Politics 2017 part V

[Zoraptor]

China knew that Russia would veto the obvious veto bait so didn't need to do so themselves. If they had voted for it you'd have a valid argument- but they didn't, did they? Anything else is pie in the sky handwaving.

 

There's no chance of China or Russia ever letting a Libya 2.0 resolution through again, that ship has well and truly sailed.

 

And since this has come up again, I feel compelled, compelled! to remind people that despite it not being mentioned in the western press hardly at all there was an alternative resolution (minus predetermined outcome) that the US, as UNSC chair, killed off. Which peeved Bolivia enough to vote no along with Russia.

 

you want more evidence than were already presented in the previous thread?

 
You want to reiterate, do it in the appropriate thread instead of what you do every time you get your arse kicked, disappear then start trying to claim victory in other threads per earthquakes, statistics, Russia going bankrupt, sanctions etc etc. Better yet, actually reread that thread so you can see that almost all your 'evidence' has been dealt with already. Be aware though, at this point they still cannot even decide whether it was a bomb or rocket, a month later, and that's about the most basic fact which needs to be established.
 
But since we both know you won't go back to the appropriate thread (go on, do it. Else, low energy grommy SAD!)
 

I will bother responding to literally the only new thing you've brought in: the HRW report. Which was debunked by ludicrously anti Syria/ Russia Bellingcat amongst others, and has literally no credibility. It wasn't a 1960s era never exported soviet bomb which is designed to have its dispersion charge go off well above ground level at KS, no way at all. No crater expected, and the dispersion charge is never enough to do that amount of damage to the warhead itself anyway, since that size explosion would, literally, destroy the sarin. Even if it didn't explode in the air you'd have an explosion that did that much damage to the bomb and that size crater in the road while also not destroying the sarin; but left the filler cap nearly undamaged. It was clearly a grad type rocket at KS (note, from an attack in Ukraine, source is strongly anti Russian), in the bottom picture there you can even see the 'filler cap' equivalent as well as the warhead remains and a similar sized crater too. The warhead in KS was massively more damaged than would be expected, hence people thinking it was blown up on the ground; and while the Su22 can technically fire grad type rockets (S13) there's no evidence that Syrian ones ever have and there's simply no reason to do so with CW warheads anyway. You're already in a plane, you just fly them to the appropriate position, none of the reasons you might use a conventional rocket from a plane apply to CW.

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Ben No.3]

Russia was pulling for Trump while the American media was pulling for Clinton. Seems fair to me.

„I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.“

 

HA!

 

HAHAHA!

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Years of indoctrination and that is what America gets?

Edited May 13, 2017 by Ben No.3

[pmp10]

Years of indoctrination and that is what America gets?

That's a pretty natural counter-reaction.

Rebelling against propaganda leads people to embrace craziest causes.

[Ben No.3]

Think about America. Remember that they majority of its congressmen are millionaires. Remember that the vast majority of its media is owned by very few companies. Remember that the president, millionaire himself, appoints family members to top political positions, that he fires those who investigate against him, that he shames the press, refuses to answer critical questions, that he propagates lies to further his agenda, that he considers democratic decision making processes a hindrance. And then tell me that America is a democracy.

[Guard Dog]

What are the facts?

 

There were two hacking entities known by US Intelligence to have explicit ties to the Kremlin engaged in cyber-attacks targeting the DNC and RNC. Selected documents with a clear preference for one party over the other are then sent to and released by WikiLeaks and other entities that are opposed to establishment interests.

 

The Russian Government also employs a propaganda army of internet trolls and media influencers to engage in information warfare promoting certain candidates and positions that are seen as being more friendly to Russian government interests, while at the same time attacking candidates and supporters in opposition. Where's Oby, btw? I miss that guy.

 

Via the use of hard and soft power, the Kremlin's goal is to disrupt and destabilize adversarial powers that are against the interest of Putin's Russia, i.e., The USA, NATO, and the EU.

 

Exactly how much influence the Kremlin was able to achieve is difficult to quantify, but their actions certainly helped put Brexit and Trump over the top, and helped the National Front in France gain significant traction.

 

If you haven’t done so, read this.

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

Excerpt:

 

KEY JUDGMENTS

 

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

 

· We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

 

· Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.

 

· Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals. Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

 

· Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.

