|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer.
I was pretty transparent about the moment when I cracked and got tired of his incessant ad hominems toward me. Furthermore, I think we need to raise the bar for posts, especially when it comes to making false statements and dishonesty. So, at the moment, I respectfully reject your proposal.
|
On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer.
I love reading GH's posts. We need more sanders posters here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Except when he's insulting and calls people dense, naive, ignorant, etc. (all things he's said to me in the last two days). To his credit he does a good job of citing sources and isn't a low effort poster for the most part, but he isn't particularly convincing.
|
On April 06 2016 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't. then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better? It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidence by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking. Like Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while.
You heard it here first. Rupert Murdoch is Satan. Everything he wants must automatically be evil. He cannot possibly want good things, because he is Satan. If you want the same thing that Rupert Murdoch wants, you are aligned with evil. Nothing good can ever come of it.
|
On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer.
I prefer it when GH is making fun of TL users for all being crazy about math like teenage boys are about boobs. In this case, I was really confused why we were talking about the Panama Trade agreement when the way more interesting Panama papers exist.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer.
as someone who's defended gh in the past, it is really a case of the standard of reasoning being so bad that i get rather tilted.
|
On April 06 2016 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
Except when he's insulting and calls people dense, naive, ignorant, etc. (all things he's said to me in the last two days).
In fairness, I was saying that people were pretending to be those things. Except ignorant, that one was from the posts that got Ghan pissy when I called him out. But even then ignorant was the lesser of two evils in that situation where he took pleasure in the idea that a picture of Bernie's rally after it was over was indicative of his campaign ending.
On April 06 2016 02:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer. I prefer it when GH is making fun of TL users for all being crazy about math like teenage boys are about boobs. In this case, I was really confused why we were talking about the Panama Trade agreement when the way more interesting Panama papers exist.
Wasn't sure that joke got any appreciation or not. Glad at least someone enjoyed it lol.
|
I appreciate any joke that points out that this site is loaded with math and CS nerds who get real confused when everyone else isn't.
|
On April 06 2016 02:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't. then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better? It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidence by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking. Like Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while. You heard it here first. Rupert Murdoch is Satan. Everything he wants must automatically be evil. He cannot possibly want good things, because he is Satan. If you want the same thing that Rupert Murdoch wants, you are aligned with evil. Nothing good can ever come of it.
To be fair no matter what your political affiliation is Rupert Murdoch is cancer, I don't think there is a single person who has more effectively dumped down public discourse than Murdoch
|
On the subject of Bernie, tell me you guys read this transcript of Bernie at the New York Daily News (NYDN) editorial board. NYDN is a well known liberal leaning newspaper but they press Bernie for specifics on just how he would jail Wall Street. Bernie craps the bed with his ignorance of laws and due process. He doesn't even understand how he would break up the banks under Dodd-Frank. This is Bernie's whole damned campaign and he can't articulate how he would crack down on Wall Street. This interview is in the same league as that Trump interview with WashingtonPost. Expect a cavalcade of lefty bloggers turning on Bernie hard over his policy ignorance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
EDIT: this has already been posted. Everyone probably already talked about it while I slept. GG
|
I think kwizach posted that first, I posted it second, but third time's the charm 
|
On April 06 2016 02:19 ticklishmusic wrote:I think kwizach posted that first, I posted it second, but third time's the charm
Oh butt, nvm. Just delete my post then. Man what an interview though! Confirmed all my suspicions about Bernie in a single article.
|
On April 06 2016 02:02 Mohdoo wrote:
People really need to cut GH some slack. It's not like he's ever mean about his Bernie support. People can be really condescending and its a bummer.
Debatable at best.
My interactions with him have usually involved thinly-veiled personal attacks on my character, and his posts usually contain a good dose of them.
|
On April 06 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
Except when he's insulting and calls people dense, naive, ignorant, etc. (all things he's said to me in the last two days). In fairness, I was saying that people were pretending to be those things. Except ignorant, that one was from the posts that got Ghan pissy when I called him out. But even then ignorant was the lesser of two evils in that situation where he took pleasure in the idea that a picture of Bernie's rally after it was over was indicative of his campaign ending.
It is 100% an insult and you should really stop it, I did advise you a few weeks about it.
|
On April 06 2016 02:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 02:19 ticklishmusic wrote:I think kwizach posted that first, I posted it second, but third time's the charm Oh butt, nvm. Just delete my post then. Man what an interview though! Confirmed all my suspicions about Bernie in a single article.
It's buried behind a couple pages of Panamanian blabber to be fair. But yeah, it's not exactly confidence-building. His raison d'etre is financial reform, and he completely avoided the question about MetLife getting its SIFI designation reversed by court order. Yikes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is abit of a challenge to trace bernie's major policy influences. the broad themes are known (new deal esque) but idk who came up with ideas like funding more medicare with a huge payroll tax hike.
|
I don't think it was as bad as people are making it out to be. The part about the fraud committed by the bank leading up to the 2007 crash is pretty clear. No one went to jail for that, despite it leading to the need for the bank bail out. And he did some reasonable push back no the question about killing someone on the battle field vs when you have them as a prisoner. I really hate that line of questioning from interviewers.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Lines are already over an hour in Green Bay and people are turning away or leaving part way through. Voting booths are half empty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
