Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Would you please clarify that I did not post the shit that it seems i did here?

Sugar, i edited to do so, but now you have taken an agressive stance to my comment on Skeks propaganda.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sugar, i edited to do so, but now you have taken an agressive stance to my comment on Skeks propaganda.

A. Never, ever, ever, call me sugar. Unless you're willing to put out. It's become, like, a personal rule.

B. In the face of "Oh migawd, Condoleeza didn't face into the camera, she must be conceding that Bush LIED!!!", I have found that an aggressive stance is not a bad thing.

C. I laughed. I cried. Then, I thought to myself, HANK made it seem that I said what someone else of fewer merits actually said. It was painful. It hurt. If you cared, you would send make-up drugs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Our allies are still helping with the search for the WMD, but it's not going well.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore

Oh, yeah, next time I ask for non-cynical centrist types to pop up, please do. Or, maybe, just shut the fuck up, partisan hack.

Bilmore, you used to offer intelligent critique of policy. Now, you merely crack wise and insult people. Oh for the nuanced, sophisticated bilmore of yore.

Let's see.

1) The Bush administration had multiple selling points for the war, but the administration could not have sold the war without claiming Iraq had germ and nuclear weapons and that Iraq was linked to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S.

You have never provided a credible argument Iraq was linked to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S. You can't honestly claim that giving money to the families of Pali suicide bombers is a link to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S.

2) Assuming the public actually would be willing to go to war over the "root causes of terrorism" --- a highly dubious assumption --- you refuse to provide credible arguments that an invasion on Iran wouldn't have been a far more effective way to oppose the root causes of terrorists threats to the U.S.

3) Assuming the public is not willing to go to war over the "root causes of terrorism and just wants to oppose terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S. and people that assist them, you provide no argument that a limited policy of invasions (like in Afganistan and Pakistan) and an extremely aggresive policy of assassinations, wouldn't be a more effective and cheaper way to oppose terrorism.

4) You have never provided a credible argument that free trade with a country that has a far lower standard of living than the U.S. and a highly educated workforce helps U.S. workers.

You've said that it helps people as consumers. But you offer no argument that the least wealthy or lowest earning half (or even three quarters) of US workers gain more in purchasing power than they lose in wages. In fact, you and club have retreated to saying US workers have no right to a wage premium over workers in other countries.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by bilmore



Bilmore, you used to offer intelligent critique of policy. Now, you merely crack wise and insult people. Oh for the nuanced, sophisticated bilmore of yore.

Let's see.

1) The Bush administration had multiple selling points for the war, but the administration could not have sold the war without claiming Iraq had germ and nuclear weapons and that Iraq was linked to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S.

You have never provided a credible argument Iraq was linked to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S. You can't honestly claim that giving money to the families of Pali suicide bombers is a link to terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S.

2) Assuming the public actually would be willing to go to war over the "root causes of terrorism" --- a highly dubious assumption --- you refuse to provide credible arguments that an invasion on Iran wouldn't have been a far more effective way to oppose the root causes of terrorists threats to the U.S.

3) Assuming the public is not willing to go to war over the "root causes of terrorism and just wants to oppose terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S. and people that assist them, you provide no argument that a limited policy of invasions (like in Afganistan and Pakistan) and an extremely aggresive policy of assassinations, wouldn't be a more effective and cheaper way to oppose terrorism.

4) You have never provided a credible argument that free trade with a country that has a far lower standard of living than the U.S. and a highly educated workforce helps U.S. workers.

You've said that it helps people as consumers. But you offer no argument that the least wealthy or lowest earning half (or even three quarters) of US workers gain more in purchasing power than they lose in wages. In fact, you and club have retreated to saying US workers have no right to a wage premium over workers in other countries.

Yeah bilmore.
And once you're done with this lot, there's some other shit that bothers me about you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. Never, ever, ever, call me sugar. Unless you're willing to put out. It's become, like, a personal rule.

Yeah, you're more Splenda than sugar

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Bilmore, you used to offer intelligent critique of policy. Now, you merely crack wise and insult people. Oh for the nuanced, sophisticated bilmore of yore.

I apologize. As I wrote that last night, it was supposed to come off as a joke. (Weird mood, I guess.) Reading it this morning, I can't imagine why I thought that.

[bilmore]

Friday Funnies

[Hank Chinaski]

Ohmmmmmmmm delete/not worth screwing up the margins

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
[i4) You have never provided a credible argument that free trade with a country that has a far lower standard of living than the U.S. and a highly educated workforce helps U.S. workers.

You've said that it helps people as consumers. But you offer no argument that the least wealthy or lowest earning half (or even three quarters) of US workers gain more in purchasing power than they lose in wages. In fact, you and club have retreated to saying US workers have no right to a wage premium over workers in other countries.

Well the answer is so what. The market moves to efficiency and people move to fill the jobs that exist. That the available jobs change has gone on for ever. The Unions here actually required the Newspapers to keep jobs available for mechanical typesetters when the papers moved to computer. Of course newspapers will be pretty all gone in 15 years so the Union is fighting a dying cause there. People in outsourced jobs need to adjust and find jobs- Ty's discouraged worker is such a terrible image for what someone existing in this country should be. We still have an incredible standard of living for such a large country, even for the poor.

But I wander, I think your original point was that the workers will rise up. I don't think so. I think each worker looks to his own place.
For the steel worker, being able to get shirts .50$ cheaper justifies closing a factory in Maine. "buy American" is long gone. To me the clearest example was the late 70's when all our parent (not mine they lived in Detroit) started buying foreign cars. Steelworkers bought Toyotas thinking fuck the UAW guys- guess what 4 years later it caught up with them. "buy American" is really one of those situations where the "I didn't protest when they came for the Jews" argument would fit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


Also from NZ, good news for Club.

I'm telling you, someone high up is reading this board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Friday Funnies

This explains why shows like The Capital Gang and McLaughlin Group are safe, sterile zones where conservatives can roam freely without the threat of running into a lefty idea. They're zoos to ensure the survival of conservative ideas that can't compete in the marketplace.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This explains why shows like The Capital Gang and McLaughlin Group are safe, sterile zones where conservatives can roam freely without the threat of running into a lefty idea. They're zoos to ensure the survival of conservative ideas that can't compete in the marketplace.

We'd welcome running into a new lefty idea. But the newest model is circa 1967,

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"buy American" is really one of those situations where the "I didn't protest when they came for the Jews" argument would fit.

Sorry, Hank, but you know the rules. You brought up Nazis first, so you lose.

[sgtclub]

Been gone a few days, so I assumed that the pledge case was discussed? Any consensus?