 

· We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

 

· Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

 

· Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

I'm a little short on time but I will get back and read the whole document. Allow me to comment on just your summations for the moment.

 

• Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties. Yep, no doubt. But as I've pointed out numerous times, the DNC & RNC are private entities and not in any way associated with administering elections. My suggestion to each would be buy better IT security and don't act like condescending unprofessional a------s and you won't be embarrassed by hostile foreign hacking. This does not rise to the level of interfering or influencing the election.
• We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks: See previous answer.
• Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.: This is a little vague but sounds like espionage to me. Letting the DNC skeletons out of the closet are one thing, attacking an actual function of the government at any level is espionage. So, did anyone at the state level get arrested? Have any diplomatic staff been expelled? Did we do anything about this? Aside from whine? Not so far as I know. WTF? I does beg the question if there is really anything to this.

As far as the other stuff goes, paid internet trolls? Really? That is their plan? You and I have been trading reasoned and rational political posts for years. Have I changed your mind about anything? Have you changed mine? Not really. I know what you think and why, you know what I think and why. How much influence could slogan spouting internet troll really have? Like I said before even if they are buying campaign ads people are so inoculated against them I think they do no good at all. I don't recall seeing many Trump ads but saw and heard tons of Clinton ads. That didn't help. It's all just white noise by the time the primaries are over. 

[Guard Dog]

 

Russia was pulling for Trump while the American media was pulling for Clinton. Seems fair to me.

„I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.“

 

HA!

 

HAHAHA!

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Years of indoctrination and that is what America gets?

 

Despite the sarcasm you are hitting on a real problem here. The Republican supporters are falling in line behind Trump doing things that we were all screaming about Obama doing. Notably usurping the legislature with executive action. That is bad. It's very bad even if you like the action. The ends do not justify the means. Now in some instances it's using executive authority to undo actions of executive authority. That is one thing. Trump has signed over half a dozen of those and that is fine. Several of the others pertain to things the Executive has direct control over.  Things such as changes in the DOJ, cabinet controlled regulatory agencies, etc. Even the so called Travel Ban could be argued to be in his control as the President is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. But two others he signed, one ordering a review of trade agreements and the authority to make changes and the other on tax regulatory reform are problematic. The former is the responsibility of the Senate, the latter of the House. One of the most horrifying things about the 8 years of Obama is the way Congress just rolled over and allowed him to usurp the power of the legislature. I'm not going to like it any more if Trump does it and they roll over again. Nor should Trump's supporters who screamed when Obama did it. And rightfully so. Now that their guy is in and they like the outcome of the orders the protests from the right fall mute. That is NOT a good thing. We need to be more than two opposing flocks of sheep bleating "four legs good tow legs bad" whenever the shepherd we like does something wrong. Even if we like the outcome. Especially then. The ends do not justify the means. 

[Gromnir]

alternative facts.  zor's alternative world. am not certain what inspires such dogged pursuit o' Gromnir. zor has looked ridiculous on most issue even tangential related to russia even w/o Gromnir input (the now 13.4% o' russians living below poverty would likely agree with us), embarrassed himself regarding the peaceful iranian nuclear program, got his hat handed to him during the palestinian/israel threads, and has had almost preternatural ability to mischaracterize legal issues.  

 

*shrug*

 

we take leave from this board frequent enough.  one hiatus were as long as 2 years.  real life has real demands 'pon our time. zor is simple gonna need accept we ain't as invested as he is in the off-topic obsidian message boards. our energy/endurance is indeed lower than zor's.  thank goodness. 

 

even so, while we is rare surprised by zor anymore, the hypocrisy o' a complaint 'bout thread posting propriety amaze us.  gonna need review your last couple o' posts, eh?

 

in an attempt to stay relevant,

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-11/trump-ordered-to-turn-over-giuliani-memo-in-travel-ban-suit

 

is another instance where past utterances is gonna bite the wh in the arse.  keep authoring broad executive orders and the courts is gonna look for intent beyond the 4-corners o' the document.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

in an attempt to stay relevant,

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-11/trump-ordered-to-turn-over-giuliani-memo-in-travel-ban-suit

 

is another instance where past utterances is gonna bite the wh in the arse.  keep authoring broad executive orders and the courts is gonna look for intent beyond the 4-corners o' the document.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

I can just hear the conversation in the Oval Office now: "What do you mean I can't fire judges??"

