Bush goes to Baghdad - Page 2

Dagnabit · 12-02-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah

Because all of that security is free right? The only thing that costs anything is fuel? No pilots get paid, they do it for the love of their country. No security people get paid, they do it because GW is such an inspiring leader. No...

I think you'll find those people get paid whether they actually fly/provide security or not. Thus the concept of fixed cost versus variable cost, most of the costs involved in this trip were already fixed in doing the business of the country.

I'm sure you understand the terms fixed cost and variable cost since you're such a crackerjack smart-guy analyst.

For comparison there was recently an itemized list of 750 people that followed Bush to London. On this trip the security consisted mostly of ball caps and it seems like they got more done.

Q.E. fuckin' D., my man.

Quote:

Why do I bother?

Because you love getting 0nz0r3d!!!! F00l!

quzah · 12-03-2003, 07:04 AM

Right, and everything is fixed rate. You've never heard the term 'combat pay' either I suppose. I mean, all those soldiers get paid the same for sitting on their collective asses in the good old US of A as they do shooting people in other countries.

Oh, wait, that's entirely wrong. They do get different pay for combat.

But I'm sure nothing in the world is like that. Only soldiers...

Quzah.

juju · 12-03-2003, 09:20 AM

We were discussing the costs of Bush's Thanksgiving visit, weren't we? Isn't that a marginally separate issue than the troops in Iraq?

Dagnabit · 12-03-2003, 09:51 AM

quzah · 12-03-2003, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
We were discussing the costs of Bush's Thanksgiving visit, weren't we? Isn't that a marginally separate issue than the troops in Iraq?

Are you intentionally stupid? The statement was made that all costs were fixed. I pointed one example where cost is not and suggested it is quite possible that this is not the only case that exists. What's the confusion?

Quzah.

juju · 12-03-2003, 12:48 PM

You're pretty stupid for assuming I'm stupid. In fact, I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Beestie · 12-03-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah
Some one get me a price quote on what his two hour visit cost the tax payers...

About the same as the cost for Hillary's morale-lowering tour where she went to Afghanistan and Iraq and bitched about the war to the 100 troops that were duct-taped to their chairs for two hours.

juju · 12-03-2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah
The statement was made that all costs were fixed.

Ok, educate me so that I can get up to speed. Where was the statement you refer to made?

The closest I can find is this:

Quote:

most of the costs involved in this trip were already fixed in doing the business of the country.

But he didn't say ALL costs were fixed, and in any case he specifically refers to Bush's trip.

ladysycamore · 12-03-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
All I know is that I was at work, watching the Purina Dog Show in Philly, and right as they were picking "Best of Show", MSNBC news kicks in with a special report that Bush went to Iraq.

I don't care. It doesn't change his intelligence or his policies or the fact that our guys are dying every day. Was it a nice gesture? Yes. But please. Such a big deal?? No.

Of course, once they came back from "ooo, ahh, big secret trip, hoo dee hoo..." the Best in Show part was over and some other fruity thing came on. So I MISSED IT! DAMN him and his "political coop" anyways! *stomps off, muttering*

(And, yes, I'm aware I typed coop. Joke.)

Well Said! I was thinking back to that day, and I recall wondering why they were breaking into programming for this. I pretty much shrugged the whole thing off and I thought, "Isn't this something he's SUPPOSED to do anyway?" (of course, I KNOW that it's not, but it just felt like he should).

So, I wasn't impressed. *shrugs*

Griff · 12-03-2003, 04:55 PM

My local paper ran pictures of twin imbeciles Bush and Hillary burning up my tax dollars for their political gain. "We care a lot."

quzah · 12-03-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
But he didn't say ALL costs were fixed, and in any case he specifically refers to Bush's trip.

Yes. In that context he said costs are fixed. He implied that the only thing that was paid for was the fuel. I suggest otherwise.

Quzah.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-03-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
It turns out Bush did meet with Iraqis, and it turns out he accomplished something with them. Columnist David Warren (via here):

OK the link said that followed by;

Quote:

Apparently, Bush got the talks moving

How is this apparent? He told them you can run the country while we remain in control or you can not run the country while we remain in control. Bottom line is we're staying whether you play ball or not. So this is some breakthough diplomacy? Horseshit, he told them what they've been told from the gitgo.
Like I said, he could meet with the Iraquis we already own.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-03-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah
Some one get me a price quote on what his two hour visit cost the tax payers...

Quzah.

Resonable request.

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.............

Quote:

Yes. In that context he said costs are fixed. He implied that the only thing that was paid for was the fuel. I suggest otherwise.

Q, why didn't you just tell us what the costs are instead of all that nonsense?

Happy Monkey · 12-04-2003, 10:32 AM

Washington Post

Quote:

Exerpt:
White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

"This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."

"Accurately dramatize", eh?

juju · 12-04-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah

Yes. In that context he said costs are fixed. He implied that the only thing that was paid for was the fuel. I suggest otherwise.

What I see is that he said <i>most</i> of the costs involved in the trip were fixed. He didn't say, "All costs everywhere, including those not involved with Bush's recent trip, are fixed".

12-03-2003, 04:55 PM	#25
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	My local paper ran pictures of twin imbeciles Bush and Hillary burning up my tax dollars for their political gain. "We care a lot." __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

12-03-2003, 07:04 AM	#17
quzah Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 375	Right, and everything is fixed rate. You've never heard the term 'combat pay' either I suppose. I mean, all those soldiers get paid the same for sitting on their collective asses in the good old US of A as they do shooting people in other countries. Oh, wait, that's entirely wrong. They do get different pay for combat. But I'm sure nothing in the world is like that. Only soldiers... Quzah.

12-03-2003, 09:20 AM	#18
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	We were discussing the costs of Bush's Thanksgiving visit, weren't we? Isn't that a marginally separate issue than the troops in Iraq?

12-03-2003, 09:51 AM	#19
Dagnabit High Propagandist Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 115

12-03-2003, 12:48 PM	#21
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	You're pretty stupid for assuming I'm stupid. In fact, I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)