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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'll say it . . . I'm not outraged by the description.

We didn't think so, Comrade Nazi.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Nazi analogy was stupid and overblown.

Though I'm not sure if "hey, we treat prisoners a lot better than the Nazis did!" is really the argument we want to make.

I have to disagree with you on this. I think if you read it in context the statement is pretty reasonable. He is not saying our soldiers are Nazis. He is just saying he would not expect that sort of treatment in a US prison camp.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is one reason why I think the analogy was stupid -- it gives people an excuse to express mock horror ("you're comparing American soldiers to Nazis!") rather than address the real issue.

I will give you this. Not the smartest political move in this soundbite era.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So you are not upset about the pension system in general, but just about United?

I don't know. I don't understand whether United reflects a need to enforce the rules better, or a need for better rules.

United should be seen as a bankruptcy problem. The question is, how did it arrive in bankruptcy with an underfunded plan, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to disagree with you on this. I think if you read it in context the statement is pretty reasonable. He is not saying our soldiers are Nazis. He is just saying he would not expect that sort of treatment in a US prison camp.

With the state of public education, who can read in context? That's why we need vouchers, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See the second half of this. You have moderates from both parties supporting a bill, and the more extreme types opposing it.

Generally, to me that means it is a good bill. When Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan get together on something it just can't be good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Generally, to me that means it is a good bill. When Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan get together on something it just can't be good.

An awful lot of the work that legislators do is not particularly partisan, or ideologically charged, although it often escapes notice for that very reason. Ted Kennedy has a reputation for finding people on the other side of the aisle and getting things done. This is not the side of him that helps you guys raise money, but at least people like Orrin Hatch know to take him seriously and respect what he does.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
An awful lot of the work that legislators do is not particularly partisan, or ideologically charged, although it often escapes notice for that very reason. Ted Kennedy has a reputation for finding people on the other side of the aisle and getting things done. This is not the side of him that helps you guys raise money, but at least people like Orrin Hatch know to take him seriously and respect what he does.

Well thank you for enlightening me. It seems that I just forgot Ted Kennedy and Bush's work on "No Child Left Behind" (If you will notice I picked Pat Buchanan and not Arlen Specter - you are just itching to get up on that soap box).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well thank you for enlightening me. It seems that I just forgot Ted Kennedy and Bush's work on "No Child Left Behind" (If you will notice I picked Pat Buchanan and not Arlen Specter - you are just itching to get up on that soap box).

I well and truly don't understand why Teddy K. gets villified by the likes of Hank and Penske. (Cue photos of Chappaquidick and his gut.) Apparently rational people who will complain with a straight face about, e.g., judges getting "Borked" will then have a nutty about him.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Think about the US. We have internal free trade between the states. However, environmental laws are stricter in California and we have tougher labor laws - including a higher minimum wage. So does that mean that the California should impose a tariff on all goods coming from Alabama because they have a lower taxes, less strict environmental laws, and a lower minimum wage. etc. No. Tariffs and such would hurt everyone involved. Would it be nice if Alabama had better labor laws and environmental laws - yes - but just because they don't does not mean we should sacrifice free trade.

Thanks for the substantive response.

I agree with you that labor in general may be using this issue to scuttle a deal because they don't like free trade, but there are pro-free trade Democrats who have a problem with this disparate treatment, and a concern that it will be seen as encouragement to poor islands to not enforce their laws in order to get jobs.

Your above analogy is not quite apt. The comparable issue would be if Alabama allowed BMW to violate its lax wage and hour laws, and California wanted to slap an excise tax on M3s. But I guess I should read the treaty. As I understand it, it does contain labor and environmental provisions. But it doesn't treat violations of these provisions the same as it treats violations of the commercial provisions. In other words, if Grenada slaps a 50% tax on Budweiser, the US can retaliate, but if they violate their own labor provisions, we can't.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to disagree with you on this. I think if you read it in context the statement is pretty reasonable. He is not saying our soldiers are Nazis. He is just saying he would not expect that sort of treatment in a US prison camp.

Unfortunately, these days, I do expect it. That makes me very sad.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Thanks for the substantive response.

I agree with you that labor in general may be using this issue to scuttle a deal because they don't like free trade, but there are pro-free trade Democrats who have a problem with this disparate treatment, and a concern that it will be seen as encouragement to poor islands to not enforce their laws in order to get jobs.

Yes - but that is not enough reason to kill the bill. Even if they don't enforce their laws we are still better off with the free trade.

Originally posted by Not Bob Your above analogy is not quite apt. The comparable issue would be if Alabama allowed BMW to violate its lax wage and hour laws, and California wanted to slap an excise tax on M3s..

I think this does happen. States go through fierce competition to get company's to open plants in their states. They offer tax breaks, suspension of labor laws etc. What is the difference between repealing the law and ignoring the law. Many states do all sorts of stuff to encourage business in their states yet California never does anything retalitory. We just offer other incentives to get companys to come here. But the answer is not retalitory tariffs or taxes. In addition, California does not reach agreements with Alabama that says if you don't uphold certain labor laws or environmental laws we will retaliate. We may bitch about it but we don't shoot ourself in the head by trying to screw with free trade (plus it is illegal). And I think we are better off because of it. Giving California the ability to retaliate economically if Alabama reduced its labor protections or environmental laws would not make the US better of. Trade wars would start and everyone would get screwed. But for some reason this logic is not applied to the international community.

Originally posted by Not Bob But I guess I should read the treaty. As I understand it, it does contain labor and environmental provisions. But it doesn't treat violations of these provisions the same as it treats violations of the commercial provisions. In other words, if Grenada slaps a 50% tax on Budweiser, the US can retaliate, but if they violate their own labor provisions, we can't.

That is still better than having no treaty at all. Right now we can't retaliate on the commercial stuff either. The treaty might be better with the retaliation clause for labor and the environment, but without it the treat is still better than the current situation.

There a lot of "free trade" Republicans that are against this treaty to. But the textile and sugar industrys are trying to kill it and they have a lot of money to throw around. Like I said, all businesses are for free trade except for the area which they trade in.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to disagree with you on this. I think if you read it in context the statement is pretty reasonable. He is not saying our soldiers are Nazis. He is just saying he would not expect that sort of treatment in a US prison camp.

Stick around another year or so, and you will stop trying to make such subtle points to Club.


But seriously -- I do think the statement was a bit overblown, and the predictable result is that those who are unwilling to advocate torture openly get to ignore the substance of the speech and instead fulminate that "America's soldiers are owed an apology -- they aren't Nazis!". Check on the WSJ for that approach.


eta: Yeah, yeah -- STP

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Generally, to me that means it is a good bill. When Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan get together on something it just can't be good.

Unless it's a buffet.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I well and truly don't understand why Teddy K. gets villified by the likes of Hank and Penske. (Cue photos of Chappaquidick and his gut.) Apparently rational people who will complain with a straight face about, e.g., judges getting "Borked" will then have a nutty about him.

I don't like him because he seems to have a knee jerk reaction to free trade, military spending and tax cuts. However, he doesn't want any bases in Massachussets closed, he wants the excise tax on Yachts cut (when people buy less Yachts it cuts employment in his son's district in Rhode Island), and loves export subsidies. His slimey conduct at Chappaquidick does not help either. It may have been an accident, but you don't wait ten hours to report it when there is a dead woman in your car.