Show me the motto!
 

how about my FIL at the Battle of the Bulge? since we're changing factors, can I change too?

Show me the motto!
 

Now stop it or I'm talking about my great-grandfather at Gettysburg.

The lonliest party in town
 

Hey, if anyone's around in Sacramento tonight, free drinks on Phil!

• YOU FEEL LIKE a pretty big dork when you're at a political celebration. You really begin to question your career choice when you load up at the bar, scout for hookups and suddenly think: Do rock star parties have podiums? That's when you realize that even if you made it to the coolest clique — the Paris Hilton level of politics — you'd be spending most of the evening avoiding being asked to dance by Karl Rove.
  
  The lameness of election night parties is especially obvious in California, where you're in close proximity to movie premieres, the Playboy Mansion and Shane Black's house.
  
  Tonight may host the saddest party of all time. At 8 p.m. in the 10,000-square-foot Grand Nave Room at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides will be hosting his victory party. If you're the kind of person who likes the crudite tray all to yourself, it might be worth driving up there. I wouldn't worry too much about not being on the invite list. There isn't one.
  
  Because people don't want to vote for a loser, politicians with absolutely no chance maintain false optimism right up until the concession speech. So Angelides has had to spend lots of money throwing a huge victory party even though he's been 18 points behind in the polls. He knows no one is going to stay past 8:15, but he can't risk telling the hotel that appetizer hour should really be appetizer quarter-hour. So the bar will be open until midnight — and they're prepared to go longer if necessary.

Gattigap

Show me the motto!
 

Was he with the slavers or the freedom fighters?

Cause my great father, kilts and all (hi Penske!), whipped a lot of Slaver ass (hi Shifter!).

Show me the motto!
 

I'm a winner! And the day before election day, no less.

Show me the motto!
 

Some might at one time have argued that those are one in the same.

Show me the motto!
 

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously?

Show me the motto!
 

Some truths are self-evident, my dear. And our boys are once again putting in their place these god-less heathens.

Got to say, though, I do believe some of our, uh, more peculiar institutions are still alive among our Allies in the Kingdom. And those Saud boys do a fine job of protecting their women and keeping them at home where they belong. And, after all, that is what we are really protecting, isn't it.

Show me the motto!
 

Forget it. He's rolling.

etat -- t.s. -- spree: sound

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

I wasn't going to mention the Republican-funded robocalling that sounded like they were from Dem candidates and kept calling and calling back if you tried to hang up on them. Classy stuff. And funded nationally, not just in a couple of precincts in Philadelphia.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Those Robo-calls were illegal in at least two states (all automatic calls are illegal in Indiana, and Vermont prohibits political parties from calling the Do Not Call List).

At the federal level, the Rs failed to identify themselves at the beginning, as required.

There will be some hell to pay when this is done.

Show me the motto!
 

Well, it's about fucking time.

Where were you yesterday?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Spanky, i know you know this, but the "shock" regarding dirty tricks these guys express every election day just shows they have no knowledge of what goes on in every election on both sides.

The real question is why, given the ignorance they display each election day, they feel comfortable posting here regularly.

Show me the motto!
 

A bad idea, executed badly.

The distraction from Afghanistan may be the worst part of all this. That was the place to showcase the neocon doctrine. Remove bad people, develop a functioning state, disarm private armies. And kill a lot of terrorists in the process. That would have given the doctrine some credibility.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Interesting First Amendment question there.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Interesting First Amendment question there, too, since that's a regulation generally applicable to telemarketing, not just political phone calls.

Are you against the First Amendment?

Show me the motto!
 

Apparently not here. I'm not enough of a masochist to read the PB everyday. Thanks for maintaining the integrity of my sentence structure. And for the thread-naming thing.

Show me the motto!
 

honest question- what does this mean? Isn't the biggest problem that we can't go into Pakistan?

Would another 100000 troops be needed in Afghanistan? What, stationed across the country as security?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

I'm just pointing out that the Bush Administration's most significant accomplishment (the Do Not Call rules) seem not to apply to the NRCC.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

You mean the extent to which machines can invade my house with their views?

I don't care what some damn machine thinks.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

So are you chapped that the NRCC figured out that the rules didn't apply but that the NDCC didn't figure it out?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Yeah, that's what John Conner said.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Show me the motto!
 

