Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if spanky started a blog would you give him more respect then?

Even more than I do now? Sure; why not?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall.

Since I repeated it three times you think you might have picked it up on it. Your selective memory makes Libby's seem crystal clear.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That wasn't my hypo, which you completely muddied. You've omitted the question how much the respective groups are helped or hurt, which is crucial to what I was getting at. What you say here "might be considered good in the aggregate" but also might not. I was very specific.

Now you are just dodging the evidence that shows how much of an ass you have been. You said the purpose of the hypo was to show that my support of free trade was ideological in that I would support it even if it was not practical. I made it clear I supported free trade because it helped people. And I said I would support trade restrictions if I thought it would help the poor at the expense of the rich, even if the amount of poor it helped was much less than the rich people it hurt. That answered the question of what you were trying to get at with your stupid "hypos". You should have asked the question directly instead of playing all those stupid games with the hypos. But instead of listening to what I clearly stated, you had already decided what my position was, even though all my statements disagreed with your preconceived notion, and therefore you kept coming up with hypos in the vain hope that I would say something that would conform to your preconceived notions and contradict my prior statements. My support of free trade is practical, not ideological, I pointed out that many times, and your stupid hypo games didn't establish anything different, all they accomplished was to show that you are a pretentious ass.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't give a rip about your motivations or psychological issues. Those subjects have little to do with a discussion of policy and policy goals, such as trying to help the most people, or those least able to help themselves, etc.

Bulls Shit. Actions speak louder than words. If you didn't care about psychological issues you wouldn't have taken the time to get me to "focus" on the pain caused by free trade after I acknowledge that I understood there was pain, and you wouldn't have played all those stupid hypo games to get me to reveal my "ideological" as opposed to "practical" motivations.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I will say that I have found it odd that conversations about free trade with you get so polarized and contentious, when we appear to agree on quite a bit.

It’s not odd at all. I don't get into these debates with Adder or other people I agree with free trade on. They are contentious because you are more interested in getting me to "focus" on the pain caused by free trade, playing with hypos to determine my motivations, and commenting on how I respond to other people’s posts. If you would just stick to the discussion of policy and policy goals (like you like to claim you do but clearly don't) then these discussions wouldn't get contentious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Since I repeated it three times you think you might have picked it up on it. Your selective memory makes Libby's seem crystal clear.

You keep posting all sorts of shit, but you haven't answered the question I asked. I'm at peace with the fact that you either don't understand or won't answer what I'm getting at, so why don't you stop pretending that you have?

Now you are just dodging the evidence that shows how much of an ass you have been. You said the purpose of the hypo was to show that my support of free trade was ideological in that I would support it even if it was not practical.

No, I didn't. I said that the purpose of the hypo was to identify which of two alternative principles explained your support of free trade. The thing that now convinces me that you are ideological on the subject is that you seem to start with a defense of free trade and then to serially advance whatever argument seems convenient at the moment.

I made it clear I supported free trade because it helped people. And I said I would support trade restrictions if I thought it would help the poor at the expense of the rich, even if the amount of poor it helped was much less than the rich people it hurt. That answered the question of what you were trying to get at with your stupid "hypos".

No, it really didn't. Here's the question, again. Suppose we're talking about a federal trade barrier called Tariff ABC. Suppose that eliminating Tariff ABC will make 60% of the country poorer, and will make them $60,000,000 poorer. Suppose also that eliminating Tariff ABC will make 40% of the country richer, and will make them $100,000,000 richer.

In other words, eliminating Tariff ABC will make the country as a whole $40,000,000 richer, but it will hurt more people than it will help.

Under those circumstances, do you eliminate Tariff ABC, or do you leave it alone? And does your answer change if the 40% who benefit are the least well-off? If they're the most well-off?

I really don't know what your answer to this will be, although I would guess that you'll say "eliminate Tariff ABC" and "it doesn't matter whether the 40% who benefit are the richest or poorest." But that's a guess.

Simple questions. Will you answer them?

Bulls Shit. Actions speak louder than words. If you didn't care about psychological issues you wouldn't have taken the time to get me to "focus" on the pain caused by free trade after I acknowledge that I understood there was pain, and you wouldn't have played all those stupid hypo games to get me to reveal my "ideological" as opposed to "practical" motivations.

Your reaction here sounds ridiculous to anyone who went to two months of law school. This is political philosophy, not psychology.

They are contentious because you are more interested in getting me to "focus" on the pain caused by free trade, playing with hypos to determine my motivations, and commenting on how I respond to other people’s posts. If you would just stick to the discussion of policy and policy goals (like you like to claim you do but clearly don't) then these discussions wouldn't get contentious.

We seem to agree on the benefits of free trade, which is why the conversation revolves around the harms.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
No. Murtha is not anti-troop, and anyone who knows anything about the man finds it recockulous that Slave says this. He served in active duty and the Reserves for almost 40 years (which is almost 40 years more than Slave, you and me combined, if I'm not mistaken).

