Benghazi!!!

[BDKJMU]

Wow...

There are very few Republicans that actually grasp this
or if they do actually "get it" they are still repulsed by it because it holds corporate leaders accountable
under a political system that HATES to do that

There's an old adage that I will butcher badly here:
To get to the bottom of a problem simply look to see who profits from the problem



Trump has illegals employed
Imagine him doing 90 days for every illegal employed by his corporations
Problem solved OVER NIGHT

clitz

i know you understand that "the fence" is just populist BS for the retard GOP base - most Republicans DO understand it

it is the same as the economic populism we're getting from Bernie and Fauxcahontas for the retard Dem base

there has to be something for the mouth breathers and remedial readers ... they dont come out to the polls for complex issues they dont understand- so they get "border fence" or "shut down the banks" or "blacklivesmatter" and thats true of them all

you try to throw complex ideas out there that cant be summed up in a tweet and peoples eyes start glazing over

Yeah, fences don't work. Just look at Hungary & Israel..

But we also need employer sanctions too..

[kalm]

Now your just making up ****. I also find your lack of details troubling.

A vibrant middle class, innovation, clean environment, labor rights...these things are all exportable. If we choose to do that.

I'm sure they are. Just go ahead and click your ruby slippers and it will happen. Heck, ruby slippers are more of a plan that what you have. And shame on you taking my innovation soundbite - but I'm glad that you've finally come around, after several years, to agreeing that innovation is the way forward for American manufacture. I'll keep working on the other stuff and I'm sure you'll come around in a couple of years after the fallacy of modern day Progressive thought is exposed for the empty idea that it is.

I'm pretty sure I recognized your excellent point on innovation awhile ago but if you need your ego stroked again, kudos! You see I actually listen to and consider other view points.

Now...please provide the details regarding why the KPP ( Kalm Pacific Partnership ) is not possible when you get a chance. I've spent years developing yet and want to know!

Thx!

[GannonFan]

I'm sure they are. Just go ahead and click your ruby slippers and it will happen. Heck, ruby slippers are more of a plan that what you have. And shame on you taking my innovation soundbite - but I'm glad that you've finally come around, after several years, to agreeing that innovation is the way forward for American manufacture. I'll keep working on the other stuff and I'm sure you'll come around in a couple of years after the fallacy of modern day Progressive thought is exposed for the empty idea that it is.

I'm pretty sure I recognized your excellent point on innovation awhile ago but if you need your ego stroked again, kudos! You see I actually listen to and consider other view points.

Now...please provide the details regarding why the KPP ( Kalm Pacific Partnership ) is not possible when you get a chance. I've spent years developing yet and want to know!

Thx!

KPP? Now we're going in circles. What details do you have on this other than dropping "America's hammer" on our trading partners. You're always short on details.

[kalm]

I'm pretty sure I recognized your excellent point on innovation awhile ago but if you need your ego stroked again, kudos! You see I actually listen to and consider other view points.

Now...please provide the details regarding why the KPP ( Kalm Pacific Partnership ) is not possible when you get a chance. I've spent years developing yet and want to know!

Thx!

KPP? Now we're going in circles. What details do you have on this other than dropping "America's hammer" on our trading partners. You're always short on details.

Visionaries don't need to be bogged down with details. Those are for my blue ribbon panel of negotiators to hammer out.

Again, you're as short on detail as I am.

[GannonFan]

KPP? Now we're going in circles. What details do you have on this other than dropping "America's hammer" on our trading partners. You're always short on details.

Visionaries don't need to be bogged down with details. Those are for my blue ribbon panel of negotiators to hammer out.

Again, you're as short on detail as I am.

I've given plenty of details in this thread alone, I can't help you with reading comprehension. Your only detail was to give it to people to make it happen.

[kalm]

Visionaries don't need to be bogged down with details. Those are for my blue ribbon panel of negotiators to hammer out.

Again, you're as short on detail as I am.

I've given plenty of details in this thread alone, I can't help you with reading comprehension. Your only detail was to give it to people to make it happen.

You're details are:

It won't work, it can't happen, ruby slippered progressives are dumb. Hawley-Smoot is your Benghazi.

I already mentioned a detail. How about only signing treaties that allow countries to remain sovereign with their laws instead of using investor state arbitration. That's one important detail I noticed you didn't want to touch.

[GannonFan]

I've given plenty of details in this thread alone, I can't help you with reading comprehension. Your only detail was to give it to people to make it happen.

You're details are:

It won't work, it can't happen, ruby slippered progressives are dumb. Hawley-Smoot is your Benghazi.

I already mentioned a detail. How about only signing treaties that allow countries to remain sovereign with their laws instead of using investor state arbitration. That's one important detail I noticed you didn't want to touch.

What was worth touching? ISDS's are archaic and are on the way out anyway. It's more an anamoly that they are in trade agreements going forward than not, and even the ones that are still in new agreements are vastly more transparent and more responsive to public law, and rightly so, than the first ones that were in the big agreements 20 years ago. Really going out on a limb there and coming up with something significant, eh? What's next on your docket of burning issues, do you think we should form and strenghten a federally run drug approval department so that we don't have a repeat of the thalidomide tragedy? What to do, what to do.

