You will be happy if you're rich and republican...

[MrSpice]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060316/sc_space/republicanshappierthandemocrats

full study here:

http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

[ablarc]

Where do I sign?

[ryan]

Ignorance is bliss...

[Jake]

lol, good study

I could've told you that already :p

I'm a rich republican and I'm so happy, oh so happy....

curious about that dog and cat ownership thing, which is a better pet? hmm...mind boggling.

[Fabrizio]

"Among 3,014 telephone respondents"

C´mon, you´ve got to be an idiot if you describe yourself as "happy" after getting interrupted by a telephone survey.




Anyway, as far as I´m concerned, happiness is overrated and rather gauche.

[ablarc]

C´mon, you´ve got to be an idiot if you describe yourself as "happy" after getting interrupted by a telephone survey.

Anyway, as far as I´m concerned, happiness is overrated and rather gauche.
All the "happy" people I know are idiots.



You know what they say about bliss...

[BrooklynRider]

From Toronto Star

How to spot a baby conservative
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER, SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer

[Jake]

o....k.....


that's a strange study I think but even if its findings were universally true what does it really mean? Obviously our childhood plays a role in the development of our political beliefs but in what way and to what degree? And who are these resilient kids? Are there only whiny and resilient kids, like liberals and conservatives? Can I beat the resilient kid with a stick and he will stand up to me and say "you can't opress me!" ? lmao

I think the idea that conservatives are tough comes from a more traditional upbringing. Traditional parents want kids with strong family values who are active in their community an tough in times of hardships. Liberal parents raise their kids on the do whatever you want basis, and those kids have less respect for authority. I don't think it's "politics" when it comes to raising kids, it's just everyone's own style.

I wasn't a whiny kid and am a conservative, does that disprove the study? I don't know. An interesting article though.

[MrSpice]

From Toronto Star

How to spot a baby conservative
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER, SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.



This must be the most ridiculous study ever. I feel sorry for the residents of Toronto that their 2nd most important paper (after Globe and Mail) publishes such nonsense. Considering that the conservative government came to power in Canada recently, that study makes even less sense. This must be some knid of April fools joke. I guess I should encourage my future children to whine - I want them to be rich and fiscally conservative (but socially liberal).

[ryan]

Defensiveness does seem to have something to do with insecurity...

[Jake]

^True, but it's not like we should feel insecure about Bin Laden or any of those guys, they just wish us well.


BTW, the truth is that I'm conservative because I'm a repressed homosexual whose strict parents disallowed my cool hip new lifestyle. Also I'm very insecure and blame others for my problems because I can't get it up, that's the real reason, impotence.

to quote my dear Ann...

"that's just a joke, for you in the media"


:rolleyes:

[BrooklynRider]

This "most ridiculous study ever" is getting wide media coverage and serious analysis from both sides of the political spectrum. Drudge had it front and center on his site FOR DAYS!

[MrSpice]

This "most ridiculous study ever" is getting wide media coverage and serious analysis from both sides of the political spectrum. Drudge had it front and center on his site FOR DAYS!

It only proves that one should not pay attention to what's getting media coverage. Here in New York, the coyote that was roaming in the Central Park got wide media coverage - that in itself does not make it an important story. The meaning of the term "conservative" is also very relative here in the US especially now. This country was founded and our economy is based on many conservative economic principles like free trade, low taxes, little regulation when it comes to labor and industries. That's one of the main reasons this economy prospered when Japan and Europe experienced a tepid and slow growth. I am not talking about social issues where most New York conservatives are more liberal than democrats from the South and that's a good thing. Bush, for example, is an example of an fiscal liberal because his government presided over an uncontrollable spending that we've not seen in years. Deficits are out of control. The government beauracracy is bigger than it was in the Clinton years. That's not what a "good" conservative would stand for. To me, people believe in small govenment, low taxes and flexible labor markets not because they were treated badly as children, but they udnerstand how the economy operates and what makes it grow and prosper.

Churchil said: "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." But again, he was not talking about GW Bush kind of conservative who would have neither a heart no a brain :)

[Jake]

Very well said. I nominate you for president. :)

[bubdanose]

Shame on anyone who says children are whiners...republican or democrats....doesn't matter....that word is insulting children in general...Children who are upset will show it in some way shape or form...Too bad adults don't listen.....

[lofter1]

bubdanose:

Shame on anyone who says children are whiners

And exactly what term would you use to describe that horrifying sound that sometimes pours forth from the little angels' mouths?

[Fabrizio]

BTW: About happiness: I find that the most republican places in the US are usually the most sad and dreary.... certainly less sophisticated in taste and life style: Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. What a line up.

The most liberal (or at least Democrat voting) are California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Ah! civilization.

[lofter1]

BTW: About happiness ...

The most liberal (or at least Democrat voting) ...

Civilized and Happy ...

But Godless, eh?

[Jake]

BTW: About happiness: I find that the most republican places in the US are usually the most sad and dreary.... certainly less sophisticated in taste and life style: Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. What a line up.

The most liberal (or at least Democrat voting) are California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Ah! civilization.
ok, dude, North Dakota has like 600,000 people, there are many many times more Republicans in New York than in that state. Same goes for most of those other states. Ok, do you really think that people in Minnesota have more "taste and culture" than people in Indiana, I mean lol, have you been to Minnesota? There are parts of NY that I find third world, just because NYC has "Fashion Ave" doesn't make it capital of the world.