[Agiel]

China knew that Russia would veto the obvious veto bait so didn't need to do so themselves. If they had voted for it you'd have a valid argument- but they didn't, did they? Anything else is pie in the sky handwaving.

 

There's no chance of China or Russia ever letting a Libya 2.0 resolution through again, that ship has well and truly sailed.

 

And since this has come up again, I feel compelled, compelled! to remind people that despite it not being mentioned in the western press hardly at all there was an alternative resolution (minus predetermined outcome) that the US, as UNSC chair, killed off. Which peeved Bolivia enough to vote no along with Russia.

 

You're missing the point of how things have been done in the UN. It is generally only in very extraordinary circumstances in which concrete action is effected through a resolution, but they are almost overwhelmingly more often than not vetoed by at least one member. If there was an intent to only bring forth resolutions member countries were sure to get through, then the entire world community would have given up on drawing up resolutions condemning Israel a long time ago. Point of them being that it builds an international consensus. That in mind China's abstention is a change from their previous policy of consistently vetoing measures taking a harder stance on Syria. Yes, they knew Russia would abstain, but China had an opportunity to look good for the international community. The abstain option provided the best compromise of getting diplomatic brownie points and not burning bridges with Russia. That the sole member that joined Russia in a hard veto is Bolivia, a country that is unlikely to have a particularly well-developed Middle-East or Europe-centric intelligence apparatus or much of any economic or strategic skin in the game and uses its vote solely for thumbing their noses at the "yanqui" should speak volumes of where the political winds are blowing.

[Leferd]

 

As far as the other stuff goes, paid internet trolls? Really? That is their plan? You and I have been trading reasoned and rational political posts for years. Have I changed your mind about anything? Have you changed mine? Not really. I know what you think and why, you know what I think and why. How much influence could slogan spouting internet troll really have? Like I said before even if they are buying campaign ads people are so inoculated against them I think they do no good at all. I don't recall seeing many Trump ads but saw and heard tons of Clinton ads. That didn't help. It's all just white noise by the time the primaries are over. 

 

 

Many voters aren't quite as dogmatic in their beliefs as some of us who frequent the Way Off-Topic political threads. To be fair, I've had evolving opinions and stances over the years and despite being a Democrat all my adult life, I grew up in a Republican household and have voted for Republican candidates in various offices and leaned right in some ballot initiatives.

 

As much as I care about issues, I'm less policy-inclined and place more faith in democratic institutions and norms. Yes, I'm an institutionalist and establishment Democrat.

 

I once took an oath to do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

 

I certainly take that more seriously than the Pledge of Allegiance. I see Donald Trump and the Kremlin as threats to the Constitution and our democratic institutions. What am I going to do about? Not much, but I'll occasionally post here.

 

[Gromnir]

one o' our biggest concerns regarding trump during the election year were the fact he appeared to have no concept o' the role o' the President in our federal government.  every Presidential candidate makes promises which there is no chance o' fulfilling, but during the campaign, trump routine made promises such as banning muslim travel to the US and ending birthright citizenship, promises which would require Constitutional amendments for him to be able to actualize. it always seemed as if trump thought he would be running the US the way he were able to run a business.  so far from reality.

 

am agreeing with gd in regards to Congress rolling over for obama, but the truth o' the matter is Congressional reluctance began before obama became President.  in the absence o' Congressional action, the executive branch (not necessarily the President) filled the void. obama were far more blatant 'bout his use o' executive orders to achieve goals seeming w/i the purview o' Congressional discretion, but the folks on capitol hill were indolent and torpid long before obama.  sadly, the backlash resulting from obamacare made Congressional passivity worse as the last time Congress roused itself resulted in sweeping changes during midterm elections.

 

part o' the problem trump faces is the executive branch bureaucracy, empowered by Congressional impotence, has always been largely indifferent to who occupies the oval office.  can't run the executive branch w/o the career bureaucrats, and can't fire 'em all 'cause they is the only folks who know how to do their jobs. new secretary or director steps into a post and attempts to make sweeping changes.  such naivete lasts a year or two.  heck, as often as not, Presidential appointees end up going native.

