A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So are you chapped that the NRCC figured out that the rules didn't apply but that the NDCC didn't figure it out?

It's an interesting question whether the callers fall under the definition of "telemarketer" for these calls, because they neither seek to sell something or a donation, but if they are:

• 16 CFR Sec. 310.4
  (b) Pattern of calls.
  (1) It is an abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for a telemarketer to engage in, or for a seller to cause a telemarketer to engage in, the following conduct:
  (i) Causing any telephone to ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number;

(I'm not so pathetic as to have run to look this up; I happen to be researching a DNC question today.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Learn to read before you accuse other people of lying.

You were lying or you can't read: The important line was: "which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies."

In other words, we were pushing for a deal that wiped out most or all agricultural tariffs (that is what is meant by "bold action on agricultural tariffs") and that we turned down a compromise that would have included caps on our own subsidies (instead of eliminating them). We could have gotten a deal that merely limited our subsidies but we were pushing for a deal that eliminated all agricultural tariffs).

The bold deal Bush was promoting would have eliminated our subsidies and Europes subsidies.

The bold deal on agricultural tariffs, that we were pushing, is exaclty what the third world wanted so they could sell their products to Europe.

The compromises that were being bandied about (by the Europeans) weren't really trade deals, and we insisted on one.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I want China to have better environmental standards and I want China to do a better job protecting their workers (especially miners). But those are separate issues from free trade. Free trade is a simple fix that can improve everyone's lives.

How do you propose inducing China to agree to these protections if not through limitations on trade?

Utah and California both have to defer to the federal government on some issues, such as environmental policy. California can go to the feds to get Utah to follow the same rule. There's no equivalent mechanism between nation-states, unless you want to surrender some sovereignty to the U.N.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
It's an interest question whether the callers fall under the definition of "telemarketer" for these calls, because they neither seek to sell something or a donation, but if they are:

• 16 CFR Sec. 310.4
  (b) Pattern of calls.
  (1) It is an abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for a telemarketer to engage in, or for a seller to cause a telemarketer to engage in, the following conduct:
  (i) Causing any telephone to ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number;

(I'm not so pathetic as to have run to look this up; I happen to be researching a DNC question today.)

It's funny that the complaints are always about the Republicans -- but I guess Burger is right, it's really all about their first amendment right to direct voters to the wrong polling places, harrass anyone who is voting against them, and tell millions of people to call the Democratic candidate's home numbers.

I'm just glad the Bush Administration is finally discovering the Constitution!

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's funny that the complaints are always about the Republicans -- but I guess Burger is right, it's really all about their first amendment right to direct voters to the wrong polling places, harrass anyone who is voting against them, and tell millions of people to call the Democratic candidate's home numbers.

I'm just glad the Bush Administration is finally discovering the Constitution!

As I'm about to advise my client: there is some question whether or not this violates the law, but it is certain that the people who have gone to the effort of putting their name on the DNC list are going to be annoyed by the call regardless.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Liberal" is a subjective term. I'm not sure any one person's definition is completely in agreement with another's.

But I do know this for certain about "liberalism" - it's dead. Right now, millions of voters are throwing Republicans out of office because they spent like Democrats. The Democratic Party has adopted huge chunks of the classic GOP platform to win. Just look at the Democrats who are poised to take over battleground states - they're all moderates.

Don't blame Bill Clinton for sentencing the liberals to death and forcing the Dems to the center. That's putting the chicken before the egg. The voters had already rejected liberalism - Bill was just being a smart politician and following public sentiment.

In many regards, Karl Rove is right - the GOP can't lose today. The funny thing is, it'll be the Old GOP - the real Republicans - that win. So some of them will be Democrats. So what? That's just a name.

But I thought the above was a fairly astute observation. Anytime I think that, I get no reply. Is it because I just cited the obvious?

The self-debate over whether I'm on the money or an imbecile drives me mad.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But I thought the above was a fairly astute observation. Anytime I think that, I get no reply. Is it because I just cited the obvious?

The self-debate over whether I'm on the money or an imbecile drives me mad.

It's all always a synthesis. Liberals today don't think what liberals did in JFK's day (actually, there may be more overlap there than there is with McGovern's day in some ways), and conservatives today don't sound much like they did back when I was a boy.

Labels persist because people like nice simple dichotomies, especially in a two party state. But there are five or six distinct political philosophies out there with broad support, and the party that wins crams three or four of them uncomfortably under their umbrella. Rove things he can have one or two dominate and keep winning - he can't.

Long term, in this society, a move to the center is almost always the way to win. Bush's 8 years are an exception.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's funny that the complaints are always about the Republicans -- but I guess Burger is right, it's really all about their first amendment right to direct voters to the wrong polling places, harrass anyone who is voting against them, and tell millions of people to call the Democratic candidate's home numbers.

Pretty sure the southern Democrats were the unbeaten, untied champions of voter intimidation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Pretty sure the southern Democrats were the unbeaten, untied champions of voter intimidation.