Texas has a GDP of 764 BILLION, whereas NY has 900 BILLION, and has the richest counties and cities in the nation with the exception of a few places in NJ (according to Forbes). That also makes Texas almost as rich as half the national GDP of Italy.

I don't really know what taste and culture is but consider for a second that maybe instead of new gay scarf colors in NY people elsewhere may like new kinds of jeans.

I'm here in THE city and what do I have? Don't own a house, my neighbors are idiots, I have to spend hours every day on a crowded shit smelling tin can getting to work, is that "happiness"? I don't know. Don't knock those other states because they have their own money, their own fashion and style, and their own pride in culture.

[lofter1]

I've spent time in both Indiana and Minnesota -- worlds apart.

In fact my family all comes from Indiana, on both sides -- going way back.

The more ambitious ones got out. Those who remain there seem to find it a "comfortable" place (my take on that description: less threatening).

Indianapolis is similar to many a state capital (Sacramento, Hartford, Albany, etc.) -- deadly dull, but trying oh so hard.

St. Paul / Minneapolis on the other hand has a lot going on. But there is that weather ...

[Fabrizio]

Ok, Jake,dude,

My statement was: "I find that the most republican places in the US are usually the most sad and dreary".

Dude, I think places like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama etc. speak for themselves.

".... just because NYC has "Fashion Ave" doesn't make it capital of the world."

Funny, but there´s a thread here with idiots on this board claiming that NYC IS the capital of the world.... others say it´s.... now listen to this.... others say it´s socialist, liberal London! Anyway, I´m sorry about your bad experience living in NYC.... judging from your postings I do think perhaps you have chosen the wrong place.

But wait!:

One other thing.... on the "least desirable state" thread YOU yourself chose as the WORST states to live in the USA:

"1-Louisiana (oh no) 2-Georgia (dear god) 3-Arkansas (no god no)".

Republican every one.

For best states you chose: 1-Colorado 2-Vermont 3-Washington

While Colorado is (just barely) a red republican state, Washington (with it´s great city of Seattle) is a famously liberal blue state ...and Vermont? Vermont is probably the MOST liberal state in the US!

Funny ain´t it?

[Jake]

Yeah funny is the fact that my most desirable states were all ranked on their countryside. I don't choose where I live based on their politics, but based on what they've got, notice my good picks were all mountain states while my bad picks had no skiing and were hot during the summer, yeah but that was hard to figure out.

I brought up Fashion Ave because you said those places had no taste.

Don't base your opinion on what color a state was in the national election

Every state has a large % of Republicans just like not every state is 100% bad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

[BrooklynRider]

That map shows why the electoral college should be banned and we should vote directly for president. The population centers are all much more progressive than the rural areas - even in "red states".

[ryan]

Again, that map demonstrates population density per county as much as how "red" the country is. This map by percentage shows that the country is more purple than anything else - that this pedantic polemic bs is pointless.


http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png

[MrSpice]

BTW: About happiness: I find that the most republican places in the US are usually the most sad and dreary.... certainly less sophisticated in taste and life style: Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. What a line up.

The most liberal (or at least Democrat voting) are California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Ah! civilization.

Orange County in California is very republic and at the same time is one of the nicest parts of the state. And what about Long Island? New York's Park Avenue is very republican. I guess there are 2 types of republicans - church-going social conservative crowd from Nebraska/Alamama and rich/professional/educated fiscal conservatives that believe in small government, free markets and low taxes.

[MrSpice]

One other thing.... on the "least desirable state" thread YOU yourself chose as the WORST states to live in the USA:

"1-Louisiana (oh no) 2-Georgia (dear god) 3-Arkansas (no god no)".

Republican every one.

For best states you chose: 1-Colorado 2-Vermont 3-Washington

While Colorado is (just barely) a red republican state, Washington (with it´s great city of Seattle) is a famously liberal blue state ...and Vermont? Vermont is probably the MOST liberal state in the US!
Funny ain´t it?

We have to again define the term "liberal"
Vermont is still a bastion of free market economy. Its former governor Dean bragged that he balanced the budget and cut taxes there - that's not exactly a "liberal" accomplishement. The mere fact that the state is predominantly "democratic" does not make it liberal in many ways. For example, Washington state does not have personal state income tax and is generally very business friendly (just look at Seattle - home of the largest Boeing plant and research facility, Starbucks, Amazon and Microsoft). We have only 2 parties in this country and the terms "republican" and "democrat" are used loosely in many cases. Look at New York republican race: our most likely winner Spitzer talks about excessive state taxes and the need to cut Medicaid spending - all republican themes.

[Fabrizio]

Remember both Park Ave and Orange County are in liberal democratic blue states.

Interesting too that a lot of the "new wealth" is coming from new technology.... and a new type of creative, liberal, progressive person is making it. That´s why a Tribeca and other parts of downtown are the new money spots. But even more so... the tone of todays urban lifestyle is being set by THESE people ....in technology, food, design, fashion, art... does ANYTHING creative and interesting come out of Republican enclaves today?


