Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How is history going to vindicate that we let Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora? We're all on the same page about the war in Afghanistan, except that the Democrats here were in favor of catching Osama bin Laden a couple of years back instead of letting him get away.

Are you referencing when Clinton turned down the chance to take him or when Clinton shot a camel in the ass as a means to get him?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, the only person I've censored was Penske, and it was something to do with pictures of 9/11 that reasonable people would find disturbing. What am I forgetting?

I think it was the charred bodies of the 4 US contract employees hanging off the bridge in Iraq. I still disagree with the bias in that decision and am fairly certain it is the foundation Hank's point is built on.

In fairness Ty, because I like you, platonically, I will acknowledge that as the inventor of the PB and the co-moderator here, I don't realistically expect you to step down in the face of the evidence of your biased adminstration here. Like all left wing autocrats you will irrationally and defiantly hold on to power-one of the lasting legacies of the Clinton Presidency was the immediate victory he scored in retaining his office by obstructing the impeachment process, unlike Nixon, who had a sense of constitutional responsibility and resigned his office.

At this point all I can do is thank you for evidencing the destructive effects of the Clinton Legacy in action, but I pray I never witness the effects of the Rainbow Parties on the youth of America, which parties his deviant behaviour has spawned.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think it was the charred bodies of the 4 US contract employees hanging off the bridge in Iraq. I still disagree with the bias in that decision and am fairly certain it is the foundation Hank's point is built on.

there is good disturbing and bad, I beleive after Pearl Harbor the media took every opportunity to display the horror FOR YEARS- so we could all be reminded why neighbors and family, like say our friend's husbands. were at war.

Why don't we have the 9/11 attacks film mandatory to be played at all commercials breaks?

Ty you read more history than me, but I do know who won in the Japan part of WWII.*

* edited to remove "we did" because I'm sure which side some of the libs here consider "we."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
lothrop [/i]Can we agree that this is an aspect of free trade?

Environmental and Labour standards are not an "aspect" or anything else to do with free trade. That is political double speak. The only time Environmental or Labour standards have anything to do with free trade is when they hamper free trade. Any environmental or labor standards we put on a free trade agreement is simply us trying to get another country to increase its regulation. We are telling them if you don't implement these laws you don't get to trade with us. Without the trade agreement those laws would not be there. So the status quo is the laws don't exist. If you pass the free trade pact without the riders those laws will not change and you will have free trade. So you increase free trade. You don't need those rules to have free trade. If you pass the free trade agreement, plus those riders, you may have in your opinion a better agreement but the agreement isn't any more free.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but kiss my ass. I keep posting about non-tariff trade barriers, and until now you have been ignoring me.

I wasn't ignoring you. It just did not occur to me that you considered including environmental riders and labor riders as a way of reducing NTBs. So you thought with out these provision you would have more NTBs and therefore less free trade. But no one seriously argues that these provisions reduce NTBs. Environmental and labor riders are NTBs but most people consider them good NTBs. The Financial Times guy, or every other person you have cited, has not said that Environmental or albour rules reduce NTBs.

Can we agree that environmental and labor riders to a free trade agreement do not reduce the amount of NTBs but in fact make the agreement less free.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you and I probably agree in principle that governmental subsidies can be what you call a NTB -- an obstacle to free trade.

I agree with that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The governments in these countries are subsidizing their businesses, in essence, by permitting them to exploit their workers in ways which ours are not allowed to.

I would not agree with that. That is ridiculous. Trying to call these subsidies is political double talk. Subsidies are monetary support nothing more. Exploitation is a totally relevant word. Workers who voluntarily take a job are not being exploited. One thing I can say for sure is that workers condition can never be as good in the CAFTA countrys as they are here. So if you want to create a level playing field in your definition you would never have free trade agreements with poorer countrys. There is simply not the money in the country to support it. The only way their standards improve if the GNP improves and a free trade agreement will lead to that. With a free trade agreement some workers will get jobs that don't have them in CAFTA. Or some will get to leave their farm jobs and get manufacturing jobs. You might consider them be exploited but if they go from making one dollar a day to five dollars a day I don't think they will thing they are exploited. India used this exact type of reasoning and all it got them was insuring that their workers average wages never increased.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The failure to level the playing field in this respect is either permitting a NTB to continue,

No - you can never level the playing field and no economist seriously considered this an NTB.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop or a backhanded way to try to reduce domestic labor law in the guise of improving trade.

This sort of logic leads you to be against free trade. Folliwng that rational we could never trade with a country with lower wages or lower working standards. If every third world country's companies had to follow our OSHA rules they would all go out of business.



Labor laws and environmental law are classic NTBs. Most of the WTO court decisions are reviewing such laws to see if there are really to protect the environment or they are they to protect domestic industry.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please explain the cost-benefit analysis by which you concluded that the benefits outweigh the costs. You may persuade me yet.

CAFTA countries will have much better access to our markets. Thereby increasing the standard of living of those countrys and making the countrys more stable. Our consumers will have cheaper goods freeing up more discretionary spending which will lead to more growth and more jobs. I don't know enough about the labor and environmental riders to know if they are really just excuses to protect our domestic market. But since the entire business community is behind the agreement I will assume that they do not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, the only person I've censored was Penske, and it was something to do with pictures of 9/11 that reasonable people would find disturbing. What am I forgetting?

Diane Keaton posted pictures of what it looks like when the religion of peace takes a school field trip. Those were disturbing, but I think good disturbing. They were banned.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there is good disturbing and bad, I beleive after Pearl Harbor the media took every opportunity to display the horror FOR YEARS- so we could all be reminded why neighbors and family, like say our friend's husbands. were at war.

Why don't we have the 9/11 attacks film mandatory to be played at all commercials breaks?

