Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Miss Crabtree]

Originally posted by Spanky
The speed with which we won that war was amazing. The fact that our casualtys were so low was also amazing. Do you realize how many of the Northern Alliance troops had died before we got involved. That had lost pretty much the whole country. We turned it around and in no time took the whole country back, and with very little casualtys. It was pure military genius. Do you know how hard it is to capture one man. We have enough trouble in this country doing it. In Afghanistan there were whole swaths of the country we did not control. Foreign leaders, if they don't want to be caught, are almost never caught unless they decide to stay. Saddam took out Kuwait in less than a day but the royal family escaped. It is not to hard to slip out when a country is at war.

How nice! You are taking an interest in history and contemporary events.

You seem surprised that our casualties were low. Well, now, Spanky, perhaps you could write a short essay for the class highlighting when the Taliban were defeated and when the first American boots hit the ground in substantial numbers. It is very interesting, but I don't believe casualties happen very often before troops are in the line of fire.

You also indicate this was military genius. I'd like an essay from you explaining how US strategy and tactics in Afghanistan differed from the basic military strategies that had been developed and deployed during the first Iraqi war and in the Balkans. We will all be very interested in this new bit of military genius. Then perhaps you could also explain how the strategy and tactics developed and applied successfully over the prior twenty years were changed in Iraq by the genius civilian commanders.

Spanky, it's so good to see you taking this interest in history and contemporary events, but I'd like to see more substance in your future posts and I'd like you to show a bit more understanding of the actual history of events. I'm afraid I can only give you a C+ for this post, but I will consider raising the grade if you can provide some additional support.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Miss Crabtree
How nice! You are taking an interest in history and contemporary events.

Oh wow, man !"
"Wait a second man. Whaddaya think the teacher's gonna look like this year ?"
"My butt, man !"

T-T-Teacher stop that screaming, teacher don't you see ?
Don't wanna be no uptown fool.
Maybe I should go to hell, but I'm doin' well,
teacher needs to see me after school.
I think of all the education that I missed.
But then my homework was never quite like this.

Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I'm hot for teacher.
I got it bad, so bad,
I'm hot for teacher.

"Hey, I heard you missed us, we're back !"
"I brought my pencil - Gimme something to write on, man !"

I heard about your lessons, but lessons are so cold.
I know about this school.
Little girl from cherry lane, how did you get so bold ?
How did you know that golden rule ?

Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I'm hot for teacher.
I got it bad, so bad,
I'm hot for teacher.

"Oh man, I think the clock is slow"
"I don't feel tardy"
"Class dismissed"

[Miss Crabtree]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think it was the charred bodies of the 4 US contract employees hanging off the bridge in Iraq. I still disagree with the bias in that decision and am fairly certain it is the foundation Hank's point is built on.

In fairness Ty, because I like you, platonically, I will acknowledge that as the inventor of the PB and the co-moderator here, I don't realistically expect you to step down in the face of the evidence of your biased adminstration here. Like all left wing autocrats you will irrationally and defiantly hold on to power-one of the lasting legacies of the Clinton Presidency was the immediate victory he scored in retaining his office by obstructing the impeachment process, unlike Nixon, who had a sense of constitutional responsibility and resigned his office.

At this point all I can do is thank you for evidencing the destructive effects of the Clinton Legacy in action, but I pray I never witness the effects of the Rainbow Parties on the youth of America, which parties his deviant behaviour has spawned.

Now, Mr. Pensky, I've decided to grade all your work as fiction so that I don't have to flunk you in social studies. But, really, I'm concerned and want you to check in with the school nurse every morning until we figure out what is causing these hallucinations.

As fiction, I'll give this a "C".

[Miss Crabtree]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Oh wow, man !"
"Wait a second man. Whaddaya think the teacher's gonna look like this year ?"
"My butt, man !"

T-T-Teacher stop that screaming, teacher don't you see ?
Don't wanna be no uptown fool.
Maybe I should go to hell, but I'm doin' well,
teacher needs to see me after school.
I think of all the education that I missed.
But then my homework was never quite like this.

Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I'm hot for teacher.
I got it bad, so bad,
I'm hot for teacher.

"Hey, I heard you missed us, we're back !"
"I brought my pencil - Gimme something to write on, man !"

I heard about your lessons, but lessons are so cold.
I know about this school.
Little girl from cherry lane, how did you get so bold ?
How did you know that golden rule ?

Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I'm hot for teacher.
I got it bad, so bad,
I'm hot for teacher.

"Oh man, I think the clock is slow"
"I don't feel tardy"
"Class dismissed"

I've always liked you Sexual Harrassment Panda. I'm not quite sure what to make of the last stanza, though. A-

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

As for PP, with all due respect to her post count, c'mon - if I want to read about her Spanky lust, Bing's, the trendy drink du jour, or shoes, there's the FB.

2. she hardly posts here.

Why aren't Ty and Penske in ideological equipoise here? Seems sufficient to me.

And, Spanky, if you want a book board go start one. But politics is politics, FB is a free-for-all, and both have been well established for quite some time now. No need to go changing. Just get a faster scroll wheel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Why do Republicans whine so much about bias?

Beats talking about Iraq or what this government is doing to the federal budget.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Beats talking about Iraq or what this government is doing to the federal budget.

It is pretty common knowledge that Bush I had proof of clinton's affairs (photos) and was too classy to use them.

Query:

did Bush I screw up by not giving Osama the photos once it became clear Bill was going to win?

Postulate:
If Osama had possesion of the photos Bill would have had insentive to kill Osama. The survival rate for those in possesion of evidence of Bill's cheating is small.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. she hardly posts here.

Why aren't Ty and Penske in ideological equipoise here? Seems sufficient to me.

And, Spanky, if you want a book board go start one. But politics is politics, FB is a free-for-all, and both have been well established for quite some time now. No need to go changing. Just get a faster scroll wheel.

3. We were tweaking RT. Do you really think we expected her to make P the moderator?

[Miss Crabtree]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It is pretty common knowledge that Bush I had proof of clinton's affairs (photos) and was too classy to use them.

Query:

did Bush I screw up by not giving Osama the photos once it became clear Bill was going to win?

Postulate:
If Osama had possesion of the photos Bill would have had insentive to kill Osama. The survival rate for those in possesion of evidence of Bill's cheating is small.

Mr. Chinasky,

Please join Mr. Pensky at the nurse's.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"journalist?" I'm not sure that even Hannity's mother would go that far.

What, does Sean have pictures of you and some barnyard animal?

Why the hate on Hannity? I'm sure he's well qualified. Where did he get his undergrad degree?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It is pretty common knowledge that Bush I had proof of clinton's affairs (photos) and was too classy to use them.

It is also common knowledge that visitors to the White House are presented with a comemorative mirror and razor blade.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that when Condi gets drunk at State Dept. functions, she is likely to jump onto the table and exhibit her belly dancing prowess. I've heard she's quite good.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It is pretty common knowledge that Bush I had proof of clinton's affairs (photos) and was too classy to use them.

If by "classy" you mean found important not embarrassing his wife by having his own affairs disclosed in response.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I guess outsourcing cutting edge medical research, though, is par for the course in this administration. Free trade and all that, right Spanky?

1) This sort of pithy comment is beneath you.

2) As if outsourcing hasn't been going on in every administration since Lincoln.

3) Outsourcing was going on during Clinton. What do you think could be done to stop outsourcing? And why didn't Clinton do it.

4) To say that medical research being conducted in other countrys is caused by the administrations lack of action on outsourcing is like saying that the murder rate in the United States is caused by the lax atmoshere for where life is concerned because of legal abortion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Environmental and Labour standards are not an "aspect" or anything else to do with free trade. That is political double speak. The only time Environmental or Labour standards have anything to do with free trade is when they hamper free trade. Any environmental or labor standards we put on a free trade agreement is simply us trying to get another country to increase its regulation. We are telling them if you don't implement these laws you don't get to trade with us. Without the trade agreement those laws would not be there. So the status quo is the laws don't exist. If you pass the free trade pact without the riders those laws will not change and you will have free trade. So you increase free trade. You don't need those rules to have free trade. If you pass the free trade agreement, plus those riders, you may have in your opinion a better agreement but the agreement isn't any more free.

I return to my observation that you keep repeating the mantra "free trade" in a way that is unclear. When you talk about non-tariff trade barriers, that can include a whole bunch of different things that prevent companies in different country from competing on an equal footing. When I talk about "free trade," this is what I am talking about -- trade across borders. The way you're using the term, in sounds like anything that departs from an anarcho-libertarian fantasy of a straight common-law regime without any other form of government regulation is a "free trade" problem. You are welcome to use the term that way, but it's getting in the way of meaningful conversation.