"Its former governor Dean bragged that he balanced the budget and cut taxes there - that's not exactly a "liberal" accomplishement. "

No. Fiscal responsibility is Democrat.... compare thae state of such things under Clinton....and then under Bush.

[MrSpice]

Remember both Park Ave and Orange County are in liberal democratic blue states.

Interesting too that a lot of the "new wealth" is coming from new technology.... and a new type of creative, liberal, progressive person is making it. That´s why a Tribeca and other parts of downtown are the new money spots. But even more so... the tone of todays urban lifestyle is being set by THESE people ....in technology, food, design, fashion, art... does ANYTHING creative and interesting come out of Republican enclaves today?

So any creative, entrepreneurial person is a progressive and liberal person in your book, right? I know quite a few people that work in technology (like me) and believe that (using Regan's words) "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"

That "creative" class elected Rudy Giuliani twice here in New York who ran on the basic conservative principles of cutting taxes, reducing the size of the city government and making city business-friendly. That's how Arnold Schwarzenegger won in California which is our technology center. Conservative North Carolina has The Research Triangle and conservative Texas has Austin that has developed into a tech mecca.

[Fabrizio]

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=677



"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"

Nice Regan sound-bite but sorry Mr, Spice, actually todays NEOCON mantra is a government that is all powerful and in your pants....a government that is untouchable and is above critiscm.

[MrSpice]

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=677

I will be the first to admit and agree that GW Bush is no conservative. His "passionate conservatism" and his War have been very costly to this country's economy. As many people have noted already, GW has been more liberal in terms of government spending than Bill Clinton and many other democratic presidents that preceeded him.

[Fabrizio]

"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"


Lol... the Republicans of today have made a mockery of this..... let´s talk about "eminent domain" under Bush....shall we? Or how´s about the new and "revised" Patriot Act.

[MrSpice]

"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"


Lol... the Republicans of today have made a mockery of this..... let´s talk about "eminent domain" under Bush....shall we? Or how´s about the new and "revised" Patriot Act.

The eminent domain issue has nothing to do with Bush and all to do with the recent Supreme Court decision. I agree that some repuiblicans today have made a mockery of this, but not all. And the problem with many democrats that their solutions to most problems involves increasing government spending. So you have to choose bewteen 2 evils. I just hope that John McCain or Rudy becomes the next president. Both of these guy seem to have common sense.

[Fabrizio]

"And the problem with many democrats that their solutions to most problems involves increasing government spending"

"So you have to choose bewteen 2 evils."

Agreed.

Better to increase government spending for the benefit of AMERICANS ...rather than for the benefit of Iraqis.

[ablarc]

Better to increase government spending for the benefit of AMERICANS ...rather than for the benefit of Iraqis.

Agreed, but most Iraqis would say: "What benefit?"

And who could fault them?

In the actions of the present spendthrift government there is only detriment.

The bill for all this will be presented to the next administration.

For us Americans to pay.

[lofter1]

The latest from one "rich" Republican ...

Justice Scalia flips the finger in church

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060327-100356-7854r

BOSTON, March 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.


© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc.

[Fabrizio]

"For us Americans to pay."

Yes the whole thíng is ironic and sad. You´ve got people like Mr.Spice who think it´s 1983 and "morning in America" .... meanwhile this republican administration is creating the most outrageous debts... and building schools, roads and hospitals for muslim Iraquis who´ll probably vote in a terrorist government in a few years anyway.

--------------------------------------------

Scalia: apparently this "Catholic" hasn´t read the Popes latest writings on the separation of church and state.

[BrooklynRider]

... And the problem with many democrats that their solutions to most problems involves increasing government spending...

What warped alternative universe are you living in?

We have had record deficits under every Republican President since Reagan. The only surplus this country has seen in the last 35 years was under Bill Clinton.

Each Republican president since Reagan has generated record National Debts. Each of the Democratic Presidents over the last 35 years saw insignificant increases in their terms.

Turn down Sean Hannity and Brit Hume - better yet just turn off Fox News altogether and cancel your subscription to the NY Post. Just because they are chanting "tax and spend Democrats" doesn't make it true. Just like when they chanted "WMDs in Iraq" and it wasn't true. Just like when they chanted "connection between Saddam and Osama"and it wasn't true. Just like when they say "presidents wiretaps are legal" and it isn't true.

Charts are below. Can you support your claim?

[Fabrizio]

Not to sidetrack Brooklyn´s excellent post but another comment about Scalia: instead of giving the finger, this is how JF Kennedy (Democrat... like any genuine Catholic) adressed the subject:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy.

----------------------------------

"Charts are below. Can you support your claim?"

I´m looking forward to this one.

[TomAuch]

"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"


Lol... the Republicans of today have made a mockery of this..... let´s talk about "eminent domain" under Bush....shall we? Or how´s about the new and "revised" Patriot Act.
Let's talk about how Bush broke the law with his wiretapping program....
Let's talk about how Bush and Republicans support intervening in your personal medical life, such as in the Terri Schiavo incident.
Let's talk about how they don't care if women can't get an abortion if they were raped or victim of incest? (South Dakota's ban bans abortion in these cases.)

Any Republican right now how claims that his party is for "smaller government" is a disingenuous f*ckwit.

