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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, just for the hell of it, I did a quick google search and see that Tauscher and other Dems argue that, despite their support for free trade (which is certainly true as to Tauscher), they oppose CAFTA because of the absence of labor and environmental standards. Not knowing much about the bill, I can't say -- I know Spanky's response, which is that the free market will take care of the environment. I've already expressed my surprise and disappointment in Tauscher's position, but I would like to know a bit more about the rationale for her opposition (I'm funny that way -- willing to consider what people have to say before condemning them as bush-bashing union whores).

Fortunately, though, we have the business lobby riding to the rescue of the country, in the selfless pursuit of the free trade agenda:

Yeah, business is always out there lobbying for pro-growth policies.

Of course that is the excuse that Tauscher is using. But that is the excuse the unions use every time. I never said specific industries support free trade. I said before that businessmen support free trade in every industry but their own. I also said that you can't trust businesses to look out for the enviornment. But I still stand by what I said. Business groups that represent a broad spectrum of business, like the Chamber of Commerce almost always support pro-growth bills. The broad interest of American businessnes (not specific industries) is to support pro-growth policies (especially free trade). The only time the Unions and the Chamber seem to agee on stuff, is when it comes to raping the environment. The only other time Unions and business get togehter, is when specific industries, like the steel industry, push for self serving stuff, like steel tariffs that screw the rest of the business coummunity. But the unions usually support these inividual industry anti-growth pork barrel legislation, because such usually also protects union jobs (to the detriment of the rest of the country). But groups like the Chamber rarely go down that path. So most of the time the Unions and the Chamber are at eachothers throats. When the Chamber and Unions disagree most of the time the Chamber takes the pro-growth side where the Unions do not. This does not mean that Unions do not serve a purpose or never do good things, it is just when it comes to legislation, if the Unions are opposing the Chamber, the Chamber is usually on the side of growth. The Republicans on a local, State and Federal level side with the Chambers much more than the Democrats do. So on balance if you want to support pro-growth policies you should be supporting Republicans.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course that is the excuse that Tauscher is using. But that is the excuse the unions use every time.

This, more than anything else, is why I could never be Republican.* You have become the Party of the Sound Bite, incapable of considering whether any argument could possibly lie outside your tautology. I'm willing to bet that you don't have a clue what Tauscher or anyone else has to say about the environmental or labor issues, but you dismiss them out of hand because, in your tautology, Tauscher = Democrat = union whore = uniformly anti-free trade. (While Repub = Chamber of Commerce = goodness and light. I guess the sugar industry jumped off the bus somewhere, but whatever.)

Fact is, in many instances I agree with you -- I find your Ayn Rand, free trade will save the universe view pretty over the top, but I do generally support free trade (I disagree with you on the notion that dictatorships are good, or that they can possibly have free markets, but whatever). But, like so many Repubs -- even the generally rational ones -- you fall back on the sound bites. Dems are evil. Dems are in the pocket of Unions. It's the trial lawyers' fault. Liberal, liberal, liberal.



* Also the whole thing about being taken over by the fundamentalist Christians.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course that is the excuse that Tauscher is using. But that is the excuse the unions use every time. I never said specific industries support free trade. I said before that businessmen support free trade in every industry but their own. I also said that you can't trust businesses to look out for the enviornment. But I still stand by what I said. Business groups that represent a broad spectrum of business, like the Chamber of Commerce almost always support pro-growth bills. The broad interest of American businessnes (not specific industries) is to support pro-growth policies (especially free trade). The only time the Unions and the Chamber seem to agee on stuff, is when it comes to raping the environment. The only other time Unions and business get togehter, is when specific industries, like the steel industry, push for self serving stuff, like steel tariffs that screw the rest of the business coummunity. But the unions usually support these inividual industry anti-growth pork barrel legislation, because such usually also protects union jobs (to the detriment of the rest of the country). But groups like the Chamber rarely go down that path. So most of the time the Unions and the Chamber are at eachothers throats. When the Chamber and Unions disagree most of the time the Chamber takes the pro-growth side where the Unions do not. This does not mean that Unions do not serve a purpose or never do good things, it is just when it comes to legislation, if the Unions are opposing the Chamber, the Chamber is usually on the side of growth. The Republicans on a local, State and Federal level side with the Chambers much more than the Democrats do. So on balance if you want to support pro-growth policies you should be supporting Republicans.

