Flagpole wrote:
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
This ^ x 1000
///
The fat lady may not be singing yet . . . but she is humming in a very animated fashion.
Flagpole wrote:
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
This ^ x 1000
///
The fat lady may not be singing yet . . . but she is humming in a very animated fashion.
Noticer of things wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
This ^ x 1000
///
The fat lady may not be singing yet . . . but she is humming in a very animated fashion.
Put Trump in a dress with a long hair wig--Caitlyn Jenner v2?--and he would be the fat lady singing, but far off key (because them bone spurs affect tone of voice).
Flagpole wrote:
Collude to do what? Seriously? Collude to help Trump win and/or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning.
lolllll
So you think it's illegal to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning an election? There's a law specially designed for her?
jaminLoper wrote:
It is so obvious that jamin and hardloper are often trolling together, in the same room. They might be posting under fake names, but their rapidfire responses in support of each other's Trumpian positions is very noticeable.
They are buddies. Difference is Hardlloper is a lot taller and couldn’t break 18 in a 5k if his life depended on it. They should date, but oddly, in that situation, Jamin would be the guy.
jamin wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Collude to do what? Seriously? Collude to help Trump win and/or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning.
lolllll
So you think it's illegal to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning an election? There's a law specially designed for her?
Look, even jamin "came out of hiding" after the big orange's latest debacle. Trumpkins are getting more desperate in their attempts to blame Hillary and Obama. The correlation between their support for trump, their number of friendships and the content of their posts are directly correlated. How do you keep up jamin!?
jamin wrote:
Hey, everyone. I'm investigating Flagpole. What for, you ask? Well, there's something going on. I'm slowly putting the pieces together. Lots of smoke, and where there's smoke, there's fire. I just asked indicted his next door neighbor because I asked my intelligence agencies to investigate everything about him and found out that he added a bedroom to his house without registering the home addition with his county. Start with the small fish. I offered him a plea bargain if he'll agree to be interviewed under oath about his neighbor Flagpole. I'm building a strong case and "the truth" will soon be known! I have a fantastic record of investigations and in fact I was the one who figured out that Saddam had WMDs.
To be accurate, there was WMDs in Iraq....just not a current program. There were 1000s of old rounds literally buried in the sand that were retrieved.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:To be accurate, there was WMDs in Iraq....just not a current program. There were 1000s of old rounds literally buried in the sand that were retrieved.
Alan
Don't be obtuse Art. Buried "old rounds" and other general ammunition and armaments are not WMDs. The outrageous claim that Powell made to the UN security council was about nukes, which were clearly proven to be a malicious, convenient fiction.
All the numbers you posted here are not factual. They are either based on a study that claim something *may* happen, or just some estimate. The number of actual steel and aluminum jobs will eventually be known. The number of jobs lost/gained due to the tariffs will never be known. Those numbers will be subject to the way jobs are counted. Every law and tax we enact in the US is subject to reward and penalize one group or another. For example spending money in the military instead of building bridges or other infrastructure may reduce the number of jobs in constructions. Creating environmental laws may reduce mining jobs. However, the military allows all goods to move freely and cheaply. Counting and attributing the cause and effect of all these laws and taxes is very complicated and often subject to political speak. In general, the US and its trading partners live by different rules. The argument for/against tariffs is complicated and should not be dismissed by simple arguments. The use of tariffs may be temporary to force some negotiation or to correct a temporary imbalance. Police carry guns to enforce the laws, sometimes they have to use it. I have no problems using all the tools at our disposal to deal with unfair practices. Speak softly and carry a big stick (me). In the case of Trump, he speaks harshly and carries a big stick. The end game is simple. The imbalances will be corrected and tariffs will be removed. Anyways, I encourage you to read this well written piece for an introduction into the subject.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/trump-tariffs-economics.html
Hi Dude wrote:
foo wrote:
Yeh, it’s not 25,000. It’s 146,000.
http://fortune.com/2018/03/06/trump-steel-aluminum-tariffs-cost-jobs/Sorry, "its_baddude", I was trying to give you a break. My bad.
So, those 500 jobs gained will only cost 146,000 other jobs. What a bargain!
Make America Unemployed Again!
its_baddude wrote:
The end game is simple. The imbalances will be corrected and tariffs will be removed.
How do you think this works? If the tariffs are required to counter market forces wouldn't market forces cause resumption of the trade imbalance once the tariffs are removed?
jamin wrote:
Hey, everyone. I'm investigating Flagpole. What for, you ask? Well, there's something going on. I'm slowly putting the pieces together. Lots of smoke, and where there's smoke, there's fire. I just asked indicted his next door neighbor because I asked my intelligence agencies to investigate everything about him and found out that he added a bedroom to his house without registering the home addition with his county. Start with the small fish. I offered him a plea bargain if he'll agree to be interviewed under oath about his neighbor Flagpole. I'm building a strong case and "the truth" will soon be known! I have a fantastic record of investigations and in fact I was the one who figured out that Saddam had WMDs.
More evidence that the jamin character is now portrayed by a different mod.
ex-military myself wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:To be accurate, there was WMDs in Iraq....just not a current program. There were 1000s of old rounds literally buried in the sand that were retrieved.
Alan
Don't be obtuse Art. Buried "old rounds" and other general ammunition and armaments are not WMDs. The outrageous claim that Powell made to the UN security council was about nukes, which were clearly proven to be a malicious, convenient fiction.
