Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
And the reason we went in there at all was.....what again?

We destroyed terrorist training camps. Great. Set them up for elections. Yippee.

Are you suggesting that we should not have invaded Afghanistan?

How much better it would have been if we had just put a few more boots on the ground in Tora Bora and captured/killed/anally gang-banged the man personally responsible for 9/11 and his loyal henchmen.

Indeed, it would have been better to finish the job.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
The speed with which we won that war was amazing. The fact that our casualtys were so low was also amazing. Do you realize how many of the Northern Alliance troops had died before we got involved. That had lost pretty much the whole country. We turned it around and in no time took the whole country back, and with very little casualtys. It was pure military genius.

I agree with this. The military campaign to knock over the Taliban was extremely well-executed.

Do you know how hard it is to capture one man. We have enough trouble in this country doing it. In Afghanistan there were whole swaths of the country we did not control. Foreign leaders, if they don't want to be caught, are almost never caught unless they decide to stay. Saddam took out Kuwait in less than a day but the royal family escaped. It is not to hard to slip out when a country is at war.

Aw, c'mon, spanky. Remember Bush's oath? "Dead or alive?" I mean, I'm a Democrat, and seeing our president, steely-eyed, his face a mask of determination -- well, it made my loins tingle. Don't tell me it didn't do yours as well! Hell, Penske's STILL tumescent about it.

Well, just imagine our communal disappointment when not only have we not caught him in a manhunt that's lasted longer than WWII, but Bush -- having rediscovered the advantages of "containment" -- now says he doesn't even care if we catch him. Now, think about the hurt that made for us all. Two percent, my ass. If we're gonna give up on something just because it's hard, why say we're gonna do it in the first place? That's just not The Bush Way, right?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
Greenland Norse? - I can see how that would get a little old. Anway I will probably hit it at the end of this weak. Better than GG&S. That is quite a compliment.

Was I right about Jared's voice?

His voice is odd. I think he grew up in the US (I was thinking I read upper midwest?), but maybe spending so much time in different parts of the world has affected his speach patterns. ??

I don't think Collapse would be as good without the GG&S underpinnings, but I find it more interesting because not so much time is spent ramming the theory from GG&S into your head (maybe I'm just a quick study?). Collapse is pretty much all case studies, so it seems more interesting. I liked learning about the Easter Islanders and their downfall. I'm very excited to get to the portion where he discusses LA in greater depth. Unless he concludes that we're all dying in the next 50 years here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) I already explained before that it will immediately reduce by eighty percent, the tariffs on goods already being traded and will pretty much eliminate all tariffs in the next twenty years. That is what free trade is all about.

2) You were shocked before when I said I couldn't see a reason why business would support the deal if it was not a free trade agreement. You said you would provide one and never did. I am still waiting for that reason (like I said before, who has the most to gain from free trade - american business. So if it really wasn't a free trade deal it would be in the pecuniary interest to support it).

3) That article you cited only talks about labour standards. There I thought it was going to be about free trade but it was not. You said before that it really did not increase free trade. It reduces almost all the tariffs.

(1) I don't have a problem with reducing tariffs. Nor does Cardin. The problem with CAFTA is with its other provisions. Free trade may be "all about" reducing tariffs, but CAFTA does other stuff, too.

(2) I don't know how to respond to this because your insistence on talking about labeling CAFTA as a "free trade deal" creates more heat than light. Businesses support some things that we all should like, because they augment competition -- e.g., lower tariffs. Businesses support other things that we should not like, because they have nothing to do with competition -- e.g., gutting workplace-safety laws. You can label both as "free trade," but that label doesn't add much.

(3) Unlike your posts, that article seems to be informed by what CAFTA actually says. If you want to have a discussion about whether tariffs are good or bad, fine -- I'm with you that tariffs are bad. However, that discussion doesn't have all that much to do with why people voted for or against CAFTA.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you suggesting that we should not have invaded Afghanistan?

Yes, that's exactly it. (Whapp - sound of hand upside Ty's head).

Indeed, it would have been better to finish the job.

Inartfully, I was trying to say that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree with this. The military campaign to knock over the Taliban was extremely well-executed.



Aw, c'mon, spanky. Remember Bush's oath? "Dead or alive?" I mean, I'm a Democrat, and seeing our president, steely-eyed, his face a mask of determination -- well, it made my loins tingle. Don't tell me it didn't do yours as well! Hell, Penske's STILL tumescent about it.

Well, just imagine our communal disappointment when not only have we not caught him in a manhunt that's lasted longer than WWII, but Bush -- having rediscovered the advantages of "containment" -- now says he doesn't even care if we catch him. Now, think about the hurt that made for us all. Two percent, my ass. If we're gonna give up on something just because it's hard, why say we're gonna do it in the first place? That's just not The Bush Way, right?

I think that there would be a certainb visceral satisfaction in getting bin Laden, but substantively I don't think it would make any difference. Taking out a terrorist state like Iraq, even if it takes more casualties in the long run will yield more benefits.

