Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
With Atticus as my witness, I drive a GM.

OBL's infiltration guide said to act and dress like an American, so I'd have bet as much. Do you wear baseball caps too?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clearly, you are the partisan, and you don't care about free trade except as a political issue. Here I've posted something by a Democrat with a solid commitment to free trade, worrying about the administration's approach to CAFTA and the Doha round.

1) TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A TREATY REALLY PROMOTES FREE TRADE YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN FREE TRADE AND SEE IF THEY SUPPORT IT. Let us try this again. This person does not have a vested interest in Free Trade. Therefore their views are suspect. To determine if an act really does promote free trade you need to look at companys that are dependent on exports to make money. If a pact is truly a free trade pact then they will support it. I am not saying you just blindly trust American businesses, but you can expect them to act in their own self interest. So you look at companys where if free trade is increased they will profit, and if free trade is reduced, they will be harmed, and then you can decide if it really is a free trade pact.

2) YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS AND BE PRO FREE TRADE. Labor and environmental issues are not free trade issues. If you only support a free trade bill that includes labour and environmental standards then you are not really into free trade. If there is an arms reduction treaty and you are against it because you think tanks should be excluded then you can't claim you are for arms limitation. You think the US continued possession in tanks is more important than arms limitation treaty, if you are willing to sacrifice the treaty because it included limitations on tanks. Same thing with a free trade treaty. If you are against a free trade treaty because it does not include environmental standards and labor standards. then you really are not for free trade. You prioritise the labor standards and the environmental standards more than free trade.

3) THE PARTISANSHIP ON FREE TRADE WORKS BOTH WAYS, BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING MORE PARTISAN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HOLD THE WHITE HOUSE. When Clinton first ran for President he said that he was for NAFTA but only if some environmental and labor standards were changed. In reality he just said this to help get labor and environmental votes to get elected. He got into office and really did not change the treaty and pushed it for passage. However, when the treaty was passed, I think about a hundred Democrats supported it, but also about a hundred Republicans voted against it. The Republicans that voted against it used all sorts of excuses -like the environmental and labour standards killed the free trade aspect. That was not true because business still supported the deal. They also said that it infringed on US sovereinty. Which it really doesn't. It is also funny that the Republican Congressmen that were all worrried about sovereignty under a Democrat President all of a sudden were not worried when it came to a Republican President. The longer Clinton was in office the worse the partisanship got. He really had trouble getting the WTO through. The Republicans had all sorts of stupid excuses for not supporting the WTO. All the conservative Pundits, like Novak, and partisan economists etc. came up with all sorts of reason to not support WTO. It was the exact mirror image of what is happening now. These same pundits that were against the WTO are now supporting CAFTA and the Democrat pundits who supported the other deals are now against CAFTA.

When fast track authority expired under Clinton they figured out there was no way to get it back. Things had just grown too partisan. How could giving a president Fast Track Authority not be pro-free trade but Republicans came up with excuses. The Business community wanted Clinton to have it but they just couldn't push it through. When Bush got elected now all of a sudden things were on a different foot. So when Bush pushed for Fast Track Authority all of a sudden the Democrats had all these excuses not to give it to him. And all the Republican that were against Fast Track Authority turned around. Bush got fast track authority with very little Democrat help (I think there were about forty Democrats - but the vote was close because just about as many Repulicans defected).

Now CAFTA comes up and the lines getting even more defined. More Republicans, that had always been against free trade, lined up with the President. And more Free Trade democrats turned against CAFTA. Why - many Republicans vote yes not because they are pro-free trade they just wanted to stick it to the Democrats. And many more Democrats swithced sides. Was it because CAFTA was not a real Free Trade Pact. No - they just wanted to stick it to the President.

The real free traders in both parties have stuck up for free trade no matter who was President. There are obviously a lot more pro-free trade Republicans than Democrats but there are also a lot of Republicans who just vote the partisan line. You call me partisan, but that is BS. I tried to help Clinton get Frast Track Authority. I made calls etc. If you think you are pro-free trade but are against CAFTA you have either decided to place politics above free trade, or you are dumb and naive enough to buy the BS from the people who have put politics above free trade. It is that simple.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the Cuban trade embargo is a good idea? Can we all just agree that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice sound economic policy and national security to win Cuban votes in Florida?

