• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 19:52
CEST 01:52
KST 08:52
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915Serral wins Maestros of the Game 244
Community News
StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon47Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism10Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon?158Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20)9Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over3
StarCraft 2
General
StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) Team Liquid Map Contest #22: Results and Winners Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism SC4ALL: II Winner will earn a spot at HSC 30!
Tourneys
RSL goes to London! 2026 Offline Finals Nov 21-22 KSL Week #92 IntoTheTV X SOOP SC2 League : Weekly & Monthly 2026 GSTL Announcement Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
Mutation # 542 The Ascended Mutation # 541 Binary Choice The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 540 Dodge This
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon? Broodwar Prediction Market Practice Partners (Official) [D] Brainstorming a balance patch for Brood war
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro16 Group A [ASL22] Ro16 Group B Escore Tournament - Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Game Theory for Starcraft
Other Games
General Games
EVE Corporation Diablo IV Nintendo Switch Thread [Maplestory Hardcore] Let's Play~!! General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish TSM pausing esports and CLG Dead
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Trading/Investing Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Diablo Animated Series on Netflix Movie Discussion!
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
Virtual Romance, Real-Life C…
TrAiDoS
Regacy Esports:Our Goa…
regacyesports
Dreaming of BW patches (mod…
c3rberUs
LOCKPICKING NOOB
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 10368 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3581

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 10093 Next
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.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2016 05:22 GMT
#71601
SOUTH DAKOTA (NEWS10) – The Keystone Pipeline leak is apparently worse than first thought.

TransCanada Corporation now says it appears approximately 16,800 gallons of oil have leaked in South Dakota since Saturday. The company says it reported the 400-barrel estimate Thursday to the National Response Centre and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. It says the estimate is based on the excavation of soil to expose more than 100 feet of pipe and takes into account factors including oil observed in the soil and the potential area affected.

At first officials said less than 200 gallons were spilled.

TransCanada says the leak has been “controlled” although they have yet to find the source of the leak. The company has told customers the pipeline will remain closed until early next week.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States24341 Posts
April 10 2016 05:32 GMT
#71602
On April 10 2016 14:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
SOUTH DAKOTA (NEWS10) – The Keystone Pipeline leak is apparently worse than first thought.

TransCanada Corporation now says it appears approximately 16,800 gallons of oil have leaked in South Dakota since Saturday. The company says it reported the 400-barrel estimate Thursday to the National Response Centre and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. It says the estimate is based on the excavation of soil to expose more than 100 feet of pipe and takes into account factors including oil observed in the soil and the potential area affected.

At first officials said less than 200 gallons were spilled.

TransCanada says the leak has been “controlled” although they have yet to find the source of the leak. The company has told customers the pipeline will remain closed until early next week.


Source


Has there ever been a case where there was less oil leaked than a company originally claimed?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-04-10 05:40:15
April 10 2016 05:35 GMT
#71603
On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:
On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal.


Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons.

Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money.

What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much.

Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less?

So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused.

This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing.

In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote.


I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking.


I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.


Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.


I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.



I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.


So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!


lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.

  • Insist deal is bad
  • Offer no alternative
  • When asked for details you have no response

Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.

Repeating the line we could have gotten a better deal is meaningless. What deal should we have bartered?
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States24341 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-04-10 05:50:52
April 10 2016 05:45 GMT
#71604
On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:
On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons.

Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money.

What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much.

Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less?

So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused.

This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing.

In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote.


I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking.


I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.


Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.


I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.



I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.


So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!


lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.

  • Insist deal is bad
  • Offer no alternative
  • When asked for details you have no response

Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.


It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to.

I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make.

EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
April 10 2016 11:46 GMT
#71605
just keep in mind gh has not read any part of any fta before reading the preamble of the panama deal
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-04-10 12:05:18
April 10 2016 12:04 GMT
#71606
and look at this financial innovation. p2p!

http://m.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/1934996/industrial-bank-finds-way-pass-local-government-bond-burden
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2016 15:18 GMT
#71607
It's been a big week for supporters of paid family leave.

The city of San Francisco and the state of New York took groundbreaking steps toward new and more generous leave policies. Advocates hope the moves will create momentum in other places that are considering similar measures.

