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

[SlaveNoMore]

Police arrested 24-year old Michael Burkett of Boise early Sunday morning after officers with Capitol Mall Security reported spotting him vandalizing two flag polls on the grounds of the Idaho Statehouse.

The flags are memorials to soldiers who lost their lives in the war on terror.

"It's certainly upsetting, not just to officers but for any citizen of this county who knows somebody who lost their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan," Lt. Ron Winegar said of the ongoing investigation.

Burkett was charged with resisting arrest and Malicious Injury to Property. He and his 22-year-old brother, Tom Burkett, also charged with the vandalism, are the sons of state Sen. Michael Burkett (D) of Idaho's 19th district.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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)

I was just stating Churchill's position. We had planned to invade France very early on (1942) but after a while Churchill thought it was a bad idea. He thought we should push up through "the soft underbelly of Europe". He wanted to stop Stalin from taking Poland. He also thought an amphibious landing was a huge risk that we didn't have to take since we were already on the continent. Stalin really pushed hard for the Normandy landing.

I have no idea who was right but it is probably important to point out that Churchill planned the Galipoli campaign.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

I thought the conclusion of that conversation was that it was not fucking time. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sidd? Has something happened?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

I don't believe I said differently. I said that our soldiers weren't getting shot at in Germany a couple of years after the Mission was Accomplished.

Yes, it does turn out that by the 70s our soldiers were being shot at just about everywhere. I think that had something to do with Vietnam. During the late 40s and through the 50s, the preferred targets were more often British or French, since they were still very messilly withdrawing from any number of overseas colonies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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

I was under the impression that as a matter of routine you had one of your associates run a search for your name and like terms, and forward you a list of the posts that come up. For this reason, my little notes to you in the middle of long notes always include "Penske" or something else that will do the trick, like "jug wine." As always, I remain,

yr pal,

T.S.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was under the impression that as a matter of routine you had one of your associates run a search for your name and like terms, and forward you a list of the posts that come up. For this reason, my little notes to you in the middle of long notes always include "Penske" or something else that will do the trick, like "jug wine." As always, I remain,

yr pal,

T.S.

W p, P!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

No the way it works is I post something substantive and you need to refute my reasons with something, just not say they are wrong. Just repeating I am wrong over and over again does not qualify as a substantive argument. When you say I haven't given you a reason, I repost the reason to show you are wrong.

Again, he got many Republican members of Congress who voted against NAFTA to vote for CAFTA. He actually went to capital hill to shore up votes (how many times did Clinton do that?).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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.

The problem is that you need to think about it. I already have. He had to get every Republican to vote because he got absolutely no help from the Democrats. If the Democrats are trying to pass a gun control bill and they need to spend a lot of capital to get them over the top (to get those last few Dems to vote for it because no Repubs will), does that mean they are not really the party of Gun control, the Republicans are? Didn't Clinton have to spend a lot of political capital to get the Democrat majority congress to pass his budget bill in 1992? But the vote on CAFTA was about as clean cut as you get. There is almost never unaninimoty for parties on any subject for the members of Congress. Not on this issue. Almost every Democrat voted against CAFTA and almost every Repub voted against it. It is now crystal clear which party is the party of free trade. How much more stark can it get?

[Spanky]

First of all the quote you use from the Economist totally refutes what you were saying: that Bush was not willing to take the political hit from Sugar farmers in Florida or from the Midwester's who make corn syrup. The quote you used from the economist shows that he not only was he willing to sacrifice those subsidies, he was insisting that the US sacrifice those subsidies.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If we want Doha to work, we're going to have feel some pain. E.g., our sugar industry is going to have to be exposed to competition. But Bush doesn't want to take the political hit in Florida from the sugar industry, or from the corn farmers in the Midwest who make corn syrup. That sort of hit.

Originally posted by Spanky
Total B.S. Bush said all that stuff is on the negotiating table. He said all farm subsidies and steel tariffs are up for negoatiations. The third world is happy with us, they are mad at the Europeans because the CAP is not on the table.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

The operative quote was: which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.


You also said that Bush wasn't pushing on the Doha round and he was to blame. You sliced up the quote from the Economist to try and and make it look like the economist was saying Bush was at fault for the collapse of the Doha round Actually, if you read the whole quote it is clear the Economist is not blaming Bush. The article also give Bush kudos for being a strong free trader.

"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. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader."

And what was Bush's alleged crime Trying to make the Doha round actually cut more subsidies. Making the deal more beneficial for free trade. And you say Bush isn't committed to free trade? Please.






[/QUOTE]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No the way it works is I post something substantive and you need to refute my reasons with something, just not say they are wrong. Just repeating I am wrong over and over again does not qualify as a substantive argument. When you say I haven't given you a reason, I repost the reason to show you are wrong.

That's nice, but I'm still waiting for the "substantive" part.

Again, he got many Republican members of Congress who voted against NAFTA to vote for CAFTA. He actually went to capital hill to shore up votes (how many times did Clinton do that?).

Since Clinton got NAFTA passed over the objections of many in his own party, I'm thinking you didn't want to go there.

