Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Come to Seatlle on 9/11. Penske and I have a more dignified way to recognize the anniversity. We handle vipers while speaking in tongues, then we go to a middle eastern restaurant, order a feast and run out on the tab. We need to know if you'll be there because we like to reserve active snakes.

You know I invited NFH this year?

[Penske_Account]

Looks like the liberal nanny-state is more and more likely to put the jackboot down on families and freedom these days. Interesting that this family probably has living conditions far superior to that of 75% of the world, including Cuba, the populace of the latter which the liberals could not care less about liberating.

RICHMOND -- The Virginia Court of Appeals yesterday upheld a judge's decision to terminate the parental rights of a man who kept his eight children isolated in a tiny, dilapidated home without electricity or plumbing.

When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come?
With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?
Ohhh, ohh, the guns of Richmond!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What would you propose for 9/11? I know it wouldn't be anything that could offend, or make people remember that there are real evil people trying to kill our way of life, but is there anything you might find appropriate? Maybe a statement about how we ourselves are really to blame?

On second thought, let me clarify.

It was a sincere question, and you're being a fucktard. I momentarily forgot that your response to anyone who has the termerity to question it hates America and loves terrorists.

No more. This response is the kind of thing that makes me suspect that you post here only at times when you're not firmly attached to the Administration's prodigious member, and I'll remember to calibrate my questions to you accordingly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are the only one that thinks Labor and environmental rules lower NTBs. Actually you are the only one that has is backwards. Generally labor and environmental rules are considered NTBs. You are the only one that considers not having them NTBs. And cutting tariffs are good for us. Cutting tariffs are not something we give away to get something else. Cutting them is good for us. So we don't say, "there will be no cutting tariffs unless you adopt our labor and environmental standards". If we do that and they don't accept then we don't get tariff cuts.

You are confusing the (conservative) fight against government regulation with the (bipartisan) fight for free trade, as I have suggested several times. Free trade, to me and to most people who use the English language and pay attention to politics in this country, refers to improving competition. The way you are using the term, free trade means getting rid of pesky government regulations that protect the environment, and workers, etc., so that companies can do as they please, regardless of the state of comparable laws overseas. There are two reasons to use the term "free trade" this way. One is unfamiliarity with the normal use of the English language. The other is deceit -- an effort to roll back politically popular functions of government in the guise of improving competition with foreign countries. Many conservatives have adopted the latter strategy. I do not, however, think you are intentionally trying to confuse anyone.

Although tariffs are not good, we sometimes adopt them because foreign countries have adopted tariffs against our stuff. This a rational way to try to improve things for Americans. Free trade agreements work from the recognition that you can strike a deal in these circumstances to roll back tariffs and other barriers to fair competition.

Its all I need to come up with. The current administration does not think (along with most everyone else) that the lack of standard business regulatoins are NTBs.

I have explained, again and again, why failing to bargain for a commitment from other countries that they will enforce parallel environmental and labor protections forces U.S. companies and workers to compete on an uneven basis. You're just not responding to me, so I give up. ("Other people say so" is not a response.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You know I invited NFH this year?

You know she and i are seeing each other, right? As a joke, lets give her the ticklish timber rattler.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
On second thought, let me clarify.

It was a sincere question, and you're being a fucktard. I momentarily forgot that your response to anyone who has the termerity to question it hates America and loves terrorists.

No more. This response is the kind of thing that makes me suspect that you post here only at times when you're not firmly attached to the Administration's prodigious member, and I'll remember to calibrate my questions to you accordingly.

I don't get this response. I think September 11 is a perfect day to celebrate our freedom and our resolute commitment to the War on Terror and any other ism, nation or group that threatens our freedom.

What is it about the left wing that leads to so much self-loathing?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
On second thought, let me clarify.

It was a sincere question, and you're being a fucktard. I momentarily forgot that your response to anyone who has the termerity to question it hates America and loves terrorists.

No more. This response is the kind of thing that makes me suspect that you post here only at times when you're not firmly attached to the Administration's prodigious member, and I'll remember to calibrate my questions to you accordingly.

Sorry to offend. But let me repeat, what is inappropriate about an event to remember the day? I think you'd say nothing. Then your problem is that there'll be country music? I just don't see what bothers you about this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You know she and i are seeing each other, right?

Yes, but she said you would be okay with sloppy seconds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
2) It is the congressman that say they are pro-business and pro-free trade when they ran for congress and then voted against this deal I would have a problem with. I would say they are choosing partisan politics over free trade policy. If you believe in free trade, lower tariffs are good no matter what else happens. That is what people think you mean when you say your are pro-free trade. That is what business expect when you say you are pro-free trade. But don't try and say you are pro-free trade and then vote against the bill because there are no environmental or labour restrictions. If they vote against the bill it is not because they are against it, it is because I put it forward.