"I do believe this will pave the way for other states," says Dina Bakst, the co-founder of A Better Balance, a nonprofit in New York that advocates for family-friendly policies in the workplace.

"What we've seen in other fights, like paid sick days and our fights for pregnancy accommodations — it starts local and then it sweeps the nation," Bakst says. "I think we're on the paid family leave wave."

Starting in a few years, workers in New York state will be able to take 12 weeks of partially paid family leave to care for a new child or an ailing parent. That gives New York the most generous family leave benefits of any state in the country.

"We are restoring respect and pride and dignity to the worker with paid family leave," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at a rally Monday, "which says no one should choose between seeing their child born and earning a paycheck."

The following day, San Francisco's board of supervisors approved a bill guaranteeing most workers six weeks of paid leave at their full salaries.

Both measures go far beyond what federal law requires. The Family and Medical Leave Act mandates that employers offer their workers 12 weeks of leave. But it's unpaid. And even that doesn't apply to many part-time workers.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18869 Posts
April 10 2016 15:23 GMT
#71608
Sadly, the states in most dire need of family leave protection increases are the least likely to pass them
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2016 15:28 GMT
#71609
Mississippi goddam, as Nina Simone once sang. You really know how to tick people off. The southern state has come a long way since it led the fight to maintain racial segregation. But this week it decided to take a new stand – against the LGBT community. Opponents of the anti-LGBT effort won’t give up without a fight, and this time, business leaders are at the vanguard.

Once shy of causing a political fuss, businesses large and small are backing LGBT rights, and states that don’t support them are losing jobs as a result.

Following the passage of House Bill 1523 into law Tuesday, Mississippi will soon be the state offering the least protection to gay, lesbian and transgender people at a time when twenty-one states, largely across the south, have introduced laws offering their clear response to the legalisation of gay marriage by allowing people and businesses to refuse services based on their own religious beliefs.

This sweep of anti-LGBT legislation is revealing the clear separation that now exists between conservative-leaning state legislatures and businesses, local and national, that are now supporters as well as signatories to campaigns calling for the legislation’s repeal.

The laws – allowing individuals and institutions to deny services on religious grounds in Mississippi and, in North Carolina, a ban on anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and a requirement that, in public buildings and schools, transgender people use bathrooms corresponding to their gender as assigned at birth – produced a rapid response.

In North Carolina, PayPal canceled a $3.6m investment for a new global operations centre that would have employed 400 people; Nissan, the largest single employer in Mississippi, quickly reiterated its support of the LGBT community, and Duke Energy, the state’s largest power company, has come out strongly in opposition to discrimination, but has not taken a position on the law itself.

Local business leaders and educators warned that the legislation could harm the state’s competitiveness in attracting business and investment. “These assholes talk about gay women and gay men using the exact same language they were using in the 50s and 60s for segregationist purposes,” said the award-winning chef John Currence, owner of several restaurants in Oxford, Mississippi. He warned that Mississippi’s HB1523, known as the Religious Liberty Accommodation Act, would put businesses off from setting up in the state.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
April 10 2016 15:36 GMT
#71610
On April 10 2016 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing.

In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote.


I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking.


I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.


Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.


I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.



I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.


So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!


lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.

  • Insist deal is bad
  • Offer no alternative
  • When asked for details you have no response

Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.


It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to.

I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make.

EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"?


Nobody is saying that the loophole was a good thing. You're just jumping to the conclusion that we should either embargo Panama or some other form of trade retaliation unless they dismantle their bank secrecy laws. This position would never happen and the idea that we can just hold out on trade because they aren't going to nuke us like Iran is not reasonable.

If you want to talk about hurting family farmers that would be not having trade deal with Panama and preventing exports either from an embargo or just a raise in tariffs. I'm not sure a trade deal exists that benefits Big Ag less than family farmers. A more reasonable position would be Big Ag getting a great deal while family farmers get a bad deal, but that wasn't the case with the Panama trade deal.

