Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II

18911131435

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Were you raised in a cave?! I was doing Yoda there, dude. Sheesh. You suck the fun out of everything.



    Gotcha. I didn't see that one...I'm usually up on the Star Wars references!



    Quote:







    Of course you agree completely, It's what should have happened. It's what anyone with a brain thinks should have happened. But then, I'm usually too busy being accused of being anti-America? or anti-troop? for anyone to listen to little ol' me.



    Question: How do you do superscript?



    Quote:







    If, in June of 2008, you are screaming bloody murder about withdrawal, I'll certainly not complain and may even start a thread in praise of your sensiblenessissitudeicity.



    I'll be pretty pissed, really. If we get more "6 more months" talk, I will not be amused.



    Quote:





    But see, it's always already six more months. It doesn't matter. Everything, EVERYTHING here is about stalling so Bush can get out of office.



    Well first, I think there is something to be said for the 6 more months at this point since I don't see "The Surge" as "Teh Surge" like you do. Secondly, I don't agree it's all about Bush leaving. So you're saying it's all about his legacy?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    That sounds like it's not contingent on what's going on in the country, or what whatever "commander on the ground" Bush is listening to at the time has to say about "progress" and "more time".



    Is the idea that we just agree that "the surge worked" and that the security situation is guaranteed to be "good enough" come some time in '08?



    I ask because I this looks to me like a kind of arbitrary "declare victory and leave with honor" tactic, and I'm having trouble squaring it with your previous thoughts on how disastrous it would be to leave Iraq "before the job is done".



    So you figure that by sometime in '08 the job will be done? Or is it that you've decided that everyone has been given enough time to get the job done and we should start getting out, regardless?



    Well, I think 5 years is enough to at least transition into a non-combat role. I also think that "6 more months" cannot go on forever and that yes, it's been enough time already.



    Is that arbitrary? Somewhat. But it's also that the surge has produced results and a direction that would seem to indicate we'll be ready to draw down by that point. We cannot be there, in this role, forever.



    Say we get to June 2008 and he violence has gotten worse and AQI has gained more ground. That would indicate that everything we've tried has not helped. The only thing left at that point (in my view) is to withdraw and do what some have advocated for years now....let the Iraqi's fix it themselves. What would the other options be?



    Keep in mind that in the event the surge showed no progress, I felt we should pull out (as I said, I was not at all sure it was going to work...I hoped it would, of course, but I had serious doubts). So what I'm saying is not inconsistent.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Question: How do you do superscript?



    Play around with option+various keys.



    ™ = option+2

    £ = option+3

    ¶ = option+7



    And on and on. Use letters, too. ü = option+u+u. é = option+e+e.



    Quote:

    Well first, I think there is something to be said for the 6 more months at this point since I don't see "The Surge" as "Teh Surge" like you do.



    I call it "Teh Surge" because it's branding. It's PR. This is the SEVENTH time we had a troop surge like this, and this time the pitch was "Let's try the same thing we've been doing since the war started, but this time, let's try having a plan of some sort."



    The problem, now, is that "let's try the same thing for the seventh time, but this time with some sort of plan" got branded like a fucking cola, wrapped up in "let's give this having a plan thing a few months to work!" and here we are.



    We waited until September for the report, but the report was all about civilian deaths and military progress even though it was supposed to be about political progress. But they won't tell anyone how they arrived at their numbers, which are, apparently, inconsistent with the GAO's numbers. But nevermind! There are fewer civilian dead! Ignore that there's been no political progress. Ignore that it's very possible that a major factor in the decline in civilian deaths is that, well, there are fewer people left to kill now.



    And the report said exactly what we knew it would. Petraeus, like Powell before him, is another well-respected general being trotted out to serve political ends. There's progress, but we won't tell you how we arrived at that conclusion, and nevermind that it's not the kind of progress Teh Surge was supposed to provide space for, and you know, we really need about 6 months to determine whether we need to have a debate about whether or not we ought to draw down.



    I mean, seriously, dude. Give me a fucking break. This time, we have a plan? At this point, I wouldn't trust the Bush administration to water my lawn.



    Quote:

    Secondly, I don't agree it's all about Bush leaving. So you're saying it's all about his legacy?