If you're the manager of the Yankees now, and you trade Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano and Alan Embree to the San Francisco Giants for Scott Eyre and Jason Schmidt, people might say, that's a crappy deal -- you gave up two starting pitchers with real upside and a burned-out reliever for a solid set-up man and a starter who just isn't throwing like he used to. And you could say, Wright and Pavano have been injured and Embree blows -- we're in a pennant race and we need Schmidt and a decent set-up guy. I don't know, people could argue both sides of that. But if it gets out that you could have traded Wright, Pavano and Embree to, say the LA Dodgers for Brad Penny, Derek Lower, Eric Gagne and Duaner Sanchez, you'd be a moron for making the trade with the Giants.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Then your problem is that there'll be country music?

Maybe its this:

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I noticed that a Republican president signed a bill passed by a Republican congress today that contained a hell of a lot of spending. You know, guys, those tax cuts do have to sort of kinda balance out at some point.

Now, you just hush. Ronald Reagan proved in the 1980s that deficits don't matter. Our Vice-President said so.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
For me the day would best start with all TV stations replaying the news from that morning until the towers fall, then seguing into playing the documentary on Beslam to remind everyone we are still in danger. Everyone should be made to watch the way Sadaam mad everyone vote.

Aside from the rather Orwellian aspect of your proposal, I could be with you on the first two pieces. They do replay scenes/videotape from Pearl Harbor from time to time.

Can't for the life of me understand how or why you continue to link the third piece (Saddam was very bad) to the first two pieces, though.

S_A_M

efs

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have explained, again and again, why failing to bargain for a commitment from other countries that they will enforce parallel environmental and labor protections forces U.S. companies and workers to compete on an uneven basis. You're just not responding to me, so I give up. ("Other people say so" is not a response.)

You have explained it again and again and I repeated your argument myself (showing I totally understand your argument) but showed why it does not hold any water. Instead of responding to my criticism to your argument you just keep saying the same thing "again and again" even though I have shown your argument to be ridiculous.

1) I pointed out that parallel labor and environmental, labor and etc are not possible. Especially between countrys with different PCIs. And countrys all the time pass free trade agreements that don't contain parallel enforcing rules and both countrys benefit.

2) Lowered Tariffs are still good even if you don't have such a level playing field. So a trade agreement that does not have such provisions still promotes free trade.

3) I have never heard anyone argue, besides you, that the lack of these parallel regulations is so detrimental to free trade that it outweighs the benefits of free trade brought by tariff reduction. I have heard the argument framed in that the harm to workers and environment outweights the benefits of the free trade agreement but not that THE LACK OF PARALLEL REGULATIONS DIMINISHES FREE TRADE TO THE EXTENT THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TARIFF REDUCTION THE DIMINISHMENT CAUSED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN REGULATIONS MAKES THE TREATY ON BALANCE, NOT PROMOTE FREE TRADE.

2) can you find me one company or business organization that has complained about CAFTA because it does not create a level playing field (in the terms you are talking of) Just one.

3) Can you find me one person who is normally considered a free trader who makes this criticism of CAFTA using the argument that because it does not create a level playing field it actually reduces free trade. (Actually even someone that supported NAFTA and the WTO who has made this argument?).

4) NAFTA and the WTO don't even come close to creating a parallel playing field as you envision it. Yet they are still considered positive free trade agreements. Why is that? Do you consider that on balance these treaty create a free trade environment?

5) Clearly this disadvantage that American companys find themselves at does not seem to matter to them much. They clearly find that Tariff reduction without creating parallel regulations is fine. Why do you think they don't know what is good for their business?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
All that said, is it just me, or is this in shockingly bad taste? Support the troops, yes, but using this particular date seems purposefully designed to wrap the Administration ever tighter in the American flag, an anatomical feat I presumed impossible at this point.

In my view, that's the only reaason why it is in poor taste.

i.e. A commemoration of the date with an event designed to evoke and promote patriotism is fine with me. What makes it stink to me is that the idea comes from the administration. I must have missed the groundswell from the populace for this type of celebration.

If you dug down into the folks who actually came up with the idea, I'd bet they are PR/political advisors -- and it seems rather obvious to me that the adminsitration is seeking to use this event (and thus the 9/11 attacks) to rally support for its policies and politics (in an indirect, soft-sell sort of way). That's why I don't much like it.

Plus, I'll have you know that Clint Black is definitely second-tier nowadays.

S_A_M

P.S. When is that hypocritical fuck going to fire Karl Rove?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Aside from the rather Orwellian aspect of your proposal, I could be with you on the first two pieces. They do replay scenes/videotape from Pearl Harbor fromt ime to time.

Can't for the life of me understand how or why you continue to link the third piece (Saddam was very bad) to the first two pieces, though.

S_A_M

not Sadaam was bad- in the instance he was good at making people do something. I'm saying take a tip from how he made people vote and make them watch the footage.