[CAA Flagship]

Hillary decides to try horseback riding, even though she has had no lessons, nor prior experience. She mounts the horse without help, and the horse immediately springs into motion.
It gallops along at a steady and rhythmic pace, but Hillary begins to slide from the saddle. In terror, she grabs for the horse's mane, but cannot seem to get a firm grip. She tries to throw her arms around the horse's neck, but she slides down the horse's side anyway. The horse gallops along, seemingly oblivious to its slipping rider.
Finally, giving up her frail grip, Hillary attempts to leap away from the horse and throw herself to safety. Unfortunately, her foot has become entangled in the stirrup, she is now at the mercy of the horse's pounding hooves as her head is struck against the ground over and over.
As her head is battered against the ground, she is mere moments away from unconsciousness when to her great fortune Frank, the Walmart greeter, sees her dilemma and unplugs the horse.

[Jjoey52]

Bottom line the limbs want a 1 party system and will go to any lengths to get it. Their ideal is Venezuela

[kalm]

Bottom line the limbs want a 1 party system and will go to any lengths to get it. Their ideal is Venezuela

Whereas other party wants to share!

[kalm]

You're details are:

It won't work, it can't happen, ruby slippered progressives are dumb. Hawley-Smoot is your Benghazi.

I already mentioned a detail. How about only signing treaties that allow countries to remain sovereign with their laws instead of using investor state arbitration. That's one important detail I noticed you didn't want to touch.

What was worth touching? ISDS's are archaic and are on the way out anyway. It's more an anamoly that they are in trade agreements going forward than not, and even the ones that are still in new agreements are vastly more transparent and more responsive to public law, and rightly so, than the first ones that were in the big agreements 20 years ago. Really going out on a limb there and coming up with something significant, eh? What's next on your docket of burning issues, do you think we should form and strenghten a federally run drug approval department so that we don't have a repeat of the thalidomide tragedy? What to do, what to do.

Ganny, while I look up whatever the hell a thalidomide tragedy is, please try and provide the details on why ISDS's are a part of the leaked TPP files. Also, please provide details on how your free trade trade policy has helped with domestic wages and job creation.

The more details, the better.

Thx a bunch!

[GannonFan]

What was worth touching? ISDS's are archaic and are on the way out anyway. It's more an anamoly that they are in trade agreements going forward than not, and even the ones that are still in new agreements are vastly more transparent and more responsive to public law, and rightly so, than the first ones that were in the big agreements 20 years ago. Really going out on a limb there and coming up with something significant, eh? What's next on your docket of burning issues, do you think we should form and strenghten a federally run drug approval department so that we don't have a repeat of the thalidomide tragedy? What to do, what to do.

Ganny, while I look up whatever the hell a thalidomide tragedy is, please try and provide the details on why ISDS's are a part of the leaked TPP files. Also, please provide details on how your free trade trade policy has helped with domestic wages and job creation.

The more details, the better.

Thx a bunch!

Come on, even Billy Joel sang about it, your history can't be that full of holes, can it? Although truthfully, it does shed a light on many things.

I don't need to provide details on why ISDS's are part of the TPP files, like I said, the scales are already tipped against their inclusion as is, you're arguing a point that has already been made. You're big position is to take a position that has already been decided - the ISDS's of the NAFTA age aren't going to fly any more, an rightfully so. Anything that will end up in final agreements going forward, if they do, won't look a thing what you are railing against. Your political position, your big selling point, is like running a 100m race, losing it, but continuing to run when no one else is and claiming victory in the 200m. Congrats, we'll make sure to get you a participation medal or ribbon.

As for the free trade position question, let's play a little game theory here. Whether we participate in global free trade deals or not, those deals, among other players, are going to be done. So the question is, we sit on the sidelines and watch wealth generation be conducted elsewhere. How does that benefit us? Where is the end game for you in that world where we don't participate and let others become the focal points of trade? I've always said that it's a tough world out there, and if we want things we're going to need to work for it. Choosing not to play the game and isolate ourselves, which you are advocating, has no long term benefit for us. Your white flag economic policy is fascinating.

[AZGrizFan]

You two should get a room.

[D1B]

You two should get a room.

Perhaps you and BDCUNT can invite em to your room?

[kalm]

Ganny, while I look up whatever the hell a thalidomide tragedy is, please try and provide the details on why ISDS's are a part of the leaked TPP files. Also, please provide details on how your free trade trade policy has helped with domestic wages and job creation.

The more details, the better.

Thx a bunch!

Come on, even Billy Joel sang about it, your history can't be that full of holes, can it? Although truthfully, it does shed a light on many things.

I don't need to provide details on why ISDS's are part of the TPP files, like I said, the scales are already tipped against their inclusion as is, you're arguing a point that has already been made. You're big position is to take a position that has already been decided - the ISDS's of the NAFTA age aren't going to fly any more, an rightfully so. Anything that will end up in final agreements going forward, if they do, won't look a thing what you are railing against. Your political position, your big selling point, is like running a 100m race, losing it, but continuing to run when no one else is and claiming victory in the 200m. Congrats, we'll make sure to get you a participation medal or ribbon.

