Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
???? "Then, cards me peace" ????????

I think he meant "donnez à paix une chance".

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by andViolins
So what is the motivation for Frist to break with Bush on Stem Cells?

aV

Perhaps he saw a stem cell on television and felt comfortable making a diagnosis that the research should be pursued.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think he meant "donnez à paix une chance".

Je croix que c'est un bon temp de vendre Hank's, comment dit-on?, stock de AltaVista Translator.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Je croix que c'est un bon temp de vendre Hank's, comment dit-on?, stock de AltaVista Translator.

Vive le babelfish!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky:

Read this (from a pro-free-trade Democrat) and weep.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky:

Read this (from a pro-free-trade Democrat) and weep.

Everyone has an opinion. Most people you know it before they give it. It is those people whose opinions matter that you should look to. So whose opinions matter? Two things could have happened:

1) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because it was really not about free trade

2) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because of pure partisanship. They were willing to sacrifice their free trade principles to stick it to the President.

Who is telling the truth? So was this a free trade bill? Well the people who benefit most directly from free trade, American Businesses, large and small, are where I would look to to see if there we in fact a free trade bill that was good for American Business. Doesn't this seem reasonable? I would also look to the Unions because they have been against every free trade bill that has come along so their opposition would also be a good sign that this was for free trade.

Who cares what the politicians say. They can't be trusted. But clearly we can trust American Business groups. And they all supported the bill. Yes that is right. The Chamber of Commerce, the Manufactureres group, the small business association. Every business group with out exception and every major company invovled in international trade. There wasn't a single member of TechNet (the group that represents all the Silicon Valley companys) that was against this bill. They have over a thousand members. Not one opponent.

So every group that supported NAFTA and the creation of the WTO supported CAFTA and pretty much every group that was against NAFTA and the WTO were against CAFTA. The only change of sides occurred in congress. What does that tell you? The reason people changed sides was not substantive but political.

Cut the crap and face reality. The Democrats have abondoned free trade for partisanship. If you want to argue that this is not pro-free trade find me one major company (or major business group) involved in international trade that is against this bill (of course excluding company's and groups that would be hurt by free trade - textiles and sugar) and that will have some merit. It is the people really effected by the bill whose opinions counts. Everyone else's is just hot air.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Everyone has an opinion. Most people you know it before they give it. It is those people whose opinions matter that you should look to. So whose opinions matter? Two things could have happened:

1) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because it was really not about free trade

2) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because of pure partisanship. They were willing to sacrifice their free trade principles to stick it to the President.

Who is telling the truth? So was this a free trade bill? Well the people who benefit most directly from free trade, American Businesses, large and small, are where I would look to to see if there we in fact a free trade bill that was good for American Business. Doesn't this seem reasonable? I would also look to the Unions because they have been against every free trade bill that has come along so their opposition would also be a good sign that this was for free trade.

Who cares what the politicians say. They can't be trusted. But clearly we can trust American Business groups. And they all supported the bill. Yes that is right. The Chamber of Commerce, the Manufactureres group, the small business association. Every business group with out exception and every major company invovled in international trade. There wasn't a single member of TechNet (the group that represents all the Silicon Valley companys) that was against this bill. They have over a thousand members. Not one opponent.

So every group that supported NAFTA and the creation of the WTO supported CAFTA and pretty much every group that was against NAFTA and the WTO were against CAFTA. The only change of sides occurred in congress. What does that tell you? The reason people changed sides was not substantive but political.

Cut the crap and face reality. The Democrats have abondoned free trade for partisanship. If you want to argue that this is not pro-free trade find me one major company (or major business group) involved in international trade that is against this bill (of course excluding company's and groups that would be hurt by free trade - textiles and sugar) and that will have some merit. It is the people really effected by the bill whose opinions counts. Everyone else's is just hot air.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

what brand car do you drive?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what brand car do you drive?

With Atticus as my witness, I drive a GM.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Everyone has an opinion. Most people you know it before they give it. It is those people whose opinions matter that you should look to. So whose opinions matter? Two things could have happened:

1) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because it was really not about free trade

2) The "Free Trade Democrats" were against this bill because of pure partisanship. They were willing to sacrifice their free trade principles to stick it to the President.

Who is telling the truth? So was this a free trade bill? Well the people who benefit most directly from free trade, American Businesses, large and small, are where I would look to to see if there we in fact a free trade bill that was good for American Business. Doesn't this seem reasonable? I would also look to the Unions because they have been against every free trade bill that has come along so their opposition would also be a good sign that this was for free trade.

Who cares what the politicians say. They can't be trusted. But clearly we can trust American Business groups. And they all supported the bill. Yes that is right. The Chamber of Commerce, the Manufactureres group, the small business association. Every business group with out exception and every major company invovled in international trade. There wasn't a single member of TechNet (the group that represents all the Silicon Valley companys) that was against this bill. They have over a thousand members. Not one opponent.

So every group that supported NAFTA and the creation of the WTO supported CAFTA and pretty much every group that was against NAFTA and the WTO were against CAFTA. The only change of sides occurred in congress. What does that tell you? The reason people changed sides was not substantive but political.

Cut the crap and face reality. The Democrats have abondoned free trade for partisanship. If you want to argue that this is not pro-free trade find me one major company (or major business group) involved in international trade that is against this bill (of course excluding company's and groups that would be hurt by free trade - textiles and sugar) and that will have some merit. It is the people really effected by the bill whose opinions counts. Everyone else's is just hot air.

Clearly, you are the partisan, and you don't care about free trade except as a political issue. Here I've posted something by a Democrat with a solid commitment to free trade, worrying about the administration's approach to CAFTA and the Doha round. If the admininstration gets CAFTA passed by promising to protect farm subsidies, that's a pretty mixed bag, isn't it? But you don't seem to care. Notwithstanding that the GOP controls the House and could have passed CAFTA itself, and so the only drama was whether GOP defections would tank the bill, all you keep doing is complaining about Democratic opposition. The person who prefers partisanship to talking about free trade is you.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cut the crap and face reality. The Democrats have abondoned free trade for partisanship. If you want to argue that this is not pro-free trade find me one major company (or major business group) involved in international trade that is against this bill (of course excluding company's and groups that would be hurt by free trade - textiles and sugar) and that will have some merit. It is the people really effected by the bill whose opinions counts. Everyone else's is just hot air.

Uh, I think that's the point of the comment quoted by Ty. It seems to be ok to buy off Republican votes by a wink and a nod about promising to go after Chinese clothing imports later, but God forbid we should be concerned about labor or environmental standards.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who cares what the politicians say. They can't be trusted. But clearly we can trust American Business groups.

This is too funny.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what brand car do you drive?

I believe in free trade. I buy my cars in Cuba.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I believe in free trade. I buy my cars in Cuba.

Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the Cuban trade embargo is a good idea? Can we all just agree that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice sound economic policy and national security to win Cuban votes in Florida?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the Cuban trade embargo is a good idea? Can we all just agree that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice sound economic policy and national security to win Cuban votes in Florida?

What is the national security sacrifice?