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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why don't you look up "free trade" in the dictionary. The word "free trade" has a meaning. It does not mean insuring a level playing field and making other countrys have similar labor and environmental laws.

I'm happy to talk about the substance of free trade with you, if you ever want to move beyond the semantic question of whether what I support is "free trade" in the sense in which you mean it. Since you don't know what policies I support and I don't want to bother to figure out how you use the term, I agree that further discussion in this vein is pointless.

You focused on the word splicing because you know what you did was misleading. If you didn't believe what you were doing was misleading, you would focus on that word, and not splicing.

I've addressed both halves of this at quite some length, and you've run out of things to say, which is telling. I focused on the word "splicing" because you said I did something I did not do. But I have explained why what I quoted from the Economist was not misleading. Again, here is why:

There is a very simple factual point on which we disagree. You said that the U.S. was an innocent bystander to the collapse of the Doha round, blameless for the failure of the Europeans and the third world to come to an agreement with each other, and that you think Bush was prepared to make big cuts in U.S. agricultural subsidies. You think the July 24 article in The Economist says this, though it says the opposite.

Here's the Financial Times' coverage from July, when the talks collapsed:

• The stumbling "Doha round"of trade negotiations fell into indefinite suspension yesterday after last-ditch talks ended in recrimination.
  
  An emergency meeting in Geneva of the talks' six core negotiators - India, Brazil,the US, EU, Japan and Australia - collapsed over irreconcilable differences about farm liberalisation.
  
  The US continued to argue for big cuts in farm import tariffs to open up markets for its farmers, a demand fiercely rejected by the EU, Japan and India, which said the US had first to go further in offering to cut agricultural subsidies.
  
  The Doha round, which began in November 2001, will nowenter indefinite suspension unless and until a consensus in the World Trade Organisation's 149 member countries can be found to revive it.
  
  The White House's authority from the US Congress to negotiate entire trade deals expires next year, meaning the end of this month was in effect a deadline for a WTO deal on farm goods and manufactures.
  
  Most experts and officials think Congress unlikely to renew that authority, rendering any near-term agreement impossible.
  
  Four of the six countries present rounded on the US as the culprit for the collapse in the talks, which started on Sunday and ended yesterday.
  
  Peter Mandelson, EU trade commissioner, told the Financial Times: "If the US continues to demand dollar-for-dollar compensation in market access [cutting tariffs] for reducing domestic support, no one in the developing world will ever buy that, and the EU will not either."
  
  Even Brazil, which shares some of the US's interest in reducing farm tariffs, identified American intransigence on subsidies as preventing an agreement.
  
  Kamal Nath, the Indian trade minister, said of the US: "Everybody put something on the table except one country who said, 'We can't see anything on the table.' "

Do you see that this account flatly contradicts your understanding?

I am sorry if you can't see that critisizing Bush for pushing through CAFTA and then critisizing him for not doing enough on free trade is beyond hypocritical, then this conversation can't continue.

That would be hypocritical. But what I said was that I wasn't impressed with what Bush did with regard to CAFTA. It just wasn't much of an accomplishment, and he didn't have to do much to get his own party to vote for it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
breaking....

Sources are telling me that exits polls et al are suggesting that this are trending the right now. America may yet be a winner today.......

more to come....

What, NewsMax.com? You'd better hope the GOP loses today. Otherwise, it's going to lose in 2008. Best to get it over with now and hold onto the Presidency in 2008.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm on a DNC list. I also received 47 calls this week - all from left leaning candidates and groups (and 1 from Ahnold).

Who can I sue?

Are you sure they're from left-leaning groups? Maybe they're from the RNC but designed to make it seem like they are from liberals to irritate you into voting Republican.

There are an aweful lot of underused automated dialers around the country just sitting there since DNC. Setting them up on a sabotage campaign would be pretty cheap. I'm just saying.

Personally, I don't have a landline, so I don't have this problem.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What, NewsMax.com? You'd better hope the GOP loses today. Otherwise, it's going to lose in 2008. Best to get it over with now and hold onto the Presidency in 2008.

I see the McCain/Jeb Bush ticket as unstoppable. Obama has replaced Hillary as the flavour of the month. Ultimately it will be a same old same old D. Maybe Gore.

MCain will take the middle and Jeb will bring in the christians. All will be well.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Not me. And there was the Japanese American Army Chief of Staff that was pushed out because he argued we would need more troops. That sucked for him (and us).

Shinseki. Yet, Bush claims that they listen to the generals.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's leave it this way: I will admit that if the U.S. was prepared to put serious cuts in agricultural subsidies on the table at Doha, then George W. Bush has been a leader on free trade who both talked the talk and walked the walk; if you will admit that if the U.S. did not put serious agricultural subsidies on the table at Doha, then you have been talking out of your ass because you were egregiously misinformed about free-trade negotiations.