[MrSpice]

What warped alternative universe are you living in?

We have had record deficits under every Republican President since Reagan. The only surplus this country has seen in the last 35 years was under Bill Clinton.

Each Republican president since Reagan has generated record National Debts. Each of the Democratic Presidents over the last 35 years saw insignificant increases in their terms.

Turn down Sean Hannity and Brit Hume - better yet just turn off Fox News altogether and cancel your subscription to the NY Post. Just because they are chanting "tax and spend Democrats" doesn't make it true. Just like when they chanted "WMDs in Iraq" and it wasn't true. Just like when they chanted "connection between Saddam and Osama"and it wasn't true. Just like when they say "presidents wiretaps are legal" and it isn't true.

Charts are below. Can you support your claim?

On the other hand, one of the reasons the government spending was in check in the 90s and the welfare reform was enacted was the republican majority in Congress. If they did not pressure Bill Clinton to contain the spending, his natural and political instincts were to spend more. It's when the country turned conservative, his advisor Dick Morris suggested accepting welfare reform and lower capital gain taxes policies as a way to "steal" the issue from the republicans.

I agree that the record of the last few republican administrations has been poor as far as deficits are concerned. However, Reagan cut taxes more than he spent on deficits. He lowered tax rates significantly. They went up a little bit, but we no longer have people paying up to 70% in taxes. Capital returned big time to the US in the 80s and fueled an enormous economic expansion. The problem with GW Bush is not that he cut taxes (that's a good thing, especially cutting long-term capital gain and divident taxes), but that he started the war that cost us so much. The reality is that if the expenses remained the same as they were under Clinton (if there were no Medicare Drug program and no war), we would have no deficit at the moment. The fault of GW is that he cut taxes and they hiked spending.

But the fact is that lower taxes on capital encourage investment. That's one of the reasons that the stock market and the economy is booming right now.

[BrooklynRider]

...If they did not pressure Bill Clinton to contain the spending, his natural and political instincts were to spend more...

And what do you base this nonsensical claim on? Bill Clinton vetoed far more bills than George Bush and HE presented balanced budgets EVERY YEAR unlike Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. In adddition, and I hate to wake up your dormant memory, Clinton allowed the Federal Government to SHUT DOWN in order to get the budget HE wanted (do you hear that: the budget HE WANTED). The "Republican Congress" you talk about did not have the votes in the senate to override a Clinton veto, so they were not in anyway capable of presenting a "republican counter" to the president. FACT IS under Bill Clinton Congress approached things in a much more bi-partisan manner. The Republicans did not hold the absolute power as they do now since George W stole the 2000 and 2004 elections through thuggery and rigged Diebold machines.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. You don't know how to read newspaper, so you wouldn't know how Maryland has uncertified Diebold Machines and California has sued the company in the last month. You might have missed the indictments in Ohio in which the Bob Ney scandal trickles down to Lucas County, where a politicos wife (an election official) allowed Diebold officials to go without supervision to "service" voting machines AFTER the election had ended. But you don't know that, or more acurrately, you know as much about that as anything else you spout on about here.

The posts you offer have no basis in fact and it is becoming more difficult to take you seriously.
You are sounding more and more like a Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, or Sean Hannity, making up ridiculous statements that are in fact LIES and pretending that no one is going to call you on it. This ain't Fox News. Try again, but this time start with facts AND offer proof. You never, EVER, Ever, back up ANYTHING you post with supporting documentation. Perhaps you should go over to Redstate.com and hang with all the right wingnuts living in the fantasyland where Bill Clinton is still to blame for everything, where Hillary is the biggest threat to the country right now and gays are are demonized for fun.

Another completely moronic post from you.

START OFFERING SUPPORT AND DOCUMENTATION TO ANY CLAIMS YOU MAKE OR POST AS FACT OR PREFACE EVERYTHING WITH "IN MY OPINION." There are plenty of forum members I disagree with on issues here, but they always offer proof or a reputable source and we all learn something. You are a complete cipher here. You post nothing other than your assinine regurgitations of echo chamber idiocy.

Back up your posts with fact or sit on the sidelines.

[MrSpice]

BrooklynRider: You're making it all about current republican administration and GW Bush. I am was talking about economic policies in general. Yes, GW Bush should have used his veto power many many times to make sure the spending is under control - there's no disagreement here. GW Bush is a BAD president - I agree with that as well. Secondly, you don't have to take me seriously or even reply to what I write, so no reason to make those kinds of statements.

As far as approaching anything in a bi-partisan manner: partisan or bi-partisan are political terms. I don't care much about it. What I care about is the end result of the policies.

What do the political scandals that you mentioned have to do with what I said about low taxes and small government? If some democrats ran on the platform of limiting government spending and cutting taxes, I would be happily voting for those democrats. I don't care about party affiliations and have no doubt that many of the republicans are quite corrupt, especially considering the fact that they were in power for so long. I think it's good when 2 parties control different branches of govenment - it's healthy to have a competition and it's healthy to have checks and balances.

You're also putting words in my mouth. You really are brainwshed. I didn not blame Bill Clinton for anything.I think he was a good president. All I said was that one of the reasons he was somewhat conservative economically was the pressure from the republican congress. And if you read Dick Morrris' memoirs you would know that this was true. And I think it was good that he enacted welfare reform and vetoes the spending bills. I support that.

