A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Penske_Account]

[eom]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
[eom]

The disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person with good ideas would ever want to wade into

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person with good ideas would ever want to wade into

too long, it doesnt fit. it ends with "....idea". Do you affirm my edit or you want to edit?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
too long, it doesnt fit. it ends with "....idea". Do you affirm my edit or you want to edit?

Let's change "post to..." to "wade into" to preserve all the melifluosity of ncs' prose. Many thanks.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Let's change "post to..." to "wade into" to preserve all the melifluosity of ncs' prose. Many thanks.

smashing! FTR, FD: I am a self-loathing intelligent person, which allows me in.

How ' bout all'Y'all?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person with good ideas would ever want to wade into

::sniff:: It's not about fucking time? ::sniff::

But yes, sorry, we do have bases of varying sorts in Germany. And 20-30 years ago there were still air raid and terrorist attack drills going on, both for mil. personnel and civilians. Okay, right, less for angry Germans and more for Luciferian Russians and others, but still.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
::sniff:: It's not about fucking time? ::sniff::

But yes, sorry, we do have bases of varying sorts in Germany. And 20-30 years ago there were still air raid and terrorist attack drills going on, both for mil. personnel and civilians. Okay, right, less for angry Germans and more for Luciferian Russians and others, but still.

2. I endorse withdrawing our troops from areas where we first put them in during and in furtherance of a war effourt in chronological order, i.e. FiFo, so, first we empty WEurope, then SKorea........Iraq is a ways down the road, probably 2012ish, which equates with the original 10 year projection I made.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how quickly did we get all troops and bases out of Germany?

Do we have troops in Iraq now to keep the Iranians (they're a nice stand-in for the 200+ Red Army divisions, no?) out? Or because the Iraqis haven't stopped shooting at us/each other?

(from the closed but not to me thread, because I don't want to hide my talent under a basket)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
The defeat of Germany would have accomplished both of those. Coming up through Italy would have accomplished that without risking a million drowned in the English Channel.

Are you forgeting that we, in fact, did try to come up thru Italy? A narrow and mountanious peninsula, with no room to manuever, made for rough slogging. Two years after landing (at the end of the war) we still were within Italy's borders.

Eisenhower correctly decided that the main push should be the direct one. Look at a map of Europe.

Invading at Normandy also had the benefit of being close to our supply lines and far from the Germans, and close to the bases of our tactical air forces. Neither of that was true about Italy, Greece, or anyplace else in what Sir Winston called "the soft underbelly."

(more wisdom from the closed thread)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone with any political sense knew that it was incredibly tough to pass CAFTA with all the Unions and the Dems united behind it. That is why I said: "He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. He got lots of Congressment, from strong Unions states like Michigan, to vote in favor of CAFTA. That didn't come cheap."

I apologize for omitting that crucial detail from my synopsis of our exchange. The synopsis should have read:

• Spanky: Bush busted his derriere to get CAFTA passed.
  
  Me: How so?
  
  Spanky: He invested a lot of political capital to get it through.
  
  Me: In what way did Bush spend political capital on CAFTA?
  
  Spanky: He got it through didn't he?
  
  Me: Can't come up with anything, huh?
  
  Spanky: I already told you twice. . . He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. . . . That didn't come cheap.

Like George W. Bush, you seem to think that saying the same superficial nonsense over and over and over again is convincing and responsive.

Bush's record on free trade is a lot of happy talk and lip service (not the Clinton kind), and little to nothing to show for it. This is because he chose to spend his political capital on other things -- tax cuts, invading Iraq, attempting to gut Social Security.

Having explained that the Republican Party is the party of free trade and should be re-elected on that basis, you simultaneously say that Bush spent major capital getting his Congressmen from his own party to vote for free trade. Stop and think about that for a second.

This is complete drivel. When it comes to Doha the dispute is between the EU and the third world. All we can do is try to mediate.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try reading, say, The Economist. After the talks collapsed this summer, the July 24 issue observed:

• The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.

Now, it takes two to tango, and I'm not saying that the U.S. is solely to blame. But your little song and dance of pretending that the U.S. had nothing to do with Doha's failure is about as credible as your insistence that George Bush had to go to the mat to get Republicans to pass CAFTA.

When did the Financial Times become the entire Eurpean Pro Free trade press. Doesn't the economist count? Why can't you cite anyone else (or hell why can't you cite the FT?).

Oops.

I am a free trader. You are not. Give me a break. You argued with me on CAFTA. Was the FT against CAFTA? Did they think it was bad because Bush didn't consult the Dems (in other words put more riders in that sucked up to the Unions)? We argued for pages and pages about CAFTA. My position was the same as the Economist. That is the Free Traders bible and you constantly argue against their positions.

Having watched you define "liberal" today, I'm not going to argue with you about whether I am a "free trader," since you seem to use political labels in a different manner than most of the functionally literate population. Suffice it to say that most people would call me a free trader.

You said Bush was pushing free trade just because he was sucking up to business.

That's not what I said, and if you think I said that then you are either inattentive or functionally illiterate.

You are the only one on the planet that thinks the Dems will step up on free trade.

I didn't say that, either. Is it so hard to read what I say and respond to that instead of foaming at the mouth about random crap? (Please note that this is my bid to seed the next board title when Penske takes the K.)

You are just trying to rationalize a Democrat takeover.

No. I'm just arguing that Bush has been a huge disappointment from a free-trade perspective. No matter who is elected to Congress tomorrow, that tiger is not about to change his stripes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Let's change "post to..." to "wade into" to preserve all the melifluosity of ncs' prose. Many thanks.

I added the word "would" to make it grammatically correct. I really don't want ncs or anyone else to think we are less functionally literate than we actually are.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
. . . less for angry Germans and more for Luciferian Russians and others, but still.

I don't think that the US Army spent much time on patrol in areas controlled by the Baader-Meinhof Gang. I think that they were more concerned with how to defend the Fulda Gap from the Luciferian Russian hordes (a/k/a "the Godless Communists").

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I don't think that the US Army spent much time on patrol in areas controlled by the Baader-Meinhof Gang. I think that they were more concerned with how to defend the Fulda Gap from the Luciferian Russian hordes (a/k/a "the Godless Communists").

Um, actually, there were terrorist attacks on bases in Germany in the 70s and 80s and as mentoined these were something of concern in everyday life, to a degree. But yes, my original comment was that the Communist threat was clearly a central reason for the continued presence, so I think we're saying the same there. And there have continued to be (imo) meaningful reasons why we should have a presence there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
Um, actually, there were terrorist attacks on bases in Germany in the 70s and 80s and as mentoined these were something of concern in everyday life, to a degree. But yes, my original comment was that the Communist threat was clearly a central reason for the continued presence, so I think we're saying the same there. And there have continued to be (imo) meaningful reasons why we should have a presence there.

2. and GGGGG said we were able to pull all troops out of Germany really quick. I was just proving another thing he said was wrong. We also did get out of Japan too quickly.

398-12

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I didn't say that, either. Is it so hard to read what I say and respond to that instead of foaming at the mouth about random crap? (Please note that this is my bid to seed the next board title when Penske takes the K.)

Note to my VGBNBF and co-mod Ty:

You should not bury these little notes to me in the middle of a long post. I rarely read more than the first 6 or 7 words of your posts. In this case I happened to be doing a global site search for the word "foaming" (specifically related to a sexual reference on the FB) and this came up (no pun intended).

Or PM me with this stuff.

Thanks.....your pal,

Penske