In comparison to Nancy Pelosi and her decision to shut down any voting on the Colombia free trade agreement, the Bill Clinton administration looks positively beneficent, even to a rock-ribbed Republican. No matter what his wife thinks about it, Bill Clinton made the right decision in going against Democrat-friendly labor unions and members of his own party, taking a free trade agreement that George H.W. Bush started, and passing it. NAFTA has proved to be an economic benefit to all three countries.
Today, the Democratic Party is the Protectionist Party. Hillary and Obama are anti-NAFTA, and they join Speaker Pelosi in being anti free trade with Colombia, a nation that has made significant political, economic and security-related strides since President Uribe was elected. In almost every relevant category, Colombia's progress has been remarkable . A nation that has made such improvements should be rewarded by the United States, not slapped in the face
, but that's exactly what our Democratic "leaders" are doing. Here
is what Hillary said:
The Colombia free trade deal, in my view, is not appropriate because of the history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers in Colombia. There is an argument that there has been some improvement and change by the Colombian government but it is not enough for me.
"Some" improvement and change? The murder rate of trade unionists is lower than the murder rate for the country as a whole, which happened to drop 40% in the last five years. Murders of trade unionists dropped 79% or 87% over the same period, depending on who you talk to, and most of those murders weren't even related to union activities.
But that apparently isn't good enough. Instead of strenghthening ties with a nation that has mutual interests with the U.S., Hillary and Obama and Pelosi would rather put that relationship at risk. Barack Obama is a pea in the very same anti free trade pod as Hillary and Pelosi. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the three. How's that for a "new kind of politics"?
The way in which Pelosi shut down the vote is particularly sleazy :
Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.
Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.
For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.
Pelosi's decision is baffling when you consider our slowing economy and the fact that the trade pact clearly benefits the United States economically:
Colombia already sells nearly all of its products to the United States duty-free. U.S. products sold to Colombia are subject to tariffs, which run up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods and higher for agricultural exports. The trade agreement would eliminate more than 80 percent of those tariffs.
Opposing this agreement makes no economic sense, but apparently it makes political sense, serving as a sop to labor unions and other protectionists in the donkey party. Harvard professor and former New York Times reporter Edward Schumacher-Matos blows away Hillary's and Obama's and Pelosi's arguments against the agreement.
A good part of the improvement in Colombia is because FARC, the Marxist guerilla group, is losing its fight against the government. To quote Abu Muqawama , Colombia is really kicking the snot out of them
these days. The result has been a safer country, and aid from the U.S. has helped in this endeavor. And why shouldn't we aid the Colombia government against FARC? Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez gives them money and arms
, according to der Spiegel.
Speaking of Chavez, the socialist and wannabe dictator is continuing his grab for more power unto himself. The Economist :
The notion that Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez would ease his radical policies after last December’s humbling defeat in a national referendum on constitutional reform has been quickly disabused. His administration has launched new attacks on the private sector—taking over two food companies and in recent days announcing plans to nationalise the cement industry. The three foreign cement-makers that dominate the industry have been targeted, but few companies anywhere in private sector will feel safe after the recent government moves.
[...]
Amid higher food prices and shortages of some basic foodstuffs, in mid-March the government turned on private food businesses. It nationalised Centro de Almacenes Congelados (Cealco), the country’s largest cold storage and distribution company, and Lácteos Los Andes, a dairy producer responsible for around 30% of Venezuela milk production. These companies are to be incorporated into Productora y Distribuidora de Alimentos (PDVAL), a food distributor and subsidiary of state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
Not satisfied with cement, Chavez has now set his sights on nationalizing steel , and his armed forces are now occupying 32 sugar plantations
. Apparently, Chavez is so afraid of getting whacked with a sugar cane that he's decided to make a preemptive strike. We have a golden opportunity to strengthen a relationship with an improving Democratic nation that unfortunately is next door to a president who is a socialist kook. Too bad our Democratic "leaders" would rather let that opportunity pass.