Let's see. Maybe what I really want is a strong economy, not fancy free-trade ideology.

Here's a nice link to a chart showing the performance of the economy under Democrats and Republicans over roughly 50 years. So, which party really grows the economy?

As an example, the Rs have been advocating rate cuts and capital gains cuts; untargetted across the board tax relief. Clinton focused his tax cuts in areas that specifically spurred economic growth (for example, he passed a provision that permitted the tax free reinvestment of venture capital into new ventures).

Likewise, Clinton balanced the budget. The Rs have engaged in deficit spending to finance their tax cuts and their adventure in Iraq, and have fought hard to keep Iraq off-budget rather than being fiscally responsible.

Judge us by our works.

[Sidd Finch]

He has lost immunity from prosecution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/...chile_pinochet


According to an official government report, 3197 killed or disappeared under his regime. And he's charged with evading over $9 million in taxes.

No wonder Nixon liked him.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
He has lost immunity from prosecution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/...chile_pinochet


According to an official government report, 3197 killed or disappeared under his regime. And he's charged with evading over $9 million in taxes.

No wonder Nixon liked him.

I bet the tax rates were just too high, or something. Him not paying them was pro-growth. The big investments he was making with them in the Chilean economy were just held in a US bank account for convenience.

ETA I'm starting to think that "Spanky" is someone's masters' (master's?) project in sociology.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This, more than anything else, is why I could never be Republican.* You have become the Party of the Sound Bite, incapable of considering whether any argument could possibly lie outside your tautology. I'm willing to bet that you don't have a clue what Tauscher or anyone else has to say about the environmental or labor issues, but you dismiss them out of hand because, in your tautology, Tauscher = Democrat = union whore = uniformly anti-free trade. (While Repub = Chamber of Commerce = goodness and light. I guess the sugar industry jumped off the bus somewhere, but whatever.)

Fact is, in many instances I agree with you -- I find your Ayn Rand, free trade will save the universe view pretty over the top, but I do generally support free trade (I disagree with you on the notion that dictatorships are good, or that they can possibly have free markets, but whatever). But, like so many Repubs -- even the generally rational ones -- you fall back on the sound bites. Dems are evil. Dems are in the pocket of Unions. It's the trial lawyers' fault. Liberal, liberal, liberal.

* Also the whole thing about being taken over by the fundamentalist Christians.

You talk in absolutes which in politics is absurd. You are the one using sound bites. I don't talk in absolutes nor do I use soudbites. I defend every position I take. You may call them soundbites but every sentence after the Tauscher comment is true. I attacked Tauscher because the DLC supports the deal. I actually know Tauscher personally and have met her staff. If I am going to trust someone it will be the DLC over Tauscher.

And to say that the Republican party is caught up in a knee jerk tautology may have some validity but in my opinion the Dems are worse. The DLCs comments on CAFTA are proof. The fact that they have to tell their own people to get over their emotions and do what is right shows that. The Republicans may have hated Clinton but they gave him fast track authority and supported his free trade deals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
During a time when it wasn't a problem, I got through sleepless nights with an older version of SimCity and an older version of Civ. I was totally sucked in for a while, and then got sick of both of them.

I find Civ II addicting, much more so than Civ III.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find Civ II addicting, much more so than Civ III.

The "goal" of whatever version I was playing was landing on the moon. I kinda liked the sound of all my little cities cranking out parts for my spaceship. But I got over it eventually.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The "goal" of whatever version I was playing was landing on the moon. I kinda liked the sound of all my little cities cranking out parts for my spaceship. But I got over it eventually.