And lastly, what I say is my personal opinion. You can disagree with it, but don't reply with irrelevant information and don't scream. This is not a street protest.

You yourself sound more like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly because you have your talking points about GW Bush and you keep repeating them as if everything revolves about GW Bush. Just because GW Bush does not veto the spending bills does not make the idea of cutting spending and tax bad. I was talking about a good economic policy in general.

I must say that I personally benefited from GW Bush's tax cuts. I invested most of my savings in low-cost mutual funds and when the time came to buy an apartment, I am glad I only paid 15% on the earnings. And I think his income tax cuts helped me and my wife save several thousand every year for the past few years. I am glad to pay less in taxes, I must admit. Call me selfish but I feel that even now I am paying way too much in taxes. In this town, any extra dollar in tax savings help because the cost of living is very high in New York.

[BrooklynRider]

You're also putting words in my mouth.

No one's putting words in your mouth. You continue to fail to provide an ounce of credible documentation or supporting evidence for any of the ridiculous arguments you make. I object to that and I am going to be right behind every post you make to offer the evidence that you are uninformed and for the most part wrong in every instance you offer up a "fact." Do you have to offer that proof? No. Can anyone, including me, ensure that your erroneous, uninformed, baseless, and misleading statements are corrected. Yes, and that is what I'm going to do.

See, Mr. Spice, you are utlizing a memoir by Dick Morris, a Clinton HATER, as your sole source for information. At least that is what you offered as your source. You even go so far as to state:


...And if you read Dick Morrris' memoirs you would know that this was true...

So, because Dick Morris (who was himself caught in a sordid scandal), writes something it is fact? Can you tell me how many other books by Clinton Administration officials or advisors you read which corroborate what he said?
__________________________________________________ ________

Here's what Fox News says about Dick Morris:

Dick Morris

Dick Morris serves as a political analyst for FOX News Channel and often contributes to FOX News Sunday .

He is also a columnist for The Hill, a weekly newspaper devoted to congressional issues.

Morris authored Behind The Oval Office, a memoir of his role as an advisor to former President Clinton during the successful 1996 re-election campaign, where he was widely credited with assisting Clinton in articulating a middle course between Republican conservatism and traditional Democratic liberalism.

Earlier in his career, Morris was a campaign consultant for Clinton’s Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns. And he has advised a wide range of political leaders, including Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Republican Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tx and former New York City Mayors Ed Koch.

__________________________________________________ ________

Here is a, let's say, "more robust" biography of Dick Morris from Answer.com that fills in the little hole - or should I say "gaping deletions" from the man's resume. It should also show the most IQ impaired individual with the most basic reading comprehension skills that Morris is a "sour grapes" critic of the Clintons. He has built a career on attacking them, probably because he got bounced from their inner circle for COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY and INVADING THE PRIVACY of the Clintons by allowing his whore to listen in on private White House Conversations. C'mon, Mr. Spice, I can only lead the horse to water. I know it's Cool-Aid to you, but please drink:

Dick Morris

Dick Morris appears on TV's FOX News channel. Dick Morris (born November 28, 1948 in New York City) is a political author and commentator who was once a successful pollster and campaign consultant. Morris is best known for managing Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President of the United States.His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had had an extramarital affair with a prostitute and allowed her to listen to conversations with the President. Following the scandal, Morris turned his focus to media commentary. He now writes a weekly column for the New York Post and appears regularly on the Fox News Channel. Morris has written several books that criticize the Clintons, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's Living History.

Early life
Morris attended Stuyvesant High School in New York City, where he was active on the debate team. He managed Jerrold Nadler's campaign for class president; Nadler has since gone on to represent New York in the House of Representatives. Morris graduated from Stuyvesant in 1964, then attended Columbia where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Morris and Clinton
Morris first worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton during Bill Clinton's successful 1978 bid for Governor of Arkansas. Though he did not work on Bill Clinton's unsuccessful re-election campaign in 1980, Morris helped him win back the governor's office in 1982 and continued to work with him in subsequent gubernatorial campaigns. Morris did not have a role in Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign, which instead was headed by James Carville and Paul Begala. After the 1994 mid-term election where Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and gained considerable power in the states, Clinton once again sought Morris' help to prepare for the 1996 presidential election. It was Morris who proposed a strategy of "triangulation," where Bill Clinton would appeal to a diverse group of voters by distancing himself from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Many perceived this as a move to the center of the political spectrum, and it disappointed some people who had hoped Clinton would pursue a more progressive policy.

In his 1997 book Behind the Oval Office, Morris wrote that, following an argument in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, Morris strode towards the exit and was tackled by Bill Clinton. In 2003, Morris further stated that Bill Clinton cocked his arm back to throw a punch, but Hillary Clinton pulled her husband off Morris. In both versions of the story, she consoled Morris and apologized to him, stating that Bill only behaved such with those he cared for most. According to Morris, she did this to keep him quiet about the incident. He says the incident was the reason for denying Bill Clinton's request to work on the '92 campaign; Clinton's side of the story is not known.

