Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 142

Spanky · 08-18-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People pay Spanky for his political analysis and include him in conferecne calls to plan policy. Contrast- i think I'm the only one who posts comments on your blog. Maybe you should spend a bit more time reading his stuff and thinking why he might be right.

I appreciate the vote of confidence however I don't think I am a policy expert. I give political strategic (making me sort of a Karl Rove wantabe) advice and I raise money. Politicians often ask me for policy advice assuming that since I understand political strategy I must also understand policy. That is a common misconception. Unless they ask me about economic and trade issues I tell them I am not qualified to help. Here I spout off my policy opinions because here I don't think they can do much damage and its fun. However, before I would presume to offer advice to a politician on most of the issues discussed here I would do a lot more research.

Hank Chinaski · 08-18-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I appreciate the vote of confidence however I don't think I am a policy expert. I give political strategic (making me sort of a Karl Rove wantabe) advice and I raise money. Politicians often ask me for policy advice assuming that since I understand political strategy I must also understand policy. That is a common misconception. Unless they ask me about economic and trade issues I tell them I am not qualified to help. Here I spout off my policy opinions because here I don't think they can do much damage and its fun. However, before I would presume to offer advice to a politician on most of the issues discussed here I would do a lot more research.

A bit of that humble respect for the boundaries of one's knowledge areas would be a good gift for someone to give Ty.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-18-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
mmmmmSpam oh and eggs mmmmmmmmmmm-

Don't you have a viking avatar somewhere?

Shape Shifter · 08-18-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A bit of that humble respent for the boundaries of one's knowledge areas would be a good gift for someone to give Ty.

This reads like Bob Dylan's poetry.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-18-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A bit of that humble respent for the boundaries of one's knowledge areas would be a good gift for someone to give Ty.

I try to acknowledge when I find your posts incomprehensible, and only decline to do it more often out of fear of complaints.

baltassoc · 08-18-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A bit of that humble respect for the boundaries of one's knowledge areas would be a good gift for someone to give Ty.

Huh?

SlaveNoMore · 08-18-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
So what's your beef with FDR?

Can we start with the TVA?

Gattigap · 08-18-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Can we start with the TVA?

OK. Unusual choice for a place to start, it seems, but that's fine. What about it?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-18-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Can we start with the TVA?

I had forgotten that you are a big fan of the snail darter.

I understand that many of you will never forgive FDR for introducing socialism. What I don't understand is the rogue meme about FDR and our entry into World War II. (I recall that Penske is bent out of shape that FDR said he wouldn't lead us into the war, and thinks that FDR's failure to immediately surrender to Germany on December 8, 1941 makes him a liar. Whatever.) The thought seems to be, Democrats think FDR is a great president, and FDR was president when we went to war, and W. was a president when we went to war, so therefore even Democrats should admit that W. is a great president. Anyone who got a good enough score on the LSAT to get into law school should be able to see what's wrong with this reasoning, which is probably why you guys keep hinting at it instead of just saying it outright.

Spanky · 08-18-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Huh?

Every time I see read one of your posts I laugh because I picture your Avatar saying it. I think if we all had muppet Avatars things would get a lot less testy around here.

Hank Chinaski · 08-18-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Huh?

Spank said he's an expert at some parts of politics but would never claim to be an expert at other areas. Since he actually works in Politics he could claim to be an expert in all areas- but he is too humble to do so.

Ty on the other hand claims to know everything, even though objectively he has no real knowledge of any area in politics. Yet he is forever implying Spank doesn't know what he is talking about, as an example. He could use a bit of Spank's humbleness.

If you really couldn't follow that you might want to stick to FB.

Shape Shifter · 08-18-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Every time I see read one of your posts I laugh because I picture your Avatar saying it. I think if we all had muppet Avatars things would get a lot less testy around here.

We tried that once. Everyone wanted to be Oscar.

Spanky · 08-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I had forgotten that you are a big fan of the snail darter.