I've been skimming this discussion, at best, but this caught my eye.

Spanky -- you should be able to agree with what Ty said. And the question of what Bush put on the table at Doha should be objectively verifiable.

And then you two can talk about something else.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Bob


At any rate, the cite proved that my 20 year old memory was reasonably correct on the number of divisions waiting to turn us all into a bunch of borscht-eating atheistic Ivans, so my work is done. Besides, defining free trade is much more interesting.

Confession: I like borscht.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Greg Mankiw, Felix Salmon and Brad DeLong on the differences between Republicans and Democrats on free trade. Sounds about right to me. (Oddly enough, it was posted this afternoon. Something in the water?)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Confession: I like borscht.

Why do you hate America?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I've been skimming this discussion, at best, but this caught my eye.

Spanky -- you should be able to agree with what Ty said. And the question of what Bush put on the table at Doha should be objectively verifiable.

And then you two can talk about something else.

Of course it caught your eye, because that is something Ty said and it was a minor sub issue, and having no eye for the relevant you globbed onto it.

The main thrust of the argument was Ty criticizing Bush for not being strong enough on Free Trade. I pointed out that that was totally ripe because Ty spent pages and pages on this board arguing with me against CAFTA a year ago. So how could he criticize Bush for not being strong enough on free trade, when he did not support Bush's biggest free trade accomplishment?

Further, to criticize Bush's commitment to free trade, Ty quotes an economist article but part of that article (which he strategically omitted) stated that Bush has been really strong on Free Trade.

Then after arguing that CAFTA wasn't a good deal because it didn't establish a balance playing field, something that someone who supports real free trade would never say, he says he is a free trader.

1) So he says he is a free trader. If he is a free trader then Penske is a pacifist.

2) He argues against CAFTA for pages and pages with me (I think the argument lasted at least four days), but then today says he is not sure he was ever against it (which he clearly was).

3) But then admits he still stands by his criticisms of CAFTA.

4) Then he says as a free trader that he is disappointed in Bush.

Don't you find it completely hypocritical that Ty does not support CAFTA, but then says as a "free trader" he is dissapointed in Bush for not supporting free trade enough? Is that not totally ridiculous and unsupportable?

Isn't it completely unsupportable when he says he supports free trade, but he supports the idea of a level playing field, which is a standard invented by unions because following that standard a free trade agreement would never pass the test? Is that not completely ridiculous?

If we can agree that Ty's position on these issues is completely ridiculous and irrational we can address any one of the side issues you want to address.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If he is a free trader then Penske is a pacifist.

Penske's only ornery when he's really been hitting the jug wine.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Greg Mankiw, Felix Salmon and Brad DeLong on the differences between Republicans and Democrats on free trade. Sounds about right to me. (Oddly enough, it was posted this afternoon. Something in the water?)

This is the Democrat position on Free Trade:

"Brown criticized DeWine for his votes supporting CAFTA, and favoring NAFTA. Throughout his tenure in the House Brown has been steadfast in his opposition to free trade and free trade agreements.. He has made his opposition to free trade the centerpiece of his campain and now he is going to take this fight to the Senate."

This is not a good day for free trade.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is the Democrat position on Free Trade:

"Brown criticized DeWine for his votes supporting CAFTA, and favoring NAFTA. Throughout his tenure in the House Brown has been steadfast in his opposition to free trade and free trade agreements.. He has made his opposition to free trade the centerpiece of his campain and now he is going to take this fight to the Senate."

This is not a good day for free trade.

Uh, Spanky, I think that you might be the only one -- including the President -- who is thinking right now about the impact on of the elections on free trade.

[Replaced_Texan]

Texas House
State Rep. Dist. 134 In: 42%
Martha Wong, R (I)
12,135 43.6%
Ellen Cohen, D
15,101 54.3%
Mhair S. Dekmezian, L
579 2.1%

cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA

Conga! Everyone!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Texas House
State Rep. Dist. 134 In: 42%
Martha Wong, R (I)
12,135 43.6%
Ellen Cohen, D
15,101 54.3%
Mhair S. Dekmezian, L
579 2.1%

cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-CHA

Conga! Everyone!

Heh, this cracks me up:

(11/07/06 - HOUSTON) - Democrat Nick Lampson had a comfortable lead Tuesday over Republican write-in candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs to replace fierce partisan Rep. Tom DeLay in the state's most closely watched congressional race.

Lampson had about 50 percent of the vote in early returns, with Sekula-Gibbs capturing about 27 percent and another Republican write-in candidate, Don Richardson, with 18 percent. Libertarian Bob Smither received the remaining 5 percent. Most of the returns were from early voting in Harris County, one of four counties in the 22nd Congressional District, which also includes Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties.

Richardson's unexpectedly large vote count was in part due to Democratic ads that touted him as "too conservative for Texas," an attempt to appeal to conservative Republican voters and split the Republican write-in vote.