probably not. Could it happen? Yes, it could.

There really aren't any ways to REALISTICALLY separate Cheney. Conflicts of interest arise on APPEARANCE and then are assessed from there. Most give little to no wiggle room for escape.

Again, by saying it "could happen" that Cheney's influence isn't there, you seem to be taking some comfort in the same process that N8 referenced, while ignoring how politics affect every decision made by every bureaucratically employed person.

My experience working with govt personnel in the state local and fed govts is that all decisions are politically motivated, even when nobody admits to this. And when you're employed in the bureaucracy, you lack the critical distance to see this, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man G Funk
Don't accuse me of making straw men. I've been trying to ferret out your point. You have had trouble articulating it. That's not my fault.

***

I have no trouble with articulation. You're having trouble guessing my point. That is your problem. Again, you want to know my point, ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man G Funk
Also, I haven't made statements about what your point is. I've pointed out what I feel are inconsistencies with your statements.

This unfortunately is untrue. See the immediately above quoted text of yours, indicated with ***.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man G Funk
No one was talking about Cheney and his ties to Halliburton. We were talking about the repayment of possibly illegal cost overruns. If you wanted to talk about Cheney, you should not have expected one of us to bring it up.

The fact that you believe Cheney has no role here shows that you lack critical distance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man G Funk
Finally, you get to something resembling a point. For some of your questions, the article shines some light on what you would like to know. I'm not sure "Who is the army protecting" is the right question to ask. I think the right question is why is the army overriding the account oversight?

The "right question" is a rephrasing of my question, nothing more.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Both are guilty of Excessive Use of Quotes....

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Both are guilty of Excessive Use of Quotes....

Hey, just because he wants to imitate me doesn't mean that he is me. If only someone more lucid wanted to be like me, I could take it as a compliment.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Hey, just because he wants to imitate me doesn't mean that he is me. If only someone more lucid wanted to be like me, I could take it as a compliment.

Excessive Use of Quotes Penalty!!!

1 day of RM time-out for you and yourself....

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Excessive Use of Quotes Penalty!!!

1 day of RM time-out for you and yourself....

Only if you take one day off for actually answering a question....

 

[particle bored]

well done OMFG, you have convinced yourself that your view is the only reality. even if you're wrong.

you show real (im)maturity.

 

[Changleen]

Excessive Use of Quotes Penalty!!!

1 day of RM time-out for you and yourself....

Hush lazy troll. Some of passed remedial English and can follow this conversation.

 

[particle bored]

Hey, just because he wants to imitate me doesn't mean that he is me. If only someone more lucid wanted to be like me, I could take it as a compliment.

jeezus fooking croyste.

dude, I would be embarrassed to imitate a cement-headed cretin as you.

 

[Transcend]

jeezus fooking croyste.

dude, I would be embarrassed to imitate a cement-headed cretin as you.

It's ok, we are all embarrassed for you just as you are. Hopefully your tinfoil helmet keeps out the government mind probes.

 

[particle bored]

It's ok, we are all embarrassed for you just as you are. Hopefully your tinfoil helmet keeps out the government mind probes.

your projection is disturbing. please, stop trotting out your psychological detritus and pasting it onto others.

I have to actually be embarrassed in order for your false sentiments to carry water. unfortunately, I'm not so, and so your sievelike projection can't hold the water.

 

[DaveW]

The boring particle (hey you've been name calling unpleasantly for quite a while now, so I now feel free to mirror this lamentable prose) seems to be borrowing the current USA leaderships gambit of
"Just shout louder than the others, that makes yours the only voice... And if that don't work try to obscure the original point"

I have yet to see any verifiable points to back up the few "on topic" post's made by him.

For someone pro-porting to be in the legal fraternity the use of semantics for spin and issue dodging is to be expected, but the reading comprehension is a bit lacking..... Several times so far he/she/it (sorry no idea of your gender) has quoted someone and totally missed the point of the original post.

And as far as the name calling goes?
If you cant be original or at least have a modicum of wit...... Or don't bother, you only make yourself look apathetic.

 

[Changleen]

Can we all not pretend that we don't like arguing?

 

[DaveW]

Can we all not pretend that we don't like arguing?

What pretending?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

well done OMFG, you have convinced yourself that your view is the only reality. even if you're wrong.

you show real (im)maturity.

Find any of those alleged straw men yet? Didn't think so.