    This is a complicated question, whether you meant it to be or not. This administration has had a handful of major projects at work since it came into office, many of which were ramped up in the wake of 9/11. Out of the Cheney-ite camp (by which I mean all of the folks who came in from the Ford admin—e.g. Cheney, Rumsfeld, primarily), the primary goal has been the expansion of executive authority, and their strategy has been pretty simple: reach for the stars, and once the dust settles, you're guaranteed to have more than you started with. Wire tapping. Guantanamo Bay. Invading Iraq. Torture. "Enemy combatants." Extraordinary rendition. Detention of US citizens without access to counsel. Unmitigated cronyism (e.g. Brown at FEMA, the Meyers appointment). The closed-door meetings to set energy policy (which, if you will remember, was one of the things that Rush Limbaugh used to scream about when Hillary Clinton held closed-door meetings about health care policy).



    On this front, Bush's legacy is absolutely certain: he has expanded executive authority in ways unimaginable in a post-Nixon world. They have been stunningly effective at this.



    The neo-conservative side of this administration (e.g. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Condi) was the site of a bold experiment to remake American authority in the world by, well, swinging our big dick around. Dropping Kyoto right out of the gate, for example. Appointing Bolton to the UN. When 9/11 happened, the neo-cons in this admin saw their chance to test their domino theory in the ME, and Afghanistan was our starting point but Iraq was always the goal. Loads of oil. A port. And most importantly, borders with lots of countries we want to be a little better about American interests.



    This experiment has, of course, been an absolute failure, and we can only hope that this legacy will put it in the ground where it belongs.



    On other fronts, the neo-cons have been wildly successful. Keep in mind that Straussians (i.e. neo-conservatives) are elitists. They think the populace are a bunch of morons who should simply be distracted while the grown-ups are busy leading. So they scare folks with talk about terrorists hiding under their beds. They make sure wedge issues are on the ballots at the right time so that come time to cast that ballot, we're voting on mandatory gay marriage for all men, mandatory flag burning, mandatory abortions for all women, English as a national language, prayer in schools, etc etc. They've been particularly good at manipulating the evangelicals, who really have nowhere else to go. Bush promised them an end to Roe, and when the time came for a pivotal SCOTUS appointment, he picked....his buddy Harriet. And they went BATSHIT. If you don't believe me, go read the Esquire interview with DiIullio, who was Bush's pick to run his faith-based initiatives project early in his first term. DiIullio called them "Mayberry Machiavellis" and described how the everything in the white house was run out of the political arm of the administration. There was, he explained, no policy. There was only politics.



    As for his "legacy"...I don't think Bush gives two shits about that, since it's a meaningless term—will his legacy be that he expanded presidential powers? Or that he invaded a country that didn't do anything to us? Or that he authorized torture? It's all a question of definition and "proper distance," which is why for years now he's been saying that history will judge him. I mean, come on, the guy has spent 7 years now being a friggin' punching bag so that the Cheney and neocon projects can move on. Why would he worry about what people think about him after he's dead?



    Nor do I particularly think he gives two shits about the Republican party (the GOP has never particularly like the Bush family), but this "six more months" thing works potentially in the party's favor. You guys have toed the line for soooo long now, there have been soooo many talking points and bashing the left as anti-troop and anti-Bush that if you DO eventually come out in favor of drawing down, someone like me or Addabox is going to point out that you said that such a thing was treasonous a year earlier. So what has to happen? Bush has to go down swinging, and the party has to take one in the nuts in '08 so that the GOP can begin to shift gears.



    Frankly, the unification of the GOP that would happen under President Hillary Clinton could be the best thing to happen to the GOP since 1992. Because on my end, y'all seem to hate her more than you hate Bill Clinton.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Play around with option+various keys.



    ? = option+2

    £ = option+3

    ¶ = option+7



    And on and on. Use letters, too. ü = option+u+u. é = option+e+e.







    I call it "Teh Surge" because it's branding. It's PR. This is the SEVENTH time we had a troop surge like this, and this time the pitch was "Let's try the same thing we've been doing since the war started, but this time, let's try having a plan of some sort."



    The problem, now, is that "let's try the same thing for the seventh time, but this time with some sort of plan" got branded like a fucking cola, wrapped up in "let's give this having a plan thing a few months to work!" and here we are.