As for the free trade position question, let's play a little game theory here. Whether we participate in global free trade deals or not, those deals, among other players, are going to be done. So the question is, we sit on the sidelines and watch wealth generation be conducted elsewhere. How does that benefit us? Where is the end game for you in that world where we don't participate and let others become the focal points of trade? I've always said that it's a tough world out there, and if we want things we're going to need to work for it. Choosing not to play the game and isolate ourselves, which you are advocating, has no long term benefit for us. Your white flag economic policy is fascinating.

It was in that awful "We Didn't Fight the Fire" song? Oh for fucks sake...no wonder why I never knew about it or forgot about it.

What are the details behind the ISDS's not being included? They've been negotiated into the proposal. Provide details on how negotiators will have them removed, which countries they come from, and the reasoning.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... on/396389/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who said we should sit on the sidelines? I merely suggested we leverage our markets to match our needs and our ideals. We need jobs...here. We have environmental regulations that make industry more expensive...here.

[houndawg]

Kicking conk ass before they're even out of bed.

Total disarray among them right down to the individual conks. Absolutely hilarious viewing.

[JohnStOnge]

You know all this time has passed and I did not even realize that all the investigations concluded there was no stand down order. I'm sitting here watching those three guys that were involved in the firefight talking about that. Those three guys were there and they say there was a stand down order. So how is it that the investigations all concluded there wasn't a stand down order?

What the hell is going on with this stuff? How can you possibly say there wasn't a stand down order when you have three guys who put their lives on the line saying they were told to stand down? What reason would they have to lie about that?

This is really bad.

[Wedgebuster]

You know all this time has passed and I did not even realize that all the investigations concluded there was no stand down order. I'm sitting here watching those three guys that were involved in the firefight talking about that. Those three guys were there and they say there was a stand down order. So how is it that the investigations all concluded there wasn't a stand down order?

What the hell is going on with this stuff? How can you possibly say there wasn't a stand down order when you have three guys who put their lives on the line saying they were told to stand down? What reason would they have to lie about that?

This is really bad.

Seen the movie, eh?

[JohnStOnge]

Seen the movie, eh?

No. I have not seen the movie. And I've seen those three guys talking about the situation a number of times but this is the first time I heard that. Perhaps I should have before. But I have never before heard the discussion about the investigations concluding that there was no stand down order when those three guys who were actually involved say they were told to stand down.

I don't see how you can't be concerned about the voracity of the investigations. What possible basis could anyone have for reaching a positive conclusion that those guys were not told to stand down when they say they were told to stand down? I guess I could see concluding that it's uncertain because it's "they said, he said." But making the positive statement that there was no stand down order? How is that possible?

[dbackjon]

There must've been a hell of force there in Libya. Since it seems that every right wing Hillary hating person seems to personally know three or four people who were there. By my count were up to about 3 million soldiers that were in Libya that day

[JohnStOnge]

There must've been a hell of force there in Libya. Since it seems that every right wing Hillary hating person seems to personally know three or four people who were there. By my count were up to about 3 million soldiers that were in Libya that day

Is there anybody who says those three guys weren't there? You know the three guys I'm talking about. Is there some question as to whether or not they were really there and involved in the firefight?

[Chizzang]

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has now spent more time and resources investigating those attacks than the entire 9/11 investigation...

I forget which one happened in Libya and which one happened here in the USA



Burn the witch..!!!!

[AZGrizFan]

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has now spent more time and resources investigating those attacks than the entire 9/11 investigation...

I forget which one happened in Libya and which one happened here in the USA



Burn the witch..!!!!

Well that's because 9/11 was an inside job. Just ask Spanos.

[houndawg]

I'm on record as being in agreement on this.

However, there are a couple additional draws. Jus soli is one and our need based benefits are another, but the biggest draw by far is economic. Make it unprofitable to hire illegals and a fence wont be necessary.

Wow...

There are very few Republicans that actually grasp this
or if they do actually "get it" they are still repulsed by it because it holds corporate leaders accountable
under a political system that HATES to do that

There's an old adage that I will butcher badly here:
To get to the bottom of a problem simply look to see who profits from the problem



Trump has illegals employed
Imagine him doing 90 days for every illegal employed by his corporations
Problem solved OVER NIGHT

You're assuming they actually believe what they say. As long as wages stay down they couldn't care less about illegals other than as a scapegoat.

[houndawg]

So at what # do we put the brakes on? 350 million? 400? 500? 1 billion?

I don't see how having 1M to 2M legal, selected immigrants per year is going to require the brakes being put on. And besides, how do you plan on putting the brakes on? Instituting Chinese-like child restrictions? Regardless, I feel safe in saying that we won't hit the 1 billion in our lifetimes, so it truly is a problem for the next generation or even the generation after that. Population restriction (immigrants and births) is not going to be something we tackle in the next 50 years.

In 50 years there will 10.5 billion on the planet looking around to see where there might be some room....