You are such a partisan hack. Every President, Democrat or Republican, has supported this policy. Clinton signed the Helms Burton treaty into law that tightened the screws on the embargo (punishing foreign companys that did business in Cuba by limiting their access to US markets).

The reason that this embargo exists is because the Cubans in Florida support the embargo and Florida is a swing state. It should have been ended long ago but for politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are such a partisan hack. Every President, Democrat or Republican, has supported this policy. Clinton signed the Helms Burton treaty into law that tightened the screws on the embargo (punishing foreign companys that did business in Cuba by limiting their access to US markets).

The reason that this embargo exists is because the Cubans in Florida support the embargo and Florida is a swing state. It should have been ended long ago but for politics.

If communism or socialized medicine worked, our embargo would have been like a fly against a huge economic engine of social change. since communism and socialized medicine are failures, so is Cuba. what bugs Ty and the others is that they still hope for a socialist/communist america, and the ash heap of failed communist countries is bigger and bigger and cuba is the poster child.

how many peple think elian is better off this evening than he would have been if chewbacca hadn't sent her stormtroopers to grab him? did France/Germany authorize that military action?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If communism or socialized medicine worked, our embargo would have been like a fly against a huge economic engine of social change. since communism and socialized medicine are failures, so is Cuba. what bugs Ty and the others is that they still hope for a socialist/communist america, and the ash heap of failed communist countries is bigger and bigger and cuba is the poster child.

how many peple think elian is better off this evening than he would have been if chewbacca hadn't sent her stormtroopers to grab him? did France/Germany authorize that military action?

Without the Embargo Cuban's would have been exposed much more to American culture and realized more how full of it their own Dictator is. If we had continued trade with Cuba I think Castro would have fallen by now.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If communism or socialized medicine worked, our embargo would have been like a fly against a huge economic engine of social change. since communism and socialized medicine are failures, so is Cuba. what bugs Ty and the others is that they still hope for a socialist/communist america, and the ash heap of failed communist countries is bigger and bigger and cuba is the poster child.

So you're saying you consider the policy a success, then?

I thought that the strategy of containment and waiting until the bad guy dies was frowned upon by today's edition of Republicanism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
So you're saying you consider the policy a success, then?

I thought that the strategy of containment and waiting until the bad guy dies was frowned upon by today's edition of Republicanism.

Containment of what? Even a simple skirt chaser like Teddy's brother called bullshit when Cuba tried to get WMDs.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the Cuban trade embargo is a good idea? Can we all just agree that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice sound economic policy and national security to win Cuban votes in Florida?

In a post-Soviet, one superppower world, I think we should invoke the Reagan Doctine and take Castro out with force, for no other reason than to reliberate Elian.

Short of doing that, we should lift the embargo.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In a post-Soviet, one superppower world, I think we should invoke the Reagan Doctine and take Castro out with force, for no other reason than to reliberate Elian.

Short of doing that, we should lift the embargo.

I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.

we need some answers to some basic background questions on the SB. you can leave this. Ty and SHP are hopeless. Eventually they'll need to go to reeducation at a place like Gitmo, maybe make them watch ugly girls fuck.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.

2. When the Soviets were a threat it made sense to have an embargo, at this point there is no reason not to take this thug out and liberate these poor bastards.

As an added plus, Elian's freedom would sure burn Clinton and Reno. It would be interesting to see him come to America and sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with liberty.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty and SHP are hopeless. Eventually they'll need to go to reeducation at a place like Gitmo, maybe make them watch ugly girls fuck.

"re"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. When the Soviets were a threat it made sense to have an embargo, at this point there is no reason not to take this thug out and liberate these poor bastards.

As an added plus, Elian's freedom would sure burn Clinton and Reno. It would be interesting to see him come to America and sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with liberty.

