Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 12

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-28-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The Evil Democrats were defeated.

CAFTA passed. Now it on to AFTA.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...fta/index.html

I love how regressive Dems say trade agreements will exploit foreign workers. That's a half truth, and they never admit the other half, which is that after the cheap labor has been "exploited," establishing an industrial base in tthe growing nation, a working and middle class will be born, and unions will spring up and the cost of labor will rise. See: India. The Dems seem to be saying "lets never help these developing nations because for a period of time at the outset, workers there will be exploited."

Why don't they try being honest and saying "We oppose such trade agreements because they take American jobs, and more importantly, they take the jobs of my voting base."

The Dems should be happy. By favoring these trade agreements, the GOP is creating a huge pile of angry blue collar voters for the Democrats.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-28-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Spanky, I've heard enough:

SDI was and always will be (1) a bluff to scare the Soviets and force them into a defense spending war which would cave their economy (which it probably helped to do), and (2) a long blowjob for the defense contracting industry (the R&D contracts alone were worth ungodly sums).

SDI is a cold war strategy game, never intended to actually be built by anyone other than a few greedy defense contractors and clueless "experimenters" at the Pentagon.

In a world where the primary nuclear threat is a dirty bomb or smuggled tactical nuke, advocating SDI is criminally stupid.

Remember that a lot of those very same defense contractors who made so much off SDI are located - where? where? anyone? anyone? Bueller? - in Spankyland. Spanky is yearning for the halcyon days of yore, when federal money flowed in Spankyland like water.

As a side benefit, getting our economy moving again is starting to look like the only way the Republican governor of Kahleefornya will keep his job. People are starting to compare him to Gray Davis.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-28-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I love how regressive Dems say trade agreements will exploit foreign workers. That's a half truth, and they never admit the other half, which is that after the cheap labor has been "exploited," establishing an industrial base in tthe growing nation, a working and middle class will be born, and unions will spring up and the cost of labor will rise. See: India. The Dems seem to be saying "lets never help these developing nations because for a period of time at the outset, workers there will be exploited."

Why don't they try being honest and saying "We oppose such trade agreements because they take American jobs, and more importantly, they take the jobs of my voting base."

The Dems should be happy. By favoring these trade agreements, the GOP is creating a huge pile of angry blue collar voters for the Democrats.

Unions bad.

Penske_Account · 07-28-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Spanky, I've heard enough:

1. None of the rogue countries we worry about have ICBMs. Notwithstanding that they would never fire a misssile at us because it would mean their immediate destruction, they can't get a missile to us.

2. The countries that do have ICBMs (Russia), are not going to attack us.

3. And if Russia did decide to attack us, no SDI system could protect us. SDI can only stop a small percentage of incoming ICBMs. Russia has thousands of ICBMs. All you need is a few dozen properly placed ICBMs to hit us and we're through - the whole country is contaminated.

SDI was and always will be (1) a bluff to scare the Soviets and force them into a defense spending war which would cave their economy (which it probably helped to do), and (2) a long blowjob for the defense contracting industry (the R&D contracts alone were worth ungodly sums).

SDI is a cold war strategy game, never intended to actually be built by anyone other than a few greedy defense contractors and clueless "experimenters" at the Pentagon.

In a world where the primary nuclear threat is a dirty bomb or smuggled tactical nuke, advocating SDI is criminally stupid.

Sorry to sound nasty, but this debate is infuriating.

I agree with Spanky on SDI. Perhaps we should do away with NASA and put the savings into SDI.

Penske_Account · 07-28-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Unions bad.

2. And they have completely fucked the people that they supposedly represent for the last half-decade. The poor slobs should thank the liberals for that.

Spanky · 07-28-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Spanky, I've heard enough:

1. None of the rogue countries we worry about have ICBMs.

North Korea does. If they are not a roque nation I don't know who is. And their leader has let millioins of his own people die. You don't think if he was about to be overthrown, or put into a corner he would think twice about luanching a missile against the United States.

Again - it is a lot easier to push a button than set up a logistical covert operation with a dirty bomb that might or might no succeed. One option takes thirty minutes, the other one takes months of planning and execution.

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Sorry to sound nasty, but this debate is infuriating.

I agree one hundred percent. The fact that there are people that question spending money on SDI is beyond belief.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-28-2005, 02:51 PM

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-28-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree one hundred percent. The fact that there are people that question spending money on SDI is beyond belief.