We can't go into Pakistan, at least not in significant force -- obviously a problem. But more troops could help secure the borders, disarm militias, secure portions of the country beyond Kabul. More money could help with basic development -- roads, police, etc. More international support could help with all of this; we had enormous international support going into Afghanistan, but spent that capital in Iraq.

I want China to have better environmental standards and I want China to do a better job protecting their workers (especially miners). But those are separate issues from free trade. Free trade is a simple fix that can improve everyone's lives.

Another way to look at is is right now California has a higher minimum wage than most states and has stricter environmental regulations than most states, but we have free trade with those states. Should we institute a tariff on goods imported from Utah (if it were legal) until they raise the minimum wage or improve their environmental standards? Of course not. That would be disastrous for both economies.

The US government, since the Constitution, has restricted the states from imposing barriers between eachother and that has greatly benefitted every state in the United States. California would not be better off if we had tariffs on goods from Utah and other states, because of "unfair" competition from Utah or other states caused by their lower environmental standards or labor standards.

If there were no trade barriers in the world, it would be better for the whole world.

These barriers hurt everyone and the quicker they are gone the better. Once you start throwing in attempts to also address labor standards or environmental standards you make it harder to get the deals through. CAFTA was almost defeated because, eventhough it included such provisions, the Democrats claimed it was not enough.

I had already accused you of misrepresentation but you ignored it. Then when I summarized what I said before all of a sudden you are acting incredculous. You did misrepresent what the Economist said as I pointed out in my earlier quote which you ignored.

Here was my earlier post you ignored.

Ty - you have reached a new low. Post #23

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.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

It's an interesting question whether the callers fall under the definition of "telemarketer" for these calls, because they neither seek to sell something or a donation, but if they are:

• 16 CFR Sec. 310.4
  (b) Pattern of calls.
  (1) It is an abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for a telemarketer to engage in, or for a seller to cause a telemarketer to engage in, the following conduct:
  (i) Causing any telephone to ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number;

(I'm not so pathetic as to have run to look this up; I happen to be researching a DNC question today.)

You were lying or you can't read: The important line 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."

In other words, we were pushing for a deal that wiped out most or all agricultural tariffs (that is what is meant by "bold action on agricultural tariffs") and that we turned down a compromise that would have included caps on our own subsidies (instead of eliminating them). We could have gotten a deal that merely limited our subsidies but we were pushing for a deal that eliminated all agricultural tariffs).

The bold deal Bush was promoting would have eliminated our subsidies and Europes subsidies.

The bold deal on agricultural tariffs, that we were pushing, is exaclty what the third world wanted so they could sell their products to Europe.

The compromises that were being bandied about (by the Europeans) weren't really trade deals, and we insisted on one.

How do you propose inducing China to agree to these protections if not through limitations on trade?

Utah and California both have to defer to the federal government on some issues, such as environmental policy. California can go to the feds to get Utah to follow the same rule. There's no equivalent mechanism between nation-states, unless you want to surrender some sovereignty to the U.N.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

It's funny that the complaints are always about the Republicans -- but I guess Burger is right, it's really all about their first amendment right to direct voters to the wrong polling places, harrass anyone who is voting against them, and tell millions of people to call the Democratic candidate's home numbers.

I'm just glad the Bush Administration is finally discovering the Constitution!

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

As I'm about to advise my client: there is some question whether or not this violates the law, but it is certain that the people who have gone to the effort of putting their name on the DNC list are going to be annoyed by the call regardless.

I rarely post anything terrifically bright
 

But I thought the above was a fairly astute observation. Anytime I think that, I get no reply. Is it because I just cited the obvious?

The self-debate over whether I'm on the money or an imbecile drives me mad.

Liberalism is Dead; Long Live Liberalism
 

It's all always a synthesis. Liberals today don't think what liberals did in JFK's day (actually, there may be more overlap there than there is with McGovern's day in some ways), and conservatives today don't sound much like they did back when I was a boy.

Labels persist because people like nice simple dichotomies, especially in a two party state. But there are five or six distinct political philosophies out there with broad support, and the party that wins crams three or four of them uncomfortably under their umbrella. Rove things he can have one or two dominate and keep winning - he can't.