 

the President is not the CEO o' the USA.  not even close.  am thinking trump has been unprepared for just how little he can do w/o the aid o' Congress and the courts.  trump is a populist candidate who actual ain't particular popular, gaining less than 50% o' the popular vote in a year when few folks actual voted. he wants to be the next andrew jackson, but whereas jackson were an experienced politician who actual were elected by an overwhelming majority, trump is inexperienced and has had to deal with historic low approval ratings.  jackson could overwhelm Congress and the courts in part 'cause he were so popular. trump, on the other hand, needs build consensus to achieve Congressional ends, and he is a polarizing candidate as 'posed to a consensus builder.  trump can't bully Congress effective and he doesn't have the experience (or temperament) to deal with the functional independent executive bureaucracy, or the institutional independent courts.

 

 

unlike leferd, we has typical voted republican.  before 2016, most folks reading a ferguson, gaza, obama, SCOTUS or taxes thread on these boards woulda' assumed a republican party membership for Gromnir.  the thing is, we don't feel compelled to vote party line, and we has even reversed our position on a number o' issues.  affirmative action offended our younger self as we saw how folks assumed a successful native american could only possible have achieved through government meddling.  has only been a relative recent Gromnir who has done a 180 regarding affirmative action.  yeah, affirmative action violates our sense o' fairness, but there has been long-term, systemic biases 'gainst US minorities which ain't gonna be corrected simple by leveling the playing field in the 21st century. even so, our rejection o' trump would seem to be 'gainst expectations. our rejection o' trump don't fit our typical party voting pattern, and it don't fit with the likely expectations folks created based 'pon our defense o' cops and our rejection o' obama foreign policy actions. 

 

heck we ain't even been universal opposed to trump actions.  we thought mcmaster appointment were enlightened.  the measured response to syria's recent chemical weapons attack were highly effective given the bloodless nature o' the object lesson. even if the build-a-wall promise were asinine, am actual in favor o' immigration reform as we see enormous US resources being used on illegal aliens. etc.  

 

intellectually, am a free agent.

 

nevertheless, contrary to what some believe, we don't want trump to struggle as he has been.  sure, a largely impotent trump wouldn't bother us at all, but trump's narrative o' conspiracy is further eroding American faith in almost all the institutions o' the US government.  trump is a self-described narcissist, and from what we has seen so far, he will willing (figuratively) burn down the wh around himself 'fore he gives up on his legacy. not good. very sad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

@Leferd: I took a very similar one myself. Slightly different organization though. The pay wasn't was good but the benefits were better I'll wager. Although the job did entail a few hazards.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

If compelled to chose between the screaming monkey tribes I tend to favor the Republicans. I worked on the campaign of Don Garlits when he ran for Congress and I had a tremendous amount of respect for the man who recruited me into politics former Florida State Rep Jon McKay. But I've always been struck the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They tend to favor smaller government and more liberty until they actually get the power to make good on these ideals. Then they tend to do the opposite.

 

The Democrats on the other hand make no secret of their inclinations. They are anti-liberty, anti-choice, anti-individual. Their brand is a soft form of authoritarianism. Sometimes it's "benevolent" (as they see it) others it's heavy handed. Even the few instances where they do support liberty, Gay Marriage for example, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it and their support is tepid at best. 

[Namutree]

Think about America. Remember that they majority of its congressmen are millionaires. Remember that the vast majority of its media is owned by very few companies. Remember that the president, millionaire himself, appoints family members to top political positions, that he fires those who investigate against him, that he shames the press, refuses to answer critical questions, that he propagates lies to further his agenda, that he considers democratic decision making processes a hindrance. And then tell me that America is a democracy.

America is a representative republic; not a democracy (thankfully). In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? Also, Trump is a billionaire, not millionaire.

[Ben No.3]

 

Think about America. Remember that they majority of its congressmen are millionaires. Remember that the vast majority of its media is owned by very few companies. Remember that the president, millionaire himself, appoints family members to top political positions, that he fires those who investigate against him, that he shames the press, refuses to answer critical questions, that he propagates lies to further his agenda, that he considers democratic decision making processes a hindrance. And then tell me that America is a democracy.

America is a representative republic; not a democracy (thankfully). In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? Also, Trump is a billionaire, not millionaire.

1. a billionaire is also a millionaire

2. You seem to confuse democracy with the common stereotype of anarchy. Which is chaos.

3. Indeed, America is a republic. Now, the word republic stems from the Latin res publica ("thing of the people", usually translated with "state").