Scandal
Time Magazine featured the scandal on September 9, 1996.On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after reports surfaced that he had been involved in an extramarital affair with a prostitute named Sherry Rowlands. A tabloid newspaper had obtained and published a set of photographs of Morris and Rowlands on a Washington, DC hotel balcony. Accompanying the photo layout was Rowlands' story of the casual affair, including the revelation of Morris's favorite sexual fetish was toe-sucking [1]. The article also revealed that Morris had allowed Rowlands to listen in on phone calls with the President, and had given her a copy of a campaign speech before it was delivered. Morris had been very casual about sharing his opinions of Bill and Hillary Clinton with Rowlands, and now some very inside personal information was available at thousands of supermarket checkouts.

Morris resigned on the same day that Bill Clinton spoke and accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. In his resignation statement, he said that "while I served I sought to avoid the limelight because I did not want to become the message. Now, I resign so I will not become the issue." In his response, President Clinton praised Morris as a "friend" and thanked him for his years of service.

Morris was featured on two consecutive covers of Time Magazine. The September 2, 1996 issue, which was released before the scandal story broke, featured Morris as "The Man Who Has Clinton's Ear." The following week, the cover featured Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, and the headline read "The Morris Mess: After the Fall."

It was also revealed that Morris has a child in Texas, whom he fathered out of wedlock.

Other work
Morris makes it known that he is a bipartisan consultant. In addition to his work with Bill Clinton, he once worked for senators Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, as well as former governors William Weld of Massachusetts and Pete Wilson of California and current governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. As early as 1988, he has said, he decided to work only for Republicans, a claim reiterated in 1995; his role in Clinton's 1992 campaign and presidency was kept secret from the staff. He is not believed to have worked as a U.S. political strategist since the scandal of 1996, possibly because of candidates' fears that their choice of consultant would cause bad publicity.

Morris says he became profoundly "disillusioned" with the actions of the Clintons in the late 90's, after his resignation. He has now formed a career of sorts as a political commentator and critic of the Clintons, often appearing on talk shows such as Hannity & Colmes and the O'Reilly Factor.

Morris worked with the United Kingdom Independence Party in their campaign before the 2004 European Parliament election. The party, which advocates withdrawal from the European Union, won 12 of Britain's 78 seats.

Morris appeared frequently in the straight-to-DVD documentary FahrenHYPE 9/11, which offers an alternative viewpoint to Michael Moore's 2004 film, Fahrenheit 9/11. He also wrote the screenplay.

In 2004 and 2005, he and his wife acted as campaign consultants to the successful Yushchenko presidential campaign in Ukraine. Morris insisted on the use of exit polls as a means of potentially exposing ballot tampering. He argues this played a significant role in forcing the incumbent to acquiesce to a new poll when the official results of the first varied materially from the exit surveys.

Books
Morris responded to Hillary Clinton's Living History with his book Rewriting History.Morris has written several books. Most recently he wrote Condi vs. Hillary (subtitled The next great presidential race) (ISBN 0060839139) in which he argues that only Condoleezza Rice could block Hillary Clinton's anticipated 2008 bid for the White House. He co-authored this book with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Previously he wrote a pair of books criticizing the Clintons, again co-authored his wife, Eileen McGann. Rewriting History (ISBN 0060736682) was published in May of 2004 as a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's book, Living History (ISBN 0743222245). In it, he argues that Hillary Clinton has presented a false "nice" persona in the book. Morris instead remembers her as manipulative, cold, and single-minded in her pursuit of power. Similarly, Morris and McGann wrote Because He Could (ISBN 0060784156) in response to Bill Clinton's memoir My Life (ISBN 0375414576).

Morris has also written Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties (ISBN 1580630537), a retrospective of his work with the Clintons that was published soon after his resignation from the campaign due to scandal. Other books include Power Plays: Win or Lose--How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game (ISBN 0060004444), The New Prince (ISBN 0580631479) and Vote.com: How Big-Money Lobbyists and the Media Are Losing Their Influence, and the Internet Is Giving Power Back to the People (ISBN 1580631630).

[lofter1]

Dick Morris is a bottom feeder ...

Interpret that anyway you want.

[MrSpice]

I did not say that Dick Morris was my only source of information. I also followed the news closely during the Clinton years and I saw how Clinton's policies and his stand on taxes and welfare reform evolved after republicans cames to power big time during the "Contract with America" years. I am not very sympathetic to Dick Morris himself. I like loyal people and he is not a very likable character. However, his recollection about those years when he was a advisor to Bill Clinton was confrimed by other people and the facts, in my view. In any case, what is this argument about? Clinton was one of the most conservative democrats on economic issues. He supported NAFTA and other free trade agreements. He supported aggressive welfafre reforms and promised to end big government as we know it. The reality is, in his quest to become popular and under pressure from the rising popularity of republicans in 1994, Clinton shifted to the center on social issues and to the right in terms of fiscal issues and that benefitted the country. If you remember, many democrats hated Clinton for going along with the republican majority on welfare reform. Here's what Wikipedia says about that time:

"Clinton cleverly managed the other major challenge posed by the Contract with America: that of welfare reform. The welfare system, unpopular with middle-class voters, was a major target of the Republicans. However, rather than present the programs as inefficient, bureaucratic and expensive, as they had (unsuccessfully) done in the past, their new tactic was to focus on the success of welfare in its stated goal: fighting poverty. In this they were more successful. Using statistics often compiled by welfare advocates to demand more spending, they pointed to a widening gap between rich and poor and the emergence of a dependent welfare "underclass." Under their proposed welfare reform, individuals could not receive benefits for more than five years. States, meanwhile, would receive "block grants" of federal funds that they would be free to spend on anti-poverty initiatives as they wished, rather than according to federal rules. This amounted to a major shift in welfare policy, and was bitterly contested by Democrats. Clinton, however, supported the plan (to the fury and astonishment of even some members of his Cabinet). In his 1996 State of the Union speech, Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it". He later signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996."