Long term, in this society, a move to the center is almost always the way to win. Bush's 8 years are an exception.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Pretty sure the southern Democrats were the unbeaten, untied champions of voter intimidation.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Going back 40 years to find someone as bad as today's Rs, aye?

Point conceded - and most of these guys are now in your camp.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

you only have to walk into any inner city polling place in Detroit or Cleveland or youngstown, etc. to see Democratic party operatives AT and around the polling booths "helping" voters vote properly. The Dems should be ashamed on so many levels by what it done in their names.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Why is it that apparently only democratic voters fall for all these "dirty" tricks?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Well, I'm heartened to know someone is setting them straight!

You are being incredibly dishonest about this whole thing. When CAFTA came up you argued with me for pages pointing out the problems with CAFTA. And none of the problems you had with CAFTA concerned its free trade provisions (often free traders will criticize these agreements because they include tariffs or other things that don't promote free trade or they criticize the agreement for not going far enough - eliminating enough trade barriers) but you argued it did not have enough environmental or labor provisions (a criticism no free trade group would ever make - you would never see the CATO group, the FT, the Economist, the BR, ICC etc. come with that kind of criticism). Only Unions and Environmental groups that have agendas other than free trade, come up with problems like that.

I specifically remember one exchange where you said that free trade deals should only be instituted on a "level playing field". I can't quote it because it was from over a year ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday. You said that if the other countries environmental standards or labor standards were not up to ours, then that was not a level playing field. I pointed out that under those rules, a free trade agreement could never go through. The level playing field argument is not an argument of a free trader. It would be similar to saying you are a capitalist, but the only capitalist system you would accept is one where every one has the same income. No organization with any credibility in free trade would ever use the term "level playing field". Free traders know there is no such thing as a level playing field.

After showing you really don't care about free trade, you try and criticize Bush for not doing enough on free trade. That would be like saying that Bush has not cut taxes enough for the rich after initially taking a position against Bush's tax cut. And you think you have standing to criticize Bush because sometimes the FT has criticized Bush on trade: please.

First we have not seen the FT's criticism of Bush. The one article you can come up with that criticizes Bush on free trade actually praises Bush's commitment to free trade, and points out the only real criticism on Doha that can be level against Bush is he pushed to hard for a more substantive agreement. In addition, it points out that Bush pushed really hard on Doha, reviving it many times when it was having trouble.

Posting that sentence from the Economist without the subsequent "ironic" section was misleading and dishonest. When I take the time to post the quotes and painstakingly point out how you were dishonest, you ignore that post. When I make a brief summary of the prior post (in which I don't go through all the evidence because I have already done so) you quote that post (ignoring the prior post) saying that I am being sloppy in my criticsim. That was also dishonest.

You are obsessed with Bush and it is obvious to everyone but you. You criticize him for pushing through a free trade agreement and then argue he has not done enough for free trade. Only a mind completely blinded by passion and hate could try and justify such hypocrisy.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

remember I am on ignore by most of them. it takes a quote by someone like you for my good works to get out.

Actually that is not true. If California has stricter rules we can't go to the federal government to complain. The Federal government is under no obligation to make sure Utah’s environmental laws are as strict as California s laws. We would have to get congress to pass a sweeping law. And remember it is only in this century that Congress has addressed environmental and labor issues (that was left to the states), where all along it was the governments duty to prevent any state from erecting barriers.

There are international environmental treaties and labor treaties. You don't have to go through trade treaties to get there. The Global Warming treaty was not tied to any free trade treaty. In fact, it would have killed one if it was attached to it.

When negotiating free trade agreements, nothing angers a country more than when you try to get it to change its internal policy. Asking them to drop their tariffs is bad enough, but if you demand that they pass internal laws that effect labor and the environment, then they really start thinking you are interfering with their internal affairs.

What if in a free trade treaty China demanded that we make our emission standards less onerous. In other words, we should accept more smog. Or demanded that we tax our business more, because they have higher taxes and that creates an "unlevel" playing field. We would never accept that.

It is hard enough to reach free trade agreements. Attaching these labor and environmental standards just makes it more difficult. And that is why the Unions and EGs insist on them, because they don't want the treaties to pass in the first place.