Eh, I didn't view Alan's post as defending Powell's claim about active nukes in Iraq. You bring up a good point about how a kernel of truth can be distorted and interpreted however is necessary to further one's goals. Chemical weapons can be considered WMDs, but in the context of the Iraq invasion "WMD" was referring to nukes. It's disingenuous to change the definition of WMD after the fact to justify the invasion. To be fair, I don't think that technique fooled many people. It was obvious that we would find chemical weapons in Iraq but that's hardly a good argument to present to the UN security council.
Count Chocula wrote:Eh, I didn't view Alan's post as defending Powell's claim about active nukes in Iraq. You bring up a good point about how a kernel of truth can be distorted and interpreted however is necessary to further one's goals. Chemical weapons can be considered WMDs, but in the context of the Iraq invasion "WMD" was referring to nukes. It's disingenuous to change the definition of WMD after the fact to justify the invasion. To be fair, I don't think that technique fooled many people. It was obvious that we would find chemical weapons in Iraq but that's hardly a good argument to present to the UN security council.There was never any doubt Saddam (like many tinpot dictators) had chemical weapons, and had been using them to gas the Kurds. The entire basis for the invasion was the specious claim of a nuclear weapons program, totally fabricated by somebody, and happily supported by Bush, Blair, Powell and others. Who invented the fiction, I don't know. I wonder if Powell will ever say... he clearly shamed himself, letting himself be fooled into making the case in front of UNSC and the world.
was here back then, under an assumed name wrote:
Count Chocula wrote:Eh, I didn't view Alan's post as defending Powell's claim about active nukes in Iraq. You bring up a good point about how a kernel of truth can be distorted and interpreted however is necessary to further one's goals. Chemical weapons can be considered WMDs, but in the context of the Iraq invasion "WMD" was referring to nukes. It's disingenuous to change the definition of WMD after the fact to justify the invasion. To be fair, I don't think that technique fooled many people. It was obvious that we would find chemical weapons in Iraq but that's hardly a good argument to present to the UN security council.
There was never any doubt Saddam (like many tinpot dictators) had chemical weapons, and had been using them to gas the Kurds. The entire basis for the invasion was the specious claim of a nuclear weapons program, totally fabricated by somebody, and happily supported by Bush, Blair, Powell and others. Who invented the fiction, I don't know. I wonder if Powell will ever say... he clearly shamed himself, letting himself be fooled into making the case in front of UNSC and the world.
Right, I think the line of reasoning was something like "We know Saddam has WMDs (chemical weapons)" ---> "Nukes are WMDs" ---> "Saddam has nukes" ---> "We found chemical weapons" ---> "We found WMDs". I agree, a real shame.
jamin wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Collude to do what? Seriously? Collude to help Trump win and/or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning.
lolllll
So you think it's illegal to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning an election? There's a law specially designed for her?
Still crazy and ignorant, but I will respond to you on this anyway...though you are on thin ice with that.
It IS illegal for a candidate to collude (conspire) with a foreign power to influence an election.
Federal law Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Courts have determined that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.
Again, you are on thin ice with regard to me responding to you. I won't deal with too much craziness or ignorance, and since I've called you out twice now with regard to that, any further posts from you that don't show growth will almost certainly get a non-response from me.
was here back then, under an assumed name wrote:
I wonder if Powell will ever say... he clearly shamed himself, letting himself be fooled into making the case in front of UNSC and the world.
Powell has publicly stated, as far back as 2005, that his UN speech was a regret, a lasting 'blot' on his record.
its_baddude wrote:
All the numbers you posted here are not factual. They are either based on a study that claim something *may* happen, or just some estimate. The number of actual steel and aluminum jobs will eventually be known. The number of jobs lost/gained due to the tariffs will never be known. Those numbers will be subject to the way jobs are counted.
Every law and tax we enact in the US is subject to reward and penalize one group or another. For example spending money in the military instead of building bridges or other infrastructure may reduce the number of jobs in constructions. Creating environmental laws may reduce mining jobs. However, the military allows all goods to move freely and cheaply. Counting and attributing the cause and effect of all these laws and taxes is very complicated and often subject to political speak.
In general, the US and its trading partners live by different rules. The argument for/against tariffs is complicated and should not be dismissed by simple arguments. The use of tariffs may be temporary to force some negotiation or to correct a temporary imbalance. Police carry guns to enforce the laws, sometimes they have to use it. I have no problems using all the tools at our disposal to deal with unfair practices. Speak softly and carry a big stick (me). In the case of Trump, he speaks harshly and carries a big stick.
The end game is simple. The imbalances will be corrected and tariffs will be removed.
Anyways, I encourage you to read this well written piece for an introduction into the subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/trump-tariffs-economics.htmlHi Dude wrote:
Sorry, "its_baddude", I was trying to give you a break. My bad.
So, those 500 jobs gained will only cost 146,000 other jobs. What a bargain!
Make America Unemployed Again!
Our steel and aluminum industry is VITAL to our National survival.....THAT is all that matters.....If we have a war with N. Korea or Iran we HAVE to have a reliable supply of iron and aluminum....Period....
truthseakr wrote:
Our FOREIGN MADE WALMART STUFF is VITAL to our National survival.....THAT is all that matters.....If we have a CIVIL war with OURSELVES we HAVE to have a reliable supply of CHEAP WALMART STUFF....Period....
Flagpole wrote:
jamin wrote:
lolllll
So you think it's illegal to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of winning an election? There's a law specially designed for her?
Again, you are on thin ice with regard to me responding to you. I won't deal with too much craziness or ignorance, and since I've called you out twice now with regard to that, any further posts from you that don't show growth will almost certainly get a non-response from me.
You realize who you're talking to right? I'd put more money on DiscoGary becoming a liberal than jamin ever showing an ounce of growth.
Hey...I love Walmart......Where ya gonna find underwear 6 for $10.00...