The point of suggesting a deal was thinking about whether Panama would accept that deal and if they didn't what the consequences of that would be. It's really easy to say we could have gotten a better deal and of course they're going to submit to us because USA USA USA. What isn't easy is clearly stating what your demands are, what the repercussions are if your position isn't accepted, and how that effects relations with other nations.
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
Kipsate
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands45349 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-04-10 15:46:56
April 10 2016 15:45 GMT
#71611
Greenhorizon knows the best people, these are very smart people and they are going to make the best deals.

Even if some things are problematic you need to explain alternatives, how they work how it affects other people, without doing so we don't neccesarily know how they play out. Its a tradeoff after all.
WriterXiao8~~
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2016 18:57 GMT
#71612
President Barack Obama on Friday told donors that Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz were doing Democrats a “favor” by exposing extreme views within their party on issues such as immigration and national security.

“I actually think that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have done us a favor,” Obama said, referring to policy positions that would restrict Muslims and Mexicans from entering the country.

Obama said Trump and Cruz, the two front-runners in the Republican nomination contest ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election, have upset mainstream “establishment” Republicans with their insurgent campaigns.

But he told about 100 people at the annual “signature” fundraising dinner for Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, that Trump had laid bare what some in the Republican party had been saying for years.

“He said, ‘You know what? I can deliver this message with more flair, with more panache,’” Obama said.

Speaking in an opulent two-storey atrium with marble pillars in the home of billionaire oil heirs Gordon and Ann Getty, where donors paid $33,400 per couple to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama mocked Trump.

“In 10 months, I will no longer be president of the United States. But in 10 months, I will - contrary to Mr. Trump’s opinion - still be a citizen of the United States,” he said, drawing laughter and cheers from the crowd.

Trump had long raised questions about whether Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was actually born outside the United States.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18869 Posts
April 10 2016 19:17 GMT
#71613
Pre-lame duck Obama is a pretty cool customer lol
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Kipsate
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands45349 Posts
April 10 2016 20:06 GMT
#71614
With bad/mediocre canidates on both sides and him almost finishing his term he can now say whatever the fuck he wants, its hilarious. I believe his approval rates are also at an all time high.
WriterXiao8~~
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States24341 Posts
April 10 2016 20:08 GMT
#71615
On April 11 2016 00:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 10 2016 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking.


I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.


Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.


I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.



I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.


So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!


lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.

  • Insist deal is bad
  • Offer no alternative
  • When asked for details you have no response

Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.


It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to.

I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make.

EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"?


Nobody is saying that the loophole was a good thing. You're just jumping to the conclusion that we should either embargo Panama or some other form of trade retaliation unless they dismantle their bank secrecy laws. This position would never happen and the idea that we can just hold out on trade because they aren't going to nuke us like Iran is not reasonable.

If you want to talk about hurting family farmers that would be not having trade deal with Panama and preventing exports either from an embargo or just a raise in tariffs. I'm not sure a trade deal exists that benefits Big Ag less than family farmers. A more reasonable position would be Big Ag getting a great deal while family farmers get a bad deal, but that wasn't the case with the Panama trade deal.

The point of suggesting a deal was thinking about whether Panama would accept that deal and if they didn't what the consequences of that would be. It's really easy to say we could have gotten a better deal and of course they're going to submit to us because USA USA USA. What isn't easy is clearly stating what your demands are, what the repercussions are if your position isn't accepted, and how that effects relations with other nations.



You realize the default position isn't "embargo"? Hard to think you're making a genuine argument when you're starting from that misunderstanding.

It wasn't us that wanted this deal to start with, Panama wanted the deal. Lot's of countries want trade deals with the US. For instance New Zealand want's a deal, we haven't given them one. The idea that there was some pressing need to make the deal so that waiting for a better deal wasn't possible or preferable I just outright reject.

From what I understand about Panama farming and US farming it wasn't family farmers in the US or subsistence farmers in Panama that benefited. Both are poisoning their local water, both are getting squeezed out by industrial corporate farming, and so on.

I have to say that you all set aside that Panama is essentially not bound to the deals financial regulations should they choose not to be, and that there is no evidence it actually reduced or made harder the stashing of money of there, incredibly easily.