    We waited until September for the report, but the report was all about civilian deaths and military progress even though it was supposed to be about political progress. But they won't tell anyone how they arrived at their numbers, which are, apparently, inconsistent with the GAO's numbers. But nevermind! There are fewer civilian dead! Ignore that there's been no political progress. Ignore that it's very possible that a major factor in the decline in civilian deaths is that, well, there are fewer people left to kill now.



    And the report said exactly what we knew it would. Petraeus, like Powell before him, is another well-respected general being trotted out to serve political ends. There's progress, but we won't tell you how we arrived at that conclusion, and nevermind that it's not the kind of progress Teh Surge was supposed to provide space for, and you know, we really need about 6 months to determine whether we need to have a debate about whether or not we ought to draw down.



    I mean, seriously, dude. Give me a fucking break. This time, we have a plan? At this point, I wouldn't trust the Bush administration to water my lawn.







    This is a complicated question, whether you meant it to be or not. This administration has had a handful of major projects at work since it came into office, many of which were ramped up in the wake of 9/11. Out of the Cheney-ite camp (by which I mean all of the folks who came in from the Ford admin?e.g. Cheney, Rumsfeld, primarily), the primary goal has been the expansion of executive authority, and their strategy has been pretty simple: reach for the stars, and once the dust settles, you're guaranteed to have more than you started with. Wire tapping. Guantanamo Bay. Invading Iraq. Torture. "Enemy combatants." Extraordinary rendition. Detention of US citizens without access to counsel. Unmitigated cronyism (e.g. Brown at FEMA, the Meyers appointment). The closed-door meetings to set energy policy (which, if you will remember, was one of the things that Rush Limbaugh used to scream about when Hillary Clinton held closed-door meetings about health care policy).



    On this front, Bush's legacy is absolutely certain: he has expanded executive authority in ways unimaginable in a post-Nixon world. They have been stunningly effective at this.



    The neo-conservative side of this administration (e.g. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Condi) was the site of a bold experiment to remake American authority in the world by, well, swinging our big dick around. Dropping Kyoto right out of the gate, for example. Appointing Bolton to the UN. When 9/11 happened, the neo-cons in this admin saw their chance to test their domino theory in the ME, and Afghanistan was our starting point but Iraq was always the goal. Loads of oil. A port. And most importantly, borders with lots of countries we want to be a little better about American interests.



    This experiment has, of course, been an absolute failure, and we can only hope that this legacy will put it in the ground where it belongs.



    On other fronts, the neo-cons have been wildly successful. Keep in mind that Straussians (i.e. neo-conservatives) are elitists. They think the populace are a bunch of morons who should simply be distracted while the grown-ups are busy leading. So they scare folks with talk about terrorists hiding under their beds. They make sure wedge issues are on the ballots at the right time so that come time to cast that ballot, we're voting on mandatory gay marriage for all men, mandatory flag burning, mandatory abortions for all women, English as a national language, prayer in schools, etc etc. They've been particularly good at manipulating the evangelicals, who really have nowhere else to go. Bush promised them an end to Roe, and when the time came for a pivotal SCOTUS appointment, he picked....his buddy Harriet. And they went BATSHIT. If you don't believe me, go read the Esquire interview with DiIullio, who was Bush's pick to run his faith-based initiatives project early in his first term. DiIullio called them "Mayberry Machiavellis" and described how the everything in the white house was run out of the political arm of the administration. There was, he explained, no policy. There was only politics.



    As for his "legacy"...I don't think Bush gives two shits about that, since it's a meaningless term?will his legacy be that he expanded presidential powers? Or that he invaded a country that didn't do anything to us? Or that he authorized torture? It's all a question of definition and "proper distance," which is why for years now he's been saying that history will judge him. I mean, come on, the guy has spent 7 years now being a friggin' punching bag so that the Cheney and neocon projects can move on. Why would he worry about what people think about him after he's dead?



    Nor do I particularly think he gives two shits about the Republican party (the GOP has never particularly like the Bush family), but this "six more months" thing works potentially in the party's favor. You guys have toed the line for soooo long now, there have been soooo many talking points and bashing the left as anti-troop and anti-Bush that if you DO eventually come out in favor of drawing down, someone like me or Addabox is going to point out that you said that such a thing was treasonous a year earlier. So what has to happen? Bush has to go down swinging, and the party has to take one in the nuts in '08 so that the GOP can begin to shift gears.