I understand that many of you will never forgive FDR for introducing socialism. What I don't understand is the rogue meme about FDR and our entry into World War II. (I recall that Penske is bent out of shape that FDR said he wouldn't lead us into the war, and thinks that FDR's failure to immediately surrender to Germany on December 8, 1941 makes him a liar. Whatever.) The thought seems to be, Democrats think FDR is a great president, and FDR was president when we went to war, and W. was a president when we went to war, so therefore even Democrats should admit that W. is a great president. Anyone who got a good enough score on the LSAT to get into law school should be able to see what's wrong with this reasoning, which is probably why you guys keep hinting at it instead of just saying it outright.

As usual you have totally missed the point. We (or at least) I don't blame FDR for manipulating us into WWII. I think it was a good thing. But we find it hypocritical that you get all up in arms for Bush allegedly lying to get us into war when that is exactly what FDR did. From documents and memos from his administration it was clear before the 1940 election FDR was really worried about Hitler and wanted to help England but most Americans, being encouraged by Lindberg and Kennedy, didn't want any part of it. FDR, in the election of 1940 promised to do everything in his power to keep us out of the war in Europe. And then he did everything he could to get us involved. Even though we were neutral Roosevelt had U.S. destroyers escort U.S. and British cargo ships that were bringing ammunition to England. They escorted these ships half way across the Atlantic and if any German U boat showed up we fired on it.

We pretty much gave an entire fleet of old destroyers to England. We did get to lease some bases we did not need, but England got supplies that were clearly critical to the war effort. Right after he was elected he instituted the largest peacetime draft in US history and jacked up military spending immediately in preparation for war.

And he had strategy meetings with Churchill all time. He pretty much made us an alley of Great Britain in everything but name. If FDR had not used US destroyers to protect British shipping, had not done the Lend Lease act, and sold goods to any ship that showed up at a US port - as a true neutral should - Germany probably would have not declared war on us.

But when FDR in the 1940 campaign said that he would do everything in his power to keep our sons and daughters at home, he knew was going to do the opposite. In other words he lied. But I for one am glad that he did. If he hadn't done what he did we might all be speaking German right now.

sgtclub · 08-18-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So what's your beef with FDR?

None on this issues. Just pointing out that Germany's declaration wasn't completely groundless.

Gattigap · 08-18-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As usual you have totally missed the point. We (or at least) I don't blame FDR for manipulating us into WWII. I think it was a good thing. But we find it hypocritical that you get all up in arms for Bush allegedly lying to get us into war when that is exactly what FDR did. From documents and memos from his administration it was clear before the 1940 election FDR was really worried about Hitler and wanted to help England but most Americans, being encourage by Lindberg and Kennedy, didn't want any part of it. FDR, in the election of 1940 promised to do everything in his power to keep us out of the war in Europe. And then he did everything he could to get us involved. Even though we were neutral Roosevelt had U.S. destroyers escort U.S. and british cargo ships that were bringing ammunition to England. They escorted these ships half way across the Atlantic and if any German U boat showed up we fired on it.

We pretty much an entire fleet of old destroyers to England. We did get to lease some bases we did not need, but England got supplies that were clearly critical to the war effort. Right after he was elected he instituted the largest peace time draft in US history and jacked up military spending immediately in preparation for war.

And he had strategy meetings with Chruchill all time. He pretty much made us an alley of Great Britain in everything but name. If FDR had no used US destroyers to protect British shipping, had not done the Lend Lease act, and sold good to any ship that showed up at a US port - as a true neutral should - Germany probably would have not declared war on us.

But when FDR in the 1940 campaign said that he would do everything in his power to keep our sons and daughters at home, new he was going to do the opposite. In other words he lied. But I for one am glad that he did. If he hadn't done what he did we might all be speaking German right now.

My WWII history is severely lacking, so I'll defer to the rest of you historians on this -- but if the trigger to our jumping into the war as an active participant was Pearl Harbor, then wouldn't the rest of the actions you describe above be characterized as secretive support of Britain instead of the "opposite" of keeping our sons and daughters at home?