I have never played Sim City. However, when I was working in Tokyo Bank Suisse's Tokyo division was having some trouble. Their trading income was down from their fixed income and currency departments. They did some investigating and noticed that their traders were not taking care of opportunities quick enough and a lot of follow up work was getting neglected. Finally some auditor figured out that there was a rash of what he called "Sim City Addiction" running through the Bank. Of course the bank tried to hush it up but having Sim City even in your computer was grounds for dismissal. At least that was the rumour running around Tokyo at the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have never played Sim City. However, when I was working in Tokyo Bank Suisse's Tokyo division was having some trouble. Their trading income was down from their fixed income and currency departments. They did some investigating and noticed that their traders were not taking care of opportunities quick enough and a lot of follow up work was getting neglected. Finally some auditor figured out that there was a rash of what he called "Sim City Addiction" running through the Bank. Of course the bank tried to hush it up but having Sim City even in your computer was grounds for dismissal. At least that was the rumour running around Tokyo at the time.

I was talking about Civ, you twat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I was talking about Civ, you twat.

I have never played Civ. However, when I was working in London Deutsche Bank's London division was having some trouble. Their trading income was down from their fixed income and currency departments. They did some investigating and noticed that their traders were not taking care of opportunities quick enough and a lot of follow up work was getting neglected. Finally some auditor figured out that there was a rash of what he called "Civ Addiction" running through the Bank. Of course the bank tried to hush it up but having Civ even in your computer was grounds for dismissal. At least that was the rumour running around London at the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have never played Civ. However, when I was working in London Deutsche Bank's London division was having some trouble. Their trading income was down from their fixed income and currency departments. They did some investigating and noticed that their traders were not taking care of opportunities quick enough and a lot of follow up work was getting neglected. Finally some auditor figured out that there was a rash of what he called "Civ Addiction" running through the Bank. Of course the bank tried to hush it up but having Civ even in your computer was grounds for dismissal. At least that was the rumour running around London at the time.

I like how you spelt 'rumor' with an 'ou'. That is so klassy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
You talk in absolutes which in politics is absurd. You are the one using sound bites. I don't talk in absolutes nor do I use soudbites. I defend every position I take. You may call them soundbites but every sentence after the Tauscher comment is true. I attacked Tauscher because the DLC supports the deal. I actually know Tauscher personally and have met her staff. If I am going to trust someone it will be the DLC over Tauscher.

And to say that the Republican party is caught up in a knee jerk tautology may have some validity but in my opinion the Dems are worse. The DLCs comments on CAFTA are proof. The fact that they have to tell their own people to get over their emotions and do what is right shows that. The Republicans may have hated Clinton but they gave him fast track authority and supported his free trade deals.

I no longer miss Bilmore.

Back in the day, when we had debating club, Ibraham could never figure out why he couldn't win a single debate. Each debate, when the question was put to him, he gave his answer and said, "this is so because Allah wills it", and went on to note places in the Koran where Allah spoke to the matter. However, he never gave a reason beyond his quote to authority. Of course, he also had a personal relationship with Allah, which helped, too.

Replace "Allah" with "DLC" and "Koran" with "press releases" and we see the Spanky style. "Allah's statements on CAFTA are proof."

[Replaced_Texan]

So after 16 weeks, all abortions in Texas have to be in an ambulatory surgery center or hospital. There aren't that many of either that perform abortions. And there's a 24 hour waiting period for you to contemplate your sins. And there's parental notification if you're a minor. And pretty much every hurdle that could be put in place is thrown up to make sure women don't get abortions.

Desperate teenager asks her boyfriend to kick her in the stomach. Week later, she miscarries.

He's now serving a 40 year prison sentence for fetal murder. She can't be charged. Prosecutors were nice to him and didn't seek the death penalty, though they could have.

So the lesson here is that if you're going for the home abortion remedy, make sure not to have an accomplice.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find Civ II addicting, much more so than Civ III.

2. Conquered cities are too quick to revolt in III, and it's almost impossible to get any production out of captured cities, even after 500 years or so. Makes you just destroy enemies' cities instead (unless there is a Wonder).