    Frankly, the unification of the GOP that would happen under President Hillary Clinton could be the best thing to happen to the GOP since 1992. Because on my end, y'all seem to hate her more than you hate Bill Clinton.



    A fair and reasonable look at things.



    And





    " I mean, seriously, dude. Give me a fucking break. This time, we have a plan? At this point, I wouldn't trust the Bush administration to water my lawn. "





  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Play around with option+various keys.



    ? = option+2

    £ = option+3

    ¶ = option+7



    And on and on. Use letters, too. ü = option+u+u. é = option+e+e.



    Thanks. Now I can write "Bush Lied?" and The Eagles Suck?.



    Quote:



    I call it "Teh Surge" because it's branding. It's PR. This is the SEVENTH time we had a troop surge like this, and this time the pitch was "Let's try the same thing we've been doing since the war started, but this time, let's try having a plan of some sort."



    The problem, now, is that "let's try the same thing for the seventh time, but this time with some sort of plan" got branded like a fucking cola, wrapped up in "let's give this having a plan thing a few months to work!" and here we are.



    I don't agree with that. It's not that we didn't have a plan, it's that what we were doing was not working. It took far too long to change tactics...but they have changed. As for troop levels, well it's true our forces fluctuated, but not in combo with a major shift in what the troops were doing and where they were doing it.



    Quote:



    We waited until September for the report, but the report was all about civilian deaths and military progress even though it was supposed to be about political progress.



    I don't know as that's true. The surge was supposed enhance security. And yes, there were political benchmarks...but the main thust was security.



    Quote:

    But they won't tell anyone how they arrived at their numbers, which are, apparently, inconsistent with the GAO's numbers. But nevermind!



    Some are. Some are different types of figures entirely. And honestly, I'd take the general's word over a massive federal bureaucracy's.



    Quote:





    There are fewer civilian dead! Ignore that there's been no political progress. Ignore that it's very possible that a major factor in the decline in civilian deaths is that, well, there are fewer people left to kill now.



    Well, there has been SOME political progress, just not enough. I don't see how you can be totally serious about your second sentence.



    Quote:



    And the report said exactly what we knew it would.



    No, it said what you wanted to hear, despite what it actually said.



    Quote:

    Petraeus, like Powell before him, is another well-respected general being trotted out to serve political ends



    Well, I can argue that he was serving BOTH parties and that all persons testifying in this manner do so. The Republicans used his report to support their arguments, the Dems used him as a punching bag acting like proxies for their lefty, anti-war masters. One group believes in their position and has basically held it from the beginning. One group's shifted....multiple times. You decide which is worse.



    Quote:



    There's progress, but we won't tell you how we arrived at that conclusion, and nevermind that it's not the kind of progress Teh Surge was supposed to provide space for, and you know, we really need about 6 months to determine whether we need to have a debate about whether or not we ought to draw down.



    I mean, seriously, dude. Give me a fucking break. This time, we have a plan? At this point, I wouldn't trust the Bush administration to water my lawn.



    They did say how they arrived at it, specifically. Also, security had to become before political progress to an extent. The surge has helped in that area. Political progress won't happen overnight. It's much harder than security progress.



    [quote]



    This is a complicated question, whether you meant it to be or not. This administration has had a handful of major projects at work since it came into office, many of which were ramped up in the wake of 9/11. Out of the Cheney-ite camp (by which I mean all of the folks who came in from the Ford admin?e.g. Cheney, Rumsfeld, primarily), the primary goalThe PRIMARY goal? Really? has been the expansion of executive authority, and their strategy has been pretty simple: reach for the stars, and once the dust settles, you're guaranteed to have more than you started with. Wire tapping. Guantanamo Bay. Invading Iraq. Torture. "Enemy combatants." Extraordinary rendition. Detention of US citizens without access to counsel. Unmitigated cronyism (e.g. Brown at FEMA, the Meyers appointment). The closed-door meetings to set energy policy (which, if you will remember, was one of the things that Rush Limbaugh used to scream about when Hillary Clinton held closed-door meetings about health care policy).So all of these things were decided on in advance and part of a secret agenda that the "neocons" have? Don't you think it's more likely they are the RESULT of various events, whether you agree with the policies implemented or not? You mean to tell me Cheney had a To Do List with "Expand Wiretapping" and "Detain US Citizens Without Charges" on it?



