Pub math: If x=D, then x=bad, however, if x=R, then x=good

[riverdeep]

The closest the dems have come to curtailing this war came last week, with the Webb proposal to give the troops the same amount of time resting that they spend in the field. By all accounts, it had a good chance of passing. Oh, Dear Leader might very well have vetoed it, but not without some political wounding. Then, Defense Secretary Bob Gates started making the rounds calling the Webb amendment dangerous:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,149497,00.html

It was enough to give cover to the gutless bastards pubs who switched.

On September 25th at a Department of Defense briefing, a reporter asks a Pentagon official about "lengthening the dwell time at home":
(video, fast forward to 10:33)
http://dodvclips.mil/?fr_story=FRsupt218762&rf=sitemap

He answers "It's the Army's goal to get to the same amount of dwell time as they are deployed..." The same thing as the Webb proposal.

Yes, yes they are that heinous.

[rateyes]

1. If x=R then x....

is a fucking idiot.

[Squatch]

2. As a soldier, myself, I can't give a flying fuck which side of the aisle

is pushing for this. As long as Congress does what's best for the troops, I couldn't give two shits who authors this kind of legislation or policy.

[riverdeep]

3. I understand your 'any port in a storm' view,

but you should know that while this particular legislation may become code, others that can actually benefit troops are being used, and have been used, as political footballs as well. For years now, this administration has been apathetic to furnishing it's troops with proper equipment. They could have done that years ago. Now, when they need more money, they will be arguing that if the money isn't approved then MRAP vehicles won't get to the troops. It's sheer political blackmail.

How many troops get harmed in between their gaps of 'concern'?

[Igel]

4. I use a different notation.

Assume P = {R, D), where pi is any partisan and |p| is an
operator returning values R or D for any pn.  S = {+, -, 0}, +
standing for "positively appraised", - standing for
"negatively appraised", 0 is "undefined".

Further, assume set {E}, E being an event or proposition, real
or imaginary.

We define three-place function, E(x, y), x in {E} and y in
{P}, which maps members of {E} into S.

1.  Show that if E(xi, -y) = -E(xi, y), xi real, E must map xi
to 0.

2.  Show that OP is a special case of E(x,y), and discuss
whether the defining and discussion of E(x,y) is itself a
member of {E}.

3.  Show that E(xi, -y) = -E(xi, y) can only return values -
and + for xi in the subset of imaginary events or
propositions.

4. extra credit (required for grad students) For all real xi,
show that E(xi, y) returns values in the subset (+, -}.

5.  (required for grad students).  Let H be the set of all
American voters.  Discuss the relationship between H and P,
and whether the answers for (1) and (2) are generally valid
for H.

(not even on edit:  I think I got that right, but I have to go
so it's likely that one or two revisions I made make it even
more nonsensical than I intended.  :-)

[hfojvt]

7. that's quite confusing

without a typewriter that does sub-functions.

That is, 'xi' reads to me like x times i (where i is, as everybody knows, the square root of -1) Yet I am guessing it really means x(sub i) where i = (1,2,3,...)

[MetaTrope]

5. Don't forget their favorite argument

If x=R and x=bad, then R=D

I endlessly hear that "The Dems would do just the same thing!"

[LondonReign2]

6. Yup, I recently had an exchange with the brain dead

Said brain dead was railing about Soros. I asked, "Do you also condemn Scaife?" After the blank looks subsided and the cretin was able to research who Scaife was, I was told, "But that's different."

Oi.