Dissent. when Clinton gets sued, thats when he really breaks out the lies, even more than when his wife kills people. I'm not sure the country needs that right now.:mixed:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we need some answers to some basic background questions on the SB. you can leave this. Ty and SHP are hopeless. Eventually they'll need to go to reeducation at a place like Gitmo, maybe make them watch ugly girls fuck.

What background questions?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A TREATY REALLY PROMOTES FREE TRADE YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN FREE TRADE AND SEE IF THEY SUPPORT IT. Let us try this again. This person does not have a vested interest in Free Trade. Therefore their views are suspect. To determine if an act really does promote free trade you need to look at companys that are dependent on exports to make money. If a pact is truly a free trade pact then they will support it. I am not saying you just blindly trust American businesses, but you can expect them to act in their own self interest. So you look at companys where if free trade is increased they will profit, and if free trade is reduced, they will be harmed, and then you can decide if it really is a free trade pact.

2) YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS AND BE PRO FREE TRADE. Labor and environmental issues are not free trade issues. If you only support a free trade bill that includes labour and environmental standards then you are not really into free trade. If there is an arms reduction treaty and you are against it because you think tanks should be excluded then you can't claim you are for arms limitation. You think the US continued possession in tanks is more important than arms limitation treaty, if you are willing to sacrifice the treaty because it included limitations on tanks. Same thing with a free trade treaty. If you are against a free trade treaty because it does not include environmental standards and labor standards. then you really are not for free trade. You prioritise the labor standards and the environmental standards more than free trade.

3) THE PARTISANSHIP ON FREE TRADE WORKS BOTH WAYS, BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING MORE PARTISAN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HOLD THE WHITE HOUSE. When Clinton first ran for President he said that he was for NAFTA but only if some environmental and labor standards were changed. In reality he just said this to help get labor and environmental votes to get elected. He got into office and really did not change the treaty and pushed it for passage. However, when the treaty was passed, I think about a hundred Democrats supported it, but also about a hundred Republicans voted against it. The Republicans that voted against it used all sorts of excuses -like the environmental and labour standards killed the free trade aspect. That was not true because business still supported the deal. They also said that it infringed on US sovereinty. Which it really doesn't. It is also funny that the Republican Congressmen that were all worrried about sovereignty under a Democrat President all of a sudden were not worried when it came to a Republican President. The longer Clinton was in office the worse the partisanship got. He really had trouble getting the WTO through. The Republicans had all sorts of stupid excuses for not supporting the WTO. All the conservative Pundits, like Novak, and partisan economists etc. came up with all sorts of reason to not support WTO. It was the exact mirror image of what is happening now. These same pundits that were against the WTO are now supporting CAFTA and the Democrat pundits who supported the other deals are now against CAFTA.

When fast track authority expired under Clinton they figured out there was no way to get it back. Things had just grown too partisan. How could giving a president Fast Track Authority not be pro-free trade but Republicans came up with excuses. The Business community wanted Clinton to have it but they just couldn't push it through. When Bush got elected now all of a sudden things were on a different foot. So when Bush pushed for Fast Track Authority all of a sudden the Democrats had all these excuses not to give it to him. And all the Republican that were against Fast Track Authority turned around. Bush got fast track authority with very little Democrat help (I think there were about forty Democrats - but the vote was close because just about as many Repulicans defected).

Now CAFTA comes up and the lines getting even more defined. More Republicans, that had always been against free trade, lined up with the President. And more Free Trade democrats turned against CAFTA. Why - many Republicans vote yes not because they are pro-free trade they just wanted to stick it to the Democrats. And many more Democrats swithced sides. Was it because CAFTA was not a real Free Trade Pact. No - they just wanted to stick it to the President.

The real free traders in both parties have stuck up for free trade no matter who was President. There are obviously a lot more pro-free trade Republicans than Democrats but there are also a lot of Republicans who just vote the partisan line. You call me partisan, but that is BS. I tried to help Clinton get Frast Track Authority. I made calls etc. If you think you are pro-free trade but are against CAFTA you have either decided to place politics above free trade, or you are dumb and naive enough to buy the BS from the people who have put politics above free trade. It is that simple.

What little of this I read was not responsive to the thing from DeLong that I posted. If I missed something in there that was responsive, please point it out to me.