Ty you read more history than me, but I know know who won in the Japan part of WWII.

this was my exact point at the time. the left wing wants to sugarcoat the threat, blame the victim. Until we all look at the actual depths of the evil deeds these people will perpetrate on us, we do our War Effourt a disservice and falsely embolden the fifth columnist insurgents in the media and Democrat party to undermine our national defence.

I won't be surprised when the Islamofacists hang my neighbours' charred homocide bombed remains off the 520 Bridge. I also won't hestitate to exercise my Second Amendments rights, while they remain. This is because I know the evil the Islamofacists can do. Unfortunately the politically correct sensitivities of the censors will doom some to be surprised. Too late.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Environmental and Labour standards are not an "aspect" or anything else to do with free trade. That is political double speak. The only time Environmental or Labour standards have anything to do with free trade is when they hamper free trade. Any environmental or labor standards we put on a free trade agreement is simply us trying to get another country to increase its regulation. We are telling them if you don't implement these laws you don't get to trade with us. Without the trade agreement those laws would not be there. So the status quo is the laws don't exist. If you pass the free trade pact without the riders those laws will not change and you will have free trade. So you increase free trade. You don't need those rules to have free trade. If you pass the free trade agreement, plus those riders, you may have in your opinion a better agreement but the agreement isn't any more free.




I wasn't ignoring you. It just did not occur to me that you considered including environmental riders and labor riders as a way of reducing NTBs. So you thought with out these provision you would have more NTBs and therefore less free trade. But no one seriously argues that these provisions reduce NTBs. Environmental and labor riders are NTBs but most people consider them good NTBs. The Financial Times guy, or every other person you have cited, has not said that Environmental or albour rules reduce NTBs.

Can we agree that environmental and labor riders to a free trade agreement do not reduce the amount of NTBs but in fact make the agreement less free.




I would not agree with that.



I don't know about level the playing field but subsidies are a distortion. But they hurt the country providing them just as much as other countrys. In fact the European CAP benefits us in certain way because the European tax payer is paying money so we get cheaper food. They are paying part of our food bill.



You lost me there. I don't understand what you mean.
This agreement


Labor laws and environmental law are classic NTBs. Most of the WTO court decisions are reviewing such laws to see if there are really to protect the environment or they are they to protect domestic industry.




CAFTA countries will have much better access to our markets. Thereby increasing the standard of living of those countrys and making the countrys more stable. Our consumers will have cheaper goods freeing up more discretionary spending which will lead to more growth and more jobs. I don't know enough about the labor and environmental riders to know if they are really just excuses to protect our domestic market. But since the entire business community is behind the agreement I will assume that they do not.

this reads like something you have to have read books to get. Big board material?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Diane Keaton posted pictures of what it looks like when the religion of peace takes a school field trip. Those were disturbing, but I think good disturbing. They were banned.

And the list of crimes against the Board mounts. The Nixon option is looking better and better all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think it was the charred bodies of the 4 US contract employees hanging off the bridge in Iraq. I still disagree with the bias in that decision and am fairly certain it is the foundation Hank's point is built on.

In fairness Ty, because I like you, platonically, I will acknowledge that as the inventor of the PB and the co-moderator here, I don't realistically expect you to step down in the face of the evidence of your biased adminstration here. Like all left wing autocrats you will irrationally and defiantly hold on to power-one of the lasting legacies of the Clinton Presidency was the immediate victory he scored in retaining his office by obstructing the impeachment process, unlike Nixon, who had a sense of constitutional responsibility and resigned his office.

At this point all I can do is thank you for evidencing the destructive effects of the Clinton Legacy in action, but I pray I never witness the effects of the Rainbow Parties on the youth of America, which parties his deviant behaviour has spawned.

As an interesting historical note, I became a mod over here one day when I posted, and someone quoted, a link that inadvertantly threatened to out me. I could edit my own post, but could not edit the post quoting my own. Concerned, I reached out to you, but to no avail -- you were busy drinking wine, or socking, or something like that. In a characteristic act of mercy, Slave made me a mod.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there is good disturbing and bad, I beleive after Pearl Harbor the media took every opportunity to display the horror FOR YEARS- so we could all be reminded why neighbors and family, like say our friend's husbands. were at war.

Actually, the opposite is true. The media self-censored to avoid showing how unpleasant war is. As a rule, bodies were only shown if intact, without major burn damage. See War Without Mercy by John Dower, and Wartime by Paul Fussell.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And the list of crimes against the Board mounts. The Nixon option is looking better and better all the time.

So is the Napoleon option, Louie.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As an interesting historical note, I became a mod over here one day when I posted, and someone quoted, a link that inadvertantly threatened to out me. I could edit my own post, but could not edit the post quoting my own. Concerned, I reached out to you, but to no avail -- you were busy drinking wine, or socking, or something like that. In a characteristic act of mercy, Slave made me a mod.

Way to turn the finger of blame unto the victim (fwiw, i believe I was having my wisdom teeth extracted on that day, but I have always felt a great deal of remorse about the incident). The Clintons have woven their tactics deeply into the kool-aid intoxicated liberal youth of our nation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, the opposite is true. The media self-censored to avoid showing how unpleasant war is. As a rule, bodies were only shown if intact, without major burn damage. See War Without Mercy by John Dower, and Wartime by Paul Fussell.

War is peace!
Ignorance is knowledge!
Kerry for Presdient!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
War is peace!
Ignorance is knowledge!
Kerry for Presdient!

gore won!

[Spanky]

What happened to all the liberals? Ty is by himself out there. Either we need more liberals or we need to start arguing social issues so I can take Ty's side.

Anyone want to back Bush's position on Stem Cell Research?