This business of trying to paint Democrats who disagree with Bush's policy as anti-troop is just odious political opportunism. If the only thing you cared about was "supporting the troops," you'd be a pacificist who wants to keep them home. The conservatives who reflexively call for a militaristic foreign policy understand on some level that they're asking other people to fight and die, and they compensate for this by smearing the Jack Murthas of the world.

Mmm-Kay

Here is the AP - not Malkin, not the Corner, the AP - on the Murtha proposal:

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the leading advocate of that approach, has said it would effectively deny Bush the ability to proceed with the troop buildup that has been partially implemented since he announced it in January.

Some Senate Democrats have been privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Mmm-Kay

Here is the AP - not Malkin, not the Corner, the AP - on the Murtha proposal:

• Some Senate Democrats have been privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone....

Of course it could backfire politically. People like you will try to beat him up as anti-troop. Keep throwing mud and some of it will stick.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Of course it could backfire politically. People like you will try to beat him up as anti-troop. Keep throwing mud and some of it will stick.

He is anti-Administration. Which is causing him to steer legislation that is effectively anti-troop.

But somehow, pointing out the patently obvious is now a "smear".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He is anti-Administration. Which is causing him to steer legislation that is effectively anti-troop.

But somehow, pointing out the patently obvious is now a "smear".

He is pro-troop. He wants to support the troops by getting them out of Iraq. Which is why he is anti-Administration. He voted for the war, so trying to suggest that his Iraq policy is based on sticking it to the Administration won't work.

Meanwhile, you want to "support" the troops by sending more of them to a futile war. Sure, that follows.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He is pro-troop. He wants to support the troops by getting them out of Iraq. Which is why he is anti-Administration. He voted for the war, so trying to suggest that his Iraq policy is based on sticking it to the Administration won't work.

Meanwhile, you want to "support" the troops by sending more of them to a futile war. Sure, that follows.

everyone who is in Iraq in our army enlisted knowing they would likely go to Iraq. I don't get when anti-war people talk like they're rescuing lambs being led to slaughter. Not to say we shouldn't leave if we should, but the "Isupport the troops because I want to pull them out" band seems to me to miss the point they decided to go there.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
everyone who is in Iraq in our army enlisted knowing they would likely go to Iraq.

What about all of the National Gaurdsmen? And the recalled folks who thought they were retired? These are not just a handful of folks (30,000+ national guard in Iraq).

I do recognize that, at this point, essentially all regular Army (and Marine) enlistees did enlist knowing that Iraq or Afghanistan (with a lesser chance of Korea) were likely destinations for multiple tours during their enlistment period.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
everyone who is in Iraq in our army enlisted knowing they would likely go to Iraq. I don't get when anti-war people talk like they're rescuing lambs being led to slaughter. Not to say we shouldn't leave if we should, but the "Isupport the troops because I want to pull them out" band seems to me to miss the point they decided to go there.

It's a fair point that no one got drafted and sent to Iraq. But that doesn't mean that sending more of them there somehow does them a favor, or that wanting to bring them home is doing them a disservice.

[SlaveNoMore]

... of bipartisanship - and in calling an asshole an "asshole" regardless of party affiliation - here is another example of Trent Lott acting like, well, an asshole.

WSJ link

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Meanwhile, you want to "support" the troops by sending more of them to a futile war. Sure, that follows.

It's "futile" if you want the mission to fail, true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's "futile" if you want the mission to fail, true.

No matter how hard you close your eyes and tell yourself that you want this war to succeed, it's not going to happen. There is no happy ending. There are only different unhappy endings.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
... of bipartisanship - and in calling an asshole an "asshole" regardless of party affiliation - here is another example of Trent Lott acting like, well, an asshole.

WSJ link

In the interest of bipartisanship, let me defend Trent Lott. In part, anyway. To the extent that this all has opened his eyes to the ways that insurance companies screw their policyholders -- big and small, consumer and business -- and that he doing something about it, good for him.

eta: If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, does that mean Lott is a conservative who's been mugged by an insurance company?

[Tables R Us]

A major barrier in the US to free trade is barriers to trade in services. There is a Global Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The European Union, and foreign countries, want to modify GATS to remove many barriers to trade in services.

For example, 1. eliminating state insurance chartering; 2. lifting rules regulating legal and medical practice; 3. removing certain regulatory requirements for foreign banks and other financial services companies to operate in the US; 4. providing the right to provide cross-border services (for instance, online mutual funds); 5. providing the right to send service workers into the United States to perform a service contract made with a foreign company; 6. providing the right to sell services to U.S. citizens abroad; 7. preventing all levels of government from discriminating against vendors of services to governmental entities, based on whether the vendor or its workers are foreign.

Doing these things would help China, India, and so on take the high value service jobs that free-trade advocates claim are the great hope for US workers and their children.