If we're not going to agree on that there's no reason to continue.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2016 20:10 GMT
#71616
Who the hell expected that he would?

John Kerry will not offer an apology for the United States’ use of the atomic bomb against Japan when he becomes the first US secretary of state to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial museum on Monday, a senior US official said.

Kerry is visiting the city, which was obliterated by a US atomic bomb on 6 August 1945, to attend a gathering of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies that Japan opened on Sunday with a call to end nuclear weapons.

The US diplomat is to join his counterparts from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan on Monday to tour the city’s atomic bomb museum and to lay flowers at a cenotaph for its victims, becoming the first in his post to do so.

“If you are asking whether the secretary of state came to Hiroshima to apologise, the answer is no,” a senior US official told reporters late on Sunday.

“If you are asking whether the secretary and I think all Americans and all Japanese are filled with sorrow at the tragedies that befell so many of our countrymen, the answer is yes,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added.

Kerry’s trip could pave the way for an unprecedented visit to Hiroshima by a sitting US president when Barack Obama attends the annual G7 summit to be held in Japan next month.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28892 Posts
April 10 2016 20:29 GMT
#71617
In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that. I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use.

In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though).
Moderator
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18869 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-04-10 20:58:28
April 10 2016 20:53 GMT
#71618
On April 11 2016 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that. I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use.

In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though).

This largely agrees with my experience among left-leaning English/History department intellectuals; I think those categorically opposed to the bombing of Hiroshima fail to grasp just how fanatical and determined the Japanese war effort had been prior to the drop of the first bomb, and there's definitely room for a harm reduction argument in favor of Hiroshima. On the other hand, like you said, Nagasaki is a bit of a tougher sell, though it should be noted that Japanese communications in the days following Hiroshima emphasized that they would continue the war effort even in the face of such startling destruction. In any case, there are good arguments on both sides of the WW2 nuclear bomb question.

As an aside, I think it makes more sense to focus on LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo as the least defensible aspect of the US's Pacific war strategy.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States44286 Posts
April 10 2016 20:58 GMT
#71619
I don't think there is any reading of the Japanese theatre of WW2 in which you feel at all sorry for what happened to Japan.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States6474 Posts
April 10 2016 20:59 GMT
#71620
You might be opening a can of worms there Drone, but I want to add a belief I don't see explicitly represented very often, but one that I have, which is that as a species (or planet), we might be lucky that in our history, nuclear weapons were invented during wartime, which should hopefully bias latter generations against using them ever again compared to if they had never been used. I can imagine other planets, having invented nuclear weapons during peacetime - for example, by inventing nuclear power first through a civilian program, or by having a nuclear arms race - being more likely to experience catastrophic nuclear war.
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
Prev 1 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
20:30
Masters Cup #151
davetesta70
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Tasteless 460
ViBE114
NeuroSwarm 52
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 13301
Artosis 475
NaDa 64
Dota 2
monkeys_forever393
canceldota92
League of Legends
Doublelift7149
JimRising 502
Counter-Strike
fl0m4141
Coldzera 1437
minikerr50
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0286
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu576
Other Games
summit1g10005
B2W.Neo893
RotterdaM231
XaKoH 173
Sick77
Trikslyr53
Organizations
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm1809
StarCraft 2
StarCraft816
StarCraft: Brood War
Afreeca ASL 525
Other Games
BasetradeTV203
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 114
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 33
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21867
Other Games
• imaqtpie812
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
10h 8m
WardiTV Invitational
11h 8m
ByuN vs Percival
Cure vs Classic
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
15h 8m
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
16h 8m
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
18h 38m
IdrA vs MC
Replay Cast
1d
Afreeca Starleague
1d 10h
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
1d 11h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 16h
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
[ Show More ]
GSL
2 days
PiGosaur Cup
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Kung Fu Cup
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
KCM Race Survival
4 days
IntoTheTV X SOOP
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
IntoTheTV X SOOP
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
GSL
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #5 - TRS
PiG Sty Festival 8.0
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
RSL Revival: Season 6
Calamity Invitational
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026

Upcoming

Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Acropolis #5 - GSA
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
SC4ALL II: Brood War
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.