Government can subsidize industry by giving it money. Or, by permitting it to pollute the air. Or, by ostensibly barring it from polluting the air, but by establishing really, really flimsy fines for doing so. (I recognize that you would use the word "subsidy" to refer only to cash payments, but an economic perspective requires you to think about it more broadly, and surely business understands that being permitted to pollute is worth money, e.g. the money saved by not having to upgrade equipment.) If you're in an industry -- say, chemicals -- where worrying about air pollution is a very important part of the business, and you are forced to compete with foreign companies whose governments wink and look the other way when they pollute the air, you've got a free trade problem in my book.

So-called free trade agreements can be used to weaken this country's environmental laws (or other laws, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll stick to the environment), directly or indirectly. (E.g. directly, by containing provisions that, when the treaty is adopted by Congress, trump our laws.) I take it from your response that you are in favor of this. If so, please don't pretend that it has anything to do with "free trade" as that term is usually used by other people -- what you are advocating is not levelling the playing field for U.S. companies and workers and their foreign counterparts, but weakening the environmental laws in the name of economic growth. We can have that conversation, but it's not a conversation about "free trade."

This sort of logic leads you to be against free trade. Folliwng that rational we could never trade with a country with lower wages or lower working standards. If every third world country's companies had to follow our OSHA rules they would all go out of business.

Not at all. Free trade can be a win-win, if you improve another country's situation by both eliminating tariffs and by improving environmental and workplace protections.

CAFTA countries will have much better access to our markets. Thereby increasing the standard of living of those countrys and making the countrys more stable. Our consumers will have cheaper goods freeing up more discretionary spending which will lead to more growth and more jobs. I don't know enough about the labor and environmental riders to know if they are really just excuses to protect our domestic market. But since the entire business community is behind the agreement I will assume that they do not.

Since you have a Democrat who has supported every other free-trade pact for twenty years saying that this is a bad one, perhaps you ought to be wondering why.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I return to my observation that you keep repeating the mantra "free trade" in a way that is unclear. When you talk about non-tariff trade barriers, that can include a whole bunch of different things that prevent companies in different country from competing on an equal footing. When I talk about "free trade," this is what I am talking about -- trade across borders. The way you're using the term, in sounds like anything that departs from an anarcho-libertarian fantasy of a straight common-law regime without any other form of government regulation is a "free trade" problem. You are welcome to use the term that way, but it's getting in the way of meaningful conversation.

Government can subsidize industry by giving it money. Or, by permitting it to pollute the air. Or, by ostensibly barring it from polluting the air, but by establishing really, really flimsy fines for doing so. (I recognize that you would use the word "subsidy" to refer only to cash payments, but an economic perspective requires you to think about it more broadly, and surely business understands that being permitted to pollute is worth money, e.g. the money saved by not having to upgrade equipment.) If you're in an industry -- say, chemicals -- where worrying about air pollution is a very important part of the business, and you are forced to compete with foreign companies whose governments wink and look the other way when they pollute the air, you've got a free trade problem in my book.

So-called free trade agreements can be used to weaken this country's environmental laws (or other laws, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll stick to the environment), directly or indirectly. (E.g. directly, by containing provisions that, when the treaty is adopted by Congress, trump our laws.) I take it from your response that you are in favor of this. If so, please don't pretend that it has anything to do with "free trade" as that term is usually used by other people -- what you are advocating is not levelling the playing field for U.S. companies and workers and their foreign counterparts, but weakening the environmental laws in the name of economic growth. We can have that conversation, but it's not a conversation about "free trade."



Not at all. Free trade can be a win-win, if you improve another country's situation by both eliminating tariffs and by improving environmental and workplace protections.



Since you have a Democrat who has supported every other free-trade pact for twenty years saying that this is a bad one, perhaps you ought to be wondering why.

You idea of a level playing field is an unatainable goal. It simply can't happend.

Please answer this directly?

1) By your definition there is not a level playing field between California and Alabama (Alabama has lower minimum wage, less environmental regulations and less workplace protection).
and therefore, there is no free trade between California and Alabama.

2) And following your line of reasoning (if it was possible) shouldn't California institute tariffs against Alabama until they "level the playing field".