    Quote:

    On this front, Bush's legacy is absolutely certain: he has expanded executive authority in ways unimaginable in a post-Nixon world. They have been stunningly effective at this.



    That may be one part of his legacy, that's true.



    Quote:



    The neo-conservative side of this administration (e.g. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Condi) was the site of a bold experiment to remake American authority in the world by, well, swinging our big dick around.



    I don't think Condi fits that list. The others do, certainly.



    Quote:



    Dropping Kyoto right out of the gate, for example.



    Kyoto was DOA way before Bush. It had no chance in the Senate. None.



    Quote:

    Appointing Bolton to the UN.



    GASP! Bolton! He has....a.....a....a MUSTACHE and questionable social skills! Fucking Vulcan!





    Quote:

    When 9/11 happened, the neo-cons in this admin saw their chance to test their domino theory in the ME, and Afghanistan was our starting point



    I agree with that. I don't think it's as sinister and you seem to, but I agree. It was done for long term security reasons IMO.



    Quote:

    ... but Iraq was always the goal. Loads of oil. A port. And most importantly, borders with lots of countries we want to be a little better about American interests.



    I actually disagree there, but not for the reasons you might think. The real goal? Iran. Duh.



    Quote:

    This experiment has, of course, been an absolute failure, and we can only hope that this legacy will put it in the ground where it belongs.



    It's such a long term thing...transforming the ME. I don't see how it can be judged a failure despite any problems we've had.



    Quote:



    On other fronts, the neo-cons have been wildly successful. Keep in mind that Straussians (i.e. neo-conservatives) are elitists. They think the populace are a bunch of morons who should simply be distracted while the grown-ups are busy leading.



    And the liberals don't think like that? You don't think like that?



    Quote:

    So they scare folks with talk about terrorists hiding under their beds.



    Or maybe there actually are. Because, well, there are.



    Quote:

    They make sure wedge issues are on the ballots at the right time so that come time to cast that ballot, we're voting on mandatory gay marriage for all men, mandatory flag burning, mandatory abortions for all women, English as a national language, prayer in schools, etc etc.



    They have used wedge issues, that's true. Then again, the Dems do that too....the GOP just got much better at it.



    Quote:

    They've been particularly good at manipulating the evangelicals, who really have nowhere else to go. Bush promised them an end to Roe, and when the time came for a pivotal SCOTUS appointment, he picked....his buddy Harriet. And they went BATSHIT.



    Agree they have nowhere else to go. Disagree that Bush promised to end Roe. Agree they went batshit.



    Quote:



    If you don't believe me, go read the Esquire interview with DiIullio, who was Bush's pick to run his faith-based initiatives project early in his first term. DiIullio called them "Mayberry Machiavellis" and described how the everything in the white house was run out of the political arm of the administration. There was, he explained, no policy. There was only politics.



    Well...that's an accusation I've heard before. It's not a unanimously accepted belief among former admin members. Frankly I'm too cynical to think that they're really all that different than other admins in this respect.



    Quote:



    As for his "legacy"...I don't think Bush gives two shits about that, since it's a meaningless term?will his legacy be that he expanded presidential powers?



    Agree.



    Quote:



    Or that he invaded a country that didn't do anything to us?



    They did plenty. But Iraq will clearly dominate historical analysis of his admin.



    Quote:



    Or that he authorized torture?



    He likely won't be blamed for that.



    Quote:



    It's all a question of definition and "proper distance," which is why for years now he's been saying that history will judge him. I mean, come on, the guy has spent 7 years now being a friggin' punching bag so that the Cheney and neocon projects can move on. Why would he worry about what people think about him after he's dead?



    It's pretty normal for a person to wonder what people will think when he's gone. Bush also believes he's right, yet knows his poll numbers are low. So some of it is probably a very normal emotional defense mechanism.



    Quote:



    Nor do I particularly think he gives two shits about the Republican party (the GOP has never particularly like the Bush family), but this "six more months" thing works potentially in the party's favor. You guys have toed the line for soooo long now,



    Toed? Like a foot fetish?



