Dept. Of Homeland Security Is A Joke

“Ha ha! Now THAT'S pretty funny! My apologies to 2scoops for merely posting these comments to say it's funny, but this cracks me up! :^D”

“What are you an English professor or something?”

“Must be some kind of freakin' editor....”

“Oh, Paperboy.... <G>”

“I love it! Liberals, the "champions" of diverse thought and accepting of all opinions, unless, uhhh, they conflict with their own! Ha ha!
Buck
11:41:51 AM
11/21/03


This is exactly what I mean. You not conservatives, but you are constantly stereotyping what you believe my views to be, labelling it liberal and attacking it as if you are proving something. It's an elaborate straw-man, and you're not the first to try it. It just really gets old, along with your habit of introducing extraneous facts and data into debate. It seems like you're willing to do ANYthing to keep from conceding a point.”

“ah HA! Phaedrus, if you are ashamed of being associated with the term "liberal", then that's cool! :^D”

“Phaedrus, as for conceding points, I refuse to concede the point that WY has less people than NY, and any "per capita" numbers for spending on anti-terrorist measures in these two states, in the context it was presented by Treemustache, are skewed and biased twisted. El periodo.”

“So you're saying that a New York city and Wyoming as a whole are equally likely to be hit by terrorist acts, or are you purposely trying to miss that point?”

“ah HA! Phaedrus, if you are ashamed of being associated with the term "liberal", then that's cool! :^D"
Buck
02:29:40 PM
11/21/03

Another example of you missing a point utterly.”

“One of the big cities would be an excellent location for a terrorist strike involving infrastructure or (God forbid) nukes. A less populated but more centrally located city might be the better choice for a bio attack. I think that we are facing vulnerability to different threats in different areas, and DHLS knows this.”

“How would a more sparsely populated area be a better choice for a bio attack?”

“I mean, unless you're talking about releasing really big man-eating lizards or something.”

“: ""So you're saying that a New York city and Wyoming as a whole are equally likely to be hit by terrorist acts, or are you purposely trying to miss that point?"
Phaedrus
02:34:45 PM
11/21/03

Um, Phaedrus, what I'm saying is WY has a LOT fewer people than NY, so you can get a lot more bang for the buck (excuse the double-pun) to prevent terrorism in NY than you can in WY. Both need to be protected. A dollar spent in a high population density will go a lot further than a dollar spent in a huge, wide-open rural area. This is not rocket science. You can buy 427 cars at once at a lesser price per vehicle than if you bought one. NY has well over 19 million people, WY has less than half of one million. Not only that, WY is physically a much bigger state, making the per capital of people per sq. mile even more significant. So comparing WY and NY with per capital dollars spent on terrorism to make a statement against Homeland Security is political trash talk. And, being the logical guy you are, I think you realize that.”

“Phaedrus, go ahead and say I'm "missing a point" when you don't wanna address it yourself. I implied you were "liberal". You took offense. Now I assume you are offended at being associated with the term "liberal". Which is fine with me!”

“Thanks, Kleety, I needed that laugh!”

“Hey, where'd it go?!”

“Only less populated relative to the huge population places like NY. Hitting a travel hub city would be ideal for a bio attack, it doesnt have to be one of the major cities. Hell, if a virus was contaigeous enough it wouldnt even need to be a hub city. Any city with regular in and outbound travel would do.”

“Oops, somehow I swapped pages. My bad!”

“And I also realize that the number of buildings, monuments and events that would attract terror in the first place in WY are far, far fewer than NY. So, that said, unless we're ready to analyze the spending line by line, Tree's assertation is as valid a method of analysis as any.

He also talked about a specific spending plan that was failing - the statue of liberty.”

“Buck, Phaed mentioned one point that you ignored several times. Whenever I bring up the 'risk of terrorist strikes' factor between the geographical locations in question, you gloss over it and refer back to the population count and the dollar value. I repeatedly told you that these other factors figured into my reasoning and you continue to ignore it...”