The problem is that you need to think about it. I already have. He had to get every Republican to vote because he got absolutely no help from the Democrats. If the Democrats are trying to pass a gun control bill and they need to spend a lot of capital to get them over the top (to get those last few Dems to vote for it because no Repubs will), does that mean they are not really the party of Gun control, the Republicans are? Didn't Clinton have to spend a lot of political capital to get the Democrat majority congress to pass his budget bill in 1992? But the vote on CAFTA was about as clean cut as you get. There is almost never unaninimoty for parties on any subject for the members of Congress. Not on this issue. Almost every Democrat voted against CAFTA and almost every Repub voted against it. It is now crystal clear which party is the party of free trade. How much more stark can it get?

Perhaps because of tomorrow's election, you want to have an argument with me about whether the Democratic or Republican party is better on free trade. I am not having that argument with you. I'm just saying that Bush hasn't been good on free trade because he hasn't tried. He pays lip service, but he doesn't invest in it.

I've said this a few times, and your response is that Bush really spent a lot of (unidentified) "political capital" twisting Republican Congressman to vote for CAFTA. I don't buy that this is much of investment at all, compared to real priorities for the Administration like tax cuts, invading Iraq, and attempting to undo Social Security. Moreover, CAFTA is hardly much to write home about.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since Clinton got NAFTA passed over the objections of many in his own party, I'm thinking you didn't want to go there.

Only about a hundred Democrats voted for NAFTA. The rest of the votes came from the Repubs. And Clinton had to push hard to get the Democrat votes he did get.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps because of tomorrow's election, you want to have an argument with me about whether the Democratic or Republican party is better on free trade. I am not having that argument with you.

Well you were, until you realized it was a totally losing argument.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I'm just saying that Bush hasn't been good on free trade because he hasn't tried. He pays lip service, but he doesn't invest in it.

I've said this a few times, and your response is that Bush really spent a lot of (unidentified) "political capital" twisting Republican Congressman to vote for CAFTA. I don't buy that this is much of investment at all, compared to real priorities for the Administration like tax cuts, invading Iraq, and attempting to undo Social Security. Moreover, CAFTA is hardly much to write home about.

Coming from a guy who is not really committed to free trade and who really loathes the Bush administration. Please. You just refuse to give the Bush administration kudos for anything.

[Not Bob]

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.

Agreed, my favorite little Republican. I just wanted a chance to say "the Fulda Gap" again.

[Spanky]

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

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

Really. Well here is what you said

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Bush and the GOP like free trade as an issue because it is important to big business (read: $$$$) and lets them draw distinctions in this regard with Democrats (read: deny Dems $$$$). So there are advantages on the GOP side to keeping the issue alive and to forcing votes along party lines, rather than with big bipartisan majorities.

OTOH, there are few advantages to the GOP to making deals that actually promote free trade in a big way, for two reasons. One follows from what i just said -- if they give big business what they want, they lose the issue. Better to keep things simmering. This reason is secondary to the second, which is that entering into free-trade agreements with countries that really matter -- e.g., Doha -- will require the country to make politically unsavory deals -- i.e., to piss Americans off. The majority will benefit, for reasons you and I agree on, but the minority speaks loudly and throws around the $$$$.

So after reading what you said do you still want to say that my quote "You said Bush was pushing free trade just because he was sucking up to business." mischaracterized your statement.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Only about a hundred Democrats voted for NAFTA. The rest of the votes came from the Repubs. And Clinton had to push hard to get the Democrat votes he did get.

OK. I'm not defending the Democratic Party. I'm pointing out that Bush's records looks pretty crappy compared to Clinton on this one.

Well you were, until you realized it was a totally losing argument.

You are a moron, and I wasn't. You call me a partisan, but you're the one trying to make this a partisan fight.

Coming from a guy who is not really committed to free trade and who really loathes the Bush administration. Please. You just refuse to give the Bush administration kudos for anything.

Not a word of substance in that response. OK. I've been reasonably specific addressing things like Doha, and you've been, well, misinformed. Six years of this President and what you can say for him is, never mind steel and Doha, he actually hauled his ass to Capitol Hill to ask Republican congressmen to vote for CAFTA. And I'm supposed to give him kudos for that.

Take all of the money and resources and good will and effort that Bush has squandered in Iran. How much better a place would the world be if Bush had turned those efforts to free trade?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So after reading what you said do you still want to say that my quote "You said Bush was pushing free trade just because he was sucking up to business" mischaracterized your statement.

Yes. Most obviously, I said there were two "advantages" to Bush and the GOP from what they've done, and you've chosen to ignore the second, which I said was the more significant.

Moreover, I never suggested that Bush didn't believe in free trade. Indeed, in another post I suggested that he does believe in it, which makes it all the more disappointing that he's not willing to invest political capital in it. He has let political expediency trump his avowed principles.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have no idea who was right but it is probably important to point out that Churchill planned the Galipoli campaign.

He was a brilliant guy, no doubt about it, and truly a Rennaissance man -- talented writer, artist, soldier, statesman, etc. I just think that Ike was right and he was wrong on this particular issue.

And, in his defense on Gallipoli, they didn't move after the landings when they had the chance. Of course, nothing that happened in Turkey would have changed anything on the ground in the front that mattered then, either, so . . . .