Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When Karl Rove refers to "liberal", he is not limiting it to the "far left." And he definitely means to include the ACLU.

I'm actually with Slave or Club or whomever said, I am down with the ACLU, except for the free exercise thing.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Irrevelevant. Even if true, and I highly doubt it, my post was directed at the current point in time. The most dangerous cities in the US have 500+ murders per year. That's 40+ murders per month per city.

I really don't see what you're trying to prove here. "See? We don't just kill Iraqis."

Name the most dangerous U.S. city. I'd rather live there than Baghdad.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Irrevelevant. Even if true, and I highly doubt it, my post was directed at the current point in time. The most dangerous cities in the US have 500+ murders per year. That's 40+ murders per month per city.

According to the FBI stats, there were about 16,000 murders in the US in 2003. How many people do you think have died in Iraq since the war started? Do you think it's less than 50,000?

And do you ignore that the US has about 12 times as many people?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
According to the FBI stats, there were about 16,000 murders in the US in 2003. How many people do you think have died in Iraq since the war started? Do you think it's less than 50,000?

And do you ignore that the US has about 12 times as many people?

"We can't keep the peace in our country, either!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"We can't keep the peace in our country, either!"

What do you think Ty- we need more heavy armor in the cities?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, Ty, Ty . . . you should really use "The King of the Bait and Switch" in your tag line.

?

Originally posted by Hank
What do you think Ty- we need more heavy armor in the cities?

In Richmond, maybe, although then there's always the danger that the evildoers will start using roadside bombs.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
?

Ty, all I could figure is that Ubclay's eenbay ittin'hay the aucesay odaytay.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"We can't keep the peace in our country, either!"

OTOH, Club's argument proves the Admin's wisdom in not reporting the number of civilian dead. If we ignore them, then no one worries about it.

FYI -- 38 killed in the past 12 hours in Iraq. And this is not a particularly bloody day.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No question.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that less people are being murdered in Iraq in a time of war than in the US in a time of peace. Just putting it in perspective.

A little more perspective.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
OTOH, Club's argument proves the Admin's wisdom in not reporting the number of civilian dead. If we ignore them, then no one worries about it.

FYI -- 38 killed in the past 12 hours in Iraq. And this is not a particularly bloody day.

People, PEOPLE! Those don't count as murders. Those are, uh, casualties. Or something. Terror victims. In any event, not murders.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
A little more perspective.

There were lots of car bombings in the U.S. yesterday, but the liberal media isn't telling you about them.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There were lots of car bombings in the U.S. yesterday, but the liberal media isn't telling you about them.

That's because insurgents are now finding it too hard to detonate bombs in Iraq, so they're being forced to detonate those bombs far from Iraq. As a consequence, our troops are safer and the Bush plan is working!

But does the media tell you that? Hell, no!

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
That's because insurgents are now finding it too hard to detonate bombs in Iraq, so they're being forced to detonate those bombs far from Iraq. As a consequence, our troops are safer and the Bush plan is working!

But does the media tell you that? Hell, no!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Another pro-free-trade Dem explains why CAFTA is bad news.

I agree with this one. It is too bad more Democrats don't think like this:

"Though this does spring off an idea I read in the Economist (the train to work is very long), I think they make a good point: the CAFTA treaty provides a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to negotiate on the Doha Round, which is really what we should be worrying about. This whole CAFTA deal (as Cowen notes in point 7) is really pretty small potatoes; the real deal to watch is the deal (in whatever form it takes) that comes out of Doha. But here I think many of the moderate Dems that Matt was talking about should be perking their ears up. This may in fact be the first trade deal that actually benefits third world countries, an issue that should reverbrate strongly in the Democratic party. There's a reason that this round is also known as the "Doha Development Agenda." After the Uruguay round, third world countries began to realize just how shafted they really were from the deal, especially from the agreement on agriculture that was attached to it 1995. The point here is that there is this great issue right here that is waiting for Dems to poach from Repubs. It's fiscally conservative (in the sense that free trade is "conservative"), but socially liberal in its effects on the third world and other developing countries. And the Republicans haven't touched it. So that's the import of CAFTA, IMO, that it is a stepping stone towards stealing the Doha round right out from under the noses of the Repubs."

The one I think you were referring to is simply saying that the Administration did not suck up enough to the Dems. Didn't make them "feel good". This is such BS. Either the treaty is good for America or it is not. They are there to pass laws that are good for America, they are not their to not have their egos bruised.

What I think Tyler and the other "pass CAFTA or we'll never trade again" folks are failing to understand is that while many Democrats are never going to meet a trade deal they like, many others feel very awkward about being backed into opposition by a White House that's unwilling to throw liberals the merest bone while tossing off huge hunks of steak to the intellectual property industry. Lots of factors drive this discomfort, including high-minded ones, petty pride (nobody likes appearing to have surrendered in a long-run intra-party fight), and most crassly simple fundraising.

Moderate Democrats would, I think, be thrilled to help the administration out and re-assert their historical centrality to trade policy debates if the GOP were willing to meet work cooperatively."

Here is a development that offers hope:

"What's more, the dread AFL-CIO is, for those who haven't been paying attention, in the midst of splintering with a big block of unions whose workers are overwhelmingly in non-tradeable sectors (or, in the case of the Teamsters, who's trade-related issues relate exclusively to Mexico -- nobody going to drive a truck here from Australia or Chile) preparing to seceed and focus more on organizing in growing economic sectors rather than using politics to defend jobs in shrinking sectors."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Iron Steve

Is this were the real Penske, making a real penske comeback, I think those of us who know, know that the first Hillary photoshop would have been something quite a bit better. Nice try NFH, but I know penske and you are no penske.