“Earth to Treebait!!

j/k”

“$5 milion bucks to protect one of the most visited AND visible attractions/targets in the world? C'mon, man!!!”

“"Phaedrus, go ahead and say I'm "missing a point" when you don't wanna address it yourself. I implied you were "liberal". You took offense. Now I assume you are offended at being associated with the term "liberal". Which is fine with me!"
Buck
02:47:25 PM
11/21/03

You can't seriously be this dense!

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.”

“For god's sake, this isn't even ABOUT conservative VS liberal values. It's about whether the money is being spent in the right places!”

“The joke is all this whining and attacking Bush. Do you guys see anything good in anything? It must be real depressing to be around you. You are so vested in things going bad. You are so full of unreasonable hate. You guys even try to make good economic news sound bad. Lots of complaining and hate but no solutions is all I hear from liberals. How about a real alternate solution for present problems (not past, that’s to easy) for a change.”

“: "And I also realize that the number of buildings, monuments and events that would attract terror in the first place in WY are far, far fewer than NY."

For one thing, Yellowstone National Park gets over 3 million visitors a year and is one of the most visited national parks in the country. Jackson Hole is a skiing/vacation mecca for people all around the world. These are considered terrorist targets. Also, what, around 3,000 people were killed in the Twin Towers episode and gained the attention it did? Don't you think even a small, unsuspecting town of a population of 10,000 people in Wyoming would be of concern? Again, the total amounts spent in WY are miniscule compared to NY, but if you break it out "per capita" in such a huge geographical state with tiny percentages of population, of course those numbers are gonna be skewed. It's absurd. To ream Homeland Security spending on this basis is ridiculous.”

“Not only that, WY is physically a much bigger state, making the per capital of people per sq. mile even more significant"

excerpted from Buck

There he goes with that capital thing again.”

“Sorry, couldn't help myself.”

“Buck, no one's saying that we should not spend money to protect these area. Of course we should! The questions really boils down to what is most likely to be hit, and whether we are spending money in a good manner to protect ALL the homeland. That was the beginning of this thread.”

“: ""Buck, Phaed mentioned one point that you ignored several times. Whenever I bring up the 'risk of terrorist strikes' factor between the geographical locations in question, you gloss over it and refer back to the population count and the dollar value. I repeatedly told you that these other factors figured into my reasoning and you continue to ignore it..."
Treebeard
02:52:51 PM
11/21/03

Treebeard, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying if we get all riled up over 3,000 people killed (as we should), there are many towns in WY with over 3,000 people, which could prove an easier target without proper protections, in a less suspecting state, with more severe consequences. Are we together on this? The per capita thing is not relevant, it's a matter of how much protection one dollar can bring to a particular area. In NY you can get the law-of-large numbers benefit of having one dollar protect more people/buildings than one dollar in WY.”

“Buck, if Wyoming can get such a 'bang for their buck' as you have stated, then why do they need a disproportionate amount of money to protect it?”

“BTW, mtn gal, I don't hate anyone.

Do I think Bush is a rotten president? You bet! Can I do that without hating him? Yeah. I'm an adult.”

“: "Buck, no one's saying that we should not spend money to protect these area. Of course we should! The questions really boils down to what is most likely to be hit, and whether we are spending money in a good manner to protect ALL the homeland. That was the beginning of this thread." - Phaedrus

WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING TOO! I'm just saying you can't use the "per capita argument" for these two states! Hello? Hi.”

“The very idea that most Americans have the tunnel vision that "cities x and y are the ones that will most likely get hit so lets pour most of our effort into those areas" will most likely at some point be used against us. Granted the dense population of a place like NYC is a very appealing target, but could you imagine the psychological effects of them successfully wiping out some smaller midwestern town that nobody thought was on the radar?”

“Hey Phaedrus, despite all your fancy schmancy talk, it still boils down to me implying that you were "liberal" and you took awful offense to that term applied to you. But that's okay. If you're ashamed of that "label", and I mistakenly implied you're a liberal, I apologize, and I'm also quite relieved!”