__________________________
Whats your feelings on illegal immigration?
NAFTA is one of the major reasons why there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming to the US, thats asfaik.
The other major reason why there are so many "illegal" immigrants coming to the US is that about 100 years ago, a lot of unwanted Irish and Italians were coming over [No Irish Need Apply, NINA]
I never had an good feelings for Pelosi, she seems too similar to a mindless hippie.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
By most accounts,
NAFTA has benefited the Mexican economy. How do you think the flow of illegal immigrants would go if Mexico were in worse economic shape than it is?
Slow down.
What's the sound? More jobs being outsourced from the US. Can we just slow down this gold rush.
You say 'protectionist', as if it is something bad. By your logic, aren't we protecting our national interest in Iraq? Or are we really trying to open up free trade with Iraq and Iran and the only way to do it is to go to war.
This mad rush for globalization wouldn't be hurt by slowing it down, taking a look at the labor practices of the countries involved. (see China)
I am surprised that you would support doing business with a country
people for supporting human rights.
that has murdered 2,534
Death Squads and Free Trade
Strange that some would be so up in arms about Saddam Hussein murdering his own people, but if a country murders people said to be supporting unions, suddenly we are ripe to do business with them?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Ignoring the trends
Nathan Newman is big on the total numbers, but he completely elides the progress made in the last five years. Uribe has significantly curtailed crime, including crimes committed by right-wing paramilitant groups.
As for jobs being outsourced, that trend hasn't changed in the last 75 years, and yet our economy is more or less at full employment, with only two mild recessions since 1982.
Trade protectionism benefits certain selected industries but hurts the economy as a whole. I don't understand how you can somehow connect trade barriers with the situations in Iraq and Iran. They're really two separate topics.
You're not saying anything we don't already know
You've answered your (implied) question.
And assuming "hurts the economy" means that the pie gets smaller, you're very likely right. But that doesn't even address reasons why people are not for free trade.
We're at "full employment" (I love that phrase), but the new jobs that have replaced those ones destroyed by free trade agreements are of lower quality. Free trade isn't good for everyone, it's only good for most people with a large part of the gains going to people who only have 2 or 3 yachts.
I don't know your profession, but I'll bet your job hasn't been eliminated due to outsourcing and/or free trade. Would you be ready to take a 50% reduction in pay so that "the economy" grows faster? I'll take slow economic growth (and I surmise that you would, too) if it means a more equitable distribution of the economic pie.
The Democrats are protecting their base. What would you have them do? I guarantee that if free trade was causing MBAs to have to take $7/hr jobs at the local fast food joint, there'd be a stop to it yesterday.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
If your thesis about...
...the replaced jobs being worse than the lost ones, then you'd see that reflected in declines in GDP, per capita income and the like. Hasn't happened.
Huh?
I must have missed the that part in my macro classes.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
+1
I missed that, too.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Think it through, stinerman
economically speaking, how is protectionism better off for you or me or anyone else in the final analysis? More importantly, how is it even fair to free people to spend, buy or invest as they please?
It's funny, when there is talk of a merger of some kind, like right now between Delta and smaller airline, the immediate concern is the consumer...how will this affect the consumer? how will this affect prices?
But when it's about a tariff, or a subsidy or a tax or any government measure of force that would keep some jobs from being outsourced or keep some import from being viable, nobody bats an eye, nobody asks the same question.
Done
I've "thought it through".
Free trade, generally speaking, is better for the country as a whole, but there are winners and losers. I'm worried about the losers. That's as simply as I can put it.
That's true. In Supercapitalism Reich makes this point. There are essentially 3 things that exist in a sort of tradeoff: prices, wages, and returns.
If you want high wages for work, you have to be willing to pay more at the till or be willing to take a hit on your investments. You can't have high wages, high return, and low prices.
I'm willing to pay a bit more so that good unskilled labor jobs aren't sent elsewhere. It's worse for the consumer, but it's better for the citizen. In general, the economy might be a bit smaller, but the wealth distribution is better.
