Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Of course it caught your eye, because that is something Ty said and it was a minor sub issue, and having no eye for the relevant you globbed onto it.
The main thrust of the argument was Ty criticizing Bush for not being strong enough on Free Trade. I pointed out that that was totally ripe because Ty spent pages and pages on this board arguing with me against CAFTA a year ago. So how could he criticize Bush for not being strong enough on free trade, when he did not support Bush's biggest free trade accomplishment?
Further, to criticize Bush's commitment to free trade, Ty quotes an economist article but part of that article (which he strategically omitted) stated that Bush has been really strong on Free Trade.
Then after arguing that CAFTA wasn't a good deal because it didn't establish a balance playing field, something that someone who supports real free trade would never say, he says he is a free trader.
1) So he says he is a free trader. If he is a free trader then Penske is a pacifist.
2) He argues against CAFTA for pages and pages with me (I think the argument lasted at least four days), but then today says he is not sure he was ever against it (which he clearly was).
3) But then admits he still stands by his criticisms of CAFTA.
4) Then he says as a free trader that he is disappointed in Bush.
Don't you find it completely hypocritical that Ty does not support CAFTA, but then says as a "free trader" he is dissapointed in Bush for not supporting free trade enough? Is that not totally ridiculous and unsupportable?
Isn't it completely unsupportable when he says he supports free trade, but he supports the idea of a level playing field, which is a standard invented by unions because following that standard a free trade agreement would never pass the test? Is that not completely ridiculous?
If we can agree that Ty's position on these issues is completely ridiculous and irrational we can address any one of the side issues you want to address.
|
Translation: You are an asshole, who feels it is others' fault that his posts are so staggeringly boring that no one (other than Ty, who has extreme tolerance for pain) bothers to read them through. I caught the part about farming subsidies because that, unlike the rest of your discussion, is interesting to me.
And you are incapable of answering the basic question I quoted -- likely because you know that, once again, Ty has busted you for being wrong on basic facts.
Perhaps, in Spanky-land, Bush wants to eliminate farm subsidies -- just as, in Spanky-land, growth is higher now than it was in 2000.
Threaded Mode