“No, I see your point, Buck. You're saying that a wider area of smaller targets is innately more difficult to defend, and therefore needs more dollars thrown at it.

I think that the very nature of these smaller targets makes them less likely a target and makes it far more likely that a more populous area will be attacked.”

“Mtngal, with all due respect, what you construe as hate appears to be anything that departs from the status quo. Sorry if I don't live my life in such robotic terms.

Good economic news? Who said anything about the economy in the over 100 posts on this thread?”

“"Hey Phaedrus, despite all your fancy schmancy talk, it still boils down to me implying that you were "liberal" and you took awful offense to that term applied to you. But that's okay. If you're ashamed of that "label", and I mistakenly implied you're a liberal, I apologize, and I'm also quite relieved!"
Buck
03:12:24 PM
11/21/03

What, you didn't understand the "fancy schmancy" talk? It's pretty clear, Buck. Read it again and maybe you'll see what I've really been saying.”

“Enough stupidity.

Spend a couple hours anywhere around New York Harbor watching the container ships coming in, planes lined up in the sky as far as you can see and explain to me how vulnerable Yellowstone or Jackson Hole is.”

“: "Buck, if Wyoming can get such a 'bang for their buck' as you have stated, then why do they need a disproportionate amount of money to protect it?"
Treebeard
03:09:54 PM
11/21/03

Treebeard, you misread me, I'm saying NEW YORK gets a bigger bang for their anti-terrorist bucks than Wyoming, hence less is needed "per person" to protect NY than WY, although NY still gets katrillions more in total amounts of dollars. I don't understand the difficulty in this concept? Am I missing something here? DON'T ANSWER THAT ONE!!! :^D”

“BTW, folks. I think this thread went rather well today. It generated a lot of interest and we got some opposing viewpoints to bang heads for a while. It may all be mental masturbation in the long run, but hey, that's part of the idea of a forum like this.”

“"The very idea that most Americans have the tunnel vision that "cities x and y are the ones that will most likely get hit so lets pour most of our effort into those areas" will most likely at some point be used against us. Granted the dense population of a place like NYC is a very appealing target, but could you imagine the psychological effects of them successfully wiping out some smaller midwestern town that nobody thought was on the radar?"
c bat
03:11:15 PM
11/21/03

It's an interesting point, but there's definitely a problem with trying to kill a number of people when they are much more spread out than in a big sity. You see that, don't you?”

“sity = city. I'm having a bad typing day.”

“Franly, it costs much more to protect a place as complex aas this. Have you ever really looked at what goes on here in the course of a day. It's really something!”

“This debate is not whether the money should be spent but rather where, geographically, it makes the most sense to spend it, right? Im not aware that there is much partisan weight that can be interjected into this argument, and Phaed seems to be trying to stamp the partisan bickering out of it and stick to the topic. I am not sensing that he has much if any regrets about his party affiliation (although I wouldnt blame him if he did).”

“No Phaed. Blowing up a gas station in Cody is just as terrifying as blowing up a refinery in Port Elizabeth.”

“This didn't really start out aas a party bashing thread. I bashed the current administration because I think their spending priorities are counter productive...”

“Could you please use the neutron
bomb around different parts of
New England?
That way I can enjoy the countryside before all these out
of staters showed up.
Thank you,
Happy Ramadan”

“: "Mtngal, with all due respect, what you construe as hate appears to be anything that departs from the status quo. Sorry if I don't live my life in such robotic terms. - Treebeard

HEY, where were you when the libs kept saying over and over that I hated gays? Fair and equal treatment around here and calling a spade a spade regardless of which side of the fence? I SEE HOW YOU ARE!!! :^D”

“It's an interesting point, but there's definitely a problem with trying to kill a number of people when they are much more spread out than in a big sity. You see that, don't you?"
Phaedrus
03:17:24 PM
11/21/03

Killing a large # of people would be a problem in one of these cities if they stuck to the tactics that we have seen. Again, tunnel vision. We know that there are some gnarly bio/germs/viruses floating around out there. Something like that unleashed in Smalltown WY would be devastating, and it might not be contained there.”