[lofter1]

Clinton was one of the most conservative democrats on economic issues. He supported NAFTA and other free trade agreements.
Not one of Clinton's -- or America's -- better moments.

Don't know the stats, but don't see how NAFTA has benefitted American citizens in general.

[lofter1]

Justice Scalia flips the finger in church

source (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060327-100356-7854r)

Scalia in Letter-to-Editor Denies Making 'Obscene' Gesture

By E&P Staff
Editor & Publisher
March 29, 2006

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002273701

NEW YORK Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has accused staffers at The Boston Herald of watching "too many episodes of the Sopranos." A reporter for the paper on Monday interpreted a hand gesture he made at a cathedral as "obscene."

In a strongly-worded letter to the editor of the paper, Scalia said the gesture was merely "dismissive."

The Herald reported the justice made "an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin" in response to a question about whether lawyers might question his impartiality in matters of church and state. The incident occurred after he attended Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. It said Scalia had also asked a photographer not to publish a picture.

The account was cited by many publications and Web sites, including E&P. A Reuters account initially described the justice as giving the "finger."

Scalia said he had explained the gesture's meaning to no avail to the reporter, whom he referred to as "an up-and-coming 'gotcha' star."

In his letter he quoted from Luigi Barzini's book, "The Italians," in which he observed: "The extended fingers of one hand moving slowly back and forth under the raised chin means 'I couldn't care less. It's no business of mine. Count me out."'

Scalia said the reporter leapt to conclusions because the justice initially explained his gesture as something Sicilian.

"From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene -- especially when made by an 'Italian jurist.' (I am, but the way, an American jurist.)," he wrote.

The Herald had referred to him as an "Italian-American jurist." The reporter was Laurel J. Sweet.

© 2006 VNU eMedia Inc (http://www.vnuemedia.com/).

[MrSpice]

Scalia is one angry dude.

NAFTA, by the way, was great for all 3 countries involved. Any free trade agreement is good for business and good for the countries because it reduces the bax and regulatory barriers for trade and investment. After NAFTA was approved, the northern cities close to the US border in Mexico prospered. The imports and exports between the 3 countries surged. it became much easier for Canadians to work in the US and vice versa. Some companies that were looking to locate in Asia moved the operations to Mexico instead provide mexicans with work and opening some cross-operational facilities in the border states in the US.

[Fabrizio]

For the record: I don´t know the context or exact quote in Barzini´s book, but flipping ones closed four fingers under the chin usually means "'I couldn't care less" in a defiant way. It´s certainly not obscene, but it is vulgar. Not the stuff of a judge leaving Mass.

[Ninjahedge]

For the record: I don´t know the context or exact quote in Barzini´s book, but flipping ones closed four fingers under the chin usually means "'I couldn't care less" in a defiant way. It´s certainly not obscene, but it is vulgar. Not the stuff of a judge leaving Mass.

More of a "Piss off" than an F' Off I guess.

[lofter1]

Photographer: Herald got it right

"To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ”


http://news.bostonherald.com/images/localRegional/scaliagesture03302006.jpg
(Herald exclusive photo by Peter A. Smith)
Antonin Scalia gestures inside
the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.

By Marie Szaniszlo
The Boston Herald
March 30, 2006

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132848

Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.

“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.


Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”

Smith said the jurist “immediately knew he’d made a mistake, and said, ‘You’re not going to print that, are you?’ ”

Scalia’s office yesterday referred questions regarding the flap to Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, who said a letter Scalia sent Tuesday to the Herald defending his gesture at the cathedral “speaks for itself.”

“He has no further comment,” Arberg said.

Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship.

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

Yesterday, Herald reporter Laurel J. Sweet agreed with Smith’s account, but said she did not hear Scalia utter the obscenity.

In his letter, Scalia denied his gesture was obscene and claimed he explained its meaning to Sweet, a point both she and Smith dispute.

Scalia went on to cite Luigi Barzini’s book, “The Italians,” which describes a seemingly different gesture - “the extended fingers of one hand moving slowly back and forth under the raised chin” - and its meaning - “ ‘I couldn’t care less. It’s no business of mine. Count me out.’ ”

“How could your reporter leap to the conclusion (contrary to my explanation) that the gesture was obscene?” Scalia wrote.

Quite easily, according to experts, even if the justice had offered more than a two-word explanation - “That’s Sicilian” - Sunday.

“There is no answer to ‘what it really means,’ because those gestures have different meanings in different locations, even in neighbouring locations,” said Janet Bavelas, a University of Victoria, British Columbia, psychologist who has studied human gestures.