Now we need to keep moving. Syria and then Iran. And of course once the Israelis wall off Gaza they should be unleashed to rid the whole of their land of its terrorist populace.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think that per rules set forth in the Princess Bride, 98% means he can be brought back.

I think the term was pretty much dead but not all dead.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the term was pretty much dead but not all dead.

I'm extrapolating, since you weren't kind enough to use the right phrase and instead used a deceptively precise percentage thingy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yes, that's exactly it. (Whapp - sound of hand upside Ty's head).
.

Its urine stained cowards like you who yearn to either sell out the nation to Islamofacist aggression or Hillary's brand of Maoism. Thankfully the rightminded of America will see to it you cannot accomplish your lo-minded treason electorally and our elected REpublican leaders will see to it your Islamofacist friends are thwarted militarily. Perhaps you should take Mrs. Sheehan and move to a country more in line with your weak kneed approach. Like France. I'll toss in 200 euros for one-way plane tickets

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
His voice is odd. I think he grew up in the US (I was thinking I read upper midwest?), but maybe spending so much time in different parts of the world has affected his speech patterns. ??

I don't think Collapse would be as good without the GG&S underpinnings, but I find it more interesting because not so much time is spent ramming the theory from GG&S into your head (maybe I'm just a quick study?). Collapse is pretty much all case studies, so it seems more interesting. I liked learning about the Easter Islanders and their downfall. I'm very excited to get to the portion where he discusses LA in greater depth. Unless he concludes that we're all dying in the next 50 years here.

Here's his Wikpaedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

Not overly helpful with the speech thing.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Here's his Wikpaedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

Not overly helpful with the speech thing.

My biggest fear when Ty started posting politics on the FB was that we would end up having the PB infiltrated with books, sex, and cooking posts. If only he never would have hit the confirm post button (or had been faster with the edit and delete).

And now my worst fears are coming true.

Hank, can we get a ruling?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think that there would be a certainb visceral satisfaction in getting bin Laden, but substantively I don't think it would make any difference. Taking out a terrorist state like Iraq, even if it takes more casualties in the long run will yield more benefits.

Ah. The tumescence of moral conviction, left limp and seeking solace in realpolitik. I am truly sorry for your loss, Penske. I'm told it happens to the best of us.

Now we need to keep moving. Syria and then Iran. And of course once the Israelis wall off Gaza they should be unleashed to rid the whole of their land of its terrorist populace.

But there's always the promise of excitement through NEW foreign adventures, drawn from a limitless supply of American troops and firepower! Kudos to you, my man. Long may it proudly wave.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) I don't have a problem with reducing tariffs. Nor does Cardin. The problem with CAFTA is with its other provisions. Free trade may be "all about" reducing tariffs, but CAFTA does other stuff, too.

(2) I don't know how to respond to this because your insistence on talking about labeling CAFTA as a "free trade deal" creates more heat than light. Businesses support some things that we all should like, because they augment competition -- e.g., lower tariffs. Businesses support other things that we should not like, because they have nothing to do with competition -- e.g., gutting workplace-safety laws. You can label both as "free trade," but that label doesn't add much.

(3) Unlike your posts, that article seems to be informed by what CAFTA actually says. If you want to have a discussion about whether tariffs are good or bad, fine -- I'm with you that tariffs are bad. However, that discussion doesn't have all that much to do with why people voted for or against CAFTA.

OK now you are changing your tune. You said before that CAFTA wasn't really a free trade agreement. You said you could be pro-free trade but against this agreement. Now you are acknowledging it is a free trade agreement, but that you don't like the treaty for other reasons. Nothing to do with free trade. And I am glad you have acknowledged that. CAFTA is a standard free trade agreement the only problems that the Democrats have is that it doesn't include enough labor provisions and environmental provisions.

The ironic thing about this is that these free trade agreements used to never include this stuff. Over the years more and more of these riders have been attached to appease liberals. If you are really pro-free trade then you would endorse this bill without any riders. If you won't support the bill that is because you place these riders in higher prefernce to the bill.

If this were a labour agreement between the United States and CAFTA countries and someone would not sign the bill because it did not include free trade provision, they couldn't then claim they are for higher labor standards. The same logic works the other way.

If you are for free trade, and think reducing tariff barriers is good, you would endorse this bill. Otherwise you think reducing tariff barriers is only good if you put in labor and environmental standards. That is fine but don't try and claim to be a free trader.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're there, aren't we?

The husband of one of my wife's co-workers is serving in Afghanistan right now. She'll be so happy to hear that there's no fighting going on. She's been so worried.

Everything is relative. What is going on there right now is a tea party compared to what was going on before. I think at one point the russians were losing two thousand men a month.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap


But there's always the promise of excitement through NEW foreign adventures, drawn from a limitless supply of American troops and firepower!

Being the sole superpower is a big responsibility and one that does not offer the respite of resting on one's laurels.

You got it want it. Eye of the tiger.