We need not keep around the horse buggy whip makers past their time, but we do need to give them generous help in moving to a new career.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Re: "It's worse for the
Re: "It's worse for the consumer, but it's better for the citizen."
When you say "citizen", perhaps you just chose the wrong word, or perhaps that word choice reflects your view in some way. I really don't know. But needless to say, consumers are citizens, too. In fact, many consumers are lower-income citizens whose standard of living would be lower if prices were higher due to protectionism, even if some jobs were protected and maybe -- maybe -- wages higher on average.
When ya' really boil it down, protectionism vs. free trade is largely a microcosm of the broader trade-off between capitalism and highly "managed" economies. The trade-offs are pretty much the same. My view: If you want a higher standard of living for most people? Then you go with a high degree of capitalism (free markets), although probably not pure laissez-faire capitalism. If you want to regulate or otherwise artificially raise wages, at least in the short run, and are willing to accept a lower standard of living for most people, you move in the direction of a more managed economy.
So recognize protectionism for what it is: a lower degree of capitalism, with similar trade-offs whether we are talking about trade within a country or across borders.
Protectionism, of course, adds another philisophical element: Leaving aside the economic impact on most Americans, or assuming it, arguendo, to be unchanged under either a free trade or a protectionist scenario, is it a bad thing for an American worker to lose his job to a non-American? For some people the answer is obviously yes. Not for me. If some dirt poor, hungry guy with a hungry family in some poor country gets a job at the expense of an American making, say, $40k a year, who also has access to unemployment benefits, income support if necessary, etc. -- in short, who will not face anything like the deprivation and suffering of the Third World guy if he DOESN'T get that job (or, frankly, even if he does), I'm generally inclined to think that that is a good thing, not a bad thing. I think there's room for reasonable disagreement on that question, but I don't have much respect for the extreme view that it is inherently better for the American to have the job, let alone that we should adopt policies that protect that job (and deny it to the Third World guy) at the expense of other Americans (mainly consumers).
By the way, should I consider the employment of my fellow New Yorkers vastly more important than employment of people in other states, and if so, if it were legal, should I prefer a policy of high tariffs for any goods produced in other states coming into New York? Hey, that would protect the jobs and wages of New Yorkers, right? Heck, why not do it at the level of Manhattan, to protect the jobs and wages of my fellow Manhattanites? Wait, I care about my neighbors most, so should I favor prohibitively high tariffs or outright bans on any goods not produced on my block? Maybe one building could be torn down to create a garden for veggies and to raise livestock, and another could be torn down for a factory to produce every single thing we need. Obviously costs would skyrocket, but everyone would have a job! Man, would we be livin' the high life!
well said, BR
In some cases, the intellectual dishonesty and tribalism of protectionism is not fully seen until we view the matter in terms of individuals or arbitrarily set groups between which to create artificial distinction.
On a most basic level, the individual "outsources" almost everything and is far better off for it. I outsource the construction and shipment of my car, the creation of all my food, clothing, furniture and so on.
As a business man, I outsource repair work and many services to other individuals. In most cases, I run a huge "trade deficit" with these people since they do not purchase nearly as much from as I do from them. In many cases, they do not patronize me at all. Oh well. OTOH, many people outsource to ME whom I do not patronize any way.
some thoughts, stinerman
when the winners are virtually everyone on multiple levels, worrying about the individual worker or "citizen" in the sense that we would advocate intervention to keep jobs here or make imports more expensive, I think we are missing the forest for the trees.
Helping a displaced worker who asks for help is one thing. But making a product from a foreign country more expensive via a tariff...be it an end product for a consumer or a capital good or piece of the final product for an end consumer OR using tax dollars to prop up jobs that do not have enough value to stay here OR making the operation of a business needlessly more expensive...ALL of these things hurt everyone....businesses and consumers alike....at the expense of a select few.
You're willing to pay more? I'm not. That's not fair to me and others to impose some value on us.