    Quote:

    .... there have been soooo many talking points and bashing the left as anti-troop and anti-Bush that if you DO eventually come out in favor of drawing down, someone like me or Addabox is going to point out that you said that such a thing was treasonous a year earlier. So what has to happen? Bush has to go down swinging, and the party has to take one in the nuts in '08 so that the GOP can begin to shift gears.



    Well, they're not just talking points. Saying one wants the troops to come home because he doesn't feel them being there is helping is not treasonous or anti-American. But the left IS anti-troop and anti-Bush and even anti-American in many cases. There are literally too many examples to count. Look at the MoveOn ad. It's the epitome of leftist positions in this country, not the exception to the rule. And bush won't go down swinging...he'll continue to get his way. The Dems will go down swinging...which is exactly what they are doing now. They took it in the nuts last week, bigtime.





    Quote:

    Frankly, the unification of the GOP that would happen under President Hillary Clinton could be the best thing to happen to the GOP since 1992. Because on my end, y'all seem to hate her more than you hate Bill Clinton.



    Absolutely agree with you. And yes, "we" conservatives hate her WAY more than Billy Bob. Way.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    I'm busy grading, but I wanted to at least say this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Toed? Like a foot fetish?



    Yes. Toe the line. As in toes on your feet.
  • iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    I'm busy grading, but I wanted to at least say this:







    Yes. Toe the line. As in toes on your feet.



    I don't think that is what you meant though, is it? That wouldn't be the right usage for "toeing/towing the corporate line," would it?
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I don't think that is what you meant though, is it? That wouldn't be the right usage for "toeing/towing the corporate line," would it?



    Maybe he's still grading papers, so I'll chime in.



    "Toeing the line" comes from the idea of obediently standing at a designated spot, with your toes along some given line.



    Good ole Wiki allows as how the specific line in question is disputed, but the general sense, as I've always encountered it, is to closely hew to some standard or set of rules.



    Thus, Midwinter is saying that you and your compatriots have closely, not to say obediently, echoed the "party line" when it comes to Iraq.



    I have to admit, though, to being sort of taken with the idea of "towing the company line".



    I picture a hapless, staggering subordinate dragging a float of champaign swilling executives by means of heavy rope that is attached to him via some kind of medieval harness.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Maybe he's still grading papers, so I'll chime in.



    "Toeing the line" comes from the idea of obediently standing at a designated spot, with your toes along some given line.



    Good ole Wiki allows as how the specific line in question is disputed, but the general sense, as I've always encountered it, is to closely hew to some standard or set of rules.



    Thus, Midwinter is saying that you and your compatriots have closely, not to say obediently, echoed the "party line" when it comes to Iraq.



    I have to admit, though, to being sort of taken with the idea of "towing the company line".



    I picture a hapless, staggering subordinate dragging a float of champaign swilling executives by means of heavy rope that is attached to him via some kind of medieval harness.



    Hmm. Well I learned something new then. I really thought it was "tow" to be honest. I suppose I always thought about your visualization when the phrase was used. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen it in print...I've only heard it.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Hmm. Well I learned something new then. I really thought it was "tow" to be honest. I suppose I always thought about your visualization when the phrase was used. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen it in print...I've only heard it.



    I've come across quite a few of those, myself, over the years. Phrases that I had only ever heard so I had a homonym in my head.



    Then there are those words you've only ever read-- thank God for online speaking dictionaries, is all I can say.



    I've had the experience of chatting away, an apt word comes to mind, and alarm bells go off-- "Alert! Alert! You have no idea how that word is actually pronounced in out loud human speech, STOP RIGHT NOW!!! JUST FALL SILENT, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!"
  • giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I've had the experience of chatting away, an apt word comes to mind, and alarm bells go off-- "Alert! Alert! You have no idea how that word is actually pronounced in out loud human speech, STOP RIGHT NOW!!! JUST FALL SILENT, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!"



    Indeed. However, the significant distinction between a verbal conversation and an internet conversation is that on the internet the relevant information is instantly accessible. In this case, that information was even directly linked, reducing the amount of effort required to a single click.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by giant View Post


    Indeed. However, the significant distinction between a verbal conversation and an internet conversation is that on the internet the relevant information is instantly accessible. In this case, that information was even directly linked, reducing the amount of effort required to a single click.