4. You draw a very interesting correlation between wealth and ability. Indeed, the rich are extraordinarily gifted exploiters. There are few people so successful at it.

 

Jokes aside, the US is devolving into a plutocracy, a form of government not even propagated by the most hardcore capitalists. These people do not represent you, they represent solely and exclusively their own interests and that of their class, assuming they are corrupt. What other explanation do you have to offer as to why this law regarding selling browser data passed? It harms every single citizen. The only ones benefiting are a few business owners. Realise that Americas political system is fundamentally broken.

[Zoraptor]

 

That in mind China's abstention is a change from their previous policy of consistently vetoing measures taking a harder stance on Syria.

 

They didn't veto a previous resolution on Aleppo early last year (not sure on the exact date, but definitely an abstention) which was written by France. It's something like 6-2 veto vs abstention, so not really a consistent policy, and I'm pretty sure it's actually 2-2 over the last year or so. An abstention when you're the only one likely to veto it- per the US abstention on Israel late last year- or voting for it would be significant, an abstention when you know it won't pass anyway means very little as there are no consequences.

 

zor's alternative world. am not certain what inspires such dogged pursuit o' Gromnir.

 

Bro, you restarted things, it's only a page or so back so you can easily check- and not in the right thread either. If you're so concerned go to the correct thread, and post your proof/ evidence as you were asked for, and were asked for well before you 'disappeared'. You'll notice that others don't get the SAD! treatment, because they actually bothered to post relevant sources, even if I mostly disagreed with said sources.

 

As for the Iran deal, your evidence to refute the ~2014 Israeli and US (especially ironic, since for the CW attacks you rely on a WH Pr dept release, and think that's gospel) intelligence assessments that Iran was not seeking nukes was something from ~2004, ~ a decade earlier. Not exactly a convincing rebuttal.

[Gromnir]

more zor alternate world.  a number o' pages ago we responded to gd regarding the cruise missile strike effectiveness compared to wild pigs.  only in zor's bizzaro world would such be seen as some kinda misplaced and inappropriate resurrection o' an off-topic subject.  'course we did mention how the attack were a lesson to russia as much as syria, so is understandable why you would be unable to restrain self. russia is apparent sore spot for zor given previous humblings? 'course even if you did see some kinda door to the perpetrator o' the syrian chemical weapon attack as being opened by Gromnir comments, am not sure how that compelled you to wanna revisit a host o' other temporal remote topics. 

 

as for complete mischaracterization o' the iran deal, we relied heavily 'pon your own sources (2013) to refute notions o' iran's nuclear program being limited only to peaceful civilian power applications, seeing as your source indicated iran had nowhere near the number or kind o' reactors necessary to produce civilian nuclear fuel.  instead, such reactors were having plausible value, 'ccording to your source, from the pov o' weapons development.

 

further sources were provided which identified clear patterns o' iranian nuclear weapon development efforts including rand from 2012, iaea evidence o' nuclear weapons related info on Iranian scientist laptop in 2005, the 2011 iaea findings, etc.

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking we (over)indulged this most recent zor cry for attention. is periodic amusing to have Sherman set the way-back machine to previous years and abandoned threads, but as zor points out correct, we is low-energy.  simply do not have the wherewithal to continue to repeat the already extreme repetitive multi-page threads. our exhaustion threshold is indeed limited.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 13, 2017 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Yeah yeah, the US only showed the same number of actual tomahawk strikes as Russia said happened. Easy to disprove Russia's claims, just show proper satellite imagery of the 59 hits claimed, but they didn't. No evidence provided of the Syrians making the CW attack that sparked the whole thing, again, low energy SAD!

 

And you failed utterly on Iran, since you had to show explicitly military non dual use technologies such as triggers being developed, and had to disprove a proper Intelligence Assessment from the US plus one from Israel as well. Ironic, since the white paper on the Khan Sheikhoun CW attack isn't even from the IC (written by the White House instead, favourite tactic in the lead up to Gulf War 2 and we know how those turned out), yet you think that's great.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? 

 

It sounds like you imagine those categories as mutually incompatible. How charming!

[redneckdevil]

Looks like Britain will have another chance at free trade with China's silk road.

[Blarghagh]

Closed for length. Make a new one if you wish.