REAL higher wage jobs come from higher value work. It's not an artificially set number. Certain jobs do not pay more because "we say so", they pay more because they have a value or scarcity that deems them so.
If we arbritrarily start choosing menial jobs to prop up, we are causing small ripple effects in the economy that do not lead to good results for everyone.
well said, John. IMHO
well said, John. IMHO
Re: "We need not keep around
Re: "We need not keep around the horse buggy whip makers past their time"
Why not? Don't you want to protect their jobs?
In fact, in addition to protectionism, why not ban the adoption of new information and manufacturing technology that displaces workers? Actually, why stop there? Why not destroy much of the technology we already have so we create MORE jobs? (Damn those job-stealing cotton gins!) I know the above sounds snarky, but my point is that we are talking about essentially the same trade-off with such technology as we are with protectionism (well, except that in the case of free trade one guy loses a job and a much poorer, more desperate guy usually gets that job, so there's even less of a justification for protectionism).
Exactly
(well, except that in the case of free trade one guy loses a job and a much poorer, more desperate guy usually gets that job, so there's even less of a justification for protectionism).
That sounds like extreme liberalism (helping the poor desparate guy overseas) mixed with an anti-home boy sentiment. Sorry homeboy. No job for you. We got to help the poor guy overseas.
Or, Free market affirmative action. You resent affirmative action for the poor in the US but think it's hunky dory to provide affirmative action for the plight of the poor overseas. I am getting a mixed message here.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Affirmative action is a poor term to use here, imo
Affirmative Action would imply a preference by law for one person over another when all other things are equal.
Outsourcing jobs to poor countries is not done with the intent of favoring a third world worker over an American worker simply because the third world worker is poor and needs a job. It's a business decision....in much the same way you buy something from a business. You do it out of self interest or self help...not because you want to slide the business a couple of bucks.
John, don't you get it? Miss
John, don't you get it? Miss L is pointing out to us that vastly different concepts -- indeed virtually opposite concepts -- are actually equal concepts. Get with the Alice in Wonderland / George Orwell program, my man.
oops. my bad...
;)
That's a fascinating
That's a fascinating interpretation of what I said. Other-worldly.
Let me give that a try: You obviously have a botanist point of view because you favor telephones over Republicans.
ok, I just took a kind of "Mad Libs" approach. I probably lack your imagination, or whatever it was that produced your comment above.
Thank You
I try to keep things as exciting as possible.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Does this mean
that we'll be imposing tariffs on cocaine?
__________________________qui tacet consentire
apparently the New Left that has occupied the Dem party
supports commie-lite dictator wannabes like Chavez a whole lot more than democratically elected conservatives like Uribe in Colombia.
The New Left automatically hates anyone center-Right or even center in their own party. I am looking forward to the fight between the union-supporting pro-illegal immigration new "progressive" base and the actual unions who mostly are pro-American anti-illegal immigration as bad for Americans.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Jesus....listen to you. You sound like the crazies at other
sites.
The Majority party in Congress finally develops a backbone and all of a sudden you guys are calling Democrats "commie lite dictator wanna be (like Chavez) lovers. I think the one where you said the New Left (who is that anyhow? Nancy Pelosi?) hates their own party.
Now I think it's fine that you don't like the political moves being made. But over the top blather is only acceptable when we progressives are discussing fascist totalitarian loving republicans. (a lil snark on a Friday!)
Gosh, Ender, you try to give them a compliment ...
and they call you a crazy. :)
I took your post to be a compliment to them because it actually shows some progress for them as a party. Back in the "good ol' days" it would have read:
At least now they're only praising the lite version ... :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Republicans don't have the problem
I'd say Republicans hate anyone center-left or even center in their own party, but they've all but been purged already. The last liberal Republican (Linc Chafee, pbuh) lost to Sheldon Whitehouse and the moderates are confined to Maine and CT, and I haven't heard much glowing praise coming from conservative groups for them.