Going back 40 years to find someone as bad as today's Rs, aye?

Point conceded - and most of these guys are now in your camp.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Pretty sure the southern Democrats were the unbeaten, untied champions of voter intimidation.

you only have to walk into any inner city polling place in Detroit or Cleveland or youngstown, etc. to see Democratic party operatives AT and around the polling booths "helping" voters vote properly. The Dems should be ashamed on so many levels by what it done in their names.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Going back 40 years to find someone as bad as today's Rs, aye?

Point conceded - and most of these guys are now in your camp.

Why is it that apparently only democratic voters fall for all these "dirty" tricks?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you only have to walk into any inner city polling place in Detroit or Cleveland or youngstown, etc. to see Democratic party operatives AT and around the polling booths "helping" voters vote properly. The Dems should be ashamed on so many levels by what it done in their names.

Well, I'm heartened to know someone is setting them straight!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you start making sense about the word 'liberal," I'll take your views on the meaning of "free trade" seriously. Until then, it's pointless semantics. Even after then, actually. Have fun with the other "true free traders."

You are being incredibly dishonest about this whole thing. When CAFTA came up you argued with me for pages pointing out the problems with CAFTA. And none of the problems you had with CAFTA concerned its free trade provisions (often free traders will criticize these agreements because they include tariffs or other things that don't promote free trade or they criticize the agreement for not going far enough - eliminating enough trade barriers) but you argued it did not have enough environmental or labor provisions (a criticism no free trade group would ever make - you would never see the CATO group, the FT, the Economist, the BR, ICC etc. come with that kind of criticism). Only Unions and Environmental groups that have agendas other than free trade, come up with problems like that.

I specifically remember one exchange where you said that free trade deals should only be instituted on a "level playing field". I can't quote it because it was from over a year ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday. You said that if the other countries environmental standards or labor standards were not up to ours, then that was not a level playing field. I pointed out that under those rules, a free trade agreement could never go through. The level playing field argument is not an argument of a free trader. It would be similar to saying you are a capitalist, but the only capitalist system you would accept is one where every one has the same income. No organization with any credibility in free trade would ever use the term "level playing field". Free traders know there is no such thing as a level playing field.

After showing you really don't care about free trade, you try and criticize Bush for not doing enough on free trade. That would be like saying that Bush has not cut taxes enough for the rich after initially taking a position against Bush's tax cut. And you think you have standing to criticize Bush because sometimes the FT has criticized Bush on trade: please.

First we have not seen the FT's criticism of Bush. The one article you can come up with that criticizes Bush on free trade actually praises Bush's commitment to free trade, and points out the only real criticism on Doha that can be level against Bush is he pushed to hard for a more substantive agreement. In addition, it points out that Bush pushed really hard on Doha, reviving it many times when it was having trouble.

Posting that sentence from the Economist without the subsequent "ironic" section was misleading and dishonest. When I take the time to post the quotes and painstakingly point out how you were dishonest, you ignore that post. When I make a brief summary of the prior post (in which I don't go through all the evidence because I have already done so) you quote that post (ignoring the prior post) saying that I am being sloppy in my criticsim. That was also dishonest.

You are obsessed with Bush and it is obvious to everyone but you. You criticize him for pushing through a free trade agreement and then argue he has not done enough for free trade. Only a mind completely blinded by passion and hate could try and justify such hypocrisy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, I'm heartened to know someone is setting them straight!

remember I am on ignore by most of them. it takes a quote by someone like you for my good works to get out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
How do you propose inducing China to agree to these protections if not through limitations on trade?

Utah and California both have to defer to the federal government on some issues, such as environmental policy. California can go to the feds to get Utah to follow the same rule. There's no equivalent mechanism between nation-states, unless you want to surrender some sovereignty to the U.N.

Actually that is not true. If California has stricter rules we can't go to the federal government to complain. The Federal government is under no obligation to make sure Utah’s environmental laws are as strict as California s laws. We would have to get congress to pass a sweeping law. And remember it is only in this century that Congress has addressed environmental and labor issues (that was left to the states), where all along it was the governments duty to prevent any state from erecting barriers.

There are international environmental treaties and labor treaties. You don't have to go through trade treaties to get there. The Global Warming treaty was not tied to any free trade treaty. In fact, it would have killed one if it was attached to it.

When negotiating free trade agreements, nothing angers a country more than when you try to get it to change its internal policy. Asking them to drop their tariffs is bad enough, but if you demand that they pass internal laws that effect labor and the environment, then they really start thinking you are interfering with their internal affairs.

What if in a free trade treaty China demanded that we make our emission standards less onerous. In other words, we should accept more smog. Or demanded that we tax our business more, because they have higher taxes and that creates an "unlevel" playing field. We would never accept that.

It is hard enough to reach free trade agreements. Attaching these labor and environmental standards just makes it more difficult. And that is why the Unions and EGs insist on them, because they don't want the treaties to pass in the first place.