The gesture typically means “I don’t know” in Portugal, “No!” in Naples, “You are lying” in Greece and “I don’t give a damn” in northern Italy, France and Tunisia, said David B. Givens of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Wash.

© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media (http://www.heraldmedia.com/).

[lofter1]

When I lived in Rome my Italian friends let me know that "vaffanculo" was about as good as it gets in Italian for an insult / retort --

"culo" meaning butt-hole and ... you can figure out the rest ...

[lofter1]

Talk about shooting the messenger ...

Church fires photog over Scalia picture:
Freelancer pays for ‘right thing’

By Jessica Heslam
Boston Herald
March 31, 2006

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132932&format=text

A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.

Peter Smith, who had freelanced for The Pilot newspaper for a decade, lost the job yesterday after the Herald ran his photo on its front page. Smith said he has no regrets about releasing it.

“I did the right thing. I did the ethical thing,” said Smith, 51, an assistant photojournalism professor at Boston University.

Smith snapped the photo of Scalia flicking his hand under his chin after a Herald reporter asked the conservative jurist his response to people who question his impartiality on matters of church and state.

Smith wouldn’t give up the photo earlier this week but chose to release it when he learned Scalia said his gesture had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald. Smith, who was standing in front of the judge, said the Herald “got the story right.”

Smith said the Pilot had an obligation at that point “to bring some clarity to it.”

“I felt that same obligation,” Smith said. “I had to say what I knew and come forward with it..”

The weekly Catholic newspaper made a “journalistic decision” not to run or release the photo, said Archdiocese spokesman Terry Donilon. “Because he breached that trust with the editor, we will no longer engage his services as a freelance photographer,” Donilon said.

“It’s nothing personal,” added Pilot editor Antonio Enrique. “I need to try and find people I can trust.”

While news outlets from across the country sought Smith’s photo yesterday, the archdiocese said there’s no proof that Scalia uttered an obsenity in the church. Smith said Scalia said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture. That’s Italian for (expletive) you.

“It was pretty clear,” Smith said yesterday. A Herald reporter who was nearby did not hear that utterance.

© Copyright by the Boston Herald

[MidtownGuy]

Mr. Spice wrote:
NAFTA, by the way, was great for all 3 countries involved.

How can you assert these things so absolutely?? Actually, the above is totally untrue. The glowing supporting sentences that followed it are completely debatable and many, many people now disagree with you since more time has passed to make a proper assessment. NAFTA is a mistake, and Thank God the adoption of the FTAA is faltering under difficulties. I was in Miami in 2003, at the last FTAA meeting, with hundreds of thousands of people protesting its adoption.

[pianoman11686]

I guess hoardes of loud, clueless discontents proves it's a bad idea.

The main reason free trade agreements end up hurting someone is that they're exclusive and unilateral, i.e. not universal.

[MidtownGuy]

I guess hoardes of loud, clueless discontents proves it's a bad idea.

Don't provoke me.
Quite obviously, you don't know much about the people who were there. Beyond slanted corporate news bytes, of course. You would be surprised at the education and professional caliber of many of the people involved. Shots of professors or normal housewives brandishing signs are not as sexy on the evening news or in the NY Times as black-masked youths throwing rocks and being tear gassed. The reality is, they are vastly in the minority.
You must diversify your new sources, or just get out more, if your above comment actually represents who you think was there. That comment is really just the product of an indoctrinated young mind.


The main reason free trade agreements end up hurting someone is that they're exclusive and unilateral, i.e. not universal.

There's a point of agreement here. "Free Trade" is a great idea. Too bad that this agreement, the one we were protesting, is just as you describe. So how were we clueless, because we seem to agree. One of the things we were protesting was the inherent unfairness of the agreement. The way it benefits one side more than others. We want FAIR trade. In my case, I have strong concerns about reperscussions to the environment that are embedded in all those legally binding restrictions on things like National Parks, resources, and limits on pollution and industrial hazards. Or the way such agreements attempt to force the privatization of things like water, such as was attempted in Cochabamba.
You like to be dismissive without knowing what the hell you're even talking about. I'm not in the mood for you.

[pianoman11686]

Um, where did I say anything about young punks throwing rocks? That's your extrapolation, not mine. Anyone can be loud and clueless (or at the least, misguided), no matter what their background.

You also assume that I knew what exactly you were protesting. You didn't say anything about why, or what parts specifically, you were against.

I think the confusion here arises from my general impression of what anti-NAFTA protests (and the like) are about. Maybe it's the media's fault, but for the most part these are people who think globalization is a bad thing, either because it takes advantage of developing nations, or because it takes away our advantage in comparison to other nations.

Globalization and free trade on their own are not bad things. It's government's handling of them that causes the real problems, things like tariffs, subsidies, import quotas, overly strict standards, and special-interest inclusion. Here's the tricky part, though: people who protest trade agreements because they're protectionist will want more government meddling (obviously), as will those who feel sorry for the developing countries. They'll want special clauses that afford more attractive terms, meanwhile ignoring that not everyone gets the same terms, and the cycle of sustaining losers continues.

So, to the extent your protest was about these issues, I apologize if I overreacted.