The Democrats run the spectrum from Dennis Kucinich to Gene Taylor and are well represented in between. The Republicans occupy a much smaller spectrum that goes from Jim Inhofe to Chris Shays with a very low amount of moderates. Ron Paul is obviously an outlier.
And I'd like some evidence that Chavez is the hero of the base of the Democratic Party. And last I checked Chavez was elected in reasonably free and fair elections. The fact that the legislature has given him power to rule as a dictator is not germane to the argument. Bush effectively ruled as a dictator for about 4 years, too...
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Chavez wants to change the constitution
That all is true, except you forgot that Chavez has been trying to change the constitution to allow him to extend his time as President.
I have no doubt that Venezuela could benefit from a modified constitution, but Chavez's does seem to want to be a permanent dictator. In comparison, Bush is seems happy to just be a prominent member of the ruling class.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Point taken
I suppose that makes him a dictator wannabe, but if the people of Venezuela want a dictatorship, that is their right.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And if they change their mind later? (n/t)
don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Who says it's totalitarian?
One can have a limited dictatorship just as one has a limited monarchy.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Mexico's history
(it fits the topic, and it also honors Cinco de Mayo, which is nearly upon us)
Once upon a time, Mexico threw off the chains of her empiric overlords and achieved independence. A tiny nation, so long under the shackles of foreign powers, became free.
They wrote a constitution that looked almost exactly like ours, their comperably-sized neighbor and ally to the north, who had also recently formed a new governmental structure. Problems arose, as they do, and a great man, a hero of the infant republic, stepped in. He was beloved, and the Mexican people saw their future looking bright. He was elected President in 1833.
They gave this man the power the power to do what he needed, because he had their best interests at heart. He grabbed that power with both hands.
He was finally overthrown, for the last time, in 1855.
Don't know who he was? Evidently, neither do the Venezuelans....
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Semantics
A limited Dictatorship isn't technically headed by a Dictator, since Dictators have unlimited powers.
It wouldn't be separate but equal, but there would at least be mechanisms for checks and balances.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Meh
I never said it has happened before, but such a government is, in theory, possible so long as there are regular elections to the post of dictator.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Meh Meh ;-)
Well, sure.
Theoretically, it's possible for me to be the President of the United States. And for mankind to live in peace and harmony. That doesn't mean either is likely to happen.
Reality (as demonstrated by history) says it's far more likely for dictatorial powers to lead to classically dictatorial outcomes. And, wrt Venezuala, I personally prefer the western hemisphere analogy I used above to European analogies. The histories of the old world vs the new world are vastly dissimilar when compared to countries in our half of the globe.
In other words, Chavez's rise and appeal is much more comperable to the man in my example than Hitler, IMHO.
Another quote that is just so eerie
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
I guess the new left includes Huckabee
as a pro commie-lite dictator wannabe.
The rednecks have been hit hard by the free trade issue.
It is just an easy way to eliminate collective bargaining power of those pro-commie unions that support fairness for hard working men and women.
Why do you hate workers?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Why do you hate Columbian babies ...
and poor families?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You chose to answer
a question with a question. Cute.
Don't you believe in America first?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Why are you dodging the question?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why are you?
It is the economy, stupid.
Re: "Don't you believe in
Re: "Don't you believe in America first?"
That kind of purist principle is at best a gross oversimplification, and at worst deeply immoral. Non-Americans are people, too. We should not automatically disregard their suffering and always choose the benefit of Americans over the alleviation of that suffering. Are you suggesting we should never give to charities that help people outside the U.S.?
Not that free trade that results in imports is equivalent to charity by any means, either from the perspective of the recipient of funds (earning it vs. receiving compassion) or the sender of funds (net material benefit vs. material loss). But charity is a simpler, clearer test of the "America first" principle.
Mostly agree
I am speaking to those that tout America's 'exceptionalism'. Those that beat their chest and say America is the Greatest, support the troops, while they cut health care for veterans.
In order to be exceptional you have to stand for something...... like human rights, basic decency and fairness in labor practices, whether here or in other countries.