    Yeah, amazing SDW hasn't gotten the knack of that.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I've come across quite a few of those, myself, over the years. Phrases that I had only ever heard so I had a homonym in my head.



    Then there are those words you've only ever read-- thank God for online speaking dictionaries, is all I can say.



    I've had the experience of chatting away, an apt word comes to mind, and alarm bells go off-- "Alert! Alert! You have no idea how that word is actually pronounced in out loud human speech, STOP RIGHT NOW!!! JUST FALL SILENT, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!"









    I totally know that feeling. When I was younger, I had a run in with "for all intents and purposes." Both me and another individual SWORE it was "for all intensive purposes." Then I saw it in print one day and I was like "Man, that's what a state school edumucation gets you."
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by giant View Post


    Indeed. However, the significant distinction between a verbal conversation and an internet conversation is that on the internet the relevant information is instantly accessible. In this case, that information was even directly linked, reducing the amount of effort required to a single click.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Yeah, amazing SDW hasn't gotten the knack of that.



    Thanks for the unprovoked ad homs, again. Seems to me [insert certain moderator] won't give a fuck though. Hmmm.



    But to explain myself: While I didn't feel like searching for it after I saw the Wiki link, I was wondering if there was another usage as I described. At least I have the honesty to admit I wasn't aware of the spelling or homonym involved.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Thanks for the unprovoked ad homs, again. Seems to me [insert certain moderator] won't give a fuck though. Hmmm.



    But to explain myself: While I didn't feel like searching for it after I saw the Wiki link, I was wondering if there was another usage as I described. At least I have the honesty to admit I wasn't aware of the spelling or homonym involved.



    The usage you want, "tow the line," is the result of people not knowing that it is "toe the line," and as a result, people think that to "tow the line" means to do something involving lines and towing, but once you stop to think about that idea, it really makes no sense whatsoever.



    I'm still grading. I'll respond in more detail to your post soon. Maybe after I get my new Mini set up and running.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    The usage you want, "tow the line," is the result of people not knowing that it is "toe the line," and as a result, people think that to "tow the line" means to do something involving lines and towing, but once you stop to think about that idea, it really makes no sense whatsoever.



    I'm still grading. I'll respond in more detail to your post soon. Maybe after I get my new Mini set up and running.



    What caused the mini purchase? Just curious. Enjoy.



    I always visualized it as towing a literal line/rope, etc. I think it does make sense, as if you''re hauling the corporate sack of whatever because that's your job.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    The usage you want, "tow the line," is the result of people not knowing that it is "toe the line," and as a result, people think that to "tow the line" means to do something involving lines and towing, but once you stop to think about that idea, it really makes no sense whatsoever.



    I'm still grading. I'll respond in more detail to your post soon. Maybe after I get my new Mini set up and running.



    Having been a runner (5K,10K, marathons), it's pretty obvious what "toe the line" means, as in the starting line and to place one's toe as close to that line as possible at the start of a race (literally speaking), and figuratively speaking to "toe the party line" means to get as close as possible to the party line (or position or talking points).



    OTOH, if you want to "carry their water for them," I guess you could also say "tow their water for them" perhaps.



    And where would one "tow the line" to anyway, which suggests movement to a new position, as opposed to keeping the same position as the "party line?"
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Having been a runner (5K,10K, marathons), it's pretty obvious what "toe the line" means, as in the starting line and to place one's toe as close to that line as possible at the start of a race (literally speaking), and figuratively speaking to "toe the party line" means to get as close as possible to the party line (or position or talking points).



    That's not what it means. To "Toe the line" was an order for members of Parliament to get behind a specific line that kept them from poking each other with swords. In other words, it meant both to observe the party rules and to get together as a bunch and all do the same thing.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    That's not what it means. To "Toe the line" was an order for members of Parliament to get behind a specific line that kept them from poking each other with swords. In other words, it meant both to observe the party rules and to get together as a bunch and all do the same thing.



    The origin of the saying, I would argue is irrelevent, since the usage I'm familiar with (e. g. running) essentialy means the same thing, to stand behind a line before proceeding to do something together, in my case a running event.



    And since humans have been running for millions of years, predating any form of human civilization, I think I'll keep my view, TYVM!
Sign In or Register to comment.