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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Translation: You are an asshole, who feels it is others' fault that his posts are so staggeringly boring that no one (other than Ty, who has extreme tolerance for pain) bothers to read them through. I caught the part about farming subsidies because that, unlike the rest of your discussion, is interesting to me.

And you are incapable of answering the basic question I quoted -- likely because you know that, once again, Ty has busted you for being wrong on basic facts.

Perhaps, in Spanky-land, Bush wants to eliminate farm subsidies -- just as, in Spanky-land, growth is higher now than it was in 2000.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob
even if the GOP maintains control of the Senate.

is there more than a 1% chance of that happening? Montana is done, and the last recount in Virginia for state AG in 2005 shifted something like 112 votes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Translation: You are an asshole, who feels it is others' fault that his posts are so staggeringly boring that no one (other than Ty, who has extreme tolerance for pain) bothers to read them through.

Good lord, man, your party won. Did the announce parntership shares today or something?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
is there more than a 1% chance of that happening? Montana is done, and the last recount in Virginia for state AG in 2005 shifted something like 112 votes.

Joe L is still out there.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd say any confirmation hearing is an opportunity for a public hearing on the war. I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who would like to speak against the war at this point, especially the ones who pulled out victories by less than 1 or 2%. So I'd guess recess.

That would be a pity (and thus probably what Bush will do).

I, for one, would love to see all the ways Senators can frame the inquiry: "Mr. Gates, please tell us EVERYTHING you believe Secretary Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration did wrong in Iraq."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Good lord, man, your party won. Did the announce parntership shares today or something?

I figured everything that needed to be said about the election, and Rummy resigning, had already been said.

Except, perhaps, a slight "woo-hoo!"

[Sidd Finch]

Did anyone catch Bush's press conference today? I was listening in the car, so I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but.......

I'm pretty sure that, when a reporter made the comment that the election was "a referendum on Iraq," Bush said no -- the election was "about a lot of things"

And then he proceeded to identify one of the non-Iraq things: "People want their Congressmen to be honest and ethical."

I think I like that explanation for the Rs loss, even more than the Iraq explanation.

[SlaveNoMore]

I've mentioned this before, but the lunatics are already clamoring for Impeachment. It took about an hour.

Can the new House leadership - pretty much all members of the far left themselves - muzzle their constituents?

PS - the impeachment of Bush and Cheney was a City of San Francisco ballot initiative. I had no idea this city had so much power.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
And then he proceeded to identify one of the non-Iraq things: "People want their Congressmen to be honest and ethical."

I think I like that explanation for the Rs loss, even more than the Iraq explanation.

Harry Reid stepping down as [presumed] Majority Leader would firther the cause.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I've mentioned this before, but the lunatics are already clamoring for Impeachment. It took about an hour.

Can the new House leadership - pretty much all members of the far left themselves - muzzle their constituents?

PS - the impeachment of Bush and Cheney was a City of San Francisco ballot initiative. I had no idea this city had so much power.

As I understand it, Pelosi put the smackdown on the impeachment notion in a press conference today.

You've got the people in power saying they're not interested in pursuing it. What else do you want? A muzzle on Kos? Good luck.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I've mentioned this before, but the lunatics are already clamoring for Impeachment. It took about an hour.

Can the new House leadership - pretty much all members of the far left themselves - muzzle their constituents?

PS - the impeachment of Bush and Cheney was a City of San Francisco ballot initiative. I had no idea this city had so much power.

I would think (in fact, based on bumper stickers etc., I am quite sure) that the lunatics have been clamoring for impeachment since early Nov. 2000.

It's probably just being publicized a bit more.

No, I don't think the Ds will go for it. How stupid would that be? Christ.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Did anyone catch Bush's press conference today? I was listening in the car, so I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but.......

I'm pretty sure that, when a reporter made the comment that the election was "a referendum on Iraq," Bush said no -- the election was "about a lot of things"

And then he proceeded to identify one of the non-Iraq things: "People want their Congressmen to be honest and ethical."

I think I like that explanation for the Rs loss, even more than the Iraq explanation.

I heard a little teeny tiny bit, and it sounded like Bush was saying "Even though the Ds are all traitorous bastards who don't support our soldiers and want to give aid and comfort to terrorists, I won't let that happen." (He was saying something to the effect of "To our friends in Iraq, don't be concerned. We will continue to support your efforts toward democracy and freedom. To the Amurrrican soldiers in Iraq, don't worry, the country still supports you. To our enemies, we still hate you and are going to hunt you down and obliterate you."

But maybe I've been reading this board too much, and he was more conveying a sense of bipartisanship.



ETA was his lead-off line "Say, why all the glum faces?" intended to be funny? Did people laugh? I missed that part.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I heard a little teeny tiny bit, and it sounded like Bush was saying "Even though the Ds are all traitorous bastards who don't support our soldiers and want to give aid and comfort to terrorists, I won't let that happen." (He was saying something to the effect of "To our friends in Iraq, don't be concerned. We will continue to support your efforts toward democracy and freedom. To the Amurrrican soldiers in Iraq, don't worry, the country still supports you. To our enemies, we still hate you and are going to hunt you down and obliterate you."

But maybe I've been reading this board too much, and he was more conveying a sense of bipartisanship.

if he actually said what you said, wasn't he saying bipartisan things? what would the dems not agree with inthose statements?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if he actually said what you said, wasn't he saying bipartisan things? what would the dems not agree with inthose statements?

Like I said, those things could be interpreted either way. I'm scanning the transcript now, and when coupled with comments like:

Reporter question: How could you not know that [it was very, very likely that D's would take a lot of seats] and not be out of touch?

BUSH: You didn't know it either.

QUESTION: A lot of the polls showed it.

BUSH: Well, there was -- I read those same polls. And believed -- I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.

I kind of hear an unsaid "And, therefore, R's would prevail in the contested seats" at the end of that -- like he's saying voting for D's is an indication that people do not understand the importance of taxes and security.

But he said other nicer things too, so whatever.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Like I said, those things could be interpreted either way. I'm scanning the transcript now, and when coupled with comments like:

I kind of hear an unsaid "And, therefore, R's would prevail in the contested seats" at the end of that -- like he's saying voting for D's is an indication that people do not understand the importance of taxes and security.

But he said other nicer things too, so whatever.

are you saying a vote for D's is not a vote for taxes?

Higher taxes is already in the first 100 hours.