I think it is ludicrous to keep touting that free trade as the answer to our economic problems, without some legal constraints to child labor, and slavish working hours, fair wages relative to the region and protection for the earth. Free trade without constraints, in my view, is just outsourcing for new 'slaves', while trying to avoid any kind of respect for the law.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
There may be some legitimate
There may be some legitimate concerns and demands re: environment, abusive labor standards, etc., but let's be honest: the main reason we import and outsource a lot of labor intensive products is because many people in a lot of other nations are dirt poor and are willing to work for a lot less. That's just the reality, but U.S. labor unions and others who oppose free trade prefer to raise those other concerns and demands as a pretext for protectionism to protect their jobs and wages -- to keep jobs from going to those poorer people elsewhere.
Why wouldn't you protect your job
A job is how you support your family. Protecting your job is the most natural thing on earth. Of course people are protectionist. That is why folks own guns. To protect themselves from outside threats. What is worse than a foreigner taking your job and having your own govt sanction it as fabulous. Having your govt in essence tell you are so stupid/ 'protectionist' to want to keep your job.
If this country is interested in raising the standard of living in foreign lands, then that's a lovely altruistic and highly moral standard. After seeing working conditions in China, or the air quality, or the working conditions in the Marianna Islands, I suggest there is nothing moral at all about many of the US policies re trade. By some standards, it can viewed as rank exploitation of the poor and uneducated.
Conviently this outsourcing work has been so far away that no one knows the true conditions that folks work in. But with the advent of the internet it is becoming glaringly apparent. Why do you think China censors the internet?
So people don't know how they treat their workers.
Isn't the essence of conservatism avoiding moral judgements or not using moral declarations of a utopian world (free trade will gloriously 'lift up' the world and create a utopian paradise that elminates poverty), to avoid socialism, etc. and the Wilsonian traditions.
Communism where the govt takes your farm for the sake of Utopian promises that supposedly benefit all.
Free trade (unregulated) where the govt takes your job for the sake of Utopian promises for the benefit of all.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
I'm afraid there's much more
I'm afraid there's much more in your comment that I consider wrong than I'm willing to commit time to refuting, particularly given my sense that the dialogue would be long and not get anywhere. So I'll leave it at that.
indeed.
No worries....
I just wonder if you can concede that the pro free traders are taking the view that their model is "utopian".
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
nope
I certainly won't. It's not about utopia and never was. There is no utopia.
******
Nevermind.
Your every comment inspires me to insult. I don't want to belittle myself that way.
But I was asking BR. Do you speak for him?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
did I say something wrong?
or was it just that I spoke out of turn?
It's a pretty direct answer to a direct question. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
nope
It is the economy, stupid.
OK then.
Well then, we all seem to finally be in agreement! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
wouldn't that be nice? :)
at least on the no brainers....
you denigrate the working man
at your own peril with your elitist drivel.
The challenge of reaching out to embittered residents of this country who have been left behind by Wall Street elitists escapes you on a regular basis.
Without people there would be no economic numbers for you to manipulate. Your disdain for the working man's plight is beyond patronizing.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
such cruel hyperbole. tsk. tsk.
it's like talking in circles with you. I am not elitist at all.
I have a number "working men" whom I employ and I work along side them. I doubt they would share your opinion...especially having heard me interject my thoughts on these matters of politics and economics in their discussions.
Again, like I said earlier
:
Pretty straightforward. But hey, sometimes words just aren't enough. We are, after all, limited by a faceless computer screen and are left to fill in the enormous blanks with our own imagination. And that imagination can be betray us at times.
Are you advocating the violent overthrow of our government?
Or are you just saying that owning firearms has always been considered a check against an oppressive government?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Our constitution gives us means
to change our government peacefully with a brilliantly conceived political process.
Guns are a part of our heritage, of that there is no question.
I am not advocating a violent overthrow of anything. I believe violence breeds violence.
I am speaking to the word protectionist as a negative description. It isn't negative at all. It's normal.