As a additional bonus, now that CAFTA has passed, there will be lots of former textile workers who can be retrained to work on SDI.

Shape Shifter · 07-28-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree one hundred percent. The fact that there are people that question spending money on SDI is beyond belief.

I think the overall opinion was not whether or not we should spend money, just how much. For all the sky-is-falling rhetoric you have spouted on the topic, you've offered little in the way of helpful numbers, and a blank check to your MIC isn't going to fly.

Spanky · 07-28-2005, 04:07 PM

The CAFTA Vote

Evil Traitorous Republicans

Boustany
Capito
Coble
Cubin
Foxx
Garrett
Gutknecht
Hostettler
Hunter
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Mack
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
Miller (MI)
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Sanders
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Tancredo

Brave Democrats:

Bean
Cooper
Cuellar
Dicks
Hinojosa
Jefferson
Matheson
Meeks
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Ortiz
Skelton
Snyder
Tanner
Towns

Spanky · 07-28-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the overall opinion was not whether or not we should spend money, just how much. For all the sky-is-falling rhetoric you have spouted on the topic, you've offered little in the way of helpful numbers, and a blank check to your MIC isn't going to fly.

Wrong: T-Rex does not think we should spend any money, neither does Sebastian Dangerfield. I have never said a blank check just that it should be a priority. It is the people that don't want to spend anything that I don't understand. People keep saying "well everyone wants the program - it is just a question of how much" are not paying attention. Unless of course T-Rex and Sebastian want to correct me.

Hank Chinaski · 07-28-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Wrong: T-Rex does not think we should spend any money, neither does Sebastian Dangerfield. I have never said a blank check just that it should be a priority. It is the people that don't want to spend anything that I don't understand. People keep saying "well everyone wants the program - it is just a question of how much" are not paying attention. Unless of course T-Rex and Sebastian want to correct me.

Ty basically thinks we should adopt sharia so don't look to him, and Sebastian's strong opinions have ashort half life.

Shape Shifter · 07-28-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Wrong: T-Rex does not think we should spend any money, neither does Sebastian Dangerfield. I have never said a blank check just that it should be a priority. It is the people that don't want to spend anything that I don't understand. People keep saying "well everyone wants the program - it is just a question of how much" are not paying attention. Unless of course T-Rex and Sebastian want to correct me.

I've heard neither of them say they are against us having missile defense as a general proposition. They seem to view it as an expensive proposition with little chance of success. If we could order it from Time-Warner for $44.95/month and worked about as often as cable, I'm sure they'd go for it.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-28-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Wrong: T-Rex does not think we should spend any money, neither does Sebastian Dangerfield. I have never said a blank check just that it should be a priority. It is the people that don't want to spend anything that I don't understand. People keep saying "well everyone wants the program - it is just a question of how much" are not paying attention. Unless of course T-Rex and Sebastian want to correct me.

We shouldn't spend any money on SDI. Its sheer idiocy. Notwithstanding that SDI is bunk - nothing more than a bluff Reagan used aginst Russia - the sole use for it would be to stop a North Korean attack, an event that will never occur. The likelihood of a NK attack on the US is ZERO. It. Will. Never. Happen.

I'll add that I haven't found a single credible news story stating that NK has a missile that can get a nuke over to our shores. If you punch "ICBM" and "North Korea" into Google, you get refernces to fucking NewsMax.com.

So, to recap:

You want to spend some (not a lot, but at least some) money on a fictional, fantastic, never-designed-to-actually-be-implented and wouldn't be completed and perfected for at least two decades anyway missile defense system to protect us from missiles that will never be launched by a tin pot dictator. And you favor doing so when a real threat of a dirty bomb or tactical nuke being smuggled into our country exists.

Oh, BTW, how does one spend "some" money on SDI? Do you only cover Texas and Washington? Or maybe California and New York? How does one just "dip his foot," economically speaking, into building the worlds most ambitious weapons deterrent system in history? Putting aside the fact that it can't be done, theoretically, the only way to do SDI is to do it all or nothing.

Sheer insanity.

Shape Shifter · 07-28-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I've heard neither of them say they are against us having missile defense as a general proposition. They seem to view it as an expensive proposition with little chance of success. If we could order it from Time-Warner for $44.95/month and worked about as often as cable, I'm sure they'd go for it.

I stand corrected.