The cons have gotten away with double speak for a long time.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Geeze, what do the Democrats have against poor Columbians?
I mean passing this would not only help the poor Columbians by giving the access to less expensive products, but it would help American companies who are currently struggling with a 35% handicap just to compete.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The new issue of Reason has a piece on the death of Clintonism
and the free trade wing of the Democratic Party by David Weigel. Very relevant.
It's called:
Free Market Clintonism, RIP...the death of the free trade Democrat
Not sure if it's online yet....
I don't think that free trade is neccesarily dead wrt democrats,
I think the point Nancy Pelosi was making was that an unpopular lame duck President isn't going to be allowed to shove anything down the Congress' throats any longer. That's the real point. It had almost nothing to do with the merits of the Columbian agreement.
Well, Democrat maturity on display! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well when Clinton was a lame duck...
...the obstructionist Republican-controlled Congress wasted months on end impeaching him over a lie about an affair with an intern rather than doing the people's business. Apparently my red-barred friend turns a blind eye to Republican "maturity" in lame duck sessions...
Not to mention that they refused to review any judges
for Appeals Courts either.
Republicansplay by two rules in Congress. One when they hold power and another when they don't.
And anyhow...how is a majority rejecting something, even on a procedural level immature? I don't get that one.
Suddenly "lies" don't matter?
After all this whining I keep hearing from the left about how Bush lied about Iraq attacking us on 9/11 (when it has been demonstrated over and over that (a) he never actually said any such thing, and (b) we have at least 2 direct quotes where he explicitly denies it), isn't it interesting that you don't care about Clinton's actual lies (which are widely documented, known, acknowledged, and got him disbarred in Arkansas and from practicing before the Supreme Court).
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Just for the record
I was not involved in any of those "Bush lied" arguments. You must have me confused with Specter or somebody else-- I forget who all was involved in those battles, I read some of them, but I stayed out of it for the most part. I have never heard Bush explicitly claim that Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and I do not recall any posts by my blue-barred friends in those threads that proved that Bush lied that Iraq had attacked us on 9/11, though I agree that Bush has muddied the waters between Iraq and 9/11 when it has served his purposes.
Clinton's lies were about a personal affair-- hardly a matter of war and peace. I care about lying, but I care much less about lies regarding personal matters with no connection to the affairs of government.
Your lack of involvement in the "bush lied" argument
is hereby noted. Just for the record my original statement above targeted "the left" as opposed to you personally so we should be good on that front.
As for Clinton's lies, they were made under oath which constitutes a felony unless I am mistaken. Just ask Scooter Libby. And the State of Arkansas and the Supreme Court seem to have taken them very seriously.
Perhaps you don't care about personal affairs, how do you feel about perjury under oath in official proceedings?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You feign all this concern over any lie under oath
Yet you called Scooter Libby's trial for perjury, a crime for which he was tried in a court of law and convicted by a jury of his peers, a "dog and pony show". I smell the aroma of double standard here.
Clinton, on the other hand, was never tried for perjury, much less convicted. Maybe there wasn't much of a case? I honestly am not intimately familiar with Clinton's testimony under oath-- the lie I am familiar with is the one at the press conference where he claimed he had no sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.
About the same as I feel about interminable partisan prosecutorial fishing expeditions into people's personal lives.
He was fined
Clinton was fined $90,000 for a contempt of court violation for not obeying the judge's instructions to tell the truth during the Paula Jones suit. His Arkansas law license was suspended for 5 years as part of an agreement to stop prosecution.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Talk about bate and switch, skymutt ...
That comment wasn't even about Scooter Libby's trial for perjury. That comment was about the entire Fitzgerald investigation in light of the fact that the true leaker was known very early on. THAT was the dog and pony show.
I think I found the aroma of double standard you were smelling, though, it was right here:
Gee, why weren't the Democrats clamoring for his trial like they were for Libby's? Not only that, why were the Democrats providing as much political cover for Clinton as possible but none for Libby?
There's your double standard right there.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Are you equating